religion pacifies a colick of spirit? Names on religions "over-handed demollifiers?"

Love God and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself... How can we love our neighbor if we hate our own self? Compassion is the acceptance of Love (God is Love), a Love you may believe you do not deserve... Compassion is giving Love(God), giving Love you can never lose to someone or something that may be incapable of returning the gesture. Love gave us compassion; therefore we must follow in His example. Receive Love, Accept Love, Give Love. Receive Love, Accept Love, Give Love. Receive Love, Accept Love, Give Love. Receive God, Accept God, Give God...

Treat others as you wish to be treated, Recognize that evolution is in our midst. That together we are rising above the potentials of the past. Treat yourself in accordance with this. Live strong, and beautifully. We are aware now that we are all connected, If one chooses to harm oneself, they are in turn harming another. In that, treat yourself as you would treat that which you care about most. Help yourself achieve your potentials and aid others in achieving theirs. It is not enough to refuse to inflict pain on others, We must take that proposition a step further and aid one another to achieve that which is in our power to achieve.

Gibran's section from The Prophet strikes me as important here. We often have an easy time with the Golden Rule when it's people we know or who look, act and think the same as us. We they are not like us is when it gets rough. As Gibran says, "you cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked: For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together. And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also." We are all one cloth, woven together. Wheat we do to the other we do to ourselves.

Expecting nothing in return, compassion includes the Golden Rule, but also goes beyond it to create a New Ethic.

The golden rule is externally based, a rule we are told to encourage us to behave. It may be useful at some stage, but compassion is a much more developed approach that arises out of transcending the duality of one's own suffering, and that of others. It comes from within as a direct experience of suffering, not primarily of one's own but much more importantly that of others. Genuine compassion is not something that can be created or governed or instigated by any rules, even if detrimental behavior might be mitigated by such rules; this is a misunderstanding of many religions. That is why, from a conventional point of view, genuine compassion is actually outrageous.

You may wear a turban or a kipa. You may worship Allah or Jesus or Shiva. Are you a comedian, or a lawyer ? A man or a woman ? Deep down, you are just like me : you will suffer of the same loss, rejoice of the same joy, fear and hope and cry . The same feelings that cross my heart will cross yours, all the way.

Giving is the same as receiving. When we give to another with no expectation of anything in return, we experience happiness as a natural result. Self restraint and self control are the key to the Golden Rule; to choose harmony over strife.

Even should we amass all the physical gold in the earth, we have gained nothing if we have not acquired and spent the spiritual gold of heaven. The substance of this spiritual currency is compassion: to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. All the great religions have affirmed the value of this Golden Rule, the standard by which all human behavior is measured and accounted in the Divine Book of Life. Let the priceless and eternal riches of this Currency of Compassion abound and multiply in the hearts and lives of everyone; and may it be shared freely, for we purchase our own happiness by giving it to others.

Somebody once said: 'If you lose compassion, you lose everything' and he was right. Compassion is who we are. At the core of each human being, regardless of nationality, culture, religion, creed, race, etc. there is a need to be loved, a need to feel welcome and loved for who we are, because we are the way we are. But we often forget to welcome ourselves for who we are, to love ourselves unconditionally. And as we do so, we heal ourselves - Love is the only real healing force in the Universe - and we discover who and what we are. Each one of us is Love at our core, we are a masterpiece of infinite beauty and preciousness overflowing with Love. If we connect ourselves with our Love inside, with our true identity, our whole life heals and we heal the world. And compassion towards ourselves and each human being is a key to that.

Man is intrinsically a creature with moral reasoning. There has been an evolutionary drive towards higher orders of animals over time, with hominids the end of the chain. Higher order animals are more intelligent than lower order ones. Dogs etc can show affection, grieve and act "bravely", but lack the self-awareness and language development to be moral in our full sense of the word. Other primates get closer, using reciprocal altruism. Early hominids (eg: Homo Erectus) leading to Homo Sapiens, were more intelligent again, and I presume along the line, developed socially to the point that they would act, not just selfishly for their own "happiness" or benefit alone, but for the good of their family or group. This was human nature and natural evolution leading to the development of an ethical sense. As groups became tribes, then larger again, higher orders of rules and conventions developed, with religion and a host of gods being constructed (by man, for man) to help explain the vagaries of life and the natural world, and to further develop a social order and morality. Thus man is by his nature, an ethical being. Obviously it has taken a long time for those ethics to reach the level seen in much of society today. Man has a huge capacity for immorality as well, which has muddied our past and present. However, most people are on the plus side when it comes to being more moral than immoral, and that is a part of our evolution as a species, and is independent of any supernatural force. Moral sense developed independently of religion, though religion was then later conjured up as a way of explaining things now easily explained by science, and as a way of adding social order, developing moral ethics further, and formalising laws to control behaviour. Morality is a natural part of human development. Conscience is present in all humans, and has evolved in our human race over time, following influences upon individuals and progressively larger groups. All people are aware of feelings of guilt and rightful action. There is an increasing core of behaviour that is considered morally correct across cultures. There is no absolute truth, but variants of the Golden Rule have become accepted in most of the world as virtuous. Most people are on the plus side when it comes to being more moral than immoral, and that is a part of our evolution as a species, and is independent of any supernatural force. What qualifies as part of so the called progressive revelation some believe in. I'm keen to know what it is but there is no consensus amongst theists about it. Is it only the OT and NT as we have it handed down now? Do Dreamtime stories of thousands of years ago qualify? Long ago lost moral codes of Easter Island? Philosophical discourse? [The Catholic Church recognises the benefits of Greek and other philosophers.] Other religions? I'm intrigued by the concept of divine revelation. Advanced or intuitive leaps in the course of human progress, from making fire, progressively more sophisticated tools, to the rise of technology, scientific endeavour, cultural and social advances and philosophical insights all involve causal reasoning, high order intentionality and abstract thought. These are ideas formed with upward causality, from within a mind and brain. Divine revelation seems to imply downward causality, with ideas being revealed or infused from and by God into a mortal mind, which is different to the way all other thoughts arise within. If it is simple inspiration along the lines of all other forms of human inspiration when contemplating ideas, then how is it divine or different? So what if an idea is part moral revelation, part standard human thought? Is it formed by both upward and downward causality? Is there evidence of downward causality from an external source with regards to thought? It seems bizarre to me. If this isn't implied by revelation, then moral and religious insights arise the same way as all others do, and follow social evolution. Innate unconscious "emotional" responses exist in animals, and evolved with the limbic system long before high order animals like primates appeared. This is of course different to our emotional appreciations, but has evolutionary links to our unconscious emotional response. Even Chimpanzees and Bonobos, who diverged from our ancestors over 5 million years ago, show some remarkable qualities of higher level thinking. The first upright walkers appeared over 3 million years ago. Homo species appeared about 2 million years ago. Somewhere along the homo line or earlier the ability to modify the emotional response by rational thought about consequences evolved beyond that seen in chimps. Probably initially this was reciprocal altruism. I think language makes cognition of this much easier, and may be vitally important to it, and obviously evolved at some point along the way with higher brain development, but when is still argued. Better powers of reason and language seem to be linked in the course of evolution. The deaf and dumb from birth nowadays still have moral sense, but have the genes for a high order brain with "language component" already wired. I think pre-language, or sign language and sounds, would likely itself have been enough for the beginnings of moral sense, if there was enough "reasoning cortex" evolved, but would defer to the experts. Large brains of our size have been around for over 1 million years, but we don't know what level they functioned at in many ways, especially morally. A concept like God, and one of God-made-man, which involve all sorts of complicated high order thinking and beliefs, may contradict our usual beliefs or impressions about the world our senses reacts to, or certainly not always sit easily alongside them. Mix in the powerful complex feedback loops to and from our emotional response centres which drive so much of who we are and feel we are, and we are left with whether that concept feels right for us or not, engenders fear, distrust, anger, scepticism or various combinations stress responses or a lack of them, love, hope, and inner peace. Greater inner peace is achieved either with or without that concept. Stress is eased or stress is increased by it, for a myriad of reasons either way (some very rational, some quite unable to be defined), and so we believe or don't. Part rational higher centres, part unconscious emotional response. I think the latter is the final arbiter. Our emotional responses, so strongly evoked via our limbic system, explain the oft seen passionate response to criticism of an underlying belief for or against God/religion. For many either belief or disbelief in these has a major influence on how they view themselves, the meaning of or best way to live a life, and whether they see their moral code as needing to be linked, or necessarily linked, to a deity or not. God/Jesus/Mohammad/other can be felt to be a guide, friend, mentor, father-figure, life-giving-force etc, integral to one's makeup, and emotionally attached, and disparaging remarks about them may cut deeply into the believer's psyche. On the other hand, if one feels intrinsically moral without such a relationship, and in fact feels negatively in varying degrees and ways about such entities/personalities, or is merely dismissive and disbelieves they could have any influence in the world we perceive or on one's feelings of self, then being told such a position is refusing to see the truth also engenders deep emotion. Our emotional response or gut feeling is used by our higher centres to find justification for that response, though is itself a product of and influenced by those higher centres sifting through the evidence and weighing the benefits or merits for or against belief. Chicken or egg?, as has been said before. Man is the most social animal on the planet. Our well developed deep social sense allows us to conceive of and emotionally react with egalitarianism, considered cooperation, and even true altruism for those from whom we expect no reciprocal reward. We are able to see a certain way of acting within society as providing us with the likelihood that other even unknown individuals will treat us the same way......with the golden rule. One of mankind’s major abilities is advanced causal reasoning (beginning with B moved because of A; if I do that then this will result…) that was needed for tool use and design, and therefore was integral to the rise of technological advancement. Brain development also grew along with it. Hunter-gatherer social cooperation requires causal thinking. Language construction requires causal thinking. Abstract symbolic thinking and higher levels of intentionality rely on it as well. Tool use goes back millions of years, and fire was being used 400,000 years ago. Symbolic thinking is documented with the appearance of art, and evidence for that goes back at least 75,000 years. The concept of gods was merely an extension of causal beliefs, with gods created to explain the numerous events that occurred without any know explanation. Attempting to influence those gods was the next obvious step, by acting in certain ways, exhortation/prayer or performing sacrifical rites. When good things followed, then whatever course of action or behaviour had taken place immediately before was assumed to be causal. Codes of behaviour follow. Scapegoats who broke the code or acted contrary to perceived right action were identified and punished. Hopefully the gods were appeased. None of the above requires any input from an external deity. It all follows social evolution based upon simple then gradually more complex causal reasoning, in a world without scientific understanding of natural phenomena. We will never know who first came up with the idea of the monotheist-type omnipotent unknowable God to trump all other gods. Some may consider this divine revelation. It was really just an act of theological, social, mystically inspired one-upmanship, and was merely the next step of causal belief. God is an "epiphenomenon" created by the lack of understanding we have of the universe and nature and the explanatory gap in understanding consciousness and the mind. Evolution favours successful genes. Genes can be considered "selfish" within the process of natural selection. The conscious human "vehicles" for human genes don't need to behave solely in the interests of their genes. They can even decide rationally not to pass them on. All decisions made by human minds aren't based upon gene survival. In fact, most aren't. Once we have a mind, ideas don't have to reflect our genes. Moral choices don't have to always favour genes either. Moral choices are relevant within a group or society, and social effects become major factors at that level, not just gene selfishness or an individual's survival. What was required for Homo species to evolve to become the Sapiens being we see in the mirror? An increase in brain size and cognitive abilities, with more neurones, with better memory and better developed brain areas in general for interpreting and reacting with the world of our senses, with better interconnections, and larger/better areas for all neuronal activity and all thought, including pre-frontal and other areas for moral reasoning and controlling/interacting with the limbic areas involved in emotion. The development of language was a critical step and is integral to communication as a social being, and to abstraction, allowing abstract symbolic and creative generative thought via our imagination, a sense of time past and future, and the ability to think with high order intentionality (eg: I believe that you suppose that they want to consider whether others wish to do this which will effect....etc). As man further developed as a social being within a small group he was likely driven to simple reciprocity based on mutual need, probably also pressured by the threat of rejection initially, until a higher moral sense developed. Major steps towards morality included the rise of a sense of altruism between unrelated individuals, and a stronger sense of both self and others, and the realisation that others are like oneself with similar needs, feelings and desires. Simple moral codes would have evolved within small groups, and become more elaborate as larger clans, groups and tribes joined forces for pragmatic reasons of mutual benefit. The concept of death and the possibility of an afterlife and the idea of gods/God, and the subsequent rise of religion, would have further pushed the moral boundaries with the creation of further codes and practises. Every society, every civilisation has developed moral codes. Religions have played varying and often major roles, but major moral principles have evolved outside of or beyond religion, as seen in the ancient Greeks. What evolved included a sense of the individual aspiring to be moral, and in various ways deciding what is a worthwhile way to conduct a life, with the concept that a morally good life should be a happy one. Socrates taught we should be true to ourselves, with personal integrity a priority, and that knowledge leads to virtue. We seemlessly move between moral theories without considering philosophy. Acting along the lines of a categorical imperative/golden rule here, a Utilitarian approach of varying types at other times. We often think in a Utilitarian way (who doesn't use the white lie?) but it has limitations as a comprehensive way of moral reasoning. It may give us the answer, but scenarios that trip it up can always be found. It's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs. However, if true happiness incorporates a Socratic ideal of virtue, then Utilitarianism changes its spots in comparison to a hedonistic form of it. Some Utilitarians maintain that in making an ethical decision, we must ask ourselves: "What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?" The extreme negative effect on morality in the society engendered in ignoring the basic rights of others could in fact be considered enough to make the negative effects far outweigh any misguided concept of benefit for the majority, such that certain acts could never be justified. A human right can easily be considered a moral rule. Richard Hare says when principles clash we must attempt to think like an Archangel in order to choose the right course of action. Then the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not tied to one's own material happiness, but that of all concerned. We can't remove the golden rule from our system of ethics without impoverishing it. The golden rule isn't always clear-cut either. To what extent am I my brother's keeper? I do not always know what he would have me do, so should I do what is best for him regardless as I see it? If everyone is my neighbour then I'll collapse under the weight of never-ending responsibility. To do justice to one's psychological and emotional self and other responsibilities one must set limits. The challenge is where to set them. Some religions teach there is natural moral law, but different theories exist, and they still require man, or a group of men assuming authority, to decide what they are and how to apply them. Who is the judge of natural law? No moral law offers a script to follow that everyone would agree to. Knowledge that differing genetic and other factors influence our brain processes and moral reasoning are an evolving conundrum. There are genes that may promote risk taking, or negatively effect emotional responses or remorse, etc. Science will help us achieve further self-knowledge by helping us better understand many of the reasons we think, respond and act, but will raise new moral issues by identifying those with perhaps diminished moral sense and from that diminished responsibility. We act in society often as agents for a company, organisation or government whose aims may be very selfishly aimed at a corporate/national benefit that may contradict our own moral sense. Impacts on the environment and animal kingdom or other people in our own or another society are often not on the agenda for the organisation concerned, and are expensive. When should an individual person or company/nation take a stand, especially if taken alone, while others grab market share? Too often the moral compass goes missing in business, economics, trade and politics. And of course, all to often all's fair in love and war.......... Ethical principles are to be found in religion, secular state laws, philosophical discourse, literature, the community at large, and other sources. No one area has a mortgage on them. I like Michael Schermer's arguments supporting that morality is not absolute, but provisional (rather than relative). Evil is only meaningful as an adjective applied to actions/thoughts/intentions involving humans. One of the problems with religion in general is the belief that so many people have that there is such a thing as absolute truth or morality. I think this leads to extremism and fundamentalism, and religions are to blame for much of that. Books like "Why good is good...the sources of morality" by Robert Hinde , and "The science of good and evil" by Michael Schermer are worthwhile, and highlight for me the idea that man has developed as an intrinsically moral animal, by his nature, over the course of human and social evolution, and that moral sense developed independently of religion, though religion was then later conjured up as a way of explaining things now easily explained by science, and as a way of adding social order, developing moral ethics further, and formalising laws to control behaviour. Religion is a man-made system of beliefs and codes. Our morality stems from our nature, influenced by our culture (including our religions), and the rise of knowledge in general, and peer pressure to do as others do, and developed over our history, and is not dependent on any supernatural being. The Ten Commandments are really only the ten recommendations or tenets, for we can think of numerous circumstances when the absolute statement of "Thou shall not..." should definitely not be followed for us to act morally, though they were a good place to start. The golden rule, with a few additions, is a better recommendation. Lets just stick with that, and drop the dogmas, and stop harping on about necessary anythings or ones, or worship of this or that invisible idol. Logical reasoning goes out the window when religion moves beyond arguments for a first cause. When it comes down to faith in a personal God who intervenes as an interested personality, here but not there, for this person but not that, all theism becomes fideism in which reason is essentially irrelevant to religious faith. Either faith becomes the antithesis of reason, or faith becomes beyond reason, and therefore is unable to be proven or disproved by it. Integral to this is the acceptance of revelation via men calling themselves prophets, or via texts written by known or unknown authors. Illogical, miraculous, improbable happenings become accepted as "fact" despite lack of sound evidence or reasoning. Faith then becomes a choice of comfort, preference and convenience, offering the carrot of an immortal soul, the chance to be with loved ones again, and psychological, emotional and spiritual benefits throughout life for those who can't see the way forward without it. If people find solace and succour in such a faith, and live worthwhile, happy and moral lives as a result of or despite such a faith, then I see no problem, provided they admit their faith is a choice made for pragmatic reasons. Unfortunately, religion has often been a vehicle for intolerance and division. The conflict of ideas and beliefs over the course of history has led to bitter debate, aggression, persecution, oppression, and violence, for the other side becomes less worthwhile, and no longer equal. In history this often meant the other could be considered less human, or inhuman, hence genocide and slavery. Obviously some of this merely reflect xenophobia, and is not all due to religion, but the religious tags have been powerful ones in separating groups, races and nations into the enemy. Had Judaism and Christianity not been so dogmatic for hundreds of years, would Muhammad and Islam have been as dogmatic? Would these other religions have crashed headlong into so much conflict, if The Church had shown the lead, and believed and preached that it is the ethical principles that count, not the implausible trappings of fundamentalist dogma? Unfortunately, this century is going to see a lot of conflict, with much of it involving religious conflict! Religion has been an integral inspiration for a lot of evil acts, though I agree sometimes used to justify immoral action that was going to happen anyway, as well as the inspiration for many good ones. I think the way it has been delivered has often been immoral, and in part because there are so many outdated, crude, violent and (by today's standards) immoral recommendations in the old testament. Sometimes it merely reflected the low ethics of society at the time, but because religion was set up as an ethical framework, it has to take some of the blame for those ethical failures. Atheism ( or non-theism, which has fewer negative connotations for some) is at least as valid as any form of theism, as no-one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. In one sense, everyone should be agnostic, if that means merely to believe or admit that it is impossible to know if God exists or not. Maybe "believers" should consider themselves agnostic theists (who would bet on there being a God), and the rest would be agnostic non-theists (like me who would bet there isn't)! This is too much of a mouthful, and atheist is simpler. I'm happy to concede my beliefs are fallible and limited by my human nature. No argument from me that we know only a fraction of what is to be known. Some believers seem to think, that because they have a personal belief that there is a divine absolute authority, that somehow makes their belief more valid, because this belief held by them and by others proves that such a moral authority exists???? Many Christians imply that if a person states that, given his experience of life and the world, and knowledge he has acquired up to this time, that the existence of God is so unlikely that, to all intents and purposes, he believes God does not exist, then this is called by them "the height of intellectual arrogance". They can say there is no doubt that God exists, that this is THE truth of the universe, and are sure that they communicate with God daily. = not arrogance???? Why not say: I think it is likely, though not unequivocal, that God exists, and I feel as if I can communicate with a God, although this may be a fallacy, but I find it useful to act this way, and I will live my life accordingly. Although millions believe and feel deeply that they "know God", it is not something that can be proved. There are scientific arguments, that I believe have a lot of validity, that this belief, like any other, is merely something that occurs within the human psyche, formed wholly within a thinking mind. For example, near death and out of body experiences likely come from the temporal lobes. Even the changes that occur in temporal lobe activity during meditation in Buddhist monks are very impressive. Areas in the brain can be stimulated by wires and currents to mimic sexual fulfillment, satiety, anger etc etc. The brain is so amazingly complex that it isn't known how to localise ephemeral ideas and concepts to various areas, and there are so many connections that they will likely never be localised to a single area, but all thoughts and emotions arise within or via brain cells, including moral / ethical ones. What we feel "in our hearts and souls" is in our heads. The wonderful feelings of positive reinforcement, empowerment, love, peace of mind, etc., that people experience from supposedly "knowing God", are similar in many ways to a host of sensations that follow life changing or "sea change" decisions, experiences, and choices that people make in life; these experiences of self-fulfillment occurs in atheists and theists alike during life, it's just that the focus and explanations are different. It's still all explicable within. (Osama bin Laden had these same experiences, unfortunately, in his own misguided way.) The evidence that we have a soul is still zero. As children we like to know that we have the security of our parental love and authority. "God" keeps that feeling going into adulthood. It's a nice feeling, but that's all it is. Being a mortal human in a wide universe is more than many people can handle without an anxiety attack! Belief in God keeps that anxiety at bay. Why people believe in God is complex. Dawkins mentioned somewhere that only 12% of people change their religion from that of their upbringing. Our development, involving nature and nurture, is obviously heavily involved in who we are, and what we believe. Changing from that belief of upbringing is stressful, and one could argue that after a religious upbringing , with a heavy dose of religion, love, possibly loss, identification with a very religious mother, father or other respected figure, with religious schooling thrown in, that people only have partial free will to abandon Christianity, such would be the stress response, which would involve a certain amount of loss of comfortable self-identity and self-respect. That isn't to say that believers don't feel as if they have freely chosen to believe and encompass faith, but merely that free-will is complex, and may be a fulfilling illusion much of the time, but all that we have to go by. Our decisions follow an impossible-to-dissect array of causal events and influences. My abandonment of religion is no doubt just as influenced by my experiences and my past. If an impartial high court had to decide whether there was a soul or not, or whether Jesus was God, then the chance of a positive result for either of these would be extremely low. The evidence is too flimsy. Immaculate conception? Meaningless. Virgin birth? Water into wine? Other miracles like walking on water? Raising the dead? Resurrection? Ascension into heaven? Zero hard evidence exists, and the likelihood is remote, as the whole of science and our known experience tells us that these are so unlikely as to be unbelievable. They are myths, legends, fables. Atheists or agnostics would welcome any defining evidence to the contrary, but the evidence is unlikely to surface now if it hasn't yet! This doesn't mean there can't be a God, but the Bible, Qor'an and other religious stories just don't give convincing, credible support to the idea. The idea of a personal God, or God made man, is very different to deism or cosmic consciousness/knowledge. This doesn't mean following some of Jesus' (or other prophets') teachings to become a better person isn't worthwhile. We should just keep our feet on the ground of common sense and reason. He was a product of his own upbringing, and fallible, as you and I are, and no doubt he made good decisions and bad. He believed the OT stories from Genesis on, as fact, as did everyone back then. However, his supposed (as we only have the bible to go on) teachings, as with most things, aren't absolutes. A leader who chose to "turn the other cheek" on behalf of his people if threatened with extinction by a foreign enemy, and decided to lay down arms, leading to a massacre, would be acting wrongly. Circumstances must be taken into account in judging what is moral. Even the Golden Rule is open to variation. Do unto others as you would have them do to you? Or do as you judge they would like you to act? Or do what you think is best for them, regardless? Or merely don't do what you judge they don't want you to do? Or what they actually don't want you to do but you think is best? Do you ask first? Or do you just imagine first? Hopefully a considered decision will be a truly moral one, though may need to be refined or changed to be the truly best one. Mankind doesn't need salvation, but merely needs to continue to develop ethically. Any help in leading to that end is a positive thing. Religious dogma isn't helpful. We are not intrinsically evil, needing salvation, just human, and intrinsically good-but-flawed, and will ever be thus, but are moving forward, slowly, on a jagged line for the better.

The golden rule without question makes most of us compassionate. The golden rule should not be and is not the fundamental inspiration for compassion. It leaves too much to interpretation and perspective and the golden rule is too "self" centered. What about those of us who would rather be left alone to our personal misery vs. publicly humiliating ourselves and admitting need and dependence. I know it shouldn't be humiliating self-deprecating to show need. But for many of us IT IS. So how would those folk see the golden rule? No, I think compassion has to go outside the golden rule and focus on humility and harmony. Compassion is a "passion" for harmony and goodwill. That is something that needs to be developed and consciously considered and followed. If left to personal interpretation of the golden rule it breaks down more toward the Wiccan rule of "do as you will as long as you harm none". Well maybe not that extreme but somewhere in between. Compassion needs to be at the top of all those considerations on a level of it's own. It has to teach, encourage and develope unselfish life. It also needs to be a trickle-down philosophy. Don't expect the peoples on the planet to show compassion and be compassionate when those of privelege and abundance don't excercise it or at least where compassion takes a back seat to opulance and celebrity. Compassion and humility go hand in hand and unfortunately this writer doesn't see where unrewarded and unrecognised benevolent acts will result in a prevelance of compassion. Individuality conflicts with collective consciousness and it's that collective consciousness that will have to prevail in order for humanity to survive. Our technology has outgrown our maturity to handle the consequences of it's use. Until the self interests of the priveleged few can be tamed and overriden by our global collective consciousness we are perhaps doomed to letting some cosmic event bring us together in a pool of global compassion. Financial freedom, success, celebrity are the opiates of humanity and as yet the temperance of humility, empathy and "compassion" haven't found a way to trump that high.

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” (Talmud, Shabbat, 31 a: Judaism.) “Do not judge your brother until your have walked a mile in his moccasins.” (Native American Indian.) “Hurt not other in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga, 5, 18: Buddhism.) “This is the sum of your duty: Do naught unto others which would be painful if done to you.” (Mahabharata, 5, 1517: Brahmanism.) “Surely, it is the maxim of loving-kindness. Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you.” (Analects, 15, 23: Confucianism.) “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.” (Dadistan-i-dinik, 94, 5: Zoroastrrrianism.) “God has no mercy on one who has no mercy for others." (Islam) “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law.”(Matthew 7:12: Christianity.)

We are to treat our fellow man in the manner we wish to be treated. We must view each individual as and expression of our creator. That means we cannot return injustice with injustice. We are to see the need in our brother and assist him in fulfilling his life. All of the religions share this view of the golden rule: Blessed is he who prefers his brother before himself. Baha'i Faith. “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.” (Sunnah: Islam) Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.”(T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien: Taoism.)

Change the opening to: Treat others as you wish to be treated. That encompasses "do" and "don't", and avoids failing to see that action is sometimes compassionate, and inaction is sometimes compassionate. I really like the formulation of this section otherwise.

If we express compassion then there is no need for the Golden Rule because the Golden Rule is intrinsic to compassion, awareness of our relationship to and our responsibility to all living things. From our compassionate clarity, it would be impossible to do to another something we didn't want done to us! Impossible.

Compassion is the evidence of spiritual love. Compassion is a nurturing force that restores hope. For every person with hope, my path becomes clearer. For every person I share compassion with, I ensure it will be there in my time of need.

Christianity expresses the Golden Rule as an obligation for the doer, traditionally the western man (known for his insatiable appetite for actions to acquire knowledge, and known also for his objectifying obsession): “do unto others as you would want done unto you”; a spectacular contrast, as you may have noticed, to the phrasing of this same Rule in all other systems of Faith where there is no prompt for action, but only reference to behavior, how one should treat and more often NOT treat others, or how one should WISH about others: “what is hateful to you do not do to your neighbors” (Judaism), “wish for others what you wish for yourself” (Islam), “treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Buddhism), “regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss” (Daoism), and “do not to others that which if done to you would cause pain” (Hinduism). As an objectifying agent, western man, by a psychological mechanism of projection, involuntarily identifies with his neighbor, seeking positive, productive relation with him, and if he is capable of offering genuine feelings of compassion to his fellow man, he will have a chance to satisfy his desire for knowledge of himself, he will discover his sacred self, and get permanently peace of mind through the other, because the best of himself will resonate in him by virtue of his offering of unconditional love to his neighbor. The great expectation of the role of compassionate behavior in the western world is that the doers must finally decide to willfully make great steps in creating a happier world, seeing it as a responsibility, as an obligation, and, eventually, as the only way by which the quality of actions of compassion will cause similar behavior to the rest of the world, the recipients of love and compassion, making it easier for them to respond according to their Golden Rule of compassion, for the general benefit of mankind. Anyone can become a westerner in our times of globalization and enhanced means of communication, and, therefore, anyone can decide for acts of compassion as the Golden Rule of Christianity demands; it is a global demand today; it’s a personal and global blessing for today and tomorrow; it’s our only hope for the future of mankind.

The golden rule uncovers a universal and eternal spiritual law: when we really love our Lord, the Great Spirit,...., the only manifestation of that love is to be compassionate to one's fellow humans, to animals, to nature,to insects, to even the land on which we walk. Also, when we demonstrate kindness to oneself and to all creation, one becomes closer and closer to the Supreme. The golden rule uncovers the deep and higher goal of all life on Earth: to grow spiritually through keeping the bond of compassion with a higher Source, and with all creatures. When we are lost in the details, in the differences of shapes and forms, in the names, and in what is changeable or eternal, we have to make the golden rule our point of departure. The holy Quran guides Muslims to build their dialogue with People of the Book (Jews and Christians, and followers of any other faith) on basis of "the common term" (in Arabic: Al Kalima Assawa), which is: "to serve no one but God, and not to make of ourselves gods to each other."(enslave each other, demean each other, or show superiority over each other.) In Islam the golden rule is repeated in diverse forms of guidance: "be merciful so as to become yourselves accessible to the flow of Mercifulness."

We all hold consciousness, and therefore the ability to be compassionate, in common. To recognize that consciousness is eternal and conserved similar to any other natural phenomenon (energy, matter, momentum, etc) takes a great leap of faith; religion tends to facilitate this. Recognizing this, religions and many faiths hold the Golden Rule above all others. This is essential, for we can only work towards common ground on other fronts once we accept the Golden Rule to be the rule upon which all others might be measured. In the interrelated relativistic web of life, what better than matching one's actions to those which facilitate growth? We must understand that the "web" ensures that every action is with consequence, directly or indirectly, what affects one part affects the whole. Ergo it only makes sense to orient one's actions with this "web" with the intent that actions will eventually come "full circle."

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more with putting the Golden Rule in the negative. Saying essentially "Don't treat people badly" is not going to inspire. The main thrust of the message must be phased in the positive. I do agree the traditional Christian version "Do unto others as you want them to do to you" alone is also not adequate as it is missing the main part of compassion's emphasis on discovering the needs of others. I believe the key component of the Golden Rule is its implication that compassion and positive human interaction is reciprocal in nature. That in acting compassionately towards others we are building a society and community in which we all benefit. Of course in your boilerplate you are saying when we act negatively toward each other we help destroy our community and we all suffer. However, when we are simply indifferent and fail to act we are also destroying our society by letting it whither away. So below is my version

All traditions of faith have developed their own version of the Golden Rule which admonishes us to treat others as we would want to be treated. The various traditions have insisted that it is the single thread that pulls all the aspects of a tradition together; that everything else is merely commentary; that it is the sign of a true person of faith. Implicated in this common tradition is the realization of the reciprocal nature of our treatment of each other. That through acts of compassion toward others we help build a community and society in which we all benefit. Conversely, if we are indifferent or act negatively we help destroy our communities and thereby all suffer. We believe when we act through compassion we help create a society which treats its members with respect and justice; the essence of the Golden Rule.

It is very difficult to follow a rule that requires us to be above reproach. "Do unto others...", when our first reaction, especially when raised in some type of hopelessness, is to 'do it to others, before they do it to you. We must teach compassion, but first, believe in compassion. All religions carry this message.

Compassion is central to all religions.Compassion as empathy finds its expression in love, kindness, mercy, respect, generosity, service,consideration, understanding,truth, justice.......and these values are upheld by all religions.Hence , to be religious means we have to live these values in each and every moment of our lives.Thus Compassion becomes the Golden Rule. WE find the fulfillment of all laws in compassion.Through compassionate relationships both the giver and receiver gets fulfillment.The husband and wife, children and parents, doctor and patient, teacher and student, lawyer and client.......all these and other similar relationships find fulfillment when they become compassionate with each other.Taken in its totality, this is the Golden Rule behind world peace and happiness.I hope this fulfillment and happiness ,individually and collectively, is what all religions want to actualize.

"Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do to you" may suggest that not doing is better than doing, while "Do unto others what you want them to do to you" may suggest that you do it whether they want it or not. Shouldn't true compassion be founded on empathy and humility? Empathy may suggest "Think how your actions affect others before you act" and humility reminds me of Canon Milford's prayer for Oxfam, "O Lord, protect me from hubris."