Does God follow the golden rule?

[whag]

Except in the Orient where they eat cats and dogs...

You mean Asia. The entire east doesn't eat cats and dogs.

[seer]

You mean Asia. The entire east doesn't eat cats and dogs.

But some do, that is the point.

[JonathanL]

That's probably another thread, Whag, but... yeah, we eat cows but not horses.

Speak for yourself.

[Cow Poke]

Speak for yourself.

Well, truth be known, I actually ate horse once, but truth wasn't known til after the fact. It wasn't bad.

And everybody knows McDondald's Big Macs were made from Kangaroo meat!

[Sparko]

[The Pixie]

Nope, any more than we would violate the golden rule by executing a criminal. The golden rule is about personal interaction, how we should generally treat our fellow man, and not about how the State or God deals with law breakers.

Why is it about specifically about how we treat our fellow man and not about how God treats man?

You say "The golden rule is about personal interaction", is God's relationship with you personal?

And one could argue that removing law breakers from civil society prompts peaceful co-existence in a larger sense, which is the ultimate goal of the golden rule.

So the global flood was good because it allow eight men and their wives to have a peaceful co-existence, and you would say those eight people can be considered "a larger sense"?

If you are right, then why does God not remove law breakers from civil society today? Has he changed his mind?

[The Pixie]

I also wonder how far we can take the Golden Rule when it's applied to those who are not intrinsically equals.

So if you consider blacks not to be your equal... You sure you want to go down this road?

Wonder if JimL ever applied the Golden Rule to the cow in his Big Mac.

Is your argument that we do not apply the golden rule to animals too, therefore it is reasonable for God to not apply it to us? I.e., God's morality is justified by what people do? I would have guessed Christians would say it was the other way around; human morality comes from God.

[Adrift]

So if you consider blacks not to be your equal... You sure you want to go down this road?

Thus the modifier "intrinsically".

Is your argument that we do not apply the golden rule to animals too, therefore it is reasonable for God to not apply it to us?

As CP correctly pointed out, I was not making a serious argument, but I was thinking something along the lines of Isaiah 45:9 when I wrote it.

I.e., God's morality is justified by what people do?

I'm not certain how you derive this question from anything I wrote.

[The Pixie]

Thus the modifier "intrinsically".

So how do we decide who is intrinsically equal?

If you are Jewish, and one of God's chosen people, are gentiles intrinscally equal? Are Christians intrinsically equal to non-Christians?

I'm not certain how you derive this question from anything I wrote.

I thought you were using what we do (eating meat) to rationalise what God does. If it is okay for humans to not consider cows under the golden rule, then it follows that it is okay for God to not consider humans under the golden rule. Did I misunderstand?

[Scorching Wizard]

Does God follow the golden rule?

It's a weird question. The golden rule is either 1) Do unto others as you would have others do unto you or 2) Forbear doing unto others that which is hateful to you. As G-d doesn't need anything from us and we can't really do anything for G-d, the question is irrelevant. The golden rule only works for interactions between humans.

If god does not follow the golden rule, but tell us that we should, does that make him a hypocrite?

None of the Laws that G-d has given us, apply to G-d. He doesn't procreate, doesn't consume, doesn't transact business, doesn't covet property, etc. The Laws are only applicable to humans and are for our benefit. It would be just as relevant to ask if the golden rule is followed by dandelions.

[Scorching Wizard]

So how do we decide who is intrinsically equal?

If you are Jewish, and one of God's chosen people, are gentiles intrinscally equal?

Yes.

[Adrift]

So how do we decide who is intrinsically equal?

If you are Jewish, and one of God's chosen people, are gentiles intrinscally equal? Are Christians intrinsically equal to non-Christians?

Yes. In the Christian worldview we are all body and soul beings; We've all sinned and have fallen short of perfection; We are all in need of salvation, and Christ Jesus is said to have died for all. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ Jesus.

How do you decide who is intrinsically equal?

I thought you were using what we do (eating meat) to rationalise what God does. If it is okay for humans to not consider cows under the golden rule, then it follows that it is okay for God to not consider humans under the golden rule. Did I misunderstand?

Yeah, I think you did.

[The Pixie]

It's a weird question. The golden rule is either 1) Do unto others as you would have others do unto you or 2) Forbear doing unto others that which is hateful to you. As G-d doesn't need anything from us and we can't really do anything for G-d, the question is irrelevant. The golden rule only works for interactions between humans.

Sorry, I do not get the logic. God supposedly interacts with humans. Are his interactions limited by his own rule? For example, would he want someone to terminate his existent? If not, then is it morally okay for him to terminate someone elses?

None of the Laws that G-d has given us, apply to G-d. He doesn't procreate, doesn't consume, doesn't transact business, doesn't covet property, etc.

Are you familiar with the commandment against murder? One of the obscure ones I guess, since you seeming have forgotten it.

The Laws are only applicable to humans and are for our benefit. It would be just as relevant to ask if the golden rule is followed by dandelions.

Danelions have no volition and no understanding of right and wrong. I imagine you believe God has volition and also understands right and wrong. Thou shalt not murder is not applicable to dandelions because dandelions are not capable of understanding the concept. Sure, you can declare the golden rule is not applicable to God, but that is an arbitrary decision equivalent to a dictator declaring his new laws do not apply to him. It is quite different to laws not being applicable to dandelions.

[The Pixie]

Yes. In the Christian worldview we are all body and soul beings; We've all sinned and have fallen short of perfection; We are all in need of salvation, and Christ Jesus is said to have died for all. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ Jesus.

Great, so you are going with Paul's opinion, and ignoring the OT, where there are clear slaves and then there are Hebrew slaves (and intend the whole slavery thing). Oh and Jesus himself:

Are are aware that Christianity has a long history of racism, right? Try looking up the Mark of Ham.

It is great that Christianity (and mankind) have got over that (to some extent anyway), but to pretend that Christianity by its nature promotes equality for everyone is laughable.

How do you decide who is intrinsically equal?

Me? I think all people are equal.

Yeah, I think you did.

Ah right. And you are not going to explain because... your actual argument was even more flawed? No problem. If you do not want to make your point clear, that is fine with me.

[Adrift]

Great, so you are going with Paul's opinion, and ignoring the OT, where there are clear slaves and then there are Hebrew slaves (and intend the whole slavery thing). Oh and Jesus himself:

Are are aware that Christianity has a long history of racism, right? Try looking up the Mark of Ham.

It is great that Christianity (and mankind) have got over that (to some extent anyway), but to pretend that Christianity by its nature promotes equality for everyone is laughable.

You don't know what the word "intrinsic" means, I see.

Me? I think all people are equal.

That's not what I asked.

Ah right. And you are not going to explain because... your actual argument was even more flawed? No problem. If you do not want to make your point clear, that is fine with me.

As I said, it wasn't really an argument. But I've already explained what I meant. If you're unable to comprehend the analogy, I don't think I have the capability to simplify it further.