Jehovah's Witness and the Golden Rule

[hi19hi19]

Two Jehovah's Witness missionaries came to my door today. They were very polite, nice old ladies, and I was happy to spend a few minutes listening to their pitch. Keeping an open mind is a virtue; besides, this was actually the first time I had ever had a Jehovah's Witness come to my door and so I was interested.

They started by asking me, "Do you think the world would be a better place if more people adhered to the Golden Rule: 'Treat others as one would like others to treat oneself'?" To which I heartily agreed.
After that they started explaining how this rule related to Jesus' teachings.
They quoted the New Testament, a passage I recognized as Luke 6:31, in which Jesus teaches, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." And then they explained that while many people had heard of the Golden Rule, not many knew that Jesus had first thought of it and it was his teaching.

This bothered me.
I happen to know that as far back as 1780 BC the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi dealt with the topic of ethical reciprocity in similar terms. Ancient Chinese teachings such as Taoism and Confucianism taught the rule as well- Confucius, who lived approximately 500 years before Jesus, taught the constrained version of the Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you."
One of Siddhartha Gautama's (also approximately 500 years before Christ) pillars of Buddhist philosophy was also the Golden Rule- "One should seek for others the happiness one desires for himself."

There is no way Jesus was the "first person to think of these teachings." He was simply repeating the wise words of those who had come hundreds or even thousands of years before him.

Here is the conundrum: If I were walking around door-to-door spreading misinformation, I would want someone to politely stop me to educate me to the truth. If I were following the Golden Rule myself, I would have stopped these missionaries to tell them of their error.
Instead, in without time to carefully consider, I simply thanked them for their time, accepted their pamphlets, and closed the door.

Should I have stopped them to explain that Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule, and in doing so followed the Golden Rule myself? Or would such a thing have been considered rude, and thus not in keeping with the Golden Rule, as were I a missionary I would not want people being rude to me.
Because this is my first run-in with Jehovah's Witness missionaries I am honestly not quite sure how open such people are to this kind of philosophical debate, hence why I am asking.

[who_cares973]

its a lot more than just spreading misinformation. its preaching to people about what you truly believe to be right sharing your faith etc.

now would you like to be told that everything you've ever thought to believe and have faith in was wrong? im pretty sure this would completely break you down, possibly throw you into some kind of depression. in order to follow the golden rule you have to get inside the head of the person you want to do the same to you, feel what they feel etc.

[DJMAYYYNE]

I'm actually a Jehovah's Witness (sorta). If you run across a good one (there are "bad" JW's ofc), they should be more open minded and understanding so you shouldn't have much of a problem.

[xferrarix]

As a Jehovah's Witness (I understand all the teachings and all that), they're most likely trying to bring you into attention. They're trying to grab your attention, so you'll want to learn more about the religion. If you would of been to be like, "Hey blah blah said it first", I highly doubt they would of freaked out or tried to correct you. They're all pacifists about arguments.

Most likely the subject would of been moved on to more about Jesus, because their overall goal is to spread the teachings of Christ

[alloyus]

The fact that people said it before him doesn't mean that people can't believe in his teachings all around. Also you didn't mention that they said he was the first person to say that to begin with xP But yeah I think it'd be pretty unethical to try and put down their beliefs.

[Oni-Paranoia]

What bothers me about this "Golden Rule" is that it isn't perfect. If someone decided to slap me in the face, would they want me to slap them back if they were also "followers"? I'm being real thick-headed about this, because I'm stuck on finding loopholes etc...

As a person who enjoys having an agnostic viewpoint on all religion, I would have said to correct them. They're passing knowledge to you (I assume they follow this rule) hence they would or should accept knowledge back. So correcting them doesn't seem as though it wouldn't have been a problem.

But like xferrarix said, they probably would have continued on about how Jesus "perfected" the rule or something similar. Would have been nice to try and get them thinking though.

[UserNameGoesHere]

It's better to avoid confrontations with highly religious people if you can, because you are most likely not going to change their minds, there is a high chance one or the other would become offended, and there is a distinct possibility (depending who you come across) they will consider it their "mission" to convert you, to the point of stalking you or worse.

If you have reason to believe they are in any way reasonable or fully-thinking people, then by all means discuss errors/factual corrections/etc with them, but many are closed-minded to any but their own interpretations of whatever chosen book/belief system they may follow. They may even become hostile.

[rushyrulz]

If you're going to come to my doorstep and hold some kind of stance when I correct you about your bogus facts, I'm gonna slam the door in your face.

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by xferrarix

As a Jehovah's Witness (I understand all the teachings and all that), they're most likely trying to bring you into attention. They're trying to grab your attention, so you'll want to learn more about the religion. If you would of been to be like, "Hey blah blah said it first", I highly doubt they would of freaked out or tried to correct you. They're all pacifists about arguments.

Most likely the subject would of been moved on to more about Jesus, because their overall goal is to spread the teachings of Christ

Yeah, and that's in general why I decided not to. It's obvious that Jesus taught the Golden Rule, and as I said I agree with the principle behind the teaching, if not how it is delivered in some religions.
I was merely objecting to the fact they seemed convinced he was the first person in history to think of it lol

From a practical standpoint I was more interested in knowing how they would have reacted, this reply basically tells me all I needed to know. Thanks.

But it's still worth discussing the philosophical implications of whether it was "morally right" for me to correct them or not
After all I had just said I agreed wholeheartedly with the Golden Rule, then there I was, not following it a few moments later... does that make me merely polite, or a hypocrite (or both? haha)

[UserNameGoesHere]

If you're following the golden rule, you have a conundrum. But if you're following the platinum rule (at least how its defined on urbandictionary), you'd be fine.

Basically, instead of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (golden rule), you'd do unto others as they would have you do unto them. The difficulty is the impossibility of ever knowing for 100% what "as they would have you do unto them" is. So approximate it.

[dore]

Originally Posted by Oni-Paranoia

What bothers me about this "Golden Rule" is that it isn't perfect. If someone decided to slap me in the face, would they want me to slap them back if they were also "followers"? I'm being real thick-headed about this, because I'm stuck on finding loopholes etc...

Then think of the golden rule as "don't be a douche" and don't worry about technicality because that's not the point.

EDITED for grammar since I thought this was CC

[xferrarix]

Honestly I think it would be considered hypocritical? To correct someone about the Golden Rule in any way. If the rule is the same rule no matter who said it, why is there any need to correct them? There's no real reason to correct someone about something that could even be considered a trivial matter, since deciding on who said a saying isn't exactly what makes the statement important.

[Jerry DB]

I feel like as long as you aren't rude about it or insulting someone you should always speak your mind if you feel you don't agree with someone. Talking about what you believe is a great way to let other people view your stance on things and usually results in a broader mind. I'm sure they have heard a lot worse then what you would have said in their line of work and probaby kept cool then too. If they didn't understand your point then it would just be their loss and they should stop being so close minded. You would have probably felt better if you let it out which is the main point I would like to make. Holding things in always tears me up more then anything else. Either way it's not a huge deal haha

[UserNameGoesHere]

Originally Posted by xferrarix

Honestly I think it would be considered hypocritical? To correct someone about the Golden Rule in any way. If the rule is the same rule no matter who said it, why is there any need to correct them? There's no real reason to correct someone about something that could even be considered a trivial matter, since deciding on who said a saying isn't exactly what makes the statement important.

The conundrum, as I take it, is that hi19hi19 would wish to be corrected were he incorrect in such a matter. Therefore, since he would wish to be corrected, the golden rule states to apply that correction to others (it is what he would have done unto himself).

So the way I see it, on a technical level, the golden rule is broken whether he does or does not. It becomes impossible to follow to the letter in this case. Platinum rule go and no such conundrum; problem solved though

[hi19hi19]

Originally Posted by UserNameGoesHere

The conundrum, as I take it, is that hi19hi19 would wish to be corrected were he incorrect in such a matter. Therefore, since he would wish to be corrected, the golden rule states to apply that correction to others (it is what he would have done unto himself).

So the way I see it, on a technical level, the golden rule is broken whether he does or does not. It becomes impossible to follow to the letter in this case. Platinum rule go and no such conundrum; problem solved though

Yeah that was my thought process. aka I thought way too much about this afterwards haha

The problem with the so-called "platinum rule" is that I had never met a Jehovah's Witness missionary before, so I had no idea what they were looking for/how they wish to be treated. I've met highly religious people who love talking with me about the philosophy behind following religion (fascinating people); I've also met religious people who snap the moment you even kinda disagree with them maybe about their faith. xferrarix answered the general stance of Jehovah's Witness nicely in this thread but that was information I didn't have back then.

Really xferrarix gave the "answer" to this thread I was looking for, at this point it's just me musing on the nature of following the Golden Rule.
And I suppose the missionaries accomplished their goal in some ways, as I know far more about the nature of the religion now than I did before they visited ^_^

[UserNameGoesHere]

Well yeah, the problem with the "platinum rule" is how do you know what they would have done to them? Without perfect knowledge, you can only do your best guesswork.

I would argue there is even a better rule above the platinum rule as well. And that would be do unto others as would best benefit all/most optimum benefit with fewest drawbacks. (Not sure if there's a name for this) But since you're not psychic, again, how would you be able to predict the perfect course of action?

Very interesting thing to think about. But for practical purposes you have to make judgment calls and sometimes you make a bad judgment. So it goes.

[Cavernio]

Asking here doesn't truly answer how either of the women at your door would have responded, how dare you assume how they would react :-p. They're individuals.

I haven't met a jehovah's witness, or other person spreading their religion in public or at someone's door, who is talking in a regular manner, who doesn't like to have conversations regarding their religion or religions in general, even and perhaps especially when things about it are questioned.
Especially if you don't know how the other person will react, YOU wanted to mention those points to them, so you should have.

[SC_coolguy44]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

If you're going to come to my doorstep and hold some kind of stance when I correct you about your bogus facts, I'm gonna slam the door in your face.

I would do the same, it's just what you think.

[Silver Sky]

I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses myself. The way I look at it is the bible itself is the only book inspired by God. You have ways in which you can live a good life. You learn scientific facts. Prophecies in the bible have been proven true straight down to architectural facts. I could go on and on. Other books are not. They are pagan Gods people have made up and worship. Just like for instance baptist. Nothing against them but for instance where I live there is 1st baptist church, Southern baptist, another baptist and another. So many different ones. Someone wants to say "Hey this sounds good", and they form their own. As far as this topic goes, well people are imperfect. What you did was right. No need to be argumentive over little things such as that. They didn't realize that themselves. I've never heard any speakers say that to be honest. So you did the right thing.

[justin_ator]

Only thing I'd like to say Silver Sky, is that Baptists don't have a pagan God we made up and worship, He's the same God you're referring to. The differences come down to biblical interpretation of certain things and what they mean, more so than the fact of whether or not we worship the same God. The reason there are so many different Baptist branches are for the same reason, simple doctrinal disagreements because of biblical interpretation. We haven't 'created' new 'Gods' to worship.