Jesus said we must treat others as we would like to be treated.  The obvious problem here is what if a paedophile tells us we enjoy our sexuality so we should let them enjoy theirs.

To change the Golden Rule to, “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you if you and they know what right and wrong are”, makes it worse instead of better though it looks like an improvement. It then becomes elitist and sectarian and divisive and we all know what religions with their different morals have done since the dawn of time to tear society and families apart with their disagreements. Some say that Jesus and the others meant this interpretation of the rule. But Jesus was speaking to ordinary people not theologians so they would have taken him to mean what I said he meant. Anyway, this modified version can only be practiced among people who agree on morality as they see it. The result of the ethic would be ghettos and sectarianism.
Jesus said the Rule fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. But the Law and the Prophets were cruel. He advocated masochism and sadism. You were expected if you were a homosexual man to like stoning homosexuals to death and to want that for yourself if you practiced. For Jesus, you are only to like what God tells you to like. If that means letting yourself be stoned for burning incense to a false God then so be it!
Jesus said it was the summary of the law of God (given in the first five books of the Bible) and the prophets as well. Its absurdity is obvious for some people like to be trampled on. It is too vague. Some say that the Golden Rule makes sense for if you hate something and you embody it you will hate yourself and draw hatred from others on yourself. That is totally wrong as the following example shows. A man can hate his wife cheating on him but have no problem with cheating on her. The Golden Rule fails to ban anything so it is no good. Again the Christians will object that the rule is not about rules but about us whatever we do and whatever mistakes we make retaining a concern for others in our hearts. What it really wants us to do is to force others to do what we like. Concern alone is useless. It is better to do loads of good just because you want to score Brownie points than to do less thanks to concern. The notion that concern is the thrust of the rule makes the rule contradict itself for it pretends to be a moral rule and fails. The same failure exists with love your neighbour as yourself.
If Jesus had said, “Always treat others according to the way you believe others should treat you”, it would have been better. It still wouldn't be perfect because you would want to be euthanased if you went completely mad. But Jesus would forbid this.
Jesus was speaking to Jews. They were told to love and adore the Law of God so they were to want to be stoned to death if they sinned in adultery or homosexuality etc. Many hate to admit that Jesus could have implied such a thing by the commandment.
Some Christians argue that Jesus did mean that. But would Jesus have meant to say that you should get others executed for crimes against the Law for you believe that you should be killing by stoning if you commit such crimes? He certainly could have. The thought that he did not when he included a murderous zealot, Simon, among his apostles is inconclusive as evidence against this because Jesus could be a hypocrite. Others point out that he did not call for the legal murder of the Jews whose scheming put him on the cross. But it wasn't really illegal for Jesus did deserve to die according to the Law for blaspheming if he was not the Messiah he claimed to be.
Jesus would have meant the rule to be, like to be treated as the Law wants you to be and treat others the same. This sanctions murder.

Jesus said that we must always treat others as we would like them to treat us and that this fulfils and sums up the Law and the Prophets. Jesus made it a law for us. This was vindictive for law threatens. Law says you deserve to be punished and must be punished if you disobey. If Jesus had made it just good advice, it would have been more helpful. No he had to sour it with religious nastiness.

Jesus is implying that we would like to obey the Law. He knowingly lied for the Hebrews did not cherish the Law and God whined time and time again that they did not want to keep it. Yet he says here they like the Law. And who could blame the Hebrews for disliking or even despising it when it commanded murder and mutilation and forbade freedom of thought? The last thing on the mind of the Law was Jesus’ golden rule.

Was Jesus like a socialist in the sense that he wanted wealth redistributed so that the rich were no longer better off then the power and all had what they needed? No. He never once asked anybody in authority to implement that. Asking individuals to do it is not the same thing. And he unfairly asked some to do it not all. His teaching that only the kingdom of God mattered did untold harm by putting his followers off campaigning for social change.  He clearly expected a speedy end of the world so he was going to do nothing for the poor.

His golden rule was good for getting recruits for his following but it was far from anything that could really benefit people in the long term.

In actual fact, the golden rule should be called the bloody rule because it is dangerous.

No Copyright