What's wrong with this statement for religion?

[Crunchy Cat]

"IF you do good, you get good. If you do bad, you get bad."

The cleanest definitions of 'Good' and 'Evil' I can come up with are as follows:

Good - A label for a persons individual and constantly moving tolerance to the presence or absence of varying forms and degress of altruistic behavior.

Evil - A label for a persons individual and constantly moving tolerance to the presence or absence of varying forms and degress of exploitive behavior.

To assert doing 'Good' means that you have to meet every person's tolerance and that's not possible. To meet the criteria of even one person's tolerance (whether its yours or someone elses) doesn't even come close to guaranteeing that the same behavior will be returned to you.

Sounds simple and the fundamental of what religion ultimately boils down to.

I disagree, I have seen evidence that the spirit of religion is to provide a non-disputable common ground where people can relate to each other and themselves in healthy way.

Yet, instead of complicated philosophies and moral rules, why not follow that basic rule? If everyone can do that, happiness and world peace would ensue.

The rule is subjective and not realistic.

 

[perplexity]

It generally holds that what goes around, comes around,
in some way, in some time.

we sure do. if you help a little old lady across the street and she punches you in the face on the other side, you were trying to do good and got bad. how can you not have insight into that?

Ask the old lady why she did it.

----

 

[charles cure]

Ask the old lady why she did it.

----

huh?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

There are elements of good in everything that's bad. Murder, generally accepted as bad, is good for the police, undertaker, gravediggers, monument makers, etc. The families of these people also benefit as it is an income source which eventually helps merchants and the government(taxation). Its a neverending cycle.

 

[Hapsburg]

Here's the problem with that message from religion, "do good and you get good"...usually the good is for the "common good".
I, however, am concentrated on what is good for me and what few loved ones I have.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I guess all those who died trying to eradicate the Nazi's from Europe weren't doing any good unless dying is a good thing.

 

[Hapsburg]

I guess all those who died trying to eradicate the Nazi's from Europe weren't doing any good unless dying is a good thing.

That's different. That's stopping a genocide, which goes beyond the common good, and into "holy shit, those guys are committing a genocide, we need to stop them."

 

[duendy]

"IF you do good, you get good. If you do bad, you get bad."

Sounds simple and the fundamental of what religion ultimately boils down to. Yet, instead of complicated philosophies and moral rules, why not follow that basic rule? If everyone can do that, happiness and world peace would ensue.

you need to examine the authority which saysthat. are you blindly following an authority? if so then the good you THINKyou are doing via obeyance may be bad, and the bad---ie., not cowtowing to tat authority is good. so before anything you must checkout what autority is saying what is good and bad

 

[perplexity]

huh?

Perhaps the old lady punched you in the face because she knows about your insight.

Or perhaps she could tell you if she did it because of a hard and fast truth or rule that we know of,
or it was only true in the sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Karma in the Buddhist sense is not about specific results or reactions.
It is about the creation of a general condition as a sum total, conducive to good effect.

----

 

[illuminatingtherapy]

You would know if it's a good person if the person is doing good deeds not out of selfishness or ego. Why theorize more about it? I love the simplicity the author of this thread is proposing. What is good is good. It would benefit anyone/everyone and anything/everything. Simple as that.

 

[geeser]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

 

[MadMaxReborn]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Does that also mean that you need religion for evil people to do good things? Because then it doesn't sound so bad.

 

[geeser]

Does that also mean that you need religion for evil people to do good things? Because then it doesn't sound so bad.

does it say that, no.