Matt. 22: 37-19? In any case you have something you call "the golden rule." — tim wood

You COULD call it 'the golden rule,' but that would NOT be correct. These have been widely known, at least since the King James version in 1511, and possibly longer than I have been told (but running into limits of the English language and requiring analysis of latin for further elucidation), as THE TWO COMMANDMENTS. Which Jesus is by all evidence the first person to state, although you can find some precedent for them in the old testament, what is it, psalms I think? But they are not COMMANDMENTS in the old testament. The point was, when Jesus fulfilled the holy covenant by sacrificing his own blood, the old law of Moses, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, no longer required animal sacrifice for atonement of sins, after which THE TWO COMMANDMENTS were sufficient. One may argue the holy covenant was a tribal misconception, but according to what's written, that's what they are, TWO commandments.

NOT ONE RULE

TWO COMMANDMENTS

There is something else in the epistiles which is sometimes referred to as the ONE COMMANDMENT, but its not considered fulfillment of the covenant whi

THE GOLDEN RULE refers to some proposed and, by all that I can determine, entirely contrived abstraction that Jesus deviously kidnapped for his own purposes which was, according tp new age hippies, wiidely known from the hareems of the sultans alive at the time of Christ, to yellow savages in the far east slaughtering each other between hugs.


Glad to oblige, thanks for the invitation

What is Yahweh?

What is Yahweh? — Professor Death

also,

Oh. Not that I think it that important, but for your information, 'Yahweh' is an English pronunciation of an affectionate Hebrew abbreviation of 'Jehovah,' the Jewish name for the 'One God,' mostly popularized in the English speaking world due an unusual decision by the Catholic church to use the affectionate version, rather than the formal version, in its beautifully paraphrased rewrite of the bible for easy reading called the 'The New Jerusalem Bible,' which is also noted by its unusual inclusion of the entire apocrypha without making a big deal of it.

Maybe drink less and read and think more? I was referring to the modern formulation in various forms known as the golden rule, not to be confused with commandments, though similarities noticeable and noted.

as stated in INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY - Second paragraph of section one. No supporting references. No known reference to golden rule in any form of Confucianism or Taoism (a mistranslation of a reference to the conflict/harmony between Qi and Chi in this page is certainly no substantiation either).

The golden rule is closely associated with Christian ethics though its origins go further back and graces Asian culture as well.

[url=http://]https://www.iep.utm.edu/goldrule/[/url]

The point of jesus' teaching is that the two commandments are inseparable. One can certainly discuss a rule was drawn from them and labeled golden, but such a rule by itself it has no significance to jahweh or to jesus. The topic most people prefer to debate is how it can actually work successfully without believing in God at all. Jesus made it very clear that loving God first, with all your strength, is necessary and indivisible from a simple moral axiom by itself.

Not that I think it that important, but for your information, 'Yahweh' is an English pronunciation of an affectionate Hebrew abbreviation of 'Jehovah,' the Jewish name for the 'One God,' mostly popularized in the English speaking world due an unusual decision by the Catholic church to use the affectionate version, rather than the formal version, in its beautifully paraphrased rewrite of the bible for easy reading called the 'The New Jerusalem Bible,' which is also noted by its unusual inclusion of the entire apocrypha without making a big deal of it. — ernestm

That is one hell of a run-on sentence.

Didn't know it is the English pronunciation of Jehovah, doesn't sound like any English pronunciation I've ever heard...

That is one hell of a run-on sentence. — Professor Death

Actually not. nor even especially long, though longer than modern newspaper style usually permits. I offer this to expand your notions of what an English sentence is, and can do: the opening sentence of Paradise Lost:

"OF Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing Heav'nly Muse, that on the secret top
Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire
That Shepherd, who first taught the chosen Seed,
In the Beginning how the Heav'ns and Earth
Rose out of Chaos: or if Sion Hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flow'd
Fast by the Oracle of God; I thence
Invoke thy aid to my adventrous Song,
That with no middle flight intends to soar
Above th' Aonian Mount, while it pursues
Things unattempted yet in Prose or Rhime.
And chiefly Thou, O Spirit, that dost prefer
Before all Temples th' upright heart and pure,
Instruct me, for Thou know'st; Thou from the first
Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread
Dove-like satst brooding on the vast Abyss
And mad'st it pregnant: What in me is dark
Illumin, what is low raise and support;
That to the highth of this great Argument
I may assert Eternal Providence,
And justifie the wayes of God to men."

tast — tim wood

tast???

Looks like fertile crescent poetry

For some reason it is often stated as the pronunciation of Jehovah, but Jehovah is typically pronounced with three syllables, but some with a soft J like Y and a silent V. But still three syllables. Yahweh is more of a two syllable truncation of familiarity. Like Johnny for Johnathan.

Johnathan is spelt Jonathan

Glad to oblige, thanks for the invitation — ernestm

No problem buddy.

My research shows, ----Reciprocity dates as far back as the time of Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)#History

Ancient Egypt[edit]
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[9][10] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[11] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Matt. 22: 37-19? In any case you have something you call "the golden rule." As for whether Jesus's actions comport with that is a research problem the answer to which found in the aforementioned book and to my knowledge no other. — tim wood

Correct. That is the book on which I based the question.

I do not see Jesus living by the Golden Rule.

Regards
DL

the TEN COMMANDMENTS, no longer required animal sacrifice for atonement of sins, — ernestm

Where in scriptures is this documented?

Regards
DL

The point was, when Jesus fulfilled the holy covenant by sacrificing his own blood, — ernestm

Jesus tested the savior prophesy and failed to return and that is why the Jews rejected him as their messiah.

The Jewish law is clear that Jesus could not die for us. That is a Christian lie and quite immoral.

On Jesus dying for you.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for you, after condemning you unjustly in the first place.

You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh.

Regards
DL

The topic most people prefer to debate is how it can actually work successfully without believing in God at all. — ernestm

Just look at your own instincts that default to cooperation instead of competition.

We are born with the Golden Rule as our guide to cooperate because that is the best survival strategy.

That is why we default to it till old enough to compete to be the fittest.

Regards
DL.

The point of Jesus' teaching is that the two commandments are inseparable. — ernestm

Actually, the two command are actually one. The other is redundant or just a repetition, depending on how you define god..

To Jesus, man is the highest form of life therefore and god. Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are gods?

Most have forgotten. I hope you haven't.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Actually, the two command are actually one. The other is redundant or just a repetition, depending on how you define god.. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I got that far and stopped reading. Sorry. I would xplaoin why, but there is no point, is there. Gee what anice day. I think I'll mow the lawn. Hope you enjoyed me biting you. agani, thanks for the invitiation )

You're just straight evangelizing now. Nobody wants to read that crap.

I got that far and stopped reading. Sorry. — ernestm

Don't be sorry. Many cannot give up supernatural and foolish thinking.

To a Gnostic Christian who recognizes his god within, loving ones self and god are the same thing.

Most settle for a genocidal absentee god instead of a living breathing one.

Regards
DL

You're just straight evangelizing now. Nobody wants to read that crap. — frank

I am showing a way to think that all religions who put man above some supernatural god do.

If you don't like that, too bad. Go complain to someone who cares.

Regards
DL

Aww Frank, thats a little strong lol. If he wants to talk maybe somebody else would like to discuss the belief. I do understand there is a fine line between philosophy of religion and discussion of what is not philosophy of religion. Ive not thought that out carefully enough perhaps, but my inclination is to let people talk to each other when they want to as long as it is rational.

I remain on my position that jesus held there were two inseparable laws, which was the question I was addressing previously. Maybe some people believe there should be one, or more, or none at all, but on the topic of Jesus, he held two, no more than two, and nothing less than two. Jehovah obviously had ten, no more than ten, and nothing less than ten, at least as far as the religion ever got to understanding Jehovah as the face of one God (Christianity has one or three gods, depending on your perspective, lol).

Well, the Being you speak of is one that basically made up the golden rule and taught people how to live by it which is basically the way the this Being does it. In that sense, this Being fully lives and breathes by the golden rule and if anyone disagrees then it means they don't fully understand the golden rule the Being had then created.

Well, the Being you speak of is one that basically made up the golden rule and taught people how to live by it which is basically the way the this Being does it. — Julia

Are you speaking of Yahweh?

If so, how does his killing when can just as easily cure, live up to the Golden Rule?

Further, how do you get that he created the Golden Rule when most religions that are older, like the Egyptians, have a Golden Rule in the book of the dead?

if anyone disagrees then it means they don't fully understand the golden rule the Being had then created. — Julia

How do you understand the Golden Rule in light of Yahweh killing instead of curing?

Regards
DL

Yes. That's who I speak of since that's who you wrote about. And what makes you think that when this Being kills that this being isn't living up to the golden rule? If this Being created the golden rule as the Being claims to creating it then it obviously involves taking lives too but just by the Being in living by the golden rule. Parents can give and take away from their children and giving and taking can both follow the golden rule. Parents can reward and punishment their children and still live up to the golden rule. Theirs much to learn in a punishment to better someone. It's not always a negative.

And what makes you think that when this Being kills — Julia

Yahweh is shown to kill instead of cure in many parts of scriptures, even to the use of genocide.

If Yahweh used the Golden Rule, he would cure instead of kill. No?

If you did not know that he kills many and cures none, it does not seem like you read your bible?

Let me bring you up to speed just a bit.

https://vimeo.com/7038401

Regards
DL

What you imply is that this Being is always killing not curing. Bible shows the Being doing either one depending on the situation. There's different methods one can use in a situation. I'm sure a being that is a God would use the correct method each and every time unlike humans. Humans are used to making mistakes. Where does it say the Being makes mistakes?

Where does it say the Being makes mistakes? — Julia

In Job 2;3 where he admits to being moved by Satan to sin by doing evil without a just cause and when he repented in the Noah myth.

You say god kills as the best result when he could take the moral high ground and cure.

You ignore that he murders millions and cures the few who you did not name.

I think your are making shit up so show where he cured anyone in the O.T.

Regards
DL

I just went to read the passage you mentioned and it doesn't say what you are saying it says. The passage says that God is letting Satan know that Satan's plan is to get God to to evil to Noah. But if you keep reading further it's clear that God declined to do evil to Noah so Satan did it instead.

And where does it say that God repented in the Noah story? Keep in mind though when someone says sorry it may not be because they've done wrong. People often say sorry to someone who told them someone they know died. That sorry isn't because it was their fault in any way. It's a way to express sadness which I'm fairly certain is what you're confusing the Noah story with.

I just went to read the passage you mentioned and it doesn't say what you are saying it says. The passage says that God is letting Satan know that Satan's plan is to get God to to evil to Noah. But if you keep reading further it's clear that God declined to do evil to Noah so Satan did it instead — Julia

It does indeed say that in my bible and further down, it just has god setting the limits for Satan.

God is the don while Satan is the hit man. You are blaming the hit man while leaving the don who sent her off scot free.

You are not thinking in a moral way or are a moral coward who fears to face the truth.

Here is an ex preacher testing Christians and their double moral standards that are like yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mJCCARjyNM

And where does it say that God repented in the Noah story? — Julia

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God missed whatever mark he had set and repented for his sin.

Regards
DL

Umm our bibles will say the same. And God wasn't the don or anything. Satan wanted God in to help him and God refused and Satan did everything without God.

And you're still using the wrong meaning of repentance. God was sorry that humans chose to be stupid. I am sorry for humanity a lot too for being stupid. That doesn't mean I or God am responsible for their actions or it be our fault. I'm "sorry" you think that. Think about how I did the repent there, of actually doing no wrong.