The Not So Golden Rule

[sooda]

But securing and protecting your belongs appears to be the opposite stance from what was touted earlier with regard especially to your remarks to Socrates last quote in your post. You're now assuming Socrates position when prior you synopsized it with ridicule.

Further, it is a different time than it was in the age of Jesus walking on this earth.
I have a large property in a mid-Atlantic state. There are buildings there that have been vandalized to the point those structures are now worthless. And those buildings have been robbed. Police do nothing using the excuse, there is nothing they can do.
Implying there are no laws against vandalism, breaking and entering, and theft in that particular state.
This gives permission to Vigilante justice in my view. But that is another thread.

The reason I bring those structures up is, were I to be there when one of those vandals broke in I surely would not love them, ask them if they wish to take my car as well as all else they've stolen.

They already do not know me and their smashing in walls shows they have no respect for others property.

Do I love that? It was my property but am I to not respect the labor it took to afford it? Thereby dismissing as meaningless its destruction so that it is now scrap?

I help people in need whenever God puts them in front of me. I give to the food bank, I donate to military charity. Money and time.

If we reckon back to the old testament we realize God was quite brutal with those that desecrated what was his. Property and tribe.
When Jesus was that holy spirit in flesh are we to imagine he did a complete 180? Which would mean he didn't really intend what he did in the old testament.

Jesus did not say, be a doormat. Jesus himself took a whip he fashioned to the money changers for turning against their own Jewish people and working in service to pagan Romans before the house of the Father.

The money changers were working for the Pharisees not the Romans.

 

[FragrantGrace]

The money changers were working for the Pharisees not the Romans.

Scripture?

 

[sooda]

Scripture?

The Romans had NOTHING to do with the Temple or the money changers.

The money changers were often from the families of the Priests and Pharisees, so those families made a lot of money from people wanting to worship God. And if you didn't pay, the Priest could arrange for your household property to be taken from you.

The money changers or other traders also sold the special animals to be used as sacrifices within the Temple, the animals has to be passed 'clean' or fit and healthy by the Priests and were sold at very high prices.

Jesus used even stronger words and basically accused the Pharisees and Priests and their families of being cheats.

 

[FragrantGrace]

The Romans had NOTHING to do with the Temple or the money changers.

The money changers were often from the families of the Priests and Pharisees, so those families made a lot of money from people wanting to worship God. And if you didn't pay, the Priest could arrange for your household property to be taken from you.

The money changers or other traders also sold the special animals to be used as sacrifices within the Temple, the animals has to be passed 'clean' or fit and healthy by the Priests and were sold at very high prices.

Jesus used even stronger words and basically accused the Pharisees and Priests and their families of being cheats.

Except the money changers and those who sold sacrificial animals before the temple were in the court of the Gentiles.
Money changers were known by the Greek word, kermatistēs . They were not Jewish. Usury which is what the kermatistēs practiced is against Jewish law.

 

[sooda]

Except the money changers and those who sold sacrificial animals before the temple were in the court of the Gentiles.
Money changers were known by the Greek word, kermatistēs . They were not Jewish. Usury which is what the kermatistēs practiced is against Jewish law.

Before New Testament times the only way to God was through Judaism. The court of the Gentiles was originally intended for those non-Jews who wanted to worship God. It was as close as they could get to the Temple proper.

When Jesus chased the money changers and other concessions away, he was clearing the court of the Gentiles.

As He drove them out He used partial quotes from Isaiah 56:7 which says “My house will be a house of prayer for all nations,” and Jeremiah 7:11 “Has this house which bears my name become a den of robbers to you?”

The priests charged a heavy premium for their goods and services and had crowded the court to such an extent that Gentiles had no room for worship.

The sacrificial animals sold there were raised under strict Jewish guidelines to make them worthy for use in worship. Most of them were raised by the priests themselves or others who worked under their supervision.

 

[sooda]

He (Jesus) entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple. We can easily visualize the money chargers, the oxen, sheep, pigeons and the general chaos in the Temple area, especially in the Court of the Gentiles. The historian Josephus informs us about the “bazaars of Annas.” We recall that Annas was the old man, the high priest, and that he had four sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas) who were also high priests.

This family made big money off the temple business. It was the biggest racket in town. People would bring their Roman and Greek coins with images of the emperor on those coins.

Such coins were inadmissible in the temple because they were unclean due to the pagan image of the Caesars on those coins. Those coins with the image of Caesar would have to be exchanged for Jewish “kosher” coins.

The money-changers made good profits. Larger animals like oxen and sheep were also bought and sold, as were pigeons for the sacrifices for poorer people.

In equivalent dollars of today, Annas had an annual $170 million dollar business going. Yes, Annas and his high priestly family, had the best and biggest business in the country, and it was concentrated in the temple. Josephus was right: the temple area had become a bazaar.

In a moment, we will examine several paintings of this scene. Jesus, with a whip (John), drives out people from the temple and cleanses the temple of all the commerce and riff raff. Indeed, the temple (its courtyards) had become a "den of robbers."

Sermons From Seattle - Series B

 

[Nakosis]

But securing and protecting your belongs appears to be the opposite stance from what was touted earlier with regard especially to your remarks to Socrates last quote in your post. You're now assuming Socrates position when prior you synopsized it with ridicule.

Yes, a bit of self sarcasm/humor.

Further, it is a different time than it was in the age of Jesus walking on this earth.
I have a large property in a mid-Atlantic state. There are buildings there that have been vandalized to the point those structures are now worthless. And those buildings have been robbed. Police do nothing using the excuse, there is nothing they can do.
Implying there are no laws against vandalism, breaking and entering, and theft in that particular state.
This gives permission to Vigilante justice in my view. But that is another thread.

The reason I bring those structures up is, were I to be there when one of those vandals broke in I surely would not love them, ask them if they wish to take my car as well as all else they've stolen.

They already do not know me and their smashing in walls shows they have no respect for others property.

Do I love that? It was my property but am I to not respect the labor it took to afford it? Thereby dismissing as meaningless its destruction so that it is now scrap?

I help people in need whenever God puts them in front of me. I give to the food bank, I donate to military charity. Money and time.

If we reckon back to the old testament we realize God was quite brutal with those that desecrated what was his. Property and tribe.
When Jesus was that holy spirit in flesh are we to imagine he did a complete 180? Which would mean he didn't really intend what he did in the old testament.

Jesus did not say, be a doormat. Jesus himself took a whip he fashioned to the money changers for turning against their own Jewish people and working in service to pagan Romans before the house of the Father.

Sure, to make clear, my argument is with the golden rule that is common among various beliefs, which Christianity is one of them. Not with Jesus.

With Jesus you have an entirely different issue as in Matthew 5:39–48 which starts with Do not resist the one who is evil. I would imagine that Christians have more the obligation in this regard.

Now getting back to the golden rule, according to Jesus, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

My issue is that I don't like deciding my morals according to what I think others might/should do. I'd rather choose to do what I feel is right without the concept of quid pro quo as part of the equation.

So it's not whether you protect your property and I don't. It's whether you'd go out of your way to protect my property because you would want me to go out of my way to protect your property.

If you choose to protect my property, it's should be IMO because you feel it's the right thing to do and it ends there. Without any care for my morals, or concern for what I might or might not do.

LIke I suppose I might not want you to protect my property but I would still protect yours because I felt it was the right thing to do.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Yes, a bit of self sarcasm/humor.



Sure, to make clear, my argument is with the golden rule that is common among various beliefs, which Christianity is one of them. Not with Jesus.

With Jesus you have an entirely different issue as in Matthew 5:39–48 which starts with Do not resist the one who is evil. I would imagine that Christians have more the obligation in this regard.

Now getting back to the golden rule, according to Jesus, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

My issue is that I don't like deciding my morals according to what I think others might/should do. I'd rather choose to do what I feel is right without the concept of quid pro quo as part of the equation.

So it's not whether you protect your property and I don't. It's whether you'd go out of your way to protect my property because you would want me to go out of my way to protect your property.

If you choose to protect my property, it's should be IMO because you feel it's the right thing to do and it ends there. Without any care for my morals, or concern for what I might or might not do.

LIke I suppose I might not want you to protect my property but I would still protect yours because I felt it was the right thing to do.

Well, for my part I'm going to stop this back and forth. The golden rule, a synopsis of Jesus teachings entire, wasn't a suggestion. That you find fault with it says you don't understand the entirety of my Lord's teaching. That says quite enough.


http://www.bible-history.com/gentile_court/
The Court of the Gentiles was the outermost court in the Jerusalem Temple during the time of Jesus. No gentile or non-Jew could proceed any further into the inner temple areas, and even Roman citizenship did not protect a Gentile who intruded into prohibited areas.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Before New Testament times the only way to God was through Judaism. The court of the Gentiles was originally intended for those non-Jews who wanted to worship God. It was as close as they could get to the Temple proper.

When Jesus chased the money changers and other concessions away, he was clearing the court of the Gentiles.

As He drove them out He used partial quotes from Isaiah 56:7 which says “My house will be a house of prayer for all nations,” and Jeremiah 7:11 “Has this house which bears my name become a den of robbers to you?”

The priests charged a heavy premium for their goods and services and had crowded the court to such an extent that Gentiles had no room for worship.

The sacrificial animals sold there were raised under strict Jewish guidelines to make them worthy for use in worship. Most of them were raised by the priests themselves or others who worked under their supervision.

We'll stop right there. When you choose to plagiarize another's intellectual property you've failed entirely.

The Court Of The Gentiles – Grace thru faith

 

[sooda]

Yes, a bit of self sarcasm/humor.

Sure, to make clear, my argument is with the golden rule that is common among various beliefs, which Christianity is one of them. Not with Jesus.

With Jesus you have an entirely different issue as in Matthew 5:39–48 which starts with Do not resist the one who is evil. I would imagine that Christians have more the obligation in this regard.

Now getting back to the golden rule, according to Jesus, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

My issue is that I don't like deciding my morals according to what I think others might/should do. I'd rather choose to do what I feel is right without the concept of quid pro quo as part of the equation.

So it's not whether you protect your property and I don't. It's whether you'd go out of your way to protect my property because you would want me to go out of my way to protect your property.

If you choose to protect my property, it's should be IMO because you feel it's the right thing to do and it ends there. Without any care for my morals, or concern for what I might or might not do.

LIke I suppose I might not want you to protect my property but I would still protect yours because I felt it was the right thing to do.

Islam also has the golden rule.. I think its universal.

 

[sooda]

We'll stop right there. When you choose to plagiarize another's intellectual property you've failed entirely.

The Court Of The Gentiles – Grace thru faith

Thanks... I intended to post the link, however I began looking at the High priest Annas and his sons and lost track. Apparently he was a Sadducee not a Pharisee.

 

[sooda]

He (Jesus) entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple. We can easily visualize the money chargers, the oxen, sheep, pigeons and the general chaos in the Temple area, especially in the Court of the Gentiles. The historian Josephus informs us about the “bazaars of Annas.” We recall that Annas was the old man, the high priest, and that he had four sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas) who were also high priests.

This family made big money off the temple business. It was the biggest racket in town. People would bring their Roman and Greek coins with images of the emperor on those coins.

Such coins were inadmissible in the temple because they were unclean due to the pagan image of the Caesars on those coins. Those coins with the image of Caesar would have to be exchanged for Jewish “kosher” coins.

The money-changers made good profits. Larger animals like oxen and sheep were also bought and sold, as were pigeons for the sacrifices for poorer people.

In equivalent dollars of today, Annas had an annual $170 million dollar business going. Yes, Annas and his high priestly family, had the best and biggest business in the country, and it was concentrated in the temple. Josephus was right: the temple area had become a bazaar.

In a moment, we will examine several paintings of this scene. Jesus, with a whip (John), drives out people from the temple and cleanses the temple of all the commerce and riff raff. Indeed, the temple (its courtyards) had become a "den of robbers."

Sermons From Seattle - Series B

The Court Of The Gentiles – Grace thru faith

 

[sooda]

Even many of the high priests during the first century seemed to have given up their love of God for the love of money. Most notably the High priest whom Jesus was brought before, Annas, along with his five sons who succeeded him to that position.

The Temple sacrifice during their reigns can best be summed up by the words “The Marketplace of the family of Annas”

The historian Josephus sheds some light on the actions of one member of this family, Annas the younger, the man who had James (the writer of he book of James in the Bible) stoned to death. Josephus states:

“The high priest, Ananus, (after he had been relieved from his office) to some degree, was respected and feared by the citizens, but in a bad way; for he loved to hoard money. He became good friends with Albinus, and of the newly installed high priest.

He did so by offering them bribes; he also had wicked servants, who associated with the most vilest sort of characters, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took the tithes that belonged to the priests by force, and beat anyone who would not give these tithes to them.

So the other high priests that followed him as well as his servants acted likewise, without anyone being able to stop them; so that some of the priests, those who were old and were being supported with those tithes, died for lack of food.”

A matter of fact, Jewish history records that these High priests who walked the temple courts during the first century, were despised by the majority of the people for their brutality and hunger for money.

So much so that there is a strong condemnation of these men in the Talmud.


continued

The history behind Jesus cleansing the Temple

 

[Nakosis]

Islam also has the golden rule.. I think its universal.

Right, except I don't like it. It is such a common theme from so many source.

I suppose I tend to question every truth or seemly universal idea. Stuff most accept without thinking to question what the actual value of is.

I'm not saying it is bad or wrong. It kind of allows groups to coexist.

For me, I guess I don't want to depend on this golden rule concept for my moral standard.

 

[sooda]

Right, except I don't like it. It is such a common theme from so many source.

I suppose I tend to question every truth or seemly universal idea. Stuff most accept without thinking to question what the actual value of is.

I'm not saying it is bad or wrong. It kind of allows groups to coexist.

For me, I guess I don't want to depend on this golden rule concept for my moral standard.

For me.. the Golden Rule is something I do for myself.

The link below covers the golden rule for Muslims in many different sayings.

“Be kind to your neighbor and you will be a believer; love for the people what you love for yourself and you will be a Muslim.”

Golden Rule in Islam | islam.ru

 

[Nakosis]

For me.. the Golden Rule is something I do for myself.

The link below covers the golden rule for Muslims in many different sayings.

“Be kind to your neighbor and you will be a believer; love for the people what you love for yourself and you will be a Muslim.”

Golden Rule in Islam | islam.ru

Ok, I'm just stuck on the idea that maybe people don't love what I love. Or they may not want to be treated the way I want to be treated.

 

[blü 2]

If, as I have suggested, we stand in n eed of a core universal morality upon which we can base liberal democratic social projects, then we would be ill-advised to embrace a counterfeit; for counterfeits notoriously prove unreliable at the crucial moment. Thus the Golden Rule, in either its positive or negative articulations, cannot be the gold standard of moral behavior: it cannot support the things liberal democratic nations need in the 21st Century – like consensus on policy, general standards of justice, and a warrant for human rights. First, it is not universal; but even if it is generally reflected in all majorcultures, the Golden Rule can still hardly be the core of all morality. It offers little resistance to weak, inconsistent or morally-questionable applications, and it fails to reflect our highest moral standards. Thus we should be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some people tend to embrace something like the Golden Rule as a cure-all for the modern problems of value pluralism; and we should wonder what that tendency tells us about our unwillingness to squarely face the fact that cultures have disharmonious moral styles. It is true that if we could find a universal rule of morality – something like the Golden Rule – it would help us resolve a great many serious moral and political problems. But the fact remains that the Golden Rule is very clearly not the core of morality, and yet it has been embraced as such nonetheless.
The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore | Issue 74 | Philosophy Now

Not precisely my view of the Golden rule but it comes close.

In some cases, inequity is necessary for society to function. The individual on occasion has to sacrifice for the greater good. As mentioned in the article, something married will be familiar with.

Also pointed out there are two forms of the golden rule. Negative and positive. Don't do something that you wouldn't want done to you, don't cause harm. And, do to others what you would want done to you. Help others so they will help you in return. This seems a little too self interested for my tastes.

So one, as long as you pretty much ignore the rest of humanity, your good. The other caters to one's own greed.

My moral compass, cause no unnecessary harm. What's necessary/unnecessary is left to my own discretion. Sacrifice as needed to support friends and family. Similar to the negative version of the golden rule but adds inequality and self sacrifice as needed.

The core of our moral values is genetic.

We are animals so we have offspring. So part of our genetic predisposition is child nurture and protection.

We are gregarious. So part of our genetic predisposition is dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and altruism, or at the least a sense of self-worth through self-denial.

The Golden Rule is a reflection of our instinct for fairness and reciprocity, which we know from experiments is present even in pre-verbal infants.

The rest of our moral values are acquired ─ upbringing, culture, education, experience. They cover such things as manners ─ how to hold your knife and fork, whether and if so when you may fart, what clothes to wear and where and when ─ and anything else that may draw public judgment on you.

 

[Nakosis]

The core of our moral values is genetic.

We are animals so we have offspring. So part of our genetic predisposition is child nurture and protection.

We are gregarious. So part of our genetic predisposition is dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and altruism, or at the least a sense of self-worth through self-denial.

The Golden Rule is a reflection of our instinct for fairness and reciprocity, which we know from experiments is present even in pre-verbal infants.

The rest of our moral values are acquired ─ upbringing, culture, education, experience. They cover such things as manners ─ how to hold your knife and fork, whether and if so when you may fart, what clothes to wear and where and when ─ and anything else that may draw public judgment on you.

I agree to a large extent. The value is so common across so many cultures and smart folks who have put a lot of thought into moral values. However everything changes, evolves. Even our core moral values. Perhaps I'm a product of genetic drift.

 

[blü 2]

I agree to a large extent. The value is so common across so many cultures and smart folks who have put a lot of thought into moral values. However everything changes, evolves. Even our core moral values. Perhaps I'm a product of genetic drift.

Perhaps the key word is 'tendency'.

And I should have mentioned mirror neurons, the basis of empathy, not unique to humans but not present or only partly present, in psychopathy &c.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not the Jesus version


Fair enough, you know what is in your heart not me, however in referring to the "golden rule" what is commonly meant is Matt 7:12 -
Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you
shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

This is a common moral theme among many different religions and wisdom imparted by a number of philosophers. My disagreement is directed specifically towards this passage.

It is and the 'new commandment' at the last supper.. the standard goes higher...
A new commandment I give to you love one another as I have loved you. The standard is Jesus love