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?

[Bust Nak]

First thing is, rape is never right or good, not in my opinion and also not in the Bible. Good thing is that I think we can all agree with that. If you disagree, please explain why.

I disagree with your claim that it is never right or good in the Bible, the reason being it depicted an agents of God allowing/ordering rape, where such agents are presented as righteous.

In Biblical point of view, when person have had sex, he is married with that person. And if one has sex with someone else than his/her spouse, the judgement is death (for adultery). This means, all rapists who are married, or who rape person who is married, deserves death.

Not just rapist, but also applies to rape victims, who are presumed to be adulterers by default.

And because of this, only cases when person would not deserve death is that both persons are not married, or that the rape would happen in marriage.

That you accept spousal rape is a thing already put you one step ahead the Bible. You've already noted there is no punishment for such in the Bible.

I don’t know what would have been better judgment in the case. If you think some other judgment would be better, please explain what and why.

How about the modern justice system that is common in the West? It is better because it punishes the rapist and avoid the problem of making the victim living with rapist.

If people would love others as the Bible teaches, they would not rape in any case.

Tell me what the Bible taught the Israelites about loving the Canaanites?

[1213]

…I disagree with your claim that it is never right or good in the Bible, the reason being it depicted an agents of God allowing/ordering rape, where such agents are presented as righteous.

I don’t think there I any scripture that tells God orders rape. But it is true that God has allowed people to be free. Unfortunately, many use the freedom for bad things.

…Not just rapist, but also applies to rape victims, who are presumed to be adulterers by default.

Where it is said that the victim of rape should be also killed?

…That you accept spousal rape …

I don’t accept it.

…How about the modern justice system that is common in the West? It is better because it punishes the rapist and avoid the problem of making the victim living with rapist…

I think Bible is better. For example in Finland, if virgin person rapes, he probably avoids all responsibilities and don’t really get any meaningful punishment.

But it is true, victim probably don’t end up living with the rapist, unless she happens to like that person. The possible child is in the worst situation, because he is probably killed, even though he is probably the most innocent in this case.

Tell me what the Bible taught the Israelites about loving the Canaanites?

I think the same as about loving all other people.

[Bust Nak]

I don’t think there I any scripture that tells God orders rape. But it is true that God has allowed people to be free. Unfortunately, many use the freedom for bad things.

How exactly does that answer the charge that an agent of God, presented as righteous in God's eyes, does order rape? If he was abuser of God-given freedom, then he should be called out as such in the text.

Where it is said that the victim of rape should be also killed?

Isn't the adulterers-by-default bit give you a hint as to what I was referring to? It's Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

I don’t accept it.

There is a difference between accepting it, an accepting it as a thing. Just in case you weren't aware, there are those who thinks spousal rape is an incoherent concept.

I think Bible is better. For example in Finland, if virgin person rapes, he probably avoids all responsibilities and don’t really get any meaningful punishment.

Had a quick looked, non-violent rape is 1-6 years, aggravated rape is 2-10 years. That's not meaningful?

But it is true, victim probably don’t end up living with the rapist, unless she happens to like that person.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

The possible child is in the worst situation, because he is probably killed, even though he is probably the most innocent in this case.

And way to bring in abortion into the topic.

I think the same as about loving all other people.

Ah huh, tell that to the Canaanites, oh wait, you can't. They were slaughtered with God's blessing.

[OnceConvinced]

I wonder why did God waited until Jesus came down before he commanded the golden rule anyway? Why wasn't it established back in Moses time?

Where was the golden rule when Moses and other leaders came up with these laws:

It's ok to beat your slave viciously as long as he doesn't die within 2 days.
Forcing rape victims to marry their rapists (as already discussed).
Ordering animals to be slaughtered for sins.
Ordering people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath.
Ordering bears to kill a bunch of children for calling Elisha "baldy?

And what about wiping out people with floods or sending giant fist to swallow people?
Where was the goldnen ruile applied when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden or when God destroyed cities?
Where was the golden rule applied when Lot gave over his daughters to a brutal mob to protect a couple of angels?

God seems to be the one that cconstantly violates the golden rule which he supposedly commanded. Did he decide to turn over a new leaf or something? Go from malevolent to kind?

Whoever came up with the golden rule clearly had good intentions at heart, but why wasn't it initiated thousands of years earlier and why does God not apply his own rules to himself?

[Zzyzx]

.

Whoever came up with the golden rule clearly had good intentions at heart, but why wasn't it initiated thousands of years earlier and why does God not apply his own rules to himself?

Actually, OC, the Ethic of Reciprocity (AKA Golden Rule) WAS initiated by almost all religions and associated ideologies, some long predating Christianity.

No one has a copyright on the concept -- though some seem to think they have.

[Willum]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

Perhaps God is doing to others as he would have done to him. He may be a masochistic, sucidal, xenocidal, thing who, like 1213 says, likes to be raped.
I mean who are we to comprehend the mind of God?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 34 by OnceConvinced]

DOES THE BIBLE COMMAND OR ENDORSE RAPE?

• ♦ANSWER Absolutely not. Under the Mosaic law rape was always a punishable offenice Indeed, in that that law was ahead of its time as few modern western states made rape illegal before our 20th century. Anyone proven guilty of raping a married woman was to be executed (see Deuteronomy 22:23-27) and rape of a single girl carried lifelong consequences.
  
  If a man raped a single girl he would be held accountable. Either he had to pay her full bride price and then support her and any children conceived for the rest of his life ie marry her ( Deuteronomy 22.28–29, Ex 22:16) or pay for his crime by paying damages. If forced to marry her, the victims children would inherited all he had when he died (compare Deuteronomy 21:16, 17). This gave any children conceived from the crime at least a name and an inheritance and forced the man to pay in real terms for what he had done. The expression "If you do the crime you do the time" .. comes to mind, in this case the man pays for the rest of his life supporting the girl he violated. It also protected the girl's reputation and avoided the risk she fall into destitution (unfortunately a rape victim had a lower chance of being viewed as a suitable wife and so the girl risked having no means of support when her father died). The man can never divorce her , even after the death of her father, thus protecting her from being rejected and left destitute in her old age (Deut 22:29b).
  
  While any rape is a tragedy, this law at least avoided the victim paying twice for someone else's crime: once by being violated and once by having to suffering financial loss, public shame and loss of statues for herself and her children.

Was the girl forced to marry her aggressor?

• No. The law allowed for damages to be paid (which again acknowledged that a crime had been committed against her person, protecting the girls reputation). If acceptable to her father that was always an option (see Exodus 22:17). Damages also labelled the man a criminal of the worst kind (and no doubt an unsuitable son-in-law). At the very least, his reputation would have been lost and at worst, he never marries leaving him childless without support in his old age (there was no social security system a man's children were what protected him from destitution when he was too old to work to support himself). If not already married the rapists family name, sullied as it would be, would probably die out with him.

CONCLUSION While marrying ones rapist is distasteful to 21st century sensibilities, in context it was neither imposed without right of refusal nor indeed necessarily the worst of all options. Critiques do well to do some research on when their State first recognised rape as a crime, not just against a married women but against a single woman, before they gather stones to cast at one of, if not the earliest law that recognised the intrinc right of a woman has over her own body

RELATED POSTS

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Could a Hebrew soldier rape a captive slave with immunity?
viewtopic.php?p=1073044#p1073044

Does the bible give husbands the right to RAPE their wives?
viewtopic.php?p=1057293#p1057293

Why was a woman required to scream if she were threatened with rape Under the mosaic law?
viewtopic.php?p=764030#p764030

Does the bible command or endorse RAPE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 46#p976946

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

MARRIAGE, WOMEN and .. RAPE

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by JehovahsWitness]

Wow, several Bible quotes have been presented that flatly show your freehand text incorrect. Do you have anything to back up your personal opinions about the abhorrency of the Bible and its God?
Or do we get to take your word for it over the Bible itself?

[1213]

How exactly does that answer the charge that an agent of God, presented as righteous in God's eyes, does order rape?

Sorry, I don’t think there is any scripture telling that righteous person orders rape.

Isn't the adulterers-by-default bit give you a hint as to what I was referring to? It's Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

Only if the woman didn’t resist and didn't show that she doesn’t want it.

I think Bible is better. For example in Finland, if virgin person rapes, he probably avoids all responsibilities and don’t really get any meaningful punishment.

Had a quick looked, non-violent rape is 1-6 years, aggravated rape is 2-10 years. That's not meaningful?

From where did you look at that? Anyway, when person commits it first time, the judgment is very light, in my opinion. But probably opinions don’t really matter in this.

But it is true, victim probably don’t end up living with the rapist, unless she happens to like that person.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

Because of this kind of material:

https://thetempest.co/2019/04/06/now-be ... criminals/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... les-manson
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... finds.html

There is lot of articles about how women love criminals. Of course not all and it doesn’t mean it is ok to be criminal, but certainly it is not necessary a problem for many women, according to those articles.

And there is even this word for those people:

“Hybristophilia is a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities, or crime—such as rape, murder, or armed robbery�.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

The possible child is in the worst situation, because he is probably killed, even though he is probably the most innocent in this case.

And way to bring in abortion into the topic.

Because the result of a rape is probably pregnancy, and nowadays unwanted babies are usually murdered.

[1213]

I wonder why did God waited until Jesus came down before he commanded the golden rule anyway? Why wasn't it established back in Moses time?

It was already then:

… you shall love your neighbor as yourself… … The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself;
Lev. 19:18,34