Do Unto Others

[Selah]

[quote]Dude, don't be dissing the crusades. [/quote]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad3Hzsy1-20&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad3Hzsy1-20&feature=related[/media]

[southern california guy]

I think that a better example might be cigarettes, or even coffee.

I lived in Utah for seven years so I saw people (Mormons) take a stand against coffee. You go into a McDonald's for breakfast, and you order coffee along with your meal. The guy working at the counter informs you that they haven't made any coffee. You ask him if they will make some coffee. He get angry and tells you "NO! You don't need freakin' coffee! Order orange juice, or a soft drink." Outside of Utah -- and away from the Mormon religion -- coffee is not viewed as particularly bad. So it is a religious perspective more than anything.

Cigarettes didn't used to be viewed as that bad. Yeah people knew that smoking excessively wasn't good for them -- but they didn't view smoking as an absolutely bad thing. Now they are viewed as bad, especially by certain religious groups. I've seen people grab a pack of other peoples smokes and chuck them in the garbage can. These are people who feel that they're being very moral. If somebody were to grab their coffee they would be very angry -- and would see no comparison.

The Catholics tend to be more permissive when it comes to coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol.

Edited May 31, 2010 by southern california guy

[thessalonian]

First of all the golden rule assumes properly formed conscience in order to be used properly. One cannot do what is immoral and be following the rule. If you wish that someone would knock off granny because she is terminally ill and you think she should not be burdening your family, you don't do it to their family if their granny is terminally ill. Extreme example. Point is the golden rule does not ask one to do what is wrong. It is a matter of properly formed conscience.

In the case on the porn free will does come in to play. You do not specify whether they are roomates and X is leaving the porn around the apartment or watching it on the common TV. A cannot go in to X's private area to destroy the porn. I would say that he should seriously consider finding another roomate. But if it is left around in plain view or even hidden such that A is exposed in some way, he should destroy it. I don't see any problem with the rule in your senario.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='31 May 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1275316129' post='2121152']
But if it is left around in plain view or even hidden such that A is exposed in some way, he should destroy it. I don't see any problem with the rule in your senario.
[/quote]

Would this be after he had asked his roommate to put it away so that he didn't have to see it? It sounds like a recipe for starting a little war. Wouldn't the better option be to find a new roommate?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='31 May 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1275319754' post='2121169']
Would this be after he had asked his roommate to put it away so that he didn't have to see it? It sounds like a recipe for starting a little war. Wouldn't the better option be to find a new roommate?
[/quote]

It would involve having the discussion in the opening thread and after that discussion was held in which he knows that you strongly object, he better not leave it out. And yes, I mentioned above that if he is persistent in his sin, finding another roommate is the only viable option.

[thessalonian]

btw scg, I spent 8 years in utah as well. Welcome to Utah, set your clock back 20 years. Have to say I did like the mormons though. There was alot we agreed on. A utah democrat is a minnesota republican.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='31 May 2010 - 10:04 AM' timestamp='1275321852' post='2121191']
btw scg, I spent 8 years in utah as well. Welcome to Utah, set your clock back 20 years. Have to say I did like the mormons though. There was alot we agreed on. A utah democrat is a minnesota republican.
[/quote]

I had some very good Mormon friends, but I have a bit of a love/hate association with Utah, the LDS religion, and the Mormons. My Mormon friends in Nothern California were very good people. I won't lie, I was impressed enough by them and their families that I moved to Utah with the intention of joining their religion. I figured that some of the goofier stuff in their religion really didn't matter that much.

However I found that the Utah Mormons could be very controlling. I was an "outsider" -- and it became clear that I always would be. I was single, over twenty-six years old, and I had never been LDS, and I'd never done the things that all good Mormons(men) have to (Get your Eagle Scout badge in the Boyscouts. Go on a Mission. And serve a "calling" in the Church). There was a girl there that I had a HUGE crush on. I would have joined the religion in a second if I'd thought that I had a chance with her. But I didn't. I took another girl from my Ward (I lived in an apartment that was a designated "Singles Ward") out on a date. Then the next day a guy in the Ward came over to my apartment and told me that the Bishop wanted him to talk to me. He told me that I shouldn't be dating LDS women until I had my "Temple Recommend", and that it would take me at least two years to get it -- after joining. Then he told me that "..people have been talking.." and it was going to take me longer. Shortly after that somebody broke into my apartment, pulled out and went through all of my stuff -- but didn't take anything -- and then I got extremely sick (Stomach pains, extremely high fever, etc.) I called the Bishop and asked him for help. The same guy who had lectured me about dating LDS women came to my apartment and told me that he was too busy to help and I would have to take care of myself. I drove myself to the doctor while running a fever of 105. It was only about a mile away, but that is the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. Nobody did help me and it took me almost six weeks to finally get well. My parents even came out to Utah and helped me. After that I was no longer invited to Ward activities. They didn't renew my lease, and I moved and rented a basement apartment over near the Temple.

I should have come back to California but I kind of hung on in vain hoping that somehow I might have a chance with the girl that I had the infatuation with. Houses were MUCH cheaper over there. I took my savings and bought a triplex for $93,000 -- and I more than covered the mortgage and expenses from renting out two of the units. The Mormons I rented to were excellent renters -- and super nice people. Of course I only rented to people I liked. And I found that their friends were pretty nice too, so I gave them an extra $150 when they moved out if they could find a renter.

Mormons marry fast and about a year after I'd moved out of the Singles Ward almost all of my female friends from the Ward were married. I should have left and come back to California but I owned a triplex and it's hard to break the "momentum" once you get going in a certain direction. I hung on for another five years, then left and came back to California.

I'll tell you the Mormons do know how to project a good image! They marry young and have kids. They're clean cut, they don't use bad language, they smile and act positive, and they have a lot of activities -- so they're always busy. Utah was an experience.

[Selah]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAzzoGCYw2U&feature=PlayList&p=5DEFB3C6C1246D36&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4[/media]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='31 May 2010 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1275316129' post='2121152']
First of all the golden rule assumes properly formed conscience in order to be used properly. One cannot do what is immoral and be following the rule. If you wish that someone would knock off granny because she is terminally ill and you think she should not be burdening your family, you don't do it to their family if their granny is terminally ill. Extreme example. Point is the golden rule does not ask one to do what is wrong. It is a matter of properly formed conscience.

In the case on the porn free will does come in to play. You do not specify whether they are roomates and X is leaving the porn around the apartment or watching it on the common TV. A cannot go in to X's private area to destroy the porn. I would say that he should seriously consider finding another roomate. But if it is left around in plain view or even hidden such that A is exposed in some way, he should destroy it. I don't see any problem with the rule in your senario.
[/quote]

it seems like you're arguing that if it's wrong, then you can intervene, but if not, then can't. as if it's all based on objective truth.
what about things that are not so clear cut? firecrackers, where it's just reasonable differences of opinion whether it's unsafe. etc etc eating too much? etc

[Socrates]

[quote name='southern california guy' date='31 May 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1275280358' post='2121043']
I think that you have a good point. Religions can lead people to vigilantism -- in the name of doing good. It's not that great of a logical leap, as you point out. Historically the Crusades are an example.

I think that people often dodge facing up to their own sins and shortcomings by focusing on other peoples instead. I could be wrong but I would guess that most vigilantes are people who aren't overly successful -- in their own lives. Perhaps it's human nature, and setting guidelines won't work. People who need to vent frustrations will just find a way to rationalize crossing the line.

There almost seems to be an attitude -- in all religious groups at times -- of "Ha! We're better than they are because we're (Christians)!" Sometimes I think that the real reason for religious bumper stickers on cars is to mark those people as superior -- rather than to spread the word of god. I think it's easy to spot genuine Christians because they're friendly with everybody. The ones with ulterior motives are only friendly with a few select people -- and they're quick to condemn everyone else (Which I've been guilty of myself at times..)
[/quote]
Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ, which usually won't mean getting along with everybody. After all, Christ upset quite a few people - so much so that they nailed Him to a cross.

The Golden Rule has to be understood in the context of the rest of the laws of Christian morality. It should never be construed to mean that we should never speak out against immorality if it upsets people. After all, I'm sure the money-changers in the temple would rather Jesus not drive them out with cords, and the hypocritical Pharisees would rather not Christ speak out against them.

True charity means helping the sinner turn from his sinful ways, not condoning the sin. "Admonishing the sinner" is a spiritual work of mercy commanded by the Church.

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household." ~ Matt. 10:34-37

Obviously, Christians shouldn't act like jerks, nor be Phariseeical hypocrites who merely look down on others, while not lifting a finger to help them.

But all too often, it seems nowadays Christianity is reduced to a message of being nice and getting along with everyone.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Socrates' date='02 June 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1275500722' post='2122753']
Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ, which usually won't mean getting along with everybody. After all, Christ upset quite a few people - so much so that they nailed Him to a cross.

The Golden Rule has to be understood in the context of the rest of the laws of Christian morality. It should never be construed to mean that we should never speak out against immorality if it upsets people. After all, I'm sure the money-changers in the temple would rather Jesus not drive them out with cords, and the hypocritical Pharisees would rather not Christ speak out against them.

True charity means helping the sinner turn from his sinful ways, not condoning the sin. "Admonishing the sinner" is a spiritual work of mercy commanded by the Church.

"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household." ~ Matt. 10:34-37

Obviously, Christians shouldn't act like jerks, nor be Phariseeical hypocrites who merely look down on others, while not lifting a finger to help them.

But all too often, it seems nowadays Christianity is reduced to a message of being nice and getting along with everyone.
[/quote]

Perhaps I've been away from Catholicism too long. So now the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others are you'd have others do unto you) is being used to justify "intervention"? I could understand Matthew 10:34-37, but the "Golden Rule"? Is this being taught in Catholic schools???

I did an internet search. One article seems to be trying to make the case that "Humanitarian Intervention" -- based on the Golden Rule -- is a reason to go to war. See if you can understand this quote. I really couldn't, but I caught the part about the author developing his point from dialogue with the U.S. Catholic bishops.

[color="#000080"] ABSTRACT

This essay argues that the ethics of humanitarian intervention cannot be readily subsumed by the ethics of just war without due attention to matters of political and moral motivation. In the modern era, a [color="#FF0000"]just war[/color] draws directly from self-benefiting motives in wars of self-defense, or indirectly in wars that enforce international law or promote the global common good. [color="#FF0000"]Humanitarian interventions[/color], in contrast, are intuitively admirable insofar as they are other-regarding. That difference poses a challenge to the casuistry of humanitarian intervention because it makes it difficult to reason by analogy from the case of war to the case humanitarian intervention. The author develops this point in dialogue with Michael Walzer, the [color="#FF0000"]U.S. Catholic bishops[/color], and President Clinton. [color="#FF0000"]He concludes by showing how a casuistry of intervention is possible, developing a motivational rationale that draws on the Golden rule[/color].
KEY WORDS: altruism, casuitry, [color="#FF0000"]Golden Rule[/color], [color="#FF0000"]humanitarian intervention[/color], just-war tradition, practical reasoning.[/color]

And here is the reference from "The Journal of Religious Ethics" : http://www.jstor.org/pss/40015275

Edited June 5, 2010 by southern california guy

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah the application of the golden rule seems simple but actually it's very much, not simple, when deciding proper actions in these situations.
from coffee in utah, to differencesof opinion about firecracker safety, to X's porn stash.