Quote:By most accounts, the idea of loving your enemies originated from the Bible.
This isn't true. The idea of loving your enemies was already present in many branches of Greek philosophy. Anyway, the Golden Rule is the same in all moral philosophies who accept it, the different is whether it's exposed in the negative form ("Don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you") or in the positive form ("Do to others what you would want to be done to you").
Both the positive and the negative form pose big theorethical problems, by the way. What if you wouldn't want to be saved by death in a certain situation, but your neighbor would? And conversely, what if you're masochist who enjoys pain, but other people don't?
A better moral maxim is the negative form of the individual freedom rule:"Don't do to other people what they don't want you to do". The positive form of the freedom rule ("Do to others what they want you to do") can also be used as a moral maxim, even though it might be problematic as well.
The most neutral form of this maxim is also the most acceptable:"Treat others as they wish to be treated". It's not centered on the self, unlike the Golden Rule, and it's neither negative nor positive.
Quote:Or here's an analogy: Martha's son Tim jumps in a mud puddle. Martha tells him, "You cannot come back in the house until you spray yourself off with that hose." Tim refuses. She walks outside and turns the hose on. The boy runs away across the street. In doing so, he is hit by a car and dies, because it was dark and the driver couldn't see him with all that mud on. Now who's the logical character in this story? If you say the mother, the Bible checks out just fine.
I'm sorry, but this story isn't a good analogy with the Bible. To be more consistent with the actions of the Christian (and Jewish) god, Martha should have pushed Tim under the car, and also push George, Tim's friend who is prefectly clean, just because he was a friend of Tim's.
