Re: the Fall of man

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 17:14:55 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: A matter of trust?"

    Just to say that as I get Spam from @yahoo.etc anything from that server is
    automatically deleted. I had problems with aol but they have taken action
    yahoo has not .

    Sorry to intrude, but can anyone send a nice virus to these spammers!

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
    To: "Tim Morris" <sirrommit@yahoo.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:08 PM
    Subject: Re: the Fall of man

    > > I have heard this claim, that "real love is not able
    > > to be coerced from someone
    > > through the use of force or threats. Neither is it a
    > > mere automatic or robotic
    > > response resulting from some sort of previous
    > > programming," on many occasions.
    > > However, I have never heard a well thought out
    > > explanation of this. About the best
    > > I've heard is "How could it be any other way?" which
    > > is no explanation at all. I'd be
    > > curious to hear yours.
    >
    > A couple of off-the-top-of-the-head, non-cited points.
    >
    > First, real love requires freewill on some level, so
    > if the response is a robotic response, over which you
    > have no choice, you are not choosing to love. It
    > seems to me for any response, love or hate or
    > whatever, to be meaningful, there has to be some
    > element of freewill in making that response or it
    > means nothing in an objective sense. However, as you
    > point out, you can be coerced into making certain
    > "freewill" choices, and I think think the research
    > that I recall having read suggests that this does not
    > work for the following reasons.
    >
    > The first part of the answer has to do with what kind
    > of response do we want here. And the answer seems to
    > me, from a Christian standpoint, to be a change of
    > heart, rather than merely a certain type of behavior.
    > The OT and NT are full of passages that discuss this
    > dichotomy between outward appearances of piety or
    > actions and the internal condition of a person, with
    > the latter, not the former being the important part.
    > How then does one achieve an inward turning of the
    > heart, especially if that turning is supposed to be a
    > turning out of freewill?
    >
    > It seems to me that there is a good deal of research
    > (thanks to the dominance of the behavioral paradigm
    > for several decades in the social sciences) on
    > attempts to influence behavior, the efficacy of
    > therapy, and other related attempts to modify
    > behavior. In the studies of humans (you can't survey
    > animals for their subjective sense of things so those
    > studies are off the board for our discussion), I have
    > not seen any data that suggests that outwardly
    > coercive behavior (e.g., electrical shocks, opprobium,
    > etc.)by themselves causes an internal changing of
    > one's views. I suppose the closest one would get is
    > to the "Stockholm Syndrome", where despite the
    > life-threatening situation imposed by the hostage
    > takers the kindness of the hostage takers is what
    > figures prominently in the response of the hostages in
    > identifying with the hostage takers (a persuasive love
    > of sorts, in a coercive environment). I do not think
    > there is any good data supporting the idea that
    > compelled behavior by itself leads to internal changes
    > in people's views regarding that behavior. For
    > example, in addiction situations, interventions and
    > imposed treatments are ineffective in and of
    > themselves, recovery requires an inward change in the
    > view of the addict rather than in the enforced program
    > of detoxification, etc.
    >
    > The seminal message of popular books on therapy, such
    > as "If You Meet Buddha on the Road, Kill Him," is that
    > the teacher/therapist can only assist the
    > student/patient in finding resources that they already
    > have and assisting them in developing those resources.
    > They cannot dictate what the person should do or how
    > they think, they can only persuade them, if you will,
    > to think in new ways based on the resources the
    > students already have.
    >
    > So, I find the argument for persuasive as opposed to
    > coerced love very compelling. Coercive action may
    > result in outward behavior modification, but I do not
    > believe that it changes hearts or minds. In fact, I
    > think good data exist to support the opposite, that it
    > breeds anger and resentment in many cases. I think
    > one can see this in therapy situations where the goal
    > often is to help the person see things in a different
    > way so that they can transform how they think.
    >
    > It seems to me that the inward working of the Holy
    > Spirit within people's lives exemplify how persuasive,
    > rather than coercive love can allow amazing
    > transformations of how people live and what they
    > consider important. I do not see this working of the
    > Holy Spirit as coercive at all, but entirely
    > persuasive.
    >
    > Anyway, that's why I find the argument about
    > persuasive love pretty compelling based on Christian
    > tradition and data from a lot of social science
    > research.
    >
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do You Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
    > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 17:48:49 EDT