The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I don't think that God created bad people. It only makes sense in terms of Christianity to assume that people are inherently good and giving if we are made in His image.

While it is not my goal to expand this too deep theologically, it is Christian teaching that man is born with a sinful nature. Again, theologically speaking, man was created in the image of God, but then chose sin (whole garden of Eden/fall of man thing).

One of my jobs as a parent is to shape the character of my kids. This does not mean to attempt to alter their personalities and what makes them great individuals. Part of this is presenting my children with responsiblity and choices. Some choices have consequences, and they are are aware of the consequences prior to making a choice. I will rarely force my child to do anything (meaning, for example, I don't allow my 12 year old the option of staying home from school on a whim - I'll put her in the car in her pajamas if that's what it takes, in effect forcing her to go to school), but I will shape their understanding that certain choices have consequences associated with them.

Whether the self serving behavior is learned or is instinctual doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that most two year olds have no concept of how their actions impact those around them. Does that behavior make them bad? No. It makes them human. And I am responsible to teach my children to behave otherwise.

[cirquelover]

Well, if God didn't create bad people than who did? If you believe in God and he created everyone then isn't it logical that he created good and evil?

I think some people are just inherently bad, but that's just me thinking aloud a little too late at night.

Also, I agree we are responsible for shaping our children and trying to get them to see right from wrong. Teaching them that there are consequences for their actions is one of the best lessons we can give them.

[Kevy Baby]

They're not bad. They're just drawn that way.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

While it is not my goal to expand this too deep theologically, it is Christian teaching that man is born with a sinful nature. Again, theologically speaking, man was created in the image of God, but then chose sin (whole garden of Eden/fall of man thing).

When I say good, I don't mean without sin. By that definition Jesus was the only good man ever. I mean kind, loving, giving, etc. So often people turn out wonderfully in spite of having horrible parents, reinforcing my belief that the goodness in man is hard to squelch.

One of my jobs as a parent is to shape the character of my kids. This does not mean to attempt to alter their personalities and what makes them great individuals. Part of this is presenting my children with responsiblity and choices. Some choices have consequences, and they are are aware of the consequences prior to making a choice. I will rarely force my child to do anything (meaning, for example, I don't allow my 12 year old the option of staying home from school on a whim - I'll put her in the car in her pajamas if that's what it takes, in effect forcing her to go to school), but I will shape their understanding that certain choices have consequences associated with them.

Scaeagles, you've always seemed like a very loving parent. When I talk about some Christian parents bugging me, I'm not necessarily referring to yourself.

I agree that teaching is the most important part of being a parent. I prefer natural consequences to logical, but that doesn't mean that there isn't teaching involved. There are a very few things I would force, and I'm not saying that force is 100% a bad thing, but I'm sure that while you and I might force kids to go to school, we would also find out why our kids so adamantly didn't want to go to school and help them solve the problem.[/quote]

Whether the self serving behavior is learned or is instinctual doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that most two year olds have no concept of how their actions impact those around them. Does that behavior make them bad? No. It makes them human. And I am responsible to teach my children to behave otherwise.

Yes, I agree, teaching must start from a very young age. The attitude I'm referring to that bugs me is one that equates teaching with punishment. Or more pointedly those that feel that the most appropriate way to "teach" a child, however small, to behave is to hit them or otherwise make them suffer. Which, I guess, if your goal is obedience then that's probably effective. If your goal is to have a well grounded moral compass those methods are useless, as the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness.

Again, not referring to you, just a lot of Christian parents I've met. It's possible that this isn't a Christian thing, but an American thing. I have a friend in Egypt that is Christian, but he tells me that punishment isn't really used there.

Well, if God didn't create bad people than who did? If you believe in God and he created everyone then isn't it logical that he created good and evil?

I think some people are just inherently bad, but that's just me thinking aloud a little too late at night.

I don't think people are born bad. I think that some choose to do bad things with their lives, but I don't know of anyone on earth that is 100% bad. If people were born bad, wouldn't that absolve them of responsibility? Personally, I've never met a child that wasn't good.

Also, I agree we are responsible for shaping our children and trying to get them to see right from wrong. Teaching them that there are consequences for their actions is one of the best lessons we can give them.

Yes learning how our actions affect ourselves and others is one of the most important things. However, I don't equate teaching about consequences to imposing consequences. Many actions have consequences all their own, and those can definitely be learned from. Most of the circle of parents that I hang out with don't punish, impose, consequences, or use force. Their kids are pretty phenomenal, so I'll probably continue on that path. My kids are little though, so what do I know.

[Gemini Cricket]

Rev. Lovejoy: Homer, I'd like you to remember Matthew 7:26. "A foolish man who who built his house on sand.''

Homer: And you remember... Matthew ... 21:17!

Rev. Lovejoy: "And he left them and went out of the city into Bethany and he lodged there''?

Homer: Yeah... (regains his nerve) Think about it!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I'm not necessarily referring to yourself.

If your goal is to have a well grounded moral compass those methods are useless, as the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness.

My kids are little though, so what do I know.

Oh - I understand that. I'm taking no offense - just sharing my philosophy. As there are many different types of parents and many different types of children, there are (and must be) many different types of parenting. Age appropriateness, personality of the child, etc.

I'm not sure I follow this - "the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness." How is that so? The nature of punishment is to teach that choices have consequences. With my four year old, we let her know what the consequences will be so it is a clear choice for her. With my 12 year old, she knows that making a choice to do certain things will result in anything from a mild no internet access for a few days to an all out grounding and she doesn't need to be presented with those things before hand.

While natural consequences are fine, when danger is involved, I insert other forms instead. For example, a couple of days ago I was on my elliptical, from which I can see into the room my kids typically are playing in. My 12 and 4 were doing gymnastic type stunts. At one point, my 12 did something with the 4 she was not strong enough to do, nor did my 4 have the balance to do. My 4 fell pretty hard, narrowly missing the corner of a bookshlef with her face. I got off the elliptical and went to make sure everyone was OK, and informed them that if I ever saw them doing it again, the 4 would be spanked (yes, I spank, but only when the child knows spanking will be a consequence of a certain choice, and it never leaves a mark. To the kid, it is just the thought that they have been spanked that is the killer to them.) and the 12 year old would have a week in her room. Natural consequences in that case are not acceptable. I don't want my kid to have 30 stitches on her face to learn a lesson that certain things aren't OK to do.

Wow - that was a diatribe. Carry on now.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Oh - I understand that. I'm taking no offense - just sharing my philosophy. As there are many different types of parents and many different types of children, there are (and must be) many different types of parenting. Age appropriateness, personality of the child, etc.

Good. Parenting (like religion, lol) can be a tricky thing to discuss, so let me say ahead of time that I'm pretty opinionated, but my disagreement with certain parenting choices doesn't mean I think that people are bad parents.

I'm not sure I follow this - "the nature of punishment is to teach self-centeredness." How is that so? The nature of punishment is to teach that choices have consequences.

It simply means that it makes kids think mainly about themselves. What's going to happen to me if I do that. If I do this something bad will happen to me. Or after a punishment has been enforced, I think a typical response is not, "Oh, duh, I shouldn't have done that," but rather, "I can't believe they did this to me."

For example, if two small kids are playing and a struggle erupts over a toy and child A hits child B one of two things can happen. If child A's mom steps in and says, "We don't hit! Go to time out right now!" Child A might start crying and go to time out. He's most likely thinking, "I had the toy first! He took it from me! I don't like him anymore." Whereas if child A's mom goes to him and says, "Look child B is crying. That really hurt him. He took your toy and you got mad and hit him. We don't hit! Next time ask mommy for help or say, 'I was playing with that toy!' What can we do to help child B feel better?" At which point child A might suggest giving a hug, or a toy, or saying sorry. Both methods are probably effective at preventing the behavior next time, but only one gives the child the tools to deal with conflict effectively and causes him to think about how his actions affected someone else.

While natural consequences are fine, when danger is involved, I insert other forms instead. For example...

I know that many parents that don't often punish will do so if they believe that it will prevent their child from being hurt. While I disagree pretty strongly against spanking (as in I think the countries that have legislation against it rock), I can understand the logic there.

I hope you don't mind me using your example to illustrate my own personal opinion. In that case, natural consequences had already occured. They did something dangerous, someone got hurt. I suppose I would have made sure everyone was ok while showing a great deal of concern to drive the point home that they did a very scary thing. Then talked to them about why that was dangerous and really stressed that it isn't a safe thing to do. I'm sure that the 12 year old doesn't want to hurt the four year old and the four year old doesn't want to fall on her head, so it's unlikely that they would try again. If I really felt the need to impose a consequence then I suppose I would say that if they attempted anything dangerous like that again then gymnastics wouldn't be allowed until they were ready to be responsible.

I think as a society we value compliance a bit too much. It seems as though when people talk about a "good" child, what they really mean is an obedient child. Punishment is certainly effective at teaching obedience, but I think that it's effectiveness stops there. I think it impedes the thought process necessary to connect actions with their meaningful consequences. While you may get a child who doesn't engage in desirable behaviors (at least not when the punisher is looking), I don't think it gives kids the tools they need to grow into the kind of people that parents want them to grow into. I think it also teaches the lesson that might makes right.

So blah blah blah I know this is a huge derail. Feel free to continue talking about whatever this thread was originally about.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I agree with everything Alex said in this thread. (sorry Alex)

Originally Posted by Brennen Manning

The single most cause of atheism in our world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out of the church doors and deny Him with their lifestyle.

I think that quote works if you change the word "atheist" to "Ex-Christians".

[tracilicious]

What exactly is supply side whatever?

[wendybeth]

From Wikipedia:

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought which emphasizes the "supply" part of "supply and demand". The central concept of supply-side economics is Say's Law: "supply creates its own demand", or the idea that one must produce before one has the means to buy. In evaluating public policy, supply-side economics is more concerned with the extent to which a reform will change producer incentives, rather than how it may stimulate demand. This emphasis represents a fundamental difference between classical, supply-side economics and Keynesian or demand side economics.
Supply-side economics was popularized in the 1970s by Robert Mundell, Arthur Laffer, and Jude Wanniski. The term was coined by Wanniski in 1975. In 1978 Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works in which he laid out the central thesis of supply-side economics and detailed the failure of high tax-rate, "progressive" income tax systems and U.S. monetary policy under Keynesians in the 1970s. Wanninski advocated lower tax rates and a return to some kind of gold standard, à la the 1944-1971 Bretton Woods System.
In 1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.
Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle down economics.


The article also mentions Al Franken's cartoon, which started this thread.