Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: The Golden Rule vs the Law of Love 14

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42

Jesus Christ was not just God, he was a Man, teaching other Men, in a time far less enlightened than ours. The Golden Rule wasn't, strictly speaking, his either- it was borrowed from other traditions. But in a time of tribalism being disrupted and every man for himself, it was pretty good:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
or I've also heard it interpreted as
Love others as you love yourself

The problem with this is, it doesn't cover cynical depressed bastards like myself. I don't expect others to do unto me at all, and in my experience, when they do it's usually at some cost to myself. Likewise, loving others as I love myself is pretty awful.

So, in what no doubt some would consider my blasphemy, trying to improve upon Christ himself, but to me is simply summing up Supreme Knight Carl Anderson's ideas in A Civilization of Love, may I suggest the following:

Give unto others more than you would have them give unto you.

If we adopted *THAT* as our highest economic law, we'd be much better off.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Golden Rule vs the Law of Love

Comments Filter:
  • But you actually GET IT.

    Not only give more, but tolerate more - and expect NOTING in return.

    This is chivalry.

  • This made me think of the "turn the other cheek" set of passages. Such as Matthew 5 [biblegateway.com]:8 - "And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."

    I think between the righteous, basic equality of treatment is called for and sufficient, as a good person will already do unto you as you would have them. I.e. the Golden Rule suffices.

    But with regard to the wicked, we are to allow ourselves to be unequal, and give more than you'd feel would be right to take yourself. (That is, to be b

    • by Bill Dog (726542)

      s/8/40/

    • Trouble is, I've yet to meet a righteous man. Only arrogant ones. Lord knows I'm wicked myself.

        Something intruding on my mind about a Greek with a lantern searching for a righteous man, eternally, but I don't remember who....

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        You already have. By righteous I mean a believer, who's trying to live a sin-minimal [sin-free is not possible] life. I.e. someone who's saved, declared righteous by God via His sacrifice.

        • I'm not really sure that God declares people as righteous. FORGIVEN, yes. RIGHTEOUS though implies a state beyond that which most human beings will ever be capable of.

          I miss having faith in my fellow man. But at this point, it's been destroyed to the point that I don't believe, without miraculous intervention, that a sin-minimal life is even possible. We all have our favorite sins, even those who claim to be "saved", that we simply aren't willing to listen to God or anybody else about.

          Now, of course, so

          • by Bill Dog (726542)

            I was thinking of "righteous" as "without sin". I am, effectively, without sin.

            • I don't believe that for a second. In fact, I find the more some people *claim* to be without sin, the more likely they are to be hiding something.

              Especially if they're for "privacy"- after all, the man truly without sin, has no need of privacy at all.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...