Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Plato
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:twocents:

It is all one big mystery, one amazing miracle.

I am here contemplating myself. Who is the knower? Who chooses?
Asking the question, the knower becomes the known; through action, one becomes oneself, participating in the creation of one’s destiny.
The knower/creator and known/creation are joined by knowing/action.
You have here a finite trinity, made in His image.
One (me) and three (knower, known and the knowing itself), within myself, who exists as a part of the greater physical, psychosocial and spiritual whole that is the cosmos.

BTW:
All is relationship from the Godhead, down to all that He has created.
The perfect relationship is love: union and giving to the other.
Morality, as the understanding of how love is to be expressed flows from the Source, the Ground of all being.
 
👍

We are not the apex knowers - as much as we would like to think of ourselves as such.

We can’t know God except in so much as we are known by him.

We do not control the “knowledge” relationship in this case.
 
👍

We are not the apex knowers - as much as we would like to think of ourselves as such.

We can’t know God except in so much as we are known by him.

We do not control the “knowledge” relationship in this case.
You’re going with - “it’s a mystery”

So here we are again -

“you are never going to figure this out, it’s a mystery… just be nice to each other”

The Golden Rule
 
You’re going with - “it’s a mystery”

So here we are again -

“you are never going to figure this out, it’s a mystery… just be nice to each other”

The Golden Rule
Your logic doesn’t follow.

First off: Mysteries are not necessarily insoluble just because they are mysteries.

Second, because knowing God cannot happen on our initiative does not mean knowing him is therefore impossible. The initiative might be his, depending upon our “receptivity.” Therefore, not impossible, though our lack of proper disposition might make it so.

If you are saying impossible for you because you lack the proper disposition…

… Well, I can’t comment on that.
 
Your logic doesn’t follow.

First off: Mysteries are not necessarily insoluble just because they are mysteries.

Second, because knowing God cannot happen on our initiative does not mean knowing him is therefore impossible. The initiative might be his, depending upon our “receptivity.” Therefore, not impossible, though our lack of proper disposition might make it so.

If you are saying impossible for you because you lack the proper disposition…

… Well, I can’t comment on that.
You have to believe to see.

You need grace to have faith, you need faith to receive grace. Nothing circular there :rolleyes:

Matt 7:12
Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.
 
You have to believe to see.

You need grace to have faith, you need faith to receive grace. Nothing circular there :rolleyes:

Matt 7:12
You didn’t bring yourself into being.

Why does it take faith to accept that we do not determine reality or that we are not the standard for measuring all truth?
 
You didn’t bring yourself into being.

Why does it take faith to accept that we do not determine reality or that we are not the standard for measuring all truth?
I didn’t set that as a standard. I think you have to be insane to believe that. It’s taken billions of years to get me here.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

“It’s a mystery, be nice to one another”
be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
 
I didn’t set that as a standard. I think you have to be insane to believe that. It’s taken billions of years to get me here.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

“It’s a mystery, be nice to one another”
Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen:
“Thermodynamic miracles… events with odds against so astronomical they’re effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter… Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold… that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.” . . .
Yes. Anybody in the world. … But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget… I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another’s vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away. Come… dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg. Come, dry your eyes. And let’s go home.
 
I didn’t set that as a standard. I think you have to be insane to believe that. **It’s taken billions of years to get me here. **

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

“It’s a mystery, be nice to one another”
Billions of years alone did not get you here.
 
“It’s a mystery, be nice to one another”
I thought it wasn’t a mystery??? :confused:
Roscoe Turner:
A reveled truth that is a mystery is meaningless. All that says is “we know that we don’t know.”
The good thing about science is that it doesn’t know everything either. There are mysteries for science, as well, no?

Or…

… Do you think it does know everything? How can “it” know anything?
 
I thought it wasn’t a mystery??? :confused:

The good thing about science is that it doesn’t know everything either. There are mysteries for science, as well, no?

Or…

… Do you think it does know everything? How can “it” know anything?
It is a mystery. Be nice to one another.

Science is a method not a sentient being. You don’t have to believe in antibiotics for them to work. We are in a very very small corner of the universe, there is much to explore.
 
Billions of years alone did not get you here.
Their doctrine is “Alone and unaided by purposeless processes in a pointless universe from which only we and the Golden Rule have emerged fortuitously”…

Ah, the bliss of solitude! Or is it hell? 😉
 
It is a mystery. Be nice to one another.

Science is a method not a sentient being. You don’t have to believe in antibiotics for them to work. We are in a very very small corner of the universe, there is much to explore.
God isn’t a “sentient” being either. That’s why he’s not to be found among bodied creatures. If “sentience” limits us to a very very small corner of the universe, with much left to explore then only an audacious being with limited sentience - and even less intelligence - would make definitive statements about the non-existence of omniscience.

Just because God doesn’t scurry out from the dim beam cast by your flashlight, oh sentient being, doesn’t imply anything about God’s non-existence.

“The good thing about God is that he exists whether you believe in him or not.”
- Peter Plato

I now understand why Bradski was so confused about your “atheism.”
 
It is a mystery. Be nice to one another.
So it IS a mystery, but “mystery” is a word that only scientists can get away with using when predicated of “IT?”

What do YOU think, Roscoe?

Is “IT” a mystery but “HE” is not?

How would you know that if “IT” is a mystery to you, after all?

Further, I am not sure how “be nice to each other” follows from “it is a mystery.” IT, even shrouded in mystery, wouldn’t seem to have any interest at all in whether we were nice to each other or not.
 
So it IS a mystery, but “mystery” is a word that only scientists can get away with using when predicated of “IT?”

What do YOU think, Roscoe?

Is “IT” a mystery but “HE” is not?

How would you know that if “IT” is a mystery to you, after all?

Further, I am not sure how “be nice to each other” follows from “it is a mystery.” IT, even shrouded in mystery, wouldn’t seem to have any interest at all in whether we were nice to each other or not.
The catechism states god is a mystery. They claim authority on such matters.

Be kind to each other is for our own benefit. What use an 3 omni being has for any of it is beyond me.
 
The catechism states god is a mystery. They claim authority on such matters.

Be kind to each other is for our own benefit. What use an 3 omni being has for any of it is beyond me.
Is that how you view all your fellow beings as well?

Of “what use an”… [insert name of being here] …has for any of it … yada yada … except “for our own benefit”… yada yada.

That might be the issue right there, no? :rolleyes:

Your focus is where and on who?
 
Is that how you view all your fellow beings as well?

Of “what use an”… [insert name of being here] …has for any of it … yada yada … except “for our own benefit”… yada yada.

That might be the issue right there, no? :rolleyes:

Your focus is where and on who?
We’ve covered this ground before. We are social animals and we need each other.

If god isn’t lacking why would he need us or any of creation?
 
. . . If god isn’t lacking why would he need us or any of creation?
There seems little point to responding but: God created us so that we might relate to Him, that we may come to know Him with our minds, in our hearts and through our actions. There’s more to it and if you want to know, just Google the question.
 
There seems little point to responding but: God created us so that we might relate to Him, that we may come to know Him with our minds, in our hearts and through our actions. There’s more to it and if you want to know, just Google the question.
Doesn’t answer the question why a perfect, not lacking in anyway would want to create. Want means he is lacking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top