The golden rule (theist version)

[pavlosmarcos]

"Do unto others, but dont let them do it to you"

I was seriously thinking about why the religious proselytize whenever that can, and started to think about the religious actually following the golden rule, why is it, that they supposedly follow this rule by asking those out side the faith to seriously question their own beliefs.

But how come, 1) they don't question there own beliefs? or 2) like it when they feel somebody is proselytizes to them? after all they are simply following the same morals the religious ascribe too, IE (”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

 

[cosmictraveler]

Do unto others before they do it unto you.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Do unto others before they do it unto you.

Exactly! thats another form of the theist version.

 

[lightgigantic]

"Do unto others, but dont let them do it to you"

I was seriously thinking about why the religious proselytize whenever that can, and started to think about the religious actually following the golden rule, why is it, that they supposedly follow this rule by asking those out side the faith to seriously question their own beliefs.

But how come, 1) they don't question there own beliefs?or 2) like it when they feel somebody is proselytizes to them? after all they are simply following the same morals the religious ascribe too, IE (”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

One will always have warrant for a bizarre argument if one insists on dressing up secondary values/objectives as primary.

Doesn't matter whether one is discussing religion or the price of eggs in china.

:shrug:

 

[brokenpower]

I think it relies solely on the situation. As i am not religious in any way, i think the phrase "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" should only be used in certain situations of morality... such as hurting, stealing, killing, ect.... i don't think it has an application to all aspects of life.

just my 2 cents...

 

[UncleChrist]

I think the late great George Carlin put it best

"Do what ever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else"

This seems to be a much more appropriate rule to live by

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

1st, do no harm.

 

[jayleew]

All relgious text is misunderstood and therefore seemingly contradictory. In essence all religious text is controversial. The ones who need the text to not be contradictory, will clamor to it. The ones who don't need the text, are not under the influence of the text. Both types get defensive out of insecurity of their belief, no matter how strongly they themselves feel they believe. It is ignorance to the golden rule, the ignorance is justified, and therefore is not ignorance in their minds.

Religious people can be dangerous and vital at the same time. It's madness! They are great psychologists/counselors, but everything that is attached to that service is a disservice to mankind.

I welcome the freethinking theist who isn't afraid to challenge their own beliefs and come to terms with the truth and the realization that maybe they don't have it figured out, but they will believe. In this way, they could peacefully exist in religious tolerance, and yet still persue their own belief and discovery.