Syne said:
What, exactly, do you think "it actually meant"?
Are you having trouble finding my posts on this subject? Seems hard to believe, given that you replied to them.
I would not ask otherwise. This was not a facetious question. Why not simply provide me with a specific quote of where you have clarified this instead of seeming only to dodge the question?
You cannot be serious. It can only be projection to accuse me of evasion while doing just that in failing to show the philosophical latitude you seem to infer of the golden rule.
What contemporary examples? You haven't offered any, only a hypothetical regarding a future where criminality doesn't exist. And what you're arguing in favor of is ignoring the context of the scripture and applying the passage in a secular sense. I have agreed with that notion. What I don't agree with is that this is somehow a "Christian" idea, which was your original argument.
You still failed to answer. Would a future moral sense that penal systems are barbaric change whether murder was immoral? You seem to be conflating descriptive and normative moralities. The golden rule is cast in terms of normative morality, while the period cultural morality is strictly descriptive. You have so far failed to make your case that modern progress is distinctly at odds with the biblical golden rule, whereas:
27b "...‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
...
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” -Luke 10
How is securing rights for any minority
not showing mercy (compassionate treatment of those in distress)?
So your original argument was that the foundational texts are not at odds with modern secular progress, and you gave the Golden Rule as an example. I pointed out that the Golden Rule did not apply as broadly then as it would today, as such a concept as we know it today is inapplicable with slavery or the subjugation of women.
Again, you are conflating descriptive and normative moralities. You should know the difference if you wish to engage people on the subject.
This conversation has clearly gone over your head, so I'm not sure what the point of continuing this is, but I'll try again: There is no alternative version of the Golden Rule (well, that's technically incorrect; there is a form of the rule in just about every civilization ever) only a different context. You seem to think that what it means today is what it meant 2,000 years ago, but you are wrong.
Again, learn the difference between descriptive and normative moralities. The golden rule to clearly cast in terms of a normative morality, where one is encouraged to consult one's own subjective experience. The period culture and laws are descriptive morals which are enforced by the society without regard to personal sense of morality, but this does not bar or hinder anyone of the period imagining himself in the shoes of another and judging actions accordingly.
Those "biases" define the text. The bible lays out rules for slavery--it doesn't abolish it. It mandates the woman be secondary to the man--it does not mandate gender equality. This is why I said that if you want to apply "Do unto others..." to a modern situation, you have to engender it with secular values. In other words, if we applied it in the same context it is applied in the bible, it wouldn't count against oppression, racism, misogyny, etc..
No, you are only conflating descriptive and normative moralities. This is the difference between laws you may not agree with and your personal sense of what is moral. It is naive to assume that these were ever necessarily the same thing.
