Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
He references Jesus's command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark ), Being a neighbor is not restricted to relation or proximity. Jesus' Teachings: Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. In Jesus' teachings, our relationship with our fellow men, women and children is inseparable . Service to others brings meaning and fulfillment to our lives in a way that wealth, power. In the law of negligence, the neighbour principle enunciated by Lord Atkin in In Caparo, Lord Devlin explained the Hedley Byrne 'special relationship' as being a strict 'neighbour principle' when moral and practical considerations arise.
And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself. They stripped him of his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road. A Jewish Temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but then went on. Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came to an inn, where he nursed him through the night. The next day he handed the innkeeper two twenty-dollar bills and told him to take care of the man.
The Jews of Jesus' society considered the Samaritans to be ceremonially unclean, socially outcast, religious heretics Mays, p. Yet, the Samaritan took pity on the poor man who had been robbed and beaten.
He gave freely of both his time and his money to help this Jewish man who was not only a stranger, but also an enemy from a foreign country. Pray for those who persecute you! In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust too. If you love only those who love you, what good is that?
- 3. I'll Pray
- 2. I'll Ask for Forgiveness and Offer it
Even scoundrels do that much. If you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even the heathen do that. But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. We should not exclude anyone or any group because of social status, a supposed character fault, religious difference, racial difference, ethnic difference, citizenship difference, etc.
Just as He loves all His people and is willing to forgive their sins, we must be willing to forgive others who have done wrong to us: For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Neighbor Quotes - BrainyQuote
Whether between parent and child, spouses, friends, or nations, expressions of anger divide us and drive us toward open hostility. More often than not, our angry feelings are based on a misinterpretation of what someone said or did.
A grudge clouds our judgment and may lead us to an act of revenge that can never be undone. The Old Testament law specified equal revenge for equal wrong: But this rule was too harsh for the new age of the kingdom of God. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said the right thing to do is to take no revenge at all. Forgiveness is necessary to free us from the dark cloud of anger and resentment that can literally destroy our own lives.
We cannot afford to wait for the other person to repent and apologize. Unless we let go of our anger and the desire to punish or get even, the love of God cannot enter our lives. We are not meant to live hard-hearted or self-centered lives. We are called to put our faith into practice and truly love our neighbors, especially those less fortunate.
God has given each of us unique talents and gifts to use in His service. His work for us on earth is to use our gifts and talents in the service of others! Each of us has something to offer to someone in need. We can give our money and our time to charity, be a friend to someone who is sick or lonely, do volunteer work, or be a peacemaker. We may give unselfishly of our time to our spouse, children or parents.
We may choose a service-oriented occupation, or we may just do our everyday jobs with integrity and respect for others. It would seem that the more we give to others, the poorer we become, but just the opposite is true! Service to others brings meaning and fulfillment to our lives in a way that wealth, power, possessions and self-centered pursuits can never match.
As Jesus said, For if you give, you will get! Your gift will return to you in full and overflowing measure, pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, and running over. Measurable variables that increase people's 'sense of community' include high 'degrees of neighbouring' or 'levels of neighbouring activity' e.
The actual practices involved in 'neighbouring' are not always made explicit, although some authors list Likert-type items on their questionnaires to which subjects can respond e. Again, such studies generally rely on large-scale, self-report questionnaire methods to isolate the causes and subjective effects of neighbour noise, aiming to identify which categories of noise cause problems, for which individual type of person, and in what type of dwelling.
Reported physical and psychological effects of neighbour noise include hearing loss, stress, sleep disruption, cognitive deficits and poor physical and mental well-being e. Stokoe and Hepburn observe that in much of this work, noise is treated explicitly or implicitly as a physical thing, with a straightforward meaning, that can be measured scientifically in terms of wavelengths, frequency, decibels, and the like. However, they show how 'noise' is a locally, contingently constructed phenomenon that cannot be separated from its social production and interpretation.
The current paper further develops such an understanding of 'noise' as a situated phenomenon, accounts and descriptions of which cannot be separated from the interactional context in which they are produced. Relevant to this is Gurney's interview-based study of the social construction of 'coital noise', in which he examines people's accounts of and responses to hearing their neighbours' sexual activities.
Gurney's work is an example of a larger body of new constructionist work in psychology, geography and sociology, which examines the discourse of place, space, exclusion, nationhood and boundaries e.
For example, in his study of a New York housing complex, McGahan interviewed residents about their role as neighbours. He devised measures of neighbouring that assessed 'extensiveness' the range of neighbour relationships a person had and 'expressiveness' the level of intimacy in those relationships.
From the participants' responses, McGahan defined the 'good' neighbour as someone who is "friendly, but not a friend', 'willing to chat, but does not intrude on your privacy" p. In Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips and Ogg's investigation of older people's experiences of community change, residents from three towns were interviewed about their neighbourhoods and being a neighbour.
Phillipson et al cite the following definition of a typical neighbour: He, or rather she, was someone who did not expect to spend time in your home or pry into your life, who exchanged a civil word in the street or over the backyard fence, who did not make a great deal of noise, who could supply a drop of vinegar or a pinch of salt if you ran short and who fetched your relatives or the doctor in emergencies.
The good neighbour's role was that of an intermediary, in the direct as well as indirect sense She was the go-between, passing news from one family to another, one household to another. Her role was a communicative, but not intimate, one Townsend, For their participants, talking to someone in the street during the past month, or inviting someone into your house in the past six months, comprised a 'high' level of contact between neighbours. Although much is written about community- and neighbourhood-related topics, there remains remarkably little explication of what it means to be a 'neighbour', or how everyday neighbour relationships are managed although see Laurier et al, Moreover, a key problem with both the questionnaire and interview-based research described is that, while the latter is designed to deal with the 'reductive' problems of the former, both collect decontextualized information and generalize it from the research context to everyday life.
That means that they're studying the categories Members use, to be sure, except at this point they are not investigating their categories by attempting to find them in the activities in which they're employed". This is relevant to wider debates across the social sciences about the status of interviews as a data-gathering resource e. It analyses people interacting with each other and various institutional representatives in which what counts as a neighbour relationship, and what it means to be a 'good' or 'bad' neighbour, are the very issues at hand.
Therefore, this paper aims to gain some insights into a pervasive but under explored feature of social life: Data and Method 2. All participants consented to have their talk recorded and analysed for research purposes.
All names and identifying features of the data have been anonymized. Other sections were further transcribed using Jefferson's system for conversation analysis. The paper takes an ethnomethodological Garfinkel, approach, which involves explicating the 'ethnomethods' that people members use to accomplish their everyday lives.
It focuses particularly on how complaints about neighbours' activities are produced as transgressions or breaches of the unstated normative social and moral order. Thus the neighbour complaints can be treated as everyday examples of what Garfinkel called the "breaching experiment": Although Garfinkel studied artificial breaches e. This is important since neighbouring functions quietly and goes unexplicated when the order of the relationship is respected and maintained: Each extract was considered for what it revealed about normative neighbour relationships and their maintenance, what constituted a breach of those relationships, what counted as being a 'good' or 'bad' neighbour, what sorts of accounts these descriptions were embedded within, and what kinds of institutional and interactional activities were being achieved in their construction.
Analysis and Findings 3. Across the data, the kinds of practices that constitute ordinary that is, smooth-running, as-yet-unbreached neighbour relationships were described by participants in two kinds of narrative accounts: What these accounts have in common is the notion that 'good' neighbour relationships are not intimate relations; rather, they occur at the boundaries of private spaces.
The second section of analysis examines sequences of talk in which the speakers display different kinds of knowledge about their neighbours' intimate lives, as well as the way expectations about what neighbours are likely to know about each other are collaboratively developed between clients and institutional representatives. Finally, we consider several sequences in which the speakers' complaints or crimes turn precisely on the inappropriately public transmission of intimate and personal activities and information.
The normative distance of neighbour relationships 3. The programme is devoted to the topic of neighbour disputes, and in this extract Kilroy is eliciting an account of how problems arose. Good neighbours talk "over the ga: As Stokoe and Wallwork suggest, these practices constitute a relationship that occurs outside, rather than inside, neighbouring homes.
Joan claims that "we never went into one another's hou: Kilroy's response to this information starts with an "Oh", thus treating it as somewhat remarkable and possibly extra to the routine expectancies for 'good neighbours' see Heritage, Thus 'good' neighbour relationships are functional and managed contact; neighbours must be friendly but not too friendly. Extract 1 is an instance of the first environment, in which the audience members describe a trouble-free, pre-dispute period of time in which all parties were 'good neighbours'.
This account does some 'identity work' for the speakers, producing them as the kinds of people who know what it means to be good 'neighbours' and are disposed to be reasonable and act appropriately for members of the category.
The suspect S has been arrested for a public order offence, in this case for abusive, threatening words and behaviour, and the police officer P has invited S to tell her version of events. The combinations of activities 'nattering', dealing with rubbish bins with locations on the front, out in these prepositional phrases display further evidence for the normatively spatial ways of managing neighbour contact at the boundaries of domestic spaces.
C's narrative response takes us back to a pre-dispute time when good neighbourly relations were still being maintained, and, as far as she is concerned, this situation prevails: Note again how neighbour relationships are done accountably through contact at the edges of, or outside, private spaces, something which C orients to in the way she describes 'normal' neighbour relationships: C starts by saying that her neighbour "used to come in at-", but then abandons this, and changes trajectory doing what conversation analysts call a 'self-initiated, self repair'.
What is absent from the restarted description, formulated as a list of activities, is going 'in'. Instead, we hear that she spoke to her neighbour "in the garden" and that the neighbour used to "knock on the do: C completes her 'three-part' list of activities, "an' e: There are two mediators and two clients in this interview, although only M1 and C1 speak here.
Extract 4 is an example of the second environment, although the clients struggle to formulate these descriptions as answers to questions, rather than when producing them in their own scene-setting narratives. So, after the mediator asks, "how would you li: C1 also has some difficulty in characterizing what counts as "no: A return to being 'good neighbours' includes, as we have come to expect, not being "in each other's pockets", "little conversa: Finally, M formulates the upshot of this description, "jus' get back to being good nei: Knowledge displays in neighbour complaints 3.
Extract 5 comes from the same mediation interview that was introduced at the start of this paper, in which the clients are complaining about their neighbours' noise. In addition to 'noisy sex' reported earlier, the clients are recounting a further complainable incident. On the one hand, gardens are legitimate sites for neighbours to interact with each other, 'over the fence' see Extracts 134. On the other, while fences are locations for interaction, they also function to maintain the normative privacy and distance of neighbour relationships.
The clients articulate a set of normative rules and appropriate activities for gardens: Additionally, it is complainable to talk in clear earshot about personal finances and problems. Thus their neighbours should understand about the different symbolic functions of fences, and their permeability, and adapt their behaviour accordingly.
If the rules are not observed, then neighbours can get to know such information as each other's financial situation. However, note way C1 and C2 construct their complaint: C is doing a counter-complaint: M's question does not include an orientation to the possibility that this might not be known of e.Love Your Family - Moral Values For Kids - Moral Stories For Children HD
However, C's response lineswhich turns out to be an account for not knowing the child's precise age, rather than an answer, is epistemologically weaker than M's question. It is produced after a pause, prefaced by "uh:: M receipts this information, but adds no more, and after a gap C produces the 'answer': We might speculate that although people display some knowledge of each other's private family lives, showing that you know lots of detail risks being hearably 'nosy'.
The caller C is complaining about her threatening and abusive neighbour.
In this sequence, C has just told M that the problems only arise when her own partner is away. M's question, "hhh an- an is she alone next door. Note that the second part of C's answer supplies the category 'husband', which is one of a handful of potentially relevant categories 'partner', 'boyfriend', 'fella', etc. C continues after answering, displaying more knowledge about her neighbour who has "had two:: C's knowledge that her neighbour is having quite a few:: So while neighbours might be expected to know ages of children, and marital status, they might not know about tenancy status.
However, C confirms that her neighbours own their house. This question and answer sequence is relevant to the institutional nature of local authority environmental health, which only deals with private tenants and owner-occupiers.
A further interesting feature is the way C, in response to E's question about the regularity of the loud music, reports her 'thought experiments' about the possible reasons for it: So, on the basis of noises heard, people can speculate about their neighbours' family situation.
Neighbors Quotes (79 quotes)
They can move from 'factual' reportings to inference, which may be incorrectly deduced. This is a routine method for complaint-building, as we can see in Extract 9.
It comes from a mediation session in which four clients are complaining about a female neighbour and her children. Here, C1 is producing another 'complainable': Her complaint turns on a set of norms for appropriate family and neighbourly living: C3 ratifies this observation, although C1 states that she "hadn't actually" noticed.
C2's next turn establishes his basis for knowing this 'fact', but at the same time attends to and deletes the possibility that his knowledge results from excessive 'looking' or nosiness: So C2, in the course of engaging in the routine activity of going to the toilet in the night and notice how he formulates this as a generalized, what-anyone-would-do activitycan notice lights blazing without looking deliberately; it is dark outside, so lights are noticeable.
Finally, C2 moves from 'factual' observation to speculation "I've got a fee: It comes from the mediation session introduced in Extract 3and here C is countering her neighbour's complaint with one of her own. In a series of direct reported claims and counter claims i.
Because m- my partner's in pri: Thus the neighbour's complaint is based on the inappropriate overhearing of sex noise, and C undermines the veracity of the complaint by asserting alternative 'facts' of the matter. The final section of the paper focuses on the inappropriately public transmission of intimate, personal and private activities, details and information between neighbours as a basis for complaint.
Public intimacy in neighbour relationships 3. The clients' complaint is about the noisy children who live next door, with their widowed mother. In this sequence, C1 produces an account of further complainable noises, this time produced by 'Mum' herself. Although C1 does not specify the "activity", it is clear from the locational and other category work that sexual noise and activity is implied "boyfriends", "bedroom". C2 adds further descriptive detail, understandable as tied to the category 'sexual activity': This is complainable because walls are, normatively, the boundaries between two private spaces.
They are barriers, not devices for communication or connection. Note that neither the clients nor the mediators use any direct sexual reference terms, although they do not have any trouble understanding each other. As we have seen, speakers will attend to the potential noxious inferences that can be made about their own identities when engaged in complaining; here, 'good', 'moral' people, who are passive victims of their 'bad' neighbours' activities, do not use particular kinds of language, and do not discuss particular topics, in formal company.
For the adults, the effects are further broken down into the consequences if heard occasionally "you can have a chuckle" compared with regular occurrences "it really gets on your nerves".
Thus the clients are types of people who are disposed to find these noises amusing and reasonable if the people who produce them do so reasonably and infrequently. Otherwise, their reported reaction is one of irritation and complaint.
However, the reported effects on their daughter, whose bedroom wall is the crucial wall in question linesare different: The clients then use their entitlement as incumbents of the category 'parents' to report a further effect of this noise: The issue is whether the suspect is intentionally 'exposing himself' to his neighbours or is entitled to be naked in his own living room.
The neighbours have taken photographs as evidence for the first version; the suspect says he has a skin condition that requires the frequent removal of his clothes and application of a medical cream. The police officer has been quoting from the female neighbour's statement, who has said she found the suspect's behaviour to be "aggressive and disgusting.
However, these are not straightforward dichotomies.
First, the female neighbour's version, as constructed in her statement and voiced by P1, is that S has exposed himself "in his wi: Although she does not explicitly state that S's actions are deliberate, the attribution of agency is clear: S has 'exposed himself', and not accidentally.
In addition to her own disgust, his actions are cause for concern for the "welfare: S does not produce a lexical response to this report, and P2 recruits the witness's claim about her neighbours' welfare to ask whether, "if we went to see other neighbours d'you think- 0.
P2 therefore puts to S a version of his behaviour that constructs its regularity: This is interesting, because while P2's formulation of S's exposure orients to its carelessness as in our very first example in the Introductionit does not attribute malicious or criminal intent. S's counter builds on the notion of carelessness, rather than malevolence; but even his carelessness is irreproachable: S's account is that he has a smoky fire, and so needs to keep the curtains open to let the smoke out of the window.