id say yes coz it simplifies the rules boils it down to one that is practical
2007-07-30 21:31:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by ladyluck 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
GCB, I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb. Keep in mind, Jesus also supposedly said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Lot of Christians say it is all the same thing? I don't think they're the same. The Biblical debate, and I think a much bigger one, is whether Jesus said both, or He originally said some sort of combination? Like, Do unto your neighbor as you'd have them do unto you."
Remember, there is a big parable about the Samaritan, and the word "neighbor", was used in that parable.
Always found the interpretation by Christians of that story a little odd? Christians say the Samaritan loved his "neighbor" = the dude down and out in the ditch, right? Problem is, at the end of the story, Jesus asked who the neighbor was and the response was "the one that was kind." That would mean the neighbor to love was the Samaritan. Taken literally, your neighbor is not the other guy that is down and out. Your neighbor is the guy that will help you when your down and out.
Love that dude, okay? hee hee.
2007-07-31 04:55:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by JIMMY 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not what they would do to themselves. That rules out suicide, but not murderers. So than the murderer would have to ask themselves "would I really want them to strangle me, or hack me to death?" and if the answer was "no" than he should not kill you. If the answer is "yes", than maybe he should be stoned to death, like others in the bible, before he goes on a murder spree, and you would be doing him, and the rest of the world a favor.
I've also wondered about how it says that God doesn't give anyone more burden than they can bare. But that does not explain why people go insane and end up on a psych ward, because they were living with to much stress.
2007-07-31 04:39:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sandra B 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
a different approach is the version that I've heard in Judaism, which is slightly different.
"Do NOT Do unto others as you would not have them Do unto you"
I think this is a little more effective, without most of the loopholes. and I think ultimately is more unilateral.
2007-07-31 05:00:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by RW 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know why people call this the Golden Rule.
God is Love and with that in mind I believe the first two commandments should be the Golden Rules we follow.
!. Love God with all your heart and mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Notice Gods first commandments both start with Love, that leads me to believe that is what is most important to God and we were created in his image so I believe that is what he wants from us most..
2007-07-31 04:41:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The rule lets you behave ethically if you don't have the spirit to love others. This rule is the mother of ethics but love is the mother of salvation.
â¥Blessed Beâ¥
â¥=â
2007-07-31 04:35:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by gnosticv 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
'Doing to others' is via the Holy Spirit. This Spirit behaves with gentleness, goodness, kindness, patience, and love. He gives you self-control and peace. It's in the nature of this Spirit that you 'do unto others'.
2007-07-31 04:40:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by cheir 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends on the person or people involved. And the situation or 'ethical questions', as you put it, at hand wouldn't it? If someone is racist and openly doesnt like you, would you treat him as unkindly as he treated you?
2007-07-31 04:39:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by reagan_prrs 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sounds good to me but try implementing that on the world.
Some people like haters I don't think really mind that the people they hate hate them back.
2007-07-31 04:37:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by NoGood 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Try this one:
"Do onto others as they would like to be treated"
I think this philosophy is superior to the golden rule.
Instead of saying, this is how ' I ' want to be treated, think, how would ' they' want to be treated.
2007-07-31 04:36:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋