Can God be moral?

[Fool]

It is often stated by religious people that objective morality comes from God (Biblical), but is it really possible for him to be moral under his own rules?

Simply using the Bible as example, but as far as I know it is the same for Islam in this case.

Im going to use this text as basis for this (If they are wrong, let me know and explain why they are):

The Ten Commandments

Moses received the Ten Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai, written on two stone tablets. They assert the uniqueness of God, and forbid such things as theft, adultery, murder and lying. The Ten Commandments are equally important in Jewish and Christian traditions and appear in the Old Testament in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Various Christian and Jewish traditions have different wordings for the Ten Commandments. They can be numbered differently. They appear in various forms in the Bible. This is a Christian version:

• I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

My question or issue is whether a person or God in this case can be said to be moral consistent, unless they themself can uphold their own moral rules.

If I tell you that it is morally wrong to steal and I punish you for doing so, but then decide to steal something myself, would you consider me to be morally justified since I made the rule?

Same can be asked about God, "Thou shalt not kill" yet we know that God kills and orders the killing of many people in favour of the Jews. So does God's objective moralities applies to him as well, as they do to me in the above example or not?

Despite him being the creator of everything, objective morality is rules decided by God to be true and therefore arguably part of his nature. But is it possible for someone, God or human to be moral, if they can't uphold their own moral standards?

I want you to take into consideration that, simply because you create or is seen as the caretaker of something, does that mean that you are not morally responsible for said creation? By caretaker I mean, let's imagine you own a dog and it have puppies, and you are morally against killing puppies, are you then not morally obligated to treat all puppies according to your own moral rules, if you want to stay morally coherent, under the concept of objective morality?

If not, God must obviously follow subjective moral ideas and therefore objective morality is likely to be an illusion applied to us by God as if they were, and therefore seen more as divine laws, which God himself apparently doesn't seem a need to uphold himself. Wouldn't that make God immoral, under the general human understanding of morality?

Because I would argue, that a person can't be morally consistent, if they can't uphold their own moral standards. For instant most people will agree that under most circumstances stealing is wrong, yet most people have probably stolen something at some point that they weren't legally entitled to. (Doesn't have to be anything major) But still this would be considered morally inconsistent in my opinion, if we claim that stealing is objectively wrong.

So can God be moral? And if so why?

love is the highest morality

 

[Nimos]

Objectively measurable: whether a supermajority above 80% of the adult population in a given nation and time agrees on the law in question as valuable.

Those are each non-subjective pieces.

Each part is objective:
fixed shared common genome,
measurable whether of above 80% of the adult population in any given country and time would agree on the rule (which would be only sometimes ever measured, but we don't have to measure all instances of something in the world to determine the fixed characteristics of that thing... )

So the inference is pretty straightforward. If you can find a time period where a particular law in question isn't valued by the specified large majority, then you'd have shown that particular law isn't in that class. I'm merely pointing out we can pretty much be sure there are some laws in that class, such as "Do no murder" or "Do not steal".

While I can't be absolutely sure the moon is still in orbit...I can be reasonably sure that it is, based on many instances.

Ergo, a lot of instances, without any exceptions, is about as much proof as anything can get.

I don't as such disagree with you on this, as I also think I pointed out in the last post, that we do share some of these, just that they are within a group which we belong to.

But I think one has to be careful in where or what reason one will assign for this. I can't remember if it was to you or someone else, that I said that I believed that the reason for this is best explained through natural processes.

And the reason I say this, is obviously because I believe in evolution and if im not mistaken I believe you agreed with that? (sorry its difficult to remember who exactly said what ) But I think we can agree that the idea of morality is extremely complex, regardless of religious background, if it weren't, there would be no discussion

But it requires a lot of abstract thinking and looking at the evolutionary path of humans from now all the way back to our common ancestor, it is not easy, if even possible to pinpoint exactly when we are dealing with the first homo sapien, so it is a process over a long period of time. But I don't think that our ability to do abstract thinking when going all the way back would have been like it is today, because its way too complicated. So I would guess, that the first and most primitive signs of morality, would be along the line of sharing, you share food with me, I share with you. It's a fairly straightforward, but yet simple idea to understand, but involve the ability to tell right from wrong. And arguable for a species like humans, I would assume that those that was best at sharing and helping each other, would have less internal conflicts, create strong bonds through trust and would probably also start to rely more on each other and these collaborations on other things. As generations went by and our brain and experiences expanded, I think its rather logically to imagine how morality would as well. And we see this in animals as well, they help each other kill preys and they share the food, some more than others, but the main idea behind it, seem to be the same, this occur in everything from dolphins, wolves to some birds etc. But given their brains, they might never develop it any further.

Then we have questions like, why don't we just kill or eat our children by default? And most animals, if not all seem to not do this either, not sure if there are some that do. But to me this seems to fall into the category of instincts, like us jumping when someone surprise us or whatever. And in some cases we can overcome them, if we get pressured or convinced enough, it seems that we will still kill our own children, I think it would require a lot more to eat ones children, but we know that humans, at least have eaten other humans, so it might be possible.

So to me, this is probably as close as we can come to saying that something is objectively wrong, but I don't think I would categorise it as a moral issue, but again as instincts. Because I think one have to be careful when talking about morality that it doesn't turn ridiculous, which for instant I think Sam Harris does when he argue for it. Like him asking the question, if it wouldn't be objectively wrong "to poke the eyes out of a child for no reason and feed it to their parents" or something similar. You can make a moral argument that people can't disagree with, if one just throw enough horrible and weird stuff on it simply to make a point. That is why I tend to stick to things that are at least documented as having actually happened. I hope you agree with that, because otherwise the whole debate gets ridiculous.

To me, I think it is a reasonable case, that morality is something that we have evolved and is constantly developed, because we are not identical and our experiences, environments, beliefs etc aint either.
And it have been like that from the beginning, starting with primitive moral issues, which slowly have developed into more complex ones and we have dealt with them differently, and therefore we see such a huge range of things that humans have justified, but also why there are so many similarities. But it is a natural process and not something that is objectively decided by some outside force.

 

[Nimos]

love is the highest morality

What about jealousy, couldn't that be argued to be a subset of love and we know what can happen when people get jealous?

 

[halbhh]

but I don't think I would categorise it as a moral issue, but again as instincts.

Interesting. Is that a renaming? -- We do have instincts which we can notice are generally beneficial.........

So, What is 'moral'? Perhaps defining the word would help?

To me, the basic definition I tend to always be using follows.

Moral: "whatever objectively benefits* human in general life together, * -- as shown by resulting in better results of kinds that we together generally* value, *--for any/all cultures, times or places"

e.g.:
having enough food,
having peace/safety
and any other such such generally/universally valued human outcomes

Which, even when we don't yet know every instance that belongs to this class, nevertheless exists even before we discover all of it.

 

[Nimos]

Interesting. Is that a renaming? -- We do have instincts which we can notice are generally beneficial.........

I don't know in all honesty and it is a good question. I think one might be able to make a case both way, I unfortunately don't know enough about single cell life forms or very primitive lifeforms to answer that, so will have to examine that first.

But looking at the definition of instincts:
1 : an act or course of action in response to a stimulus that is automatic rather than learned It's a cat's instinct to hunt. 2 : a way of knowing something without learning or thinking about it Her instincts told her to wait. 3 : a natural ability He has an instinct for making money.

I think morality is learned and that we confuse some with instincts. But whether the instincts of not eating one's own offspring is true in primitive life forms or whether that is something that is also "learned" in whatever sense a primitive cell can learn, I don't know. But should I guess, and will have to see if I can figure it out, I would assume that it is an instinct. And if its learned, it might be some of the first morality that exists.

To me, the basic definition I tend to always be using follows.

Moral: "whatever objectively benefits* human in general life together, * -- as shown by resulting in better results of kinds that we together generally* value, *--for any/all cultures, times or places"

I would simply go with the standard definition, because otherwise I think you mix to much into the definition which are covered by other more precis definition or you leave things out:

Moral
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

Because its also a moral issue, whether its right or wrong to burn a cat alive. Which is not covered by your definition.

 

[halbhh]

I don't know in all honesty and it is a good question. I think one might be able to make a case both way, I unfortunately don't know enough about single cell life forms or very primitive lifeforms to answer that, so will have to examine that first.

But looking at the definition of instincts:
1 : an act or course of action in response to a stimulus that is automatic rather than learned It's a cat's instinct to hunt. 2 : a way of knowing something without learning or thinking about it Her instincts told her to wait. 3 : a natural ability He has an instinct for making money.

I think morality is learned and that we confuse some with instincts. But whether the instincts of not eating one's own offspring is true in primitive life forms or whether that is something that is also "learned" in whatever sense a primitive cell can learn, I don't know. But should I guess, and will have to see if I can figure it out, I would assume that it is an instinct. And if its learned, it might be some of the first morality that exists.


I would simply go with the standard definition, because otherwise I think you mix to much into the definition which are covered by other more precis definition or you leave things out:

Moral
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

Because its also a moral issue, whether its right or wrong to burn a cat alive. Which is not covered by your definition.

Well, we can agree that for many people, they think of 'morals' as only learned.

But they are only partly right. Some are instincts. The other morals (not instinct) are in learning to hold back/refrain from certain wrong actions.

Not to get off too far into another topic, but the old classic idea of the main difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' world views (at least according to Thomas Sowell) is that conservatives think we naturally tend to do wrongs, and liberals think we mostly only learn to do wrongs. So, conservatives, according to Sowell, think our human nature tends to push us to do wrongful actions (at least at times), and liberals think we don't have any such tendency to do such wrongs naturally, but instead only do evils when we learn to do them.

So, liberals think our human nature is generally good (pushes us towards good, like mutual affection, peace, cooperation, etc.), and doesn't really have impulses innate in it to commit evil actions like assaults.

 

[Nimos]

Not to get off too far into another topic, but the old classic idea of the main difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' world views (at least according to Thomas Sowell) is that conservatives think we naturally tend to do wrongs, and liberals think we mostly only learn to do wrongs. So, conservatives, according to Sowell, think our human nature tends to push us to do wrongful actions (at least at times), and liberals think we don't have any such tendency to do such wrongs naturally, but instead only do evils when we learn to do them.

So, liberals think our human nature is generally good (pushes us towards good, like mutual affection, peace, cooperation, etc.), and doesn't really have impulses innate in it to commit evil actions like assaults.

I don't really know a lot about this or If he (Thomas Sowell) meant it only in that regard. Because I wouldn't personally explain it like that when it comes to what we are talking about.

I don't believe in Good and Evil in that sense, which is probably easy to guess given our talk

I would probably explain it, more in terms of survival, as I believe that this is ultimately what drive us, obviously there are exceptions to this, if people suffer enough they might prefer to die. But also modern humans, we are not as driven by this as we used to, but when the situation begs for it, it is basically the only thing that matters, how we can stay alive and save those we care about.

So when we say that humans tends to do what is natural good, I agree, in the sense that we do what we believe give us the best chance of making it and we know that humans manage best when we are around other humans that can take care of us and can help us etc. because it increases our chance of making it. Exactly like you said peace, going to war have the risk of losing, so in most cases we will prefer peace I think.

The evil sides of people are simply one of the ways we express ourselves, if you believe you have been treated wrong, someone mistreated one you knew or something, you might want revenge, psychological issues such as jealousy, hate, anger etc. So to me, I would probably just say that "evil" is just an expression of humans emotions, feelings and needs, no different than love, caring and joy is. We just categorize some of these as evil and others as good, and they can influence our behaviour and what decision we make.

 

[halbhh]

I don't really know a lot about this or If he (Thomas Sowell) meant it only in that regard. Because I wouldn't personally explain it like that when it comes to what we are talking about.

I don't believe in Good and Evil in that sense, which is probably easy to guess given our talk

I would probably explain it, more in terms of survival, as I believe that this is ultimately what drive us, obviously there are exceptions to this, if people suffer enough they might prefer to die. But also modern humans, we are not as driven by this as we used to, but when the situation begs for it, it is basically the only thing that matters, how we can stay alive and save those we care about.

So when we say that humans tends to do what is natural good, I agree, in the sense that we do what we believe give us the best chance of making it and we know that humans manage best when we are around other humans that can take care of us and can help us etc. because it increases our chance of making it. Exactly like you said peace, going to war have the risk of losing, so in most cases we will prefer peace I think.

The evil sides of people are simply one of the ways we express ourselves, if you believe you have been treated wrong, someone mistreated one you knew or something, you might want revenge, psychological issues such as jealousy, hate, anger etc. So to me, I would probably just say that "evil" is just an expression of humans emotions, feelings and needs, no different than love, caring and joy is. We just categorize some of these as evil and others as good, and they can influence our behaviour and what decision we make.

Well, something might not seem 'good' or 'evil' until it happens to you personally, I'd expect. Then you could get a more definite conclusion about whether it is merely a cultural idea that the thing is 'good' or 'bad'.

You'd at that time find out by first hand experience whether it is, to you.

And, what you'd experience would be a universal typically: the universal reaction of people that they don't like having something important to them stolen, for instance, of finding it definitely a clear wrong.

At that time, it becomes clear isn't not merely as an idea or cultural notion that theft is bad, but instead it's a direct experience/reaction. Instead of thinking it's bad, one finds out it is.

 

[Nimos]

Well, something might not seem 'good' or 'evil' until it happens to you personally, I'd expect. Then you could get a more definite conclusion about whether it is merely a cultural idea that the thing is 'good' or 'bad'.

You'd at that time find out by first hand experience whether it is, to you.

And, what you'd experience would be a universal typically: the universal reaction of people that they don't like having something important to them stolen, for instance, of finding it definitely a clear wrong.

At that time, it becomes clear isn't not merely as an idea or cultural notion that theft is bad, but instead it's a direct experience/reaction. Instead of thinking it's bad, one finds out it is.

I do agree with you that in the moment of whether it happened to me or I found out that someone had stolen from me, I would have to make such judgement.

But I think it becomes to narrow when looking at it like that, because the act of stealing involves a lot of thing. A person can steal from you personally and it might be a stranger or it might be a person you thought you could trust. It might also simply be some people stealing some property, or it could be people that starve that steal food. Each of these things and many more, despite all being categorized as "stealing" can't simply be justified under one universal rule of morality, such as being wrong.

Each situation would have to be justified in regards to whether we actually agree that they are morally wrong. For instance, I wouldn't demand punishment for a child living on the street that stole some food. Whereas I would demand punishment from a person which life quality is severely damage as the result of someone stealing from them.

So there is a huge range of differences in regards to moral issues even in regards to stealing. How or what we consider being acceptable reasons for stealing and also how we think such things should be punished, if at all. All these rules are handled differently depending on which society you live in and who you ask and what they believe best deal with these issues.

 

[halbhh]

I do agree with you that in the moment of whether it happened to me or I found out that someone had stolen from me, I would have to make such judgement.

But I think it becomes to narrow when looking at it like that, because the act of stealing involves a lot of thing. A person can steal from you personally and it might be a stranger or it might be a person you thought you could trust. It might also simply be some people stealing some property, or it could be people that starve that steal food. Each of these things and many more, despite all being categorized as "stealing" can't simply be justified under one universal rule of morality, such as being wrong.

Each situation would have to be justified in regards to whether we actually agree that they are morally wrong. For instance, I wouldn't demand punishment for a child living on the street that stole some food. Whereas I would demand punishment from a person which life quality is severely damage as the result of someone stealing from them.

So there is a huge range of differences in regards to moral issues even in regards to stealing. How or what we consider being acceptable reasons for stealing and also how we think such things should be punished, if at all. All these rules are handled differently depending on which society you live in and who you ask and what they believe best deal with these issues.

Regardless of nation/culture, I think a minority of people, less than half, would be upset about a hungry little child stealing some food.

But, again regardless of nation/culture, I think a overwhelming majority would be upset to have their well liked personal bicycle stolen by a stranger (the typical situation in such theft).

So, it's not culturally specific.

 

[Nimos]

Regardless of nation/culture, I think a minority of people, less than half, would be upset about a hungry little child stealing some food.

But, again regardless of nation/culture, I think a overwhelming majority would be upset to have their well liked personal bicycle stolen by a stranger (the typical situation in such theft).

So, it's not culturally specific.

I agree with that. My point is basically just, that rather than trying to approach morality as a single entity. Like "Stealing is objectively wrong" we should approach it subjectively, because it depends on so many things which are no objectively defined. As you also say, in some cases and probably most, people would be upset about getting their bike stolen, and in other cases if its a starving child people wouldn't. So if the moral issues is not objectively defined, why should we assume that the right answer to them in regards to what is morally right or wrong, is?

 

[halbhh]

I agree with that. My point is basically just, that rather than trying to approach morality as a single entity. Like "Stealing is objectively wrong" we should approach it subjectively, because it depends on so many things which are no objectively defined. As you also say, in some cases and probably most, people would be upset about getting their bike stolen, and in other cases if its a starving child people wouldn't. So if the moral issues is not objectively defined, why should we assume that the right answer to them in regards to what is morally right or wrong, is?

I'm glad you asked that, because it actually has a great answer already presented to us in the text -- a clear and helpful way to distinguish what's best in complex situations.

And wonderfully, the answer is relative to the individual (!)....meaning you don't have to be a saint or Mother Teresa, but you are instead held to a far more doable and instantly clear standard that makes real sense relative to you as a unique individual (!):

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" (if you were in their shoes, in their situation)

 

[Nimos]

I'm glad you asked that, because it actually has a great answer already presented to us in the text -- a clear and helpful way to distinguish what's best in complex situations.

And wonderfully, the answer is relative to the individual (!)....meaning you don't have to be a saint or Mother Teresa, but you are instead held to a far more doable and instantly clear standard that makes real sense relative to you as a unique individual (!):

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" (if you were in their shoes, in their situation)

The problem is, that I find this idea highly immoral

"If I like to get in fights and beat up others, there is basically nothing wrong in me going out and start beating a random person. If they want to beat me, I would have no issue with it, because I like to fight." So I could go beat up a child or an old man or whatever I feel like and it would be morally right according to the text.

I strongly disagree with that and think that it is morally wrong.

 

[halbhh]

The problem is, that I find this idea highly immoral

"If I like to get in fights and beat up others, there is basically nothing wrong in me going out and start beating a random person. If they want to beat me, I would have no issue with it, because I like to fight." So I could go beat up a child or an old man or whatever I feel like and it would be morally right according to the text.

I strongly disagree with that and think that it is morally wrong.

Ah, I can see I didn't explain well enough the part above "as if you yourself were in their shoes/their situation" .

Example: you come across a single mother with 2 small toddlers struggling to change a flat tire, without any help.

E.g. -- even though you are not a single mother with 2 toddlers, when you encounter one, to follow "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" , you'd have to put yourself into the shoes of being a single mother with 2 small toddlers, to do the rule correctly.

Why? Here's why:

The rule does not say "Disregard the unique person and their situation in front of you and just do your own self-indulgence preference, disregarding them and their own situation."

That would be an entirely different rule.

The actual rule says, to paraphrase:

"Don't just indulge your own preference, but instead truly respect the other person as you'd want to be respected -- just as you'd want others to respect you as you are -- and therefore take into account that unique person as they are (not as you are), and therefore ask them what help they would like -- just like you'd want to be asked by a stranger, yourself."

Does that help?

I've had decades now to think about situations with this rule, to do it correctly as Christ meant it by full context.

 

[Nimos]

Ah, I can see I didn't explain well enough the part above "as if you yourself were in their shoes/their situation" .

Example: you come across a single mother with 2 small toddlers struggling to change a flat tire, without any help.

E.g. -- even though you are not a single mother with 2 toddlers, when you encounter one, to follow "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" , you'd have to put yourself into the shoes of being a single mother with 2 small toddlers, to do the rule correctly.

Why? Here's why:

The rule does not say "Disregard the unique person and their situation in front of you and just do your own self-indulgence preference, disregarding them and their own situation."

That would be an entirely different rule.

The actual rule says, to paraphrase:

"Don't just indulge your own preference, but instead truly respect the other person as you'd want to be respected -- just as you'd want others to respect you as you are -- and therefore take into account that unique person as they are (not as you are), and therefore ask them what help they would like -- just like you'd want to be asked by a stranger, yourself."

Does that help?

I've had decades now to think about situations with this rule, to do it correctly as Christ meant it by full context.

Depends, does this hold true when Jesus tell people to hold the law? and therefore the Jews should equally serve their masters, if they become slaves as they would God? Since they should do unto others as they would have them do to you?

So when God say that "homosexuals that are together as man and women, should surely die and that it is their own fault." Should or would the homosexuals be right in demanding the same punishment for hetrosexusals, using the same logic or do we have to add an exception here?

This idea doesn't work, it's completely flawed. As a saying such as "We have to treat all equal" it is fine, but reality is that neither the bible, God or reality works like this.

 

[halbhh]

Depends, does this hold true when Jesus tell people to hold the law? and therefore the Jews should equally serve their masters, if they become slaves as they would God?

Good question, and one that often comes up. Most people haven't read very fully in the new testament, and so aren't able to completely understand the instruction given about remaining slaves (that it is temporary).

Even the full passage quotes (below) are not yet enough to show that:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Ephesians 6 NIV

22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.
Colossians 3 NIV

So, It's quite understandable you'd not realize there is a bigger context. Often, but not always, the passage quote would be enough. here it doesn't give everything.

And still not totally complete even with the additional verse:
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

There is more:

Matthew 7:12 will inevitably lead to Philemon 1 NIV (very short 1 page letter to permanently free a slave)

It's only a matter of time until Matthew 7:12 leads that that freeing of the slaves.

As you can see in Philemon, If the person owning the slave really believes, enough to listen and do as Christ says this will happen...in time. Not all will believe, of course, as we quickly see in all the rest of the New Testament: only some in churches will actually believe.

That doesn't mean old slaves needing a home will be turned out. They would be retired in place, given Christian support for their remaining lives, having a home. That only some Christians actually believe though (and many in some churches do not really believe) is as old as one of those Joshua trees....

 

[Nimos]

Good question, and one that often comes up. Most people haven't read very fully in the new testament, and so aren't able to completely understand the instruction given about remaining slaves (that it is temporary).

Even the full passage quotes (below) are not yet enough to show that:

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Ephesians 6 NIV

22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.
Colossians 3 NIV

So, It's quite understandable you'd not realize there is a bigger context. Often, but not always, the passage quote would be enough. here it doesn't give everything.

And still not totally complete even with the additional verse:
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

There is more:

Matthew 7:12 will inevitably lead to Philemon 1 NIV (very short 1 page letter to permanently free a slave)

It's only a matter of time until Matthew 7:12 leads that that freeing of the slaves.

As you can see in Philemon, If the person owning the slave really believes, enough to listen and do as Christ says this will happen...in time. Not all will believe, of course, as we quickly see in all the rest of the New Testament: only some in churches will actually believe.

That doesn't mean old slaves needing a home will be turned out. They would be retired in place, given Christian support for their remaining lives, having a home. That only some Christians actually believe though (and many in some churches do not really believe) is as old as one of those Joshua trees....

Think I completely missed your point on this one, tried reading it several times.

So correct me if I misunderstood you.

But to me it seems like you are arguing that being a slave is only a temporary position and that eventually they will be free? But I don't really see how that relate to the saying "Treat others as you want them to treat you", can you try to elaborate on this.

 

[halbhh]

Think I completely missed your point on this one, tried reading it several times.

So correct me if I misunderstood you.

But to me it seems like you are arguing that being a slave is only a temporary position and that eventually they will be free? But I don't really see how that relate to the saying "Treat others as you want them to treat you", can you try to elaborate on this.

If a person does Matthew 7:12, then they have to either free their slaves, or else support and treat them equitably (as if a family member), so as to be more like a favored employee treated unusually well, as it were. One of those kinds of changes, are what Matthew 7:12 requires. For a believer. (*)

-----
* defining 'believer', the religious term: e.g. -- as the text words it sometimes, one who "fears the Lord" -- fears doing serious sins in front of God, as one actually believes does see the deeds we are doing, and knows will hold us to account for what we knowingly do wrong without repenting of (and ceasing); i.e. we fear mistreating people because we know that is unacceptable and we'd know we'd have to answer and pay the price for those wrongs, if we don't repent of them and turn from them (ceasing them).

 

[Nimos]

If a person does Matthew 7:12, then they have to either free their slaves, or else support and treat them equitably (as if a family member), so as to be more like a favored employee treated unusually well, as it were. One of those kinds of changes, are what Matthew 7:12 requires. For a believer. (*)

I don't get the logic in what you are saying and also don't think it is correctly understood in regards to the bible, besides as I already said, as a good saying, which hold no meaning.

The reason I don't follow your logic, is that if your explanation should be reasonable, the word slave should not appear at all.

The mere fact, that one person is identified as a slave (lesser) than another, demonstrate that the slave owner is not willing or interested in being treated equally to the slave or even being referred to as such.
I don't go grab someone off the street and make them my slave and tell them this saying and then expect them to reply... "Well, fair enough, it make sense, you are treating me fair and all, guess its ok to be your slave then, how generous of you to enslave me."

The logic doesn't work as I see it. And we can't deny that the bible is filled with rules about how to treat slaves, how they are your property and that you can beat them senseless, if you desire. All which is sanctioned by God. And it is even pointed out that God believes that hebrew slaves should be treated differently than other slaves, so even here the saying doesn't seem to be something God agrees with.

One way the saying could have meaning and at least be somewhat consistent, is if Jesus were referring to how the Jews ought to treat each other, as that would be consistent with what God said in the OT.

 

[halbhh]

don't think it is correctly understood in regards to the bible,

That's kinda remarkable you would imagine that.

So, I'm a believer not just for a couple of years. I've read through the text of the common bible fully, and more than 1 time. I'm fairly good at logic and reading comprehension (e.g. tested at the 99 percentile in both in standardized tests in youth), and am a life long reader, having read very widely all sorts of stuff, from intricate philosophical stuff to involved texts of many kinds....

...and still am not suppose to be able to know what my own scriptural text is saying, even when it's not even one of the hard parts?

Perhaps you should rethink that guess. Or maybe I need to learn to write more clearly somehow. This rule in Matthew 7:12 may take more than a day or 2 to really get fully (to know how it works in all sorts of situations), but that's doable, if one tries, gives it more than just a few minutes or hour of effort, say on more than just 1 or 2 days only.

And isn't prejudiced against it to begin with.

One does need to read the common bible just like you'd read any advanced text in an honors ELA course: really listening to get the text as intended. Making an effort. You can't just decide it's crap before you even give the text a true listening. A friendly-to-the-text sympathetic effort to hear and understand it as meant.