That IS a good point!

We can fault "Do Unto Others" under the premise that most people will be diverse and not appriciate what the "doer" might. But if you come from a culturally homogenous place, then it's not so bad.

"Do Unto Others" still has it's valid points. If one does not wish to have ill done to himself or herself, then do not do ill elsewhere. Like a pollution, if you put negativity into the world, at some point you'll be breathing it yourself. The problem is in the definition of "good" and "ill". It only works if those deffinitions are agreed upon, which is either of base or exclusive morality.

I think the point is you get what you give, and in general that is a good principle to live by. It is mirrored in most major religions.

Wait, you are a masochist?! Just kidding...I have thought the same thing about that saying many times. I still believe in most situations it does apply though.

This "Christian" ethic was stated contrapositively by Confucius: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."  It certainly changes things, even though in logic it would seem equivalent.  But I have ranted a bit about "the Golden Rule" in the past, here.

I have noticed that neither of us post as many things that are stories from our lives anymore. I wonder why that is?

Good point, reluctantsinger! Sometimes these questions just get stuck in my head...........and absolutely refuse to get out.  *sigh* Great question! Have a spendid weekend. Blessings ~

Good thought. Looking deeper, perhaps we are being exhorted not only to care about what we do, but also what we want?

RYC: I like your definition of success. Thanks for dropping by and for your most welcome coment.

Hey... your going to love the dream.. go to my xanga

hey. i'm just blog singing. oops. *surfing*. i didnt delete that mistake because someone might think it was funny..... you make a good point, btw.

Good poinr.