Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Jstwebbrowsing



    Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183

This isn't the golden rule.  The focus is what you get in return.  That is not what Jesus taught.
Jst, this reasoning is just plain bad.  That book from ancient Egypt said "do to the doer to make him do".  Jesus wrote "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Given that the former preceded the latter by over 1500 years, it's not the slightest bit surprising that it would have changed somewhat, even leaving out the different cultures.  Ideas (and principles) tend to do that.  Not to mention that Jesus's statement is also focused on what you expect to get in return[1].  So unless you can come up with something better than that, you're not going to be able to convince anyone else of what you're saying.

Really, I don't know why you think it has to be a Jesus original.  It's not like it becomes any less useful of a principle if the original source is not Jesus.  If anything, it makes Jesus look better since he's making sure to spread this important principle around, even though someone else came up with it first.  I'm not saying that Jesus said nothing original.  But human civilizations had been around for thousands of years by the time Jesus came onto the scene.  Do you really think that they would have failed to come up with the odd principle or three in the meantime?  Especially given the sheer amount of knowledge that we've come up with in the last century or two.

There's also another point I think you should consider.  You seem to be trying to get people here to acknowledge that your religion gave things to the world.  But you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the world would have given things to your religion as well.  It's as if you're concerned that acknowledging things like this would make your religion look worse in the eyes of others.  Even though it wouldn't; acknowledging a truth, inconvenient or not, is far less damaging than trying to deny it.
 1. since the point is to do things to others so that they'll do similar things back to you in the future

Yes sorry.  I overlooked this reply.

The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.

But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)

Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.
Changed Change Reason Date
Jag for f'ing 'agaping' again. May 18, 2018, 10:50:17 AM