Kindness: Difference between revisions
(Added citations.) |
(Added citation and notes.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/141.5?lang=eng#p4 Psalms 141:5] | * [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/141.5?lang=eng#p4 Psalms 141:5] | ||
:"Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities." | :"Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities." | ||
* Kristin Wong, [https://lifehacker.com/the-problem-with-being-too-agreeable-1791893359 "The Problem With Being Too Agreeable"], LifeHacker, 2 Feb 2017 | |||
== Notes == | |||
The word, "kindness", is a vague term that brings to mind a lot of different ideas. | |||
The idea is frequently expressed that Jesus was "kind" to everyone, which often leaves me scratching my head because Jesus is the same guy that compared a gentile woman to a dog, who chased money-changers out of the temple, called the pharisees hypocrites, cursed an olive tree, and let his friend die for dramatic effect. People will often respond to these observations by pointing out why these were the right things to do. I agree, but that's not an argument that addresses the issue that these events appear unkind and, therefore, disprove the idea that Jesus was "kind" to everyone. | |||
In my mind there are only two reasonable resolutions. First, we can define kind around the type of behavior that Jesus engaged in. Second, we can dispense with the idea that Jesus was kind to everyone. They are both legitimate ways to go. I tend to lean toward the second option, though, because the word "kindness" is a word that is loaded with a lot of existing cultural understanding, and I don't think that cultural understanding is any more valid a description of Jesus, even if we were to focus in on LDS culture. It just seems like a descriptive word that is more likely to mislead people than to give them any real understanding of Jesus. I like the word charity. That's because, charity is a word that is already religiously overloaded, and defined explicitly as a characteristic of Jesus. | |||
Kindness is sometimes compared favorably with niceness. In this comparison, niceness is depicted as being unvaryingly friendly and confict-avoiding to the point of situational dishonesty, whereas kindness is unvaryingly honest. Still, it remains hard to reconcile with chasing people out of a house of worship with a whip. | |||
In the realm of personality, the issue of kindness seems to relate somewhat to the Big 5 personality trait known as agreeableness. | |||
== Cross-References == | == Cross-References == | ||
* [[Charity]] | * [[Charity]] | ||
* [[Criticism]] | * [[Criticism]] | ||
Revision as of 23:09, 6 August 2018
- "And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?"
- "Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities."
- Kristin Wong, "The Problem With Being Too Agreeable", LifeHacker, 2 Feb 2017
Notes
The word, "kindness", is a vague term that brings to mind a lot of different ideas.
The idea is frequently expressed that Jesus was "kind" to everyone, which often leaves me scratching my head because Jesus is the same guy that compared a gentile woman to a dog, who chased money-changers out of the temple, called the pharisees hypocrites, cursed an olive tree, and let his friend die for dramatic effect. People will often respond to these observations by pointing out why these were the right things to do. I agree, but that's not an argument that addresses the issue that these events appear unkind and, therefore, disprove the idea that Jesus was "kind" to everyone.
In my mind there are only two reasonable resolutions. First, we can define kind around the type of behavior that Jesus engaged in. Second, we can dispense with the idea that Jesus was kind to everyone. They are both legitimate ways to go. I tend to lean toward the second option, though, because the word "kindness" is a word that is loaded with a lot of existing cultural understanding, and I don't think that cultural understanding is any more valid a description of Jesus, even if we were to focus in on LDS culture. It just seems like a descriptive word that is more likely to mislead people than to give them any real understanding of Jesus. I like the word charity. That's because, charity is a word that is already religiously overloaded, and defined explicitly as a characteristic of Jesus.
Kindness is sometimes compared favorably with niceness. In this comparison, niceness is depicted as being unvaryingly friendly and confict-avoiding to the point of situational dishonesty, whereas kindness is unvaryingly honest. Still, it remains hard to reconcile with chasing people out of a house of worship with a whip.
In the realm of personality, the issue of kindness seems to relate somewhat to the Big 5 personality trait known as agreeableness.