6 ms·

> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), Would you clarify the fundament

by Jedd 4y ago

> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please? The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.

jackothy 4y ago
I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
- Jedd 4y ago
  Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.
drummojg 4y ago
I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.
Technotroll 4y ago
The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.
- Jedd 4y ago
  Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; | Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies). If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity. I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great) "The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it." As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights: "Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
  - Technotroll 4y ago
    Respectfully, the context of the post you replied to was that of getting behind the Bible as a book to swear upon by atheists, and even people of other religions. Or in the least that they use some book of moral philosophy, instead of a general book about some unrelated science. I mean, would you also swear on a book on algebra if you wanted to make an important and official oath? Also, I never suggested that Jesus coined The Golden Rule. Please see the third sentence of the last post if you want to verify that. Jesus certainly never invented equal rights either, but he stood for those principles, and they are foundational within Christianity. There are many things to attack Christianity for, but that's not one of them. Moreover, Christianity has one thing going for it that atheism (at least in its current form) can't, and that is a certain rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for. Obviously, I think that's a positive trait of Christianity, as long as it isn't taken too far. Pun intended; Lord knows that it certainly has (been taken too far) in the past! But then let us hope they learned from it, instead of repeating the same overreach again. Yet again, kind of a tenet of Jesus (i.e. learning from past mistakes and not repeating them)... But the fact that atheism is so relativistic is one of its weakest points, and the reason no atheist can agree on morality, or what is good either for the individual or society as a whole – and not even UPB! If atheism ever changes on this topic, I'm sure a lot more people will find it a worthy endeavour. But as it is, I doubt that it will get much traction for that very reason, and if not that, then certainly because religious customs and rituals are so much more fulfilling, if not outright dramatic and thought provoking.

by Jedd 4y ago

jackothy 4y ago

I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.

Jedd 4y ago
Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.

drummojg 4y ago

I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.

Technotroll 4y ago

The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.

Jedd 4y ago
Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; | Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies). If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity. I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great) "The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it." As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights: "Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Technotroll 4y ago
  Respectfully, the context of the post you replied to was that of getting behind the Bible as a book to swear upon by atheists, and even people of other religions. Or in the least that they use some book of moral philosophy, instead of a general book about some unrelated science. I mean, would you also swear on a book on algebra if you wanted to make an important and official oath? Also, I never suggested that Jesus coined The Golden Rule. Please see the third sentence of the last post if you want to verify that. Jesus certainly never invented equal rights either, but he stood for those principles, and they are foundational within Christianity. There are many things to attack Christianity for, but that's not one of them. Moreover, Christianity has one thing going for it that atheism (at least in its current form) can't, and that is a certain rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for. Obviously, I think that's a positive trait of Christianity, as long as it isn't taken too far. Pun intended; Lord knows that it certainly has (been taken too far) in the past! But then let us hope they learned from it, instead of repeating the same overreach again. Yet again, kind of a tenet of Jesus (i.e. learning from past mistakes and not repeating them)... But the fact that atheism is so relativistic is one of its weakest points, and the reason no atheist can agree on morality, or what is good either for the individual or society as a whole – and not even UPB! If atheism ever changes on this topic, I'm sure a lot more people will find it a worthy endeavour. But as it is, I doubt that it will get much traction for that very reason, and if not that, then certainly because religious customs and rituals are so much more fulfilling, if not outright dramatic and thought provoking.