If treating others as you’d like others to treat you is a good idea, and I believe it is, how should you treat those who treat you poorly?
One answer is that if they treat you poorly, then they are clearly inviting you to treat them the same way.
The other is to hold to the spirit of the rule, and don’t give in to the temptation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Not sure you're expressing your point clearly enough for some, so I will simply state my own position: The "Golden Rule" doesn't account for how one is treated, only for how one treats others, which is based on how one wants to be treated. Indeed, when one is treated poorly, it is even easier to decide whether that is treatment one should perpetuate given the poor treatment one received wasn't pleasant. "I didn't like when it was done to me, so I won't do it to others."
I'd wager this was your meaning.
I’m simply pointing out that if one advocates living by the Golden Rule, yet treats others badly, aren’t they inviting others to mirror their treatment. It seems like if you treat someone how you’d like to be treated, yet you treat them poorly, your saying that you’d like to be treated poorly.
Personally I’d try not to accept that invitation, but you could argue that it’s there.
I've often thought about that in jest. The command is not "Do unto others what they appear to want you to based on how they treat you," but I've wanted to ask that. "Is that how you'd like to be treated?"
It certainly appears as if it’s an invitation to mirror how they treat others.
There are at least two things to consider:
1. The rule is rightly Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Not "...as they do unto you..." This is what we should do, as a rule.
2. At the same time, Jesus gives us examples of exceptions. The exceptions where Jesus acted in harsh ways? When he was speaking to/about:
2a. oppressors (those who'd cause harm to the poor and marginalized) and
2b. religious hypocrites, especially those who use their religiosity and positions in their religion to enrich themselves or cause harm to others
Thus, there IS a time for harsh rebukes.
3. Given that, IF I was supporting oppressing others, THEN I DO want to be treated in a harsh way. If I were, for instance, calling for sending refugees back to where they were from where they might suffer and/or die, THEN I would WANT to be rebuked. The Do Unto Others rule there would default to support for the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, the foreigner, the orphan and widows, etc.
Sometimes, in order to do unto those Others who are poor and marginalized, we'll have to be harsh towards those who would cause them harm.
This all seems reasonable to me.
Self righteous much?
Because I believe in standing with the poor and oppressed, I'm self-righteous? I don't follow. You agree, do you not, that we should do this?
What we do for/with the least, and all...?
No, it's more because your pomposity and self righteous attitude when you talk about all the things you do and your willingness to mischaracterize those who disagree with you. As well as your flimsy excuses to justify your hatred, vitriol, and expletive laced tirades.
I do agree that, despite people inviting us through their behavior to treat them badly, we should strive to treat others better than they treat us and to treat others as we treat ourselves.
none of that mitigates your self righteousness.
Post a Comment