Skip to comments.THE GOLDEN RULE IS IN EVERY RELIGION
Posted on 04/06/2014 1:44:23 PM PDT by little jeremiah
The idea of practicing virtue to help and respect others is not absent from any part of the world. It is a basic law found everywhere. Therefore, no one has an excuse to not follow it. If we ever expect to have peace in the world, this is certainly where we can begin.
The importance of this was well stated by Mohandas Gandhi: "To injure a single human being is to injure those divine powers within us, and thus the harm reaches not only that one human being, but with him the whole world."
This makes it clear that whatever disrespect or harm we show to others (providing they have no criminal intent) is not isolated, but has its effects far and wide, and can do as much inner harm to us as we do to others. In other words, by following the Golden Rule we help ourselves as much as those we meet.
One of the earliest references to the Golden Rule is found in India in the Mahabharata (13th Parva), which states, "This is the sum of all true righteousness--Treat others as thou wouldst thyself be treated. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which hereafter thou wouldst not have thy neighbor do to thee. In causing pleasure or in giving pain, in doing good or injury to others, in granting or refusing a request, a man obtains a proper rule of action by looking on his neighbor as himself."
The Manu-samhita (2.161) also explains, "Wound not others, do no one injury by thought or deed, utter no word to pain thy fellow creatures."
From the Middle-East, in Judaism we find in the Talmud, "What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is the Torah and the remainder is but commentary. Go learn it." Leviticus (19.17-18) explains, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge. . . but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Similar expressions are found amongst the Christians in Matthew (7.12) and Luke (6.31) which explain, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."
I Thessalonians (5.15) states, "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." And Hebrews (13.1) says: "Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."
The most important of all Christian principles is found in Matthew (22.37-40): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Furthermore, the words of Jesus explain in John (13.34-5): "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
From the Orient, in the Analects (15.23) of Confucianism, it states, "Tzu Kung asked saying: Is there any one maxim which ought to be acted upon throughout ones whole life? The Master replied: Surely the maxim of reciprocity is such: Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you."
Also in the Analects (6.28) we find, "The man of moral virtue, wishing to stand firm himself, will lend firmness unto others; wishing himself to be enlightened, he will enlighten others. To be able to do to others as we would be done by--this is the true domain of moral virtue."
In the Jain religion we find more references to the Golden Rule. In the Yogashastra (2.20) it states, "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as you regard your own self, and do not injure others with that which would injure yourself." Also (2.37), "Viler than unbelievers are those cruel ones who make the law that teaches killing."
In Buddhism, the Udanavarya (5.18) simply states, "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."
In the Masnavi of Islam it is said, "If every one saw his own faults first, how should he be neglectful of correcting himself. These people are thoughtless as to, and unacquainted with themselves; and consequently they speak of the faults of one another."
So in every part of the world and in every religion there are references relating the need to respect one another and treat others as you would like to be treated. Yet, from this we can see that most religions, or the people in them, cannot even practice what they preach. What a difference there would be in the world if everyone immediately began to practice what they preach from their own doctrine. All the wars around the world that are based on the desire to conquer and convert could end. What a pity that such is not likely to happen. All the more reason to study the above quotations.
I was under the impression that muslins were adhering to the GOLDEN RAIN rule.
Islam contains a version of the golden rule But it also tells its adherents to seize everybody else’s lands ( by armed or immigrant invasions) and to then subjugate or kill them. Unfortunately, the whole world suffers because this “ later” part of the Koran is so well followed by so many Moslems. The golden rule stuff got superseded in the Islam of all these millions of islamoNazi jihadist terrorists and their even larger population of coreligionist supporters. It avails us not one iota to cite the “ earlier” parts of their book that so many Moslems don’t follow and have no intention of ever following.
There’s a moment in The Life of Muhammad in which he picks up a handful of sand and lets the wind blow it whichever way, and he tells his followers, that events are guided by the will of allah, as is the flow of the sand.
Thus it followed when asked about 9/11, a muslim cleric was able to reply, had allah not willed it, he would have prevented the aircraft from striking the towers.
And that’s the golden rule of islam. It also applies when little girls three years old are raped or decapitated.
Not in Anton LaVey’s Satanism.
“If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.”
Well, Old Buddha was a man and I'm sure that he meant well But I pray for his disciples lest they wind up in hell And I'm sure that old Mohammed thought he knew the way But it won't be Hare Krishna we stand before on The Judgment Day. No, it won't be old Buddha that's sitting on the throne And it won't be old Mohammed that's calling us Home And it won't be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune And we're going to see The Son not Reverend Moon! Well, I don't hate anybody so please don't take me wrong But there really is a message *in* this simple song You see there's only one way Jesus if eternal life is your goal Meditation of the mind won't save your soul. No, it won't be old Buddha that's sitting on the throne And it won't be old Mohammed that's calling us Home And it won't be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune And we're going to see The Son, not Reverend Moon! Well, you can call yourself a Baptist and not be born again A Presbyterian or a Methodist and still die in your sin You can even be Charismatic shout and dance and jump a few But if you hate your brother you wont be one of The Chosen Few. Cause it won't be a Baptist that's sitting on The Throne A Presbyterian or a Methodist that's calling us Home And it won't be a Charismatic that plays that trumpet tune So let's all just live for Jesus 'cause He's coming back real soon.
Or nine month old babies are accused of murder.http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26887186
not in Islam it aint
It just doesn’t happen to be in Christianity...
The author does know the real import of Islam, he wrote a book called “Crimes Against India” which was so horrific I could only read 5 pages at a time.
Satanism isn’t a religion, if by religion one means a belief in God. It’s a fake belief system based on lies and evil.
Except the cult religion of the Left.
I think it's sometimes a mistake to dismiss godless belief systems as being non-religious.
The idea that religion requires a god entity lets leftists get away with imposing their dogma on everyone else by simply refraining from saying "God tells us that...", or "God says..."
A more broad definition of religion would would allow first amendment challenges to leftist's ideological control of public education.
I am so confused. Islam?
Is there a golden beheading sword in there somewhere?
There are different definitions of the word “religion”. For the purposes of this article, the author obviously means “belief in God”, although Buddhism and Confucianism are not monotheistic, but sort of quasi-religious ethical and moral teachings.
If “belief in anything” means “religion”, obviously this article does not address that definition.
Apparently the author is trying to say that if Moslems at least followed that one little part of the Koran, they’d be nicer. But from other things he’s written, I know that he sees what Islam is.
I’m not trying to do a comparative religion topic here, I just was sent this article in an email a couple of years ago and thought it a nice time to post it. The author’s point being that even those of various religions, even if not agreeing on many other tenets, all teach some variant of the Golden Rule, and if everyone followed their own teachings in that regard, the world would be infinitely better off.
See my comment above:
I think the author really had to strain to find any semblance of the Golden Rule in Islam.
And what little he found is far overweighted by the other 99.99999% of Islam.
One of these days it will be the will of “allah” that Islam is gone from the face of the earth.
I am curious about Hinduism and the Golden Rule. Namely, does Hinduism have anything approaching or similar to a Golden Rule? Or is it more like, Do unto others however you may pleasewhether bad, good or indifferent, just go for it?
Which accusation, phrased as a question, I found extremely offensive, and more applicable to islam than any other belief-system on the planet.
To tell the truth, I was thinking of posting this a long time ago. The little exchange you mention just brought it to the fore.
Jiva daya - “Jiva” meaning “living soul”, and “daya” meaning “kindness” - is the ground of religion, according to Hindu dharma. But it is interesting to note this verse from one of the Puranas, this is memory, not word for word:
“Even saints are happy when poisonous creatures like vipers and scorpions are killed.”
This was in reference to a powerful and evil tyrant king being killed. So even peaceful kind humans are wise, and know that violence sometimes must be meted out to those who are not peaceful, kind or wise.
First on my list of those still living, would be the cabal which speculated that at least 25 million Americans would need to be 'eliminated' if they refused to accept the 'revolution'.
Actually in Hindu dharma it’s considered kindness to kill evildoers, because it saves innocents from being harmed any more, and it stops the evildoer from racking up more vikarma - sins - which the evildoer will have to suffer for after death. So putting a stop to evildoing is true kindness to everyone, including the evildoer.
And planning to do evil, is also evil.
I disagree. The phrase "if everyone followed their own teachings" allows for a diversity of interpretation and is broad. Exodus 20:3 makes it clear: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.". There are not many paths but only one way. Matthew 7:14 teaches, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Later, also in Matthew (10:34), Christ states: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
There are moral absolutes and there are warmed over platitudes about the world's religions embracing the Golden Rule. The article leading off this thread just strikes me as another "We Are the World" form of the weak sauce of Kumbaya-ism. If one's faith lacks the cleansing power of Christ's Salvation ("Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."), it's little more than a Rodney King feel-good cliche of "Can we all just get along?".
LJ -- we've had many, many, many fruitful and agreeable discussions here, especially about the evils of sodomy. This is maybe the first time we've taken a different stance on any issue. It's nothing personal, of course, but when it comes to matters involving God, I take the Bible and only the Bible literally. If you will, it's the "howto manual" of my life and, frankly, any other such book or collection (Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Dianetics, Book of Mormon and so on) is just falsehood. All that said, I wish you well and again, to be abundantly clear, nothing personal at all.
I’m fine with your comments; I see absolute truth in a slightly different light, but we’ve all been given free will by God. On another thread I might be willing to discuss various theological differences and similarities, but not on this thread, and not today... and of course, always with respect.
As I know you would do anyway, and I try to.
Thanks so much, I’d hate for our difference to ever come between us. Have a very good rest of the day and evening!
You too, dear friend.
Or, “Conquer the infidels and do whatever you want with them.”
***Mohandas Gandhi: Peace.***
Every time I hear that name and “Peace” together I remember all those slaughtered innocents in the partition of India.
If Moslems weren’t being typical Moslems, there wouldn’t have been partition or slaughter.
Nonsense. That couldn't be further from the truth.
If you read the whole article, you’d see that the author says it is not being practiced, though.
Not my point. Islam does NOT teach the golden rule. The entire caste system of India is/was justified on reincarnation and karma from past lives. Atheist societies hold only the morals they wish at the moment they wish.
As I said up the thread at least twice, the author obviously had a hard time finding any thing in the Koran that remotely resembled the Golden Rule. That’s one thing.
The other point you make about India - did you read the quotes from Hindu scriptures at all? And if you’d like to discuss the caste system, I could do that at some point. But like much of Christendom, many Hindus do not understand their own scriptures very well, and therefore, the point of the article:
That IF people whose religions have some version of the Golden Rule - and most do - actually followed that teaching, the world would be a much better place to live.
And then we could peacefully discussion theological points.
And, just for the record, the “caste” system is called in Sanskrit varnashram. And what “caste” or varna a person belonged to was supposed to be determined by personal characteristics and qualities, NOT by birth. It was that way, a long time ago.
In this case “others” is generally read as “others like you/us”. That was the entire point of the ‘good Samaritan’ parable, because it breached the “others like you” rule.
Islam clearly teaches that fair treatment only applies to fellow Muslims (maybe) and it instructs the direct persecution of others.
So there was a period in time when caste was determined individually on merit and never by birth? Is that a provable fact or a historical myth?
Historical fact. In the Bhagavad Gita, and with much evidence from the Puranas and the Mahabharat, caste or more accurately varna, is determined solely by quality of the individual. Someone who was born a brahman, for instance, but did not manifest the qualities of a brahman, was called “Brahma-bandhu”; a sort of snide term meaning “friend or relative of a brahman”. Same thing with kshatriyas or warriors. A warrior obviously cannot be born a warrior, he has to prove himself and develop the skills and mentality to be a warrior. And so on. I could quote verses if you want but not at the moment.
To the great shame of India, most people have forgotten this as it has not been taught. Fortunately there has been a renewed interest in the real teachings of Hinduism in the last few decades.
There is a difference between pointing out caste mobility between castes at comparable social levels and a truly open system.
The brahmans were traditionally often poor, and the ideal was that if they did accumulate wealth, to use it in service of God. If I had time which unfortunately I don’t have tonight, I could cite texts or examples. I could dig some up tomorrow.
I have no idea what you mean by a “truly open system”. Like the US?
An example from recent history, merely 500 years ago. There was a governor of I believe what is now part of the state of Madras. He was born in the sudra varna, which is the lowest of the four; laborers, those who hire themselves to others, and other duties. He became the governor. And then he gave it up to become a sadhu - basically like a monk; which is actually considered “higher” than a brahman. All because of his personal qualities and behavior.
In the Masnavi of Islam it is said, “Kill thy neighbor as thyself”
According to the Bible, there are things more important to God than this world being made better. So much evil goes on here that if God’s chief goal was to improve the world He’d have to destroy it and us.
What God’s Word teaches us is that what happens in this world determines what happens in the next. The wheat and tares both grow here, and at the time of Judgment, the wheat will be kept while the tares are cast away.
God’s Word also teaches us that religious actions and good works in themselves mean absolutely nothing to Him. What matter to God is the heart they come from, and its motives. The troubling thing is, though, is that the Bible says our hearts are so evil that we’re deceived to see our motives as pure when they’re not. (Cont’d)
And while many religions, created by man, have some version of the Golden Rule, that really doesn’t mean what it seems to. The Bible says God put His laws in our hearts, and even more importantly, He created us in His image for the purpose of us to have relationship with Him and each other. If we value others at all, we won’t think we should treat others how we wouldn’t want to be treated.
There are a lot of problems with that, though. People can’t always decide what’s good and bad treatment. For instance, abortion. And then many times they can’t see the situation clearly because humans are both sinners and limited in understanding. We can also lack the moral strength to do right when we want to, or just want something else more. (Cont’d)
The Bible says that “there is a way that seems right to a man but it leads to death,” and that without God leading us, “every man does what’s right in his own eyes,” which always leads to us going off the right path somewhere.
The Golden Rule in Christianity, then, also requires people to depend on God to find out what’s true and good. He gives us the Bible to teach us, and then His guidance through things like prayer and the words of other believers.
And performing the Golden Rule shouldn’t lead to the chief sin of Satan, pride. Doing right has a great many benefits, and God has suffered long with us to make us able to do good. Giving to charity, if out of pride, can lead to people feeling they have a license to sin a little, convinced God needs them, and they’re so good they don’t need His mercy and forgiveness.
It's not a religion.
The story of the Good Samaritan is an example of a person living by the Golden Rule.
The point is that if people around the world, whoever they might be, acted with respect and kindness towards others, (as described in the article), there would be far less mayhem and slaughter going on in the world.
And I don’t think anyone can say that would not be a good thing.
Regarding your point about some people thinking, for instance, that other people should be allowed to have abortions because they want them, that is a good point. There have to be moral absolutes accepted, and since all religions basically have the same moral absolutes*, if people actually followed their scriptures (as faulty as many of them may be in various peoples’ estimations), at least they all hold to the same basic moral absolutes.
*I leave Islam out of this because it is vicious from the get-go.
People consider it a religion; depending on one’s definition. If people as above define religion as “any belief people hold” such as Satanism, leftist doctrine, etc - then Islam would be a “religion”.
If people mean “a belief in God with systematic teachings and practices” then....they claim to believe in God, but their understanding, their book, their traditions and their ongoing history of butchery show that they know nothing about God, and use Islam as a political tool of tyranny and slaughter and conquest. So in that way of looking, it is not a religion.
The only Golden Rule I see being enforced these days is “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
And that is why everything all over the world is FUBAR.
As we understand religions and political beliefs, Islam is not a religion but a political system wrapped in a fig leaf of religion. Sharia law is incompatible with our constitution.