So is water but no idea what you are trying to get at. There are differences between the two - and this is an important distinction to "get"
I used to think that the right attitude to life and society is "live and let live". I was wrong. There's a very good reason why solitary confinement is a punishment. Can you imagine life in total isolation, without any possibility to discuss with another human being? To understand the central place communication holds in human societies, one only has to look at the multitude of social platforms of all genres on the world wide web, and at the rapid development and improvement of various means to use these platforms. What did you do when you had this idea about the Golden Rule? You communicated it to other human beings. Why? Yes, there are differences. The negative calls for inaction, while the positive calls for action. However, I know from personal experience that sometimes doing to another something you don't like to be done to you can save a life. Again, the rule works as a general guiding principle, not at individual level.
Yes - clearly communication is important ... OK - but what does this have to do with pos/neg differentiation of the GR ? which you get to. . hmmm.. I am having trouble with the relevance of your example - and then throwing out all worth of the GR to the individual on this basis ? Cant make the connection mate - and know there is a fallacy in there some where .. but it is a bit brain twisting .. will give you that .. not as clear as one might suspect ... but trust me .. your example is not so much a factor. It would take a half a page to sort out and I am just not up to it .. .. so prefer if you might see the light.. I see where you are trying to go but this is a bad example - and certainly it does not follow from your example that the Rule never works on an individual basis.
Okay....so just because I have a personal belief that it is better to tell the truth... the Golden Rule says I should not expect honesty from others. So if someone gets subpoenaed, they don't even have to go to court and be sworn in on the Bible anymore. That would be forced behavior. Sounds good to me.
The golden rule does not say you should expect honesty from others - not at all. Your personal belief is irrelevant to the negative perspective - I merely states not to do to others .. what you would not like done to you. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant other than you going out and claiming that you don't care if others harm you so you will do harm to others - and we put these people in asylums. Because your belief in the truth is irrelevant - so is the relevance of your example based on your belief in truth. but - if you don't like others lying to you - a good personal goal would be not to lie to others .. unless it is the Nazi's at the door asking if you have Jews hidden in your basement .. in that case .. lying is just fine. This is good as we are getting closer to understanding the distinction between pos and neg GR.
religious freedom does not give Christians, Muslims, Jews, ect... the right to stone others either.... even if someone is picking up sticks on the weekend Mormons can have religious marriages like that, just not legal ones as the law only allows one religious marriage doesn't mean much today, only the legal marriages are what most people consider real marriage
No......works without faith is dead. You don't get there on your own. Sorry. Even if you follow that GoldenRule, without a doubt, you fall short in other areas.
maybe you will, you can't speak for the rest of us, but don't worry, we all have many lifetimes to grow and learn
Maybe...but I never lie to Trump and he still doesn't get the hint. Honestly? Even if you don't do things to others that you don't want done to you.... you just make it easier for them to crap on you. They don't have to be afraid of retaliation. So they could care less.
No - that is how it works - you are missing something - of course you need be afraid of retaliation "AS PER THE GOLDEN RULE" Have you heard of the double negative creating a positive ... this would be one of those cases. This is not "do unto others and then split" If you don't want others sticking it to you - then don't stick it to others. When you stick it to others - expect to be stuck back - Yin Yang - the balance of Karma .. Let the Force Be with You...
Actually, quite a few Mormons still have multiple wives. I think they're outside of Utah since Utah made polygamy illegal as a condition of becoming a State but I also think the Constitutionality of that law has been questioned. If anybody wants to bring back Aztec they can go right ahead. I think they bust one guy or another for having himself Crucified every Easter. The only major thing to remember is that if the law and your religion conflict you have to change the law first before you disobey it.
That could possibly better be translated humble in spirit or lowly in spirit; the opposite of prideful, arrogant, and lofty.
there is one conflict of religious freedom our government does the Peyote religion, only people of the "right" race can practice that one in the privacy of their own home, if you're the wrong race, it's a major crime
Is your concoction a "better translation" ? -or is this new made up translation attempting to fit the passage into your pre-ordained expectation ? How about we take it as translated - as "Poor in Spirit" The word "Spirit" as uttered by Christ - is not just any old word - and "humble in Spirit" seems a hard fit. Lowly ? --- maybe - at least it is closer to poor. Remember that Jesus was not fond of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law - and so "Poor in Spirit" could mean "poor in Spirit" - someone not high up the religious hierarchy. This is still a guess but at least I am using the phrase "poor in Spirit" as written and not trying to change it. What it could also me is someone who is poor in "Faith" - that could fit as well.
But I already told you that doesn't work.. I will repeat.... If it didn't work for your guy Jesus...then why would you think it could work for anyone else???
What on earth are you talking about "Doesn't work" ? Doesn't work how - because your claim that GR makes it easier for people to crap on you due to lack of fear of retaliation is completely false. What didn't work for Jesus ? Your not making any sense. Jesus was not crucified over the GR - and Jesus is not "my guy" any more than he is "your guy" .
I don't know how much clearer I can get... What good is your golden rule idea if nothing changes for the better? So I have to ask you the same question..."What on earth are you talking about??"
What part of - your previous claims were false - did you not understand ? Following the GR does change things for the better and your "Jesus Example" had nothing to do with following the GR.
It doesn't work... If Jesus following the GR did not change things for the better, how will your following GR be any better>>>??? Then why is your OP based on His Matt 7:12 comments below?
So one of the requirements for freedom is to change the state religion so we can practice our own religion? How did these 'theocratic' laws of the state come into existence in the first place? Where did you dig that up from? It most certainly does in the ME, stoning is a religious right for gross violations of their practiced religion, your daughter whores around the parents have the right to stone her without state intervention. So here we are in 'the land of religious freedom', and you are trying to tell me people from the ME living in america do not have the right to practice and 'exercise' their religion? Looks like a chronic case of doublethink to me. So you agree that the state imposes their religion on the mormons. More like religions outside the state religion arent recognized by the state. So to qualify for a religion 'worship' is required? Which rule book did that come from?
1)You running around crying "it doesn't work" does not make your claim true 2) You running around crying "Jesus followed the GR" but was crucified - does not make your claim true 3) Why you would attempt to divert from rational discussion of the topic and make things personal - I don't know - but - this was also a massive fail on your part What part of this sentence - in short OP - did not sink in. It was not just Jesus that cited this principle - it was many Religious leaders that adopted this rule - along with many secular leaders. Hammurapi's law code contained the Golden Rule - The founding principles are based largely on the Golden Rule. I would say that the US has done pretty well by adopting those principles. So - in summary - all your claims are either false or fallacious.
From what you stated below,,,it doesn't sound all that new....sounds more like making it a religion would be doomed to failure quickly. You're certainly entitled to your opinions...but probably not a good idea to make a religion out of them.
that is not religious freedom, theocracies are evil, that is why Christians that came to America fled theirs no, Mormons can have as many religious marriages as they want, but only one civil marrage religion does not get you extra rights, it's about equal rights under the law regardless what you believe oh, and the stoning people for picking up sticks on the weekend part... that came from the bible here is a crazy quote from the Quran http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV
This subject is far more complex than just a simple do/don't dichotomy. I was left alone with a special needs child with a broken leg. He wasn't able to speak, he couldn't walk, he couldn't do anything at all but sit and watch videos on my phone. He was tired, but I couldn't let him sleep. I hate being deprived of my precious sleep, and I hate doing it to others (especially children, because I know what it does to their brain), but in this case I had to break the Golden Rule. I knew that this child suffered from a particular virulent form of epilepsy, and there was a whole ritual to be performed before sleep to ensure he didn't die. How did I know? His mother told me. See? Communicating with his mother made me do to him what I really hate when it's done to me, to keep him alive. I didn't say the rule never works on an individual basis. I said the Rule is worthless on an individual level without proper communication to make sure that action/inaction pertaining to the Golden Rule wouldn't hurt another. My rules are very simple: listen, understand, don't do to others what they don't like (if possible).
