A disappearing breed: the nuclear family

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I maintain the Sermon on the Mount has, within its brief words [just three chapters in Matthew], read easily within a half-hour, the solution to every single social ill we face, have ever faced, and ever will face, yet it holds no significant place in our hearts as a unifying power for good.  Even if it was looked upon as a secular social document, like the Constitution, if God were not part and parcel of it, everyone, religious and not, could take advantage of its power as a force for good.

I believe, as a related matter, that the nuclear family: father, mother, and children, and perhaps even a grandparent, etc, in one household, is a hidden power that would solve our social problems, but, it, too, is being ignored for the potential it has to heal society of its miseries.

Think about it.
#2
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
so... um, what about married gay couples? Or people who don't want kids? Or people who... don't want to marry? What about them?
Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
We are all endowed with the freedom of choice. All choices have consequences. Some good, some okay, some not so okay, some not good.  Not my place to judge which choice is which. All I know is that my choice has given me joy. Men [in a generic sense] are that they might have joy. I suppose joy comes in many flavors; to each their own.

I will add, however, that with the decline of the nuclear family has grown social unrest, and I see a definitive correlation in my lifetime.
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
yet [the Sermon on the Mount] holds no significant place in our hearts as a unifying power for good
That's quite false.  As a simple matter of fact the Sermon on the Mount is the single most influential, quoted, published, repeated bit of literature in all of human history.  The Golden Rule, the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes represent (alongside the Ten Commandments) the ethical constitution of the most popular belief system in human history.  Muhammad accepted the Golden Rule as axiomatic.  The Dalai Lama teaches the Golden Rule as the core tenant of Buddhism.  Most atheists accept the Golden Rule as the basis of humanism, even if they consider the source mythological.

If you would claim that this lesson holds no significant place  at the heart of human benevolence, I'd ask you to name some moral teaching that is more significant  or influential in human history because I can't think of  a single one.
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
I believe, as a related matter, that the nuclear family: father, mother, and children, and perhaps even a grandparent, etc, in one household, is a hidden power that would solve our social problems, but, it, too, is being ignored for the potential it has to heal society of its miseries.
  • In what way is the nuclear family related to the Sermon on the Mount? 
    • The nuclear family is thought to have emerged as Norther European tradition at the end of the 13th Cent. in the wake of the economic crisis of the Black Plague.  For the first time, moving away from the traditional family homestead could provide economic improvement on a large scale and later generations began to prioritize economic benefit over family as a geographic notion.  But neither the Romans or the Jews of the First Century put money before family.  Family was geography as well as history, identity, society and work and families clung together in huge interconnected clans and tribes.  The notion of nuclear family would have seemed strange in Jesus' time.
    • Chapter 5 preaches that the Children of God are those who act like God  "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
      • But God takes no wife and
      • Jesus takes no wife and fathers no children.  Mary's husband Joseph disappears after Jesus' childhood.  As an adult, Jesus lives with his brother and a group of friends.
    • If you are suggesting that the nuclear family somehow reflects Jesus' teachings or Christian tradition then I must strongly disagree.

#6
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
So let me get this straight "choosing" to marry someone you fall in love (not in your choice) has bad "consequences"? Because it seems to me that your implying a lot of things that aren't quite sitting well with me there bud. 
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
perhaps even a grandparent, etc, in one household,
The core element of the nuclear family is that adult children move out of their parent's house and raise their children separately.  By most definitions, if a grandparent or other adult related or otherwise  is residing in the house it is not a nuclear family.  The original definitions excluded non-biological members- step-children, adopted children, etc.
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
@Theweakeredge

"Marry"?

Marry provides a piece of paper that says The State and formerly The Church can have control over who or what you do from here on in.

Marry was and is an unnecessary prerequisite to procreation and the nuclear family.

Regarding marriage and LG....... Nothing more than meaningless traditionalist frippery, lining the pockets of service providers.....In my opinion.

Whatever floats ones boat though.

Nonetheless..... Evolved conceptualisms cannot be denied.....Who are we to say what is and isn't real?


#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I was disappointed to find out that this topic isn’t about a family business to run nuclear bunkers, but ok
#10
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I believe that people have a choice to choose between a nuclear family and something else. It is that we should be open to the latter, not suppress the former.

Ah yes, months ago the BLM claim to disrupt the nuclear family structure, I think. Good they removed it because otherwise it would seem too much like an SJW circle.
Topic's author
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
at the heart of human benevolence,
That's the very problem I specify. Benevolence is haredly the leading factor of society anymore; precisely my point.
Topic's author
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
  • But God takes no wife and 
  • Jesus takes no wife and fathers no children.  Mary's husband Joseph disappears after Jesus' childhood.  As an adult, Jesus lives with his brother and a group of friends.
Says who? That the concept of celibacy applies to God the Father, and Christ is a supposition merely because biblical scripture has no mention of it [although it does, and even in the ten commandments: "Honor thy father and thy mother..."  Bo, beside this, there is no reference to marriage of the Father or the Son, but that does not mean they were not. There are considerable missing truths from biblical scripture, but I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the Bible as intended holy writ has been corrupted, such as this notion of celibacy.  I not only believe both are married, but that the notion of God's Sireship of you and me is absurd without the notion of a Mother in Heaven, the literal parents of our spirits. We do not know for whom the marriage feast at Cana was for, and, yet, it seems Mary had a more significant role than merely a guest. Hmmm? The marriage of Jesus to a bride otherwise never mentioned, perhaps? He was certainly of age. And why not? Why, to sell this idea of Christ's celibacy, which was, in my view, one of the dumbest ideas to foster in the first place.

The concept of family is far, far older than the 13th century. I believe the concept of marriage, and family, is as old, and older, than God, himself. He had a father and mother, too. And so on, eternally backward, and forward, too. That's what eternity is, after all. It has no relation to "time."
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
you fall in love (not in your choice) 
What an absurd notion. We should have better control of our emotions than to let them run our lives. Yes, love is a choice, or it is something else; not love.
Topic's author
#14
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
The original definitions excluded non-biological members- step-children, adopted children, etc.
Oh, so, the older woman [94] who lives with my wife and I, occupying the full basement of our home that we prepared specifically for her  is not her biological mother? I humbly beg to differ. That will be news to my mother-in-law. After all, I am not biologically related to my wife, am I? Well, ultimately, we are, because we are both the generational children of Adam and Eve, and. so would be, then, my in-law brother and sisters, and my brothers are in-law relations to my wife. The ultimate nuclear family happens to be the children of Eve, [sired by Adam] who is called [by Adam], after all, "the mother of all living." Yeah?

You think that is all just figurative? You may be aware that in my religious realm, contrary to what is said to virtually every other married couple, "Until death do you part" [and over 50% do not even honor that, anymore, in my realm, marriage is eternal, and we are told that in the marriage ceremony. That is one of the primary purposes of our building temples all over the Earth. It is called "the everlasting covenant of marriage," snd the resulting family is not just nuclear, it, too, is eternal.
Topic's author
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
 It is that we should be open to the latter, not suppress the former.
I have no problem accepting that as phrased. 
#16
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Um.. no. You can choose to or to not pursue a relationship with the person you love - but you do not choose who you fall in love with. I can guarantee that you did not fall in love with ANY of your partners by choice. 
#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw

--> @oromagi
at the heart of human benevolence,
That's the very problem I specify. Benevolence is haredly the leading factor of society anymore; precisely my point.
  • I won't dispute that may have been your rhetorical intent but what you wrote was " Yet [the Sermon on the Mount ] holds no significant place in our hearts as a unifying power for good."  I've have shown that the Sermon is the most popular and significant moral lesson in history.  If the most powerful Sermon has no significant power for good, we must conclude that no lesser sermon is more effective and therefore you seem to be arguing that sermons are a waste of time.
    • or perhaps you'd like to correct your OP.
Benevolence is haredly the leading factor of society anymore
  • I'll agree that societies don't form to promote kindness but I disagree with your "anymore."  There never was a kinder or more benevolent age of man than now.  There never was a kinder or more benevolent society than American society in the 21st Century.

#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi
  • But God takes no wife and 
  • Jesus takes no wife and fathers no children.  Mary's husband Joseph disappears after Jesus' childhood.  As an adult, Jesus lives with his brother and a group of friends.
Says who? That the concept of celibacy applies to God the Father, and Christ is a supposition merely because biblical scripture has no mention of it .  there is no reference to marriage of the Father or the Son, but that does not mean they were not.
I study the Bible as a work of literature of deliberate authorship.  I say that Jesus takes no wife for the same reason I say Bilbo Baggins takes no wife- it never happened in the books.

There are considerable missing truths from biblical scripture, but I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the Bible as intended holy writ has been corrupted, such as this notion of celibacy.    I not only believe both are married, but that the notion of God's Sireship of you and me is absurd without the notion of a Mother in Heaven, the literal parents of our spirits. We do not know for whom the marriage feast at Cana was for, and, yet, it seems Mary had a more significant role than merely a guest. Hmmm? The marriage of Jesus to a bride otherwise never mentioned, perhaps? He was certainly of age. And why not? Why, to sell this idea of Christ's celibacy, which was, in my view, one of the dumbest ideas to foster in the first place.
Of course such speculation is popular but I seldom delve that deep into the fan fiction and always consider the original authors the final authority regarding canon.

The concept of family is far, far older than the 13th century.
But your subject is not family, it is NUCLEAR FAMILY which is a term invented in the 1920's by Bronislaw Malinowski and from which your definitional understanding seems divergent.



#19
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi
The original definitions excluded non-biological members- step-children, adopted children, etc.
Oh, so, the older woman [94] who lives with my wife and I, occupying the full basement of our home that we prepared specifically for her  is not her biological mother?

Whether your misinterpretation reflects poor comprehension or a straw man's feint I won't presume to know.  Read more carefully in future.
#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
DROPPED ARGUMENTS:

    • If you would claim that the Sermon on the Mount holds no significant place  at the heart of human benevolence, I'd ask you to name some moral teaching that is more significant  or influential in human history
    • In what way is the NUCLEAR FAMILY related to the Sermon on the Mount? 
    • Are you suggesting that the NUCLEAR FAMILY  somehow reflects Jesus' teachings or Christian tradition?


    Topic's author
    #21
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @Theweakeredge
    Wrong, and wrong before, and ever will be wrong.  Apparently, I have greater control of emotions. We’re all different, in this matter and others. As I’ve noted many times: Argue for your limitations; they’re yours. I have mine, too, but this isn’t one of them.
    Topic's author
    #22
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @oromagi
    Dropped arguments
    As a society, we give little credence to the SoM. Instead, we have allegiance to being woke. Big deal.

    You will note a hierarchy of proper attitudes, first to one’s self, and gradually transcending, from Matt 5 through 7,  to society at large, from individual, to family, to society. No, ‘family,’ as a word, is not given, but is implied in the importance of other people.

    The nuclear family has a better chance of supporting one another in an attempt to live by it than by a lone individual, and change lndividul by individual, then family by family...
    #23
    Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge's avatar
    Debates: 33
    Posts: 3,457
    4
    7
    10
    Theweakeredge's avatar
    Theweakeredge
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @fauxlaw
    Biologically speaking - it is literally impossible, we're talking about what a *human* limitation. Not me limitation, not your limitation, a human limitation. 
    #24
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,171
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @Intelligence_06
    #9

    I was thinking of saying something similar.

    But I've found that attempts at humour are rarely appreciated.
    #25
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,171
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    @Theweakeredge

    What is love?.....Other than a physiological response to a stimulus, or a word overused.

    Primary drives..... Survival and procreation.....Everything stems from here.

    In my opinion.
    #26
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 3,432
    4
    5
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    5
    10
    -->
    @fauxlaw
    I'm unsure of 'definition of nuclear family?
    Topic's author
    #27
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @Lemming
    Defined in post #1
    Every one of us, I don't care wgo, began with at least a mother and father. Whether they considered themselves that is, of course, variable, but that was always the intent from the beginning of Earth's human family, bar none.
    Why? You make something, you have responsibility for it, whether it's a cutting tool, or a baby. It is what "have dominion" means, first, last, always.
    #28
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 3,432
    4
    5
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    5
    10
    -->
    @fauxlaw
    Well, I'd agree that a biological mother and a biological father, raising their biological children is an effective methodology, 'generally in a society.
    'May be that having 'standard 'culture in raising of kids is 'generally more effective in society.

    Making interchangeable parts is useful for machinery.
    By that I mean if people use same standard, then same methods, stress, intervention, teaching can be applied to said standard.

    May be other family compositions in raising kids also effective, but I'm more familiar with biological mother, father raising kid.
    #29
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    -->
    @fauxlaw

    • If you would claim that the Sermon on the Mount holds no significant place  at the heart of human benevolence, I'd ask you to name some moral teaching that is more significant  or influential in human history
    As a society, we give little credence to the SoM. Instead, we have allegiance to being woke. Big deal.
    Well I've already showed that your first sentence is bullshit.  The Sermon is given more credence than any other ethical notion ever.  I'm not a big fan of the word WOKE since it seems to be one these terms for which everybody customizes their own definition, generally for the purpose of creating  the illusion of disagreement.  WOKE is mostly academic bumptiousness without a lot of new thinking but I can't see any conflict between the central notion of WOKE- [alertness to injustice] and the Sermon except for the rather ubiquitous failures of judging others before judging ourselves.  Still, wokeness and the Sermon on the Mount are generally in harmony.

    • In what way is the NUCLEAR FAMILY related to the Sermon on the Mount? 
    You will note a hierarchy of proper attitudes, first to one’s self, and gradually transcending, from Matt 5 through 7,  to society at large, from individual, to family, to society. No, ‘family,’ as a word, is not given, but is implied in the importance of other people.
    Equivocation.  We've established that the word family meant something far more inclusive to Jesus than the 20th century term NUCLEAR FAMILY.  You can't pretend that  Jesus endorsed the exclusivity of NUCLEAR FAMILY when everything in his life and word made family inclusive- by faith alone we are all children of God, by making peace alone we are all children of God.

    • Are you suggesting that the NUCLEAR FAMILY  somehow reflects Jesus' teachings or Christian tradition?
    The nuclear family has a better chance of supporting one another in an attempt to live by it than by a lone individual, and change lndividul by individual, then family by family...
    But that better chance is not only also true of non-nuclear families it is far more true of non-nuclear families.  You're trying to justify an exclusion based on an authority (tSotM) that clearly preferred inclusion.

    #30
    oromagi
    oromagi's avatar
    Debates: 117
    Posts: 8,696
    8
    10
    11
    oromagi's avatar
    oromagi
    8
    10
    11
    -->
    @Lemming
    --> @fauxlaw
    I'm unsure of 'definition of nuclear family?
    I don't blame you.

    The term started in academia in 1920s to facilitate discussion of the core biological unit and how that unit interacts with family, clan, tribe by culture.  Grandparents, uncles, aunts,  second and third wives and thier offspring, bastards, step-children, and adoptees were specifically excluded.

    In the 1950's the term was adopted by American advertising and marketers as a way of promoting the new household of the Atomic Age- every nuclear family needed a new house, car, dishwasher, etc.  Step-children and adoptees were mostly ok but each generation needed a separate household with a separate demand for material goods.

    By the 1990's, the term's main use was a dog whistle for American social conservatives trying to portray the 1950's model as traditional- the man works, the woman makes the babies and cooks and clean.   Never mind that human survival rates and labor requirements before the 20th century could never support nuclear families as a norm, never mind that most of the rest of world still thought of family as belonging to place and tribe, never mind the Feminism that sought to escape the subjugation of women to most of the work, the nuclear family would be promoted as traditional even though it was a radical new thing already in decline. 

    As far as I can tell, fauxlaw intends the latter usage.