Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

I would likely agree to all of that (depending on the exact situation), my point was that the moral actions you described above are not the actions demanded by the golden rule. The golden rule doesn't say "do unto others as you want done to you unless you're fighting a certain kind of war", it says "do unto others as you want done to you", and being shot in the leg is not an example of that.

One of my criticisms of the golden rule is that it fails to take into account the goodness of an action as it applies to any other person than the person being done towards. The example of defending an ally points out that the golden rule is wrong in suggesting that the wants of the other person is the only concern. The example of the coat and the puddle points out that it can even be morally justified to benefit oneself over another, if benefiting another is disproportionally bad for oneself. A justified war is another example where the golden rule simply fails to capture the moral worth of the situation.

None of this explains how it relates to the golden rule. You mention that it is a part of Christian doctrine, but the rest of the post lists a bunch of things which I would not have done against me, and therefore was not mandated by the golden rule. The golden rule doesn't include an exception for just wars.

 

There are many political ideas which rely on the veil of ignorance, including some powerful ones, so I don't see that as a problem. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is one expression of the idea.

Its unclear exactly who you're referring to, but it would not surprise me if they're not only willing to listen to the veil of ignorance, but probably already agree with the veil of ignorance. It seems to me contrary to either moral ground to just assume that they would be unreasonable, as you do. Dismissing someone with "nah, they'll probably set me on fire, so I won't bother getting an idea of how their moral logic works" is not what I would do to someone I love as myself.

 

I don't see how they address my point. I would agree that pacifism is unworkable, but the golden rule does not allow for just wars, because they are something I would not want done against me, but I still think can be justified. My conclusion from that is that the golden rule is not true as a rule (although it does happen to be true for some special cases).

 

So it seems when push comes to shove, we reject the golden rule in certain situations. As I have suggested, it seems the best idea is to keep the golden rule in mind, and understand where it comes from, and assess whether to obey it on each occasion.

 

As with any claim like this, Christianity claims to solve it, but I'll believe it when I see it. Islam, Buddhism, Norse traditions, etc. all make claims as such, so it provides no traction of one over another.

 

* Sounds good to me.
* Thanks for the comment.
_______

Regarding Laws & Policies:
We absolutely must have them, but I note that there is
a huge army of lawyers out there, and other sneaky
advisor types, that spend their days figuring out ways
to defeat the spirit and purpose of the `` Laws & Policies,
so their clients can take advantage of the loopholes and
so they the lawyers and advisors can become rich in money.

/just saying



``

 

The Bible teaches that you have to believe it before you see it.
And that if you refuse to believe it before you see it, then you
will never see it.
Hebrews 11:6

Ah yes, comparative religions.
An age old excuse to reject the God that created you.

Here is the good news: You will always win with this.
I mean you will win every single time.
Certain victory is yours. Here on this, you cannot
ever be defeated. Swensson is always victorious.

But here is the bad news: Your victory is a pyrrhic
victory. How so? Answer: Christendom's most
famous Bible verse, John 3:16 presents 2 choices:
{1} Eternal Life
{2} Perish


``

 

JAG Wrote:
There could be 3 choices:
{1} Shoot him in the leg.
{2} Shoot him in the belly.
{3} Don't shoot him anywhere.
On 3 you'd be, just for that moment, with an
enemy soldier in your cross-hairs, laying aside
the regular rules of war, and showing mercy to
a fellow human being. I betcha there has been
a lot of soldiers who did exactly that -- in the long
history of human wars. I hope so anyway.

Swensson Replied:

I understand your point , , , yet
I take a different approach -- the simple uncomplicated
approach, which is to do the best I can amidst a very
bad-awful situation {eg. WAR} knowing that God looks at
one's heart's motive and judges him accordingly.

This is one of the wonderful things about Christianity,
namely that we have a Father who loves us and who
understands our dilemmas and insurmountable
problems and who only expects us to do the best
we can do.{which is all that we can do -- and our Father
knows this}

By the way Christianity offers one the opportunity to
escape the horrors of pure secular intellectualism,
which is a cold-hearted false-friend during the
times of our most severe human problems,
for example Aging and Disease and Death.


``

 

"when push comes to shove"___Swensson
That's an interesting figure of speech.
I live in America.
You live { I think } somewhere in Europe.
I have heard "when push comes to shove" used since I was a child.
I guess its used everywhere English is spoken
{I love words, so I'm interested in figures of speech}

Definition:
when push comes to shove -- "when one must commit oneself to an action or decision"

________

"So it seems when push comes to shove, we reject the
golden rule in certain situations"___Swensson

Regarding the application of the Golden Rule:
Miscellaneous Points:
* a strong emphasis on Intellectualism makes life to complicated.
* the heart's emotion of LOVE is superior to all else
* emotion is where human's actually live their lives
* I mean the good emotions such as Love, Joy, Happiness. Sympathy, Empathy
* the intellect is useful to help us identify our good emotions
* the intellect is an essential part of our being human
* humans have {1} Emotions {2} Intellect {3} Will - Volition ~ all three are absolutely vital
* my opinion: the greatest of these is {1} Emotions because Love is supreme
* "and now these three remain, faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love" 1 Cor. 13:13
* nonetheless, the human intellect is of huge-enormous importance: and has created the
modern world.
Our intellect allows us to:
■ learn from experience
■ adapt to new realities
■ understand and handle abstract concepts
■ manipulate the physical world for the good of mankind
■ produce new inventions
■ solve pressing problems
■ build huge skyscrapers
■ build super highways coast to coast

Nonetheless, none of the above is a substitute for love.
"and now these three remain, faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love" 1 Cor. 13:13

So?
So I personally choose to apply The Golden Rule emotionally and not spend
much time intellectually analyzing it and "picking it apart" with my brain.
That means I would choose either {1) or {3} below

There could be 3 choices:
{1} Shoot him in the leg.
{2} Shoot him in the belly.
{3} Don't shoot him anywhere.
Explanation:
On 3 you'd be, just for that moment, with an
enemy soldier in your cross-hairs, laying aside
the regular rules of war, and showing mercy to
a fellow human being. I betcha there has been
a lot of soldiers who did exactly that -- in the long
history of human wars. I hope so anyway.
____________

The way I feel right now, I'd choose {3}.
i have seen enough killing and hurt in my
life. Anyone who has hurt the way I have
hurt, does not want to inflict more hurt
and pain on anyone.

JAG


``

,

 

I am referring to the irrational highly dangerous Mob that
was [and still is} in the streets of America , , more on
them in a minute ~ ~ ~ ~

* I read that up there carefully.
* I have respect for your views.
* However, me thinks you have not been keeping up
to date with what The Mob has done in the streets of
America in the last few weeks. And The Mob is still
out there. They have calmed down some but they
are still highly dangerous and are subject to being
"ignited again" by anything they perceive to be a
"justified cause" -- and it don't take much to
"set them off" again.

Here is what has happened:

■ rioting in the streets
■ smashing a large number of store windows
■ looting of a large number of stores
■ burning a lot of buildings - arson
■ throwing rocks and trash on police
■ murdering people.
■ assault and battery against innocent people
■ burning cars
■ threats to kill their political opponents
■ lawlessness and public disorder
■ unlawful assembly
■ illegal blocking of highways
■ what they have done has cost billions of dollars in damage
■ throwing homemade "gasoline bombs"

So?
So my view is that if you try to put the "Veil Of Ignorance"
before The Mob, you'd run the serious risk of The Mob
soaking you down with gasoline and throwing a lit match
on you. Or maybe just beating you to death on the spot
and not wasting the gasoline that could be used to set
the next police car on fire.

"but it would not surprise me if they're not only willing to listen
to the veil of ignorance, but probably already agree with the
veil of ignorance"___Swensson

Trust me when I tell you that The Mob would kill you in a flash
if you caught them at the peak of their fury.

JAG






``

 

Yes, an approach different from the golden rule.

My point is not that given that the golden rule says we shouldn't make war, there is no way to justify war. My point is that given that war is sometimes necessary, but not allowed in the golden rule, the golden rule is not a good commandment.

Is that any more wonderful than otherwise? Secular world views do not suggest any metric of morality which expects more of a person than they can do. The secular legal system doesn't expect things of anyone that they cannot do (not to say that the law is morality, they just have a similar view of guilt in this aspect).

 

This is an interesting discussion.
I respectfully disagree.
The Golden Rule {ie the Christian version} was given to men
as we actually are now in our sinful condition.
It was/is designed to help us make the best of a very bad
terrible awful situation that Sin has caused.
To see just how bad merely look at what has happened in
the world in just the last 50 years

Take for example the Rwandan Genocide
500,000 -- 1,000,000 slaughtered and the world
did nothing to stop it
____________________________________________
Start quote.
The Rwandan genocide, also known as the genocide
against the Tutsi,[3] was a mass slaughter of Tutsi, Twa,
and moderate Hutu in Rwanda, which took place between
7 April and 15 July 1994 during the Rwandan Civil War.[2] , , ,

, , ,The scale and brutality of the massacre caused shock
worldwide, but no country intervened to forcefully stop the killings.[7]

Most of the victims were killed in their own villages or towns,
many by their neighbors and fellow villagers.

Hutu gangs searched out victims hiding in churches and
school buildings.

The militia murdered victims with machetes and rifles.[8]

An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed,
about 70% of the country's Tutsi population.[2]

Sexual violence was rife, with an estimated 250,000 to
500,000 women raped during the genocide.[9]

The RPF quickly resumed the civil war once the genocide
started and captured all government territory, ending the
genocide and forcing the government and genocidaires
into Zaire. End quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
___________________________________________

So?
So we have to apply The Golden Rule in a world where
such as the Rwandan Genocide occurred with not a
single nation to rise up to stop it.

Where was the United Nations when the Rwandans were
murdering each other by the hundreds of thousands.

* We live in a political-social manure-hole 21st century.
* Manure-hole means the pure HATE runs deep, thick, and strong.
* Many Republicans despise Democrats.
* Many Democrats despise Republicans.
* Many Conservatives despise Liberals.
* Many Liberals despise Conservatives.
* Nations seek to dominate other nations.
* They seek to steal each other's cyber property eg. China
* The world has to endure the moral horror of the existence of the slave state North Korea.
* We have a huge illegal drugs industry in the world.
* We have widespread human trafficking
* The web says there is an estimated 42,000,000 prostitutes worldwide
* The pure HATRED in threads on the Internet At Large is astounding.
* Most all Social Media uses Banning to try and control the HATRED.

So?
So I'm merely making the point that the Christian version of
The Golden Rule was given to us who live everyday in the
midst of a very bad moral situation and we have to use The
Golden Rule as best we can to make the best of a very bad
situation.

My understanding and application of it does include an exception
for just wars.
I am in a different political camp than is Hillary Clinton, but I DO like
here motto:
"Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as you can."___Hillary Clinton

In other words, apply The Golden Rule as best you can while living in a worldwide moral mess.

JAG

PS
How do you like Hillary's motto? I'd enjoy reading your comments on that.


``

 

I do understand your point.
But , , ,
Let's turn it around.
If war is sometimes necessary.
AND
The Golden Rule does NOT allow war.
AND
The Golden Rule is not a good commandment , , ,
THEN does it follow that we have no moral guide while we are waging a just war?

If we turn it around , ,
The reverse of The Golden Rule is to "NOT do unto others what you would have them do to you"
________

Maybe we need another rule while waging a just war?
The United States Military has The Rules Of Engagement {ROE}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement
This article didn't help much. Said no torture. I knew that much.

I found this:

• Protect those who are not fighting, such as civilians, medical personnel or aid workers.
• Protect those who are no longer able to fight, like an injured soldier or a prisoner.
• Prohibit targeting civilians. Doing so is a war crime.
• Recognize the right of civilians to be protected from the dangers of war and receive the help they need ...Off the web

Scot me up Beamy.


``

 

I wouldn't say that follows, no. All I'm arguing is that your suggestion that there are no caveats or exceptions to the golden rule is not true.

Why would you turn it around? The golden rule often gives good suggestions, just not all the time. The secular world isn't striving to do the opposite to religion, it's striving to do good things, so it has no problems stealing good things when they appear.

There are plenty of rule sets that apply in different situations, and some of which are probably bad and some are good. Geneva conventions, rules of engagement, social contracts, general life advice, norms, laws, moral principles, etc. that we can use in different situations. Wars are only one situation in which the golden rules breaks. There are situations where morality is simply unclear, there are not a lot of undisputed moral truths. Utilitarians, Rawlsians, Kantians, whatever followers of Nozick are called, religious thinkers etc. all come up with ideas, and all of the ideas have issues. Anyone who is convinced of any of these ideas are more likely to be brain washed than to be right.

 

Regarding army of Lawyers
Yes, there are those that seek to profiteer from laws/loopholes, some help redress injustices and others exploit clients. We certainly are a litigation nation and there are trade offs in that... which could easily consume a thread on it’s own. But, inherent in the nature of litigation we see happening are also clues for helping to clarify and better define laws to fit purpose, balancing public interest in laws, identifying areas of regulatory improvement, etc. and their are certainly those laws/regulations that are capricious and selectively applied/enforced. For instance, there are lawyers that mount class action suits to redress damage done to the public by unethical and then there are those that campaign to mount class action suits that sound good, but the average claimant receives a tiny fraction of the damage in their victimization (certainly an imbalanced equation) while on winning such a case, lawyers receive 75%+ of the awards. Often, class action suites are part of an exploitative big businesses strategy that leverage their clients to extort money purely for profit and rarely result in balancing the scales for public interest.
But, it’s not just lawyers, there are those that attempt to weaponize laws to their competitive advantage as well... some L.E. Agencies that look for loopholes in law and the Constitution on witch hunts. Just as an aside, one thing I have noted, there are many private industries that weigh in with lobbyists to influence tax law, in a sense, helping to weaponize it to penalize competition or open new revenue possibilities (think health and energy sectors in this regard). I tend to look at the balance in the equations. I always ask, who benefits? And do the benefits balance regardless of the side of the equation you fall?

There is the old Irish saying... ‘if you judge, are you willing to be judged?’.

 

That was interesting.
I read all that carefully.
You have any opinions on the Round-Up weed/grass killer class action lawsuit?
What was that all about?

"weaponize laws"__An Taibhse
Yeah ain't that the truth!
The Cannibals are out for flesh & bones.
And they do take prisoners -- to "eat" them.

homo homini lupus "Man is a wolf to man"__ Schopenhauer

Politics is war by another name and by other means.

"War is politics by other means"__Clausewitz

Regarding judge not:
________________________________
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
For in the same way you judge others, you
will be judged, and with the measure you
use, it will be measured to you."___Matthew 7:1-2 NIV
____________________________________________

You've probably read/heard that a few million times.


JAG

Scot me up Beamy.


``

 

Okay.
i have a question for you.
Its The Trolley Problem.
The Fat Man Version
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people.
You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you
can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it.
As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your
only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge
and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you
proceed?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man

So what would you do?

__________________________________________

Or we can discuss this version of The Trolley Problem:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks,
there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for
them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you
pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you
notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Original_dilemma
________________________

What would you choose to do?


JAG

Scot me up Beamy.



``

 

* Agreed.
* By the way, I'm reading carefully every word you write.
* If you have any questions, lay them on me. I'll do my best.
* I just discovered you live in the UK.


JAG

Scot me up Beamy.


``

 

I can't find anything like that in the sermon on the mount. In fact the translation I find says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (my underline, source), not "do in things other than war" or "do unless you can further your own interest", or "unless you run a country", it is "in everything". Of course, I too understand and apply exceptions and justifications, it is only Jesus who hasn't caught up. And if there is some unspoken rule that lets us off the hook, what's stopping us from doing it whenever we want, or at least whenever it comes to politics?

Not a lot to say, it's a bit vague.

It echoes a bit of utilitarianism. Who is "all the people you can"? Utilitarianism phrases this as "the largest number of people", the other version doesn't really specify (or rather, seems to suggest that we won't have to make the choice).

It's not clear to me that "good" equates to the golden rule (as per our other posts in this thread).

Also, I'm not quite sure what a motto is ("Nothin', what's the motto with you?"), or in what sense she uses it. As a slogan it's a bit vague (but I guess that's par for the course). It doesn't really make any moral judgements.

 

How is that any more Pyrrhic than your choice to reject Muslim, Hindu, Norse, ancient Greek, Mormon or Scientology ends-of-life?

 

* All I have is offer is to repeat what I said.

* The endless bringing up of comparative religions.
as an excuse or justification to disbelieve in the
God that created you, cannot be defeated. You will
always win this. You cannot possibly lose on this.
I think you are well aware that you cannot be
defeated on this point.

* How could I {or any Christian} even possibly
defeat your "comparative religions defense"?
Answer: We would have to present to you
Empirical evidence that Christianity is true
and that other religions are false.

* This is utterly impossible.
Christianity is a supernatural Faith and not subject
to Empirical investigation so that it can be established
as being true at the certainty-level of 2 + 2 = 4.

Here is what it boils down to:
{1} The Bible teaches that all men know there is a God
that created them. Romans 1: 18-20

(2} The Bible teaches that Christianity is THE one true
Faith.

{3} The Bible teaches that if you believe not on the Lord
Jesus as your Savior, that you will "die in your sins."
John 8:24

{4} If the Bible is true, and if you die as you now are,
you will experience the "perish" of John 3:16

So?

So your "comparative religions defense" against you
believing in the Lord Jesus as your Savior will be a
pyrrhic victory for you -- if the Bible is true. And it is
true.

Christendom's most famous Bible verse,
John 3:16 presents 2 choices:
{1} Eternal Life
{2} Perish

And bringing up other religions' ends {Muslim, Hindu
Norse Ancient Greek Mormon Scientology } does not
get rid of the truth of John 3:16's choice presented to
you: {1} Eternal Life or {2} perish.


``

 

Cool.
I grinned when I read that one.

Miscellaneous Points:
Oh me!
Life doesn't have to be that complicated.
Old Hillary is on to something good up there.
Logic is probably not going to be your Friend in the end.
" Who is all the people you can?"___Swensson
Heh heh, to much mind.
"To much mind."__The Last Samurai
Do you think its possible that you make life to complicated?
Yah. To much mind. We need more Emotionalism.
Life, if its fun, is lived by and on the Emotions.
Yeah! Live Emotionally. Why not?
"Act crazy"__Some righteous dude in touch with his humanity.
Here is another one:
"You may be right. I may be crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're looking for."___Billy Joel ~ ~ lol ~ ~
Back to Old Hillary:
The Old Gal meant to love people and do all you can to help them whenever you can.
She may, or may not, have all her marbles, but she has a good thing going with her motto.
By the way, her motto came out of her Methodism. The Old Gal is a Methodist.
I myself am a Baptist.
You're probably a Humanist?
You might have more fun if you became a Baptist , , , lol , , ,
Or a Methodist.

I try to "loosen up."
"We're only human. We're supposed to make mistakes."___Billy Joel { Second Wind }

~ Aw no.
~ The Lord Jesus is very understanding of the human condition.
~ He forgave prostitutes because they had love in their hearts.
~ The New Testament does not picture the Lord Jesus as one
who is rigid and unbending in His application of rules and
laws.

* It would be the Principle Of Love that would stop us.

* Christianity is based more on Principles than on hard
and fast rules

* On Christianity God, in effect, hands you Principles and
says now go and apply these Principles to life as you
live your life.

*We're living in New Testament times where we live on
Principles --- and not on a list of legalistic rules and laws.

*Sure we have some rules --- but we here in New Testament
times are asked to live our lives "in the spirit" of doing what is
right and good. And not live legalistically.

JAG

Scot me up Beamy.


``

 

Sure it does. It reveals the Special Pleading Fallacy that forms the basis of your use of Pascal's Wager. You say your religion is special, but you provide no valid evidence to back up that claim. Repeating "BECAUSE MY HOLY BOOK SAYS SO!" is not valid evidence, since the holy books of all the other religions say the same thing. Therefore, we conclude that we shouldn't take your religion any more seriously than we take the thousands of other religions.

If someone is hedging their bets, it makes more sense to be an atheist. Odin (or whoever the TrueGod turns out to be) will probably be more angry at those who were worshiping false gods than those who were just ignoring gods.

 

Still unclear. If you truly treated the people in the mob as you would treat yourself (or at least as I would treat myself), you would see different people in the mob, the vast majority of which would be unlikely to kill me.

Regardless, anyone could kill me if I "catch them in a peak of fury", and I don't think that would be an area where your ideas have any particular edge over mine. It seems to me, the standard of relating to a mob is a metric you have waged on me, but haven't done unto yourself.

 

I think failing to apply "intellectualism" when appropriate makes like way more complicated than not applying it. Maybe not directly, and it might not be your life that gets more complicated, but the intellect has one edge over emotion in that the intellect can consider large amounts of people (as you would need it for politics, war, etc.) whereas emotion tends not to be reliable then. I would say a good system is fully consistent with emotion and intellect.

You do pick it apart. We have talked about several situations where you do, you have just done it subconsciously, without the sanity checks that the intellect is capable of. And while you might choose 3, you'll find plenty of people (conveniently, including most soldiers) who might pick 2 (or perhaps even 1). Besides, you're not really getting around the real issue by electing to spare a foe, the golden rule may demand that you even help your foe (and not just in case they get hurt, the golden rule with respect to the foe could even demand that you aid the enemy militarily).

But in the end, this is all my response to:

You mean you believe in The Golden Rule only potentially?

Are there times when you would NOT apply The Golden Rule?

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.
"The Golden Rule" - "So in everything do to others what you
would have them do to you."

I can't even conceive of a situation where anyone would consider
it NOT to be proper to live by The Golden Rule, can you?

I mean can we find even one exception/caveat to The Golden Rule?
Where we could say, 'We do not need to apply The Golden Rule to
this situation?
(source)​

And the answer is yes, there are times when I would not apply the golden rule, I can conceive of a situation when I would consider it not proper, I can find exceptions and caveats, and so can you.