Clearly what we have is not cutting it - in general Religion does not effecting social change in good ways the way it used to - and in the present sometimes it acts in increasingly negative ways. Not talking about what religion may have - or may have not done - in the past .. .but what it is effecting in the present. I say we need something new .. My new Religion is going to be - just follow the Golden Rule - at the Top of the Pyramid. Since most every religion has this principle - I welcome all faiths to join my new Religions "Group" Note - I messed up on the poll question .. should have been a "Yes I want to Join Option" .. so we can assume all who don't answer the poll are default Yes !!
Matt 7:12 - Do unto others - lest they take a bat to your head. The rule that "Sums up the Law and the Prophets" Numerous restatements of this rule can be found in the Sermon on da Mount .. Matt 5-7.
The first best thing people can do about religion is get it right, understand what religion is in the first place. Religions become cultures as the spread, I doubt there is any argument on that point. It has been shown that a God is not a requirement for a moral set/beliefs governing ones personal actions to be a religion. This notion religion requires a God and anything without a God is not a religion is an extremely narrow agenda based rather than a reality based assessment. This is why Secular Humanism is a religion. In a broader and far more appropriate sense to the realities of life the ancients had it right, it was for all intents and purposes self government with the caveat 'your self governance (religion) shalt not injure or damage another', which in the end is exactly what it appears you are alluding to.
I found some applicable commentary to your "golden rule as a religion" idea..... "The golden rule" I. The righteous rule of conduct here laid down. 1. In order to the performance of this duty there must be a sameness of circumstances. There is a diversity in the station and character of men; this requires diversity of duty towards them. 2. We must carefully observe the measure by which we are to regulate our conduct towards others. It is not what they actually do, but what we would desire they should do, which is to be our rule. 3. This rule must be taken with certain modifications, not absolutely; we might wish others to do things unreasonable and sinful; it must recognize the law of God. https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/7-12.html The comments above seem to reflect your own attitude as stated below..... I believe there is another biblical concept that may be better suited as a helpful common belief system than "Golden Rule". Can you guess which one?
One of the interesting things about the Golden rule is that it represents a happy meeting between Religion and Secularism. Almost every religion has this rule - and the founding principles are also based on this rule.
Hmmm - on the contrary I think there is a misunderstanding of the rule ... "we might wish other to do things" - has no bearing on the rule. The rule is not about what we wish others to do - but regulates conduct of what the individual does. The rule - "Don't do to others what you hate" - makes no reference to wishing others to do unreasonable and sinful things - the comment is not about "The other" .. it is about the speaker - to mind your own actions and not mess with lives of others. For example - in relation to law on the basis of religious belief. This is not a call to compel others to obey religious belief - as seems to be suggested by the above commentary. The rule - properly applied - "If you don't want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through Law - don't do this to others - "Say by voting yes in a referendum banning Pot" - or some other activity that you happen not to like. I can not guess which one Do tell.
Thanks for reply. Me thinks perhaps this one might be more effective. Matt 7:5 "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
yeh the last thing anyone wants is 'self governance', thats why we elect people to control us, its their job!
The problem you are dealing with is that beliefs concerning your actions or inactions, also the constructs of morals is your religion, regardless of the attached ism. 'ism's' only describe the nature of the religion, and in an of itself is not the religion. isms are nothing more than philosophical hypothesis until you act on that hypothesis, that is one of several key distinctions denoting a religion.
That is the Golden Rule silly !! it is one of the many restatements of the rule in the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5-7. Read that Sermon - and you need not read anything else - to be a follower of Christ- should that be your desire. Judge not lest you be Judged, Love Neighbor as self, Let ye who is without sin cast the first rock, Blessed are the Merciful -For they will be shown Mercy Blessed are the Peacemakers - For they shall be called the Children of God. "Blessed are the poor in spirit - For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" - ponder that one por favor. Warping back into secularism .. basis for the social contract - construct by which "we the people" give authority to Gov't - Classical Liberalism. If we make a contract you and I - that if you will agree not to kill me or my family - then i will do likewise - then one has what is referred to as a "Moral Obligation" to uphold your end of the bargain. and once again we arrive at the Golden Rule - If you don't want others harming you - then do not do this to others. It is for "Protection from Harm" - direct harm - one person on another "rape, murder, theft" that we authorize Gov'ts the power to punish. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
Maybe...perhaps...I can see no valid reason to argue your interpretation. Your way seems to state..... "if everyone just obeys the damn rules".....there would be no problems. It too easily allows the tendency to point fingers...which is exactly what's happening in politics today and everywhere else. That's part of the problem, not the solution. On the other hand.... if every single person would focus only on their own iniquities, short-comings, prejudices, bullheadedness and know-it-all narcissistic behavior...perhaps there is still a chance for survival. Hence the wisdom of this verse...."First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
I see the golden rule as perhaps being handy, but not nearly good enough as some sort of overall guide. The reason is that it has a gigantic hole in it. All the time we see in US politics the results of people believing that we as individuals would not expect better treatment. Therefore the situations in which others find themselves can be ignored - by the golden rule!! We think that if WE committed murder, we would expect to be killed - so capital punishment is justified. But, that has nothing at all to do with the reason that capital punishment is wrong. We think that WE could simply find adequate employment, that WE could pay for healthcare, that WE would get along just fine with no mutually supportive systems, so removing our social safetynet is fully justified by the golden rule. And, I'll note that this is certainly NOT hypothetical, as it IS a major political opinion today. This can easily be exacerbated by even just a little bit of racism. We seem to think that policing of minority communities can include treatment that NO other community would accept - because, they are minorities. That they should expect that treatment as "they" are failing to somehow be just like "us". How do we apply the golden rule to Flint, Michigan where the brains of children were poisoned with the knowledge of officials who had the ability and responsibility to make a difference? How come the problems with their water supply are STILL not resolved? In general, humans do a very bad job of thinking about what these situations would be like were we to find ourselves in those situations. And, that is especially true when caring actually costs money. I would claim that the golden rule provides no effective remedy for this problem that is played out throughout American history.
Very wise verse - as are the others in the family. My position however is not "if everyone just obeys the damn rules" - there would be no problems. - there is a fallacy there somewhere .. w/r to who makes the rules.. The idea here is to have a common agreement - among each other - and with Gov't - that "Essential Liberty" is sacrosanct - "Above" The legitimate authority of Gov't. Here you must distinguish between A) Essential Liberty and B) the Legitimate Authority of Gov't which is protection from harm - direct harm - one person on another rape - murder - Theft. . One is not the other - We all agree on basic violations of code of conduct w/r to B - sans those we put in institutions. - that is the legit authority of Gov't .. Punish away - but let the Punishment fit the crime .. Rule of Law - Golden Rule but what about A ?? .. Clearly Gov't is allowed to restrict essential liberty -but on what basis. I leave it here saying only that the Golden rule guides one through the process of coming up with a valid structure and basis for Law.
So, you would advocate eliminating the SEC, the patent office (along with copyrights), freedom from pollution of air and water unless the emission can be direcly connected to the particular case, the FDA, etc., etc.? Do you have any clue concerning what the situation was before we instituted the laws on hese issues so widely and strongly supported by not just the people, but by corporations? Or, are you thinking of something else?
You noticed the fallacy, but didn't quite spelled it out. I don't know if it's the same problem I see, so here's my opinion. Isn't the right to be treated as I like, not as someone else likes or imagine I'd like, an Essential Liberty too? I think the most important thing is communication, not rules. Listen to your neighbor, understand your neighbor. Don't automatically do unto him, listen to him first. Maybe he doesn't like what you'd like to be done to you. There's nothing I hate more than being forced to accept - and fake gratitude for - things I don't like done unto me with the best of intentions. The Golden Rule sounds good in theory, but it only works in a very general sense, not at individual level. I agree with you that this rule should guide governments, not relationships between individuals.
yep, religion used to be the government, now we have secular governments which allow religious freedom for all religions, which is not possible in a theocracy
its a fantasy. Lets see if these guys have freedom of religion in america! many Aztec citizens went willingly to the sacrificial altar. To give your heart to Huitzilopochtli was a tremendous honor and a guaranteed ticket to a blessed afterlife fighting in the sun god’s army against the forces of darkness. Hell the mormons cant even have 2 wives in the land of freedom of religion
We should first point out that there are two forms of the golden rule. "Treat others as you would be treated" "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you" Do you see the difference - one is positive w/r to action the other is negative. One is a "Do" the other is a "Don't do" Notice your comment only applies to the positive form - and not the negative. The negative form works on an individual level - If you don't want others telling you what to do - then don't do this to others w/r to law.
What if those laws are unjust? People change....everything changes....it's difficult enough to enforce rules we have now. Maybe one of the first steps might be to get people to understand the importance of telling the truth. How about starting at the top of this government.
The negative doesn't seem to me fundamentally different. I still think that communication is the most important element in human societies.
?? how does this relate to the Golden Rule ? I just posted how the Golden rule states how we should not force personal belief on others through law. How do you get from there to - creation of more law ? Somehow you have things reversed.
