Well, it happened again and so it seemed like a good opportunity to write on this issue. A self-professed skeptic attempted to, at least, downplay the Messiah, Jesus’, ethics by asserting that “The golden rule, prescribed by Confucius around 500 BCE.”
For the uninitiated, BCE is an anti-Christian manner of referring to BC. BCE means Before Common Era and BC means Before Christ. BCE is meant to disregard Jesus whilst still making use of the very same calendar which pivots history upon His birth—go figure.
Now, we are about to see that very many, if not most or all, self-professed “skeptics” are, in reality, not in the least bit truly and honestly skeptical but are, rather, cynics. Before responding, one should ask questions such as these:
We must firstly ask who is this Confucius of which you speak?
When did Confucius live?
How do you know?
How many historical references to Confucius are there?
How many non-Confucian historical sources are there?
What is the time of his supposed lifespan to the first historical record which named him?
How many manuscripts of each are there?
How do they compare, how many “scribal errors” are there?
On and on the question go. You can guarantee that the “skeptic” never even imagined asking such questions—of anyone except Jesus, that is.
Now, let us consider the Golden Rule. The internet is peppered with claims that all of the world’s religions teach the Golden Rule. Firstly, this is not a point, as it where, against Judeo-Christianity as the Bible teaches that YVHV has placed His ethos, His “moral law,” within us all:
…I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts… (Jeremiah 31:33).
…the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness… (Romans 2:15).
The next issue to consider is to consider considering the sources. You will find that most do not bother offering citations and will simply state something to the likes of “Hinduism teaches…”
Some offer generic citations such as “Hadith.” Hadith refers to Islam’s extra-Qur’anic traditions about that which Muhammad did and said. There is not one Hadith but various collections numbering in the hundreds upon hundreds of deeds and saying and so to state, “Hadith” as a citation is less than scholarly.
Some go further and offer book, chapter and verse citations such as “Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29” for Zoroastrianism or a less detailed “Udana-Varga” for Buddhism. In such cases, what needs be asked is that which we asked about Confucius: when were these things stated, written, copied, etc. For example, while Zoroaster / Zarathustra is said (by Zoroastrian tradition) to have been born in 628 BC the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that their scripture “was assembled from remnants and standardized” between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD. Buddhist scripture, including records of the Buddha’s / Siddhartha Gautama’s life, were not put into writing until about 400 years after his death. Or consider that the year of Krishna’s birth is said to be 3,228 BC while the most important source of tales about Krishna were written in the Mahabharata between 400 BC and 200 AD and the Bhagavatam between the 9th to 13th centuries AD.
Here is a typical example which is posted all over the internet:
CHRISTIAN FAITH – All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. ~ The Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt 7:12, Luke 6:31)
MUSLIM FAITH – No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. ~ Hadith
JEWISH FAITH – What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn. ~ Talmud, Shabbat 31a
BUDDHISM FAITH – Hurt not others with that which pains yourself. ~ Udana-Varga
NATURISM / MATERIALISM – Do not do unto others what angers you if done to you by others. ~ Isocrates 436-338 BCE
HINDUISM – This is the sum of duty; do naught to others that which if done to thee would cause pain.
AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS – One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts. ~ Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)
BAHA’I FAITH – And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou chooses for thyself. ~ Epistle to the Son of the Wolf , 30 SIKHISM FAITH – Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If though desirest thy beloved, then, hurt thou not any one’s heart.
ZOROASTRIAN FAITH – Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. ~ Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
WICCAN FAITH – An it harm none, do what thou wilt. ~ Wiccan Rede
JAINISM – A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. ~ Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
CONFUCIANISM – Tsekung asked, Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life? Confucius replied, It is the word shu–reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. ~ Analects 15.23
Did you notice something? The fact is that some of these things are not like the others. We can parse these into positive and negative with regards to carrying out an action. No, not “good” and “bad” but “positive” as in calls to action and “negative” as in calls to inaction or, not necessarily to action.
In the following, note that the statements were specifically about that which one ought “not” do:
JEWISH FAITH …do not do
BUDDHISM FAITH …Hurt not
NATURISM / MATERIALISM …Do not do
HINDUISM …do naught
SIKHISM FAITH …hurt thou not
ZOROASTRIAN FAITH …do not do
WICCAN FAITH …harm none
CONFUCIANISM …Do not do
The Christian rule, the actual Golden Rule, is a positive call to action. Thus, it is not “do not do” but “do”:
CHRISTIAN FAITH …do ye even so to them
The African one “…try it on himself to feel how it hurts” does not spell out the words “do not do” but that is where it leads. The remaining three may be categorized as positive calls to action, according to the above accounts and translations (another issue altogether):
MUSLIM FAITH …desires for his brother that which he desires for himself
BAHA’I FAITH …choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choses for thyself
JAINISM …as he himself would be treated
The issue with these is that we must ask of the first two whether “desires” and “choose” may be referred to as an action or calls to action. And of all three it should be noted that they could very well lead to negative inactivity resulting in “do not do.”
What is the point? We can fulfill the “do not do” statements by doing just that, doing nothing at all. For example, you fulfill these perfectly during your sleeping hours since during that time you are not doing anything to anyone (snoring your spouse into wakefulness may be an exception). In other words, in order to fulfill these pseudo-Golden Rules you do not have to do anything: merely lacking action gets’er’done.
In direct opposition to this, the true Golden Rule calls one to action, to do, and this difference makes all of the difference in the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.