Soooooo....





























You wanna hit this?!?!?

smh


its been asked and answered a hundred times before

no,, but give me a call when you are DONE,,,

In other words you would not support that child through life's challenges if the challege was a result of something you did not agree with.

You will always "root for what" YOU "think is their best outcome" BASED ON WHAT? I can only hope you reply -- based on whatever god wills --

At least then I would totally understand that you have an external locus of control meaning that everything that happens is totally out of your control and it just happens to you (by god's will) so you assume the same is true of others. ??

Perhaps.

But what I mean by "bad behavior" would be obvious hurtful things that are cruel, harmful, hateful, destructive towards others, etc. Murder, torture, terrorism, and criminal activities against others.

A person who is truly intelligent, wise, honest and loving is less likely to be dysfunctional or "bad."

It gets back to the question of morality and where it comes from originally. I believe it is an innate instinct.

People who are violent have probably lead violent lives. They are wounded and dysfunctional or unbalanced. Emotionally disturbed etc.

I actually believe we have choices and those choices have consequences, and when we make choices being aware of the consequences, the consequences are our responsibility

I will root for what I think is best for them based upon whatever that means to me,,based upon experience and observation of life and the world around me,

why would I root for less than what was best for my children?


people seem to paraphrase so poorly in these threads but no, I said nothing about not supporting my kids through challenges,

I can support my child by trying to teach them to make good choices, not by just going along with whatever choice they decide upon, and when they do not make a good choice, I will not be a hypocrite who tells them otherwise or acts otherwise,

but in our family, that is seperate from being loved, we have never mandated that our choices and activities be cosigned on in order to be loved, I know I am loved and I EXPECT my parents to love GOOD and RIGHT as well, enough to lead me down those paths when I am turned around instead of just smiling at my side as if it is all fine,,,

What if they are truly happy, doing what they are doing though? Who are you to say they are wrong? Such as in the case of one loving another man or another woman. If it makes them happy, and it isn't harming them or someone else.......I'm not gonna tell them no. You do that, and you risk alienating them. If they're happy, and in a good place, I say let them be. If things start to go south, you be there for them as you can, but otherwise leave them be to make of their lives what they want.

here is where I will agree with another post in this or some other thread, that stepping outside the box sometimes takes bravery

right and wrong are not simple concepts, and we are guided in our own lives by our chosen resources (books, laws, conscious) to decide upon what those things are

something making someone truly happy doesnt negate it being wrong, and never will

I dont buy into the modern cop out that 'if it feels right it cant be wrong',,, I step out on the limb to aknowledge that OFTEN TIMES things that are very wrong 'feel' right(on some mortal and physical level), or else we would all have a much EASIER Time doing right and not wrong

it might make my daughter TRULY HAPPY to eat chocolate all day long,,,,but that doesnt make it a good idea, not healthy for her body at all down the road

similarly, I believe in SPIRITUAL HEALTH, a type of health that many things which in the flesh make us HAPPY will cause harm to

,,,that is my gauge, ,it doesnt have to be anyone elses,,,

oh, and I also do not tell my grown child yes or no, I allow him his own choices but WHEN ASKED, I am honest about what I think is the wisdom and risk of those choices,,,

often times people will alienate from those who dont support them in what they WANT to do,, thats a risk of life, but it shouldnt stop us from being honest with those we love,,,

But if what they WANT, isn't hurting them, who are we to judge them? That's my whole point.

just defining what is 'hurting them' is a judgment and we are the ones who make it ,,,,even by declaring it isnt 'hurting' them

Certain things are obvious though, or at least they should be. All the religion and morality thing apart from our own, is what creates all the gray areas.

If someone loves another person and are happy, aren't being hurt, etc. I see no reason to believe that it is hurting them, I don't care what any supposed holy book says.

'obvious' is a very grey area,,,,outside of specific and controlled environments and circumstances,,

I still say religion has made it gray where it needn't be.

We all have a moral conscience. Now whether we listen to it or not is another matter, but we don't need a book or anything else to dictate it to us.

life constantly causes second guessing and doubting of that 'conscience', with or without religion in it

I don't know about that, it's always there guiding us or trying to. But it's us that fail to heed it at times.

I agree, we fail to listen to the natural voice as opposed to the voice of the world

the voice of the world tries to get us to do many things we shouldnt under the disguise of how it 'feels' and legal adulthood/rights

You're assuming that Christianity in essence is that voice though, but I don't think that's the case.

the voice of the world is usually in CONFLICT with the conscience, because the world has motives and agendas besides the SURVIVAL your conscious concerns itself with

whether that conscience is God or not, is up to individual belief,

To serve God is to attempt to be more godlike and holy yourself and to hold to those best principle which are common among the major religions
of the world.

What is interesting is to see cognitive dissonance in action. That a person can in one breath claim to follow gods will, then in another admit they fashion the understanding of that will from internal sources. Every theist thinks god is on there side despite conflicting positions, the sense of ought is claimed to be objective, but then shown to be subjective and never again thought about. To admit that feelings are flawed to base your actions upon but then have nothing better to base gods will upon . . .

My sense of ought is far easier to understand without these contradictions, definition shifting, and double standards thanks!