My point is to make me and others remember we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and never forget that this is the first and great commandment.
Treating other people the way you would want to be treated is a great moral principle that everyone should [be able to] live by. But unless everyone abides by it, nobody can in every situation--it is downright impractical. How is a judge supposed to sentence a criminal to prison living by this principle? How is a professor supposed to give any student a grade lower than an "A" on any assignment?
Easy. It's called honesty. In order to live this way, you must be able to put yourself in the shoes of the other person. A good professor does not assume that ever student would write the same paper ad he, but asks if I wrote this pape, how would I have wanted to be graded? The same with a judge, a judge has to ask how he would want to be judged if he committed the crime he is judging.
But the problem is that if the judge committed the crime, he would want to be adjudicated as not guilty and set free. Nobody in their right mind wants to go to prison even if they know that is what they deserve.
So law plays no part in his decision? You do realize we have minimum sentencing laws, right?So regardless of his personal belief system, he is still obligated under the law to lay down a sentence delegated by jurisprudence.
The State function is to exercise its powers of restraint, its function isnegative. It is the Church which has the positive office of reform throughinstruction in the keeping of the Divine Law. The responsibilities of thetwo powers are clearly defined. The State has no more ability to reformsinners that the Church has to apprehend thieves. When the Stateabandons its limited function of punishing evil and takes upon itself theresponsibility for reforming criminals it becomes derelict in its Divinelyordained duty and can only end up by doing neither effectively.
Some statutes do indeed specify a minimum and/or maximum sentence for a person convicted of a given crime. Of course a judge should always base his decision on the law. But my point was that the judge would not be dispensing justice or, in some cases, abiding by sentencing statutes, if he followed the golden rule when sentencing criminals.
Here's something similiar that is often misunderstood.http://www.cfirecm.com/QandA/Judge%20Not%20Lest%20Ye%20Be%20Judged.htm
This is good. I was going to post on this topic in a separate thread. People try to use this scripture to silence me for criticizing DOCTRINE some believe in such as "Heaven as the reward of the saved", the belief in an immortal soul, Sunday as a sanctified day etc....Beyond what the article said (100% correct as far as it went), what Yeshua was REALLY saying, was better translated CONDEMN NOT (as in don't judge that Chavez. or Hitler is burning in Hell), Lest YOU be condemned by your Creator by the same standard.We are to JUDGE right & wrong, good& evil, but we must not decide for ourselves another human being's ULTIMATE fate. As the saying goes, God isn't finished with me (or you) yet--even unto the first death.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to convince me, or yourself that the golden rule is bad.This has to be the silliest stance I've ever seen taken, it's like claiming that people who believe in the rule, should never fight back against tyranny.I believe in the Golder rule, but like most, I will treat you no better than you treat me.Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, and expect retaliation.
I'm not trying to convince you that the Golden Rule is bad. I'm merely pointing out how imperfect it is. Ideally, we should be able to come up with one intuitive moral rule that always applies and does not leave any immoral conduct ungoverned.