You know... the most radical claim that Jesus made? Is supposedly the most important, and is probably the most overlooked on a regular basis:
"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets."
But, if everyone actually lived by this particular piece of advice, would the world truly be perfect as some people believe? I contemplate this from time to time, so here are my thoughts on "paper":
For instance, I want everyone to say what they feel. Just talk, and don't stop. Who cares what another thinks, as long as you are still well within your right to free speech (And not over-stepping that by harming others directly and purposefully [as opposed to stating your beliefs poignantly], in which case you have transcended beyond "free speech" into slander).
[I'm not necessarily indicating talking to each other either, I'm just saying.. talk. Write. Blog. Preach. Publish. Heck, sing if you like... or what have you. If it's interpersonal communication, then sure, try for that too.. but being the agoraphobic that I am, it's "no thanks" on my end in a lot of realms of that particular spectrum.]
At any rate, that's what I expect people to do for me, and that's what I expect of others. To put it simply: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right so say it. It's my choice to listen to others, to even look at them... other people don't affect my life, my life goes on as usual regardless of what other people believe. I do not have to absorb anything another person has to say, that is my choice.
At the end of the day, a person can believe in ... say ... animal sacrifice, but as long as they aren't encroaching on my life, I'm not concerned. I might speak out against it, but that's fine too. But neither he affects me, nor do I affect him. We simply have opposing beliefs of which we are outspoken. No harm, no foul, if we choose to simply live and let live.
In another example... I have a rule for my Live Journal: I don't accept "arguments" to my entries in the form of comments (comments are wide open, but moderated), because it is a waste of space and a waste of my time. If you have something you want to argue... don't do it on my livejournal. Do it on your livejournal! That is the only thing that makes sense! Because arguing with me and my beliefs will do neither of us any good, for I believe as I do and you as you do. There's nothing wrong with difference, no matter how stark, as long as people can simply agree to disagree, and take their standpoints on their own ground.
But... It's when people take the to the throats of others with purpose of which to do so, that has me reflecting on the so-called "Golden rule" and if it would truly do much good in the first place. I do not believe the world would be a better place if people did unto others as they expected to be done unto them. This is simply because of the variant in human character between individuals. One person expects kindness, another expects love, another expects honesty, and even another might except anger or a fight.
It's hard to find common ground, but we cannot necessarily do it from our own personal standpoints. The best we can do, is simply agree that we are all different, and that we all have freedom to believe as we do. Defend each other's right to speak, and never let up: Argue if necessary, sure! It's not as bad a thing as people make it out to be.
At some point there becomes a point in time where we have to wonder, and closely examine in and of ourselves... are we really doing as we would want another to do to us? Yes? No? And more importantly: Do we perhaps not even know ourselves at all to begin with?
In conclusion, I think the idea of Do Unto Others is very noble.. but, I'm not yet convinced it is a workable theory in practicum. Perhaps I'll think more on it late
"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets."
But, if everyone actually lived by this particular piece of advice, would the world truly be perfect as some people believe? I contemplate this from time to time, so here are my thoughts on "paper":
For instance, I want everyone to say what they feel. Just talk, and don't stop. Who cares what another thinks, as long as you are still well within your right to free speech (And not over-stepping that by harming others directly and purposefully [as opposed to stating your beliefs poignantly], in which case you have transcended beyond "free speech" into slander).
[I'm not necessarily indicating talking to each other either, I'm just saying.. talk. Write. Blog. Preach. Publish. Heck, sing if you like... or what have you. If it's interpersonal communication, then sure, try for that too.. but being the agoraphobic that I am, it's "no thanks" on my end in a lot of realms of that particular spectrum.]
At any rate, that's what I expect people to do for me, and that's what I expect of others. To put it simply: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right so say it. It's my choice to listen to others, to even look at them... other people don't affect my life, my life goes on as usual regardless of what other people believe. I do not have to absorb anything another person has to say, that is my choice.
At the end of the day, a person can believe in ... say ... animal sacrifice, but as long as they aren't encroaching on my life, I'm not concerned. I might speak out against it, but that's fine too. But neither he affects me, nor do I affect him. We simply have opposing beliefs of which we are outspoken. No harm, no foul, if we choose to simply live and let live.
In another example... I have a rule for my Live Journal: I don't accept "arguments" to my entries in the form of comments (comments are wide open, but moderated), because it is a waste of space and a waste of my time. If you have something you want to argue... don't do it on my livejournal. Do it on your livejournal! That is the only thing that makes sense! Because arguing with me and my beliefs will do neither of us any good, for I believe as I do and you as you do. There's nothing wrong with difference, no matter how stark, as long as people can simply agree to disagree, and take their standpoints on their own ground.
But... It's when people take the to the throats of others with purpose of which to do so, that has me reflecting on the so-called "Golden rule" and if it would truly do much good in the first place. I do not believe the world would be a better place if people did unto others as they expected to be done unto them. This is simply because of the variant in human character between individuals. One person expects kindness, another expects love, another expects honesty, and even another might except anger or a fight.
It's hard to find common ground, but we cannot necessarily do it from our own personal standpoints. The best we can do, is simply agree that we are all different, and that we all have freedom to believe as we do. Defend each other's right to speak, and never let up: Argue if necessary, sure! It's not as bad a thing as people make it out to be.
At some point there becomes a point in time where we have to wonder, and closely examine in and of ourselves... are we really doing as we would want another to do to us? Yes? No? And more importantly: Do we perhaps not even know ourselves at all to begin with?
In conclusion, I think the idea of Do Unto Others is very noble.. but, I'm not yet convinced it is a workable theory in practicum. Perhaps I'll think more on it late
