Does Love Your Neighbor As Yourself Mean You Can't Have Wealth?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Does "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" mean you can't have Wealth?

Please explain. Thanks.

ADDED:
By the way - I'm not asking to argue my point of view. Two different posters MarekM and Darat alluded that it does, but haven't expanded on why they think that. I thought it deserved it's own thread. I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Darat]

Does "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" mean you can't have Wealth?

Please explain. Thanks.

ADDED:
By the way - I'm not asking to argue my point of view. Two different posters MarekM and Darat alluded that it does, but haven't expanded on why they think that. I thought it deserved it's own thread. I'm interested in your thoughts.

No I didn't - I was correcting a misunderstanding you had over what a particular Christian teaching actually was.

And just to check I presume you are only asking this question of Members of the Forum who are Christian since you think such a discussion is a waste of time for non-Christian and indeed you seem to have no time for non-Christians who are interested in discussing Christian doctrines and theology: I.e.

...snip...

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

If you were a Christian posting your concern I'd say "You first. Good luck. When you succeed - come teach and help me. And when I succeed I'll come teach and help you. But for now I'm still not even where the Young Rich Man is at with being perfect." Since I assume you Steve_S and MarkM are not Christians ... well, this is going to be a rather silly discussion since you've decided how a True Christian should be and apparently there are only 5% True Christians in your view. Or at least 5% True Christians in regards to that verse. Maybe of those 5% they aren't doing something else you think they should.


Apart from my currently repeating line of "Who cares about something like a Vow of Poverty when you don't follow the belief and it has no relevance to you" - what the theme or idea generally being put forth here seems to be "Christians aren't believing what I a non-Christian think they should believe. Those Hypocrites!"

[A Christian Sceptic]

No I didn't - I was correcting a misunderstanding you had over what a particular Christian teaching actually was.


So you don't have an opinion on that. OK. That's fine.


And just to check I presume you are only asking this question of Members of the Forum who are Christian since you think such a discussion is a waste of time for non-Christian and indeed you seem to have no time for non-Christians who are interested in discussing Christian doctrines and theology: I.e.

I'm pretty sure that many religions and philosophies have a version of "Love They Neighbor As Thyself".

Yep. Wikipedia calls it The Ethic of Reciprocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm pretty sure that many religions and philosophies have a version of "Love They Neighbor As Thyself".

Yep. Wikipedia calls it The Ethic of Reciprocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

The topic you've brought from the other thread was about a Christian teaching, again I'm surprised that you do not seem to recognise what I corrected you about in the other thread was a Christian teaching. (Especially since I even provided quotes from the Christian Bible to show how the teaching is given in the Bible.)

So leaving aside that and your opening post tying this thread to that discussion of a Christian teaching you actually want to discuss something called "The Ethic of Reciprocity" and not the Christian teaching you were ignorant about?

And again just to make sure I don't make the wrong assumption, if I don't follow any religion that has "The Ethic of Reciprocity" do your comments about non-Christians discussing Christian doctrines and theology apply to other religions or only to discussions involving Christianity?

[Lord Emsworth]

Why not ask God/Jesus? ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

So leaving aside that and your opening post tying this thread to that discussion of a Christian teaching you actually want to discuss something called "The Ethic of Reciprocity" and not the Christian teaching you were ignorant about?


I'd like your thoughts on either.


And again just to make sure I don't make the wrong assumption, if I don't follow any religion that has "The Ethic of Reciprocity" do your comments about non-Christians discussing Christian doctrines and theology apply to other religions or only to discussions involving Christianity?

I'm pretty sure The Golden Rule or The Ethic Of Reciprocity by it's very nature means it affects others. And as stated in that other thread I 100% think it's not silly for you to discuss something that affects you even if you don't believe the doctrine/rule/teaching.

I would like to understand your thoughts on how the Golden Rule or Ethic of Reciprocity applies to wealth.

Thanks.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why not ask God/Jesus? ;)

I'm wondering what you think or even what you think He thinks.

Thanks.

[supercorgi]

So you started a new thread because you polluted the old one with your opinion that people who didn't ascribe to a certain faith had no business commenting on that faith? It's your right to start as many threads as you wish but how honest is that? Wouldn't it be better to stay where you started and answer the objections there?

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm wondering what you think or even what you think He thinks.

I think the Bible can be made to say a lot and that there is not that one, single stance it takes on several important issues. I also don't think "He" exists independently of people's heads. ;)

So, "Yes/No/Cancel."

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you started a new thread because you polluted the old one with your opinion that people who didn't ascribe to a certain faith had no business commenting on that faith? It's your right to start as many threads as you wish but how honest is that? Wouldn't it be better to stay where you started and answer the objections there?

Do you have anything to add in regards to the OP? Thanks.

[Cavemonster]

I'll bite,
If you take the phrase literally and strictly, you couldn't live comfortably having an economic surplus while people around you were homeless or in financial trouble. The love we have for ourselves and our family makes it paramount that we provide for their needs. I don't think it's consistent to say you love two people equally while buying one a fancy car and expensive food and letting the other starve and freeze on the street.

Since there are now people in just about every community whose needs are not being met, it would be a violation of "Love thy neighbor as yourself" to attain a high economic standard of living while people around you starve. That would be evidence of loving yourself more than your neighbor.

However, a strict literal reading isn't the only way to interpret this.

[supercorgi]

Do you have anything to add in regards to the OP? Thanks.

As if you truly do. :rolleyes: Why didn't you stick with the original thread, coward?

[slingblade]

I'm pretty sure that many religions and philosophies have a version of "Love They Neighbor As Thyself".

Yep. Wikipedia calls it The Ethic of Reciprocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

The concept of reciprocity has...levels, for lack of a more exact word.

The deepest form of reciprocity is not just that one wants for one's neighbor that which he wants for himself. It is that one's neighbor is indistinguishable from oneself. If you have enough food, if you are eating, so is your neighbor. If there is not enough food, and you are not eating, no one is. Food doesn't go to the person with the most status, or wealth, or any other factor. If there is food, everyone eats some. If there isn't, everyone goes without. If food is needed, everyone goes to hunt or gather some.

This is because your neighbor is you. Everyone in your group is actually only one person. As you wouldn't kick yourself out into the snow, naked, to starve, it's impossible that you'd do that to anyone else.

Not many people can live at that level of reciprocity, however.

From there, it goes "up," as it were, getting less and less intimate. We seem now to be living in groups that practice a largely superficial level of reciprocity: I want for my neighbor what I want for myself, as long as that doesn't conflict with what I can get, or think my neighbor should have, or deserves, or unless he can't pay for it and I can, or unless god likes me better and rewards me or...hell, I mostly want my neighbor to do what I say and not have too much.

In a reciprocal society at the base level, there's no such thing as individual wealth. What one has, all has, because all are one. If one lacks something, all lack it, because all are one.

I don't practice that form of reciprocity, and am not sure I'd want to. But I have always liked the idea of not-large, self-sustaining communities of people who want to take care of one another, and do so moderately well. And who cooperate with other communities, and generally share, more than just acquire. Yeah, I'm just a dirty old hippie. :)

So what level of reciprocity do you practice?

What level should Christians practice in order to please their god?

What would Jesus do? Or more, what would he be telling people to do?

[Niggle]

I'd say no, but I think it does mean you have to consider your neighbors (read: fellow man) in collecting and using that wealth. Earning money (even lots of money) is fine if it's done honestly and fairly (providing well-made goods or expert services for a fair price and dealing with your customers in an open and equal manner). It's better yet to use that money to help your neighbors out (not necessarily all of it; that would force you to close your business and end your ability to donate/help others).

In short, getting lots of money by lying, stealing, or killing = bad. Hoarding all the money you make and not helping people who need help = bad (see the bit about "when you fed/clothed the least of my brethren, you did so for me" in the Bible). Good Samaritan providing clothing, dressing wounds, and finding safe lodgings for the beaten traveller = good.

I think that's what Jesus meant by loving your neighbor as yourself. Part metaphor, part literal. YMMV

[A Christian Sceptic]

I'd say no, but I think it does mean you have to consider your neighbors (read: fellow man) in collecting and using that wealth. Earning money (even lots of money) is fine if it's done honestly and fairly (providing well-made goods or expert services for a fair price and dealing with your customers in an open and equal manner). It's better yet to use that money to help your neighbors out (not necessarily all of it; that would force you to close your business and end your ability to donate/help others).

In short, getting lots of money by lying, stealing, or killing = bad. Hoarding all the money you make and not helping people who need help = bad (see the bit about "when you fed/clothed the least of my brethren, you did so for me" in the Bible). Good Samaritan providing clothing, dressing wounds, and finding safe lodgings for the beaten traveller = good.

I think that's what Jesus meant by loving your neighbor as yourself. Part metaphor, part literal. YMMV

Thanks.

[Holler Hoojer]

Loving your neighbor as yourself would almost certainly have been understood by the Jewish Jesus to mean, "Don't do anything to your neighbor that you wouldn't want done to you." AND "If your neighbor asks for assistance, you must give it."

[Fnord]

Does "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" mean you can't have Wealth?
No, it means that you should treat to other people as you would want them to treat you. There is no application of wealth, expressed or implied in the "Golden Rule." Personally, I try to ignore my neighbors as much as possible so that they will ignore me.

It works.

[Cavemonster]

No, it means that you should treat to other people as you would want them to treat you. There is no application of wealth, expressed or implied in the "Golden Rule." Personally, I try to ignore my neighbors as much as possible so that they will ignore me.

It works.

If you're going by scripture, ignoring your neighbor is pretty discourged. One of the many instances of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" comes toward the beginning of a passage that goes on to say

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

16and one of you says to them, "(AB)Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

So the phrase does pretty explicitly frown on ignoring poverty around you.
The story of the good samaritan is also a fleshing out of the same idea. It's pretty clear that the phrase refers to more than just refraining from harming your neighbor, but actively helping those in need.

[Fnord]

A little personal winge ... Where were those same neighbors when I needed their help? Where was their "Christian Love" after I was laid off, or after my heart attack, or when I was paralyzed for three days after a back injury and spent the next six months recovering? I'll tell you; they were in their homes, enjoying their wealth and comfort, ignoring my wife's requests for help ("Just come over and talk to him, please!"), and likely feeling relief that it wasn't they who had to deal with it.

You could say that they treated me then the way that they want me to treat them now, and that my indifference towards them is only in line with the Golden Rule.

I know I do.

[Ducky]

Does "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" mean you can't have Wealth?

Please explain. Thanks.

ADDED:
By the way - I'm not asking to argue my point of view. Two different posters MarekM and Darat alluded that it does, but haven't expanded on why they think that. I thought it deserved it's own thread. I'm interested in your thoughts.

Yes. Now give me some money. I accept paypal.

[kittynh]

well I'd say, live with what you need but keep the focus of your life on others and not yourself. Too many material things begin to own you. A good Christian is not a slave. One big point of the Bible is freedom from slavery.

[Darat]

I'd like your thoughts on either.



So you do not stand by your previous complaints? Out of curiosity what changed your mind?



I'm pretty sure The Golden Rule or The Ethic Of Reciprocity by it's very nature means it affects others. And as stated in that other thread I 100% think it's not silly for you to discuss something that affects you even if you don't believe the doctrine/rule/teaching.

I would like to understand your thoughts on how the Golden Rule or Ethic of Reciprocity applies to wealth.

Thanks.

Just to make absolutely sure - you no longer want to talk about the Christan teaching that arises from the Biblical verses we are summarising as "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" but about something you label "The Golden Rule or The Ethic Of Reciprocity"?

[Mr Clingford]

I think the Bible can be made to say a lot and that there is not that one, single stance it takes on several important issues. Agreed.
I also don't think "He" exists independently of people's heads. ;)

So, "Yes/No/Cancel."Stone the blasphemer!

[SezMe]

I have the absolute final answer to this conundrum but cannot provide it until CS unambiguously answers Darat's question.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So you do not stand by your previous complaints? Out of curiosity what changed your mind?


1) I have no complaints. I have an opinion that I think it's silly and is a waste of time and energy for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they need to believe on issues that in no way affect a non-Christian. You're free to have any opinion on the matter you want.
2) I do not think it's a waste of time and energy if the issue DOES impact you.
3) I also believe you can go ahead and do either if you want. It's your time and life. Spend it how you will.

What changed my mind? First - The Golden Rule falls under Number 2 - it's very nature means it affects others.
Second - You, Darat, insisted you simply want to help me better understand Christianity. So - I'm taking you on your word and asking you to explain further. I'm interested in your thoughts on the Golden Rule and Wealth or The Ethics of Recoprocity and Wealth.


Just to make absolutely sure - you no longer want to talk about the Christan teaching that arises from the Biblical verses we are summarising as "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" but about something you label "The Golden Rule or The Ethic Of Reciprocity"?

I'd prefer you talk about the Christian Teaching since you've said your previous posts were to help me better understand Christianity and you were trying to correct what you perceived as my misquote and misunderstanding of a basic Christian Teaching. But you can do either or both. Do you see the Golden Rule as being applied different because Jesus said it and The Ethic Of Reciprocity as being applied differently because a different religious teacher said it?

[Cayvmann]

well I'd say, live with what you need but keep the focus of your life on others and not yourself. Too many material things begin to own you. A good Christian is not a slave. One big point of the Bible is freedom from slavery.

What bible did you read? I remember from the new testament a passage about being a good slave and not trying to change your status.

From a website I can't publish the link to: ( something like www(dot)inu(dot)net/skeptic/slavery(dot)html

"God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21 the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves is given. God says in verse 4 that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. How's that for family values? Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children and wants to stay on, the consequences can be pretty drastic. In verse 6 the master is directed to "Bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever". This is all repeated with some minor alteration in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here the master is told to "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their own daughters into slavery. Here it is worth noting that many church officials including popes have owned slaves5.

Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and therefore give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of this infamous institution.

In Genesis 3:16 God decrees that as a result of the “fall” the wife will henceforth be ruled over by her husband thereby relegating women to the status of a slave. This second class status for women is reinforced throughout the Bible. Although somewhat offset in Ephesians 5:25 where husbands are told to love their wives, there is an unresolved contradiction here. The question remains: How can a master truly love his slave - and just as important - how can a slave truly love her master? The biblically mandated husband/wife relationship breads nothing but resentment, contempt and hatred.

The Church, particularly in Central and South America, supported the enslavement of native inhabitants. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, Spanish jurist Encisco claimed in 15096, “The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just a Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” As justification for this action, Leviticus 25:44-46 is cited. It reads: “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.”

What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? In Luke 12:47, the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, Jesus even recommends the beating of slaves. But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him.

Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Another good example is the parable of the ten pound (Luke 19:11-27). Here we read how while visiting at the house of Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector, Jesus ceases upon the opportunity to lecture us on the proper technique of profitable money investment. In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery.

Paul, the earliest Christian evangelist and a contemporary of Jesus, expresses his unqualified support of the institution of human slavery by instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5, I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10."

[Fnord]

You throw around those Bible verses like they actually mean something in a world not dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Now explain your thesis in more relevant terms.

[Darat]

1) I have no complaints. I have an opinion that I think it's silly and is a waste of time and energy for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they need to believe on issues that in no way affect a non-Christian. You're free to have any opinion on the matter you want.



You say you have no complaint yet you then follow that statement with a complaint.


...snip...

3) I also believe you can go ahead and do either if you want. It's your time and life. Spend it how you will.



Thank you for what I assume you think is a generous thought but I require no permission or direction from you to do so.

...snip...

What changed my mind? First - The Golden Rule falls under Number 2 - it's very nature means it affects others.

...snip..

Your explanation starts with a flaw i.e. if number 2 applies then you had no change of mind so something falling under your number 2 can have had no influence on you reason why you now say you have changed your mind.

...snip...

Second - You, Darat, insisted you simply want to help me better understand Christianity.

...snip...

I insisted on nothing, and what I actually said was that I hoped my correction of your misunderstanding and lack of recognition of one particular, and some would say key Christian teaching, would help you better understand Christianity.

Also your use of "First" and "Second" would indicate you were offering an explanation as to why you had changed your mind and no longer agreed with what you had previously posted i.e.

...snip...

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

If you were a Christian posting your concern I'd say "You first. Good luck. When you succeed - come teach and help me. And when I succeed I'll come teach and help you. But for now I'm still not even where the Young Rich Man is at with being perfect." Since I assume you Steve_S and MarkM are not Christians ... well, this is going to be a rather silly discussion since you've decided how a True Christian should be and apparently there are only 5% True Christians in your view. Or at least 5% True Christians in regards to that verse. Maybe of those 5% they aren't doing something else you think they should.


Apart from my currently repeating line of "Who cares about something like a Vow of Poverty when you don't follow the belief and it has no relevance to you" - what the theme or idea generally being put forth here seems to be "Christians aren't believing what I a non-Christian think they should believe. Those Hypocrites!"

Yet you do not seem to have changed your mind about it?




...snip...


So - I'm taking you on your word and asking you to explain further. I'm interested in your thoughts on the Golden Rule and Wealth or The Ethics of Recoprocity and Wealth.
...snip...

Now we've (hopefully) cleared up your misunderstanding of what I had actually said I'll have to remind you again that my comments in the other thread were about a specific Christian teaching from the Bible not this new subject you want to discuss.


...snip...

I'd prefer you talk about the Christian Teaching since you've said your previous posts were to help me better understand Christianity and you were trying to correct what you perceived as my misquote and misunderstanding of a basic Christian Teaching. ...snip....

Again I have to correct you it was not my perception that you were unaware of a key Christian teaching and also misquoted the teaching itself, it was your actual words, let me remind you:

Nope it was certainly your statement that I was correcting - here is the post:



What I don't understand is why someone who actually believes that what they do in this life will affect where they will be for all eternity would hold onto any wealth. Jesus was clearly against it. It's obviously at odds with "loving your neighbor." From what I've seen, it seems like many Christians go through mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of these teachings.

That's interesting - how is having wealth at odds with loving your neighbor?

Because the teaching is not "love thy neighbour" - it is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It's a pretty key point of most major Christan denominations' teachings - surprised you seem unaware of it!



As you can see it is your misstatement of the Christian teaching that I was commenting on. As I said was quite surprised you were unaware of it.


...snip...

But you can do either or both. Do you see the Golden Rule as being applied different because Jesus said it and The Ethic Of Reciprocity as being applied differently because a different religious teacher said it?

I have fairly good knowledge of the New Testament but I certainly do not have an eidetic memory so it may be my memory failing me but could you point out where in the New Testament Jesus preaches about the "Golden Rule" or "The Ethic Of Reciprocity"? I can remember no passages attributed to Jesus in which he mentions either of these nor indeed any other voices on the NT articulating this.

[Belz...]

I'm pretty sure The Golden Rule or The Ethic Of Reciprocity by it's very nature means it affects others. And as stated in that other thread I 100% think it's not silly for you to discuss something that affects you even if you don't believe the doctrine/rule/teaching.

So...are we talking about the Christian teaching or not ??

My take ? Christianity doesn't make sense. So asking questions as though they had rational answers is, well... irrational.

[drkitten]

I have fairly good knowledge of the New Testament but I certainly do not have an eidetic memory so it may be my memory failing me but could you point out where in the New Testament Jesus preaches about the "Golden Rule" or "The Ethic Of Reciprocity"? I can remember no passages attributed to Jesus in which he mentions either of these nor indeed any other voices on the NT articulating this.

Matthew 7:12, as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Similarly, Luke 6:31 -- And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

The name "Golden Rule" is of course attributed by antiquity, just as Jesus never actually referred to the "Sermon on the Mount" or the "Last Supper," and I don't think that Pythagoras ever called himself a pre-Socratic philosopher.

[roger]

And on that note, I'd like $100 please.

[drkitten]

And on that note, I'd like $100 please.

Check your next paycheck. You'll have $100 there.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You say you have no complaint yet you then follow that statement with a complaint.

.....

Again I have to correct you it was not my perception that you were unaware of a key Christian teaching and also misquoted the teaching itself, it was your actual words, let me remind you:


Well - now that you've cleared that up for everyone - what's your thoughts on this threads OP? You seem to be going through an awful lot of effort to not say anything more about it other than your original correcting of my apparent misunderstanding. Why bother starting to correct me but then stopping when I ask for more clarification on your points?


I have fairly good knowledge of the New Testament but I certainly do not have an eidetic memory so it may be my memory failing me but could you point out where in the New Testament Jesus preaches about the "Golden Rule" or "The Ethic Of Reciprocity"? I can remember no passages attributed to Jesus in which he mentions either of these nor indeed any other voices on the NT articulating this.

You can read up on it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Christianity

Now - if you'd like to share your thoughts on the matter that would be really neat. Thanks.

[A Christian Sceptic]

So...are we talking about the Christian teaching or not ??

My take ? Christianity doesn't make sense. So asking questions as though they had rational answers is, well... irrational.

Well then apparently you can't talk about the Christian teaching since Christianity doesn't make sense to you.

How about the "concept" of the Golden Rule apart from any religious underpinnings. If an atheist adopts the ethic of the Golden Rule does that mean they can't have wealth?

[Hokulele]

Does "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself" mean you can't have Wealth?


Sure it can, but that doesn't mean everyone reads it that way. If part of your self-image (self-love) requires that you only wear name brand clothing, drive a fancy car, and live in a posh neighborhood, it only stands to reason that you would help your neighbors do the same.

Meh, I prefer the Jewish phrasing, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to you." It makes far more sense than the Christian version.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Sure it can, but that doesn't mean everyone reads it that way. If part of your self-image (self-love) requires that you only wear name brand clothing, drive a fancy car, and live in a posh neighborhood, it only stands to reason that you would help your neighbors do the same.

Meh, I prefer the Jewish phrasing, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to you." It makes far more sense than the Christian version.

Thanks Hokulele.

I never knew what that was called until now - but apparently it's called The Silver Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_rule)

This is from the Ethics of Recprocity wikipedia article. Not a rebuttal to your thoughts so you know. I thought it was an interesting explanation of why The Golden Rule got reversed is a reversed form of the older Jewish Saying.
Jesus then proceeded to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" means a total stranger, or someone that happens to be nearby. Jesus' teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another.

[The Norseman]

Edited.

[Hokulele]

Thanks Hokulele.

I never knew what that was called until now - but apparently it's called The Silver Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_rule)

This is from the Ethics of Recprocity wikipedia article. Not a rebuttal to your thoughts so you know. I thought it was an interesting explanation of why The Golden Rule got reversed is a reversed form of the older Jewish Saying.


Oh sure, I understand the reasoning behind the reversal, I just find that it leads to conflicting interpretations of what exactly "positive actions" are.

For example, it could easily mean giving all of your wealth to your neighbors... ;)

[This Guy]

Ex-Christian/Current Atheist speaking.

The Ex-Christian in me says that I believe the only connection between loving your neighbor, and being wealthy would be Mt. 19:21

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

I did not as a Christian, nor do I now as an Atheist believe these concepts were meant to be taken together. IMHO the point of verse 21 and the next few verses are that because of the tendency of wealth to equal greed, it is hard for the rich to enter heaven. His possessions were a stumbling block for the young man. I don't think Jesus intended that everyone should give up all their possessions and "follow him". But, that's just my opinion.

As an Atheist I don't see anything wrong with being wealthy, or see how it can prevent you from doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is the way I try to live. I'm not wealthy, so I can't speak from experience on the matter. I do think that if you obtain your wealth honestly and morally, and help others when you can, it's all cool. I would not have others give all their wealth to me (though I'd certainly be willing to take it off their hands, if it's a bother to them ;)), and I don't think "others" should expect anyone else to give their wealth to them. Again, that's just MHO.

[Lonewulf]

You throw around those Bible verses like they actually mean something in a world not dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Now explain your thesis in more relevant terms.

If he were, then he couldn't cite the Bible at all.

[Lonewulf]

Well then apparently you can't talk about the Christian teaching since Christianity doesn't make sense to you.

I'd love to see a Scientologist or an Astrologist make this BS argument.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Well then apparently you can't talk about the Christian teaching since Christianity doesn't make sense to you.

I'd love to see a Scientologist or an Astrologist make this BS argument.

Talk to Belz - since he made that argument. All I did was took his apparent inability to discuss it and changed the question to a more religiously neutral question. Maybe he can answer that.


So...are we talking about the Christian teaching or not ??

My take ? Christianity doesn't make sense. So asking questions as though they had rational answers is, well... irrational.


Apparently to Belz Questions about a Christian Teaching don't have Rational Answers. Because he thinks that he's either unwilling or unable to answer such a question. I appears he's not even able to discuss it - other than saying it's irrational.

[Cayvmann]

You throw around those Bible verses like they actually mean something in a world not dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Now explain your thesis in more relevant terms.


If this was aimed at my post, someone said that the bible was against slavery, and I quoted it as not being against slavery. Should I have just said nuh-uh? I used the proper "proof" against the claim. To not quote the bible would have been asinine. I made no judgement whether or not the bible was relevant to the real world.

If your statement was not aimed at me, then I'm sorry, it was kind of a derail from the OP........

[Fnord]

Anyone who uses Biblical verses to justify actions or claims needs to also make their arguments relevant to those for whom the Bible is an irrelevant document of dubious historical veracity.

[Skeptical Greg]

We can also keep in mind when Jesus said " love your neighbor "
, ' neighbor ' didn't include everyone.
It didn't include Gentiles, Cannanites or Samaritans to name a few...

Just like when our ( USA ) founding fathers declared all men to be created equal,
' all men ' didn't mean ' all ' men - ... it pretty much meant, all free, white,
male landowners ...

[Lonewulf]

We can also keep in mind when Jesus said " love your neighbor "
, ' neighbor ' didn't include everyone.
It didn't include Gentiles, Cannanites or Samaritans to name a few...

Er, then what's the point of the tale of the Good Samaritan?

[Ichneumonwasp]

As to the OP, John Dominic Crossan seems to think that Jesus preached a radical egalitarianism. Certainly the instruction to the rich young man -- sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me -- and the "camel through the eye of a needle" quip seem to imply that wealth and Christianity go together like oil and water.


But this isn't an issue for Christians alone. As an ethical creature, I think it affects us all; this is a very serious ethical issue -- how far does my obligation to my neighbor extend?

I don't think I've ever reached a good conclusion -- largely, I fear, because I don't like the answer.

[Cayvmann]

Anyone who uses Biblical verses to justify actions or claims needs to also make their arguments relevant to those for whom the Bible is an irrelevant document of dubious historical veracity.

So, if someone were to say that in The Half-Blood Prince, it said that Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, then I shouldn't quote from the aforementioned book, that Snape did, indeed, kill Dumbledore? That's pretty much all I did, but with the bible. As such it was relevant to my point.

I hope you noticed that I didn't use the bible verses to justify any action or claims, other than what was in the book itself.

[Hokulele]

But this isn't an issue for Christians alone. As an ethical creature, I think it affects us all; this is a very serious ethical issue -- how far does my obligation to my neighbor extend?

I don't think I've ever reached a good conclusion -- largely, I fear, because I don't like the answer.


That is one of the main reasons I prefer the Jewish version.

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is one of the main reasons I prefer the Jewish version.


I guess from one way of looking at it, they're both Jewish versions.:)

[Hokulele]

I guess from one way of looking at it, they're both Jewish versions.:)


:D

All right, the Pharisee version vs. the Essene version.

[Ichneumonwasp]

:D

All right, the Pharisee version vs. the Essene version.

Well, could you spell out exactly what you mean by the Pharisee version? I mean, if I were walking through a wheatfield on the Sabbath and accidentally knocked over my neighbor.......................

[slingblade]

You throw around those Bible verses like they actually mean something in a world not dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Now explain your thesis in more relevant terms.

As far as I can tell, we have always lived in a world dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition.

Maybe I just get out more?

[Hokulele]

Well, could you spell out exactly what you mean by the Pharisee version? I mean, if I were walking through a wheatfield on the Sabbath and accidentally knocked over my neighbor.......................


Do you enjoy being knocked over? If so, you are good. If not, well, just make sure that you aren't the one who picks him/her back up. It being the Sabbath and all...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you enjoy being knocked over? If so, you are good. If not, well, just make sure that you aren't the one who picks him/her back up. It being the Sabbath and all...


Good. So I let him lay there. I don't like my neighbor very much. He's got this little yappy dog that looks like a ferret on steroids and this shocking pink awning over his patio that gathers sunlight and broadcasts it into our windows and...............

Got any pointers on how to lure him into a wheatfield on the Sabbath?

[Hokulele]

Good. So I let him lay there. I don't like my neighbor very much. He's got this little yappy dog that looks like a ferret on steroids and this shocking pink awning over his patio that gathers sunlight and broadcasts it into our windows and...............

Got any pointers on how to lure him into a wheatfield on the Sabbath?


You could offer to give away your wealth. Why you would want to do that in a wheatfield is beyond me, but maybe your neighbor isn't as skeptical.


Or kidnap the dog. Just do that the night before, again, Sabbath and all.

You know, I really think I could make it as a Pharisee rabbi. Well, gender issues aside...

[Fnord]

So, if someone were to say that in The Half-Blood Prince, it said that Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, then I shouldn't quote from the aforementioned book, that Snape did, indeed, kill Dumbledore? That's pretty much all I did, but with the bible. As such it was relevant to my point.

I hope you noticed that I didn't use the bible verses to justify any action or claims, other than what was in the book itself.
.
It is noteworthy that you used one piece of fiction to justify the use of another.

Carry on.

[Fnord]

As far as I can tell, we have always lived in a world dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition. Maybe I just get out more?
Could be that you do get out more. By the term "world dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition" I was referring more to the world of the Biblical era than the post-Renaissance world - also more to the wooist "world" than the sceptical "world."

[Ichneumonwasp]

You could offer to give away your wealth. Why you would want to do that in a wheatfield is beyond me, but maybe your neighbor isn't as skeptical.


Or kidnap the dog. Just do that the night before, again, Sabbath and all.

You know, I really think I could make it as a Pharisee rabbi. Well, gender issues aside...


Gender issues, schmender issues. We could attach a prosthetic donkey.......

Hmm, wait, we could attach a prostetic colt........

Hey, I got it, we could attach both a prosthetic donkey and colt 'thingy' and problem solved. We'll call you Matthew.

Now isn't that neighborly?

[Hokulele]

Now isn't that neighborly?


Rejoice, O daughter of Sion!

[Lonewulf]

By the term "world dominated by fear, ignorance, and superstition" I was referring more to the world of the Biblical era than the post-Renaissance world - also more to the wooist "world" than the sceptical "world."

The thousands-year old text that most modern day Christians swear by was, indeed, written in "the world of the Biblical era". Ergo, when someone criticizes someone who allegedly follows this book, it's only fair to actually look at what's inside. And if a certain claim is made about that book (such as the claim that it was pretty much anti-slavery), then one should be able to refute such arguments through actually reading it and citing passages that contradict some claims, no?

[MarekM]

Hey - I'm sorry I've been away for awhile. The thread I created that this one branched off from got a lot more replies than I originally figured and rather than revive that one, which delves into the contradictions and obscurity of the Bible, I'll just state my opinion here.

Loving your neighbor as yourself and having wealth are absolutely incompatible. An individual that lives comfortably with relatively moderate amounts of wealth does not love others as he or she loves himself or herself. Who could, with a straight face, say they love individuals that are lacking in the very basic necessities, such as clean water, shelter, food, etc., yet do nothing, or relatively nothing, to help them?

[Fnord]

Loving your neighbor as yourself and having wealth are absolutely incompatible.
Exception: Your neighbor is also wealthy.

An individual that lives comfortably with relatively moderate amounts of wealth does not love others as he or she loves himself or herself.
Exception: Others also live comfortably with relatively moderate amounts of wealth.

Who could, with a straight face, say they love individuals that are lacking in the very basic necessities, such as clean water, shelter, food, etc.
Me. Where were they when I was lacking in the very basic necessities, such as clean water, shelter, food, et cetera?

... yet do nothing, or relatively nothing, to help them?
Me. My wealth is my own, and no-one else's - especially someone trying to hide communisim behind a façade of Christian righteousness.

[Skeptical Greg]

Er, then what's the point of the tale of the Good Samaritan?The point was , Jesus was showing that even a scum of the Earth Samaritan, behaved better than the priest and the levite who passed the victim by ..

He was just pointing out that the Samaritan behaved as a good neighbor should, he wasn't sugesting Jews should treat Samaritans as good neigbors.

[MarekM]

Exception: Your neighbor is also wealthy.I'm working under the assumption that one's "neighbor" represents fellow humankind. Realistically, much of the world is not wealthy.

Exception: Others also live comfortably with relatively moderate amounts of wealth.See above.

Me. Where were they when I was lacking in the very basic necessities, such as clean water, shelter, food, et cetera?They were not "loving their neighbor as themselves."

Me. My wealth is my own, and no-one else's - especially someone trying to hide communisim behind a façade of Christian righteousness.
Whether or not the ideals are communistic or Christian or both doesn't really matter. In reality very few individuals follow this principle. Don't get me wrong, I don't either, nor do I try to.

[Lonewulf]

Jesus was a Communist. That's a new one...

[The Norseman]

<snip>

Just like when our ( USA ) founding fathers declared all men to be created equal,
' all men ' didn't mean ' all ' men - ... it pretty much meant, all free, white,
male landowners ...

Even if it's common, it's still a myth.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You say you have no complaint yet you then follow that statement with a complaint.

.....

Again I have to correct you it was not my perception that you were unaware of a key Christian teaching and also misquoted the teaching itself, it was your actual words, let me remind you:

Well - now that you've cleared that up for everyone - what's your thoughts on this threads OP? You seem to be going through an awful lot of effort to not say anything more about it other than your original correcting of my apparent misunderstanding. Why bother starting to correct me but then stopping when I ask for more clarification on your points?


I have fairly good knowledge of the New Testament but I certainly do not have an eidetic memory so it may be my memory failing me but could you point out where in the New Testament Jesus preaches about the "Golden Rule" or "The Ethic Of Reciprocity"? I can remember no passages attributed to Jesus in which he mentions either of these nor indeed any other voices on the NT articulating this.


You can read up on it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Christianity

Now - if you'd like to share your thoughts on the matter that would be really neat. Thanks.

So, Darat? Will you share with me your knowledge on this?

[Ducky]

Yes. Now give me some money. I accept paypal.

Still waiting, you bloody cheapskates.

[fuelair]

Does Love Your Neighbor As Yourself Mean You Can't Have Wealth?









Nah - it's more like if you get a reach-around you should give one in return.

[godless dave]

Leaving aside the ethic of reprocity, didn't Jesus specifically instruct his followers to give their material wealth to the poor?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Darat?

[MarekM]

Darat?

Maybe you could share your opinion while you wait?

[Darth Rotor]

Loving your neighbor as yourself would almost certainly have been understood by the Jewish Jesus to mean, "Don't do anything to your neighbor that you wouldn't want done to you." AND "If your neighbor asks for assistance, you must give it."
Agreed. It has bloody eff all to do with having, or not having, wealth.

DR

[A Christian Sceptic]

Maybe you could share your opinion while you wait?

I think Jesus meant Do the good to others that you would like done to yourself. I don't know if wealth prevents that - I'd like to find out. :D

Now Darat - your turn. What do you think?

[MarekM]

Agreed. It has bloody eff all to do with having, or not having, wealth.

DR

So "your neighbor asking for assistance" is only valid if the request is specifically directed at you? Doesn't the nature of being in extreme poverty imply that these individuals are seeking assistance from the wealthy?

[Darth Rotor]

The thousands-year old text that most modern day Christians swear by was, indeed, written in "the world of the Biblical era". Ergo, when someone criticizes someone who allegedly follows this book, it's only fair to actually look at what's inside. And if a certain claim is made about that book (such as the claim that it was pretty much anti-slavery), then one should be able to refute such arguments through actually reading it and citing passages that contradict some claims, no?
Wilberforce was a Christian activist and abolitionist. (One of the more successful at popularising that movement.)

Care to comment on that? Are you going to trot out his kilt, or lack thereof?

As to Cavvyman, do ye likewise.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So "your neighbor asking for assistance" is only valid if the request is specifically directed at you? Doesn't the nature of being in extreme poverty imply that these individuals are seeking assistance from the wealthy?
Are you unable to make up your own mind and act on your own? Must you make yourself a slave to a principle?

Answer that before we continue, if you please.

DR

[A Christian Sceptic]

So "your neighbor asking for assistance" is only valid if the request is specifically directed at you? Doesn't the nature of being in extreme poverty imply that these individuals are seeking assistance from the wealthy?

What's "The nature of being in extreme poverty?"

Darat - feel free to explain your thoughts on MarekM's point too. Thanks.

[MarekM]

Are you unable to make up your own mind and act on your own? Must you make yourself a slave to a principle?

Answer that before we continue, if you please.

DR

Absolutely not, to both. Why do you ask?

[MarekM]

What's "The nature of being in extreme poverty?"

I was referring to individuals that don't have the means to specifically ask individuals for help. A starving child in Africa would not be able to walk up to me in a country far away and ask in a language that she cannot speak for assistance. I'm saying that the concept of only helping those that specifically and literally ask for your help is at odds with loving your neighbor as yourself.

[drkitten]

Leaving aside the ethic of reprocity, didn't Jesus specifically instruct his followers to give their material wealth to the poor?

So did the Old Testament. Exempli gratia among many:


Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Deuteronomy 24:14
Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.


Proverbs 14:21
He who despises his neighbor sins,but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.



Matthew 25:41-45
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Hebrews 13:2
Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.


1 John 3:17-18
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.



Luke 12 is, of course, the joker in the pack; it's part of the Sermon on the Mount and is a direct instruction from Jesus. It's hard to reconcile it in any way with amassing wealth.

[drkitten]

I was referring to individuals that don't have the means to specifically ask individuals for help. A starving child in Africa would not be able to walk up to me in a country far away and ask in a language that she cannot speak for assistance. I'm saying that the concept of only helping those that specifically and literally ask for your help is at odds with loving your neighbor as yourself.

Heck, for that matter, in the original parable of the Good Samaritan, there's no evidence that the victim was able to ask for help. My understanding is that he had been beaten by robbers and left for dead. I would think that the "nature of lying in the road unconscious and bleeding to death" would be sufficient grounds for someone to decide that that person needed help, without a need to be specifically asked.

Part of the point of the GS parable is that no one is required to help -- not the priest, not the Levite, not the Samaritan. The neighbor is the one who gives help without being required or asked.