Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many different mindsets, two of the most famous are "turn the other cheek" we could call this New Testament or Jesus and "Eye for an eye" or Torah or Old Testament....
Which philosophy of those specific two are better?
Here are two pieces of evidence, one for each...
"Turn the other cheek" Evidence
MLK said always move forward, with love, never bitterness or hatred, and turn the other cheek and don't hit back if someone like Bull Connor or the Alabama State police hit you. He won sympathy for his cause of civil rights, because he himself was faultless at least with how he protested.
Malcom X was more eye for an eye, he was willing to promote violence against those violent towards him or his community and he is not seen as effective or beloved.
Saint Matthew reminds us and MLK to love your enemies as Jesus said, and MLK furthers this by saying: "I would rather die than hate my enemies." Love is greater than like. Had MLK responded to violence with violence that likely would have been the focus and he'd have won over fewer supporters.
I've often made so many friends and diffused so many situations with love and humility. Especially when I was working at a restaurant years ago. Why is restaurant so hard to spell!
"Eye for an eye" Evidence
Game theory in Prisoner's Dilemma suggests what is best is (1) Be nice, (2) don't be a push over so you retaliate to aggression, (3) be forgiving after retaliation so you don't get stuck in a doom loop, (4) be clear in your strategy so your opponent knows what to expect.
I feel a million years old today as my oldest turns 3 today....also named after Saint Matthew, because of his peace messages...but way back in high school we did a prisoner's dilemma and I did horrible, I was a pushover as I tried to always cooperate and people ran all over me. I basically had to flirt to get people to stop abusing me so much in this game, because turning the other cheek didn't work for me in this game and that seems to be what the experiments show. I was raised a pacifist and I admit I often have a hard time supporting the position logically, I'm not exactly smart and a smart pacifist could probably logically support it better, but it seems like a non-aggression principle is more logically sound than my pacifism, at least at times for me.
What philosophy is best? Is it based on situations?
Situational, the proverbs will speak out fools saying you shouldnt even acknowledge them, and then it will turn around and say the opposite concerning the situstion..
For me personaly, you could slap me and RIP my arm off and I would do nothing except forgive you, having said that, I see you slap another person about to commit bodily harm and I am going to hurt you, bad.
To begin with, I have a little difficulty finding that those humane feelings are "inherent in us", since I have known MANY people over the years that fail to demonstrate any of those humane feelings. If you believe they are inherent in us, then you'll have a hard time explaining all the wars in history (37 million people in the world have died in wars since 1800), slavery, lynchings, rapes, kidnappings, the caste system, theft, greed, and on and on.
Second, sometimes religions foster those things, and sometimes religions do just the opposite, such as supporting slavery, not to mention religious wars to convert (or kill, if they don't convert) people.
Third, by saying the bolded, you are essentially saying that religions are manmade phenomenons. Okay.
That feelings of generosity, compassion are inherent does not mean they are always acted upon, for various reasons. Life situations, illnesses, medical and emotional problems, etc. and if you believe it, karma. We dont always live up to our potential. That you are raising this point is the very reason religion exists to remind you of your potential, that you CAN be compassionate, can be forgiving, and it is good for you to do so.
We have a choice to behave badly or in goodness. And we may not always choose goodness.
You seem unable to hold people responsible for their actions, you deprive them of their agency, and instead blame a non-existent entity responsible. You overlook the fact that the abolitionists were as religious as the slavers were. John Brown was an evangelical Christian. We are always, always, free to choose how to act, barring other circumstances.
Religions are man made, of course! God has no religion, he does not need it. The vedas were heard and written down by humans. The inspiration, the understanding, the analysis, the teachings, the illumination, realization, all occur in the human mind and become the texts.
The bolded is not my saying, it was a question in reference to the post i was quoting.
That feelings of generosity, compassion are inherent does not mean they are always acted upon, for various reasons. Life situations, illnesses, medical and emotional problems, etc. and if you believe it, karma. We dont always live up to our potential. That you are raising this point is the very reason religion exists to remind you of your potential, that you CAN be compassionate, can be forgiving, and it is good for you to do so.
We have a choice to behave badly or in goodness. And we may not always choose goodness.
You seem unable to hold people responsible for their actions, you deprive them of their agency, and instead blame a non-existent entity responsible. You overlook the fact that the abolitionists were as religious as the slavers were. John Brown was an evangelical Christian. We are always, always, free to choose how to act, barring other circumstances.
Religions are man made, of course! God has no religion, he does not need it. The vedas were heard and written down by humans. The inspiration, the understanding, the analysis, the teachings, the illumination, realization, all occur in the human mind and become the texts.
The bolded is not my saying, it was a question in reference to the post i was quoting.
I don't need religion to behave. All I need is "do unto others...". And I learned that in kindergarten, not in church.
I don't need religion to behave. All I need is "do unto others...". And I learned that in kindergarten, not in church.
Quote:
. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a biblical concept spoken by Jesus in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12; it is commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule." " So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets " (Matthew 7:12).
at this link is an extensive list. excerpted below are a few from the list which are older than 2,400 years ago.
“GOLDEN RULES” IN WORLD RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHY Ancient Egyptian (5,000 years ago)
That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another. -The Eloquent Peasant
Buddhism (2,500 years ago)
• If you see yourself in others, then whom can you harm? - Buddha
• Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. - Udana-Varga 5:18
Confucianism (2,500 years ago)
• ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘Reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’ Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
• Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. Mencius VII.A.4
Hinduism (4,000 years ago)
• Do nothing unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. - Mahabharata, 5:1517
• One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of
dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. Brihaspati, Mahabhara`ta (Anusasana Parva, § CXIII, v. 8)
Jainism (2,500 years ago)
• A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
• Killing a living being is killing one’s own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to
oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being. Suman Suttam, verse 151
Judaism (3,800 years ago)
• ...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Leviticus 19:18
• What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Native American (23,000 years ago)
• All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One. Black Elk
• Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself. Pima proverb
Taoism (2,400 years ago)
• Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien
• The good I meet with goodness; the bad I also meet with goodness; that is virtue’s goodness. The faithful I meet with faith; the faithless I also meet with faith; that is virtue’s faith. Tao te Ching, 49
Yoruba (Nigeria, 5,000 years ago)
• One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
Zoroastrianism (4,000 years ago)
• Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Philosophers (2,400 to 2,600 years ago)
• Pittacus : Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.
• Thales: Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-30-2024 at 10:26 AM..
Plato (Laws, book 11). Plato died 347 BC. There is also one from Egypt from about the same time.
Ok. Good principles have no borders,you will find them in all religions, thoughts, philosophies, times, nations.
My point is the golden rule is part of the Christian Biblical text and is often cited as a noble way to act. This is one of the ways religious texts can influence actions, values, which is one of religion's purpose. If one quotes it as his guiding principle, as Phetroi claims, it did not come from out there somewhere, it is indeed a Christian value, it is in their texts, as something Jesus said. Sure one can follow it as an atheist, as a Muslim, as None etc. But it is not cleansed of religion, and that is my only point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
