GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth,

Cory: My point is that if a close colleague of David's opposes the idea, even if on illogical grounds, the rest of the population will thus not have anything to do with it.


Elizabeth: My point is: Think for yourself. (bolded so you can see the main points despite your limited attention span)

This is a message board. We discuss philosophy here. Although it is true that the admins here have dedicated themselves to philosophy, that does not make Genius Forum a religion. This is not a religion, and the admins are not priests. Good grief. Nor are they parents that must present a unified front to the children. They do not demand a following. They try to prompt people to think - and instead you are regarding them as demi-gods and trying to follow what parts of the QRS philosopies that do not conflict as if it were doctrine.

Get over it. David and Dan are not your replacement fathers. You're a grown-up now and playing the old "But Mommy said... but Daddy said" isn't going to wash anymore. Grown-ups can hear different statements, think them through for themselves, and arrive at their own conclusion. Although it is fine to have an admiration for someone else, the only person you should look up to anymore is yourself - and the only way to do that is make yourself someone you can look up to.

Now as for your attachments to the QRS - they are mortal human beings. How do you know that Dan didn't die last night? What if he said that David's hypotheticals were stupid, not because he thought that through, but because he was irritable because there was something suddenly terminally wrong with him? Any one of them, just as any one of us, could die at any moment. What if the last survivng QRS is Kevin? Would you model yourself after him? Would you rush down to Australia to take David's place? What if all 3 died in a car accident? Would you think for yourself then, or would you clutch on to their writings as if that was now unquestionable gospel?

That was an absolute, laugh at loud, non sequitur.

Think this over a bit more carefully Liz:

My point is that if a close colleague of David's opposes the idea, even if on illogical grounds, the rest of the population will thus not have anything to do with it.

Now let me put it to you in different words, and follow closely:

The point in question was whether David’s idea is applicable. The applicability is determined by how willing the population will be to undergoing the plan. If someone like Dan (someone meaning: a fellow who shares most of David’s ideals, and works with David on projects) doesn’t accept the idea – then the general population won’t accept the idea.

Pretty basic. It has nothing to do with me idolizing Dan, David, Kevin.

You’re hysterical.

I never said there was no practical value; I said the opposite - that there is practical value to the exercise. If anyone, you indicated that you thought there was no practical value because Dan said this was stupid.

And who is having trouble paying close enough attention to what is being said to follow a point?

Let me repeat again:

This isn't really about dogmatically following Dan simply because he's Dan. You were smart enough to figure this out, but I guess, once again, your desire for bravado and caricatured masculinity outweighed your better sense.

David,

What about the idea of enhancing chimpanzees to the drone status, instead of reducing humans? That way, both chimps and humans will be enhanced - chimps to drone status, and humans to thinker status. Would that dispell the ethical concerns you have?

It doesn't. If you don't want to work, then making a chimpanzee work for you breaks the golden rule. Using robots would be perfectly fine, though, because they are like tools. They aren't living things.

Still, "enhancing" humans into thinkers breaks the golden rule in a certain sense. If I think that death is better than life, that doesn't mean I should go killing people. What if they prefer life over death? Then I would be imposing my value system on their own. Would I like it if someone imposed their value system on me? If I thought I preferred death over life, but someone chose to keep me alive because it's what they think is best? No, I wouldn't like that...it'd be pretty annoying!

Cory,

David Quinn wrote:Dan wrote:

David's hypotheticals are stupid. He needs to stop engaging in them.

I think they are useful in throwing a different light on people's attachments. It doesn't matter if these "hypotheticals" are science-fiction or not.

-

If you want to suggest a different scenario than the one David proposed, that's fine - but it is not non-sequitar to point out that you are treating this topic as a package deal rather than actually digging into the topic for yourself.



Initially, genetic engineering would, as you said, be expensive - but who's to say it couldn't become as inexpensive as a flu shot?

As for selling it to the public - hey, the public buys, and consumes, aspertame which chemically changes to poison at body temperature (and temperatures that it is regularly transported at, especially in warmer climates). How many parents claim that all they want for their child is for him/her to be happy? What if genetic testing showed that a child would be miserable and probably commit suicide if this procedure were not done on them? Acceptance of the procedure would spread as is became more commonplace.
.

Scott,

DQ: What about the idea of enhancing chimpanzees to the drone status, instead of reducing humans? That way, both chimps and humans will be enhanced - chimps to drone status, and humans to thinker status. Would that dispell the ethical concerns you have?

S: It doesn't. If you don't want to work, then making a chimpanzee work for you breaks the golden rule.

I don't subscribe to the golden rule, so that wouldn't be an issue for me.

In any case, the whole issue is moot in the sense that in the future we will be able to create entire species from scratch. So it won't be a matter of reducing or enhancing current species, but rather designing entire new species from a genetic blueprint.

Given this, what do you think of the idea of creating from scratch a drone species who experiences great happiness and joy in performing menial tasks and who harbours no desire to do anything different? That would be a good outcome, wouldn't it?

Using robots would be perfectly fine, though, because they are like tools. They aren't living things.

At the moment, we have no compunction about treating other human beings as tools. For example, the local shopkeeper is our shopping tool, policemen are our law and order tools, political leaders are our governing tools, and so on. How would treating the drones as a menial tool be any different?

Still, "enhancing" humans into thinkers breaks the golden rule in a certain sense. If I think that death is better than life, that doesn't mean I should go killing people.

If you didn't, you would be breaking the golden rule.

What if they prefer life over death? Then I would be imposing my value system on their own. Would I like it if someone imposed their value system on me?

That is the main problem with the golden rule - it is fundamentally incoherent. If people have different values, then the principle of treating others as how you would like to be treated yourself breaks down.

For example, if one person is sensitive to touch and doesn't want to be physically handled by others, and another person is a compulsive hugger, how would their meeting play out? One of them will have to force his values upon the other.

If I thought I preferred death over life, but someone chose to keep me alive because it's what they think is best? No, I wouldn't like that...it'd be pretty annoying!

If you want to override the other person's principles by insisting on dying, then it will be you who is forcing your values upon that person.

-

Elizabeth,

If you want to suggest a different scenario than the one David proposed, that's fine - but it is not non-sequitar to point out that you are treating this topic as a package deal rather than actually digging into the topic for yourself.

Actually, if you go back to my very first opinion on this topic, you'll see that I immediately dug to the core of the issue:

A wise man doesnt seem likely to be a robotics engineer.

The same goes for genetic engineering. Can a human being become a genetic engineer, and be wise?

How many times have we heard David express his Kierkegaardian distaste for Scientists? Yet many of David's visions seem to depend on the abilities of these wisdom-impaired scientists.

Basically I'm saying that values of a sage, a wise man, do not resonate with the values of scientists. They are practically two different breeds. Genetic engineering will be sold to the people who can afford it, under the people's terms. In otherwords, beauty, athletic prowess, mystical ability, and large craniums will be refined not so much because individual scientists want it, or sages want it - but because the people who can afford it want it. It's unlikely that engineering a disposition for truth and wisdom will be valued by any group larger than the smallest and poorest minority.

As for selling it to the public - hey, the public buys, and consumes, aspertame which chemically changes to poison at body temperature (and temperatures that it is regularly transported at, especially in warmer climates).

This only proves that people will want something for themselves that is sweet, pretends to offer a solution, but really just creates a bigger problem - it doesnt prove that they want their kids engineered to submit and serve an elite class of wisdom. David's idea (which he pretty much admited was a joke just to stir reactions) about engineering a polarization, requires a cooperation that totally contradicts human nature.

Humans want relative superiority in some field or occupation more than they want happiness. If they wanted happiness for it's own sake alone, then they would value wisdom. But they don't.

How many parents claim that all they want for their child is for him/her to be happy?

Parents are more concerned with the status and prestige of the child. Happiness is always associated with some sort of superflous exhibition of superiority - and it will be the superflous exhibition that will be engineered for the sake of happiness, not happiness alone. If this wasnt the case, then the parents would indeed want the child engineered for the sake of wisdom.

What if genetic testing showed that a child would be miserable and probably commit suicide if this procedure were not done on them?

Well, in that case you would be coercing the population to agree to a particular form of treatment through deception and a subtle form of bribery. This sort of cunning would be suspected, found-out and it would stir a great deal of indignation in my opinion. Intelligent people like Naturyl and Philophaster are very numerous in the world and they would passionately oppose this kind of thing, even if they themselves unconsciously wanted it. Their first question would be - "well, why can't you make my kid happy and very intelligent (or beautiful, mystical, athletic, etc)?"

They would find the answer unacceptable.

Acceptance of the procedure would spread as is became more commonplace.

Well, it looks like you really dug into the topic for yourself.

Give yourself a pat on the back.

Kelly Jones wrote:No reasoning, Dan?

No reasoning is/was necessary. David has already solved the issues relating to the notion.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:2. Scientists look at the fetus to see if it is going to become a buddha or an Anna Nicole Smith.

3 (a). - It's a buddha - so leave it alone.

This doesn't seem realistic to me. There's no Buddha gene. Intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom. This is the real issue here. I see no potential whatever for the genetic creation of sages. However, if someone could paint a picture for me that would change my mind I'm more than happy to look at it.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Humans want relative superiority in some field or occupation more than they want happiness.

Ah, yes, of course. That is why no one drops out of school, the quality of education is so high, and there is no drug problem.

Cory Duchesne wrote:If they wanted happiness for it's own sake alone, then they would value wisdom.

That assumes that people are wise enough to see that is where happiness comes from. Currently, they are not wise enough to see that.

E: What if genetic testing showed that a child would be miserable and probably commit suicide if this procedure were not done on them?

C: Well, in that case you would be coercing the population to agree to a particular form of treatment through deception and a subtle form of bribery.

You read more carefully - perhaps italics will help you: What if genetic testing showed that a child would be miserable and probably commit suicide if this procedure were not done on them?

I'll break it down for you:
A genetic test really, actually, gets done to determine if the fetus is destined to be a sage, a nitwit, a homocidal maniac, etc.

The test results really actually do come back because it was a genuine test.

The actual test results read: not too bright and a significant depression score with a high probability of suicidality.

Genetic engineering has been perfected to the point that the child could instead have a happy and fulfilling life.

Under this theoretical scenario, there is no lie.

Cory Duchesne wrote:There first question would be - will why can't you make my kid happy and very intelligent (or beautiful, mystical, athletic, etc)?

That simply wasn't in the original premise of possibilities. Let's say technology can't do that - so they can't offer that to them.

On the other hand, if it was instead possible to only breed beautiful, mystical, athletic sages with perfect health - sure, why not? Since they are all sages, they could ignore whatever was incompatable with their given function in life.

But if you want to get realistic about what people will accept - recall that people are currently against stem cell research, cloning, and eating bio-engineered food. The only exception is when their life or the life of their child is on the line - then they will go to any lengths to fix that. Although some parents would choose to let their child be suicidal and just plug them full of medicine, watch over them like a hawk, or brilliantly decide they can cure their child's depression themselves by yelling such trite expressions at them as "pull yourself up by the bootstraps," some would go for the genetic engineering. The desire for designer babies would be outweighed by the fear of something going wrong - but by the time the engineering is common enough that such fears would be gone (keeping in mind that only life-saving procedures would be well-tested, especially at first) there would be enough people in the docile happy herd that such things would be seen as less important to happiness. Also by then, there would be enough wise people directing the procedures that even if they could not explain how unintelligent it would be to design athletes, the small quantity of unwise, unaltered humans would be so small that they could not force the issue of making designer babies for athletics and such.
.

David Quinn wrote:Dan wrote:

David's hypotheticals are stupid. He needs to stop engaging in them.

I think they are useful in throwing a different light on people's attachments. It doesn't matter if these "hypotheticals" are science-fiction or not.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think we need science fiction to challenge people's attachments. It just muddies the waters for me. In fact, I think it may even be counterproductive in the sense that non-real-life scenarios are easy to deal with because they can be readily compartmentalised. The stuff about your mother was far more interesting to me in that it dealt with actual stuff.

But, I admit, I am being somewhat picky.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:2. Scientists look at the fetus to see if it is going to become a buddha or an Anna Nicole Smith.

3 (a). - It's a buddha - so leave it alone.

This doesn't seem realistic to me. There's no Buddha gene. Intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom. This is the real issue here. I see no potential whatever for the genetic creation of sages. However, if someone could paint a picture for me that would change my mind I'm more than happy to look at it.

That's part of the sci-fi of this. Who's to say at this point if there is or is not a wisdom gene? Or if it is a specific combination of genes that predisposes a person to sagacity?

As for realistic, would anyone a couple of hundred years ago have thought that a person could communicate through type and voice instantaneously with people all over the world through little boxes in their homes? Or that once a person's heart stopped and they stopped breathing, someone could bring them back to life without the use of witchcraft?
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How do you know that Dan didn't die last night?

I did die last night. Look, here, I'm doing it again right now. Damn! Again! I can't seem to stop!

Dan Rowden wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How do you know that Dan didn't die last night?

I did die last night. Look, here, I'm doing it again right now. Damn! Again! I can't seem to stop!

Samsara humor...

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:2. Scientists look at the fetus to see if it is going to become a buddha or an Anna Nicole Smith.

3 (a). - It's a buddha - so leave it alone.

This doesn't seem realistic to me. There's no Buddha gene. Intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom. This is the real issue here. I see no potential whatever for the genetic creation of sages. However, if someone could paint a picture for me that would change my mind I'm more than happy to look at it.

That's part of the sci-fi of this. Who's to say at this point if there is or is not a wisdom gene?

Well, that's a realistic question. Simply assuming there is and building scenarios based on that assumption is a meaningless enterprise in my view. Beyond that, what aspect of "genius" do you think could possibly be genetic? I fail to see any.

Or if it is a specific combination of genes that predisposes a person to sagacity?

I see no such thing evident in human beings. I think it all just boils down to karma. That doesn't mean it won't be possible to modify people to be somewhat more disposed to wisdom, but there are consequences for that that no-one seems to be considering here...

As for realistic, would anyone a couple of hundred years ago have thought that a person could communicate through type and voice instantaneously with people all over the world through little boxes in their homes?

It's unrealistic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we don't live in a world where anyone gives a shit about wisdom. It's all well and good to hypothesise a different world, but you have to create the causal circumstances for such a hypothesis to be more than a meaninglessly trivial exercise. In other words, what's more important and of immediate concern is that we help create the foundation for such a world. At present we don't even have a rough draught for it. I get David's point about using such scenarios to challenge attachments, I just think there are better ways to do that.

We simply don't live in a world where these hypotheticals mean anything beyond that exercise.

Elizabeth,

I'm tired of listening to your hypothetical scenarios. I'm sure you could come up with endless arguments. But I get enough of that in my academic philosophy class.

The non-hypothetical fact is that a large majority of humanity is very superstitious and can't even swallow the idea of Darwinian natural selection. Simply teaching the idea in many american schools is a controversy.

Coercing these people into engineering their kids to be menial drones to serve wisdom (which couldnt appear to be anything but evil to these people) is just not going to happen in my opinion.

And as I mentioned before, the scientists dont even value wisdom to begin with. So it's just laughable watching you cling to this silly idea. Please save it for someone else.

Yes, there will be sufficiently educated parents who will want their kid engineered to be functioning optimally according to their values. But that's a whole different issue. There will most certainly be parents who will want to eliminate any genes related to depression, suicide, etc - - - But they would value the child's freedom to determine his/her own way of life. I can't imagine many parents who would want to know exactly what their child was going to be and do, especially if it was some very menial task that didnt offer the parents much reason to be proud.

Pride is one of the most fundamental things that makes humans humans. Humans are not going to be eager to assent to a program of engineering that completely disregards their need for pride, uncertainty and comparative superiority.

But like I said, you can come up with all sorts of hypothetical counters such as: "well what if you didnt have the option do to this, and could only do that, and, and......."

You can offer all sorts of oversimplifed hypotheses that leave out all sorts of vital factors, but you are wasting your time throwing them at me. I'm generally not interested in hypotheticals - I more have my eye on applicability in the now and in the near future.

I'm interested in dealing with my life in a way that makes sense now, rather than thinking about some fanciful future that will probably never exist.

Dan,

Regarding "useless exercise" - do I have to remind you how quickly not thinking can reduce a mind to mush?

Dan Rowden wrote:I get David's point about using such scenarios to challenge attachments, I just think there are better ways to do that.

Fine. Post it.

Dan Rowden wrote:what aspect of "genius" do you think could possibly be genetic?

A surprising number of things are turning out to be genetic. I'm willing to suspend judgment on the matter until sufficient evidence is in to make a determination with a higher degree of accuracy.

Dan Rowden wrote:That doesn't mean it won't be possible to modify people to be somewhat more disposed to wisdom, but there are consequences for that that no-one seems to be considering here...

I mentioned with the drones that turning down intelligence could turn up unwise compassion. The inverse is inferred in that turning up wisdom could turn down the types of compassion that are considered humane. For example, the planet is currently overpopulated. Uber-sage might decide that wise compassion means that the quantity of people the world is overpopulated by should be immediatly exterminated to help bring the planet back into balance.

Dan Rowden wrote:It's unrealistic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we don't live in a world where anyone gives a shit about wisdom.

True, but that wasn't what I was referring to as far as what would be realistic - I meant about the genetic engineering. As far as introducing the genetic engineering into the population - see my above post to Cory about re-engineering those with life-threatening mental conditions. If you want to talk instead about re-engineering people to be more pre-disposed to be wise, perhaps some of the fetuses with mental conditions could, instead of being programmed to be drones, be programmed to be wise - and the wisdom itself would relieve the mental condition.

If all you really want is realistic - all of this is probably useless. Like you said, nobody cares about wisdom - and even if we did every measure possible to save the planet today, much more damage than has already manifested has already been irreversably caused. If you fire a gun at someone, even if you have all the regret in the world as the bullet travels to the person, once you have pulled the trigger, you can not undo what you have done. Maybe some words of wisdom can be saved by preserving them in some kind of book with durable pages and put copies in safe places on the planet and shot into space for aliens to find. Maybe some of these words are being transmitted wirelessly in a sufficient way for an alien species to intercept them - that's a long shot, but about as likely that humans will survive another couple hundred years despite poor planning and a lack of desire to face up to reality.

Cory,

If you really are tired of this - quit reading the hypothetical scenarios, and quit typing at me. You may get enough of the hypothetical scenarios in school, but not all of us are still in college. Neither the world nor the board revolves around what Cory does or doesn't want.
.

David,

In any case, the whole issue is moot in the sense that in the future we will be able to create entire species from scratch. So it won't be a matter of reducing or enhancing current species, but rather designing entire new species from a genetic blueprint.

Given this, what do you think of the idea of creating from scratch a drone species who experiences great happiness and joy in performing menial tasks and who harbours no desire to do anything different? That would be a good outcome, wouldn't it?

People used to think that by the year 2000, we would all be flying around in hovercrafts and wearing cool silver suits. That we'd have a colony on Mars. Those things didn't happen exactly as foretold. So when anyone says "in the future this will happen" I tend to be a little skeptical.

But if that does happen to be the case, where we can create a whole type of species from scratch, I see it as the same thing. The test tube would then be the causes of the person to come about, essentially it would be that person in unmanifest form. So it still is unethical to create two subspecies, even if from scratch.

Do I have a problem with creating a species which is happy? No not necessarily, but what are the things they're sacrificing for that happiness? If there are harmful side effects or if it makes them any less of a person, then I still think it's unethical.

At the moment, we have no compunction about treating other human beings as tools. For example, the local shopkeeper is our shopping tool, policemen are our law and order tools, political leaders are our governing tools, and so on. How would treating the drones as a menial tool be any different?

I don't consider people as tools. Yeah they have jobs to do, but they aren't a means to my end. They aren't like a screwdriver, or a hammer.

If you didn't, you would be breaking the golden rule.

It isn't so simple, as you see below...

That is the main problem with the golden rule - it is fundamentally incoherent. If people have different values, then the principle of treating others as how you would like to be treated yourself breaks down.

No. If I like pie, and you don't like pie, but we both like getting what we like...then if you give me a pie, you are following the golden rule perfectly. It's not that you're breaking the golden rule by giving me a pie, which you yourself wouldn't like.

For example, if one person is sensitive to touch and doesn't want to be physically handled by others, and another person is a compulsive hugger, how would their meeting play out? One of them will have to force his values upon the other.

Everyone likes what they like and doesn't like what they don't like. So if you give others what they like, you are following the golden rule. If you give others what they don't like, but what you like, you're breaking the rule.

So the compulsive hugger would have to hold back out of respect, and the sensitive to touch person would have to make the move and hug the other. If it were impossible, like if their skin would sluff off due to some strange medical condition, then the compulsive hugger would just have to accept that.

Forcing your values on someone else, who doesn't share those values, is breaking the rule.

If you want to override the other person's principles by insisting on dying, then it will be you who is forcing your values upon that person.

Good point, that's right.

sschaula wrote:if it makes them any less of a person

What do you mean by "less of a person" in this context? Is a human who naturally has an IQ of 80 less of a person than one who naturally has an IQ of 160? Is a human who is devoid of emotion any less of a person than one who flies into hysterics or gushes during a chick flick? or vice versa? Is a bachelor somehow less of a person than a married man? Is an infertile human somehow less of a person than one who can have children?
.

Is a human who naturally has an IQ of 80 less of a person than one who naturally has an IQ of 160?

Someone with 80 IQ is definitely a person, but a severely retarded one, say with IQ < 20, will not be considered a full person by many.

Also, a person who has lost their self-consciousness (meaning that they are not aware that they exist) or never had it because of brain damage, is not a person either.

Otherwise, what is keeping us from giving animals personhood? What about plants?


.

What do you mean by "less of a person" in this context?

If happiness would cause them to lose something they otherwise would've had.

Is a human who naturally has an IQ of 80 less of a person than one who naturally has an IQ of 160? Is a human who is devoid of emotion any less of a person than one who flies into hysterics or gushes during a chick flick? or vice versa? Is a bachelor somehow less of a person than a married man? Is an infertile human somehow less of a person than one who can have children?

You are funny, E.

David Quinn wrote: Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength and all your soul". Shouldn't this be regarded as the Golden Rule?

-

It appears, actually that the two golden rules here sort of "explain" one another - in other words "how do I love the lord..." you do so by loving his creation and treating everyone as you would like to be treated.

Katy wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength and all your soul". Shouldn't this be regarded as the Golden Rule?

-

It appears, actually that the two golden rules here sort of "explain" one another - in other words "how do I love the lord..." you do so by loving his creation and treating everyone as you would like to be treated.

It appears to me that "treat others like you would want them to treat you" is a less shallow sounding way to say what David originally thought was the "golden rule", which was maximum happiness for everyone. Whereas to love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul is a much loftier and wiser action.

Nick Treklis wrote:
It appears to me that "treat others like you would want them to treat you" is a less shallow sounding way to say what David originally thought was the "golden rule", which was maximum happiness for everyone. Whereas to love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, and soul is a much loftier and wiser action.

Yep - but the passage taken fully the guy who is questioning him says "and how do I do that?" and Jesus says to love God's creation, and how do I do that? etc. 'till it boils down to the golden rule (though not in those words at this time still the same thing).

Katy wrote:Yep - but the passage taken fully the guy who is questioning him says "and how do I do that?" and Jesus says to love God's creation, and how do I do that? etc. 'till it boils down to the golden rule (though not in those words at this time still the same thing).

I don't think the two passages are meant to be intertwined. I think Jesus was aiming these two passages at people of dfferent degrees of wisdom. Treat others the way you would want to be treated was aimed more towards the ignorant masses, while love the lord your god with all your heart was aimed at those who possessed a little more wisdom than your average joe.

Nick Treklis wrote: I don't think the two passages are meant to be intertwined. I think Jesus was aiming these two passages at people of dfferent degrees of wisdom. Treat others the way you would want to be treated was aimed more towards the ignorant masses, while love the lord your god with all your heart was aimed at those who possessed a little more wisdom than your average joe.

love the lord your god was designed to avoid getting made to look a fool at that moment. A learned Jewish scholar was questioning Jesus hoping to find something to say to call him a heretic and take followers from him by showing him to be unlearned. What Jesus does in this situation is to put forth something that although it's not "the" answer either school would be looking for, neither can argue against. It's not so much for the wise as for the educated.

Katy wrote:

DQ: Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength and all your soul". Shouldn't this be regarded as the Golden Rule?

K: It appears, actually that the two golden rules here sort of "explain" one another - in other words "how do I love the lord..." you do so by loving his creation and treating everyone as you would like to be treated.

If that was the case, then why did Jesus talk about how he didn't come to bring peace to the world, but a sword? He wanted to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— your enemies will be the members of your own household."

Or what about when he said, "anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." How does that fit in with the golden rule?

-