No such thing as good or bad ...

1. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   Not in Santa's mind and not in God's mind.
   
   So, why do we project the concepts of GOOD and BAD into children's minds?????
   
   The scientific principals of LIFE are taught and learned. When we follow the laws of the universe and life, things work out and we are successful in surviving and living a happy life. If we don't live according to natural laws, we fail and suffer.
   
   Its a matter of science. Not good or bad.
   
   Morals are based on the scientific laws which govern our lives toward harmony, happiness and peace.
   
   Its all science as designed by  ....?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, the laws aren't just based on science. Add in the fact that major religions have rules to follow to be good or bad. If you go back to the ancient religions, those didn't teach the concept of sin and sinners. It was just in the last six thousand years, give or take a few thousand, that that tenet entered into our spiritual and religious beliefs. Now it seems to be coming full circle. Sin is in the eye of the beholder, and the teachings are leaning toward unconditional love. Science and the spiritual world seem to be melding and supporting each other. So you may have something here.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "Actually, the laws aren't just based on science." Which came first the chicken or the egg: the laws of science or the laws of religion?

         replyreport
   2. 80

      lovetherainposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are so absolutely wrong on this klh

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         as you believe.
         I believe the child is perfect at birth as he was made in the image of God. In fact, after he is born he is still being made in the Image of God. He is in the process of being made in the image that he had before he was conceived. So, I am absolutely right ... contrary to your ignorance.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Do you have children? If you do then you will know that they already have personalities when they are born. These are further developed later by parental influence and environment. Why was one of my children a placid, but self-centered child, while the other was temperamental but generous? Why was the temperamental child born afraid of animals, even stuffed ones? I love both of my children, but neither was born perfect because they were born human.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               The animating spirit is perfect and this can be nurtured. It can be nurtured in positivity and purity.
               A child's inner strength and joy should be guarded and shielded by adults. Inner strength comes from his own capacity for curiosity, enthusiasm and the ability to concentrate. Yes, they have their own natures and even these, I believe, are spiritual in nature ... rather than human.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Here you are talking about a person's spirit, not the soul. There is a difference. The spirit is perfect because it is from God, but the soul is the heavenly part that the person brings into the world. It takes a human many lifetimes to discover his spirit. What made men like Buddha and Jesus, among others, different was that they came into the world with their spirit awakened. The average child does not, and when the spirit does try to shine through, the child is usually discouraged by the parent and entreated to "act normal".

                  replyreport
   3. 57

      The0NatureBoyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The laws are not based on science but "objective integrating scientific study" does reveal cause, effects, consequences and purpose for existence and existing. Only by objectively studying, meaning by not judging based on sense perceptions, is anyone able to recognize good nor evil actually exist. Because I'm working on being objective in everything I have reached that conclusion and fully agree with you, KLH

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         my ! MY!

         replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   There is such a thing as good and bad, where interpersonal relations are concerned. It's good to share. It's bad to steal. It isn't rocket science.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      good for what
      and bad for what?
      why label actions as "good" or "bad?"
      We go by natural common sense boundaries. We do these things. We do not do these things.
      
      The boundaries are set by the parents and adults in charge. If a child wants what he wants and does not listen to the parent, it is detrimental to say "you are a bad child." or  "You are doing something bad."
      
      No, "You are doing what we must not do and you must stop."
      I will not have you talking back, being rude
      or hitting, etc."
       
      We can just stop the behavior without labeling it or the child.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Oh gosh. It doesn't matter what words we use to describe the action. The meaning and outcome are similar.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            it is subtle, yet important, to not label the child so that he does not identify with being either good or bad. He needs to be free of labels and pinpointing bad behavior. Just stop the behavior. Don't make the child feel ashamed.
            This will keep his true pure self-identity in tact.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I don't know that I can completely agree with the fact that any action will keep a child's pure self-identity intact. Because people change as they grow older. Not all children have a self identity which is loving, giving, capable of sharing, caring about the needs of others, etc. And, even if they were, it does not hold true that this selfless nature would follow into adulthood.
               
               I can agree that when chastising a child we need to consistently label the behavior as wrong and not present our discipline in such a manner as we are judging the nature of the child. I always told my son I knew he knew better; that if he thought about his actions he'd understand why they were wrong. It was more of an appeal to his mind than his nature.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Each child was born with a spiritual core. We let children maintain contact with their spiritual cores by always showing acceptance.
                  
                  We don't accept a child's actions when they are wrong, but his being, we always accept. This acceptance will go far in helping him maintain the love he has (was born with) in his heart.
                  So we say,
                  "I will not have this ... " focusing on our expectations. They want to please us when there is no criticism (from us.) Criticism, ridicule and punishments only makes them defensive, guilty and ashamed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     A statement such as 'I will not have this...' does absolutely nothing in the attempt to help a child get in the habit of thinking about their action and why they are, or are not, right or wrong. Such a statement imposes your will on the child. Perfectly acceptable during the first years of their lives, but if 'I will not have this...' is all that stands between one behavior and another, once your absence comes into play they have no real reason to curb the behavior; unless another person in a position of authority makes the same demand. We won't even get started on how such an approach can backfire when a child reaches their rebellious teens. And, certainly, such a long comment on the need to stop a certain type of behavior is going to be lost on a toddler.
                     
                     I'm afraid I'm more inclined to support a position of helping a child understand the ramifications of behavior, why they are ultimately  detrimental and why an alternative course would work better not only for the individual child but the people they interact with. And a simply 'No' when they are too young for such an effort to cause any positive change.

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes. I understand why you are resistant. One must understand that the child is programmed by nature to follow the adult in charge. He gets his cues as to how to behave and he absorbs it from us. We do not need to go into detailed explanations to the child under six, which is the age group I am addressing, (which I did not make clear.) And, I agree, for older children, (who can understand) explanations are valid. 
                        
                        On a universal level, the child, under seven, is in the process of forming. His body was built in the womb and his psyche is being built after birth. He is programmed to absorb and follow what is going on around him without question. Parents and teachers, from what I have observed, generally do not understand that the child wants to please us and do what is expected. His will to do so is intact during this stage of development on an unconscious level.
                        
                        He naturally wants what he wants, but during this stage we just set the boundaries. He will cry but we must not be blackmailed by tears. We must stand behind our 'No!" Many parents are too soft hearted or lazy to stand behind their "Nos." However, inconsistency is detrimental to the child who is trying to learn what is done and not done.
                        
                        Another problem, on the other hand, involves the child's "sense of order." If you have established that the child can have cookies for dinner every night and then you deny him cookies for dinner one night, he will understandably be very upset. So we must be careful to be consistent in what is allowed and not allowed.

                        replyreport
               2. 87

                  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I do agree with your statement about pointing out the action is wrong, not the child bad. I wasn't the best mother, but I always tried to let my children know how good and smart I thought they were. One day when my younger son, a teenager then, had made a really bad mistake. I said to him that "for such a smart person, that was a really dumb thing to do." He laughed and agreed with me, then we discussed what he should do.

                  replyreport
   2. 80

      lovetherainposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      yes

      replyreport
3. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   To label a child and his actions as good and bad removes the awareness of his pure nature of the spirit within him/of his true self.
   
   People who end up doing detrimental things, (such as molesting children,) have been led down a negative trail by their caretakers in childhood.
   
   Of course, detrimental means destructive / therefore "bad" for life and happiness.

   replyreport
4. 88

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   Morals are here to stay. If one chooses not to follow them, they will be unhappy and live a very unhealthy lifestyle.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am saying we do not have use the terms bad and good when dealing with children. We don't want them to identify with bad or good. Just what is done and not done.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         They learn according to what we allow them to do and not do.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            His natural will is to cooperate, with love for the parent or guardian in charge. They want to please us. This will to please must be kept in tact.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               The will to cooperate and please the adult in charge is universal in every child. It must not be shut down.

               replyreport
      2. 80

         lovetherainposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         why not? evil and good exist in the universe.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Because the child is perfect at birth and is in formation according to the spiritual dictates of his pure nature as initiated by God or Super Unified Force, if you will.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               lovetherainposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Do you really not think good and evil exist?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  lovetherainposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I see KLH is avoiding my question....

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     good for what? evil for what?
                     (Evil is l i v e spelled backwards.)
                     What is the "what?"
                     In my mind it is what is good for survival, life and happiness.
                     Evil is the opposite of life force. It is toward death.

                     replyreport
5. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   They are programmed by nature to follow the parent. This is how they learn. We set the boundaries as we provide the stimulus for their lives.

   replyreport
6. 88

   Kenna McHughposted 4 years ago

   A child is born with a clean slate. He or she learns by example. South Pacific, the musical, has a wonderful song about children how they learn from example.

   replyreport
7. 72

   Aime Fposted 4 years ago

   I don’t think people are inherently good or bad, and I don’t think people are born as a clean slate either.
   
   I believe that people’s actions are influenced by biological, psychological, and social circumstances. Not everything can be explained by nature and not everything can be explained by nurture, it’s a mix of everything. You might be more prone to certain good/bad behaviours right from birth than other people. You might end up exhibiting or not exhibiting those behaviours based on your social circumstances.
   
   People are complicated. And I think it’s a very small minority that can be labelled “good” or “bad” as a whole. Most people do good things and bad things. I think it’s fair to label actions as being good or bad in terms of basic morality. I think it’s okay to say “you’ve behaved badly” or “that was a really good thing you did.”  I think the importance with labels lies in not telling someone that they’re a bad person because they did a bad thing and likewise not letting someone’s good behaviour excuse the bad.

   replyreport
8. 76

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   We can provide discipline for the child while maintaining respect for his spiritual core. In this way, we preserve his connection to his true Self.

   replyreport
9. 0

   RTalloniposted 4 years ago

   Evidence from psychology and biology studies are revealing amazing new information about what babies learn in the womb:
   
   https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sear … tion=click
   
   Babies are not born with a clean slate. They learn sounds, tastes, even smells before they come into this world. The time before birth is far more consequential than most realized before now.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks!

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         ... and who is learning?

         replyreport