Could you post some great golden rules in life, you heard/know of?

"Do not onto others what you would wish not them do onto you." (from Talmud, Shabbat)

PS
Talmud was before Jesus' new testament.

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowmen. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary."

That's from Judaism, and I think it makes the point better than the common one which you posted. Although, to make the best possible point, they must be combined.

Yeah, that version is much better than the common golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as the current way forces you to do what you like to others, but what you like might not be what others like. The Judaic version kind of leaves the rights to privacy which doesn't force you to do actions to others.

- N

We Greeks have another more collocquial saying, 'Whatever they do to you, do unto them.'

We Greeks have another more collocquial saying, 'Whatever they do to you, do unto them.'

Isn't that more "An eye for an eye" than the Golden Rule?

Isn't that more "An eye for an eye" than the Golden Rule?
it is an eye for an eye, by any other name, nothing really golden...

Yeah, that version is much better than the common golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as the current way forces you to do what you like to others, but what you like might not be what others like. The Judaic version kind of leaves the rights to privacy which doesn't force you to do actions to others.

- Nwow, a great analisys, sounds great, to me.

I should have added, 'and always be in love (be friends).' It's used mainly in family situations more in the context of where somebody gives you a cheap gift, you do likewise; if they don't invite you to their house you do likewise etc. It's like, you'll always be my brother and I'll love you, but fuck you too.

It's like, you'll always be my brother and I'll love you, but fuck you too.

Companionship always entails receiving an insult without getting angry.

Thou shall get a life and stop harrassing Sciforums with political propaganda.

Actually the Talmud is not from before the New Testament. It's from after it. It is a document of the Diaspora.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Hear thou, Loddfaffnir, and heed it well,
learn it, 'twill lend thee strength,
follow it, 'twill further thee:
in ill deeds not ever share,
but be thou glad to do good.

- Odin, Stanza 128 "The Sayings of Har" (Havamal), the Poetic Edda.

Some people are cunts, and deserve to be treated as such.
;)

Companionship always entails receiving an insult without getting angry.

Exactly! If they insult you, you insult them back and stay chilled. There comes a time when you say enough is enough and you're not going to stand being taken for a cunt anymore. In the case of close family where they have proved time and time again that they not only don't apreciate all the good you have done for them but actually deny it and prefer to substitute their own reality on the situation, then it's time to do unto them what they do to you, it's simple as that.

Some people are cunts, and deserve to be treated as such.
;)

This I'm afraid is reality, all the rest is commentary.

Some people are cunts, and deserve to be treated as such.
;)

So do you descend to their level, then?

And if you do, whats the difference between the two of you?

So do you descend to their level, then?

And if you do, whats the difference between the two of you?

I was joking Sam! Althouh, no doubt many people think I'm a cunt and would happily treat me as such. I tend to think it rather than act upon it.

So do you descend to their level, then?

And if you do, whats the difference between the two of you?

I would never descend to their level, but I would certainly treat them with the disdain they deserve.

"Do onto others what you would wish them do onto you."

But I am MAZOCHIST!!!!!

But I am MAZOCHIST!!!!!

Well that's certainly interesting.

"Descending to their level" is such self-righteous nonsense.

The fool who cannot see the difference between response and initiation needn't even be addressed.

"Descending to their level" is such self-righteous nonsense.

The fool who cannot see the difference between response and initiation needn't even be addressed.

Teacher: Johnny, don't punch Billy!
Johnny: He started it!

"Descending to their level" is such self-righteous nonsense.

The fool who cannot see the difference between response and initiation needn't even be addressed.

Why commit the same act they did to you?

OR

You could look at in another light and say that doing what they do only promotes that act instead of nipping it in the bud.

But I am MAZOCHIST!!!!!haha :)

Could you post some great golden rules in life, you heard/know of?

"Do not onto others what you would wish not them do onto you." (from Talmud, Shabbat)

PS
Talmud was before Jesus' new testament.


Stupid rule, because some people hate themselves, so a person who is killing themselves will just as easily use that golden rule on you.

So do you descend to their level, then?

And if you do, whats the difference between the two of you?

No, you treat people as they treat themselves. This is not the same as an eye for an eye. However if someone treats themselves bad, of course they'll treat you bad too.

As an example, Sam is an ethical human, she loves herself, and a casual observer can see this by how she treats herself. Someone like her should be treated with the respect that she gives to herself.

NOW, you have other people who don't respect themselves, who aren't ethical, who hate themselves, and to the casual observer, they will carry themselves in a very self destructive way. This sort of person you treat differently, you treat them as they treat themselves.

So thats the rule, you treat people as they want to be treated based on how they treat themselves. The best anyone will ever be able to treat you, is how they treat themselves, so if they treat themself like shit, you'll be treated worse than shit, because thats just how it goes. In some ways, morality is a rational calculation, a calculus, and it could be described in numbers, or words, or letters, but it's really just a calculation. The conclusion of it, love yourself and I'll love you.

Do unto others as if they are you.
IMU
URI

Problem is many (most) people are psychopaths now-days........

The overall guide was once the pure direct common conscience of sane (natural.. unpolluted) people.

All past golden sayings should only be interpreted in the light of sanity... which is to be guided by the pure direct common conscience

Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

"Dont kill"

Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.

So what does it actually mean? Is it, do whatever you feel like doing, as long as it's done in love?

True, I picked up on it first via Crowley, but it seems a simple enough instruction if looked at a certain way: Do what you will that you might do what you will.

A more complicated way of putting it, that I wrote recently for another topic:


Do what thou wilt may be the whole of the law, but without rational consideration, it becomes unhealthy. Rape and murder sprees? Why not? Do what thou wilt, after all. Except that rape and murder sprees generally end with a person unable to do what they would: in prison, or perhaps dead. In a group dynamic, the same principle applies through natural consequence. We can certainly do what we will and would, but, and I'm not claiming we're there yet, imagine pollution as an extinction-level event. Humanity could literally pollute its environment to the point that the planet can no longer sustain the species. This seems a bad outcome for the species. Considering that we seem to have an influence over our evolution unheard of among other species, that is to say we can choose certain things that ants, slugs, or even the beloved bonobos and chimpanzees cannot. What would it require for ants or slugs to pollute the world to such a point that they couldn't survive? Would nature itself, by its checks and balances throughout time, even allow such an outcome? We humans could definitely choose extinction. We've even designed weapons that would add up to the same. Warfare, anyone?

What about polluting the whales to death, or the spotted owls? For instance, and I can't find the reference right now, so I'll call it apocryphal: The story goes that a certain year of Les Paul guitar (1959, I think) is the greatest electric guitar ever made, and this is because of a combination of factors not the least of which are tone and sustain. There is a specific reason, though, why there will never be another guitar bearing its unique characteristics. I'm told, and read a couple paragraphs several years ago, that the wood for the '59 came from a specific grove of ash trees in South America, and that, well, all of the trees were destroyed before anyone realized they didn't grow anywhere else. Now, that's hardly the worst sin in the world, and a certain degree of ignorance is forgivable inasmuch as anyone can claim the right to judge. Making such a mistake again, however, would seem immoral, a kind of greed that endangers humanity itself: if we destroy enough species, around the world faster than nature can fill in the gaps, it would be bad for our species. (#1250444 (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1250444))

As a way of living, its only limitation is one's feeling of kinship with the Universe. Okay, there's the obvious limitation of the finite knowledge any one person can hold. So, yeah. Two. But that's just it: the Law's meaning changes with humanity. It grows. Where some Golden Rules glitter, this one gets up and walks around with us. And dances pretty well, too.

Athelwulf, Ayodhya:

People commit actions in hopes of getting away with it. The only way to stop them is to show them that they are not given such immunity.

Others may start, but one ought to finish.

Others may start, but one ought to finish.

The question is: how do you finish?
Is punching someone because someone punched you the correct way to handle the problem?

This is not in an accusing tone. More or less, I think it is interesting application to our daily lives to think about this matter.

Ayodhya:


Is punching someone because someone punched you the correct way to handle the problem?

In many (perhaps most) instances, yes. However, certain circumstances might suggest other means of dealing with it.