Anyone Watch the Latest Democrat Debate? Anyone care?

[_Res Ipsa]

I think two things are true: Jersey Girl theoretically could be as she is without her Christian Faith and Jersey Girl’s Christian Faith helps her be the person she is. Both are true of most of the Christians I have known, including Mormons.

Easy to buy the first, not so much the second (I mean, unless by that you also mean that the food she eats and the clothes she wears help her to be the person she is... i. e. it's part of her personality).

Naw, I meant more than food and clothes. People get their values from somewhere, and I think it's fair to say that that somewhere helps them be who they are. I formed lots of my values during my LDS upbringing. So, even though I am not a believing Mormon, I think it's fair to say that Mormonism helped me become who I am. And to the extent I still hold values formed during that upbringing, it's fair to say that Mormonism still helps me be the person I am.

[Alf'Omega]

No. I am describing the person I developed into being. While it can be said that I would be who I am without religion/spirituality, you can't understand the resulting human being unless you understand the beginnings of a person in much the same way that some folks here aren't considering the development of societies.

Well, it turns out this is a nature vs nurture argument. I always come down on the side of nature. Nurture is not irrelevant, but I think its influence pales in comparison to a person's biology.

[_Some Schmo]

Naw, I meant more than food and clothes. People get their values from somewhere, and I think it's fair to say that that somewhere helps them be who they are. I formed lots of my values during my LDS upbringing. So, even though I am not a believing Mormon, I think it's fair to say that Mormonism helped me become who I am. And to the extent I still hold values formed during that upbringing, it's fair to say that Mormonism still helps me be the person I am.

Well then it's fair to say that the various advertisements and billboards you've seen over the years that have influenced your buying decisions helped you to be the person you are today.

The question, however, is what made those billboards effective for you and not everyone else? What was it about the church that influenced you that influences everyone else the same way? You're essentially claiming that the presence of that outside influence, and not the person's willingness to accept it, is the driving factor in making a person who they are.

Why do some LDS drink coffee and others not? They're all Mormons, after all.

[_huckelberry]

Here comes a bunch of 'stuff'. If it make sense to you, fine. If not, fine.

Do you Doc, still believe in things like, "Thou shalt not steal." If so, why? Where do you get this moral knowledge?

First, personally, I think that too many people read and interpret the Bible in a vacuum. How can that be useful when we fail to apply knowledge and experience in various disciplines...philosophy, science, etc.

Developing rules of government is part of our evolutionary development as human beings. If I recall correctly, it fits with social conflict theory. If it doesn't fit with conflict theory, it fits with another social theory because that is part of our survival as human beings. You took Psych and Soc, didn't you? You had to have taken those courses including stage models of human development.

Didn't you?

All of those developmental stage models that you presumably studied, fit together to round out full development of the human beings that we are. You should understand, if you paid attention, how moral reasoning develops over time in our life course.

That the Ten Commandments were delivered to Israel as their form of social and spiritual government doesn't mean that they INVENTED a rule against stealing (or were the only tribe to codify a rule against stealing) any more than our local/state/federal government laws mean that a remote primitive tribe in bf Egypt that has never heard of formal governments and has never picked up a book (instead transmitting the development of their history via orality) doesn't adhere to the same rules of Tribal management.

Stealing threatens the survival of the group.

Listen, if you take large groups of 3 and 4 year old children (and I conducted this evolutionary play experiment for 2 full years, possibly 3--I'd have to think about it--professionally including daily written and photographic documentation) and stay OUT of their play experiences they will develop their own games, assign positions within the group, and they will develop their own form of self-government by creating rules and roles for each person in the group.

Without anyone ever having so much as suggested a group game or the creation of rules in the group, or consequences for not following the rules.

I'm not talking about a group of young children playing red light/green light. I'm talking about a group of YC actually inventing and constructing their own play using whatever they find in the environment with whomever elects to be part of the group.

Israel codified their rule against stealing for the survival of the group.

We have codified rules against stealing for the survival of the group.

The remote tribe in bf Egypt has rules against stealing for the survival of the group.

Young children (through trial, error, innovation, and experience) create their own verbal rules for the survival of their group play.

And I am more than sure that all of the groups mentioned above have ways to justify breaking and/or revising those rules in specific situations if it means the preservation of the group.

Our military just delivered a brutal yet effective assault on a lead (now deceased) terrorist. Previously we got Bin Laden and Hussein and many thousand others of terrorist groups. This pattern repeats itself throughout history as we look back.

Isn't it against the 10 C's to kill? Then why did we kill these people?

In an effort to ensure the preservation of the group.

Well you can say that again. (I agree and thought that your words were well presented.)

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think that is misplaced credit either. I don't look for credit to begin with.

In this context, I'm not talking about credit in the you really deserve something for this sense of the word. I'm using it in the attribution sense of the word.

[_Res Ipsa]

Naw, I meant more than food and clothes. People get their values from somewhere, and I think it's fair to say that that somewhere helps them be who they are. I formed lots of my values during my LDS upbringing. So, even though I am not a believing Mormon, I think it's fair to say that Mormonism helped me become who I am. And to the extent I still hold values formed during that upbringing, it's fair to say that Mormonism still helps me be the person I am.

Well then it's fair to say that the various advertisements and billboards you've seen over the years that have influenced your buying decisions helped you to be the person you are today.

The question, however, is what made those billboards effective for you and not everyone else? What was it about the church that influenced you that influences everyone else the same way? You're essentially claiming that the presence of that outside influence, and not the person's willingness to accept it, is the driving factor in making a person who they are.

Why do some LDS drink coffee and others not? They're all Mormons, after all.

I suppose one could argue that everything that has happened to me has resulted in the person I am today, but it seems to me there are some events or experiences that have had more effect than others. I doubt that some Nike billboard that I saw sometime had a lasting effect on my values. On the other hand, reading about Bhuddism has had a significant effect on my values and on how I understand the world over the last decade or so. I don't think it's being unfair to myself to acknowledge that those writings have helped me become a better person.

I'm not suggesting that values are solely caused by environment. Obviously (at least to me), there is an interaction between the brain and the environment that results in values. But I could have sat in a cave for a lifetime and never developed Bhuddism. So there's more going on than just how my brain happens to be wired.

Not all people will draw on the same sources in forming their values. When I was a young lad, lots of people were raving about Jonathon Livingston Seagull and how inspirational it was. It was kind of meh to me. I was much more inspired by Harry Langendorf Pelican. But I can't really say that I consciously chose to emulate Harry -- he just struck me as having something important to say.

TL/DR: I think value formation is a combination of nature and nurture. I think it's accurate to give credit to external sources that help us form our values.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't think that is misplaced credit either. I don't look for credit to begin with.

In this context, I'm not talking about credit in the you really deserve something for this sense of the word. I'm using it in the attribution sense of the word.

I was reading you as saying something like "cause." Sounds close.

[Alf'Omega]

TL/DR: I think value formation is a combination of nature and nurture. I think it's accurate to give credit to external sources that help us form our values.

I hear what you're saying, but now I find myself really keying on the word "credit."

I remember when I was a young adult trying to work out why my dad was attracted to the church in the first place. The conclusion I came to was that the missionaries who found him did so at just the right time in his life. I'm fairly certain that if it were Jehovah Witnesses or just about anyone else that spoke to him at that time, they would likely have enjoyed the same conversion success. He was in a bad place; someone offered him something he viewed as "better than that." When he saw what he thought were positive results, he attributed (credited) Mormonism with those results. Marketing is all about associating good feelings with a product (why we see sexy people in beer ads, for instance, or why advertisers pay star athletes ridiculous sums of money to shill for them). The Mormons were able to make that happen with my dad.

What he failed to do was give his own desire for something better some of that credit. It was the church, not his own actions in reaction to what he was learning, that improved his life. He was just a vessel from his perspective.

What I'm saying is that if it weren't Mormonism, it would have been something else, because he was searching.

It's kind of like dying of thirst, finding a bottle of Gatorade, chugging it, and the relief causing you to think that Gatorade is the one true thirst quencher. It wasn't the Gatorade; it was the conditions of your mental experience.

I'll never deny religion has utility. It most certainly does. But just like any tool, it needs to be relegated to its proper place. A hammer is useless without someone to hold it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Naw, I meant more than food and clothes. People get their values from somewhere, and I think it's fair to say that that somewhere helps them be who they are. I formed lots of my values during my LDS upbringing. So, even though I am not a believing Mormon, I think it's fair to say that Mormonism helped me become who I am. And to the extent I still hold values formed during that upbringing, it's fair to say that Mormonism still helps me be the person I am.

Darn you RI I just got back home and was going to write about values! I don't see that the values we develop help us to be who we are. I think that the values we develop become parts of the whole of who we are.

[_Jersey Girl]

No. I am describing the person I developed into being. While it can be said that I would be who I am without religion/spirituality, you can't understand the resulting human being unless you understand the beginnings of a person in much the same way that some folks here aren't considering the development of societies.

Well, it turns out this is a nature vs nurture argument. I always come down on the side of nature. Nurture is not irrelevant, but I think its influence pales in comparison to a person's biology.

I just checked how many posts have been made since I went out and came back again. I hope to follow the conversation somehow.

Yes, I was describing a nature vs nurture dynamic. Tell me, if you will, how my biological makeup is my greatest influence. Since we're picking me apart and all.