An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[cloudyday2]

For instance, while Jesus said to the Rich Young Ruler "give up all you have," to His disciples (which the Rich Guy wasn't), Jesus said "Lend to your enemies and to your neighbors, expecting nothing back." He didn't say to His disciples, "just hand over all your cash to the people of the world and shut the heck up--I have Spoken!"

I think you're wrong on the point above. Think about it: according to Acts, all the property of a new member was given to the cult. This matches the Essene procedure, so it is probably true. After a person became an Essene, each member was expected to give anything requested by another Essene member. That is why Jesus told his disciples not to bring any money when traveling to spread his message. The Essenes in each village were expected to take care of their traveling brothers without question.

Hopefully you get what I'm saying here. There was no higher standard for the rich guy. Everybody was expected to give all they had to the cult. Everybody was expected to loan without question to a brother in the cult.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think you're wrong on the point above. Think about it: according to Acts, all the property of a new member was given to the cult. This matches the Essene procedure, so it is probably true. After a person became an Essene, each member was expected to give anything requested by another Essene member. That is why Jesus told his disciples not to bring any money when traveling to spread his message. The Essenes in each village were expected to take care of their traveling brothers without question.

Hopefully you get what I'm saying here. There was no higher standard for the rich guy. Everybody was expected to give all they had to the cult. Everybody was expected to loan without question to a brother in the cult.

Early Christians believed Jesus’ return was imminent. Therefore no need for worldly possessions. As decades slipped into centuries, Christian dogma changed to reflect the fact there would be no return.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're wrong on the point above. Think about it: according to Acts, all the property of a new member was given to the cult. This matches the Essene procedure, so it is probably true. After a person became an Essene, each member was expected to give anything requested by another Essene member. That is why Jesus told his disciples not to bring any money when traveling to spread his message. The Essenes in each village were expected to take care of their traveling brothers without question.

Hopefully you get what I'm saying here. There was no higher standard for the rich guy. Everybody was expected to give all they had to the cult. Everybody was expected to loan without question to a brother in the cult.

And you're not hearing what I'm saying, Cloudy. Furthermore, you're reading into the texts in Acts (without specifically citing them, by the way) and basically inferring that what early Christians did was something exhibiting what we might think of as some kind of early communism. The problem is, that ain't the case; that's not exactly what the people of the early church were doing.

In fact, if we look at the texts about Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37, and even take into consideration the context of Acts 4:32-35, it's really more an example of deep sharing and caring than anything else. It's kind of like we see with the rich guy named Zacchaeus. The interesting thing is that the account of Jesus interaction with Zacchaeus takes place in Luke 19:1-10, a text written by the same author who wrote the Book of Acts. And what do we find in the account regarding Zacchaeus? How much money does he have to give before Jesus says to him, "Well done!"

Now, the problem here is that one can then compare it to the account of Jesus' address to the Rich Young Ruler, and in doing so, we may be tempted to think then that there must be an inconsistency. However, our interpretive choices here will have to take everything into account and we might conclude that various extents of giving within Christianity are commanded by Jesus to different people. What is common to all is that all Christians need to share and to share in substantive ways that make a difference; however, not all of those who would wish to follow Jesus necessarily need to give up and sell all that they have. If they do, THEN it is incumbent upon the local church to likewise share and care for those Christians who have "given up all" to follow Jesus. If the Church cannot do that, they shouldn't be inviting others to give up all, especially if those who give up all have kids and spouses to feed and care for, etc. God isn't a proponent of an economy of poverty--which isn't really an economy.

So, what we see in the text of the Book of Acts is a form of Communitarianism, not Communism. Two different types of social and economic entities. Additionally, we need to keep our ongoing discovery and accumulation of biblical texts open to various applications of the hermeneutical circle. We should always be open to new considerations and take into account, possibly, other interpretive measures offered by various commentators...and in taking all of this into consideration, then make an evaluation, one that will later be again open to further evaluation.

And this is what I'm trying to get across, Cloudy.


It's a form of Communitarianism---Essenes or no Essenes.

 

[cloudyday2]

It's a form of Communitarianism---Essenes or no Essenes.

It it's Essenes then it's communism. Essenes had no property. They had jobs outside the commune and often had families from before joining the Essenes. Their most important ritual was a communal meal each day. They were concentrated mostly in Galilee. Archaeologists have found that Galilean Jewish houses lacked cooking utensils, dishes, etc., so they infer communal dining (sounds like Essenes to me). Jesus arose in Galilee. The area where early Christians lived in Jerusalem was the Essene gate. ... IDK, to me it's obvious that Christianity arose from one of the Essene sects, therefore it must have been communism.

EDIT: Of course the people who wrote the gospels were from a different era. The original Jewish Christians ("the poor") were mostly gone. If you look only at the text as written instead of looking between the lines, then you only see the Christianity that existed near the time of composition. We want to see the Christianity from the time of Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It it's Essenes then it's communism. Essenes had no property. They had jobs outside the commune and often had families from before joining the Essenes. Their most important ritual was a communal meal each day. They were concentrated mostly in Galilee. Archaeologists have found that Galilean Jewish houses lacked cooking utensils, dishes, etc., so they infer communal dining (sounds like Essenes to me). Jesus arose in Galilee. The area where early Christians lived in Jerusalem was the Essene gate. ... IDK, to me it's obvious that Christianity arose from one of the Essene sects, therefore it must have been communism.

EDIT: Of course the people who wrote the gospels were from a different era. The original Jewish Christians ("the poor") were mostly gone. If you look only at the text as written instead of looking between the lines, then you only see the Christianity that existed near the time of composition. We want to see the Christianity from the time of Jesus.

Cloudy....you need to cite support for your comments here for me to consider them. So, what book or article did you cull this from so that I may share in the insight of your knowledge.

 

[cloudyday2]

Cloudy....you need to cite support for your comments here for me to consider them. So, what book or article did you cull this from so that I may share in the insight of your knowledge.

Unfortunately I often have trouble finding these things myself. I'll give you a list of some possibilities in a minute, but first let me mention something about context. One of the books I liked was "From Gods to God" ( From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends by Avigdor Shinan ). You might like reading it. The author describes how religious texts are changed to conform to changing theology. You can't delete the stories that contradict the theology because they already exist in the culture, so you add new context around those stories that changes the meaning so the contradiction goes away. So you need to DISREGARD the textual context of a story to know its original meaning. If there is a story or a saying of Jesus in the gospel, then IGNORE the textual context or assume the meaning is the OPPOSITE of what the textual context suggests. The only context that matters is the CULTURAL context at the time of Jesus, and that cultural context is some sect of Essene IMO.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'll start off by saying I only watched the first two minutes or so...

And I wholeheartedly disagree with him. All moral value judgements are subjectively applied...even if we state them in a way that sounds objective (or we believe is objective). So when someone says, "You aren't acting very Christ-like"...what they're really saying is "in my opinion, you aren't acting very Christ-like"...which is entirely true.

Ignoring the fact that there's multiple biblical interpretations...and various arguments for what is or isn't Christ like behavior...the fact of the matter is that even if you were born on 1AD and had known Christ your entire life and hung out with him every day, you still would only be giving a subjective opinion on what is Christ like behavior. This is not a thing that can be known.

The guy making the video is simply noticing the problem of making factual statements about morality because he doesn't believe in Christ, so therefore he realizes no such factual moral statements can be made. He may not yet realize that Christ or not, no objectively factual moral statements can be made at all. Once he realizes that, he would probably understand that nobody's moral opinions legitimize objective facts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Unfortunately I often have trouble finding these things myself. I'll give you a list of some possibilities in a minute, but first let me mention something about context. One of the books I liked was "From Gods to God" ( From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends by Avigdor Shinan ). You might like reading it. The author describes how religious texts are changed to conform to changing theology. You can't delete the stories that contradict the theology because they already exist in the culture, so you add new context around those stories that changes the meaning so the contradiction goes away. So you need to DISREGARD the textual context of a story to know its original meaning. If there is a story or a saying of Jesus in the gospel, then IGNORE the textual context or assume the meaning is the OPPOSITE of what the textual context suggests. The only context that matters is the CULTURAL context at the time of Jesus, and that cultural context is some sect of Essene IMO.

Ok. I'll look forward to your list of sources in support of what you've told me. It sounds interesting. (See, my taking in your information is a part of the ongoing "hermeneutic circle" )

 

[cloudyday2]

O.k. @2PhiloVoid , here is where I got most of the information about Essenes from the earlier post.

The main source was "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis" by Boccaccini ( Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism by Gabriele Boccaccini )

The information about communal dining in Galilee probably came from a segment on the Essenes in this DVD "The Christ Files" ( The Christ Files )

I may have found some info from browsing various online articles, but I will never remember them.

EDIT: The DVD documentary was surprisingly good, and you might want to watch it. They included the unedited interviews kind of like an appendix. The presenter interviewed some top-notch scholars like Geza Vermes and the unedited interviews had a lot more detail without all the glitzy cinematography and CGI nonsense - just two people in a room talking.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

O.k. @2PhiloVoid , here is where I got most of the information about Essenes from the earlier post.

The main source was "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis" by Boccaccini ( Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism by Gabriele Boccaccini )

The information about communal dining in Galilee probably came from a segment on the Essenes in this DVD "The Christ Files" ( The Christ Files )

I may have found some info from browsing various online articles, but I will never remember them.

EDIT: The DVD documentary was surprisingly good, and you might want to watch it. They included the unedited interviews kind of like an appendix. The presenter interviewed some top-notch scholars like Geza Vermes and the unedited interviews had a lot more detail without all the glitzy cinematography and CGI nonsense - just two people in a room talking.

Ok. Thank you for providing info on both sources. Each of these looks to be academically substantive, if I do say so myself.

Still, how about that Zacchaeus guy?

 

[Silmarien]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Oh, my. Someone really needs to lay off the Derrida.

I do think he's correct to point out the subjectivism involved in biblical interpretation, but very wrong to treat it as an all or nothing gamble. Why is it inappropriate to view passages within the cultural context of when they were written simply because it doesn't provide some arbitrary standard of "certainty"? Is he going to reject all of history as a field of study because it does not operate like the sciences do?

He also seems to be approaching matters from an extremely Protestant perspective and ignoring both Jewish tradition, where you do have the Talmud and its commentaries, and the Catholic and Orthodox churches which interpret Scripture through the lens of the Church Fathers. So this idea that all that exists is one book that exists in an utter vacuum just strikes me as ignorant. The more authorized tools you have for interpretation, the more "standard" an interpretation you're going to get. Whether or not there is any objective truth value to it is irrelevant for determining the agreed upon meaning of the text.

If he wants to claim that all of this is culturally fabricated with no objective standard that humans have not themselves provided, fine, but intertextuality does not mean that religious writings cannot be studied and their message understood. I think he has too poor a view on literary analysis and ancient history. I would also say that anyone who follows a religion has accepted that religion as a moral authority and can be held accountable to it, at least broadly, whatever that religion may be. Most are not so completely incoherent as to make this impossible.

 

[cloudyday2]

Still, how about that Zacchaeus guy?

Somewhere I read that when a nobody has a name in the gospel it is most likely that this person Zacchaeus later converted to Christianity and toured the early churches giving a speech that included his story of when he met Jesus in the flesh. Maybe Zacchaeus was dead when Mark was written, but apparently he was remembered by name still at that time (?)

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the idea that Zacchaeus only gave half-eus. He was only hosting Jesus at his house. Of course the fact that he would donate half of his possessions to the poor for the opportunity to spend an evening listening to Jesus is shocking. Later I'm sure Zacchaeus gave the other half-eus to Peter and became penniless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, my. Someone really needs to lay off the Derrida.

Yeah, Ya think?

I do think he's correct to point out the subjectivism involved in biblical interpretation, but very wrong to treat it as an all or nothing gamble. Why is it inappropriate to view passages within the cultural context of when they were written simply because it doesn't provide some arbitrary standard of "certainty"? Is he going to reject all of history as a field of study because it does not operate like the sciences do?

I'd have to find out what he thinks about history on the whole. Somehow, I get the impression that GMS thinks these limitations apply only to the Bible or other religious texts in general. But I could be wrong. [He has other videos since he's a regular youtube blogger. I could take a look to see if he has anything else to say on this matter.]

He also seems to be approaching matters from an extremely Protestant perspective and ignoring both Jewish tradition, where you do have the Talmud and its commentaries, and the Catholic and Orthodox churches which interpret Scripture through the lens of the Church Fathers. So this idea that all that exists is one book that exists in an utter vacuum just strikes me as ignorant. The more authorized tools you have for interpretation, the more "standard" an interpretation you're going to get. Whether or not there is any objective truth value to it is irrelevant for determining the agreed upon meaning of the text.

Those are some good points for all here to consider.

If he wants to claim that all of this is culturally fabricated with no objective standard that humans have not themselves provided, fine, but intertextuality does not mean that religious writings cannot be studied and their message understood. I think he has too poor a view on literary analysis and ancient history. I would also say that anyone who follows a religion has accepted that religion as a moral authority and can be held accountable to it, at least broadly, whatever that religion may be. Most are not so completely incoherent as to make this impossible.

I kind of sense that this may be the case with GMS, too. But, I also think his point is interesting about how if an atheist finds the Bible to be completely false (such as Richard Carrier types tend to do), then it does seem like a waste of her time, and an unnecessary expenditure of social energy on her part to cite Christian moral failure as being any sort of akrasia [as Aristotle would have called it].

 

[Silmarien]

I kind of sense that this may be the case with GMS, too. But, I also think his point is interesting about how if an atheist finds the Bible to be completely false (such as Richard Carrier types tend to do), then it does seem like a waste of her time, and an unnecessary expenditure of social energy on her part to cite Christian moral failure as being any sort of akrasia [as Aristotle would have called it].

Well, I think the underlying issue there is that Western society in particular has been conditioned by the Christian faith to hold certain values as sacrosanct, and even if you reject Christianity, the religion at its best really does mirror our culture at its best (at the very least from our point of view). Plenty of atheists will try to run away from how entwined the two things are, but I don't think you really can without embracing moral nihilism. So Christian hypocrisy can still be galling as long as you have an idealized image of what Christianity is supposed to look like.

I think his argument that there's no possible idealized image is pretty destructive, though. It ultimately amounts to the same as saying that morality as a concept cannot transcend human subjectivity (or that intersubjectivity doesn't matter).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I think the underlying issue there is that Western society in particular has been conditioned by the Christian faith to hold certain values as sacrosanct, and even if you reject Christianity, the religion at its best really does mirror our culture at its best (at the very least from our point of view). Plenty of atheists will try to run away from how entwined the two things are, but I don't think you really can without embracing moral nihilism. So Christian hypocrisy can still be galling as long as you have an idealized image of what Christianity is supposed to look like.

I think his argument that there's no possible idealized image is pretty destructive, though. It ultimately amounts to the same as saying that morality as a concept cannot transcend human subjectivity (or that intersubjectivity doesn't matter).

Those are good points, Silmarien! And I won't attempt to derail them. I think you've hit on something substantive there about how religion in the U.S., at its best, mirrors our culture at its best, even if it's something by which we are only speaking in ideal terms, anyway.

However, I don't think that GMS is specifically inferring moral nihilism, because in one of his other videos, he essentially decries that kind of thing among atheists (supposedly). However, this isn't to say that his approach isn't destructive. Rather, through using a deconstructive approach (of sorts)--in bulldozer fashion--GMS seems to want to instill the same moral levity and/or libertinism as a Hugh Hefner, a Richard Carrier, or the LGBTQ community. And of course, for those who want to live that kind of lifestyle----Conservative Christians need to be displaced, one way or another, maybe even in Katy Perry fashion [i.e. "buying out" convents ]. (Yes, I said that last little bit to be somewhat politically provocative .... although I don't do so in any David Barton kind of way. I'm definitely not a Bartonian! Not by a longshot! )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're wrong on the point above. Think about it: according to Acts, all the property of a new member was given to the cult. This matches the Essene procedure, so it is probably true. After a person became an Essene, each member was expected to give anything requested by another Essene member. That is why Jesus told his disciples not to bring any money when traveling to spread his message. The Essenes in each village were expected to take care of their traveling brothers without question.

Hopefully you get what I'm saying here. There was no higher standard for the rich guy. Everybody was expected to give all they had to the cult. Everybody was expected to loan without question to a brother in the cult.

Yes, but Jesus says to loan to those OUTSIDE of the cult, as well, even to one's enemies. So, if a Christian is supposed to "give up all," then from where will he have an ongoing financial substance to "loan" to even his own enemies?

As I'm thinking about this, I'm feeling that something doesn't jive with your Essene theory, Cloudy, although this isn't to say that there isn't at least some cultural connection between the Essenes and the Early Christian church; they were all Jews, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say that they all had similarly derived adaptations of social interaction and/or charity drawn from O.T. laws. But, I digress. There's further research to do ... isn't there?

(By the way, I ordered the book version of "The Christ Files," so I'll be able to better evaluate what you mean by "reading between the lines." It may turn out that what John Dickson really means is the same as what I mean---that both Philosophy of History and Hermeneutics need to be fully applied to one's study of the Bible and of history in general.

I might buy the Boccaccini book at some point. I'm just not thrilled about having to shell out $15 for it to do so ... ... I may instead just try to find some peer-reviewed reviews of Boccaccini so as to still get his overall thesis, along with some critical review of his work. )

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, but Jesus says to loan to those OUTSIDE of the cult, as well, even to one's enemies. So, if a Christian is supposed to "give up all," then from where will he have an ongoing financial substance to "loan" to even his own enemies.

The way it worked is that any Essene could take anything he wanted from the community for his use - no questions asked. So if somebody needed a loan you could simply take whatever it was - say a book for example - from the communal collection and give it to that person (I suppose). You couldn't become an Essene until you were middle-aged and had passed some examinations. Some sects believed that the soul had seven parts and the potential member needed to have a majority of those parts good rather than evil. This all comes from Boccaccini's book. His argument is that the Qumran sect was not representative of typical Essenes. Some Essenes allowed women as members. Most Essenes lived and worked among other Jews. Most Essenes believed in freewill and the Qumran sect did NOT believe in freewill. It's like taking a Catholic monastery as the model for all Catholicism to take Qumran as the model for the Essenes.

(By the way, I ordered the book version of "The Christ Files," so I'll be able to better evaluate what you mean by "reading between the lines." It may turn out that what John Dickson really means is the same as what I mean---that both Philosophy of History and Hermeneutics need to be fully applied to one's study of the Bible and of history in general.

Actually the book you want for my ideas about reading between the lines is "From Gods to God". It is written by a professor at Hebrew University in Israel and translated by his daughter I believe. You would like it because it was written for academics. I had difficulty following a lot of it, but people who know the Jewish literature and Hebrew grammar would have an easier time.

"The Christ Files" is really good though. The section on archaeology in Galilee mentions the communal dining evidence that suggested Essenes to me. There is also a separate segment on Essenes I believe. Apparently the question about an oxen falling in a ditch derives from an actual Essene rule. So Jesus was addressing Essenes even if He wasn't actually an Essene Himself.

I might buy the Boccaccini book at some point. I'm just not thrilled about having to shell out $15 for it to do so ... ... I may instead just try to find some peer-reviewed reviews of Boccaccini so as to still get his overall thesis, along with some critical review of his work. )

Trust me, it's is well worth $15. Some people have such a talent at writing that they can make dry academic information into pleasant reading for a layman. It's not like Ehrman where he waters down the information to make it more palatable. Boccaccini makes it understandable and interesting without watering it down. It is also a fairly thin book (which appealed to me as a slow reader LOL)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey Everyone-

Here we have an atheist youtube blogger who goes by the handle, “Genetically Modified Skeptic.”

In this short video, he delineates how he thinks some of his fellow atheists unneccessarily (and maybe unintentionally) legitimize a “correct” understanding of Christianity.

So, do you (whether as an atheist or as a Christian) agree with GMS's various criticisms about how his fellow atheists represent, or misrepresent, Christianity? If not, what's he wrong about?


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I think he posits a moronic argument. Star Wars is obviously fictitious, but there are nevertheless people who claim "Jedi" as their religion. And if they live a lifestyle contrary to our expectations, we can call them out on it based on the fictitious source. We wouldn't say, "Star Wars is not real and therefore I have no conceivable expectations for your behavior."


And a part of me thinks you're fishing atheist videos and asking if we agree to see if you can out some of the atheists here. Well, as for me, I'm not a YouTuber.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think he posits a moronic argument. Star Wars is obviously fictitious, but there are nevertheless people who claim "Jedi" as their religion. And if they live a lifestyle contrary to our expectations, we can call them out on it based on the fictitious source. We wouldn't say, "Star Wars is not real and therefore I have no conceivable expectations for your behavior."

Well, at least we are in agreement about something; I do think GMS goes a bit too far with his deconstructionist type argumentation. But, it is interesting to see that there can indeed be a variety of approaches to how an atheist entertains and supports his own evaluation about religion (or specifically Christianity, in this case). I do know that GMS thinks nihilism goes too far (as he states in one of his other videos), and so part of his position would be to assert that moral nihilism is wrong while retaining a more relativized form of morality.

And a part of me thinks you're fishing atheist videos and asking if we agree to see if you can out some of the atheists here. Well, as for me, I'm not a YouTuber.

I'm not "outing" anyone, although it is interesting to see how atheists can come by their atheism in different ways, in ways not always compatible even with each other, just like how Christians can come at their faith in various ways that also may not always be completely compatible with each other. Wouldn't you agree?

But then again, GMS may have a point about how some atheists spend way too much time in inadvertently giving some kind of inherent creedance to the morality in the Bible, ay?

And you're not a youtuber? What does that mean? You don't like youtube because of all of the commercial breaks?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't watch the clip (primarily because I can't at this moment).

But I can certainly state that I have no problem at all with disagreeing with atheists on any subject - including whatever argumentation they might have against any particular religion.

Atheists don't have a monopoly on rationality or valid arguments...

I'm sure that you, as a christian, could also easily identify "bad" arguments FOR christianity by other christians, right?

Because Christ's instructions are, if people find out about them,... all too clear!

"Love one another"
"forgive your brother from your heart"
"Love your enemy"
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you"

Let's face it. This is very clear.
That means what is "Christ like" is abundantly and sharply clear.

And yes, this clarity is a problem for certain atheist arguments.

His assumptions are interesting. What will happen for him if he finds out that what is Christ like is objectively sharply clear?

These "instructions" you mention, are a play on emotion, really.
I could agree with just about EVERY idea concerning social stuff or how to treat humans etc, while not believing the religion.

A good idea is a good idea, regardless of where it comes from.
Christianity is FAR MORE then those 4 instructions. I could agree with every single one of them, and disagree with everything else.

Having said that, I do not actually agree that these are all good instructions.

I don't "love my enemies" for example. The "turning the other cheek", I also consider to be an exceptionally bad idea.

And the "golden rule" isn't even original or exclusive to christianity. Societies all over the world, most of which hadn't even heared of abrahamic religion or existed before abrahamic religion was even a thing, came up with such a rule all by themselves.

Again: a good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.