| Author | Message | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2005 |
I just got through reading many of the postings on the site linked to under the thread ìThey Pulled a ëCut & Runíî. It amazes me how far some will rationalize, how petty some can be, and how some lose sight of the forest because theyíre so caught up in examining one tiny twig on a single tree. Lately Iíve pondered the Golden Rule a lot. I think thereís a reason here as to why some religious people rationalize, act petty, etc. So I would like your thoughts on my conclusions. Iíve read some fascinating thoughts on the web, from both those who support the Golden Rule, and those who argue against it. Both sides get caught up in arguing that the Golden Rule is one of reciprocity, or the exchange of warm fuzzies, if you will. After all, Jesus does say: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, KJV. Or, as Islam phrases it: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths. There are a few problems with viewing the Golden Rule as simple reciprocity. First, it fails to describe personal morality. This leaves a vacuum to be filled, typically by some rigorous doctrine of religious behavior. Growing up as an Adventist, I was very, very concerned about leading a pious life. So concerned, that whenever I failed to meet my/the churchís expectations, I ended up in a vicious guilt cycle leading to addiction. Though my focus was on myself, the irony was that I became guilty of judging others. By putting myself on a religious scale from ì1 to 10î, I could gage myself against others. In so many ways both big and small, I was trying to remove the splinter from my brotherís eye, while ignoring the mote in mine! ìIíll pray for you (and the error of your ways)î may be heartfelt, but it smacks of self-righteousness. We end up doing ìgood deedsî for others, even when they may not want our good deeds. I suppose thereís some sort of ìtransferenceî going on here. Secondly, simple reciprocity doesnít take into account third parties. Jesus may have quoted the Golden Rule, but he didnít hesitate to chase the money changers out of the temple. Does this mean that he in turn would want some raving mad man to chase him out of the temple? Of course not! Righteous anger serves a purpose. When I turn a blind eye to injustice in this world, I am guilty by association. Third, how far shall we take reciprocity? Rich Adventists used to really bother me. How could they be rich, and yet so very, very pious at the same time? Didnít that bother them? Now I think I was simply being covetous. No matter how itís phrased, the Golden Rule is not about what we should do to our fellow man, but rather itís about what we should NOT DO to our fellow man. The Jewish version is semantically clearer: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a. Steps 8 and 9 of the Twelve Steps read ì[We] made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. [We] made amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.î It amazes me that I needed to be reminded to not do harmful things to others, and to make amends when I do. How could I be so religious all my life, and miss this key point? I think it was because I was so concerned about moral behavior, both in myself and others. By allowing myself to be browbeaten by holy ideology, I could in turn browbeat others with my ìbiblicalî club. As night follows day, so guilt became necessary for my final release into my behavior. Since I was so willing to feel guilty, or even EAGER to feel guilty, it became ok to make others feel guilty. How warped is that?!? I believe that simple reciprocity can be convoluted by whoever is doing the interpretation. So now I simply try not to harm others, nor do I tolerate injustice, wherever possible. I canít begin to tell you what clarity this has brought to my life! Sorry, I got a little carried away, but it really bothers me when Christians become so freakishly caught up in details, that they become harmful to others. Probably because I used to do it so much! | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1588 Registered: 11-2002 |
Awhile back I was with a friend. Me and two of my children were with him. He's running from parole. He did 12 years stright time and he does not want to go back. I told him I wanted to get to church later that evening. He asked me if I could have any one prayer answered what would my prayer be. I told him I'd been praying asking God to kill my husband. This fellow slammed on the breaks, pulled the vechile to the side of the road and in total agnst says to me, "Whadda ya think? God's your personal hitman? Get over it. He ain't." So, all I can say is that I have a real need for prayer concerning matters of The Golden Rule. So, please, everyone keep this need of me to get a "heart transplant" in your prayers. Weimar, I just don't have any answers about your questions. I am looking forward to reading and learning those answers, too. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1479 Registered: 12-2003  |
Tom, I agree with you. The Goden Rule is not about reciprocity--unless one has a perfect heart! (uh--that would be no one, right?) I've come to see the idea of "doing unto others" as primarily not about figuring out what I want and then doing that thing for them--what another person wants or needs is truly not what I want or need--at least much of the time. I think the reason for Jesus saying "as you would have him do unto you" was simply to get us to put oruselves in another's shoes and imagine how our behavior might affect him. If we would not want to be insulted or manipulated, then we must also refuse to insult or manipulate. Figuring out that another might not want or need what I want or need has brought clarity to marriage. I'm learning that what Richard needs in order to feel heard and understood is not always the same as what I need. Men and women just process things differenlty. I might need to "vent" and just talk; he might not need to feel clutched and "manipulated" into a heavy discussion at the time I need it. If I think instead how to reach out to him in whatever way he feels cared for, then he also begins to pay more attention to what I'm saying, and we notice the other's needs more. Yes, I agree. The Golden Rule is about loving another for God--allowing God's care and nurture to flow through us to another--instead of plying them with what we want for ourselves. Giving what another needs is really the Golden Rule. Colleen | ||
| Weimarred Registered user Username: Weimarred Post Number: 24 Registered: 1-2005 |
Susan_2, Don't know the details (some are better kept close to the heart), but I can empathise with the frustration when justice is not served. While we can't always be the instrument of justice, I think it's still correct, indeed, obligatory, to want to see justice done. I guess my problem was, the only "justice" I was interested in when growing up was self-"justi"fication. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1092 Registered: 3-2004  |
Weimarred, I really understand steps 8 & 9 of the 12 step program. I do not like to apologize, so I do not deliberately say or do anything to hurt others. When I do something, I apologize immediately. My program has been very good in leading me out of Adventism. Of course, I am not perfect at it. Diana | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 268 Registered: 10-2000 |
Weimarred, I've chosen just one sentence in your thought provoking post to quote and comment on. It is this: "No matter how itís phrased, the Golden Rule is not about what we should do to our fellow man, but rather itís about what we should NOT DO to our fellow man." For myself, in accordance with how I read Scripture, the Golden Rule would mean both. What we do to our fellow man and what we do not do to or for our fellow man. For an example; If I were to slap someone across the face, then this is not a right thing to do in my opinion, in accordance with how I read Scripture. This would include any other manner of thing that is an "active" harmful thing to a fellow man. On the flip side of that same coin; To neglect doing the "active" right thing to or for my fellow man, in accordance with Scripture, would also be wrong. On the basis of "inaction" or "omission" of the right act. We are told to "not sin in our anger". We are also told that "to know to do right and not do it, it is sin." Just doing something for someone doesn't necessarily make it right if we are doing it for the wrong reasons i.e. greed, pats on the back, merits with God somehow et-cetera. On the other hand, if we neglect doing what we know is right for someone, then we are actively, "by ommission" doing wrong. Having a hard time phrasing this, let me try another way. If we lie, we know that is wrong. Yet we have the ability to also lie by "omission." which is also just as wrong. If we tell the truth, we know that is right. If we "omit" part of that truth, then we are actively lying. Even if it's by ommission. This reminds me of a discussion I had with a Doctor on Physician Assisted Suicide vs Omitting Food and Water that sustains life. To me, they are both murder. To the Doctor the former was murder but the latter was not. Yet both action and inaction ended in death. If the outcome has negative consequences to the other person, it is wrong as I see things. Also, if the outcome goes directly against God's Written Word--it is absolutely wrong. Nomatter how we may see or try to justify our action or in-action. Does this help? Peace. Denise | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 269 Registered: 10-2000 |
Colleen, I've chosen just your last sentence to sum up your thoughts on this topic to comment on. It is this sentence: "Giving what another needs is really the Golden Rule." I agree with that statement if, within the text of your post, you had included other things besides simply the "emotional." Practical things such as housing, food, water, clothes, medical needs (like the good Samaritan parable that Jesus tells), rides to and fro et-cetera, et-cetera. If those are included, then I concur with your statement. Love in Christ our Lord Jesus. denise |
