Do Unto Others As You Wish To Do Unto Them

[Dr. Nosophoros]

But keep in mind that they are free to do unto you as they wish, so it may be in your better interest to treat others as you wish to be treated. This is an idea that is nothing new, but I would like to know how you feel about it. I feel that naturally, there is no need for any god(s), goddesses, devils, etc. laws or any other mandates and beliefs in the external from above or below to get people to get along in the physical world as not only do those mandates lead to "responsibility" because someone else said so, but to me, belief in the external generally lends itself to carrying other baggage. I feel that without superstitions or external mandates, people would have come to the conclusion of "Do unto others as you wish to do" conclusion anyway, simply because as human animals, there are few who could make it completely alone, cut off from the rest of humanity for life or would want to (unless they like to talk to coconuts). I don't feel that "official" mandates are needed or ever were, they were just part of the evolution of beliefs that some needed to make sense of the world and used that to impose "laws" that they felt would organize society in their view. If there wasn't the fear of the unknown or the felt need for social control, I doubt many religions would exist at all.

All in all I feel that complete responsibility to the self and actions are necessary, one has no "gods", "devils" or otherwise to praise or blame for their actions, one is completely responsible to oneself "good" or "bad"- or you may just call it living, I feel is a more healthy and productive philosophy- My opinion anyway.

 

[michel]

But keep in mind that they are free to do unto you as they wish, so it may be in your better interest to treat others as you wish to be treated. This is an idea that is nothing new, but I would like to know how you feel about it. I feel that naturally, there is no need for any god(s), goddesses, devils, etc. laws or any other mandates and beliefs in the external from above or below to get people to get along in the physical world as not only do those mandates lead to "responsibility" because someone else said so, but to me, belief in the external generally lends itself to carrying other baggage. I feel that without superstitions or external mandates, people would have come to the conclusion of "Do unto others as you wish to do" conclusion anyway, simply because as human animals, there are few who could make it completely alone, cut off from the rest of humanity for life or would want to (unless they like to talk to coconuts). I don't feel that "official" mandates are needed or ever were, they were just part of the evolution of beliefs that some needed to make sense of the world and used that to impose "laws" that they felt would organize society in their view. If there wasn't the fear of the unknown or the felt need for social control, I doubt many religions would exist at all.

All in all I feel that complete responsibility to the self and actions are necessary, one has no "gods", "devils" or otherwise to praise or blame for their actions, one is completely responsible to oneself "good" or "bad"- or you may just call it living, I feel it is a more healthy and productive philosophy- My opinion anyway.

I fully agree with you; I think that the sentiment behind the morale saying is true and applicable wether you are atheist or the most staunch believer in the strictest of disciplines; I wish the rest of the world could see it that way, though.

 

[Era]

This is a good productive philosophy , if all of us would apply it in our ways of behaving . Beside the fact that would make us more responsible , it could for sure help our comunication.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I prefer "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I did unto others as I wished, it would cause a tremendous amount of pain.

 

[TrueQ]

If doing as you wished to others would cause such pain, then maybe you should chill out a little, friend. People hear phrases like, "Do unto others as you wish to do unto them." and immediately think anarchy, killing, rape in the streets, and so on. That's weird, don't you think? They must have no trust whatsoever in humanity's general decency or their desire to live in content groups. The only explanation I can think of for that is that such people don't see enough trust in whatever circles they run in, which is a shame.

But let me tell you, I've travelled the length and breadth of many places, and I've talked to a lot of folk, I'm quite certain I still don't know anyone who, if they were walking down the road, would just kill some dude for no reason. Even if they were armed, it still takes great effort to kill someone, and there is always the risk of them trying to kill you back. Even if you were cowardly and did something like shooting them in the head while they were on the pot, you'd have to worry about their loved ones (And everyone who lives has a couple of those) trying to take revenge. No, not killing people is a better way to live life than killing people, and everyone knows it.

I do think Gods would be important in a world where everyone took responsibility for their own actions though. If only to provide people with something noble to live for and explain away the random events that there is genuinely no one to blame for.

 

[Majikthise]

I prefer "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I did unto others as I wished, it would cause a tremendous amount of pain.

Jeez!! What excactly do you wish to do unto others?!?

 

[Era]

angellous evangellous , it depends what you do to others . If what you will do will couse them pain , then you`ll get the same pain. This phrase might seem a bit to " evil"( do unto others as you wish to do unto them), but when you do something you allways think of what you do , of the effects ,so therefore I don`t believe there will so much pain , unless you want that pain for yourself.

 

[Augustine]

Angellous has a point in his statement that Satanism fails to recognize. In the end, man is basically evil. He wants to commit evil acts; it is his nature. That is the way of the world; the way that satanism embraces. Without the gift of Christ's death on the cross and his saving grace there would be no possibility for man to do good. Look at the world; you seen pain, sorrow, and destruction. This is what happens when people do what they want to do; what their sinful desires do when unchecked. Christ is the only way out of this destructive sinfulness, and when you deny him and indulge in fulfilling your own desires you hurt others and yourself. We are not capable of being good, because we just aren't.

 

[Druidus]

The golden rule starts to get a bit screwy when masochists follow it.

Human beings are perfectly capable of doing good. In fact, we do it most of the time. Why do you say we are incapable of it?

TrueQ, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anarchy is not chaos, nor killing, nor rape. These are anti-anarchy. Perhaps immature "anarchy" followers believe that is what anarchy is (Not saying you're one, but they exist), but true anarchy really isn't. Remember, anarchy is not chaos, but order without control.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hello, and welcome Augustine. Please feel free to introduce yourself over in the 'Welcome' thread!

Just to let you know, though, this is a 'discuss individual religions' section, and trying to bring another religion into it is rather not the point. (It winds up being awkward for those that are members of the religion.) You can always bring up the subject in the debates forum, though, if you wish.

 

[Augustine]

Thank you for the welcome FeathersinHair, I have been to these forums before under the name of LCMS Sprecher in the summer of 04. I decided to back away from it for a bit, and just recently came back to find out some information on churchs of the occult. Ifelt a bit compelled to respond to this thread as I saw angellous's post and I wanted to give my interpretation on his statement. I also understand that my post was fairly confrontational in nature; but that is to be expected when you are talking about religions that are so opposed to each other (quite literally). Nonetheless, my goal was to add an explanation to the statement made by angellous. I shall return to the debate forums perhaps, and see where the conversation has swayed recently.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Thank you for the welcome FeathersinHair, I have been to these forums before under the name of LCMS Sprecher in the summer of 04. I decided to back away from it for a bit, and just recently came back to find out some information on churchs of the occult. Ifelt a bit compelled to respond to this thread as I saw angellous's post and I wanted to give my interpretation on his statement. I also understand that my post was fairly confrontational in nature; but that is to be expected when you are talking about religions that are so opposed to each other (quite literally). Nonetheless, my goal was to add an explanation to the statement made by angellous. I shall return to the debate forums perhaps, and see where the conversation has swayed recently.

Hmm... Maybe I'm seeing the confusion here. If, by 'religions that are opposed to each other', you mean Christianity and Satanism, then I think that view may be only interpreted as certain paths of Satanism. Unfortunately, I would agree that not only are there wonderful Christians, there are also those that can do it more harm than another religion ever could, just as is the same for all other religions.

Then again, I should not be arguing for Satanism, as I am not a follower of that path. Should you wish to discuss Paganism, though, I'm all for that! Thank you for your civil nature, though! It's nice to have someone come into a thread and, while being from another viewpoint, be willing to discuss things kindly.

 

[Athosxc]

Feathersinhair - I would have to say that sometimes the best way to discuss an individual religion is to pair it alongside another individual religion to see how the two stack up against each other. Comparison doesn't hurt a discussion, nor necessitate debate. I say lets compare.

 

[Era]

Augustine , satanism , in every way that you can find it , recognise that man is evil . But evil in the way you talking about is just a definition in christians books . We do understand human nature and distruction is a part of it . The war , the pain is not made by satanism , you don`t here satanist people to say : let`s go to war!" If you do remember most pain has been caused by christ`s name , should I bring the Inquisition , the crucedes , the lattest wars were they made by satanists? I don`t think so . The reason why people suffer is because they close themselves between some nice mirrors where the world is perfect . Not being able to do what you wish is what cause the most problems , people`s fustration . Good and evil are not absolute , it dependes on how you define them .

 

[Feathers in Hair]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, certain branches of Christianity and certain branches of Satanism have both decided that man is basically evil?

Yay! I love it when two faiths have common ground!

Again, perhaps this is better off in the debates section?

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I was in the middle of moving and asked to be removed from the member list but have been delayed so I will reply.

The way I see it Feathers, man/woman is neither "good" nor "evil", those are taught realities, we are what we are. If we make a mistake, we fix it (or suffer for it), if we do something that helps another or ourselves, we receive the reward (s) Not looking outwards for a redeemer and looking inwards to realize that we are all our own redeemer(s) is my philosophy, and that was the point of my post. People that see in only in terms of "black" and "white" are the same people that extend that outwards in some form or another, self hate and guilt are powerful tools for controllers of societies.

 

[Era]

FeathersinHair , we do agree that man is evil , but what evil means goes with a lot of differences . For christianity evil is absolute , one with a basic ground , to modern satanism evil is relative , dependes on many things .

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Ah, I think I understand now. Thank you for your willingness to explain!

 

[Era]

You`re welcome!

 

[anami]

The golden rule and it's support.

Christianity
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
* * * Matthew 7:1

Confucianism
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
* * * Analects 12:2

Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
* * * Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
* * * Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
* * * Sunnah

Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
* * * Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
* * * Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
* * * Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Adapted from "The Christopher Newsletter"