Was Jesus as smart as Plato?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I’m not sure about the die roll - there are conditions of entry to Plato’s Republic too (it’s only meant to be a small city-state after all, so not everyone’s going to be there. And if you want to be any kind of artist, poet or actor, you get drummed out of town.)
[/quote]

Being drummed out of town sounds infinitely more humane than being tortured or tortured then murdered in hellfire. However, please cite the conditions of entry into Plato’s Republic so I can read more on that.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
To be honest, the idea of living in a state where the rulers reserve to themselves the right to lie to the populace for their own good, and where the good of the state will always trump the good of the individual gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies (current affairs fans, insert your own withering political satire here!) and less attractive overall than a world where regardless of political structure, the priority is on caring for others and being quick to forgive wrongs.
[/quote]

I share some of your heebie-jeebies, however the good of society frequently trumps the good of the individual to this day, so that, at least, seems fairly par for the course, and in a collective society may be a necessity. As for lying to the populace, while that is done today, I agree with you that it is not a good thing. However, coming up with certain lies to get people of differing levels of ability to peaceably accept their lot in life does speak Plato’s ability to think through some complex problems and accept what he thinks is the lesser of evils. That is more impressive to me, and resembles reality far better than just envisioning a place where all evil disappears by magic, coincidentally only after you die.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I think there’s some confusion between us here. I would say that many of Jesus’ “The Kingdom of Heaven is like this. There was a master/father/traveller…” parables are not statements about the afterlife, but lessons for living life here and now.
[/quote]

While Jesus was somewhat conflicting as to what the “Kingdom of heaven” was, most citations are of him saying we should believe and act in such and such ways so that we could go there in an afterlife. He said the “kingdom of god is within” once, but for the most part talked about believers living in eternal paradise after they die. When Jesus contradicts himself, which he does quite often, it makes me think (as I put it once before) that he is just an inarticulate boob, who couldn’t get his story strait if his life depended on it. And no, that does not ring of supernatural wisdom to me, nor even exceptional human wisdom. How about you?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
It’s these that I was suggesting we compare with Plato’s Republic, as they are about how mankind should live life on earth, not about the afterlife. He did also speak of paradise, but I would suggest its better to compare those statements to Plato’s metaphysics, on an apples-with-apples principle.
[/quote]

I’m fine with that. We can examine Jesus’ instructions to give away all your personal property to the poor, his admonishments against divorce, his instructions to hate your family, his promotion of not the poor being as good as the rich, but rather the poor being better than the rich, etc. or his oh so enlightened desire to have everyone worship him/god or suffer infinite consequences. I am really interested in seeing people actually quote some real verses of Jesus saying brilliant things that are worthy of the recognition posterity has bestowed on him.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
(Also, when Plato gets ideas from others, its “dialog” and when Jesus does it’s plagiarism. Do you think it’s possible you’re coming to this question with some preconceptions?)
[/quote]

Not at all, I noted in my OP that any credit I give Plato you could attribute to Socrates, as it is difficult to know how much of Plato is him and how much is just his recording others. As for Jesus, it seems he just popularized an afterlife scenario stacked onto Judaism.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I’ve said before that I think posthumous IQ tests are a) impossible and b) otiose. That said, I don’t think Plato took human foibles and biases into account so much as tried to steamroller over them.
[/quote]

I disagree. Plato went out of his way to make sure that the rulers of his society were detached from personal possessions to keep greed out of policy, which is something that plagues us to this day. I would not call that steamrollering.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Other philosophers, however (let’s not get hung up on Plato), have come up with considerably more sophisticated approaches to the problem of politics (Hobbes, Marx and Locke, for example) and I’d give them great credit for intellectual rigour.
[/quote]

I’ve read Marx, but not Locke or Hobbes so I can’t comment on them. However, my point is not at all that Plato system was in anyway best but rather, just brilliant, particularly for his time. The same can not be said for Jesus. His intellectual teachings are practically non-existent and his morality is abhorrent. So far in this thread we have not had one Jesus quote given as an example of something worthy of two millennia of respect.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
**It takes much more hard, careful thought to produce a Leviathan, or a Communist Manifesto, or a US Bill of Rights, than it does to preach love and forgiveness. **
[/quote]

I bolded your quote as I agree with it completely. This is the point of my thread. Preaching love and forgiveness is historically quite common. Preaching love and forgiveness, while at the same time threatening people who don’t love and follow you, is more rare, but rather than being worthy of respect should quality one for histories hypocrite hall of fame. Or do you disagree?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Let’s note though that despite the intellectual rigour and brain-sweat, most political philosphies have turned out to be flawed to a greater or lesser extent - some practically, some theoretically. So we’ll have to allow that people can be incredibly smart - and wrong, often in some fundamental way.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that either.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
For the record, I don’t believe in any afterlife, or in reincarnation or immortal souls. On the other hand, I’d really hesitate to say that people who do should have IQ points knocked off.
[/quote]

I would agree for pre-Darwinians. I do think that on average, today believers are not as intelligent as non-believers. But that is not the topic of this thread. Plato believed in god’s as did Jesus, but still Plato, with all his faults still displayed considerably more intellect, both in quantity and quality. Do you really disagree?

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMHO Jesus taught a simple method. Judge men by their fruits.
[/quote]

Funny, I thought he taught us not to judge others at all. Again, we are back to my observation of Jesus being an inarticulate boob.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
By people’s actions we see the true spirit that lives within them.
[/quote]

I would agree by peoples actions you can see how they are likely to act in the future. As for seeing their “true spirit” I would ask you to define what you are talking about, and ask for a cite.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So rather than WWJD my question is “what does love and truth require of me in this situation”…
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Save that for another thread. This thread is about Jesus in particular. Love and truth, if personified would probably not give false promises about the answering of prayers nor condemn most of humanity to hellfire. However, according to all records, that is exactly what Jesus would do.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I seem to recall some passage in the bible where at an early age Jesus impressed a lot of rabbis with his knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

I think we all respect Socrates, not because someone wrote that he was smart, but rather because of what is actually attributed to him. Impressing rabbis probably isn’t the most difficult of tasks but I would be a lot more impressed if I saw the actual arguments Jesus laid forth as a youngster, rather than just hearing 3rd or 4th hand that he did a good job. The latter just rings of propaganda.

82

Is there anyone who would be willing to ask Badchad questions for me?

83

I’ve just had a long post swallowed - proof, if proof were needed, that no loving God could have created such an evil world. (What? No, it’s not proof of His mercy to you lot. Ridiculous notion)

To sum up: Plato’s Republic is, to quote Liberal, balls out crazy. Description starts in Book II - by Book III Plato is advocating blanket censorship, excepting only martial music and hymns, the denial of all pleasures, the repression of any and all passion, the death by neglect of those too old to serve the State by working, and insisting that allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest is a recipe for disaster. Nowadays, we’d say that was the sine qua non of a successful state. If this were the only writing we had of Plato, we’d dismiss him as a crank. Luckily, he wrote Gyges and the Symposium.

Jesus: “What you do unto the least of these others, you do unto me.” “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Whether you personally agree or not, these two quotes (already cited by cosmodan in his illuminating discussion with Liberal) are the reason people think this Jesus guy was such a big deal. Re: the charge of hypocrisy - if I tell you that failing to look both ways before you cross the road will result in your being messily killed in a car accident, am I threatening you or warning you? If Jesus was sincere in his beliefs about heaven and hell you can convict him of idiocy for holding them, but I don’t think you can call him hypocritical for pointing out their consequences.

Finally, which is better: being smart, being right, or being good? In other words, why should anyone care if Jesus was a couple of fishes short of a miracle?

84

[QUOTE=badchad]

Funny, I thought he taught us not to judge others at all. Again, we are back to my observation of Jesus being an inarticulate boob.

[/QUOTE]

Matthew 7
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

It would appear , oh bias one, That perhaps that statement was not intended to be taken to literally. {like as an excuse for name calling}
It’s also better understood when read with
“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15”

This more relevant to what I was referring to about judgment. It has to do with our primary and sincere motivation.

Mat 5:45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Mat 6: 1"Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Mat 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
You might also consider the story of the good Samaritan.
Jesus taught to look beyond a superficial obedience of rules, or the boundaries of tribe, clan, and religion, to the person within those labels. Their actions reflect their truest motives.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So rather than WWJD my question is “what does love and truth require of me in this situation”…
[/QUOTE]

I sorted this out and fixed the quote tags…I think.
It is my contention that a commitment to love and truth is exactly what Jesus taught. You of course disagree. I have no intention of hijacking this thread. I was commenting on an exchange between Liberal and the Rev and specifically on what Jesus taught IMO.

Per the OP , I’m not well enough informed about the writings of the people mentioned which is why I haven’t really participated. In general, I agree with many posters who point out that an intellectual or IQ comparison is somewhat irrelevant and inappropriate. Not only because Jesus message wasn’t about intellect but because we know that we probably don’t have an accurate presentation of his exact words. We know the texts were changed and selected by people with their own specific agenda and beliefs to promote. If we want to judge the teachings of Jesus rather than just religious doctrine we might include the gospel of Thomas and perhaps others.

You said you might start a thread on cherry picking. I’ll look forward to it.

85

[QUOTE=amrussell]

Finally, which is better: being smart, being right, or being good? In other words, why should anyone care if Jesus was a couple of fishes short of a miracle?
[/QUOTE]

I enjoyed your post and thought this was particularly on target and amusing as well.

I’ll wait patiently for the opportunity to fit that last phrase into a conversation. :slight_smile:

86

[QUOTE=amrussell]

To sum up: Plato’s Republic is, to quote Liberal, balls out crazy. Description starts in Book II - by Book III Plato is advocating blanket censorship, excepting only martial music and hymns, the denial of all pleasures, the repression of any and all passion, the death by neglect of those too old to serve the State by working, and insisting that allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest is a recipe for disaster. Nowadays, we’d say that was the sine qua non of a successful state. If this were the only writing we had of Plato, we’d dismiss him as a crank. Luckily, he wrote Gyges and the Symposium.
[/quote]

Sorry for the delay in response. Life has kept be busy lately, but I was able to make time to read the first 3 books of the Republic. In doing so I wouldn’t call anything he wrote “balls out crazy.” He called for censorship but did so for well thought out reasons. I thought much of the comments in book I and II were particularly good, especially for the time period and I’m looking forward to the other chapters. You seem not to like some of Plato’s conclusions and being separated by ~2400 years of life, that is not to be unexpected, but still, what is there for you and I to read seems highly probable to have come from a man who was significantly smarter than the average bear. You chose the Republic as representative of his work and dog on it, but now it seems you think his Symposium is better. Is his work on Gyges mentioned anywhere aside from the Republic, book II? Still we should remember that this thread isn’t about Plato in particular (though I do consider him a much better man than Jesus) but rather that mere mortals, and lot of them, have written things considerably more intelligent and profound than what has been attributed to Jesus. As you put it…

”It takes much more hard, careful thought to produce a Leviathan, or a Communist Manifesto, or a US Bill of Rights, than it does to preach love and forgiveness.”

…which as I pointed out earlier is exactly my point, and yes from what I have read of the Republic I think it should be in your list too.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Jesus: “What you do unto the least of these others, you do unto me.” “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Whether you personally agree or not, these two quotes (already cited by cosmodan in his illuminating discussion with Liberal) are the reason people think this Jesus guy was such a big deal.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that Jesus was particularly unique in his instructions to be nice to children or to preach reciprocal altruism? Heck, the golden rule comes straight out of Leviticus, again indicating that Jesus was just another preacher doing what a lot of preachers do.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Re: the charge of hypocrisy - if I tell you that failing to look both ways before you cross the road will result in your being messily killed in a car accident, am I threatening you or warning you? If Jesus was sincere in his beliefs about heaven and hell you can convict him of idiocy for holding them, but I don’t think you can call him hypocritical for pointing out their consequences.
[/quote]

I am in agreement with you. If Jesus in fact claims to be god we can agree to convict him of hypocrisy for preaching forgiveness but also preaching hellfire. If Jesus is just a preacher (which is how we are for the most part treating him in this thread) we can convict him of idiocy for holding a view that god is loving and forgiving when in fact he his teachings indicate that he didn’t. You and I can agree that an idiot is not someone we would expect to have a high IQ can’t we? IIRC an idiot is by some definitions someone with a low IQ, correct?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Finally, which is better: being smart, being right, or being good?
[/quote]

I don’t think you can get an absolute answer there, but merely an opinion. Mine, is that being right is best. However it seems to be that you are conceding that there is nothing to suggest that Jesus was particularly smart and are trying to shift the argument. I personally don’t see much in the gospels to think that Jesus was very often right, nor particularly good. He had nice things to say about the children and the poor but did and said a lot of things that made him look like a selfish jackass.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
In other words, why should anyone care if Jesus was a couple of fishes short of a miracle?
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t it obvious that if a person is going to model their life after someone, then that someone should have exceptional attributes? If people are going to claim that god’s wisdom is better than human wisdom then we should hope to see evidence of such in his favorite prophets? That’s just a couple reason, I can come up with more. Can you think of any reasons to care?

87

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Jesus taught to look beyond a superficial obedience of rules, or the boundaries of tribe, clan, and religion, to the person within those labels. Their actions reflect their truest motives.
[/quote]

A lot of people have taught to think outside the box. Actions speaking louder than words IMO falls under the category of common sense. And for the record Plato mentions as much, well over 300 years before Christ, and I really doubt he was the first.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Per the OP , I’m not well enough informed about the writings of the people mentioned which is why I haven’t really participated.
[/quote]

I think this is important and speaks to the fact that many people who hold Jesus in such high regard, for wisdom, if not godliness, do so simply because they are not well read.

88

[QUOTE=badchad]

[QUOTE=amrussell]
”It takes much more hard, careful thought to produce a Leviathan, or a Communist Manifesto, or a US Bill of Rights, than it does to preach love and forgiveness.”
[/QUOTE]

…which as I pointed out earlier is exactly my point, and yes from what I have read of the Republic I think it should be in your list too. [snip]
I don’t think you can get an absolute answer there, but merely an opinion. Mine, is that being right is best.
[/QUOTE]

(My italics.
OK. This is the point I’m making a hash of getting across. The Communist Manifesto, Leviathan, the Republic - they were wrong. No matter how smart their author, no matter the time spent in weighty contemplation, no matter the coruscating brilliance of the thought processes that led there: flat-out wrong. For a modern example, there’s a thread running now asking how come so many smart people thought that invading Iraq and creating a new Middle-East democracy was an easily achievable goal. Smart people can get things wrong; dumb people can get things right.

[QUOTE=badchad]
However it seems to be that you are conceding that there is nothing to suggest that Jesus was particularly smart and are trying to shift the argument…
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to shift the argument - I’m trying to suggest that its not worth having. I will freely concede that if we went back in time with a Mensa application form, Jesus would be KB’d and Plato would be welcomed with opened arms. I would then ask you, however, where you think that gets us. Because smart, genius Plato would steal my iPod, stop me doing stand-up comedy, turn the fruit of all my labour over to the state and separate me from my family. The fact that he can construct a pretty dialogue apparently justifying those things would be small consolation.

[QUOTE=badchad]
Isn’t it obvious that if a person is going to model their life after someone, then that someone should have exceptional attributes? If people are going to claim that god’s wisdom is better than human wisdom then we should hope to see evidence of such in his favorite prophets? That’s just a couple reason, I can come up with more. Can you think of any reasons to care?
[/QUOTE]

Being smart is no more and no better an exceptional attribute than being tall, or charismatic, or athletic. It doesn’t automatically make you worthy of attention, in the same way that being charismatic doesn’t make you worth following. And I’ve never come across anyone modelling their life after Jesus who was doing so because they thought he was smart. Good, yes, but not smart. Right about the best way to go through life - but not smart. As for God’s wisdom vs human wisdom - many people do see that evidence, and many see it precisely in the absence of smartness that troubles you so much. I don’t, and you don’t, but I’ve found that not everyone agrees with me about everything. Weird, huh?

89

[QUOTE=badchad]
A lot of people have taught to think outside the box. Actions speaking louder than words IMO falls under the category of common sense. And for the record Plato mentions as much, well over 300 years before Christ, and I really doubt he was the first.
[/QUOTE]

And Buddha taught very similar things 600 years before Jesus. I am well aware that others have taught similar principles. Never claimed otherwise. I find the fact that different teachers come to many similar conclusions only adds weight to the teachings.

Being well read is a good thing and I can agree that many people may elevate Jesus because they have been taught to do so by those around them. My beliefs about Jesus have changed considerably from my joining a Christian church years ago because I was able to ask questions and then go looking for the answers. That included a lot of reading in areas I was interested in and related to the particular question I was trying to answer. How smart Jesus was compared to others didn’t seem all that relevant.

Jesus teachings are more about the heart and spirit, rather than intellect. It’s already been pointed out to you by a couple of posters that it isn’t particularly useful, or realistic to try and compare intellects between Jesus and the others you mentioned.

Certain teachings resonate within the individual and they find meaning in them. Depending on the culture the name attached to those teachings and the details of doctrine might vary.
I see amrussell has already made my next comments more eloquently than I could.

I find this interesting and telling. When asked which is better being smart, being right, or being good. you answered

Having discussed things with you before this answer doesn’t surprise me. I’d suggest that developing the ability to see when you’re not right and freely admit it is also a handy trait.

As I said before. I’d be interested in the other thread you said you were going to start.

90

[QUOTE=amrussell]
(My italics.
OK. This is the point I’m making a hash of getting across. The Communist Manifesto, Leviathan, the Republic - they were wrong. No matter how smart their author, no matter the time spent in weighty contemplation, no matter the coruscating brilliance of the thought processes that led there: flat-out wrong.
[/quote]

If that was the point you were trying to get across then perhaps you should not have had the U.S. Bill of Rights in your original list and now substituted the Republic for it. As I mentioned before, I wasn’t that impressed with Marx, and I don’t think he is up there with Plato or the other philosophical greats. As I said before I have not read Leviathan yet so I cannot comment. As for Plato’s Republic I don’t think you have demonstrated that it was wrong, just merely that holds core beliefs that are different then yours. Aside from that I am happy to concede your point that brilliant people have said a good many things that have turned out to be incorrect. My point again is that Jesus did not say anything that would indicate he was a supreme holder of wisdom by human (not to mention godly) standards, and he wasn’t a very good conduit to things just happened to turn out to be right either. Or do you disagree.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I’m not trying to shift the argument - I’m trying to suggest that its not worth having.
[/quote]

You can suggest whatever you want but it seems you are rather invested in this argument that isn’t worth having. As for the arguments worth in general, it is merely a matter of opinion, thanks for yours.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I will freely concede that if we went back in time with a Mensa application form, Jesus would be KB’d and Plato would be welcomed with opened arms.
[/quote]

Thank you. I guess you can stop arguing now.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I would then ask you, however, where you think that gets us. Because smart, genius Plato would steal my iPod, stop me doing stand-up comedy, turn the fruit of all my labour over to the state and separate me from my family. The fact that he can construct a pretty dialogue apparently justifying those things would be small consolation.
[/quote]

Again I’m not an expert on Plato’s republic (give me a couple weeks and that will change), but have you read his work yourself, or just summaries from authors that didn’t like him? From what I read in book II, Plato did not say all music and plays should be censored but just that non-censored stuff should not be taught in public schools or receive public funding. As for separation of family members or communism, that was held only for guardians who would be willfully accepting of such things for a condition to rule and this was not for the population at large. It seems you are attacking a straw man of Plato and this isn’t the first time in this thread.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Being smart is no more and no better an exceptional attribute than being tall, or charismatic, or athletic.
[/quote]

Really, you really think so little of intelligence. I would agree with you that intelligence isn’t everything, but come on, you really think it is no better than being tall?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
And I’ve never come across anyone modelling their life after Jesus who was doing so because they thought he was smart. Good, yes, but not smart.
[/quote]

Most people model him because they think he is god, or like Cosmosdan hold onto remnants of said belief. Truth be told, again, going on what has been attributed to Jesus indicates he wasn’t very good either, unless of course we accept what you say about him being an absolute idiotic but benevolent human.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Right about the best way to go through life - but not smart.
[/quote]

So you think Jesus taught the best way to go through life? You think we all should give away all your property and preach his word? You think divorced women should not be able to remarry? You think people of means deserve to suffer? You think accepting and believing things without reason is better than doing so with reason?

91

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And Buddha taught very similar things 600 years before Jesus. I am well aware that others have taught similar principles. Never claimed otherwise. I find the fact that different teachers come to many similar conclusions only adds weight to the teachings.
[/quote]

I think an important distinction here is that Buddha and others taught kindness without the threat of hellfire for those who did not worship him. These are the details that make Jesus’ efforts ring particularly hollow.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
How smart Jesus was compared to others didn’t seem all that relevant.
[/quote]

I think the irrelevance of Jesus’ intelligence is being brought up only because it is pretty obvious (based on what is left to us) that his intelligence was anything but exceptional. If he had left works of great wisdom, people would be arguing how important that was. Instead fundamentalist argue based on miracles and prophesy and nominal Christians for the most part argue based on the highest order of cherry picked benevolence. Benevolence that can be read from others, hamstrung with a lot less superstition, stupidity, and hellfire.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Jesus teachings are more about the heart and spirit, rather than intellect.
[/quote]

If you wish to converse with me I would prefer you use more accurate language. The “heart” pumps blood, while the “spirit” suggests a soul and some form of dualism, neither of which have been demonstrated to exist. If you mean Jesus speaks to ones more to ones private motivations, selfishness or whatever, I would encourage you to say so clearly.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s already been pointed out to you by a couple of posters that it isn’t particularly useful, or realistic to try and compare intellects between Jesus and the others you mentioned.
[/quote]

Yes, to which I disagreed, and amrussel conceded that for all the hoopla that he agrees that Jesus wasn’t as smart as Plato and would not get his Mensa card.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
As I said before. I’d be interested in the other thread you said you were going to start.
[/QUOTE]

You’ll have to wait. I don’t have the time for 2 threads at once. I barely have time for this one.

92

[QUOTE=badchad]

You can suggest whatever you want but it seems you are rather invested in this argument that isn’t worth having. As for the arguments worth in general, it is merely a matter of opinion, thanks for yours.
[/QUOTE]

It’s pretty clear he’s not alone in that opinion. You just as free to disregard the opinions of others as we are to disregard yours.

How intelligent was Ted Bundy? Hitler? Stalin? Do loving people with no education make an important contribution to those around them? Can retarded people make a loving contribution to society? You may value intelligence more, or simply being right which is far from the same thing, but that is just your opinion.

Nobody has said that but you. Since you criticized me for not speaking clearly perhaps you should refrain from putting words in others mouths. Not your style I know, but give it a shot.

He might have been thinking of his take on Jesus teachings rather than yours. Just as you said , it’s a matter of opinion, or in this case interpretation, regardless of your denial that you do actually interpret.

93

[QUOTE=badchad]
I think an important distinction here is that Buddha and others taught kindness without the threat of hellfire for those who did not worship him. These are the details that make Jesus’ efforts ring particularly hollow.
[/QUOTE]

Did Buddha teach there were consequences for choices?

bolding mine.
So people aren’t arguing about the importance of what Jesus taught? Silly me. I thought it was obvious they were.

The heart pumping blood has not been demonstrated to exist? What a lying ass my doctor is . I will endeavor to be more precise in my choice of words while you can try to stop incorrectly paraphrasing other posters. Deal?

Which was not his main point by a long shot.

My guess is that this one is almost done. Either way is okay.

94

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

How intelligent was Ted Bundy? Hitler? Stalin? Do loving people with no education make an important contribution to those around them? Can retarded people make a loving contribution to society? You may value intelligence more, or simply being right which is far from the same thing, but that is just your opinion.
[/quote]

I haven’t read the works of Bundy or Stalin so I can’t comment. Hitler I’ve read a fair amount of, and he seems pretty smart. I do value intelligence highly, being correct more so, and no I didn’t claim they were the same thing, nor did I say they were the end all be all of human qualities, just that they were pretty important.

Actually it was amrussell who seemed to prefer I convict Jesus of idiocy rather than hypocrisy, and he did so in post #83. As for convicting Jesus of idiocy, that’s basically the idea behind my OP, only I did give Jesus credit for being slightly smarter than average IIRC.

He can be thinking of any “take” he wants of Jesus’ teachings, but that won’t change what was written pretty clearly in the gospels. Again if Jesus’ message is so easily misunderstood, that points against him as a communicator, not for him, and assuming Jesus did want to be understood, his not being able to state his points clearly is, again, not something indicative of higher level intelligence. But who cares, it seems a lot of us have already agreed that Jesus was not overly gifted in intelligence or wisdom. There have already been threads about Jesus’ goodness and I have made that pretty clear that I’m not impressed on that count either.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Did Buddha teach there were consequences for choices?
[/quote]

Again, I’m not that familiar with the teachings of Buddha. However it is my understanding that according to him, if you failed to live a good life, you would be reincarnated and have repeated tries at it till you got it right, also that you would suffer more in your existence because you would always be unable to satisfy your desires. However, at no time(AFAIK) did Buddha claim that you would be burned alive for not worshiping him as a god, for not believing in the right gods, or for not trusting what he told you without reason. This is a far cry from Jesus claiming that he will slow roast the souls of most of humanity simply for not worshiping him/god.

The heart pumps blood and has been demonstrated to exist, neither the soul, nor dualism have been demonstrated to exist. Jesus can talk to the heart all he wants but the heart does not have ears. And when you say Jesus talks to the “spirit” you are being very imprecise about what you are talking about. Again, if you wish to converse with me I’ll again ask you to use more precise terms.

I didn’t claim it was amrussell’s main point. I was merely pointing out that he agreed with me that Jesus was not as smart as Plato. That’s all. I would encourage you to read Plato for yourself, as well as some of the other philosophers I have mentioned. Then you can form your own opinion.

95

[QUOTE=badchad]
If that was the point you were trying to get across then perhaps you should not have had the U.S. Bill of Rights in your original list and now substituted the Republic for it.
[/QUOTE]
Forgive the expression, but Christ on a rubber cross you need things spelled out. First of all, let me apologise for making the assumption that you remembered earlier posts and/or had a functioning scroll bar. Clearly you do, but it seems to leave you in some doubt as to whether I’m trusting your faculties or attempting the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that only someone with a good memory or a functioning scroll bar could spot. (There’s always one fatal flaw in the masterplan, isn’t there?). To elaborate, although I included the Republic on your suggestion I certainly didn’t mean to exclude the Bill of Rights from the discussion by the simple ruse of not typing the words. To elaborate further, I included the BoR as an example of carefully thought out social engineering that was mostly right. (Do you want to know the problems I have with it? I bet you don’t, so I’ll save the digression). The point, which I didn’t, alas, spell out, is that the ratio of wisdom to well-thought-out foolishness is very low indeed.

[QUOTE=badchad]
As I mentioned before, I wasn’t that impressed with Marx, and I don’t think he is up there with Plato or the other philosophical greats. As I said before I have not read Leviathan yet so I cannot comment. As for Plato’s Republic I don’t think you have demonstrated that it was wrong, just merely that holds core beliefs that are different then yours. Aside from that I am happy to concede your point that brilliant people have said a good many things that have turned out to be incorrect. My point again is that Jesus did not say anything that would indicate he was a supreme holder of wisdom by human (not to mention godly) standards, and he wasn’t a very good conduit to things just happened to turn out to be right either. Or do you disagree.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you have demonstrated that Jesus was wrong, just merely that he holds core beliefs that are different than yours. With reference to the section I bolded, what implications does that have for using intelligence as a measure of wisdom?

[QUOTE=badchad]
You can suggest whatever you want but it seems you are rather invested in this argument that isn’t worth having. As for the arguments worth in general, it is merely a matter of opinion, thanks for yours…
Thank you. I guess you can stop arguing now.
[/QUOTE]

I think there’s a really interesting discussion to be had on how we evaluate and choose between different philosophies and/or thinkers. Line-by-line analysis of their works; placing them in historical context; Rawlsian analysis of the worlds they offer us (if any); our instinctive response to their core beliefs; posthumous IQ tests. It shouldn’t come as any suprise to find that I think the last option is otiose, if only because I’ve already said so in so many words. Also, I failed again to spell out, apparently, that I hoped my concession would elicit a response from you:

[Quote=me]
I will freely concede that if we went back in time with a Mensa application form, Jesus would be KB’d and Plato would be welcomed with opened arms. I would then ask you, however, where you think that gets us.
[/QUOTE]
At this point, I’m almost ready to order a Jesus was a Thickie T-shirt and wear it to Canterbury Cathedral if I thought for a second it would get you to explain what you hope to achieve from this exercise.

[QUOTE=badchad]
Again I’m not an expert on Plato’s republic (give me a couple weeks and that will change), but have you read his work yourself, or just summaries from authors that didn’t like him? From what I read in book II, Plato did not say all music and plays should be censored but just that non-censored stuff should not be taught in public schools or receive public funding. As for separation of family members or communism, that was held only for guardians who would be willfully accepting of such things for a condition to rule and this was not for the population at large. It seems you are attacking a straw man of Plato and this isn’t the first time in this thread.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t think I’m cut out to be a guardian? Dude, I’m hurt. And I’d be interested to know how the fourth (say) generation of guardians, having been separated from their family, could be said to be willfullly (or willingly) accepting it. My interpretation of Book III is that no music is to be permitted:

[QUOTE=Plato]
"If a man, then, it seems, [398a] who was capable by his cunning of assuming every kind of shape and imitating all things should arrive in our city, bringing with himself the poems which he wished to exhibit, we should fall down and worship him as a holy and wondrous and delightful creature, but should say to him that there is no man of that kind among us in our city, nor is it lawful for such a man to arise among us, and we should send him away to another city, after pouring myrrh down over his head and crowning him with fillets of wool.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, and not for nothing, but people who spend an academic career reading Plato in the original Greek, studying his role in the development of Greek philosophy and arguing about interpretation of fragments can claim to be experts on the Republic. If I give you a couple of weeks, you will be a well-informed layman.

[QUOTE=badchad]
Really, you really think so little of intelligence. I would agree with you that intelligence isn’t everything, but come on, you really think it is no better than being tall?
[/QUOTE]

Nope.

But even excepting the base, financial side of life, the key thing with any personality trait is not how much you have, but what you do with it.

(Okay, okay: fnarr, fnarr, what you do with it, heh, heh, heh. I’d like to think I’m smart enough to be above cheap innuendo, but I’m really, really not.)

Just to clarify, I said that if you accept he was sincere in his belief, you could convict Jesus of idiocy, but not of hypocrisy. It’s putting words in my mouth to suggest that I think he was absolutely idiotic.
With regard to your questions about my opinion of Jesus, I’m going to offer another challenge to your memory/scroll bar skills: what religion do I follow? Am I a believer in Jesus? Getting the answer right should give you a clue about whether I think Jesus taught the best way to go through life. A closer reading of what I said might reveal whether I was talking about people who do follow Jesus, or myself.

As for reason, I’m a big fan, but I’m decreasingly convinced that it’s the source of my (or anybody’s) decisions, so much as a post-hoc justification. For example, check out this long list of well-established cognitive biases. Knowing that I do all these things makes me more and more suspicious of the idea that there’s a difference between accepting things with or without reason - how often do any of us argue ourselves out of doing things we really want to do, for example?

96

[QUOTE=badchad]
I haven’t read the works of Bundy or Stalin so I can’t comment. Hitler I’ve read a fair amount of, and he seems pretty smart. I do value intelligence highly, being correct more so, and no I didn’t claim they were the same thing, nor did I say they were the end all be all of human qualities, just that they were pretty important.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly admire a keen mind, an informed intellect. That says nothing about the persons morals or ethics. The question of how intelligent Jesus was really says nothing about the value of his contribution, or anything about his teachings.

You clearly misrepresented his words and he just called you on it. For someone who claims to value being right you seemed to intentionally misrepresent him. How right is that?

People interpret through the lens of their own feelings, bias, and experience. even when they completely deny it. Thats true for the fundies, for me, and for you. I’ve seen your concept on what is “clearly written” and remain unconvinced. We have to piece together our best guess of what Jesus taught because it’s very probable from the evidence that we don’t have a completely accurate representation of what he taught. We have remnants written decades later , and edited through the decades that followed by people with their own ideas and agendas. We can’t realistically call Jesus for being a lousy communicator considering those facts.

Who exactly is the “a lot of us” who have agreed?

From another thread

I think DtC has a few more credentials to be the one whose right in this case. So even after being corrected by someone whose intellect you should appreciate, someone who has no religious beliefs to cloud their mind, you still present your own interpretation as accurate?
Is it actually being right that you value, or just perceiving yourself as right?

Thanks for communicating that clearly on the 2nd try.

I thought the symbolism was pretty obvious but I can be more specific.
Again, I’ll ask you to not rephrase and misrepresent other posters. It’s off subject to constantly correct you and then deal with your denial. Using amrussells phrase, don’t put words in others mouths.

If I read Plato it won’t be to compare his intellect with that of Jesus or any other long passed philosopher or teacher. I agree with amrussell that it’s a useless exercise.

97

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Forgive the expression, but Christ on a rubber cross you need things spelled out. First of all, let me apologise for making the assumption that you remembered earlier posts and/or had a functioning scroll bar. Clearly you do, but it seems to leave you in some doubt as to whether I’m trusting your faculties or attempting the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that only someone with a good memory or a functioning scroll bar could spot. (There’s always one fatal flaw in the masterplan, isn’t there?). To elaborate, although I included the Republic on your suggestion I certainly didn’t mean to exclude the Bill of Rights from the discussion by the simple ruse of not typing the words. To elaborate further, I included the BoR as an example of carefully thought out social engineering that was mostly right.
[/quote]

Ok, so you included the Bill of Rights as a an example of carefully thought out social engineering that is mostly right and included it, without qualification, with other documents, that part is fine. What I have a problem with is you later claiming you did so to make the point that you did so with the expressed intent of showing that these same great systems of thought that were proved wrong. It doesn’t quite add up, but I don’t care so much as it seems on most of the important stuff we are in agreement. You just don’t seem to want to admit as much.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
The point, which I didn’t, alas, spell out, is that the ratio of wisdom to well-thought-out foolishness is very low indeed.
[/quote]

For which, the Bill of Rights, the Republic or the Gospels? How would you rate the three? Myself I would probably put the BoR first, Plato second, Jesus in the almost infinite distance, a third.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
I don’t think you have demonstrated that Jesus was wrong, just merely that he holds core beliefs that are different than yours.
[/quote]

That’s besides the point. You made the claim that Plato’s republic was “wrong”, as if it had been proven wrong from a practical standpoint or was shown wrong when compared to some objective morality of some sort. While all you really did was say that you didn’t like his favoring of the group over the individual, censorship etc. Do you wish to back up your claims that Plato was wrong or would you rather lessen the strength of your criticism? As for me and Jesus, for the most part I have not endeavored to show that what Jesus taught is “wrong” (some of it was), but rather that posterity has demonstrated that his reverence is not related to an perceived intelligence or wisdom, at least not as preserved by the gospels, and certainly not in comparison to what many now consider to be the who’s who of philosophy.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
With reference to the section I bolded, what implications does that have for using intelligence as a measure of wisdom?
[/quote]

I don’t understand your question.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
At this point, I’m almost ready to order a Jesus was a Thickie T-shirt and wear it to Canterbury Cathedral if I thought for a second it would get you to explain what you hope to achieve from this exercise.
[/quote]

With regards to liberal Christians who claim they don’t necessarily believe in most or any of the miracle stories as pertaining to Jesus status as a deity, I wish to demonstrate that with regards to the words left by Jesus there is no reason to suggest divinity either. That their beliefs for the most part still just fall back on brainwashing, fear of death, and a coping mechanism for life’s injustices.

With regards to sympathetic atheists and agnostics, to get them to stop saying ignorant things like this, giving Jesus’ teachings far more credit then they justly deserve.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
And I’d be interested to know how the fourth (say) generation of guardians, having been separated from their family, could be said to be willfullly (or willingly) accepting it.
[/quote]

Nobody is willfully or willingly accepting of how they are born and raised, they just are. As for being a guardian in Plato’s society, if one wished not to be, all he need do is do poorly and school or cowardly in battle and he would then be out of the candidacy for guardianship. So no, just because you are born to a guardian does not mean you would have to be one.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
My interpretation of Book III is that no music is to be permitted:
[/quote]

Your interpretation? Let me ask you again, have you read the Republic? Answer this time please.

Plato not only allowed music he demanded it in education and made many references to its necessity to building ones character. From what I have read thus far (I’m on book 6) it was censored and only state approved music could be for education purposes and receive state funding.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
But even excepting the base, financial side of life, the key thing with any personality trait is not how much you have, but what you do with it.
[/quote]

So for example in electing a leader, you would be as likely to select one for his height as one for his intelligence, all other things being equal?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
Just to clarify, I said that if you accept he was sincere in his belief, you could convict Jesus of idiocy, but not of hypocrisy. It’s putting words in my mouth to suggest that I think he was absolutely idiotic.
[/quote]

Ok, for more clarification, if we accept the gospel message as being a reasonably reliable representation of the views of Jesus, do you then think Jesus was a sincere and idiotic, or do you think he was insincere and hypocritical?

[QUOTE=amrussell]
With regard to your questions about my opinion of Jesus, I’m going to offer another challenge to your memory/scroll bar skills: what religion do I follow? Am I a believer in Jesus? Getting the answer right should give you a clue about whether I think Jesus taught the best way to go through life. A closer reading of what I said might reveal whether I was talking about people who do follow Jesus, or myself.
[/quote]

Well you said you were an atheist, but you seem awful sympathetic to Jesus, however you have since agreed with me that by what we have left of them, Plato could get into Mensa, and Jesus couldn’t. So much as you think my posthumous IQ test is wanting, you still came up with the same conclusion I did. I just wanted to make sure that point was well made. As for how Jesus taught us to live, it seem you wanted to paint a merry picture at first but are now backing away from it as I made mention to specifics that most people, not even Christians, think it’s right to follow.

[QUOTE=amrussell]
As for reason, I’m a big fan, but I’m decreasingly convinced that it’s the source of my (or anybody’s) decisions, so much as a post-hoc justification.
[/quote]

You didn’t answer my question. I did not ask how much reason you use, as opposed to various biases. Rather I asked whether you think accepting or believing in things without reason (i.e. on faith) is as better than believing things with reason. When you said you are a fan of reason, does that mean you agree with me that Jesus’ discernment of truth without reason is inferior?

98

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

If I read Plato it won’t be to compare his intellect with that of Jesus or any other long passed philosopher or teacher. I agree with amrussell that it’s a useless exercise.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you would read Plato with the expressed purpose of comparing intellects, I sure didn’t. However after reading a lot of writers I’d hope you could give some gross account of who seems really smart (or any other quality) and who seems less so. For as much as amrussell thinks my exercise was useless with regards to intelligence, he did, grudgingly, come to the same conclusions I did.