The Golden Rule's problems

[Willum]

The Golden Rule, has its first known origins with the Goddess Ma'at and a story about unlawful claiming of property.
It was either taken from there, or rediscovered by Thales of Greece in about 500 BCE.

It is recapped in the Bible in Matthew 7:12,

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

Or in the OT, Leviticus 19:18

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

It sounds great on the surface, but is it the ultimate slippery slope for morality?

The key to recognize the problem is that we all think we are good.
The serial killers of the worlds, the rapist, the you name its of villainy are aware of and can probably justify their actions with the Golden Rule.

Premise of the topic: The Golden Rule sets every single individual as a standard for morality, and appeals to vanity to delude us into its being correct.
It seems like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Bad people will do bad things, because their personal version of the rule, allows it. They would say to themselves, "If I were this given person [whom I am doing bad things to], I would expect this kind of treatment from me."

So the topic of debate is obvious, is the Golden Rule the metric for behavior that it is employed as?

[1213]

I dont think Bible tells it is ok to beat slaves.

It does. And they can even beat their indentured servants too.

Luke 12:47-48 (OK to beat indentured servants)
The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Exodus 21:20-21 (Ok to beat slaves just as long as they don't die within a couple of days. If they died after two days that's ok because the beating obviously wasn't bad enough to kill them quickly. They were obviously too weak to survive so wouldn't be much use to you anyway)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Sorry, I think those dont tell it is ok. Luke 12:47-48 tells what happens to servant that doesnt do what he should do. It is not same as saying it is ok to punish disobedient person, it is the interpretation that you have.

And Exodus 21:20-21, I think it would be nice to read what is said before it. I think it sets it in different light.

If men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he doesn't die, but is confined to bed; if he rises again and walks around with his staff, then he who struck him shall be cleared: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed.
Exodus 21:18-19

According to that, if person who is hit, doesnt die, the one who hit, must pay for the time the person who was hit could not work. Now, if one hits his own slave so that he cant work, the owner loses the same way, because he doesnt get what the slave would have done otherwise. This is why, they judgment for hitting is basically the same, hitter loses work effort in both cases. Therefore I think it is wrong to say that in the Bible it would be ok to hit slave. Basically, it is the same as if person would hit himself so that he could not work. In that case he doesnt have to pay for himself for the work that he could not do. Slave is not the person himself, but slave is working for the owner. If slave cant work, owner loses similarly as he would lose, if he would have to pay for someone else, or if he could not himself work. Do you think there should be greater punishment for hitting someone else (slave or non-slave)?

But it is interesting question, is punishment acceptable? According to the rules, it is ok to punish people, if they have done wrongly. Punishment is in no way limited to slaves only. Actually, even modern law gives right to punish in some cases. Do you think all punishments should be abolished?

[1213]

When Jesus said in Matt 22:21 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" he wasn't talking to slaves.

But that is also not about paying taxes, only about giving to ceasar the things that are ceasars.

In New Zealand we have many beneficiaries all on welfare, taking in an income. They don't work. However they still have to pay taxes based on that income they recieve. Would you consider them slaves too?

Can they own property without government taxing it?

And what about those people in churches who tithe regularly? That's a form of church taxation. Are they slaves too?

It is ok and not slavery, if it is voluntary.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 61 by 1213]

But that is also not about paying taxes, only about giving to ceasar the things that are ceasars.

Weird why would the son of a Jealous God ask that a different god be given tithes? That is so blasphemous, that if I were a Jew, I would hold an insurrection against Rome, and fight so vehemently that they would be forced to disperse the entire nation.

Which is what happened...

Now, the Golden Rule, instead of Matthew?
Thanks!

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 60 by 1213]

Verse 18 is talking about something completely different to verse 19. Just look from verse 12 onwards. Each verse talks about something completely unrelated to the previous.

People talk about plucking verses out of context. In this case you're tryhing to include additional context which just isn't there. Verse 18 talks about damages when it comes to other people (equals). Verse 19 talks about beating your slave.

In fact what it insinuates here is that if the slave was too weak to recover within 2 days then he was of little value to begin with, so who cares that he died. Whereas if the beating was so bad that the slave died within 2 days, then it's likely you the abuser was too heavy handed and wasted a potentially good slave.

This chapter is henious right throughout, explaining how you can screw your servants over. Then in verse 12 it gets into just how much you can physically hurt someone else without having to be penalised.

In fact from vs 12 onwards it's talking about a whole heap of completely unrelated things. You grasp a hold of verse 18 and try to apply it to verse 19. They are completely different things, just as all the other verses from vs 12 onwards are different things.

Heck later it even gets into what to do with badly trained bulls! It even says they have to be stoned to death, simply for acting on their natural instincts! What sort of cruel ridiculous god would order a bull to be stoned to death just for doing what it does naturally?

The golden rule seems to be absent throughout most of this chapter. If not, all of it.

Do you think all punishments should be abolished?

No, I think people should be punished, but just read the chapter in its entirety. This isn't just about punishing people. This is also talking about what you can get away with. Loopholes that you can exploit to avoid punishment.

Let's say you beat your slave.
Scenario 1: He dies instantly.
Scenario 2: He dies a day later
Scenario 3: He dies three days later.
Scneario 4: He recovers and doesn't die.

Which scenarios do you think you should be punished for?

Personally I think each scenario is worthy of punishment. What about you?
The first 3 - punishment for murder or manslaughter
The fourth - punishment for assault and possible GBH.

According to Exodus, only scenario 1 and 2 deserve punishment.

[Tcg]

When Jesus said in Matt 22:21 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" he wasn't talking to slaves.

But that is also not about paying taxes, only about giving to ceasar the things that are ceasars.

According to the words put in Jesus' mouth, it was:

• Matthew 22:17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?
  
  18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax. They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, Whose image is this? And whose inscription?
  
  21 Caesars, they replied.
  
  Then he said to them, So give back to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods.
  
  <bolding mine>

As always, it is useful to address the contents of the Bible when trying to comprehend what it is referring to.


Tcg

[OnceConvinced]

Tcg, you beat me to it.

When Jesus said in Matt 22:21 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" he wasn't talking to slaves.

But that is also not about paying taxes, only about giving to ceasar the things that are ceasars.

It IS talking about taxes!

Mark 12:13-17
13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You arent swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldnt we?

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. Why are you trying to trap me? he asked. Bring me a denarius and let me look at it. 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, Whose image is this? And whose inscription?
Caesars, they replied.
17 Then Jesus said to them, Give back to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods.

..............
So, if we go by Jesus's logic then money we have that has pictures of presidents on it... or queens, belongs to those people, so we should pay back to them what is there's.

So paying taxes is not a form of slavery. It's giving back what is owed to the state/country/governent.

Jesus said so himself.

In New Zealand we have many beneficiaries all on welfare, taking in an income. They don't work. However they still have to pay taxes based on that income they recieve. Would you consider them slaves too?

Can they own property without government taxing it?

If you are talking about captial gains tax We don't have that, but there is talk about it being introduced on certain properties. Even so the house belongs to the owner. They can sell it or hand it on to decendants. Nobody has the right to take it from them. Slaves to do not own property.

It is ok and not slavery, if it is voluntary.

The bible instructs to tithe. It also instructs to pay taxes. What's the difference?

Giving to God? Giving to Ceasar? We have to give to Ceasar, but what's more important? Giving to God or giving to Ceasar?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 65 by OnceConvinced]

The word "tax" and "tithes" are the same word in Greek and Latin.
Caesar, as I am quite fond of pointing out, was a god:

It says so on the very coins Jesus was asked about, the ones he picked up and read.
Should you tithe to the god Caesar?
The good son of God should have said: You should not tithe to foreign Gods.
To say otherwise was a sin he should have been crucified for...

In case there is any doubt, the inscriptions read, for those theists who might deny being able to translate the Latin:
Tiberivs Caesar Divi Avgvsti Filivs Avgvstvs
Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus

[benchwarmer]

I pay taxes. I am free to move wherever I like, including to a new country that may or may not have taxes

I dont know any country where taxes are voluntary. If you know, please tell, where it is possible to not pay taxes?

I suggest using google when faced with such easily answered questions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+without+taxes

Which gives some of the following:

Bermuda
Monaco
The Bahamas
United Arab Emirates

.It's clear you are backed into a corner both needing to defend your precious scripture and at the same time not be seen as someone who thinks slavery is OK. .

Slavery seems to have many meanings and forms

Sure, but unless you have been purposely ignoring the context of this conversation you know we are talking about people owning other people as property. As described in the Bible. You trying to derail into other forms of slavery is telling that you don't want to address the real issue.

, but in any case, I am against slavery and that is why I think people should not be forced to pay taxes. One reason for me to be against it is the Jeremiah 34:8-17.

Are you against people owning other people as property? If so, you are against some of the rules in the Bible and perhaps finally on the way to realizing the Bible is full of nonsense that some of modern society has managed to shed.

[1213]

Weird why would the son of a Jealous God ask that a different god be given tithes?

I think you have really weird interpretation. Why it is necessary for you even though there is no support in the Bible for your interpretation?

[1213]

Verse 18 is talking about something completely different to verse 19. Just look from verse 12 onwards. Each verse talks about something completely unrelated to the previous.

I dont see how you can come up to that idea.

People talk about plucking verses out of context. In this case you're tryhing to include additional context which just isn't there. Verse 18 talks about damages when it comes to other people (equals). Verse 19 talks about beating your slave.

Exodus 21:18-19 tells what is the payment in case of non-servant. In case of a servant the payment is basically the same, but because in the case of a servant, owner loses, if the servant cant work, he would have to pay for himself for the loss. And I think it is obviously kind of stupid if one causes harm to himself that he should pay for himself for the harm he has caused for himself. I am sorry, if you dont understand the point.

In fact what it insinuates here is that if the slave was too weak to recover within 2 days then he was of little value to begin with, so who cares that he died. Whereas if the beating was so bad that the slave died within 2 days, then it's likely you the abuser was too heavy handed and wasted a potentially good slave.

If person dies much later, it is probably some other reason, therefore I believe there was no judgment in any case when person dies 3 days later.

Scenario 1: He dies instantly.

If slave or non-slave dies, the punishment is death, because:

One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death
Exodus 21:12

Scenario 2: He dies a day later

The punishment would be in all cases that what is said in Exodus 21:12.

Scenario 3: He dies three days later.

There is no death penalty, and I believe it is because the reason is not the hitting.

Scneario 4: He recovers and doesn't die.

In this scenario:

he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed.
Exodus 21:19

In case of slave, owner pays for himself for the loss of the time that the slave cant work. If it would be someone else, he would pay for the other one who loses time.

I can understand if you dont accept the judgment, but it is equal for all.