Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

samwik: "But it seems to me that without something stronger (and more standardized) than an individual's family and school, there is not enough self-sustaining momentum for respect, civility, manners, whatever we call it (that which allows us to connect progressively)."

If you come up with that "something stronger" you'll convince me.

Meanwhile, I think we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school.

Ethics is a deeper issue which benefits from a good deal more consideration. As for the much vaunted guidance of religion, it cannot be relied upon as a source of inspiration or example.

I would return to Ellis' "Golden Rule". Thinking on that frequently, meditating on it, and practicing it, would no doubt be of far more worth than paying credulous and absent-minded attention to the speeches and sermons of dubious wise men and preachers. It probably doesn't have the same "feel good factor", though; nor does it provide the illusion of belonging to a righteous and morally elite club.

As I wrote above, we need to love others as they need to be loved. Then the world would become heavenly, and GØD--goodness, order and design would be the order of the day.

To the above I will add: And the role of family leaders, especially parents, the lay and clergy leaders of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other communities--which really represent nothing more than enlarged families--is to teach our children, and to encourage everyone in the family and the community, to work together in a healthy-kind of cooperation.

THE GOAL OF A LOVING, POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE
A healthy, loving and positive mental attitude is the key to our building healthy families and communities. It will help us find meaningful, and socially-useful employment--the cure for poverty and a great preventative for war.

We are not here to be selfish and greedy war-mongers; to make life miserable for one another. We are here to help make the world a safer place in which all classes and creeds can to live in peace and harmony. When we are ready to go, we will leave the world a better place than we found it.

The loving attitude encourage families, and those who gather in enlarged families (the churches, etc.) to keep up the good work. Constructive criticism can always be of help, but being hyper-critical does no one any good.

Keep in mind that spiritual love (agape) in not just about sexual attraction (eros, okay in the right context), not just about sentimentality and superficial friendships (philia, very good when sincere). With this in mind think about this question:

How, in what ways, do YOU love (that is, choose to be) to be loved? For example, there are times when I just want to be left alone and make my own mistakes; I do not want to be "should" upon, constantly, by others.

Perhaps this is why moralizing and dogmatic parents and clergy often do more harm than good.

Sermonizing, that is, telling people: "You should, you must you ought, and if you don't God will let the devil punish you...", just doesn't cut it anymore.

Ellis wrote:

"do as you would be done by."

I've just read Charles Kingsley's "The Water Babies" again. The fairies are Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby and Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid. Quite a good tale really. Probably where your father got the name.

Rede. I agree totally with your comment, "we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school." Especially family.

"...and other communities--which really represent nothing more than enlarged families...to work together in a healthy-kind of cooperation." -Revl.

I am reminded of how, in the 1960's & 70's, we rejected organized religions because we could see the hypocracy and negative consequences; while we explored Eastern mysticism, tried to "see God," and dreamed of communes.
:wistfully:

Terry...great minds....

"...we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school." -rede.

I don't want to be the only one speaking for the US, but family structure has been getting a pretty bad reputation around here lately (and rightly so). Lots of problems to point out (not that there's anything wrong with any individual's circumstance, but...); divorce, single parent families, blending families, welfare families, tired families, working parents families, rich families, and nanny families.

I'd argue that media is a major influence on socializing kids these days. Taken together with "Peers," which mainly amplify the media influences, and which have become a larger part of the "School" experience, media and peers may be a larger influence than "family & old-school," these days (at least in some areas [in many areas] ).

~SA

samwik: Re: manners, ethics and socialization:-

Sounds like you're saying that, for the majority of kids in the US: -

(1) Life circumstances preclude sufficient interaction with their parents/guardians.

(2) The adult element of the school environment, i.e. teachers, and the school curriculum, are insignificant influences.

(3) The predominant sources of role models for manners, ethics and social behaviour are:
---(a) the media
---(b) other kids

Is that right, or not quite?

Yes, good summary, rede.
I don't want to say this is exclusively what's going on, but symptoms can be seen (the general coarsening of the media, each successive movie having bigger explosions or bloodier scenes, etc.).

There's plenty of good wholesome stuff too.

But it's a struggle....
(...as life should be?)

more Later,
~SA

samwik, I think you're right. The huge growth of electronic information technology, the simultaneous decline in face-to-face human interaction, and the diminished role of 'significant' adults in the lives of many children and adolescents (for the reasons that you gave), must surely result in a shift of influence. The only debatable points that I can see are the degree of the shift and the extent of its effect.

Hello Revlgking,
You do realize that the "parable" you quoted is actually a short story called "The Last Question", written by Issac Asimov, in 1956 don't you?

Sorry, I spelled "Isaac" wrong in that last post.

OK, maybe my memory is faulty and Isaac wrote a different story, but the fact remains that there is an identical story: Answer’ by Fredric Brown. ©1954, Angels and Spaceships

I need to check my sources a bit more before I post, I guess.

Hi Jareb. Welcome!

Info: -

You can use the edit button to correct errors (which I have to do frequently!), and to avoid multiple posting.

Yes, and here is the source: http://www.alteich.com/oldsite/answer.htm Answer’ by Fredric Brown. ©1954, Angels and Spaceships. Thanks. Google (the infallible? source ) found it for me.

When I wrote my story, and used it in a sermon, I had no idea where I got the idea, or where I got the punch line, "There IS now!" I read very little science fiction.

Here's a thought: Perhaps I could expand on my version by adding:

"There IS now..." There was a long minute of silence.

"And I am pleased to tell you that what you and your son have done is this: Guided by the love--the sumum bonum, the highest good--and respect you have for one another's enriching differences, and for all the truth the sciences are capable of uncovering, you have succeeded in getting in touch with the ever growing and all-knowing source of all knowledge, wisdom and power that is deep within the heart of all humanity, collectively speaking.

THE COLLECTIVE WE
NOW, listen closely. From this point we will use the collective "we". We are ONE with YOU and ALL that is: Depending on what we human beings choose--We are free to love or to hate; to can say yes, or no, to life--we can use this knowledge and power to destroy, or to create. When we choose the destruction things and of others. However, beware, in doing so, we choose self-destruction.

THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH
One final thought. And we will put it, affirmatively: We will always practice the art of mindfulness. We will be mindful of that which divides us and of that which unites us. We are especially mindful to be careful not to use words which divide us.

In all things, we choose to work for that which does not divide and separate us from the good of all of us. Instead, we choose that which creates the highest good for all. All each individual needs to do is to provide the will-power, we will provide the do-power. Any questions or comments?
===============================================================
Here we can add you more affirmations:..........................

AGAPØ--All goodness and providence, everywhere present--Love.
============================================================
Among the famous sayings from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 9: 14-17, Mark 2: 18-22 and Luke 5:38-39) have to do with what a waste of good effort it is to destroy a new coat to fix an old one. "Nor does anyone pour new wine into old wine skins" he said.

It is for this reason that I feel that there are times--especially when I feel the old words have lost their true meaning--when I need to coin new words.

GØD is AGAPØ
As I have said elsewhere, the Greek for "I love you" is agapo; the noun is agape. Now I take this word, spell it with capitals and get AGAPØ, as an acronym for "all goodness and providence everywhere present". Now when I read in John 4:8, "God is love" it makes sense to me.

Thanks for reminding me what your symbol (lazy theta?) means.
"Everywhere present," I'm assuming is....

Similar to simply, "God is."

Happy Sunday Revl.
Feel the building Zeitgeist!

~SA

Ø, is a mathematical symbol for the set without elements, or numbers, or the empty set.
Maybe some mathematician can answer: Does this mean that, mathematically speaking, there is such a "thing" as a point without dimensions? That there is a nowhere? Or a circumference that is without limits? There is an everywhere? HMMMmmmm!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols

"God is" indeed!

As I understand it: The verb 'to be' is the only verb which I can apply to God. I find it unacceptable to think of God as an objective being who sees, hears, tastes, touches, smells walks, talks, whatever. I like to think of God as the no-thing and the every-thing. I like to think that we have time and space so that everything doesn't happen at once, and everywhere, at the same time.

BTW, I have no objection to who people feel the need to think of God as a loving Heavenly Father, as long as this helps them be moral, ethical and loving people who do not impose, with dire threats, their concept of God on others.

Yes, I would agree with Revlgking about that one.

Although the Golden Rule is mentioned in The Water Babies, (it was a sentiment much in favour in Victorian Times), the saying itself is very much older and forms the basis for honourable conduct for most, perhaps all, organised religions. Now that's a word not often used today--honourable! It pre-supposes honesty and fairness, both much in decline I feel.

Wow! that sounds like a grumpy old woman, but of course a well-mannered one!

Rev wrote:
BTW, I have no objection to who people feel the need to think of God as a loving Heavenly Father, as long as this helps them be moral, ethical and loving people who do not impose, with dire threats, their concept of God on others.

I never thought it would happen--but I fully agree with this sentiment,Rev--from the other side of course!

I think somewhere along the way someone needs to remind the fundamentalists that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It is possible to be moral and ethical and loving without trying to ram it down someone else's throat. I agree with Ellis. Having had my son introduced to theology, courtesy of a head start program, I find it repugnant to have people cramming their idea of religion down a young child's throat with no thought of the damage they're doing. He came home from head start, scared shitless, wanting to know if God the father was going to find him and hurt him like his own daddy had. He'd been molested by his own father at the age of three, and whoever the nice lady was then told him about God the father, I hope she rots in hell for what she put my son through.

Thank you for that, Rose. You arouse a great deal of compassion. I agree, it's possible to be moral, ethical and loving while just shutting up and getting on with it. That ought to be enough to make the world go around.

Ellis wrote:

"the saying itself is very much older and forms the basis for honourable conduct for most, perhaps all, organised religions."

And science. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I agree with you. We don't need to believe in God to "be moral, ethical and loving people". I posted somewhere a news item from NZ about a religious group protesting about a government move to stress we have no state religion. Religious tolerance? Not when it comes to recognising a right to no religion thank you.