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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. There have been some ridiculous misrepresentations in this thread. But that one takes the cake.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, tone down that sort of thing. And that goes for Lisa as well. No dissing other people's religion and no snarkiness allowed.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
The only Golden Rule I know is actually in algebra..."Do unto one side what thoust do to the other."
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
