John, I want to understand what you wrote,
How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?
I'm not quite getting this. I understand the idea that the golden rule means I desire upon others what I would desire upon myself. Because I would not desire to have penalty, vengeance and death upon myself, I should not desire it upon my neighbor. I understand this. But not the question about how come the golden rule vanishes.

Sorry I was thinking of:

1st Golden rule: (though maybe not commonly thought so)
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

2nd Golden rule:
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

We can call it the “Constitution”.

See how when we speak of the golden rules, we talk of love and forgiveness and grace; but when one speaks of the law they speak penalty, revenge and death. Now what and why is the discrepancy between the law and the golden rule? How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?

I think what you're asking is, why is it that people lay aside the golden rule by their desiring penalty, vengeance and death upon others? Is that right?

Yes, in other words, according to people’s concept of the law (penalty, vengeance and death); the golden rule, which is love and forgiveness and grace, the constitution of the law, vanishes.

How is it they require or see God requiring it of others?

This seems to be confirming my previous comment as to what your "how come" question meant.

Yes.

If God really does require it of others, then if we fulfill the first golden rule of loving him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength how shall we ever fulfill the second one.

I didn't get this.

In other words if God is really like that (penalty, vengeance and death), and we are to emulate him, how would we ever love our neighbor to fulfill the second golden rule.

Do you think that the second golden rule could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on others? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

I'm not really following this either.

I am asking the preposterous question whether to love your neighbor as yourself could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on them? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

And what do we long for ourselves, and look forward to in heaven, but the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace. Should we not do so unto others; but where do we get this idea? Much more, where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? If so, is he not the source of it?

But we are not looking for penalty, vengeance and death on ourselves but are longing for the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace for ourselves. If so, should we not also desire and think so to others. Where did we get the idea that we should want love, forgiveness and grace? Moreover where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace, which we long for? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? Thus the fulfillment of the first golden rule, establishes the second. If so, is he not the source of it? Therefore God likewise lives the golden rule.

The idea of this paragraph seems to be that the idea of death, penalty and vengeance must come from some source besides God, because if it came from God, then loving God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength would entail our desiring these things upon others, which by the golden rule would require our desiring it upon ourselves.

Yes, plus what I said above.

If so, where are vengeance, penalty and death from? How is it that with sin gone, death is gone? How is it that with sin gone all these ideas of retributive justice vanish?

The obvious answer would be that with the wicked destroyed, there is no more need for retributive justice, since they are gone. I'm sure this isn't your point, however. What was your point?

No, to the contrary, as I point out in the following statements. It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it. The idea that retributive justice is needed because there are sinners out there is false, but I stated it first inversely and then positively. Inversely it would mean that if my neighbor has no sin I should have no need for retributive justice; but it is revealed that they crucified the Lord who had no sin; meaning that the retributive justice was in the heart of the sinner and not in the heart of the sinless.

Reconfirmed by the positive position of the sinless one owning no retributive justice but rather praying for them “ Father forgive them”. Showing that retributive justice vanishes when there is no sin in the heart.

When does retributive justice vanish?
Does it vanish when my neighbor has no sin? If so, why did they crucify the Lord?

Does it vanish when I am free of sin? Yes, it does. It was so demonstrated in Christ and in all his followers.

I think I get this. This is saying that the life and character of Christ and His true followers, such as Stephen when he lay dying ("do not hold this sin against them") reveal the heart of God in not desiring any ill upon another, even one causing their death ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.")

Yes, Yes.
1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I like the discussion between John and Tom, it is too heavy for me especially English is not my language but by reading slowly and carefully I might got at least what they meant with their post, but difficult for me to comment.

In His love

James S

Tom.

James wrote:
God created his free moral agents (angels and men) without the knowledge of good and evil. They must find out themselves what is good and what is evil. Only God who knows what good is and what evil is.

Tom comments:
God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

Unquote.

I repeat “If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!”

IOW you are saying; “if God’s plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known what evil is.”
Am I right?

But without knowing what evil is, how could Adam and Eve ever know what good is? How could they ever know what unselfish love is? How could they know that God loves them and they loved God and that is the way of life that God wants from them? Is not knowing what good is, a good thing? Is knowing what “evil” is, a sin?

Why did God create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? Why did he create intelligent living being with the free will choice to live without the knowledge of good and evil, meanwhile Satan is roaming around ready to deceive them?

Does God want them to find out what evil is? And when they knew what evil is, God might demonstrate his love? By which, His creation might understand what love really is?

In His love

James S

TE - This is not something which God caused to happen, but was the result of an aberant element being added into things. As Christ said, "an enemy has done this."

MM – Actually, it was Jesus who “cursed” the earth for our sakes. Jesus introduced the laws of entropy. He allows evil angels to manipulate the laws of nature according to His good and perfect will.

TE - How many times did Jesus say that God was responsible for any bad thing, including the sickness He was healing someone of, or some death which befell someone? Never.

MM – The idea that Jesus never used sickness or affliction to educate people is unbiblical. Whether He causes it Himself or allows holy or evil angels to do His bidding is immaterial. Consider one example:

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - Another problem is that it puts the Father at cross purposes with His Son. We do not see Christ taking anyone's life away. Again and again Christ said He came not to destroy, or to condemn, or to judge, but to save lives.

MM – Yes, Jesus came to save lives, but those who refuse redemption will suffer punishment and death in the lake of fire. The God of the OT was Jesus. The OT is full of stories of how Jesus dealt with sin and sinners. Jesus used water and fire and war to punish and destroy millions of sinners. He will use fire at the end to punish and destroy the wicked in the lake of fire.

Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

TE – If you wish to give some interpretation to Rev. 14, or any other passage, it must be rejected if you cannot produce an example from the life of Christ was corroborates the suggested interpretation.

MM – Here’s what James White wrote about the angels of Rev 14:

A Word to the Little Flock
Thoughts on Revelation 14
All classes of second advent believers agree, that the angel brought to view in the 6th and 7th verses of this chapter, represents the advent message, to the church and world. If this is true, then all five of the angels brought to view in this chapter, represent five distinct messages, prior to the advent, or we are left without a rule to interpret this chapter. . . . The last two angels are messages of prayer. We shall, no doubt, better understand them at the time of their fulfilment.

TE - According to the Spirit of Prophecy, death is the inevitable result of sin. Actually, according to the Bible, death is the result of sin. It was the serpent who suggested that sin would not result in death. He was wrong, as Christ's death demonstrated.

MM – Yes, death is the result of unforgiven sin – not the cause of it. The fact we are alive is evidence that sin does not cause us to die. The fact Jesus barred access to the tree of life is evidence sin does not cause death. Sinful choices can cause dreadful results, that is, if Jesus chooses not to intervene, if He decides to allow the laws of cause and effect to go unchecked. Jesus is in control of whether or not we suffer and die on account of our sinful choices – not sin or death or Satan.

JS - Why did God create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? Why did he create intelligent living being with the free will choice to live without the knowledge of good and evil, meanwhile Satan is roaming around ready to deceive them?

James, Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them. They were not ignorant of good and evil in the sense they were aware of Satan’s evil plans. But they had no experiential knowledge of evil. They had never sinned. That’s what Jesus withheld from them.

PP 52
Our first parents were not left without a warning of the danger that threatened them. Heavenly messengers opened to them the history of Satan's fall and his plots for their destruction, unfolding more fully the nature of the divine government, which the prince of evil was trying to overthrow. It was by disobedience to the just commands of God that Satan and his host had fallen. How important, then, that Adam and Eve should honor that law by which alone it was possible for order and equity to be maintained. {PP 52.2}

Tom.

James wrote:
God created his free moral agents (angels and men) without the knowledge of good and evil. They must find out themselves what is good and what is evil. Only God who knows what good is and what evil is.

Tom comments:
God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

Unquote.

I repeat “If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!”

IOW you are saying; “if God’s plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known what evil is.”
Am I right?

Yes.

But without knowing what evil is, how could Adam and Eve ever know what good is?

It's not necessary to know what evil is to know good. One need not know what hate is to know love, for example.

How could they ever know what unselfish love is?

The way to know what unselfish love is is by knowing God. There is no other way. Knowing evil is irrelvant to this, as one can know God without knowing evil.

How could they know that God loves them and they loved God and that is the way of life that God wants from them? Is not knowing what good is, a good thing?

They knew what good was, because they knew God. They were created good, and with the capacity of knowing good.

Is knowing what “evil” is, a sin?

The only way they could know evil was by eating of the forbidden fruit, so the only way they could obtain that knowledge was by sinning. This was knowledge God did not desire they should have.

Why did God create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? Why did he create intelligent living being with the free will choice to live without the knowledge of good and evil, meanwhile Satan is roaming around ready to deceive them?

Does God want them to find out what evil is? And when they knew what evil is, God might demonstrate his love? By which, His creation might understand what love really is?

Rosangela had a nice comment on this on another thread. Basically once Satan had entered into open rebellion against God, it was necessary that the other beings created by God have the opportunity to choose who they would follow, so the tree was set up as an opportunity for them to exercize their freedom of choice. But God no more desired that they should choose to rebel against Him then He desires for us to.