Still getting my bearings so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Will be upfront about my agenda straight away though - I have a passion for sharing my beliefs about Jesus as discovered in the Urantia book.
Anyway, in my brief search on this site I came across the thread "leave us alone" viewtopic.php?t=31987 and the subject of the golden rule came up. Since I obviously have my own beliefs that stray from the gospels as recorded in the bible, I wanted to share what I've learned regarding this teaching. Hopefully this would be of some encouragement / interest to believers or curious ones.
I'll quote what "Blastcat" stated in his post about the golden rule, and I'm inclined to see things from his point of view....if that's all Jesus said:
The Golden Rule expects that how I want to be treated is how you want to be treated.
There are problems with the Golden Rule.
That's why smarter people have coined what's called the "platinum rule"
"Lets treat people how they want to be treated"
That's a lot more simple, and more clear, and don't have the problem of projecting our wants and desires onto others. It's all very well to treat people like we want to be treated if that's what they WANT. The Golden Rule forgets that not everyone wants the same thing.
The Golden Rule fails if we really think about it.
The Platinum Rule is way way better.
That's the thing about thinking.. we can and do progress.
Jesus and his "Golden Rule" has been surpassed.
Odd, don't you think?
Funny enough, allegedly (I say allegedly because I don't expect everyone to just believe it), the Urantia book details almost the same dialogue that one of Jesus' disciples had with Jesus, contending with this seemingly illogical golden rule. This disciple (Nathaniel) was what you could call the deep/critical/analytical thinker, much like Thomas. The quote as follows:
Source:
http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper ... m#U147_4_1
147:4.1 On the evening of this same Sabbath day, at Bethany, while Jesus, the twelve, and a group of believers were assembled about the fire in Lazarus’s garden, Nathaniel asked Jesus this question: “Master, although you have taught us the positive version of the old rule of life, instructing us that we should do to others as we wish them to do to us, I do not fully discern how we can always abide by such an injunction. Let me illustrate my contention by citing the example of a lustful man who thus wickedly looks upon his intended consort in sin. How can we teach that this evil-intending man should do to others as he would they should do to him?�
147:4.2 When Jesus heard Nathaniel’s question, he immediately stood upon his feet and, pointing his finger at the apostle, said: “Nathaniel, Nathaniel! What manner of thinking is going on in your heart? Do you not receive my teachings as one who has been born of the spirit? Do you not hear the truth as men of wisdom and spiritual understanding? When I admonished you to do to others as you would have them do to you, I spoke to men of high ideals, not to those who would be tempted to distort my teaching into a license for the encouragement of evildoing.�
147:4.3 When the Master had spoken, Nathaniel stood up and said: “But, Master, you should not think that I approve of such an interpretation of your teaching. I asked the question because I conjectured that many such men might thus misjudge your admonition, and I hoped you would give us further instruction regarding these matters.� And then when Nathaniel had sat down, Jesus continued speaking: “I well know, Nathaniel, that no such idea of evil is approved in your mind, but I am disappointed in that you all so often fail to put a genuinely spiritual interpretation upon my commonplace teachings, instruction which must be given you in human language and as men must speak. Let me now teach you concerning the differing levels of meaning attached to the interpretation of this rule of living, this admonition to `do to others that which you desire others to do to you':
“1. The level of the flesh. Such a purely selfish and lustful interpretation would be well exemplified by the supposition of your question.
“2. The level of the feelings. This plane is one level higher than that of the flesh and implies that sympathy and pity would enhance one’s interpretation of this rule of living.
“3. The level of mind. Now come into action the reason of mind and the intelligence of experience. Good judgment dictates that such a rule of living should be interpreted in consonance with the highest idealism embodied in the nobility of profound self-respect.
“4. The level of brotherly love. Still higher is discovered the level of unselfish devotion to the welfare of one’s fellows. On this higher plane of wholehearted social service growing out of the consciousness of the fatherhood of God and the consequent recognition of the brotherhood of man, there is discovered a new and far more beautiful interpretation of this basic rule of life.
“5. The moral level. And then when you attain true philosophic levels of interpretation, when you have real insight into the rightness and wrongness of things, when you perceive the eternal fitness of human relationships, you will begin to view such a problem of interpretation as you would imagine a high-minded, idealistic, wise, and impartial third person would so view and interpret such an injunction as applied to your personal problems of adjustment to your life situations.
“6. The spiritual level. And then last, but greatest of all, we attain the level of spirit insight and spiritual interpretation which impels us to recognize in this rule of life the divine command to treat all men as we conceive God would treat them. That is the universe ideal of human relationships. And this is your attitude toward all such problems when your supreme desire is ever to do the Father’s will. I would, therefore, that you should do to all men that which you know I would do to them in like circumstances.�
