Is The Family Institiution An Illusion?

[carrdero]

Is The Family Institiution An Illusion?



There seems to be a great importance that religion’s place upon the physical family institiution. Marriage, sexual relations, procreation and raising children all seem to be a significant requirement with many religions. What would be the purpose of this?

Is it really important that a child follows in their parent’s religion? What guarantee do we have that children will adopt, practice and grow in their inherent religion?

Are physical family ties really extended to the spiritual afterlife? What would be the incentive, motivation or benefit to this or for GOD to include this in part of His plan?


Could we all just be familiar entities? Could the possibility exist that everyone has known each other to some extent before incarnating in a physical existence?


Is there really anything to our physical ties and relations to other entities or is this just an illusion?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1542913' date='May 26 2008, 02:53 AM']Is The Family Institiution An Illusion?
There seems to be a great importance that religion’s place upon the physical family institiution. Marriage, sexual relations, procreation and raising children all seem to be a significant requirement with many religions. What would be the purpose of this?

Is it really important that a child follows in their parent’s religion? What guarantee do we have that children will adopt, practice and grow in their inherent religion?

Are physical family ties really extended to the spiritual afterlife? What would be the incentive, motivation or benefit to this or for GOD to include this in part of His plan?
Could we all just be familiar entities? Could the possibility exist that everyone has known each other to some extent before incarnating in a physical existence?
Is there really anything to our physical ties and relations to other entities or is this just an illusion?[/quote]

I do not think that the family institution is an illusion for any reason whatsoever. And I seriously suspect that anyone pushing this sort of idea has in their heart the most obscene form of destructive relativism known. I do not however think that simply questioning it is inherently bad so don't take the preceding statement as a judgment on you.

I think it's telling that various religions across the planet, despite their inherent theological disparities, mostly agree on the necessity of an institutionalized marriage and family structure. A cursory examination might lead one to the conclusion that this familial requirement by religions is simply a mechanisms for ensuring trans-generational religious propagation. The reality is that a deeper examination of this multi-cultural truth shows how important the family unit is in maintaining the entire culture's unity and substance. And from this unity and substance rises the more advanced civilized qualities which markedly distinguish humans from other animals. The family unit is where children are enculturated with the values, norms, codes of behavior, religious tenets, political philosophies, etc. which are necessariy for the orderly continuation of society. The stabilizing factor that is the family unit is a big component, in my opinion, in the stability which allows human beings to approach the technological advances we have had. Stable housholds are more suitable environments for

However, this approach fails to recognize that familal bonds are antecedent to civilization and the modern concept of society. Primates across the planet exhibit familial relationships that define their place within their troupes. Surely these animal familial bonds are less advanced, but they are still recognizable and are apparently natural.

There is no guarantee that children will adopt, believe, or practice their parents religion. Although this has throughout history been the observable trend. The family unit is an important part of this enculturation and trans-generational participation in a given religion. Societal pressure perhaps more than familial pressure is what 'keeps' offspring in the religion of their parentage.

I would say that physical familial ties (in my opinion) are much less important in the afterlife. The all-encompassing power of the beatific vision will surpass and fulfill any loving feelings we associated with familial bonds. That is not to say that heaven isn't enhanced (in my opinion) by the co-presence of us and those we were physically tied to (family and spouses). Afterall we do all continually play significant roles as co-workers with God in salvation.

With regard to your question about pre-extant spiritually famlial ties.... NO, absolutely not. The Church has long since decided its stance against the pre-existence of human souls before their physical conception. Therefore there cannot be any sort of 'pre-knowledge' of eachother and therefore no pre-extant spiritual bonds...beyond the fact that we are all created by God and therefore somewhat spiritually united by our relationship to him. But this spiritual relationship does NOT exist before conception.

I think it would fallacious to assert that our physical ties are 'illusions' for any reason. As I mentioned above, our physical ties are extremely important factors in our Salvation so in this regard God empoys them in his plan. We are all called to be co-workers with God in this capacity. We exist, as it is, in space and time and so the reality of this space and time has inherent meaning to us. This is why holding the door for an old lady means something. This is why brushing your teeth and eating healthy means something. This is why procreation and providing a stable environment for healthy social and spritual developement means something. Just because something is based in physicality does not inherently mean it is 'illusory.' It just means that it is not eternal, it may be eternally fulfilled. Sort of like how our physical bodies will pass away. That doesn't mean they are illusory or not deserving of dignity. They too will pass away only to be fulfilled at the Second Coming where we will receive our perfected bodies.

This is just complete speculation...but perhaps our new bodies will somehow maintain a bit of that physical/genetic unity that binds us familially to our parents and siblings and children.

Peace,

Todd W.

[jeffpugh]

Great Post, Todd W. I was just goona say that the family structure is just natural law, not necessarily religious.

That is all.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1543271' date='May 26 2008, 10:10 AM']Great Post, Todd W. I was just goona say that the family structure is just natural law, not necessarily religious.

That is all.[/quote]


I kinda like to approach it the same way Catholics approach ancient pagan philosophy. It is something that pre-dates our religion, but we recognize its truth. In this sense, it could be purported that perhaps God in his ordaining the nature of the cosmos 'prepared' the family unit before gracing the world with True Religion, that later on Religion could flourish because of the pre-existence and necessity of the family unit.

Just an interesting thought I had....I'm a little garrulous today.

Todd W.

[CatherineM]

I had a discussion about family and religion with a woman at church yesterday. She's on Parish Council, very active in church. Her teenage son wants to be a priest, but her 17 year old daughter wants to be a wiccan. We were discussing how far and hard she should push. We didn't come to any earth shaking conclusions, but what it did do, is make me evaluate about families.

My husband and I are the only practicing Catholics left in either of our families. On my dad's side, the Catholic side of my family, I am the last Catholic great-grandchild. My husband and I won't have any children of our own, so I'm the end of the line. I can trace my finger down a list of cousins, and point to reasons they fell away, including my brothers as well. Why does it seem as if our grip on the faith is so tenuous at times?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1543325' date='May 26 2008, 10:45 AM']I had a discussion about family and religion with a woman at church yesterday. She's on Parish Council, very active in church. Her teenage son wants to be a priest, but her 17 year old daughter wants to be a wiccan. We were discussing how far and hard she should push.[/quote]

Wow. I don't know what else to say.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1543325' date='May 26 2008, 10:45 AM']My husband and I are the only practicing Catholics left in either of our families. On my dad's side, the Catholic side of my family, I am the last Catholic great-grandchild. My husband and I won't have any children of our own, so I'm the end of the line. I can trace my finger down a list of cousins, and point to reasons they fell away, including my brothers as well. Why does it seem as if our grip on the faith is so tenuous at times?[/quote]

Prayers for the intercession of St. Michael. The world can be a harsh place and despite how popular culture doesnt' want you to even consider it. The devil and his demons prowl the world for the ruin of souls.

You're in my prayers!

Todd W.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]Her teenage son wants to be a priest, but her 17 year old daughter wants to be a wiccan. We were discussing how far and hard she should push.[/quote]

While I wish all believed in Christ, situations like this are really tricky. She does have free will, and while it is important for her to be encouraged to go to Church and given sound theological books to help her understand, at the same time, too much could turn her away from God altogether. Reverse scenario, if my parents were practicing pagans but I was really interested in Catholicism, hey, I'm interested in this faith, and no matter what my parents try to do, I'm going to pursue it. She needs to figure out on her own what is right (although with some assistance, as I mentioned).

[Aloysius]

God is unselfish. His purpose in creating the family is for our sake, because the family is good for us.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1543684' date='May 26 2008, 04:40 PM']...His purpose in creating the family is for our sake, because the family is good for us.[/quote]

That's kinda where I was going with my second post.

[Aloysius]

I wanted to emphasize that, because from my discussions with carrderro, I have come to the conclusion that the "GOD" which he proposes is not even in the same philosophical category as the God which we believe in. one main thing that indicates this to me is when he asks what purpose God would have for caring about this or that human action, so I chose to take issue with that in this thread. Though ultimately discussion with him cannot start with God because we both use that term to refer to two different things and it would be like me arguing what an orange is and him arguing what an apple is... pointless. His "GOD" is within creation, disinterested in humanity, motivated by personality (an error made in many heresies and religions such as Islam, to be fair)... the only thing that seems to make this GOD he has described on the forums any different than us is that he is more powerful than us. at least this is my impression. the terminology used in the first post indicates completely that the GOD he believes in is also disconnected from reality and that humans are not the peak and pinnacle of his creation (as the philosophy calls into question the idea of relying philosophically on our human senses)

[thessalonian]

More nonsense.

Everything is an illusion and carderro is an illusion.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1544731' date='May 27 2008, 07:24 AM']More nonsense.

Everything is an illusion and carderro is an illusion. [/quote]

Or [i][b][u]IS [/u][/b][/i]he?!?!?!?!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1544718' date='May 27 2008, 06:30 AM']

I wanted to emphasize that, because from my discussions with carrderro, I have come to the conclusion that the "GOD" which he proposes is not even in the same philosophical category as the God which we believe in. one main thing that indicates this to me is when he asks what purpose God would have for caring about this or that human action, so I chose to take issue with that in this thread. Though ultimately discussion with him cannot start with God because we both use that term to refer to two different things and it would be like me arguing what an orange is and him arguing what an apple is... pointless. His "GOD" is within creation, disinterested in humanity, motivated by personality (an error made in many heresies and religions such as Islam, to be fair)... the only thing that seems to make this GOD he has described on the forums any different than us is that he is more powerful than us. at least this is my impression. the terminology used in the first post indicates completely that the GOD he believes in is also disconnected from reality and that humans are not the peak and pinnacle of his creation (as the philosophy calls into question the idea of relying philosophically on our human senses)[/quote]

My hope and prayer is that the reason he hangs around this phorum isn't so much that he wants to argue or antagonize us with his view of 'God.' I hope that somewhere inside he recognizes the potentiality of accepting a belief in an objective truth. I think the way we approach answering non-antagonistic posts like this says a lot about our willingness to keep meeting someone half way.

God Bless,

Todd W.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: I wanted to emphasize that, because from my discussions with carrderro, I have come to the conclusion that the "GOD" which he proposes is not even in the same philosophical category as the God which we believe in. one main thing that indicates this to me is when he asks what purpose God would have for caring about this or that human action, so I chose to take issue with that in this thread.[/quote]

I still believe that you do not possess enough knowledge and understanding about the philosophy that I express to draw such early conclusions.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Though ultimately discussion with him cannot start with God because we both use that term to refer to two different things and it would be like me arguing what an orange is and him arguing what an apple is... pointless. His "GOD" is within creation, [color="#000080"][b]disinterested in humanity[/b][/color], motivated by personality (an error made in many heresies and religions such as Islam, to be fair)... the only thing that seems to make this [color="#FF0000"]GOD he has described on the forums any different than us is that he is more powerful than us[/color].[/quote]

[color="#000080"]I apologize if you have perceived this entity as one who does not care about humans but I have tried to describe GOD as not BEing [b][i]careless[/i].[/b] I believe that GOD does not share in most of things that human nature establishes and practices but extends a great deal of understanding about why humans behave the way they do.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]I prefer to use the term more experienced.[/color]

[carrdero]

[quote]Veridicus writes: My hope and prayer is that the reason he hangs around this phorum isn't so much that he wants to argue or antagonize us with his view of 'God.' I hope that somewhere inside he recognizes the potentiality of accepting a belief in an objective truth. I think the way we approach answering non-antagonistic posts like this says a lot about our willingness to keep meeting someone half way.

God Bless,

Todd W.[/quote]

It is not argument or reason to antagonize that I hang around the phorums. It is not for the win but for the understanding and sharing of beliefs and why people believe. If I am posting a thread or a response in the debate section of this forum, one is probably going to require a lot more than hope, faith and prayers to come to any reasonable conclusion about the Truth or Untruth of any subject. In the meantime, concerning certain topics, I can be honest and considerate to the terms of agreeing to disagree.

[carrdero]

As far as my experiences go with family, my father divorced my mother in 1981 but I have been able to successfully encourage and build upon these relationships even through the separation. The relationship with my father seems to change over the years. At one time it would appear to be an agreeable friendship, in his later years, it seems that I am the one that is playing the parent.

I have a sister who has become estranged with the family because of the death of my mother three years ago. Though she seems to perceive keeping this distance as some form of punishment, I personally have had no regrets to this arrangement even though I continue to love her from afar.

My wife Rizza lived in the Phillipines for nine years and her biological mother left her father at an early age. When her father died, she was quickly and carefully shipped to the United States and resided in New Jersey, where she was adopted by an elderly couple who were related to her family. The woman of this household was aged and sickly and the man sexually abused Rizza frequently. When the woman passed away and the truth about Rizza’s abuse became known, Rizza had a decision to live with relatives of this family in New York or to stay with her stepmother (who married her father) in North Carolina. Rizza decided to stay with the famiy in New York. She attended High School in New York and married early as soon as she got out. Her first marriage lasted three years and ended in divorce. Afterwards she met me and we dated for a few years and decided to get married. We have been married for five years.

The reason for providing this back information is that our perception of the family unit usually does not conclude or connect in the way that one has been taught. It also does not support or surpass our current understanding nor does it seem to adhere to anyone’s expectations. Especially through my wife’s journey, one can see that that the family does not necessarily have to have its roots based on biology and that the concept can become interchangeable. It seems that anyone willing and able can take care of someone else and that these parameters of the family institiution can change at a moments notice. There is a saying that it takes a community to raise a child and in some regards, I seem to agree. I believe that even though humans can provide windows for spiritual entities to incarnate, parents can merely be cast as caretakers and that children do not seem to belong to anyone.

I believe that it is not religion that produces responsible families but that it is responsible people that produce responsible families. I believe that there is a connection between all entities that transcends any earthly family titles and individual units.

[quote]Veridicus writes: With regard to your question about pre-extant spiritually famlial ties.... NO, absolutely not. The Church has long since decided its stance against the pre-existence of human souls before their physical conception. Therefore there cannot be any sort of 'pre-knowledge' of eachother and therefore no pre-extant spiritual bonds...beyond the fact that we are all created by God and therefore somewhat spiritually united by our relationship to him. But this spiritual relationship does NOT exist before conception.[/quote]

With your belief and with the understanding (not the expectation) of what we K(NOW) today, would it damage or benefit the Church to re-examine and re-evaluate this concept? Why or why not.

Edited May 28, 2008 by carrdero

[StColette]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1542913' date='May 26 2008, 03:53 AM']Is The Family Institiution An Illusion?[/quote]

Nope it is very real.

[quote]There seems to be a great importance that religion’s place upon the physical family institiution. Marriage, sexual relations, procreation and raising children all seem to be a significant requirement with many religions. What would be the purpose of this?[/quote]

Marriage is often associated as a symbol of the Trinity. Children are seen as the pouring out of the love between husband and wife. Almost as the Love between the Father and the Son brings forth the Holy Spirit, although this is done outside of time thus all three are eternal. Marriage is not a requirement of religions, it's a vocation from God, just like the religious life, and single life. In Marriage, the couple must be both unitive and open to life. Since many people are unable to have children because of medical reason, having children cannot be considered a requirement with many religions. The purpose of the family institution is to form all within it to be in union with God. To love and serve God and one another.

[quote]Is it really important that a child follows in their parent’s religion? What guarantee do we have that children will adopt, practice and grow in their inherent religion?[/quote]

A child's first teacher is his/her parents. Because a child's first teacher is it's parents, it's only natural that this would mean the child would be raised in the religion of the parents. It's important for the child to understand what their parents believe and why. We do not have an absolute guarantee on anything. Everyone has free will. When a child grows up they often challenge the things their parents have taught them.

[quote]Are physical family ties really extended to the spiritual afterlife? What would be the incentive, motivation or benefit to this or for GOD to include this in part of His plan?[/quote]

Not really sure how family ties would extend into the spiritual afterlife. I know that the bonds of marriage are broken once one spouse dies. Do we retain the ability to recognize family and loved ones who hopefully join us in Heaven, I hope so, but we will love one another equally in Heaven and God above all others.

[quote]Could we all just be familiar entities? Could the possibility exist that everyone has known each other to some extent before incarnating in a physical existence?[/quote]

Considering that each soul is created at the moment of conception, I would say know that we could not have known each other to some extent before our souls are connected with our bodies. Souls aren't just floating around up there waiting for a body.

[quote]Is there really anything to our physical ties and relations to other entities or is this just an illusion?[/quote]

There are ties.