Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Frank Merton

Explaining v preaching v prostlyzing

53 posts in this topic

Not to be a hard case or anything, but Euclidean geometry is not a religion, noe was it ever brought forth as one by the gentleman himself.

Buddhism does proselytize, if it didn't it wouldn't have a problem co-existing with Hinduism. The very fact that it does, demonstrates that it is not pacifist except as a window dressing to attract people, which immediately demonstrates the most important feauture of a proselytizing religion.

One does not need to preach in the streets or go door to door to proselytize. The fact that it admits new believers into its midst and encourages people in doing so says it all.

I agree with the above for the most part, but I do diagree in one aspect, mission territory are not isolated places as you propose, most of the Asian continent as well as much of the African continent does not know or has never heard of Jesus Christ.

They may know about christianity in a vague way, but they have never heard the message of Christ. That said, the same can be said for many places in the USA or Britain, or even Portugal for that matter.

Jor el, I think the point I'd glean from 8ty is that Euclid does have something common with religion, in that Euclidian Geometry completely replaced (all previous works on greek geometry) and became the historical role model for scientific reasoning, Just as religion became a role model for morality. I think what he is pointing out is that even though something can be a role model it can be so with out proselytizing. For me it is a point well taken.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor el, I think the point I'd glean from 8ty is that Euclid does have something common with religion, in that Euclidian Geometry completely replaced (all previous works on greek geometry) and became the historical role model for scientific reasoning, Just as religion became a role model for morality. I think what he is pointing out is that even though something can be a role model it can be so with out proselytizing. For me it is a point well taken.

Religion is not a role model for morality, it never was it will never be so, no matter how much people assume it to be the case. It is this misalignment in thought, that was, is and will be detrimental to religion. By allowing religion to be the role model and determining what morality is and ought to be has allowed all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor-el

I liked Sheri's answer about the geometry better than the one I would have composed. I'll just go with hers.

You and I seem to disagree on the facts about Buddhist recruiting practices, and I don't see the relevance of their pacificism or lack of it to how they restore their membership. That won't be resolved here. Judaism, then, will stand as a counterexample.

We simply disagree that "proselytizing" occurs whenever a religion allows new members to join. Obviously, if that's what the word meant, then it is logically necessary that any religion which didn't proselytize would cease to exist when the first generation died.

I'll settle for our agreement on the general idea that much proselytizing is aimed at folks who've already been exposed to the message. I disagree that the more accessible parts of Asia or Africa "have never heard the message of Christ," but I think that won't be resolved here, either, because I suspect we disagree about which "messages of Christ" count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor-el

I liked Sheri's answer about the geometry better than the one I would have composed. I'll just go with hers.

You and I seem to disagree on the facts about Buddhist recruiting practices, and I don't see the relevance of their pacificism or lack of it to how they restore their membership. That won't be resolved here. Judaism, then, will stand as a counterexample.

We simply disagree that "proselytizing" occurs whenever a religion allows new members to join. Obviously, if that's what the word meant, then it is logically necessary that any religion which didn't proselytize would cease to exist when the first generation died.

I'll settle for our agreement on the general idea that much proselytizing is aimed at folks who've already been exposed to the message. I disagree that the more accessible parts of Asia or Africa "have never heard the message of Christ," but I think that won't be resolved here, either, because I suspect we disagree about which "messages of Christ" count.

Can't add to that either unless we want to go off on a tangent to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is not a role model for morality, it never was it will never be so, no matter how much people assume it to be the case. It is this misalignment in thought, that was, is and will be detrimental to religion. By allowing religion to be the role model and determining what morality is and ought to be has allowed all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion.

Jor el quotes:

"Proselytizing, means that you are willing to entertain the ideas that someone is "preaching" to you."

"Historically, proselytizing is the most effective method ALL religions had of ensuring their religion lived on after they died away."

Based on both your ideas/positions 8ty offered 2 examples to counter. You defined the perimeter of both his arguments with both of your quotes. One addresses Euclidian and one addresses Religion.

How you would counter to 8ty's argument? He clearly shows 2 examples where your arguments show bias. Can you address this. Thank you. I am actually interested in your counter.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is not a role model for morality, it never was it will never be so, no matter how much people assume it to be the case. It is this misalignment in thought, that was, is and will be detrimental to religion. By allowing religion to be the role model and determining what morality is and ought to be has allowed all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion.

I have often observed/learned that religion is used as a moral guide/influence. Of course-- I do not dispute that religion can be applied in a way that is harmful.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

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

http://csrs.nd.edu/a...adolescents.pdf

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often commented that what is "good" to me may really be "bad" to someone else and vice versa. It is a can of worms...

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor el quotes:

"Proselytizing, means that you are willing to entertain the ideas that someone is "preaching" to you."

"Historically, proselytizing is the most effective method ALL religions had of ensuring their religion lived on after they died away."

Based on both your ideas/positions 8ty offered 2 examples to counter. You defined the perimeter of both his arguments with both of your quotes. One addresses Euclidian and one addresses Religion.

How you would counter to 8ty's argument? He clearly shows 2 examples where your arguments show bias. Can you address this. Thank you. I am actually interested in your counter.

And by countering we would be moving beyond the threads subject matter as I'm sure you noticed both 8B and myself did not wish to do. Naturally we can start a new topic on this matter and then we would be free to indulge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think just because someone is a parent this automatically makes them an authority on all matters as your quote suggests to me," Parents have a right and a duty to teach everything to their children."

I think I would say a parent has the obligation to make sure that they themselves are up to par and informed/growth minded and take the steps needed to do so for the sake of the child and society. I think encouraging curiousity, topicality, and an interest in many things can lead to more options for growth as opposed to just teaching ideas because they serve to affirm ones beleifs. In the big picture it is curiousity that drives one to seek new solutions to old ways of doing things. And well meaning parents can literally limit their childs options by how they teach them things.

If a parent themselves doesn't question, doesn't challenge ideas, isn't curious about other positons and outlooks nor cultivates sympathy to other doctrines how would they go about teaching this? I do not agree with parenting that seeks to teach by limiting a child to certain commitments or conclusions.(I would use great care in this area.)

I agree.

A parent has a responsibilty to teach everything they have learned to a child. Their experiences and knowledge thus becomes the child's base of knolwedge and understanding. But this process is ongoing. A parent /adult will continue to learn grow and develop and so will a child. As a consequence they may grow apart in beliefs (or closer together)

But despite the opportunities for a child to learn from many sources in a modern world, their parents are the first source of learning and knolwedge (inmost cases) They teach a child to speak, and read and in doing so how to think and be aware of self and non self. The more that parents can teach to young children, the more ther children will develop as adults.It amazes me how many children come to school unable to read (and some almost unable to speak) because their parents have been either unable, unwilling, or not caring enough, to teach them how to. By five, (compulsory school age in Australia) many opportunities for language and other growth have already been lost, due to the way the plasticity of the brain decreases from birth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor-el

I liked Sheri's answer about the geometry better than the one I would have composed. I'll just go with hers.

You and I seem to disagree on the facts about Buddhist recruiting practices, and I don't see the relevance of their pacificism or lack of it to how they restore their membership. That won't be resolved here. Judaism, then, will stand as a counterexample.

We simply disagree that "proselytizing" occurs whenever a religion allows new members to join. Obviously, if that's what the word meant, then it is logically necessary that any religion which didn't proselytize would cease to exist when the first generation died.

I'll settle for our agreement on the general idea that much proselytizing is aimed at folks who've already been exposed to the message. I disagree that the more accessible parts of Asia or Africa "have never heard the message of Christ," but I think that won't be resolved here, either, because I suspect we disagree about which "messages of Christ" count.

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.

Mere historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

A parent has a responsibilty to teach everything they have learned to a child. Their experiences and knowledge thus becomes the child's base of knolwedge and understanding. But this process is ongoing. A parent /adult will continue to learn grow and develop and so will a child. As a consequence they may grow apart in beliefs (or closer together)

But despite the opportunities for a child to learn from many sources in a modern world, their parents are the first source of learning and knolwedge (inmost cases) They teach a child to speak, and read and in doing so how to think and be aware of self and non self. The more that parents can teach to young children, the more ther children will develop as adults.It amazes me how many children come to school unable to read (and some almost unable to speak) because their parents have been either unable, unwilling, or not caring enough, to teach them how to. By five, (compulsory school age in Australia) many opportunities for language and other growth have already been lost, due to the way the plasticity of the brain decreases from birth.

I cannot agree more with this, in taking the time, the child has such an advantage in the realm of learning and this is for a lifetime.

Well said MW!

It's hard work and effort to keep oneself informed and current.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by countering we would be moving beyond the threads subject matter as I'm sure you noticed both 8B and myself did not wish to do. Naturally we can start a new topic on this matter and then we would be free to indulge.

Jo rel,

I am interested in your ideas if you change your mind- but if not fair enough.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.

Mere historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

Very well said MW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are rtwo separate issues here. I am not going to argue the first. I have been forcefully putting my own views on UM for nearly 10 years and no one has ever accused me of preaching or proselytising. And that is not my intent. It is not my job to "convert " others or preach to them, only to provide information. Each adult must find their own way in life and their own relationship with god.

The second issue is different. Parents have a right and a duty to teach everything to their children. How to speak, spell, write, do maths; how to think, what ethics and moralities are good and which are bad. So every parent should teach their child, from birth through stories playing with them involving them in household or work activities, talking to them etc, what has worked for them and what has not.

it is as important to teach a child helpful and constructive spiritual truths, as it is how to cook safely and successfully, or how to play safely and have fun, or how to design and build something, or how to play with other children successfully.

Teaching a child spiritual dimensions and spiritual thinking, is as critical as teaching them how to think logically, and how to use their imagination for internal and external creative purposes.

A theist should teach their child to be a theist, because after all as an adult it worked for them. An atheist should teach their child to be an atheist for the same reason.

But there are many more important and basic ethics, knolwedge, teachings, understandings and moralities, than just religion. Children must not just learn codes of behaviour but internalise certainn values and understand why those values are productive and creative. They mus tbe taught that self is not as important as society tht they are not the most important person in the world, and that happiness does not come from material possessions. (you can disagree and teach a child that self is more important than society or that happiness comes from material possesions as long as this works and is true for yourself and for your child.)

children can be taught to read by age 2 and to think in logical fashion by age 3 or 4 They recognise the necessary elements of human thought by about age 4 and should be aware of their stream of consciousness and thought patterns by the same age. But the more, and early, you teach a child, the more it will learn, A young child can learn several languages several musical instruments how to paint and write poetry and lots of other things before school age simply by being taught them in a fun but structured way.

A young child (pre school age)ca n be taught the elements of logical thinking, of basic philosophy and how to debate issues in their mind using different points of view. they can be taught to see anothers point of view, how to develop sympathy and empathy They can be taught different forms of justice including retributive and restorative. most important they can be taught hw to recognise and exercise internal or self discipline. We had a 2 year old visit the other day who did not touch a single object in our house, despite being fascinated by many of them, because he had been taught not to do so without asking first. He couldn't talk properly yet, but he could understand the requirement, and exercise the self control necessary to do this. I spent a couple of hours talking to him, teaching him some simple games, and playing with some of the objects he wanted to touch. We both had incredible fun and learned a lot.

I think this is another good example of how we impart ideas without "proselytizing". in fact, I'd challenge Jor el's idea that "Historically, proselytizing is the most effective method ALL religions had of ensuring their religion lived on after they died away."

No where is it more imporantt that our ideas live on in our kids.

If we look at Kolhberg's stages of moral development the first stages impart the rules by the immediacy of consequences-- which evolves to the concern of getting caught-- tilll eventually one will do the right thing because they cannot live with themselves-- or they think it is the only right thing to do -- or if not them who.

http://en.wikipedia....ral_development

We can see with your example MW's that a 2 year old will learn the rules by the immediacy of consequences, (I am even excluding punishment) what I mean is the child will learn by good ole fashioned consistency. Taking the time to consistently teach them no not this, but this..(show them what they can/cannot do as they navigate their enviiornment )(it is what i did with 3 kids , one knows they do not have the comprehension to understand prosletizing/preaching and they tune it out in their teens.lol ) As you show MW the child learned the tules without proselytizing or preaching, the child demostrated this in your home.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between explaining

The listener ASKED for an explanation.

one's religion and preaching it?

The listener isn't listening, hence, no communication.

When does it become proselytizing

The listener DIDN'T ask to hear it.

and when does that become trying to "shove one's religion down someone's throat?"

The listener is unable to escape.

At what age should children be taught religion

Teaching by example begins at birth, long before the words are intelligible.

and is it fair to a child for the parents to insist the child go to their church?

It's never fair, but some form of education (preferably by the parents at home) is essential.

If Christians spent as much time doing God's work as they do sitting in church, the Kingdom of Heaven would be near at hand.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proselythesim is the active attempt to convert another. A religion need not die out because no one atempts to convert others to it. I "chose" christianity as a culturally relevant form of expression without anyone preaching to me or proselythising.

Mere historical sociological or cultural reading and observation can inform an individual about religions which suit their own preferences. Given that, as creatures, most humans "need" a spiritual/ religious framework as much as they require a logical/philosophical one for their existence, a human may simply chose any form of religious code without anyone ever prosylthesing.

Actually no it it does not HAVE to be an active attempt, passive attempts are also included in the concept...

intransitive verb

1

: to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2

: to "]recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

transitive verb

: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize

As such any act that induces a conversion is a form of proselytization. Even if that act is in the form of a book or a movie, or a news article or whatever...

That is the reason why I stated earlier that ALL religions proselytize, in one way or another, whether they actively and intentionally try to do so or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often observed/learned that religion is used as a moral guide/influence. Of course-- I do not dispute that religion can be applied in a way that is harmful.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

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

http://csrs.nd.edu/a...adolescents.pdf

I came across this quote which clarifies my position much better than my comment yesterday, I thought I would share it with you...

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

Plato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no it it does not HAVE to be an active attempt, passive attempts are also included in the concept...

intransitive verb

1

: to induce someone to convert to one's faith

2

: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

transitive verb

: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

http://www.merriam-w...ary/proselytize

As such any act that induces a conversion is a form of proselytization. Even if that act is in the form of a book or a movie, or a news article or whatever...

That is the reason why I stated earlier that ALL religions proselytize, in one way or another, whether they actively and intentionally try to do so or not.

To induce is still a active attempt. Proselythesising requires active intent. For example if I happen to stop and hear a person talking about their religion to themsleves, that person is not proselythising. Neither is a historian or sociologist who records and writes in detail about the nature of a religion. There must be an active intent to convert. A parent living their life is not proselythisising their chidren, although their chidren will pick up the parent's behaviours. So if i read a history book about islam and decide to convert to islam neither the author, nor the book/words, was engaging in proselythisising.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this quote which clarifies my position much better than my comment yesterday, I thought I would share it with you...

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

Plato

I must be in an argumentative mood this morning but Plato was wrong. In a society all people require laws to establish a standard codification of behaviour. "Good" people may choose to obey those laws and "bad" people may choose to disobey them, but people do not inherently KNOW the laws of a culture they have to be taught them, and for this to happen the laws must exist.

In Plato's time this was not so much so, as people grew up in a culture learning expectations from birth and generally those expectations were consistent within a culture, but today, as we move from one culture to another, and as cultures break down into sub cultures and individualism,, laws are essential For example, in amsterdam prostituion and drugs may be perfectly legal. In singapore you can be fined for chewing gum. Laws reflect the standards and moralities of a culture, and are used as a tool to show ALL people, good and bad, what that society's expectaions are. I am a good person but if i do not know the laws of a country then I can still get into terrible trouble.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To induce is still a active attempt. Proselythesising requires active intent. For example if I happen to stop and hear a person talking about their religion to themsleves, that person is not proselythising. Neither is a historian or sociologist who records and writes in detail about the nature of a religion. There must be an active intent to convert. A parent living their life is not proselythisising their chidren, although their chidren will pick up the parent's behaviours. So if i read a history book about islam and decide to convert to islam neither the author, nor the book/words, was engaging in proselythisising.

An example fo my own:

If my 20 year old has chosen to be a Catholic, and I tried to talk him out of it or told him he was wrong/evil not worthy of eternal life and would be going to athiest nothingness (basically trying to convince him of my non belief stance/pov.) or I was trying to impose my truth as his/the only truth and intentionally sought to convert him to my way then I would be prosletyzing.

If in the exploration/exposure of any ideas, if he is using unimpaired critical faculties (age appropriate) or his own informed opinion has lead him to his decison. I would respect and embrace him as an individual, period. In turn-- by the things that he was saying (such as he is reading the bible and the contradictions are leading him to questions and there are things he doesn't agree with in the bible and will be going his own way, while at the same time understanding if someone else chooses to follow the bible literally that is their right, just not where he is at.) Then this would not be prosletyzing.

There is a huge difference between sharing ideas and seeking to impose them.

I often read ideas/books that are unlike my own(on purpose) simply to embrace/learn other persepctives, not to assume or conclude to the beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be in an argumentative mood this morning but Plato was wrong. In a society all people require laws to establish a standard codification of behaviour. "Good" people may choose to obey those laws and "bad" people may choose to disobey them, but people do not inherently KNOW the laws of a culture they have to be taught them, and for this to happen the laws must exist.

In Plato's time this was not so much so, as people grew up in a culture learning expectations from birth and generally those expectations were consistent within a culture, but today, as we move from one culture to another, and as cultures break down into sub cultures and individualism,, laws are essential For example, in amsterdam prostituion and drugs may be perfectly legal. In singapore you can be fined for chewing gum. Laws reflect the standards and moralities of a culture, and are used as a tool to show ALL people, good and bad, what that society's expectaions are. I am a good person but if i do not know the laws of a country then I can still get into terrible trouble.

I must be in an argumentative mood this morning but Plato was wrong. In a society all people require laws to establish a standard codification of behaviour. "Good" people may choose to obey those laws and "bad" people may choose to disobey them, but people do not inherently KNOW the laws of a culture they have to be taught them, and for this to happen the laws must exist.

In Plato's time this was not so much so, as people grew up in a culture learning expectations from birth and generally those expectations were consistent within a culture, but today, as we move from one culture to another, and as cultures break down into sub cultures and individualism,, laws are essential For example, in amsterdam prostituion and drugs may be perfectly legal. In singapore you can be fined for chewing gum. Laws reflect the standards and moralities of a culture, and are used as a tool to show ALL people, good and bad, what that society's expectaions are. I am a good person but if i do not know the laws of a country then I can still get into terrible trouble.

I think you bring in a good point MW, I think Plato has a point in his quote though too,...Which is along the lines of what you are saying,

When I read the quote, I read it to mean that as we mature(it is a process one which is learned) our moral ethical nature will too (hopefully) and we will eventually grow to moral integrity of the quote. For me-- this is what I glean from this quote. ( Sort of along the lines of Kohlberg's theory of morality.) Not that Kohlberg is the end all to morality but his ideas have and still serve as a frame to understand the process of moral develpment.

Perhaps Plato was on to something.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps what is meant by this quote has got to do more with the inherent nature of a person than the codification of laws written by the standards of a society. In my view, the laws of a society are artificial constructs that allow us to work together as a unit, but that has nothing to do with the nature of the person within that society. While some will do good because of their nature, other people will invariably do harm and in so doing will find ways to corrupt those laws they do not agree with or can't be bothered to obey, habitually doing so to further their own ends, never with the intent to benefit others.

I would add that sometimes doing good means that we will go against those very same laws, while doing harm means that one will obey those laws. In the end that is the reason why religion does no good, it is a codifier of laws, while God himself seeks those that rather than obey laws seeks to do good and what is right.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal state, according to Plato, philosophers (lovers of wisdom) rule without any restraint except the restraint their own wisdom and compassion forces on them.

This is not too unlike Lenin's vision of an elect party of carefully selected individuals ruling in dictatorial fashion.

This has the benefit that they are actually able to do things without encumbrance. I don't need to go into the dangers -- they are obvious enough from history and the example of a couple of modern nations.

Still, the advantage of this sort of arrangement over the present rule of most countries by the wealthy and their political allies, the lawyers and politicians, or by demagogues, does have its appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal state, according to Plato, philosophers (lovers of wisdom) rule without any restraint except the restraint their own wisdom and compassion forces on them.

This is not too unlike Lenin's vision of an elect party of carefully selected individuals ruling in dictatorial fashion.

This has the benefit that they are actually able to do things without encumbrance. I don't need to go into the dangers -- they are obvious enough from history and the example of a couple of modern nations.

Still, the advantage of this sort of arrangement over the present rule of most countries by the wealthy and their political allies, the lawyers and politicians, or by demagogues, does have its appeal.

But... there is always a but, it is wishful thinking. It is an ideal that cannot truly be brought into reality. As old Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal state, according to Plato, philosophers (lovers of wisdom) rule without any restraint except the restraint their own wisdom and compassion forces on them.

This is not too unlike Lenin's vision of an elect party of carefully selected individuals ruling in dictatorial fashion.

This has the benefit that they are actually able to do things without encumbrance. I don't need to go into the dangers -- they are obvious enough from history and the example of a couple of modern nations.

Still, the advantage of this sort of arrangement over the present rule of most countries by the wealthy and their political allies, the lawyers and politicians, or by demagogues, does have its appeal.

I agree- and I'd add another point which is morailty is cultivated with the help of ones genes, brain,(frontal lobe, amygdala) and enviornmental influences. In other words, the inherent potential comes into being because of these factors too.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.