Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23562 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Okay, I admit I just skimmed the last few pages, but I am not getting why you seem to be equating the Golden Rule with "eye for an eye". While I would disagree, I suppose one can make an argument about reciprocity with the Golden Rule, but "eye for an eye" has nothing to do with it. While most people look at the "eye for an eye" statement as one of revenge, it is actually an admonishment to "make the punishment fit the crime" and to avoid escalation. To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken - as opposed to both eyes (a punishment greater than the crime) or even execution (a punishment far out of proportion to the crime).

And a little note on the Eloquent Peasant - there is some dispute over whether or not it actually contains a "golden rule" equivalent. First, some scholars say the translation must be really stretched in order to make that comparison. But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness. The Golden Rule as stated in the Bible is an admonishment to "do unto others" as an entreaty to treat others well with no expectation of reward, but simply as "the right thing to do." The difference between the motivations is huge.
"To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken"

Geez, it sure sounds like you've just described a reciprocal condition or relationship.
==========
"But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness."

I'm not surprised that you've taken this line of reasoning, it fits you like a glove.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23563 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>

And a little note on the Eloquent Peasant - there is some dispute over whether or not it actually contains a "golden rule" equivalent. First, some scholars say the translation must be really stretched in order to make that comparison. But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness. The Golden Rule as stated in the Bible is an admonishment to "do unto others" as an entreaty to treat others well with no expectation of reward, but simply as "the right thing to do." The difference between the motivations is huge.
And if I have just completely missed the mark on the point of the discussion, my apologies. Please point me to the pertinent post so I can see my mistake.

Actually the golden rule or eye for an eye was not used in it's strictest form with the Eloquent Peasant. He lost a donkey and some food. He was given all of his opponents possessions.

A fair rendition of an eye for an eye would have been to replace his donkey and his food. The result was his opponent wound up being poor, and the peasant wound up with all of his possession.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23564 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
“This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others.. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self."[3][4] Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups.(For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group). Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept.”

The above paragraph is discussing Empathy, which is NOT the same as reciprocity or the Golden rule. The meanings are different, as is the concept. In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy. In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy. I do not expect you to understand this as you are a lite thinker.
So, on the one hand..
"In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy."

But on the other hand...
"In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy."

So according to the DEEP thoughts rising up from your brain, "to practice or live" has a different requirement than "to understand and abide", which implies that to practice, live, understand, or abide by the Golden Rule one either does, or does not, require empathy.

Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction.

Empathy
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Scott

United States

#23565 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Most have a Veterinary Degree, but some go off the reservation and whisper to horses and dogs.
While I am just working on a Veterinary degree, I do find myself talking with horses, dogs and cats. I find that they make much more sense than you and I.O. When I want to discuss politics, I just walk to the rearmost portion of the horse and speak to you directly.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23566 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
"To take it literally, if one man causes another to lose an eye, a fitting punishment could be given that that man will have an eye taken"
Geez, it sure sounds like you've just described a reciprocal condition or relationship.
==========
"But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness."
I'm not surprised that you've taken this line of reasoning, it fits you like a glove.
So explain how else one is to interpret "that you may CAUSE him to do thus. "

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23567 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for confirming the findings of the study, your own words are all the proof that is needed.
Oh, the irony...
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23568 Aug 29, 2013
Wiffle, waffle. Twiddle, twaddle.

"On Syria, Obama says eyeing ‘shot across the bow’"

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--obama-says-ey...
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23569 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
So, on the one hand..
"In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy."
But on the other hand...
"In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy."
So according to the DEEP thoughts rising up from your brain, "to practice or live" has a different requirement than "to understand and abide", which implies that to practice, live, understand, or abide by the Golden Rule one either does, or does not, require empathy.
Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction.
Empathy
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

You are correct, and as I stated, I do not expect you to understand this as you are a lite thinker.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23570 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
So, on the one hand..
"In order to practice or live by the Golden rule, one may need to practice empathy."
But on the other hand...
"In order to understand and abide by the golden rule, one need not have empathy."
So according to the DEEP thoughts rising up from your brain, "to practice or live" has a different requirement than "to understand and abide", which implies that to practice, live, understand, or abide by the Golden Rule one either does, or does not, require empathy.
Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction.
Empathy
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

BTW,
"Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction."

Your sentence is not an expression of empathy dummy. It is a projection of your stupidity.


Where

Jefferson, GA

#23571 Aug 29, 2013
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>
While I am just working on a Veterinary degree, I do find myself talking with horses, dogs and cats. I find that they make much more sense than you and I.O. When I want to discuss politics, I just walk to the rearmost portion of the horse and speak to you directly.

And this folks is the post of the day!!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#23572 Aug 29, 2013
Oh, some fast food workers are planning on striking today. I wasn't planning on going to McDonald's or Wendy's today, but I guess I'll drive around and look for a picket line to cross.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23573 Aug 29, 2013
Obamas foreign Diplomacy works like this.....

"NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-infuri...
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23574 Aug 29, 2013
A coalition of demos and repubs????????
Not only does Obama need a muzzle put on him, a set of Irons would suffice for his ruination of America.



"Wary of another war, congressional Republicans and Democrats pressed President Barack Obama to explain why the U.S. military should attack Syria and involve Americans in a deadly civil conflict that has roiled the Mideast."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/United-State...
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23575 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
Oh, some fast food workers are planning on striking today. I wasn't planning on going to McDonald's or Wendy's today, but I guess I'll drive around and look for a picket line to cross.

Watch out for IO and Oh my with their pitchforks.
pesky facts

Abbeville, GA

#23576 Aug 29, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Brilliant.
WHERE DID THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" ORIGINATE?
The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptists' complaints that Connecticut's law was oppressive to their religion (among other things, Connecticut's law allowed towns to levy taxes for the support of a religion designated by the majority of voters; since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, the law effectively forced Baptists throughout the state to support Congregational churches). The Baptists, who knew of Jefferson's advocacy of separation, "honored [Jefferson] as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like [Jefferson's] bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109).
While Jefferson was powerless to change Connecticut's law (the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states), Jefferson used the occasion to express his belief that no such law could be implemented on the federal level. Observed Jefferson:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Separationists have long taken Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment. Indeed, we take the metaphor so seriously that we are sometimes accused of worshipping Jefferson, as if the only reason we think the Constitution requires the separation of church and state is because Jefferson wrote his letter. But this is nonsense; the history of the Constitution and the First Amendment is well documented, and it suggests beyond doubt that the framers wanted to put as much distance between government and religion as possible. Jefferson's metaphor is simply a handy way of stating the obvious. If Jefferson had never written his letter, we would still be defending the wall, since the wall exists in the Constitution itself.
pesky facts

Abbeville, GA

#23577 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
A coalition of demos and repubs????????
Not only does Obama need a muzzle put on him, a set of Irons would suffice for his ruination of America.
"Wary of another war, congressional Republicans and Democrats pressed President Barack Obama to explain why the U.S. military should attack Syria and involve Americans in a deadly civil conflict that has roiled the Mideast."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/United-State...
High ranking Repugs have been calling for action in Syria for months!!! Wake up, its daylight outside and your dark mind needs a break. I personally think we should do nothing, but you are wrong trying to make this about Obama, it ain't.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23578 Aug 29, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
So explain how else one is to interpret "that you may CAUSE him to do thus. "
==========
"But even if one concedes the comparison, the usually agreed upon translation "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." implies doing something for someone so as to force him into a state of indebtedness."
You've got to be kidding....

You provide no references to this disagreement so that others might judge its context..

But leaving that aside, let's examine the quote in question...

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."

"Do for one who may do for you,"
sounds just like
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

"that you may cause him thus to do."
If you treat a stranger (others) as you would expect to be treated, you might cause the stranger to treat you as expected.

The second half of the statement looks like a re-statement of the first half.

Interestingly, this has also been examined in Game Theory where it has been shown that an extension of cooperation (treatment of others) leads to gains for both players.

An example of this can be found in the movie Jeremiah Johnson, where Will Greer gives the advice to cut and stack firewood on the judith for the steamboat, leave a pouch so the Captain can pay you. Which is little different than the payment can left at the unattended fruit stand on the country road.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23579 Aug 29, 2013
And the rotten fruit didn't fall far from the rotten tree.

Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#23580 Aug 29, 2013
Where wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
BTW,
"Thank you for this enlightening peek inside your head, as an expression of empathy I truly hope that you get help for your affliction."
Your sentence is not an expression of empathy dummy. It is a projection of your stupidity.
Quite the contrary, I can understand the feelings you must have in trying to sort through the jumble of disjointed thoughts running around inside your head.

You see, as a child, we had a game called Pick Up Sticks, and that jumble of sticks at the start of the game is exactly like the logic exhibited in your postings.

I can easily imagine the frustration you must experience everyday, and I truly hope you find help for your affliction.
Where

Jefferson, GA

#23581 Aug 29, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, I can understand the feelings you must have in trying to sort through the jumble of disjointed thoughts running around inside your head.
You see, as a child, we had a game called Pick Up Sticks, and that jumble of sticks at the start of the game is exactly like the logic exhibited in your postings.
I can easily imagine the frustration you must experience everyday, and I truly hope you find help for your affliction.

Well now, since your ideas keep getting blown away is no reason to get all huffy and puffy. Of course some would call you a sore loser, not me, I just say loser with a a capital L on your forehead.

You libroids make it too easy for us conservatives, since you make mince meat of word meanings and concepts of thought. Logic is not your strong suit, neither is word meanings or concepts. You are however good at getting beat up on and thrashed about.
Have a happy clueless day!


Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who's got your vote in the Tennessee Senate rac... (Oct '14) 3 min Bayless 81,098
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Concerned 228,684
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 54 min TRUMPOCALYPSE 104,814
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 9 hr bacon hater 90,427
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Kentucky's ... (Nov '14) 11 hr New guy 21
Election Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) Tue southern alien 8,692
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) Jun 26 WarForOil 83,868
More from around the web