Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Golden Rule

Expand Messages
  • nakedalchemy@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/10/2005 8:06:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, gich2@btinternet.com writes: Hi Cari! You quote Do to others as you would have them do to
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/10/2005 8:06:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, gich2@... writes:


      Hi Cari!

      You quote "Do to others as you would have them do to you". (1)



      But from your link I have found: "Do not do unto others as you would that
      they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." (George Bernard
      Shaw).



      This seems sensible to me. An alternative version of this is: "Do not do to
      others what you do not want them to do to you" (Confucianism; and others).
      Another statement saying much the same thing would be: don't do something to
      others that you would not like done to you. (2)



      Thinking about this it appears that rule (1) is an action rule ... this is
      how we should behave towards others. But rule (2) is a no-action rule ...
      this is how we should not behave towards others.



      Any thoughts?

      Gich
      most, myself included, take the rule #2 and do nothing offensive to another..as I would admit this is the lazy rule...sure, non-action brings some peace "leave me alone and I will leave you alone"
      As for rule#1 is when you go out of your way to do something good for another...well, I am guilty of this one, too, but not as frequently, I am sorry to say.
      All in all, either rule would be something in light of the state of affairs in the world today.
      Actively pursuing peace and kindnesses can get you shot, too. The second rule is basically tolerance with one another...at least that is something.
       
      mychael
    • lady_caritas
      ... would that ... (George Bernard ... not do to ... others). ... something to ... this is ... rule ... ... to ... brings some peace ... for ... frequently,
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, nakedalchemy@a... wrote:
        >
        > In a message dated 2/10/2005 8:06:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        > gich2@b... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Cari!
        >
        > You quote "Do to others as you would have them do to you". (1)
        >
        >
        >
        > But from your link I have found: "Do not do unto others as you
        would that
        > they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
        (George Bernard
        > Shaw).
        >
        >
        >
        > This seems sensible to me. An alternative version of this is: "Do
        not do to
        > others what you do not want them to do to you" (Confucianism; and
        others).
        > Another statement saying much the same thing would be: don't do
        something to
        > others that you would not like done to you. (2)
        >
        >
        >
        > Thinking about this it appears that rule (1) is an action rule ...
        this is
        > how we should behave towards others. But rule (2) is a no-action
        rule ...
        > this is how we should not behave towards others.
        >
        >
        >
        > Any thoughts?
        >
        > Gich
        >
        >
        > most, myself included, take the rule #2 and do nothing offensive
        to
        > another..as I would admit this is the lazy rule...sure, non-action
        brings some peace
        > "leave me alone and I will leave you alone"
        > As for rule#1 is when you go out of your way to do something good
        for
        > another...well, I am guilty of this one, too, but not as
        frequently, I am sorry to
        > say.
        > All in all, either rule would be something in light of the state of
        affairs
        > in the world today.
        > Actively pursuing peace and kindnesses can get you shot, too. The
        second
        > rule is basically tolerance with one another...at least that is
        something.
        >
        > mychael


        Gich, to add to what Mychael has said, this passage from the link
        rings true:

        "Before applying the golden rule, we should take care that we are
        really helping people, and not harming them. This often requires more
        wisdom than is readily available."
        ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm )

        Looking at this rule in terms of ethics of reciprocity, however ~

        "In public good experiments, behavioral economists have demonstrated
        that the potential for reciprocal actions by players increases the
        rate of contribution to the public good, providing evidence for the
        importance of reciprocity in social situations (Fehr and Gatcher,
        2003)."
        ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28social_psychology%29 )

        Do we ever see the idea of reciprocity mentioned in Gnostic
        literature? Anyone?

        Cari
      • nakedalchemy@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/10/2005 10:01:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes: Do we ever see the idea of reciprocity mentioned in Gnostic
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/10/2005 10:01:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
          Do we ever see the idea of reciprocity mentioned in Gnostic
          literature?  Anyone?

          Cari
          good question...need to think on this a tad.
           
          mychael
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.