Un-conversion

Christianity has no valid claim over the Golden Rule.Ever read the Pirke Avoth? "The Saying of the Fathers". You should. It was required reading in my Rabbinic Literature class in 1971. It includes the story of Pharisee Rabbi Hillel's encounter with a gentile who demanded that he recite the whole of the Law while standing on one foot.In the first season of Star Trek (I'm talking TOS, back in 1966), one "Bar-David" wrote a screenplay, Dagger of the Mind, which contained a reference to that encounter, though instead of "rabbi" it was "philosopher".The way that ancient academies operated was that the students memorized all the writings they studied; Jewish jeshivas continued that tradition, such that their students memorized an entire encyclopedia, which was the Talmud. So the challenge was for the rabbi to recite the entire Torah (AKA "First Five Books of the Bible", ie, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) while standing on one foot. The leader of the Sadducees ran that idiot off, with a stick, just exactly as that idiot deserved. But Rabbi Hillel, leader of the Pharisees, responded with:

quote:

---

Do not to others that which you do not want to be done to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation. Now go do it!

---

The Golden Rule. And "the spirit of the law". All by a Pharisee rabbi. At 20 BCE. A full fifty years before that "Yeshua bar Yoseph" was supposed to have regugeritated it fifty years later.Duh?Edited by dwise1, : Link to Wikipedia article on "Dagger of the Mind"

And yet you said: Ok, the purported resurrection took place circa 30 AD. The story of Rabbi Hillel took place circa 20 BCE, a full fifty years before the purported resurrection of circa 30 AD. Duh?

The resurrection has absolutely nothing to do with the "Golden Rule".Duh?The Golden Rule is not in any way dependent upon the Resurrection.The Resurrection is immaterial.Duh?

Which we do find.

Obviously you must be askew.While the details may vary, we still find in all human societies common trends in those societies' morality, which we would expect given the factors that they have in common, namely people (and human nature), group dynamics, mating, children, survival needs, property, etc. We would expect those common factors to result in common "problems" that would require common approaches in their solution. So we do find in all human societies ways to get along with each other, restrictions on killing each other, restrictions on taking somebody else's property, some form of marriage and expected conduct within marriage, the need to care for and provide for one's children, etc.It's quite obvious.