Homophobia and the Church

prepstudinsc

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
16,994
Media
431
Likes
21,502
Points
468
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There are plenty of non-decent people on this earth. To think that all humans are decent, fair and in all ways nice is a pipe-dream. It would be great if they were, but we wouldn't ever have had wars, strife, slavery, evil rulers, etc. It's happened all over the globe. To treat people well is not inherent to human makeup. If it was we wouldn't have dictators like Castro, we wouldn't have had people like Saddam Hussein in power and we wouldn't have ever had slave owners in the South who thought that people were lower than animals and thought of them as property. The Bible says that we are born with "orignal sin" and it's quite obvious that the human propensity is to sin. Even little children are born not wanting to share, we have to teach them to share their towys with others. What does a little child say if you go to take something from them? "Miiiiiine!" That's greed. Greed is evil. A parent or some sort of role model teaches that sharing is the proper thing to do. If a child, who is supposedly "innocent" is greedy, will throw a tantrum, hit and bite, not wanting to share, that's a good representation that humans are not inherently decent.
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
...please don't bash me after this...:confused:

Well, personally...I can see where he's coming from...what with the numerous "abomination" scriptures and the destroying of whole communities by God and what not. Not to mention all the "be fruitful and multiply" banter and what not. Christianity is a religion that explicit dictates that homosexuality is morally wrong...and that's a fact.

But in the same token, a Christian shouldn't be bashing a gay person. I hate to get overly religious, but hey...

Christianity is (in theory) about treating others how you would want to be treated. Loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, freeing the oppressed, healing the sick, etc.

It all balls down to taking care of people and not leaving them assed out. And looking at the "Good Samaritan" arguement posed by Jesus...the Samaritan was more likely to get into heaven than the Jews who passed by the dying man on the road.

Quite frankly, I feel it's more about a person's character than what they are.

While I do believe that based upon Christian morality it is wrong to be homosexual, I also believe that based upon Christian morality it is wrong to bash a person because that person is gay.

I'm not God so I can't say "gay people are going to hell"...Also the Bible explicitly states not to condemn another person to hell, because humans don't have such power.

Alas, he who is without sin throw the first stone. Meaning we all have our faults and while some may be lesser, greater, etc...stop nitpicking and bashing others for something that they do or have done.

Oh yeah, and Kant's Categorical Imperative isn't the Golden Rule. Kan't Categorical Imperative states that if an action is objective acted upon and would be in any given situation, then it is moral. Similar, but I don't think it the same.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
prepstudinsc said:
There are plenty of non-decent people on this earth. To think that all humans are decent, fair and in all ways nice is a pipe-dream.

To the first sentence I agree. Many, in fact, are the result of Christian training.

To the second sentence I respond that I never suggested 'all humans' anything. What I do maintain is that the Golden Rule is a fairly simple concept that exists innately in the human spirit if cultivated by positive sources. It's hardly the domain of Christians alone.
 

invisibleman

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
9,816
Media
0
Likes
491
Points
303
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Shelby said:
If you accent the fourth syllable instead of the third homophobia sounds like it could be someone's name.

HO*MO*PHO*BEE*YA

HO*MO*PHO*BEE*YER

HOMO*FO' BEER. Homo For Beer.

Fourth and fifth stresses a profound need for beer. One beer is good. Too many beers not good.

Go to a bar after Church and have a beer (not many beers).
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Shelby said:
One thing's for certain. Jesus was no homophobe. A self respecting homophobe wouldn't be caught dead washing another dude's feet.
I think I have very lenient views on what homosexuality is, cause I don't think that's homo. I believe that two people of the same sex can show affection for each other and it not be homosexual. I think it's called platonic love. :smile:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking, Stronzo, and Prepstud... that is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to make over and over, in this thread and others. The activist christians want to be able to put legal qualifiers upon whom I may or whom I may not choose to marry, and claim that it is their moral imperative and their right as christians - and also claim that I am demanding "special rights." If I were to try to put legal qualifiers upon whom they may or may not marry, they would be screaming religious oppression. For the life of me, I just cannot understand, nor can I find anyone to explain rationally to me, why the activist christians cannot grasp the concept of the difference between regulating their own behaviors and regulating the behaviors of others.
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
I just cannot understand, nor can I find anyone to explain rationally to me, why the activist christians cannot grasp the concept of the difference between regulating their own behaviors and regulating the behaviors of others.

I'm sure most of them can grasp it. However, they choose not to, because their true agenda is social control.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
prepstudinsc said:
Even little children are born not wanting to share, we have to teach them to share their towys with others. What does a little child say if you go to take something from them? "Miiiiiine!" That's greed. Greed is evil. A parent or some sort of role model teaches that sharing is the proper thing to do. If a child, who is supposedly "innocent" is greedy, will throw a tantrum, hit and bite, not wanting to share, that's a good representation that humans are not inherently decent.

:hijacked:

I think you make a great point, may I suggest that, perhaps in the case of very young infants and babies you assign a more cerebral understanding of greed in terms of possession and invasion of space than may actually be occuring.


Essentially, we are animals and as such play is an essential part of our growth as learning as it is in most animal species. In 'Animals' this play is frequently aggressive and often virtually indistuigushable from 'adult' aggression. Fights over food, space, 'playthings' and so on occur in a direct parallel with children. This is necessary to equip the youngster for later life of course but I don't recall ever having heard such behaviour in 'animals' being described as birth inherited 'greed' but as instinct.

When human infants exhibit similar behaviors we generally assume it is concious act but I wonder how much of it is concious, how much is learned from parents (I believe children are far more perceptive than many give them credit for) and how much is simple instinct. I suspect in part at least it's a (sub)concious desire of adults to separate ourselves from lower 'animals' but could that be more vanity than reality?

When a child is old enough to 'converse' and clearly demonstrate coginitive interaction with their environment I would certainly agree with you that such behaviour could properly be classified as a concious behavioural choice. Of course in 'lower' animals (and I use the quotes here for a reason:rolleyes: ) this behaviour is vital for survival in a way that is isn't for Humans. In 'animals' as in human adults, such dominant traits are common among those who are deemed 'successful' in their peer group and such behaviour is often praised or revered. In Humans I seriously doubt that is entirely co-incidence.

Animals that fail to learn those vital survival skills seldom live long and productive lives. I wonder if children who are raised in environments that acively discourage such behavior from Birth are less inclined to exhibit such behavior in adult life, i.e. they become 'nice guys'...but you know what they say about 'nice guys'. I accept that genetics may play a role here as well.

Of course as Humans we possess (allegedly) the capability to analyse this behaviour when we see it and moderate it if required because in general society demands it. In the 'wild' there is no such imperative for 'unlearning' such traits because do so would probably prove swiftly fatal.

Sorry this is rather off topic but it's interesting to me that 'bias' and 'separation' based on difference also appears in the 'animal' kingdom. I'd say as Humans we exhibit similar characteristics in terms of race and sexuality for example. While 'lower' animals need no excuse, we should know better.

In essence, at birth I don't think we humans are inherently decent or indecent in the same way other 'animals' aren't, we learn most of those skills later.

I will leave the question whether I am partly right or totally wrong to sociologists and those that know better than me. I wanted to punt the idea.:biggrin1:
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
dong20 said:
In 'Animals' this play is frequently aggressive and often virtually indistuigushable from 'adult' aggression. Fights over food, space, 'playthings' and so on occur in a direct parallel with children.
that's not play, it's straightforward survival instinct. a baby can't know that those resources are readily available - it hasn't yet learned how to differentiate between necessity and desire, because in a "natural" environment there isn't any difference. to describe that as "evil" is patently ridiculous - animals aren't naturally "greedy" any more than they're naturally "cruel." the distinction simply doesn't arise.

"greed" is deliberate exploitation. it comes into play when someone does know the difference, but deliberately chooses to indulge that desire to the detriment of others. sadly, we live in a greed-based society - it's upheld and encouraged to such an extent that many people no longer seem to understand why it's wrong. a handy illustration of the relative nature of morality there :rolleyes:
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Matthew said:
I'm sure most of them can grasp it. However, they choose not to, because their true agenda is social control.

This is right on target.

What Matthew has said here about the 'control' thing I've repeated time and time again. It's not about worshipping God to them. A Bible or an edifice isn't necessary for that. It's about controlling man. That's what gets overlooked so often and it's why my patience is nil.

Landing on a few key passages in the Bible which talk about homosexuality (or seem to in present-day versions) is simply a convenient way of legitimizing fear. It's pretty effective to that end too.

"Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death"

... truer words were rarely spoken.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
To suggest that "The Golden Rule" is solely a phenomenon of Christian belief is absurd.

To decent people on this earth it's inherent to human make up.

Glad you finally committed yourself, stronzo. Now what I want you to do, if you choose to accept this mission, is to (for the first time in this forum for you) prove that what you assert is not just backed up by stronzo. And then you have to show that it predates Christ, and that it also predates the Hebrews, since Christ was merely paraphrasing David.

Can you do that? Great!

We will be awaiting this and you will have proven something to the world that not even Islam, or Budhism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism ever thought of! An Axiom that just comes naturally to all men.

This is going to be world-shaking, stronzo. Remember, Jesus and David are scooped by superior religions. They have merely plagerized other philosophies, and were never original, to begin with.

You do this, and you will have revolutionized all religion, the world over.

Don't think I'm not excited. I love to learn new things.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
JustAsking? To speak more specifically to your question; People like me threaten the very foundation of everything conservative Christians stand for: procreation, "family" (in their sense), and fear of ultimate retribution for enjoying this thing we call existence.
Yes indeed. Thats a roger. Fundamentalism: The crippling fear that someone else somewhere is having a good time.

Here is a quote from an interview with George Lakoff, who wrote an excellent book about how Conservatives and Progressives view the world. He says we all view the world through the lens of our particular "cognitive frames". In the conservative, the "strict father" frame is dominant:

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

And the liberal/progressives:

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.​
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
solong said:
Glad you finally committed yourself, stronzo. Now what I want you to do, if you choose to accept this mission, is to (for the first time in this forum for you) prove that what you assert is not just backed up by stronzo. And then you have to show that it predates Christ, and that it also predates the Hebrews, since Christ was merely paraphrasing David.


And here's what I want 'you to do' you transparent troll:

Kindly stick an unchalked cue stick up your bigoted arse. That 'a boy.

The only thing I have 'to show you' is the door to the nearest gay bar so you can put all the boys in line and give them the head you so dearly want to. Then perhaps you'll stop your whining.

You're long overdue Mary.:rolleyes:

I'm rather enjoying you now.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
I agree. Why are the conservative Christians such enemies of freedom?

I'd like to expand on this and see if we can't see a fallacy of argument, here. Something doesn't seem right, and I think I know what it is.

When the United States of America was born in 1776 and G. Washington became president a little later, we had a congress full of ordained ministers, almost totally Christian, but as you pointed out correctly, some Deists, too. The reason these boys were ministers, is because the ministry in colonial days were the best educated Americans in the country, by and large.

We would say by comparison, today, that these fellows were the epitome of "Conservative." But they were not religionists. That means, their opinions didn't come from denominational bias, but a mutual fear and love of the Lord and His principles. They all seemed to have that in common.

Go back to the Congressional Record in those formative years and see exactly what I'm talking about. You'd be dumbfounded what you read. They would read the King James Bible passages into the Record as source for their own position, and others, who had an opposing position would often be persuaded to join them, having seen it differently. They could be corrected.

Unfortunately today, large religious organizations whose correctness DOES come from denominational bias all consider themselves "Conservative." What they mean is, if you don't try to stretch the philosophy, water down the doctrine, correct the leaders, and cover up all the bad stuff, then you are conservative.

The problem comes when we accept their self-awarded label and then apply "Conservatism" to all the individuals who consider themselves Christian. By so doing, we made a mistake! We take a corporate term (which is false, anyway) and apply it to every individual within that corporation.

TRUE Conservatism has NEVER BEEN "Follow the leader mind-numbed robotic indoctrinated self-protecting religionists." We really know that fact, but don't like to admit it. That's what our Founding Fathers taught us by example. Do you think that the Catholic Scandal involving the sodomizing of thousands of young boys is being paid off and kept quiet by "conservatives?" They are perverts and they flatter themselves by a conservative label, but actually, they are liberals. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They stretch church philosophy and bend doctrine until it breaks, or just ignore it all-together. Then they know they will be protected by the "conservative spirit."

When you use the label that these perverts give themselves you cannot help but misdefine the problem, and as a result, misdiagnose the situation entirely. They are NOT conservative Christians. They are bigoted, corrupt liberal Religionists involved in cover-ups and pay-offs, and self-protection at any cost. And they equate their liberalism with FREEDOM! They lie. They are not free. They are in chains and fetters spiritually, with no way of escape.

Compare them to the good men who founded the United States. Those were your conservatives., both politically and principally. They were not religionists, so they were not "conservative Christian," as we call it, today. Granted, they also had their hang-ups and misgivings, too. After all, they were just people. But they weren't raping altar boys and calling it the love of Christ, were they?

Just because a political conservative is defined as a Constitutional Constructionist, that doesn't equate to a Denominational Religionist Doctrinalist who believes to the scorn and exclusion of everybody else. Don't make the mistake that such are conservatives, in the "Constitutional" sense. They are absolutely not, in the sense of the signers of our Constitution.

If the inequities, bad judgment, fraud, corruption, hypocrisy, and self-serving double-dealing that goes on in many churches today were to have happened in the Colonial Congress, we would not have a country today that resembles the United States. Were such churches in fact "conservative," they would have long ago kicked every one of those people out of their church, just like Paul set the example.

A true conservative never goes by written doctrine, per se, but by the principles of good judgment. Christian is as Christian does.

So the truth is this: Only INDIVIDUALS, here and there, can be "Christian." A body of believers is not a "Christian." Salvation is individually determined and a membership means nothing. The true church is in fact invisible. All the churches of Asia fell away, even before Paul died, but the "TRUE CHURCH" lived on, and the gates of hell did not prevail against it. Yet they were kicking the true Christians out of their groups, according to Paul. You can say anything you want about the hypocrisy of this or that church. It means nothing at all to me. No church is a "Christian." Only a few of its members, if any at all. But let's not demean the principles, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and label all who would admire and follow those principles as hypocrites, just because we haven't learned to spot the difference, yet.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
solong said:
I'd like to expand on this and see if we can't see a fallacy of argument, here. Something doesn't seem right, and I think I know what it is.

When the United States of America was born in 1776 and G. Washington became president a little later, we had a congress full of ordained ministers, almost totally Christian, but as you pointed out correctly, some Deists, too. The reason these boys were ministers, is because the ministry in colonial days were the best educated Americans in the country, by and large.

We would say by comparison, today, that these fellows were the epitome of "Conservative." But they were not religionists. That means, their opinions didn't come from denominational bias, but a mutual fear and love of the Lord and His principles. They all seemed to have that in common.

Go back to the Congressional Record in those formative years and see exactly what I'm talking about. You'd be dumbfounded what you read. They would read the King James Bible passages into the Record as source for their own position, and others, who had an opposing position would often be persuaded to join them, having seen it differently. They could be corrected.

Unfortunately today, large religious organizations whose correctness DOES come from denominational bias all consider themselves "Conservative." What they mean is, if you don't try to stretch the philosophy, water down the doctrine, correct the leaders, and cover up all the bad stuff, then you are conservative.

The problem comes when we accept their self-awarded label and then apply "Conservatism" to all the individuals who consider themselves Christian. By so doing, we made a mistake! We take a corporate term (which is false, anyway) and apply it to every individual within that corporation.

TRUE Conservatism has NEVER BEEN "Follow the leader mind-numbed robotic indoctrinated self-protecting religionists." We really know that fact, but don't like to admit it. That's what our Founding Fathers taught us by example. Do you think that the Catholic Scandal involving the sodomizing of thousands of young boys is being paid off and kept quiet by "conservatives?" They are perverts and they flatter themselves by a conservative label, but actually, they are liberals. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They stretch church philosophy and bend doctrine until it breaks, or just ignore it all-together. Then they know they will be protected by the "conservative spirit."

When you use the label that these perverts give themselves you cannot help but misdefine the problem, and as a result, misdiagnose the situation entirely. They are NOT conservative Christians. They are bigoted, corrupt liberal Religionists involved in cover-ups and pay-offs, and self-protection at any cost. And they equate their liberalism with FREEDOM! They lie. They are not free. They are in chains and fetters spiritually, with no way of escape.

Compare them to the good men who founded the United States. Those were your conservatives., both politically and principally. They were not religionists, so they were not "conservative Christian," as we call it, today. Granted, they also had their hang-ups and misgivings, too. After all, they were just people. But they weren't raping altar boys and calling it the love of Christ, were they?

Just because a political conservative is defined as a Constitutional Constructionist, that doesn't equate to a Denominational Religionist Doctrinalist who believes to the scorn and exclusion of everybody else. Don't make the mistake that such are conservatives, in the "Constitutional" sense. They are absolutely not, in the sense of the signers of our Constitution.

If the inequities, bad judgment, fraud, corruption, hypocrisy, and self-serving double-dealing that goes on in many churches today were to have happened in the Colonial Congress, we would not have a country today that resembles the United States. Were such churches in fact "conservative," they would have long ago kicked every one of those people out of their church, just like Paul set the example.

A true conservative never goes by written doctrine, per se, but by the principles of good judgment. Christian is as Christian does.

So the truth is this: Only INDIVIDUALS, here and there, can be "Christian." A body of believers is not a "Christian." Salvation is individually determined and a membership means nothing. The true church is in fact invisible. All the churches of Asia fell away, even before Paul died, but the "TRUE CHURCH" lived on, and the gates of hell did not prevail against it. Yet they were kicking the true Christians out of their groups, according to Paul. You can say anything you want about the hypocrisy of this or that church. It means nothing at all to me. No church is a "Christian." Only a few of its members, if any at all. But let's not demean the principles, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and label all who would admire and follow those principles as hypocrites, just because we haven't learned to spot the difference, yet.

Blah, bla, Blah Blah Blaaaaaaaaah. More of your same histrionics. Did you get into the crystal meth again? :33: How many ways can you take the opposing side? Countless it seems.


The only thing I find 'individually determined' is how that you're selectively fucked. Dude. Step off your bandwagon. Boy do you do love to watch yourself type.:rolleyes:

Wait! You still have time. It's two-for-one night at the Pink Lady and you can just make last call.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dr Rock said:
that's not play, it's straightforward survival instinct. a baby can't know that those resources are readily available - it hasn't yet learned how to differentiate between necessity and desire, because in a "natural" environment there isn't any difference..

:confused: I'm a bit confused....(nothing new :rolleyes: )..I used to the term 'play' as much to describe it's appearance as it's function and certainly in most behavioral assessments of animals I have seen it's generally described as such but yes I agree with you at an early age it's instinctive which is what I was trying to say i.e. 'unconcious' which is what I meant by:

dong20 said:
...When human infants exhibit similar behaviors we generally assume it is concious act but I wonder how much of it is concious, how much is learned from parents (I believe children are far more perceptive than many give them credit for) and how much is simple instinct....

In Humans as in any animal some behavior is instinctive some is learned and some is deliberate in varying degrees during growth.

Dr Rock said:
to describe that as "evil" is patently ridiculous - animals aren't naturally "greedy" any more than they're naturally "cruel." the distinction simply doesn't arise

Dunno if you're mixing my comment up with prepstudinscs' cos I didn't use the word 'Evil' anywhere..I agree with your statement which is what I meant when I said:

dong20 said:
..In essence, at birth I don't think we humans are inherently decent or indecent in the same way other 'animals' aren't, we learn most of those skills later....

Dr Rock said:
"greed" is deliberate exploitation. it comes into play when someone does know the difference, but deliberately chooses to indulge that desire to the detriment of others. sadly, we live in a greed-based society - it's upheld and encouraged to such an extent that many people no longer seem to understand why it's wrong. a handy illustration of the relative nature of morality there :rolleyes:

I agree, again I thought that was what I said....in relation to 'Greed'

dong20 said:
...When a child is old enough to 'converse' and clearly demonstrate coginitive interaction with their environment I would certainly agree with you that such behaviour could properly be classified as a concious behavioural choice.....

Perhaps I'm just having a bad day....:biggrin1:

Still fff topic but still interesting....
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Here's some history of the Golden Rule (morality of reciprocity), taken from Wikipedia (I omit the Jewish and Christian religions because no one here disputes their status as sources, as well):

Hinduism

"Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:15:17)

"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, 113.8
The Golden Rule has many simularities to the Hindu belief in karma.

Buddhism

Ethics of reciprocity is fundamental to Buddhism. This is partly due to the fact that Buddhism, unlike theistic religions, does not rely on divine revelation. Therefore, in Buddhism, all aspects of teaching are regarded as wisdom rather than supernaturally derived and are to be undertaken voluntarily rather than as "commandments." For example, the first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) of Buddhism is to abstain from destruction of life. The justification of the precept is given in Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada, which states:
"Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill."
According to the second of Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, egoism (desire, craving or attachment) are rooted in ignorance and is considered as the cause of all suffering. Consequently, kindness, compassion and equanimity is regarded as the untainted aspect of human nature.

Confucianism

"What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others."
—Confucius, c. 500 B.C.
According to Wing-tsit Chan's A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, the ethic of reciprocity appears in the Analects of Confucius, Chapter 4, in the discussion of i-kuan (pinyin: yi guan), the "one thread" that combines chung (altruism) and shu (conscientiousness):
Confucian teachings may be summed up in the phrase "one thread" (i-kuan), but Confucianists have not agreed on what it means....All agree, however on the meanings of chung and shu, which are best expressed by Chu Hsi, namely, chung means the full development of one's [originally good] mind and shu means the extension of that mind to others. As Ch'eng I put it, chung is the Way of Heaven, whereas shu is the way of man; the former is substance, while the latter is function. Liu Pao-nan is correct in equating chung with Confucius' saying, "Establish one's own character," and shu with "Also establish the character of others." Here is the positive version of the Confucian golden rule.
Liu Pao-nan is citing Analects 6:28, but according to Dr. Chan, the same principle appears in Analects 14:45: "To cultivate oneself so as to give all people security and peace, even Yao and Shun found it difficult to do."

Islam

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."
—Sunnah

Bahá'í

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

—Bahá'u'lláh