Talk:Golden Rule

That's theologically 100% wrong

No, no, no, the Golden rule is not a law of reciprocity in Christianity, please, remove that, because it's theologically wrong, or use another word to explain. A reciprocity law would mean that you do the good when you meet the good, and give back the evil when you meet the evil. That's 100% the opposite of the Jesus teaching. You have to give back the good when you meet the evil, it's in the Gospel. Wikipedia shouldn't use ambiguous expressions, and be precise, or theologically 100% right when doing an article about religions.

Re: Removal of Scientology

May I kindly ask the entry for Scientology to be removed as they’re not a religion. Firstly, they pertain persistently being one to continue to operate as the criminal organisation that they are (targeting psychologically sensitive people, then exploiting them financially and emotionally towards a subsequent debt dependency, persistent tax evasion, harassment and bullying of dissidents and former members, please also read on here the section under ‘The Hole’) so their religious association is a mere smokescreen (and for tax relief purposes in the US).

Further, only the Scientologists on the entire entry of religions are unable to give straight answers to fairly standard questions, such as: - what are your praying rituals? - where are your places of worship?

Their inclusion here gives them a mere legitimacy they simply neither warrant nor deserve. Indeed, Wiki has banned them recently to edit their pages on here for repeatedly aggressively editing it online with their own policies, no?

Please consider, Hal Kebabpunk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Golden Rule

THANKS YOU 2400:1A00:B1C0:656D:7D8D:E3F5:1DFB:4CF (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

Hello! I noticed that the section for Abrahamic religions says to look at the article relating to it. However 1, that article is very broad and covers Abrahamic religions in general and 2, it makes no mention of the golden rule from what I saw. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone fix Christianity section

The versions of the Bible employed in the article are not indicated, and are also not versions which are in general use. Jonpaulusa (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonpaulusa Hello, 'Various improvements, per talk page request, replaced KJ with NRSVUE, which seems agreed upon by much more Christian denominations per WP:Bible + added Brenton Septuagint for OT quotes to include the reading of Early Church / Eastern Christians + removed irrelevant info about a Renaissance catechism (ofc the subject will be of interest and commented by most Christian denominations since it's present in the text, not necessary to include it in the intro)'. This is the summary of the edits I made to answer your legitimate request, have a good one :) AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

PS : I could have used Brenton for the Deuterocanonical books, but I preferred to use the NRSVUE, which had a translation of those books, so in the case where it was obvious and a specific translation existed, I kept NRSVUE. I also used BibleGateway instead of Wikisource, when quoting the text, which seemed more in agreement with the guidelines at WP:Bible.AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There is still a significant amount of the subsection that is WP:OR and should be sourced or, better, should be put in a separate category, after the one concerning the Church Father's readings, which would bring some context and exegesis by more modern authors, scientists, historians or exegetes. So far, it's not sufficient at all, but at least the ground-level, ie the Biblical quotes, are ok now. AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)