Are theists dumb by default?

[halbhh]

At what point to you determine it's better than just being a wise person? Would you say the advice is summed up by:
the golden rule, non-judgment, love of peace and obligation to self and others?

Well, those 4 you gave are a pretty good list of some of the key things Christ said (not all He said up on that level, but a significant part) --

From the Sermon on the Mount --

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
....
[full form proactive golden rule:] 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
...
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not fight an evil person....
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies...
...
and the 4th is in the full form proactive golden rule again:
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

 

[halbhh]

This treats Christianity as a psychotherapeutic or social system, not as objective history or truth. For you it was a functional life-choice, within a Christian society.

This does not support the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, or the existence of God or Heaven, or the ontological veracity of the Christian interpretation of the Nature of Reality.

Did you test the Muslim theology, the Buddhist, the Jain? I'll bet they work just as well for Muslims, Buddhists or Jains as Christianity works for you.

Ah, after I testing the first one a long time, and then picked another and tested it....and having found those 2 worked great I picked another and tried it...and then another. See?
Eventually, it took time, but eventually I got to this one:

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. ...
(continues...)
Matthew 7 NIV

So, it was a progression, and that's part of why it took 15 years I guess. I tested more than just 4 or 6 things.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Not if God left no evidence of his existence. In that case non-belief would be reasonable until evidence emerged.

What is evidence? You dont necessarily need evidence if your God. He can change any law he wants to without undoing reality. As if faith requires knowledge at all.

 

[Valjean]

If he wishes us to believe in him I'd expect him to provide clear evidence of his existence. If the available evidence is equal to that we have for pink unicorns, our only reasonable conclusion must be to withhold belief, pending evidence.

 

[gnostic]

One way to get a more likely interpretation is to read one of the major and widely respected commentaries.

At least then you have someone that isn't usually a total wingnut.

(Also, for myself, I additionally when our study group read through Isaiah a few years back, would often check a history from wikipedia or other website histories of those individual nations involved.)

So, here's one such widely respected commentary on verse 7:16 --

The land that thou abhorrest.--The words imply the "horror" of fear as well as of dislike. The prediction was fulfilled in the siege of Samaria by Salmaneser, and its capture by Sargon (1Kings 16:9; 1Kings 17:6), a fulfilment all the more remarkable in that it was preceded by what seemed an almost decisive victory over Judah (2Chronicles 28:5-15), of which the prophet makes no mention.
-- Ellicott's commentary:
Isaiah 7:16 Commentaries: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

You can of course get commentary for any verse, and Ellicott I've found is often one of the better, more competent ones.

The problem with Ellicott’s interpretation of the sign, is that he is ignoring that the sign related to the reigns of Ahaz and Pekah, and of Rezin of Aram, who are all mentioned in Isaiah 7 as well as Isaiah 8. And the king of Assyria was contemporary to these 3 kings - Tiglath-pilesser - not Salmanser and Sargon.

If you read both Isaiah 7 and 8, you will see that it related to attack on Jerusalem by Pekah and Rezin, and the signs in Isaiah 7:14-17 and 8:3-4, both related to events happening during Ahaz’s reign.

The unnamed woman in both signs, appeared to be the same woman, a wife of Isaiah, and a prophetess (8:3).

8:18 also referred to Isaiah and his sons as the signs of what to come.

Tiglath-pilesser is mentioned 1 Kings 15 & 16 with Pekah and Ahaz.

 

[joelr]

Well, those 4 you gave are a pretty good list of some of the key things Christ said (not all He said up on that level, but a significant part) --

From the Sermon on the Mount --

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
....
[full form proactive golden rule:] 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
...
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not fight an evil person....
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies...
...
and the 4th is in the full form proactive golden rule again:
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

But all this was common Jewish wisdom. My quotes were from Hillel who died in 10A.D.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being only for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[5]

The saying of Hillel that introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirkei_Avot']Pirkei Avot mentions Aaron HaKohen (the high priest) as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love for his fellow man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law (Pirkei Avoth 1:12). In mentioning these characteristics, which the aggadah attributes to Moses' brother, Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.[/URL]

Don't trust yourself until the day you die".[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#cite_note-ReferenceB-24'][24]

• "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[24]

• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[25]

• "A name gained is a name lost."[26]

• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[27]

"My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation."[/URL]



It's all in Hindu scripture as well. The entire Greek Illiad is a story about the anger of a great warrior who only finds peace at the last line when he forgives his enemy and allows the body proper burial rites. So at what point is a supernatural explanation needed to provide this wisdom?

 

[joelr]

What is evidence? You dont necessarily need evidence if your God. He can change any law he wants to without undoing reality. As if faith requires knowledge at all.

It isn't the God that needs evidence it's people. Non-belief in Zeus is reasonable because the evidence suggests he is a myth. Faith is meaningless. You could choose to have faith in Zeus, it wouldn't make it any more real. You could have faith in anything - racial supremecy, the law of attraction, so faith isn't a good pathway to truth.

If a God can change any law why would he not just provide evidence for it's existence instead of providing evidence that the stories look like borrowed myths from older local cultures?

 

[halbhh]

The problem with Ellicott’s interpretation of the sign, is that he is ignoring that the sign related to the reigns of Ahaz and Pekah, and of Rezin of Aram, who are all mentioned in Isaiah 7 as well as Isaiah 8. And the king of Assyria was contemporary to these 3 kings - Tiglath-pilesser - not Salmanser and Sargon.

If you read both Isaiah 7 and 8, you will see that it related to attack on Jerusalem by Pekah and Rezin, and the signs in Isaiah 7:14-17 and 8:3-4, both related to events happening during Ahaz’s reign.

The unnamed woman in both signs, appeared to be the same woman, a wife of Isaiah, and a prophetess (8:3).

8:18 also referred to Isaiah and his sons as the signs of what to come.

Tiglath-pilesser is mentioned 1 Kings 15 & 16 with Pekah and Ahaz.

While I sometimes get in the mood to read histories, and often use a wiki for an overview or introduction (or a way to find additional sources), I don't personally have a compelling interest in this particular set of questions (of the kind that would provoke hours of reading, as some other instances have), and I found just reading the 2 wiki entries below was adequate to tell me all I wanted to know at the moment --

Syro-Ephraimite War - Wikipedia

Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia


Also, to help make it clear how I consider commentaries, let me repeat (or expand) on that -- I routinely compare and contrast various commentaries and also other sources, like wiki and more, when something is interesting enough. I very much avoid relying on just 1 source, and I want to notice what various sources say and contrast them, and begin to gauge which has a more complete view == often it's not just 1, but a combination of several. Even the best commentary is only the best for an individual pasasge it seems to me about 1/2 of the time.

So, one could not best profit by relying on a particular commentary, see, is my attitude (because one would get the fuller picture only about 1/2 of the time even with the best commentary).

Anyway, the main principle there is to contrast, and not trust any 1 source alone. A wiki is often quite helpful in that it will often give a quick way to find out about multiple sources to compare and that's the best: to compare many. If one is sufficiently interested in a particular question.

 

[halbhh]

But all this was common Jewish wisdom.

Should be! Anything that is generally true about life ought to show up almost everywhere -- around the world when any culture has time enough to develop some writings or oral traditions.

Many of the most central rules of thumb about the best way to live life ought to be discovered and commonplace in most cultures and in any times (after writing is developed for instance).

These are some nice examples you list! I enjoy aphorisms/wisdom writings. Always have since young.

(also see more below this)

...My quotes were from Hillel who died in 10A.D.

Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

He is popularly known as the author of two sayings: (1) "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And being only for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"[4] and (2) the expression of the ethic of reciprocity, or "Golden Rule": "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."[5]

The saying of Hillel that introduces the collection of his maxims in the Mishnaic treatise Pirkei Avot mentions Aaron HaKohen (the high priest) as the great model to be imitated in his love of peace, in his love for his fellow man, and in his leading mankind to a knowledge of the Law (Pirkei Avoth 1:12). In mentioning these characteristics, which the aggadah attributes to Moses' brother, Hillel stated his own prominent virtues. He considered "love of his fellow man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

Don't trust yourself until the day you die".[24]

• 
  
• "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place."[24]

• "Whosoever destroys one soul, it is as though he had destroyed the entire world. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the entire world."[25]

• "A name gained is a name lost."[26]

• "Where there are no men, strive to be a man!"[27]

"My humiliation is my exaltation; my exaltation is my humiliation."



It's all in Hindu scripture as well. The entire Greek Illiad is a story about the anger of a great warrior who only finds peace at the last line when he forgives his enemy and allows the body proper burial rites.

You ask: So at what point is a supernatural explanation needed to provide this wisdom?

It isn't! You could find one of these truths yourself, I'd dare expect, or at least many individuals can. I think the golden rule if you count all the various forms has probably -- my speculation -- been discovered billions of times by now. Maybe I'm too admiring of our fellow humans, but I think this one is so obvious if a person just reflects on life they will figure it out.

That's why I think it's been discovered by individuals billions of times by now.

You kinda know it's true (valid, useful) as soon as a form pops into the mind, at age 10 or 12 or 15, etc.

 

[MonkeyFire]

It isn't the God that needs evidence it's people. Non-belief in Zeus is reasonable because the evidence suggests he is a myth. Faith is meaningless. You could choose to have faith in Zeus, it wouldn't make it any more real. You could have faith in anything - racial supremecy, the law of attraction, so faith isn't a good pathway to truth.

If a God can change any law why would he not just provide evidence for it's existence instead of providing evidence that the stories look like borrowed myths from older local cultures?

Why would God gift wrap evidence for you when atheism is dangerous to Him. Evidence is unimportant to Him and his angels, if you want a miracle you have to believe first. Faith is not a choice it’s something you do by nature. I would personally save you, but you don’t stop running your mouth about my nature and what I am suppose to be. The the United States Constitution (the bill of rites) protects religion, but let’s keep pretending like you actually know anything at all.

 

[Valjean]

Why would God gift wrap evidence for you when atheism is dangerous to Him. Evidence is unimportant to Him and his angels, if you want a miracle you have to believe first. Faith is not a choice it’s something you do by nature. I would personally save you, but you don’t stop running your mouth about my nature and what I am suppose to be. The the United States Constitution (the bill of rites) protects religion, but let’s keep pretending like you actually know anything at all.

How would anything be dangerous to God? Couldn't he remedy any problem with the flick of a finger?
If atheism be a threat, wouldn't gift wrapping some evidence be a sure remedy?

If God were interested in evidence, why didn't he provide any for his existence? Had he done so, wouldn't there be general agreement about him and his nature, like there is for gravity, atomic theory, germ theory or a spherical Earth?

Belief has to precede evidence?! Belief without evidence, (faith), is desirable?! Seriously?

What are some of these rites in the constitution? [sorry -- couldn't resist]

 

[halbhh]

Belief has to precede evidence?! Belief without evidence, (faith), is desirable?! Seriously?

If you get married and stay married long enough, you'll find that of course (like all people) there are things about you your spouse will like and things they will dislike. One thing that would definitely be in the strong-dislike category would be if you don't trust your spouse until after proof happens.
(if you keep distrusting them, it will start to grate on them)

'Trust' is of course to believe/expect something good will happen, before it does.

But there is another problem with distrust that is more serious even. When we distrust someone, we tend to look for bad things from them, and that becomes a filter on reality, that causes us to see bad stuff and not see good stuff, and worse: to see wrongly some neutral events, interpreting them as having a bad character or motive of such that they do not have.

Resulting in the destruction of the relationship, over time.

That's why 'trust' is a key attribute of a good relationship that will last and flourish and be pleasant to participate in.

With distrust, you'd get more and more serious conflict in time.

"Faith" means to trust.

See now why "faith" is considered valuable for an eternal life situation?

To be trusting is the only viable choice, for that situation. In that distrust would lead in time to increasing conflict, and then war.

Therefore logically I expect God will require faith of 100% that will be admitted to heaven.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How would anything be dangerous to God? Couldn't he remedy any problem with the flick of a finger?
If atheism be a threat, wouldn't gift wrapping some evidence be a sure remedy?

If God were interested in evidence, why didn't he provide any for his existence? Had he done so, wouldn't there be general agreement about him and his nature, like there is for gravity, atomic theory, germ theory or a spherical Earth?

Belief has to precede evidence?! Belief without evidence, (faith), is desirable?! Seriously?

What are some of these rites in the constitution? [sorry -- couldn't resist]

danger is a illusion but very real.

 

[joelr]

Why would God gift wrap evidence for you when atheism is dangerous to Him.

I don't know why atheism would be dangerous to a God but this would obviously be a reason to demonstrate evidence. Especially since this God looks entirely like a myth.

Evidence is unimportant to Him and his angels, if you want a miracle you have to believe first.

Hindu, Islam, Sikh get "miracles". As do non-religious people. So that isn't true. Of course every so called miracle always has other explanations.
Like the tornado that missed you house. Yes but it killed an entire family down the street. Or the cancer survivor who beat cancer with a 75% mortality rate. Except 25 out of every 100 live if those are the odds.
How about a mountain being lifted or a sea being parted or Yahweh riding around as a column of smoke and fire? Gee, wonder why that never happens? Or saints rising from the grave and walking around. Hmmm, could it all be fiction?

Faith is not a choice it’s something you do by nature. I would personally save you, but you don’t stop running your mouth about my nature and what I am suppose to be. The the United States Constitution (the bill of rites) protects religion, but let’s keep pretending like you actually know anything at all.

I know you are making zero cohesive points here?

 

[joelr]

Should be! Anything that is generally true about life ought to show up almost everywhere -- around the world when any culture has time enough to develop some writings or oral traditions.

Many of the most central rules of thumb about the best way to live life ought to be discovered and commonplace in most cultures and in any times (after writing is developed for instance).

These are some nice examples you list! I enjoy aphorisms/wisdom writings. Always have since young.

(also see more below this)


You ask: So at what point is a supernatural explanation needed to provide this wisdom?

It isn't! You could find one of these truths yourself, I'd dare expect, or at least many individuals can. I think the golden rule if you count all the various forms has probably -- my speculation -- been discovered billions of times by now. Maybe I'm too admiring of our fellow humans, but I think this one is so obvious if a person just reflects on life they will figure it out.

That's why I think it's been discovered by individuals billions of times by now.

You kinda know it's true (valid, useful) as soon as a form pops into the mind, at age 10 or 12 or 15, etc.

Yes I agree but you mentioned a point where you felt there must be more than just wisdom at work and this convinced you that the supernatural aspects were real. I took it to mean that since Jesus came up with these concepts he must be a demigod was the rationale?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Was Isaac Newton dumb?

No, but I wouldn't call him entirely rational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A strong internal code is not a strong biblical or religious code. Honor the Sabbath? Worship only God?

What does honouring the Sabbath or worshipping only God have to do with morality?

I have weird, arbitrary quirks that I follow consistently, too. I just don't see them as a marker of my virtue.

 

[halbhh]

Yes I agree but you mentioned a point where you felt there must be more than just wisdom at work and this convinced you that the supernatural aspects were real. I took it to mean that since Jesus came up with these concepts he must be a demigod was the rationale?

It might help for me to say why 'truth' about how to best live life ("truth" being defined as the best answer/solution/rule known out of all competing answers/solutions/rules) -- why such cannot be originated/invented.

Truths about human life can only be discovered -- they pre-exist any person, and are already fixed (unalterable) since they arise out of/depend on our shared human nature -- our shared human characteristics we all have from our common genome.

So, I don't think any individual "comes up with" such rules in the sense of originating or creating, as would be done for instance for something like an original work of art. The rules are not inventions, and cannot be originated like a work of art or a construction.

We can only discover them, like discovering how gravity works, or magnetism. A person discovering something about how gravity works isn't originating, but simply finding what already exists. Like someone finding a gold nugget in a stream bed.

So, I expect the Golden Rule, if you count all versions, both full and partial, to have been discovered by individuals billions of times. Without hearing of it from anyone first. Just by realization.

Most such rules might be this way, or very many are at least.

On the other hand, a more difficult to see one such as the one Christ enunciated that we should even love those that are 'enemies' (act as enemies towards us) may be much harder to find, and discovered far less often than some of the rules. Many or perhaps even most people might not ever discover it on their own.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I don't know why atheism would be dangerous to a God but this would obviously be a reason to demonstrate evidence. Especially since this God looks entirely like a myth.



Hindu, Islam, Sikh get "miracles". As do non-religious people. So that isn't true. Of course every so called miracle always has other explanations.
Like the tornado that missed you house. Yes but it killed an entire family down the street. Or the cancer survivor who beat cancer with a 75% mortality rate. Except 25 out of every 100 live if those are the odds.
How about a mountain being lifted or a sea being parted or Yahweh riding around as a column of smoke and fire? Gee, wonder why that never happens? Or saints rising from the grave and walking around. Hmmm, could it all be fiction?




I know you are making zero cohesive points here?

I don’t have to feel bad because I am religious, your the one who doesn’t have feelings for Heaven.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, but I wouldn't call him entirely rational.

He had his faults, but it would require blind adherence to some nasty dogma to think him as "dumb by default."