The golden rule

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The golden rule according to secular:
Do to others what you want them to do to you

In reference to:
KJV: Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others should be done unto you. Because if you live by the golden rule you expect the same in return.
Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye.

Therefore, one doesn’t agree to be treat as one would be treated by treating others as one would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed one has fulfilled what it is expected in return as in like treatment.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others should be done unto you.
so you say, but imo you have just restated "an eye for an eye" there
i do not agree that what i do unto others should be done for me.

now, how i am going to defend this i have no idea yet, lol
Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye.
imo this fails bc "murder" is a distinction of "homicide" based upon intent, that may only be perceived and not true, #1, and #2 "an eye for an eye" was meant to proscribe murdering someone for a lesser slight, damaging their eye in this case. So, imo "an eye for an eye" is being understood here as an approved way to exact vengeance, when that was never the intent.

The Golden Rule does overcome An Eye For An Eye, by going it one better, if you will do it. But it is not Law, so iow Grace is Optional in a sense
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
so then, if you...sin against me, i forgive you, even though you might not apologize; and when i sin against you, i apologize and offer rebound and recompense, even though you may not forgive me.

this is the ideal, of course, practice might be diff.
this seems to run counter to your prop, although i have confused the perspectives here
ahem
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"an eye for an eye" all over again, imo, wadr. Expectations trumping Grace.
"I'll do this for you, with the understanding that you owe me now."
is what i'm hearing anyway?

what? you've never been amongst the human race? you've never given money for product made, and made available to you? and how is it you see eye for an eye as a agreed transaction?

also just because there is such a thing as grace doesn't mean you are entitled grace.
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
so then, if you...sin against me, i forgive you, even though you might not apologize; and when i sin against you, i apologize and offer rebound and recompense, even though you may not forgive me.

this is the ideal, of course, practice might be diff.
this seems to run counter to your prop, although i have confused the perspectives here
ahem


you don't think one who has been robbed is entitled restitution? are you telling me that if you steal something you are entitled forgiveness and mercy? the injured party is entitled restoration and the injured party doesn't have to forgive the perp. to be restored. forgiveness is an option of the injured party.

its simple; again if you agree that you should treat others as you would be treated, then you also agree to be treat as you treat others therefore your expectation should be in this case of you being the perp. to have to restore and suffer a loss. because have agreed to it.

in Israel back in the day if you stole something you had to restore it, sometimes with interest, and if you didn't have it, you could be sold into slavery to restore what was taken. but in the same context if you do unto others as you would be done to then you walk accordingly. do unto others is the correct interpretation of eye for an eye. therefore eye for an eye isn't nullified but according to Jesus one can live with in the law that the Word of God gave Moses.

if you come into an agreement of, I will do this for you for that. then once I'm done you should pay. but if I do something for you without your agreement to owe then its on me.

if you do unto others as you have then do unto you, odds are you will never be in need of forgiveness by anyone, and you can walk in the law of eye for and eye, but there are always exceptions.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others should be done unto you. Because if you live by the golden rule you expect the same in return.
Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye.

The problem I see is that Mat 7:12 has been isolated from a larger context, which was his sermon in the mount.

Its 3 chapters lomg (chapters 5, 6 and 7). Chapter 5 (the second half) lays down some hard doctrine. Killing is bad being angry with your brother without reason is just as bad. He speaks about adultery in like fashion.

He eventually does deal with "eye for an eye" specifically. Mat 5:38 through the rest of the chapter. This is where he says if you are smited on your right cheek... Turn the other to him also.

There is a lot of deeper meaning to this which i won't discuss as it would detract from the conversation.

But Jesus establishes "love your enemies" then he talked about the golden rule. He wasn't just talking about how you should act when offended in chapter 5. He was also laying down how we should treat others when we offend them. That was further established in chapter 7. The answer is, we shouldn't.

He furthered that point in the Lord's prayer and his commentary on it.

My point is to look at Mat 7:12 in light of the teaching he already gave in that sermon. The eye for an eye rule had been addressed and is not right. He not only established murder and adultery are wrong but took it a bit further. Yet if we are to expect mercy we should give it.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
what? you've never been amongst the human race? you've never given money for product made, and made available to you?
well, the first to me now = "in the world," whereas the second is more like "of the world," i still do that, but as little as possible, most often rather do without it now if i have to get it that way, exactly because it reflects the...problem, imo. But to answer your Q more directly, yes, but not bc i would prefer that. Almost never
and how is it you see eye for an eye as a agreed transaction?
obv they are not strictly the same, but they do shadow each other imo
might even be = i guess
also just because there is such a thing as grace doesn't mean you are entitled grace.
hmm, another...unusual frame, imo. We are assured that we get grace anyway though, right. Plus grace can be given anytime you like, right, you don't have to perceive it strictly as something you might get
matter of fact in picking up your cross i'm pretty sure your ability to give grace while you are not getting it is a central concept, that will be tested. prolly many times, since one will fail the test many times
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
you don't think one who has been robbed is entitled restitution?
ah, which system we talking about now, DP, which disp we operating under here? Depends
are you telling me that if you steal something you are entitled forgiveness and mercy? the injured party is entitled restoration and the injured party doesn't have to forgive the perp. to be restored. forgiveness is an option of the injured party.
ah ok, so Law then, so the answer to your first Q there is categorically "yes," (bc the Law does not provide the restitution, it only entitles you to it), and if i steal something under Law i am not entitled mercy, but you also have to prove i stole it too, iow if i steal something and get away with it, forgiveness and mercy never come in to play; i can even use the Law to do the stealing, etc...and yes, the injured party is entitled, and they don't have to, and it is an option, under Law, but again the Law does not actually manifest any of those on its own, see, it only guarantees them; a promise that cannot be kept iow. Getting a favorable judgement in no way guarantees restoration, see; in fact in practice getting a fave judgement only guarantees many, many more court appearances i guess lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
then you also agree to be treat as you treat others therefore your expectation
but this is an expectation, see, that infers that what i am agreeing to here will come to pass, when that may (likely) not come to pass at all, seems to me. I also agree that i will not get treated as well as i treat others, see. But we are talking about two diff systems, you cannot serve God and Mammon, Grace and Law, you have to pick one. Either pick up your cross, or stand up for your rights, but you cannot do both
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
if you do unto others as you have then do unto you, odds are you will never be in need of forgiveness by anyone, and you can walk in the law of eye for and eye, but there are always exceptions.
well, at least you will get awarded judgements; best of luck collecting on them i guess
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The problem I see is that Mat 7:12 has been isolated from a larger context, which was his sermon in the mount.

Its 3 chapters lomg (chapters 5, 6 and 7). Chapter 5 (the second half) lays down some hard doctrine. Killing is bad being angry with your brother without reason is just as bad. He speaks about adultery in like fashion.

He eventually does deal with "eye for an eye" specifically. Mat 5:38 through the rest of the chapter. This is where he says if you are smited on your right cheek... Turn the other to him also.

There is a lot of deeper meaning to this which i won't discuss as it would detract from the conversation.

But Jesus establishes "love your enemies" then he talked about the golden rule. He wasn't just talking about how you should act when offended in chapter 5. He was also laying down how we should treat others when we offend them. That was further established in chapter 7. The answer is, we shouldn't.

He furthered that point in the Lord's prayer and his commentary on it.

My point is to look at Mat 7:12 in light of the teaching he already gave in that sermon. The eye for an eye rule had been addressed and is not right. He not only established murder and adultery are wrong but took it a bit further. Yet if we are to expect mercy we should give it.


this is all well and good if you are going to throw the kitchen sink at it. but to put what you say into perspective. what if you have never been forgiven and never will be forgiven? what is your reason to for forgive. and how is it mercy if you expect it? no one is entitled mercy, one expects what they are entitled. what because you were a nice guy? that's not real world at all, is it?
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
this is all well and good if you are going to throw the kitchen sink at it. but to put what you say into perspective. what if you have never been forgiven and never will be forgiven? what is your reason to for forgive. and how is it mercy if you expect it? no one is entitled mercy, one expects what they are entitled. what because you were a nice guy? that's not real world at all, is it?
Can you simplify your questions?
 

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Law
Grace
na you don't get what I'm saying at all.
ah, which system we talking about now, DP, which disp we operating under here? Depends
ah ok, so Law then, so the answer to your first Q there is categorically "yes," (bc the Law does not provide the restitution, it only entitles you to it), and if i steal something under Law i am not entitled mercy, but you also have to prove i stole it too, iow if i steal something and get away with it, forgiveness and mercy never come in to play; i can even use the Law to do the stealing, etc...and yes, the injured party is entitled, and they don't have to, and it is an option, under Law, but again the Law does not actually manifest any of those on its own, see, it only guarantees them; a promise that cannot be kept iow. Getting a favorable judgement in no way guarantees restoration, see; in fact in practice getting a fave judgement only guarantees many, many more court appearances i guess lol

what is your point? law without power to enforce it isn't law at all. the society uses its power to enforce it so restitution is executed read the Torah, there is provision for the restitution, hence the society's authorities are justified to enforce it. again you don't get it, at all do you?
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
what is your point? law without power to enforce it isn't law at all. the society uses its power to enforce it so restitution is executed
lol, if only, huh. Restitution is ordered, but the order is not enforced for the most part, as has already pretty much been covered. Even in civil suits, restitution might be ordered, but that is a long way from executed; the order culminates in appeals first, right, appeals are step 2, of a looong list of steps, on the way to execution. The odds of collecting after the order is first proclaimed are somewhat less than 50%, believe it or not
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
read the Torah, there is provision for the restitution, hence the society's authorities are justified to enforce it. again you don't get it, at all do you?
you seem to be implying that bc there is "provision" and justification, that the restitution is implied also, and this could hardly be further from the truth. Since when do authorities enforce laws just bc they are justified in doing so? In my experience it is the unjustified laws that are the enforced ones, and the justified laws turn into "civil matters" when you call the police about a crime
 

Armadillo

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2017
430
315
63
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The golden rule according to secular:
Do to others what you want them to do to you

Do unto others before they do it to you is how it really works in the secular.

We serve our neighbours, putting them first, that's the golden rule for kingdom living and we are to do it without the expectation or desire of getting anything in return.