I happened upon an article in the local Sunday paper that caused me to question my ascription to a selfish, nonaltruistic based lifestyle, one not so dissimilar to the one that has afflicted the ‘me first’, yuppie, boomer generation in general. I’m going to link to this article in a faith-based online newspaper which has all the same details as the local paper article.
Basically the story concerns an elderly Hispanic couple who have raised their developmentally disabled son at home for 53 years. The son has the mental capacity of a two month old and is blind and cannot speak or walk and is totally dependant on his caregivers to stay alive. Raising a severely disabled child for 53 years is one of the the most selfless acts I can imagine anyone ever doing. Are they motivated by faith or guilt, or both, since it’s unlikely that they are mutually exclusive anyway. Would an Atheistic, boomer couple, have the same degree of motivation that the Reyes had back in the 50’s?
More, I’d think, since they couldn’t have told themselves that it’s OK to abandon him since he’ll go to heaven when he dies and the suffering of this life mean nothing.
Why not ? People have abused and killed their own children in the name of their religion; religion doesn’t make you more devoted to your children, 53 years old or 5.
They attribute their commitment to their faith, I’m sure that the manifestation of that faith has allowed them to go for so long. The real question would be, would this couple have undertaken such a commitment if they had no faith, or belief in God. I would tend to think not but don’t know.
Also in the OP you mention the power of guilt, this is a satanic power, not one of God.
This kind of attitude is very puzzling to me. Do some people really think that you have to believe in God to want to care for your children. The biological imperative to nurture one’s young has nothing to do with faith.
That’s not very cynical of you.
I don’t feel qualified to judge the motivation or sincerity of perfect strangers based on a short article. But if you believe what they say in the article, they’re motivated by faith and love.
If they can say something like "“Some people say it must be a burden. No. It’s been a blessing” and really mean it, I think that rules out guilt as a motivation.
It might even be fair to say that what they’ve done differs only in degree, not in kind, from what millions of other parents do. What motivates a parent to change their baby’s diaper, or to look after their kids when they’re sick?
DtC remember I not only believe in God, but believe that He can/does help us when we ask for help. With that core belief, why is it puzzling to you that I believe this couple’s commitment is greater due to their belief and faith?
I did acknowledge in my first post in this thread that the parent child, and especially the mother child bond is immense.
Of course they attribute it to their faith; religious people usually do. Stealing credit is one the the main things religion does to look good; religious people usually thank God for their accomplishments, and thank God when rescued before or instead of their rescuers. It’s one of the more obnoxious things about it, especially since they often turn around and say that people who don’t share their faith would never perform such virtuous acts.
Oh, please; guilt is a major part of many religions, many of which don’t even believe in Satan much less follow him.
No, but I do think it can be further increased by God, and believe there are things you can do to make that so.
Perhaps some may, but in general this is just wrong, we know that God works through nonbelievers. We can pray for nonbelievers as well as ourselves.
Perhaps in many religions, I am just speaking for one that follows Christ, the only one who can free us from sin and guilt, which are the tools of the enemy.
Of course they’re not synonymous. I was trying to make an inference that with a generational gap and less reliance on faith possibly there would be less motivation to care for a severely disabled child at home for a long term, and that institutional care would be a viable alternative later on in the person’s life. 53 years is a very long committment, wouldn’t you think.
Now that’s just silly; Christianity seethes with guilt; it’s one of the major features of the religion. And plenty of things besides a two thousand year old dead man can free us from guilt; one of those things is not following the religion that’s imposing all that guilt in the first place.
I am an atheist. my wife a catholic. I have learned she loves our child more than i do because I do not have a religious drive and a fear of getting fricasseed when I croak.
Is this the same god that makes football players and boxers win ? Insulting.
You have been hearing your information from Satan, not God. Or to put it another way, you have been hearing it from people who don’t know God, or distort His word.
If you think the people in God’s church are immune to the attacks of Satan (ways of evil), I’d say you are mistaken, this is where Satan strikes the hardest, and unfortunately many fall away from His word.
I don’t believe God gets involved in football in that matter, it is not of the will of the Father, and approached tempting God. But having a safe game, one where all your skills are sharpened, and you play good seems like a OK prayer that can be answered IMHO.
I doubt many believers need to pray to increase their love and commitment for their child, as I stated in MY FIRST RESPONSE to this thread that the parent child bond is very strong to begin with. If she never asked God for that I’d say you both have your natural ability of commitment to your child. I would WAG hers is stronger because the mother/child bond is stronger in general, but that is not faith based.
And here’s the good part, your wife can pray for two, so you can receive the blessings of increased commitment along with her, depending on the prayer.
So having faith in the living God does not in itself increase the parent child bond, but the manifestation of that faith, which is help from God, can increase it if asked for.
No offense to you personally, but this question is just begging for us to think in terms of stereotypes.
I would say that atheistic couples come in all sorts of combinations. There are those made up of two very highly morally committed people who would certainly be devoted like the Reyes were. There are others who are equally morally committed who would not make the same decisions that the Reyes made. Other couples might have one highly committed moral member and one that is amoral or even immoral. And so on.
And that is not even dealing with stereotypes about Boomers – some of which you have illustrated.
If this topic interests you, I highly recomend a fascinating film, The Teachings of Jon. The website will give you a glimpse of what a couple of “Boomers” and their children are learning from a member of their family.
No generation and no group has a monopoly on compassion.
So what would an immoral or amoral person do? Would they feel no guilt in giving thought to institutionalizing their disabled child in order to focus their time, energy, and resources on their normal children and on living a life unencumbered? Does this make them evil?
If guilt doesn’t enter into this discussion then any decision a parent makes is a valid one. As long as the child is not harmed by a caregiver, who could judge a parent and determine that they have made the wrong choice.
You do realize, kanicbird, that this kind of “only one” belief is what turns man against man today. It’s the same kind of thinking that allows a suicide bomber to lay waste to a marketplace full of infidels in the *belief * that he’ll go straight to heaven, and then be celebrated by his mother for the act.
