THE GOLDEN RULE EXPOSED - like all religious cons Jesus pretended to be saying something useful and profound

The Golden Rule wants us to treat others as we would like them to treat us.
The golden rule says nothing about love. It speaks of how to act. It is at most, purely tactical. It is about getting others to like you. It is therefore not about love. Jesus was all about God and his statements must be interpreted within that dimension. For Jesus you treat others well solely because God asks it.
Jesus gave a command in John 13 which runs "love others as I have loved you and given all for you." This is far beyond merely treating others the way you want to be treated. It is about seeking nothing at all in return for your love. The Golden Rule is superseded by this command. The Golden Rule is the command everybody seems to like for it appeals to the baser part of human nature. It waters down the demands of morality.
Though it is true other religions teach the golden rule, as Christians hold all authority must come from God, Christians are to follow the rule because God says so. It is about the motivation to obey God. The golden rule then for Christians is, treat others how you would like them to treat you while they treat you as God wants you to be treated. The rule then is not the same for Christians as it is for Buddhists who do not believe in God. The Buddhists do not command it but for Christians God commands it.
The Golden Rule as popularly understood is foundationally atheistic. If God is all-good then God should come first just like Jesus commanded when he said we must love God with all our hearts and faculties. Therefore all your actions should be motivated towards God and nobody else. In that light, to refuse to hurt others because you don’t like to be hurt is heretical and sinful. You should do it not because of your likes but because of what God likes. You cannot treat God as you would like to be treated if you were God for you don’t know what that is like and God has no needs but is perfectly happy for being almighty he needs nothing. The Golden Rule becomes vulgar when you think that if you die for other people you should like them to die for you!


"Always treat others as you would like them to treat you" means treat them first. Therefore it means your happiness is my responsibility and mine yours. But no mature person sees that as any way sensible. And it is made even more ridiculous for it says always treat not often treat.

Humanists have the golden rule too. On the human and non-religious level, the golden rule fits only one attitude that you or I could have and that is egoism. Egoism is doing good for others without doing it to get money or praise or any other benefit off them but is doing it to get something out of the fact that virtue is indeed its own reward. Egotism would be doing good or evil to get money or whatever out of them. Yet these lying sages despised egoism. But the fact remains that the alternative to both, altruism, doing good for others and getting literally nothing out of it and because you literally refuse to get anything out of it is unnatural and impossible.

The rule in all its forms and interpretations says that I have the right to say that something is bad because I feel that it is wrong. It is not morality it advocates but bigotry and prejudice. It gives me the right to impose my so-called morality on others because I have to treat them as I would like to be treated. I don’t know how they would want to be treated. So I have to assume that they are like me.

The Golden Rule ends up telling the egoist to treat others as an egoist likes to be treated or a Utilitarian or whatever. It does not help as much as it seems. It feels good thinking it is true until you realise you cannot think it is true.
What if you are a masochist?

Different people like or approve of different things. The absurdity of the Golden Rule is obvious for some people like to be trampled on. It is too vague.
Some souls like being doormats and others do not. Jesus was declaring on his divine authority that everybody was really the same – he was proposing a vicious new religious doctrine that denies what is in front of you like all the others do. This was necessary for his rigid moral system that forbade anything that reeked of sexual desire outside of marriage, that commanded the treating of people who did wrong and were a bit stubborn as pariahs, that commanded too generous forgiving and so on. If you admit that people are different then you have less room for a fixed morality. For example, breaking confidentiality for a greater good would be permitted if the victim hardly cares. If it would hurt the person a lot then keep it would be the greater good.

The rule implies that you have to treat yourself as you would like others to treat you. It allows you to be wanted to be treated well. Thus, it wholly contradicts Jesus’ teaching that we must love God alone. Jesus did not advocate that Christian interpretation of his rule.

If you are special then you have to get special treatment from others because they would like you to treat them as special if they were. The crowd was encouraged to think of Jesus as someone superior to themselves.

Jesus was hinting that he wanted to be their cult-leader.

No Copyright