There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge. Logically, then... your own statement cannot be universally true.
There is an enormous difference in magnitude of offence. The first is an offence to one's dignity and a temporary and minor offence to one's physical well-being. The second is the death of millions of people. "Effectively", that's quite a bit of difference.
Secondly, there is a great difference in responsibility. Heads of nations are responsible for the well-being of their people. To say that it is the same for one man to dismiss a minor offence to himself as to allow millions of your citizens to die is utterly preposterous.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Tim 5:8
"If a man strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"
is a lot differenet than
"If a nation sets out to destroy your nation through deadly unrelenting force, just go ahead and let him"
Loving your enemy does not preclude loving your family, or even yourself. It does not entail abdication of your role in protecting your family.
You are also confusing directions given to individuals with directions given to governors. Personal forgiveness is fine. Jesus certainly didn't intend for the courts to waive all penalty for crimes; this would lead to chaos. Rather, he taught submission to proper authority - authority placed there by God for the punishment of evil-doers and the reward of those who do right.
So, on the surface it may seem paradoxical to say that you can love your enemy, and kill him too... a deeper understanding reveals it to be no paradox at all. That same misunderstanding results in parents that don't discipline their children. "Oh, I couldn't hit my precious child, I love him."
Carl Sagan was an educated fool. His criticism of the Golden Rule that you describe is based on the erroneous assumption that there is not a righteous omnipotent God.
Slashdot Mirror
How could you possibly think that?
There is an enormous difference in magnitude of offence. The first is an offence to one's dignity and a temporary and minor offence to one's physical well-being. The second is the death of millions of people. "Effectively", that's quite a bit of difference.
Secondly, there is a great difference in responsibility. Heads of nations are responsible for the well-being of their people. To say that it is the same for one man to dismiss a minor offence to himself as to allow millions of your citizens to die is utterly preposterous.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Tim 5:8
is a lot differenet than
"If a nation sets out to destroy your nation through deadly unrelenting force, just go ahead and let him"
Loving your enemy does not preclude loving your family, or even yourself. It does not entail abdication of your role in protecting your family. You are also confusing directions given to individuals with directions given to governors. Personal forgiveness is fine. Jesus certainly didn't intend for the courts to waive all penalty for crimes; this would lead to chaos. Rather, he taught submission to proper authority - authority placed there by God for the punishment of evil-doers and the reward of those who do right. So, on the surface it may seem paradoxical to say that you can love your enemy, and kill him too... a deeper understanding reveals it to be no paradox at all. That same misunderstanding results in parents that don't discipline their children. "Oh, I couldn't hit my precious child, I love him."
Carl Sagan was an educated fool. His criticism of the Golden Rule that you describe is based on the erroneous assumption that there is not a righteous omnipotent God.