crazyfingers

Not sure exactly where to put this because there are a few different issues.

So I picked MRD.

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/053/nation/Bush_encourages_Chinese_to_pursue_religious_freedo m+.shtml" target="_blank">Bush encourages Chinese to pursue religious freedom</a>

He implies that faith is necessary for morality and that without faith all we can think about is material gain.

Faith, including christianity, does not necessarily do this. In fact, faith can do the opposite.

I don't believe that the Boston Globe reporter got this right. I'm pretty sure that the Golden Rule predates the New Testament by a few thousand years.

Can anyone tell me where/when the golden rule was first written down? I plan to write a letter to the editor about all of the issues here.

Pantera

Ironically enough, as Jiang should have known, Confucius said it 500 years before Jesus was itching the Holy Spirit's pants. Then again it could just be that Jiang did know, but the Boston Globe didn't.

Analects 15.23

Jesus wasn't even the first Jew to formulate it. The Talmud (Shabbat 31a) reports that one Rabbi Hillel (who died about 10 AD) was challenged to recite the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg. He replied "What is hateful to you to you, do not to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, all else is explaination. Go and learn this."

Plenty of other examples <a href="http://www.interfaithalliance-nc.org/ethical_framework/golden_rule.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

{Edited for lysdexia}

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Echo

I guess jiang had too much class to remind Bush that the people behind 9/11 had oodles of faith.

xoc

Ah, that's the silver rule. Or whatever you want to call it. Reciprocity and the golden rule as given by Jesus or not the same thing.
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you."
vs.
"Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you."

Notice the distinctive lack of a negative? The "Golden Rule" has a stronger binding than the Confucian rule. That is, it is not enough to simply "live and let live." The Good Samaritan followed the "Golden Rule"; the priest and Levite who passed the victim by did not violate Hillel's rule; they did nothing. Simply not being the one to rob and beat your neighboor was enough.

People like Rand liked to try and refute this kind of "altruism" by showing how the Golden Rule could be made harmful by the "perverse" mind of he who contemplates it. Of course the same is possible with reciprocity; neither were "absolutes" but general and useful guides of living.

What I wonder is, who made the mistake about reciprocity being the "Golden Rule"? Jiang may have been only thinking of Confucius when he spoke, or confused the Confucian with the Christian saying. Then again, it might have been the reporter that made the errant connection to the New Testament without qualification. One way or the other, either "rule" was a basis for a language that both men could understand.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: xoc ]</p>

Pantera

I'm aware that some people distinguish between the positive and negative formulations, though I reckon that sometimes more is made of the distinction than necessarily should be. The sentiment in both cases is roughly the same - have empathy for other people's feelings. Additionally, by ignoring someone you are actually doing something to them. If the Levite and the priest were lying in a heap on the side of the road, would they have wanted other people to walk past them on the other side? If not, it can be argued that they were violating Hillel's formulation as well as Jesus.

Interestingly, Jiang as quoted by the article used the negative formulation rather than the positive one - which makes me wonder if he was actually drawing on Confucius rather than Jesus, and the Boston Globe simply assumed that he was quoting the New Testament.

Of course, there are positive formulations as well as negative ones from outside Christianity. A few from the page I linked to.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

Islam: "Act with people the way you would like them to act with you". Al - Malati, Kitab at - Tanbih, Attributed to Muhamad

Jainism: "One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." Agamas, Sutrakritanga 1.10, 1-3

Sikhism: "Treat others as thou wouldst be treated thyself." Adi Granth

I don't have the dates for them to hand - the Sikh and Islamic ones obviously post-date the Christian one and could conceivably be dependent on it, but Taoism and Jainism are both older than Christianity by several centuries, so those formulations could well be older.

It is also interesting to note that neither Hillel nor Jesus thought they were actually saying anything particularly new - both saw it as a summary of the existing Jewish law.

Hillel: What is hateful to you to you, do not to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, all else is explaination.

Jesus (Matt 7:12): Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them for this is the Law and the Prophets.