What's so bad about it? It's in several religions, not just Christianity. I don't want to start an argument, but I can't understand what's wrong with it.
And no dissing other people's religions. Everything has something of value to teach us, even if we do not agree completely with it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm not sure how I feel about this myself.
A potential argument would be that people are different. How I want people to treat me can vary pretty drastically from how they want to be treated.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Yep, for example a suicidal person would be obliged to kill others, according to the rule. Also, there is the matter of punishment.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think the Golden Rule is a beautiful ideal. I just find it extremely difficult to carry out with people who show significant signs that they're not going to do unto me as I do unto them, no matter what I, um, do.
I prefer a credo more like "Treat others with respect, up until they show their unworthiness of that respect." I'm sure I don't always live up to that one, either, but I'm working on it.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Perhaps my opinion is just reflective of my background, but I like the Hillel story: One of his students asked Rabbi Hillel to teach him the Torah while the student stood on one foot. Watching the student hop around to keep his balance, the Rabbi said [something to the effect of], "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary."
That's basically how I feel about it. It's a good place to start, but it needs some commentary to make it work. As I interpret it, the spirit of the Golden Rule is, you don't want to suffer, neither does anyone else, so try very hard to not inflict suffering on anyone else. That's the philosophy I try to live by. Difficulties come from human failings (I have a temper, etc) and conflict between immediate suffering vs. long term good (forcing someone to go to school when they are having a really bad time is an easy example).
The wording of the Golden Rule is problematic for me. Just as a totally unimportant example, when I worked at a grocery store, policy required me to greet each customer and ask if they needed help with anything. Now, when I shop for groceries, I want everyone to ignore me untill I'm at the head of the checkout line unless I specifically go up to an employee and ask for something. If I had "do[ne] unto others as [I] would have them do untio [me]", not only would I have been fired, but I would have frustrated some of those exhaustingly cheerful and interactive customers (you know who you are ) and would probably have missed being able to make some people's grocery trip quicker and easier. A simple and relatively inconsequential example, this, but it translates.
So how do you reword the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them?" No, doesn't work. The Golden Rule is a failed attempt to make doing the Right Thing easy and simple, when the fact is, the Right Thing will hardly ever be clear enough to apply such a general statement to. I agree with the sentiment, which is similar to the Hippocratic oath ("do no harm"), but not with how it is expressed.
(Sidenote:
quote:Everything has something of value to teach us, even if we do not agree completely with it.
I disagree. But I will not go into it here.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: I agree with the sentiment, which is similar to the Hippocratic oath ("do no harm"), but not with how it is expressed.
derail I was just looking this up the other day and the Hippocratic Oath is actually much more complicated than that, and so outdated that almost no one takes it anymore. /derail
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Oh well. Analogy failure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leah, that is NOT what Hillel said. He said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."
Which is actually quite a different thing.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I was just sharing it because I found it interesting when I found it out. Not trying to ruin your analogy.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Treat others with respect, up until they show their unworthiness of that respect."
That's aweful. Really. I think treat everyone with as much respect as possible is generaly a better rule than either of the ones proposed.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Curses! Bad analogy AND misquoting!
Rivka, I don't think it's that different. If you look back at my post you'll notice my bracketed commet, which I put in because I was fairly sure that I WAS misquoting. I feel that the same problem applies to the correct wording. If you don't think that, why?
(Or are you saying that he didn't add the part about the rest of the Torah being commentary?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's also important to note that the original formulation of the golden rule given in Leviticus, far predating Hillel, and then echoed by Christ in each of the Synoptic Gospels as the greatest commandments, was not "do unto others..." or "do not do to your fellow" but "love your neighbor as yourself":
quote:Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I believe in loving God through loving other people and showing compassion and understanding. Except sometimes, people do not deserve compassion, but how can you be compassionate towards them anyway? I distresses me the way compassion in some circles is seen as a weakness.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I've always thought of the golden rule, not so much as a rule, but as a handy item to consult in certain dilemmas.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I believe in the Golden Rule. Don't see how you could get into too much problem, unless you were real extremist.
I tend to love God by trying to help others and many times just spend time with God in the ways that I know how.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rivka, I don't think it's that different.
It's ENORMOUSLY different. If I'm supposed to do to you what I want you to do to me, I'm imposing a tyranny of what is to me desirable behavior, but which might be odious to you.
If I choose not to do to you that which is hateful to me, I'm not forcing anything on you; I'm simply not engaging in behavior that I would find abhorrent if it were done to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Rivka, I don't think it's that different. If you look back at my post you'll notice my bracketed commet, which I put in because I was fairly sure that I WAS misquoting. I feel that the same problem applies to the correct wording. If you don't think that, why?
(Or are you saying that he didn't add the part about the rest of the Torah being commentary?)
I saw your brackets. But I do feel that the negative version does avoid many of the problems of the (often misquoted) positive version. It is far less likely to be a problem to avoid doing something than to actively DO something, neh? (While I was away from the computer, it looks like Tom made much the same point. Only more coherently.)
As far as V'ahavta (the verse in Leviticus), what it really means, and how it differs both from Hillel's statement and from the usual understanding of the Golden Rule, books and books have been written on the topic. I'm a bit too tired to write one of my own at the moment, though.
Oh, I will add one thing in response to your parenthetical comment. Certainly Hillel did say that. But you left out a key part, "v'ani Hashem" -- "and I am God." Which was in both v'ahavta and in Hillel's version.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Their is a method, treating others as you need to in order to get what you want or need from them and not treating at all with those who have nothing you require or desire. This is sensible, so contrast it to the Golden Rule as an exercise.
From what I understand of historical attitudes and non Christian attitudes of today, treating strangers as equals, brothers, (though mockery and scorn may be heaped on that notion even as the notion of Christ as a brother of man and still God seems laughable to those that need God to be the Stern judgmental Father) is a big step forward. (Even as Eye for an Eye was a mercy in its day)
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: (Even as Eye for an Eye was a mercy in its day)
It was? Or do you mean that the decision to interpret it as "'the money the eye was worth' for an eye" was a mercy?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: (Even as Eye for an Eye was a mercy in its day)
It was? Or do you mean that the decision to interpret it as "'the money the eye was worth' for an eye" was a mercy?
Eye for an eye actually was mercy back then. The ways before that, well...the victim's family would go kill all of the offender's family...
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It was not a "decision." It is what it has always meant.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If two people interact according to the Golden Rule then they will quickly establish what each expects from the other, I do not think it will be considered too odious given that each will be acting in good faith.
After all there is a large segment of the population at least in the Midwest that likes to be left alone and leave others alone as a courtesy. Seems pretty decent to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I interpret the (A) "don't do to others that which you would find hateful" as a subset of (B) "do unto others that which you would have them do unto you."
If we could draw the Venn diagram of the relationship between the two, I think the bubble for A would be entirely inside the larger bubble for B.
I also think that many people interpret B to mean A, but at least the English translation of it really isn't the same. One possibility worth exploring, of course, is to not take it out of context either of the surrounding text or of Jesus' message overall. Another possible resolution would be to review the historical and cultural contexts of "The Golden Rule" and realize that it is generally viewed by everyone to be a call to "good behavior" and kindness toward ones fellow man.
That would seem to me to bar the absurd extremes like a suicidal person justifying killing other people because he wishes someone would return the favor as an example of "the Golden Rule."
I think it is very much one of those cultural things that people intuitively understand, but don't really think about specifically...or, sadly, use as an actual guideline to their behavior.
For example, it'd be awfully difficult to justify war under the general kind of understanding most people have of the golden rule. I imagine under the more restrictive negative version of it, one could easily justify war, but not what we generally would agree are war crimes.
Ultimately, though, either one is just a platitude, and I daresay most people do not consistently gauge their behavior against either A or B.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It was not a "decision." It is what it has always meant.
I don't believe that the Oral Torah is direct words from God and all that. Actually I don't believe the Written Torah is from God so קל וחומר the Torah Shebe'al Pe. Therefore the way I see it, yes, it was a decision.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. Where do the instructions of how to make tefillin come from?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What's so bad about it? It's in several religions, not just Christianity. I don't want to start an argument, but I can't understand what's wrong with it.
And no dissing other people's religions. Everything has something of value to teach us, even if we do not agree completely with it.
The first three words are what's wrong with it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dupont.
edit: oops, that was to rivka.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I think the Golden Rule is a beautiful ideal.
Why?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Curses! Bad analogy AND misquoting!
Rivka, I don't think it's that different. If you look back at my post you'll notice my bracketed commet, which I put in because I was fairly sure that I WAS misquoting. I feel that the same problem applies to the correct wording. If you don't think that, why?
(Or are you saying that he didn't add the part about the rest of the Torah being commentary?)
As Rivka pointed out, there's a huge difference between telling people to do unto others and telling people not to do something to others. But aside from that, the "the rest is commentary" is a bad translation. Granted, you didn't translate it, and it's completely understandable that you'd quote it, since it's very common to see it written that way, but the actual Aramaic is "and the rest is the explanation". A very big difference in nuance, because "the rest is commentary" implies that the rest is relatively unimportant, whereas the correct meaning is that the rest is the explanation, and that you can't understand what "what is hateful to you, don't do to your fellow" means without the rest of the Torah.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Dupont.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok. Where do the instructions of how to make tefillin come from?
Not everyone agrees on how to make tefillin - hence Rashi vs Rabeinu Tam.
To answer your question: "וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" Is a practice which has been developed over years of the existence of Jews as a people. Whether the verse or the practice came first I don't presume to know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You are aware that the differences between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam tefillin are very, very small? And I'm not talking about the command to wear them, which is clearly (as you cited) in Torah she'bichtav. Three times, actually.
I am talking about their construction. The method is alluded to in the Torah she'bichtav, but never specified. (It says, "these instructions with which I command you today.") For that, He had to give oral instructions.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Three? I thought two. Now you've got me curious. Or are you taking "ukshartam l'ot" and "v'hayu l'totafot" as two separate mentions?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok. Where do the instructions of how to make tefillin come from?
Not everyone agrees on how to make tefillin - hence Rashi vs Rabeinu Tam.
To answer your question: "וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" Is a practice which has been developed over years of the existence of Jews as a people. Whether the verse or the practice came first I don't presume to know.
I'm just curious... since 200 years ago, all Jews thought that the verse preceded the practice, what is your basis for doubting it? I'm not saying that I can prove to you that the verse came first... it just seems to me that when someone turns around and says "no", they ought to have some reason for it. I mean other than a general unwillingness to accept Jewish tradition.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Three? I thought two. Now you've got me curious. Or are you taking "ukshartam l'ot" and "v'hayu l'totafot" as two separate mentions?
Uh . . . I am ashamed to admit I don't remember. I was taught (I think), three.
Now I have to go look 'em up. Give me a bit.
[Edit:]
Ok. Shmos 13:9 and 13:16, Devarim 6:8, and Devarim 11:18. I suppose you could count that as four, except the first two are the beginning and end of a single coherent section.
(Two things doing this pointed out. Boruch Hashem for the internet, and I really need to get a Korkodancia. Maybe I'll ask for one for Chanuka.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok. Where do the instructions of how to make tefillin come from?
Not everyone agrees on how to make tefillin - hence Rashi vs Rabeinu Tam.
To answer your question: "וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" Is a practice which has been developed over years of the existence of Jews as a people. Whether the verse or the practice came first I don't presume to know.
Tefillin?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
How do we understand God when he speaks to us, if he speaks to us?
That is a serious question. My faith, both personal and expressed, puts great importance on the uncertainty of God, and thus the need to avoid the self-righteousness of certainty.
I also believe in Hans Küng's view of the Global Ethic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Oh, blast! It has all the verses right there. Should've checked that.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The positive expression commands charity; the negative expression does not. The positive expression commands helping the beaten stranger on the road; the negative does not.
As a one-sentence summary, both forms of the rule are going to fail to properly guide in particular situations.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree with Dag.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
(Oh, blast! It has all the verses right there. Should've checked that.)
Oh Those were mentioned in a Cham Potok book I like.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"love your neighbor as yourself"
I think this is a better way of putting the Golden Rule.
And the only real problem I see with it is that it is difficult to follow.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok. Where do the instructions of how to make tefillin come from?
Not everyone agrees on how to make tefillin - hence Rashi vs Rabeinu Tam.
To answer your question: "וקשרתם לאות על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך" Is a practice which has been developed over years of the existence of Jews as a people. Whether the verse or the practice came first I don't presume to know.
I'm just curious... since 200 years ago, all Jews thought that the verse preceded the practice, what is your basis for doubting it? I'm not saying that I can prove to you that the verse came first... it just seems to me that when someone turns around and says "no", they ought to have some reason for it. I mean other than a general unwillingness to accept Jewish tradition.
I'm not saying "no." I'm saying "I don't know." Two distinct, separate statements.
I am hardly the first to believe that the Torah was written over the span of many years by humans. I don't believe that matters, though. What matters is that halakha has been the basis of our culture for thousands of years, and it is irrelevant if it came from God or not. halakha is moral, and gives life a structure. On the other hand, I've abandoned halakha, although I am currently sitting with bava kamma daf kaf-chet ammud alef in my lap right now. I don't believe the two contradict each other.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote:
I also believe in Hans Küng's view of the Global Ethic.
Which we all know by heart. I personally disagree with it, and thing he could have formulated his main thesis better, though he did use some good examples.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I prefer King Kung's view.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of Fay Wray?
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Oddly enough, I agree. 'night!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, are you in the States now?
*checks profile* Ah, midnight for you. 'Night!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If we give up on love (doing good to others) and have only fairness (not doing bad), we'll at best have a fair world, but it won't have love in it. I wouldn't call that an improvement.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Treat others with respect, up until they show their unworthiness of that respect."
That's aweful. Really. I think treat everyone with as much respect as possible is generaly a better rule than either of the ones proposed.
As pleased as I am to fill you with awe , it would be a lot more helpful if you'd give some statement as to why.
If I go up to someone and say, "Hello, I'm so-and-so, pleased to meet you," and they respond with "Like I give an <expletive>, go <expletive> yourself, buddy!"... I can probably reasonably assume that that person isn't worth my respect, let alone "as much respect as possible". Now, they might be having a bad day. There might be extenuating circumstances. But realistically, in day-to-day life, there are enough people worth my respect and energy that I don't really feel a need or a desire to prostrate myself to the ones who clearly don't.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why?
If everyone on Earth were to follow such an ideal, many of humankind's problems would immediately vanish.
Not all, necessarily. As has been pointed out, if my wish for myself is to be ritually sacrificed so as to become one with the Sun God Akure, it would probably be best if I didn't do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.
But on a more basic level, if we were to feed the hungry because we'd want to be fed if we were hungry, and so on, a tremendous amount of strife could be overcome.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The positive expression commands charity; the negative expression does not. The positive expression commands helping the beaten stranger on the road; the negative does not.
As a one-sentence summary, both forms of the rule are going to fail to properly guide in particular situations.
The positive expression also commands the Inquisition and the auto de fe.
Better a rule that doesn't command such things, and additional rules that command charity and the like.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why?
If everyone on Earth were to follow such an ideal, many of humankind's problems would immediately vanish.
Not all, necessarily. As has been pointed out, if my wish for myself is to be ritually sacrificed so as to become one with the Sun God Akure, it would probably be best if I didn't do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.
But on a more basic level, if we were to feed the hungry because we'd want to be fed if we were hungry, and so on, a tremendous amount of strife could be overcome.
I disagree. The whole concept of "doing unto" people is the single biggest source of strife in the world.
I'm beginning to understand what's happened here. Y'all got rid of the law, including all of the laws requiring charitable kindness, so you sort of needed to change the original version of the golden rule to the positive formulation to make up for it. But that formulation is inherently dangerous, as history has shown over and over and over again. I guess getting rid of the law was a Bad Idea.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The positive expression also commands the Inquisition and the auto de fe.
Better a rule that doesn't command such things, and additional rules that command charity and the like.
No, it doesn't.
quote:I disagree. The whole concept of "doing unto" people is the single biggest source of strife in the world.
I'm beginning to understand what's happened here. Y'all got rid of the law, including all of the laws requiring charitable kindness, so you sort of needed to change the original version of the golden rule to the positive formulation to make up for it. But that formulation is inherently dangerous, as history has shown over and over and over again. I guess getting rid of the law was a Bad Idea.
Well, the people following the Law were pretty damn brutal to the people trying to follow the new one for quite a few years, so it's clearly not something unique to Christianity.
And the "original formulation" was actually "Love your neighbor as yourself" - a positive formulation with a command to do something, every bit as open to misinterpretation. The one composed by Hillel that you've been quoting was what, 50 BC? That's not original compared to Leviticus.
In fact, "do not do that which is hateful" is also open to the same abuse. If someone would hate to not be sacrificed to the sun god, then the negative formulation seems to command doing something as well.
By the way, do you think a person being stoned for adultery, or certain homosexual acts, doesn't find the being stoned hateful? It's pretty clear to me that there's plenty of room in your "Law" for "doing unto others."
So drop the attitude.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Being kind to other people is dangerous? Wow.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why?
If everyone on Earth were to follow such an ideal, many of humankind's problems would immediately vanish.
Not all, necessarily. As has been pointed out, if my wish for myself is to be ritually sacrificed so as to become one with the Sun God Akure, it would probably be best if I didn't do unto others as I'd have them do unto me.
But on a more basic level, if we were to feed the hungry because we'd want to be fed if we were hungry, and so on, a tremendous amount of strife could be overcome.
I disagree. The whole concept of "doing unto" people is the single biggest source of strife in the world.
I'm beginning to understand what's happened here. Y'all got rid of the law, including all of the laws requiring charitable kindness, so you sort of needed to change the original version of the golden rule to the positive formulation to make up for it. But that formulation is inherently dangerous, as history has shown over and over and over again. I guess getting rid of the law was a Bad Idea.
I don't see how this is the fault of the law. People seem to have some innate "We most dominate and torture and fight anyone who is different than us, anyone who doesn't agree with our point of view" thing. Perhaps it is a case of people believing in compassion and kindness to their OWN people and not to anyone else. Or, perhaps there is just an element of cruelty in people and this rule has absolutely nothing to do with it. It seems to at least try to defuse things so that a handful of people follow it to the letter and believe firmly in making the world better and not just being hierarchal (Sp) bullies who shove people aside and crush them instead of helping them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Being kind to other people is dangerous? Wow.
I said doing unto others is dangerous. Are you going to pretend that I said being kind is dangerous, or are you going to address what I said, and not some strawman?
Let me make that a little more clear. When we say there's an obligation to give to the poor, we're clear about it. That clarity means that you can't fulfill the obligation by burning them until they confess their heresy. Not even if we might think that doing so will save them an eternity of hellfire and damnation.
But "do unto others", detached from the law it condenses, can, and has been, used for exactly that.
There's a reason why when Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow", he added, "That's the whole Torah; the rest explains it." Because even the negative version, which is less dangerous by far than the positive one, is still either meaninglessly vague or dangerously vague, without that explanation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I go up to someone and say, "Hello, I'm so-and-so, pleased to meet you," and they respond with "Like I give an <expletive>, go <expletive> yourself, buddy!"... I can probably reasonably assume that that person isn't worth my respect, let alone "as much respect as possible".
I don't think you can reasonably assume that - because I think a person's worth is not determined by the way they act or the respect they show you. If it were, a great many teenage children would be worth pretty little to their parents.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If I go up to someone and say, "Hello, I'm so-and-so, pleased to meet you," and they respond with "Like I give an <expletive>, go <expletive> yourself, buddy!"... I can probably reasonably assume that that person isn't worth my respect, let alone "as much respect as possible".
I don't think you can reasonably assume that - because I think a person's worth is not determined by the way they act or the respect they show you. If it were, a great many teenage children would be worth pretty little to their parents.
The example I stated would apply to someone one had no other experience with, more than one's own kin. I think a parent would probably assume their child was deserving of respect even if their behavior wasn't in and of itself respectful, reasoning that attitudes of teenage rebellion were part of a growing process, the net result of which would be someone who was both respectful (within reason) and worthy of respect. They would have all the other years of their raising from which to recognize their child's potential.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I disagree. The whole concept of "doing unto" people is the single biggest source of strife in the world.
And I would argue that if you're burning people as heretics or blowing them up with bombs, you're probably fooling yourself that you're following the Golden Rule. I sincerely doubt that most of the Inquisition, if it ever bothered to take a moment of introspection, would actually say, "You know, if I was accused of heresy, I'd want someone to disjoint my arms and legs on the rack until I issued a false confession."
History strongly suggests to me that the Inquisition was far more in love with power than God. A common enough failing among the religious. (Which is not an indictment of the relgious. One can easily substitute "far more in love with power than... The public good, or one's fellow human, or what have you, and it will still be a common failing.)
G.K. Chesterton is quoted as saying "Christianity hasn't failed. It's never been tried." Arguably the infamous deeds of those associated with many religions can be attributed at least as much to attempts to overlook or evade their laws as to follow them.
And, yes, we can get into a whole "my religious doctrine is better than your religious doctrine" shouting match, but given that it's kind of juvenile, not to mention likely to get the topic locked, is there any way we can skip it? I think there's enough breadth to the topic that it isn't really necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There's a reason why when Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow", he added, "That's the whole Torah; the rest explains it." Because even the negative version, which is less dangerous by far than the positive one, is still either meaninglessly vague or dangerously vague, without that explanation.
So it would be nice if you stopped assuming that we don't happen to have more than a little additional explanation to go along with ours.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote:
There's a reason why when Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow", he added, "That's the whole Torah; the rest explains it." Because even the negative version, which is less dangerous by far than the positive one, is still either meaninglessly vague or dangerously vague, without that explanation.
And there's a reason that Shamai said something completely different.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Will B: [qb] Being kind to other people is dangerous? Wow.
I said doing unto others is dangerous. Are you going to pretend that I said being kind is dangerous, or are you going to address what I said, and not some strawman?
But you are addresing a strawman, Lisa.
quote: Let me make that a little more clear. When we say there's an obligation to give to the poor, we're clear about it. That clarity means that you can't fulfill the obligation by burning them until they confess their heresy. Not even if we might think that doing so will save them an eternity of hellfire and damnation.
And, Lisa, the exhortation to "give" to the poor is not derivable from the "negative" version of the golden rule -- at least not from the language alone, divorced from historical and cultural context.
So, your point about this law being not enough is equally true for all the platitudes.
So...attacking the platitude alone, as you've been doing is rather pointless.
People have been pointing to it as a "good rule" not because the words themselves are so profound, but because they have a certain understanding of what is meant by them, and it is good.
quote: But "do unto others", detached from the law it condenses, can, and has been, used for exactly that.
You say it has, but others have pointed out that this is where you are misreading things, attacking strawmen, and discribing your own idiosyncratic take on Christianity rather than the reality of the historical and cultural record. IF anyone ever said that (and, sure you can probably find an instance or two of someone having said just about any stupid thing), it was not official Christian theology or philosophy.
AND...if there was a period in which "THE CHURCH" (i.e., the Catholic Church, or "Christianity" in general had adopting this viewpoint (and I simply say, prove it...) then it is clearly NOT part of the philosophy now.
quote:There's a reason why when Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow", he added, "That's the whole Torah; the rest explains it." Because even the negative version, which is less dangerous by far than the positive one, is still either meaninglessly vague or dangerously vague, without that explanation.
Riiiiiiiight...and yet you attack the positive statement without considering history or context.
[ November 24, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto:
quote:
There's a reason why when Hillel said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow", he added, "That's the whole Torah; the rest explains it." Because even the negative version, which is less dangerous by far than the positive one, is still either meaninglessly vague or dangerously vague, without that explanation.
And there's a reason that Shamai said something completely different.
Do tell. What'd he say? I'm sure you can tell us, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do tell. What'd he say? I'm sure you can tell us, right?
I'm sure Phanto can do a better job at this than you've been doing talking about Christianity.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Um, Lisa, my people never followed the Law nor did most of the ancestors of posters here. We didn't get rid of it, we never had it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"But realistically"
Realism is your problem. Morality is not a way in which people realistically behave, it is a way in which they strive to behave.
In the Episcopal Church, other Anglican churches and probably some other Churches as well, the congregation confesses its sins. Not as individuals, but as a group
quote: Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against thee in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone. We have not loved thee with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
The idea being that everyone in the congregation has been guilty of all of these offenses in the past week. Because, of course, they have.
That doesn't make it right, however.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
So nobody gets to do onto others until the Jewish Messiah shows up, then we all must bend knee to a global emperor and worldwide fascist regime enforcing ancient Jewish laws about clothing, eating and soaking alters with the blood of innocent creatures? At least we have that to look forward to as a guide to ethical behavior...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow. There have been some ridiculous misrepresentations in this thread. But that one takes the cake.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Thanks!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, tone down that sort of thing. And that goes for Lisa as well. No dissing other people's religion and no snarkiness allowed.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Will B: [qb] Being kind to other people is dangerous? Wow.
I said doing unto others is dangerous. Are you going to pretend that I said being kind is dangerous, or are you going to address what I said, and not some strawman?
But you are addresing a strawman, Lisa.
Indeed.
The Golden Rule tells us to be kind. This is not a bad thing. It's possible to interpret "be kind" as "don't be kind," but that doesn't mean that "be kind" is a bad rule.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I always think that compassion in a lot of societies and culture is looked down upon and considered a weakness. I never understand why that is. There's such an undercurrent of pure cruelty that is almost universal, especially when it comes to families and children which is in some ways worse than being cruel to so called outsiders.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I have always thought that the focus of Behavioral Psychology should be the simple miracle and aberration of altruism.
What I mean is that the violence and hate and greed are more obviously natural behavior then self sacrifice, generosity and love. It is clear that the more complex software is goodness, evil comes out of the box.
Our fore fathers saw this as man striving from a common fallen state toward redemption. Psychology threw that baby out with the bathwater...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, it didn't...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...which forefathers are you referring to there?
And, my Ph.D. is in Experimental Psychology from a school with a strong Behavioral tradition. Allow me to say that your take on the science of Psychology is blazingly inaccurate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As opposed to his take on everything else . . .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah...well, I almost compared it to how inaccurate his take on Judaism is, and then I realized that I probably hadn't enough knowledge of Judaism myself to judge just how terribly wrong he is. I just know that he is. With Psychology, I can, with some effort that's probably not worth it, explain in detail what is wrong with the assessment.
But...as I said, not worth it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think a good place to start when it comes to examining the Golden Rule is to examine actions and words of the man who inspired the phrase.
And I always liked that Jesus' 2 greatest commandments were interlinked,
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
General Sax, though I am sure you mean well, and perhaps you are aware of this but simply find yourself forgetting it, you really ought to tone your comments down. Those who disagree with you gain nothing by being prodded by inflammatory language. Indeed you do them all a huge disservice by your conduct. I'm reminded of a wise man whose son was a deviant sinner, who said in a letter to his son,
"Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the people; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words." (words edited for slight clairity)
and from proverbs (I love the book)
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Far from me to call you a fool, but please make a concerted effort with us to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect, where the merits of people's arguments are discussed intelligently and with good intent.
I would expect others to insist I do the same were I to be guilty of creating ill feelings.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The irony that is being missed here is that my thread was locked not for my posts but for those of Lisa, I saw her position here and thought it might be a good place to reflect her vitriol back at her so she could see her own face.
When David danced before the returning ark his wife thought that his loss of dignity reflected on her and her son Solomon. I can bear being a fool for riotousness.
Once again Bob thinks he knows what he is talking about, lets all watch the show...
Mankind is a Brotherhood in Christ, who does not want to lift up his brother? "He ain't heavy he is my brother!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The irony that is being missed here is that my thread was locked not for my posts but for those of Lisa
Don't kid yourself. I doubt Lisa's posts would have been enough to get it locked alone if the thread hadn't started out so offensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can bear being a fool for riotousness.
But can you bear being a jerk?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although I am hardly a Lisa fan, she doesn't usually go off the deep end of insult like that. A less offensive starting post would probably have avoided the whole 'delusional' tangent that led to the lock.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
GS:
You just don't seem to be able to help posting things that are offensive and inflammatory. You were actually doing better, IMO, but that thread you started had the following flaws from an objective perspecive:
1) The original title -- if it had been a joke, you might've gotten away with it, but it was clear from your initial post that it wasn't intended in any sort of light-hearted manner, but a serious statement of your convictions.
2) You did tone down your language there, but you never did go back and edit the first post. It wasn't exactly a TOS violation (and I and at least one other person said so right there in the thread). But that doesn't mean it was inoffensive. I and at least a couple of other people asked you to tone it down. You were doing okay. So...sure, at that point maybe the thread had a chance of not getting locked, except...
3) You have been here long enough to know when things are inflammatory. You have also been here long enough to know what the result of inflammatory language is going to be. It quickly leads others into a flame war that is just not tolerated here for long. So...if your goal was to start a thread that was inevitably going to be locked, your first post, unedited, and unapologetic, was sufficient.
4) Lisa rose to your bait. She does that. Her posts were the obvious reason that the post ultimately was locked, but claiming that she caused it and you bear no responsibility is more than a little bit dishonest.
As for me acting like I "know what I'm talking about" and putting on a show, I think you mistake my reason for posting. I personally wish you would just leave Hatrack. I think you are a destructive influence here. But it's not up to me and I will do nothing to either make you stay or in an attemp to make you leave. But, as long as you are here, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you (or anyone else) from being more destructive of the place than I feel is tolerable. Plain and simple, spreading falsehoods as if they are facts is destructive. Being deliberately inflammatory is destructive. Mocking tones are not a substitute for discussion.
You have a choice. Sooner or later it is going to cease being fun for you to just come in here and push buttons and see how far you can stretch the rules. I'm sure you get a big chuckle out of getting people to react to you.
Your choice is the same one that everyone has here (or anywhere else for that matter). To contribute, destroy, or simply be a bystander. The joys of destruction are manifestly less satisfying than the joys of contributing. It really seemed like you were beginning to "get it."
Take a look at your effectiveness here, GS. You don't encourage meaningful discussion. You don't amuse. You don't inform. You state opinion as if it were fact, and you state falsehoods in ignorance. What happens when you do this is people stop discussing whatever the topic was and start discussing you.
And I'm sure that's what gives you joy here, because you can't seem to stop doing it.
But you are destructive, not constructive.
And you will stop...eventually. I hope you stop it soon. Because that would mean you had become a contributing member of this society rather than someone who's main influence is negative.
You're capable of it. I've seen it...even in the later posts in that latest thread that ended up locked.
And the fact that you are capable of better just makes your frequent slide into inflammatory falsehoods just that much more unbearable.
Enough of a "show" for you?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Look! Bob jump up and down! Funny man...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Look! Bob jump up and down! Funny man...
???
I'm not jumping up and down, I'm attempting to appeal to you to become an adult potential contributor to a place I care about.
If that doesn't appeal to you, perhaps you should rethink your reasons for being here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
General Sax for the sake of accuracy,
quote:When David danced before the returning ark his wife thought that his loss of dignity reflected on her and her son Solomon. I can bear being a fool for riotousness.
It was actually Michal Saul's daughter who was the woman in this story you recounted. Bathsheba was the wife who bore Solomon, but a different woman altogether, as you are probably aware, David had quite a few wives.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Thank you for correcting that, I recall that story from memory and I have always pictured little Solomon for that son, it is nice to know he did not ever look down on his dad...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Do tell. What'd he say? I'm sure you can tell us, right?
I'm sure Phanto can do a better job at this than you've been doing talking about Christianity.
Um... I highly doubt it. Since Shammai didn't say something else.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The irony that is being missed here is that my thread was locked not for my posts but for those of Lisa,
In point of fact, the thread was locked before I ever saw it. Then Papa Janitor saw fit to unlock it. It was locked again when he found out that some people weren't willing to accept your nastiness without returning it.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: When David danced before the returning ark his wife thought that his loss of dignity reflected on her and her son Solomon.
You really need to learn some more Bible, General.
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I can bear being a fool for riotousness.
I'd say that's one of the more appropriate typos I've ever seen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um... I highly doubt it. Since Shammai didn't say something else.
That would mean you're both flat out wrong, then.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Um... I highly doubt it. Since Shammai didn't say something else.
That would mean you're both flat out wrong, then.
In your opinion. It does show, however, that you're pretty quick to jump to conclusions yourself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I would seem Belial has daughters as well as sons.
GS: Perhaps I misunderstand your mindset, but from what I have seen you are a reasonable person if leveled with, though you are not without a defensiveness.
Please consider that you as a member of this forum can certainly be of value to us as a community. Though we have limited exposure to you, certainly there are subjects upon which you are knowledgeable, if not very well versed. Even if that is not the case apparently you have found something of value in Mr. Cards literary contributions, and that is something all of us within this forum share.
I hate the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" because honestly if you think about the lyrics its about some guy and some girl who have nothing in common except they both liked a certain movie. At the risk of getting somebody bent out of shape
WHOOPDEE DOO!
But even if you have only read Ender's Game and sought out this community for a chance to interact with those who also love this book, I think we as a community have something of value for you, I know I have gained immensely from exposure to the people on these forums, I find myself emotionally commited to this forum. I read comics and think, "I bet Dagonee would enjoy this one, perhaps Ill find it online and link it for him."
I might think, "That is interesting, I wonder if Lisa and Rivka could explain to me what Jews think of the Apocrypha."
I actually had a dream where King of Men lectured me on a tenant of my faith, and why it made no sense.
It appears to me that as of late you have rubbed a few folks on this forum the wrong way, and were this an average group of people I might believe that there was no salvaging your reputation. That anything you say in the future will simply be disregarded as worthless.
Luckily for you this is not the case as I honestly believe this forum has a greater capacity to forgive impropriety on a members part then the average group of people.
Ender's Game Spoiler Alert*
Hey we all forgave Ender for committing Xenocide, we can do no less for you
Please seriously consider Bob's advice if you cannot take mine seriously, Bob has been posting for quite some time and I assure you he has posted some very worthwhile posts in the past.
I am inviting you to join our community, consider that invitation, and I hope you will also consider posting in the future as a man amongst friends, for if a man cannot treat his friends well, how much worse then will he treat strangers?
I echo what Bob said however, if you cannot find it within yourself to post without being intentionally aggressive or mean spirited, you might consider finding another forum that will tolerate such behavior. Hatrack, though forgiving, does not want to put up with repeat offenders.
Thank you for considering my words.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I might think, "That is interesting, I wonder if Lisa and Rivka could explain to me what Jews think of the Apocrypha."
Depends on the book.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
The only Golden Rule I know is actually in algebra..."Do unto one side what thoust do to the other."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Blackblade, I totally hate that song too.
And the snarky attacks towards people's religion with very little knowledge of their religion are extremely annoying. Even though I am neither Christian or Jewish, I just don't like people attacking things when they don't have clear facts or rudeness. There are better ways to make a point.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The irony that is being missed here is that my thread was locked not for my posts but for those of Lisa, I saw her position here and thought it might be a good place to reflect her vitriol back at her so she could see her own face.
So you're being a jerk because of something as trivial as that? Are you six or something?
If they locked one thread, you can either create a new one and try to go a different way with it or you can drop the subject. Or just do as Bob suggested, reconsider why you want to be a part of this community.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I hate the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" because honestly if you think about the lyrics its about some guy and some girl who have nothing in common except they both liked a certain movie.
You know that's the point of the song, right? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I hate the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" because honestly if you think about the lyrics its about some guy and some girl who have nothing in common except they both liked a certain movie.
You know that's the point of the song, right?
Doesnt' matter because it's such an annoying song. it's so... Cheerful and poppy sounding. Bleah Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I hate the song, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" because honestly if you think about the lyrics its about some guy and some girl who have nothing in common except they both liked a certain movie.
You know that's the point of the song, right?
Yes. And that's why it's dreadful.
Alt Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I feel the same way about "Sweet Home Alabama" now that I know it was a response to songs by Neil Young that were critical of the south, and that none of the guys in the band that wrote the song are from Alabama.
But then again apparently neither side took the criticisms seriously, so why should I?
Either way the song is ruined for me now that I actually listened to the lyrics.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I decided to snag the 100th post, because that's what I would've wanted you all to do.
Oh... wait...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel the same way about "Sweet Home Alabama" now that I know it was a response to songs by Neil Young that were critical of the south, and that none of the guys in the band that wrote the song are from Alabama.
But then again apparently neither side took the criticisms seriously, so why should I?
Either way the song is ruined for me now that I actually listened to the lyrics.
I don't like that song either, but I make it a point to dislike a lot of songs that people like just ot be irratating. Hotel California comes to mind.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and would probably have missed being able to make some people's grocery trip quicker and easier. A simple and relatively inconsequential example, this, but it translates. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I will not go into it here.)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
, it would be a lot more helpful if you'd give some statement as to why.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)