Jesus Camp

[Pie]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Your children look to you for what to believe. When they reach an age that they start forming their own beliefs based on their own experiences, they will critically examine the beliefs you taught them and draw their own conclusions.

Teach them critical judgement and empathy. All else follows from that, the Golden Rule included.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Pie

Teach them critical judgement and empathy. All else follows from that, the Golden Rule included.

That's great, starting around the age of 7. But a 2-year-old is not capable of that. His world consists of doing things for no other reason than because someone (hopefully a parent) said so; belief in their higher power if you will. You can fill in the whys and the rationality behind it down the road, but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

[Pangloss62]

but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

Just make sure it's a rational framework.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That's great, starting around the age of 7. But a 2-year-old is not capable of that. His world consists of doing things for no other reason than because someone (hopefully a parent) said so; belief in their higher power if you will. You can fill in the whys and the rationality behind it down the road, but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

My son was perfectly capable of empathy and self sacrifice at two. I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

[Pangloss62]

and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

I saw Herbie Hancock on CSPAN the other night. He's a Buddhist.

I have to say I like his old stuff better than his 80s 90s stuff, but he's a good keyboardist.


So, rkzen, would you say that "The Golden Rule" is a parallel concept to a tenet/s of Buddhism?

[Pie]

No, as a two-year-old, I was asked to consider other people's feelings. See here:

"Don't hit him -- how would you feel if he hit you?"

[dar512]

Let's try it again, Pangloss. Without reference to "right", "wrong", or morals -- why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?

[Pangloss62]

why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

It sounds like you might be one of those Ayn Rand Libertatians. Is that true?

I can't say more than I've said, and I'm not going to change any minds, especially those with kids. Just think about the debate, the ideas, and maybe we can all get somthing out of it.

[dar512]

Ok headache's all better. I'm ready to bang my head against the wall again.

I said "why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?" You said:

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

Call it a tenet or whatever you like if it's the word that bugs you, but doesn't that statement indicate that you believe (or have as a moral standard, or whatever) that a person should sacrifice their own benefit to make for a better society?

Yes, it is. The difference is that there is no "them" in Buddhism. No separation between "others" and the self. Whatever you are doing to someone else you are doing to yourself, so any harm is done directly to all and yourself simultaneously.
This is why Buddhists like Quantum Mechanics so much, we knew it thousands of years ago, unity and entanglement were always our "laws".

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

But that's exactly the point, you taught your son what was right. You don't have to teach him about a higher power, but at some point morals (i.e., something beyond critical thinking and rationality) must enter into it with young children. Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.

That is not true at all.

[Pangloss62]

Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not kill.

But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.

If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats