And we shouldn’t forget this fact. With what little record we have we don’t really know Paul. It’s clear in his own words that he was a very vexed man ; the law in his members (member) warred against the law of his mind. We know what member he was talking about. It certainly wasn’t his hands warring against his mind. He says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” I guess considering the times and culture in his day we can’t hold it against him that he was a misogynist.
And he was certainly duplicitous with James trying to prove his continued loyalty toward “the law.”
He was a Pharisee, and a Roman. Which was it, Jewish or pagan? or both? And he said he was all things to all persons. And then there was that mysterious thorn thing.
So how can we even think we can come close to knowing Paul.
And Paul is not a spirit, like is said of Christ, so we can’t know him that way. We have only what record we have, and in reality that record is very little.
Compare the record we have from Paul with say that of Henry David Thoreau. I’m a fan of Thoreau. Thoreau’s books, articles, essays, journals, and poetry total over 20 volumes. Still, with such volumes of personal records, from his own hand, even scholars today are still arguing about who and what Thoreau was. And Paul’s record is infinitesimal by comparison. As a result it is impossible to know who and what Paul really was. Most of what we think Paul was is made up in our imagination … which prolly doesn’t come close to reality.
Sometimes I even like Thoreau more than Jesus. Henry was all human. I can never be born of a virgin. So, while I can never be like Jesus, I can be like Henry …
Isn’t seventy times seven times beyond what is reasonable? I’m with you on that. But what you need to accept is that there just comes a point when enough is enough.
Do keep in mind we have no writings from JC himself. But what about the separation of the sheep and the goats? What about the repeated statements about there being much weeping and gnashing of teeth? What about keeping the grain and getting rid of the chaffe? What about Jesus’ insistence that he comes to bring the sword? What about his saying “seventy times seven times” in response to how many times we are to forgive?
Forgive beyond reason, absolutely, but do not forgive indefinitely. There comes a point when enough is enough.
The idea is not that they are punishable by death but that they lead to death, or that death is the natural consequence of these things. Forgive them, absolutely. Forgive them an inordinate number of times. But again, enough is enough!
I hear you on the homosexuality bit though. I could do away with the sexual strictness of Paul’s teaching.
(And I used to think like you. That Jesus is about unconditional forgiveness. I don’t think that’s quite right though. Keep in mind Jesus affirms the Old Testament, and therein we see the ongoing debate about what God should do with humankind, whether God should do away with us completely or forgive us yet again in the hope we can be redeemed. This isn’t lost in Jesus, even if Jesus saves us through his example from the ash heap.)
To be honest, I don’t particularly like Jesus. But then again, I don’t particularly like Gautama Buddha - and I’m a Buddhist! It’s just that their personalities don’t shine through history. The story of their quirks and “faults” have likely been suppressed in order to promote their universality. Thoreau, on the other hand, is a character I can sink my teeth into.
When, exactly, is enough enough? Is it when you personally think it’s reasonable? If so, Jesus exhorts you to forgive beyond what you think is reasonable…
What kind of death are you talking about?
Are you suggesting that Paul’s teaching isn’t from God? If so, I agree.
That’s not my argument, though. I tried to demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference between Jesus angrily throwing the moneylenders out of the temple, and Paul’s inability to bear the world around him. His righteous indignation is an expression of his fundamental misanthropy, while Christ’s is an expression of his love and compassion. I admit, this is only a judgment call on my part. But I think it’s an important one to try to make. Can the case ever be made that a preventive war is an act of love and compassion? Or is such an idea the height of self-delusion?
Roman’s 1:20-22 contain the kernel of Paul’s argument:
τα γαρ [FOR THE] αορατα [INVISIBLE THINGS] αυτου [OF HIM] απο [FROM] κτισεως [CREATION] κοσμου [OF “THE” WORLD] τοις [BY THE] ποιημασιν [THINGS MADE] νοουμενα [BOTH]καθοραται η τε [ETERNAL] αιδιος αυτου [HIS] δυναμις [POWER] και [AND] θειοτης [DIVINITY;] εις το [FOR] ειναι [TO BE] αυτους [THEM] αναπολογητους [WITHOUT EXCUSE.] διοτι [BECAUSE] γνοντες τον [HAVING KNOWN] θεον [GOD] ουχ [NOT] ως [AS] θεον [GOD] εδοξασαν [THE GLORIFIED “HIM”] η [OR] ευχαριστησαν [WERE THANKFUL;] αλλ [BUT] εματαιωθησαν [BECAME VAIN] εν [IN] τοις [THEIR] διαλογισμοις αυτων [REASONINGS] και [AND] εσκοτισθη η [WAS DARKENED THE] ασυνετος [WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING] αυτων [OF THEM] καρδια [HEART] φασκοντες [PROFESSING] ειναι [TO BE] σοφοι [WISE] εμωρανθησαν [THEY BECAME FOOLS,]
[Source: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. Interlinear Greek New Testament Bible]
Allow me to paraphrase: Everybody knew Paul’s god, the god of Judaism, because his power and divinity are manifest in his creation. But some [the gentiles] chose not to acknowledge Paul’s god as God by worshiping him. Therefore, Paul’s god removed their ability to think straight and they became stupid.
In the verses that follow, Paul goes on to state that because the gentiles are fools, they worship idols[ that represent demons, by the way] and go on to do all kinds of horrible things. So there is an argument 1) that the attributes of Paul’s god are self evident and 2) knowing this people refused to worship god 3) such people are stupid and sinful. Therefore, they are worthy of punishment.
The answer to that one is perhaps best left to God. And you know, practically speaking, I could happily agree that it’s our role to talk God out of it when God at last decides that enough is enough. Just like Moses did, when God was ready to destroy Israel on account of the golden calf incident.
Does that sit better with you? It’s important to keep in mind that we’re on a short leash, or that sometimes enough is enough and God is going to hit back. But it’s also important to keep in mind that with God even a short leash can be extended, and instead of trying to figure out when enough is enough we should be focused on advocating on behalf of those whose slack has run out.
I’m trying to establish a fine line here between practicing indefinite forgiveness and a cut off point.
Death death. The end of life, which is to say that nexus of spirit and matter.
He may have been a little off with the sex bits. I don’t think this means his teaching isn’t from God but only that he was wrong to include certain sex acts in the list of obvious wrong-doings. And don’t take me wrong when I say this, because I’m pretty liberal when it comes to sex, but it’s easy to understand why he might have said this. Man on man sex, for instance, isn’t exactly natural, or as natural as man-woman intercourse. (The penis was designed for the vagina and baby-making, not for the mouth or anus or anything else!)
If I may, I would like to separate Paul’s statements of self evidence from his ad hominem because since he believes them, he at least believes he is right. The important thing is that his statements are not falsifiable within the meaning of Karl Potter. They are too grandiiose to be tested to find if they are self evident or not. Since they really cannot be tested, they can be dismissed as nonsecientific and opionated. What really fascinates me is why is he so obsessed with judging these actions since he knows that he cannot prove his point. Since he cannot prove them he judges them and appeals to his righteous status in the community for others to believe him. Certainly his supposed tighteousness is his claim to ad hominem.
We as Americans claim the very same type of self evidence for the foundation of our republic.“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal”. Once again how could this be proven. We accept it as nonscientific but true. I think that Paul clings to his nonsecientific judgments out of fear. As in one Shakespeare play someone chastises another by saying “I think you dost protest too much”. Extreme and unreasonable protest shows the place of fear that one is operating from. Much like gaybashing today, it says far more about the person doing the bashing than the acts. Paul shows himself to be hysterically afraid of sex, women, and homosexuality. He is so afraid that he needs the seal of approval from God to certify his beliefs to himself. It is clear that he will create whatever authority he needs in his mind.
It seems important for your case, but what makes you think that Paul is addressing the Gentiles?
Paul is addressing Gentiles in his letter, that is certain, for he is the apostle to the Gentiles. But Paul is not addressing Gentiles here. Rather he is addressing the unrighteous and godless, whatever their nationality may be.
Unrighteousness (and righteousness for that matter) is a status that cuts across Jew or Gentile. A Jew can be as godless as a Gentile just as a Gentile can be as God-fearing as a Jew. Our nationality is a difference that makes no difference in this part of Paul’s conversation.
(“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Colossians 3:11)
I question Paul generally and wonder why he was given so much credence in the faith when so much earlier texts were burned or cast aside. Paul never knew Jesus, he is apparently gifted by visions that tell him how the Church should progress? I am dubious about his visions, I am dubious about Paul. In context of the modern times this of course seems a reliable doubt, but nearly 2000 years ago people would of been accepting of things they wanted to hear about the faith. The old Jewish religion did not help the gentiles, one should ask if Paul was just playing to the new crowd?
(“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Colossians 3:11)
My short leash is a lifetime; gods have never hit me and most likely never will.
If a person bases their decisions on when a god is going to figuratively hit them, then I’d prefer to keep my distance from them.
No, it being from Paul should be the first indication that it’s not from a god.
If not, then why not believe Joseph Smith while we’re at it?
That’s correct; 1.2 million people in this nation aren’t “as natural” as the rest of us.
It hasn’t anything to do with neurobiological development of electrochemical responses in consequence to genetic alterations.
No, nothing natural like that like some would claim.
As we all know, it must be a less-than-natural choice.
I’m quite sure that’s the reason Paul brought up homosexuality.
Because it’s less natural.
It couldn’t possibly be that he lived in, and was talking to, populations of the late Iron Age Roman Empire.
Did everyone in here skip history class?
Late Rome = lots of homosexual practices and lots of sexual practices in general.
It wasn’t odd for a wife to force her husband to have sex at the temple during this age (or those prior for that matter), in the same manner as a spouse today would get after the other for not doing what’s needed to get the taxes filed.
Especially in places like Corinth (at Paul’s time, the single largest black pottery exportation and trade, which means…stinking rich in the age of Rome), or Thessaloniki (which was among the largest of trade hubs in all of Central Macedonia - even was capital of the region a few times, variously).
It’s like Paul writing to people living in Las Vegas and San Francisco who knew nothing of Jewish concepts of religion, and absolutely nothing about this new wave of Gentilian adoption of a Jewish messianic teacher held to be savior.
Why would he bring up sex so much?
Why would he be so strong and adament against homosexuality?
Why would he suggest chastity would be easier unless these people just could not resist a marriage?
Gee…no flipping idea.
This is a person, Paul, that sympathizes with James … a devoutly strong Hebrew.
He doesn’t agree with James on everything, and we see that clearly, but he does agree on many things.
One of those is the Hebrew chastity, by comparison to other nations…pretty chaste; having prostetutes in Judah was by far nothing compared to what was taking place just across the pond, down south in Egypt, up north in Assyria, or previously the land of Hattusa (“Hittites”), or Babylon, or well…you get the picture.
To grasp:
We’ll let Minnesota stay as it is culturally.
Now we’ll make the rest of the United States culturally like Las Vegas and San Francisco.
So 49 portions sexually wide open and applied in multiple arenas of society, to include religions, and 1 portion (Minnesota) sexually present (prostitution), but no one talks about it in Minnesota, and they’ll beat your ass if you do (pretty on par for Judah).
If you come from a background of that little area of Minnesota (your parents were from Minnesota and regularly took you back), ended up living in New York City quite often, and were writing to people that lived in Las Vegas…what do you think you’ll say to them if you are trying to convert them to Minnesotan lifestyle while they are still living in Las Vegas?
“The way to live a Minnesotan life is to live as they do in Las Vegas. Go! Have indiscriminate and public sex, gamble, party!”
Or…
" "
(nothing said on sex)
Somehow…I don’t see either working out for converting people to the “Minnesotan” style of life if those people live in Las Vegas and have no idea what this “New Minnesotan” culture is.
You and me both.
I could understand a bit if we are looking before Joseph Smith.
But still, like you said…a bit of an odd choice to make.
After Joseph Smith, however?
No…I don’t really get it.
If you can identify one guy with a new addition and a claim to visitations from Jesus as wrong…why not the other?
What’s the distinction?
Well, the distinction actually comes in that it was Paul that really made a hell of allot of noise and got the movement from Judah to the rest of the Roman Empire.
If it weren’t for Paul, in fact…no one probably would have done much or heard all that much about this Galilean Hebrew and this fringe movement that was dying out in the Levant region almost as quickly as it started.
I do not know where you guys get off deciding what is natural or not for someone else. If you think sex is only for procreation you are an animal who has yet to lift their head form the dirt and gaze at the sky. Jason did you ever shave your face? What’s natural about that. I support anyone’s freedom to question any behavior on philosophical grounds but that is not what you are doing.
I believe that you missed that I was being satirical in agreeing with Aly on “natural”.
This…means this:
It’s not “less natural”.
1.2 million people in this nation aren’t “less natural” than the rest of the population.
How is a neurobiological development of electrochemical responses in consequence to genetic alteration “less natural”?
What confuses the point is that you suggest that the fact that he is a foreigner is relevant. He would have been equally hard on prostitutes or promiscuity in his homeland. As a matter of fact his homeland was to reject all sexuality. He was very clear in stating that he believed abstinence was a higher way. Your satire was lost on me, but like I said I don’t see it as making a relevant point. His issues were so diverse that being gay was the least of his problems.What does it matter if someone objects to homosexuality if they believe all sexuality is inferior, its a given. The important question is why does anyone accept such a belief as rational. Furthermore why do people who are never going to live it want to hear it? If someone is that far out there why are they seen as a sage rather than a circus geek?
Possibly; there are inconsistencies with Paul in that particular text which shouldn’t be dismissed too quickly.
But even dismissing that aspect, to be clear; he moreover asserts this because he finds that it is a simpler life; not a holier one.
What?
You take strange paths with what I say.
I was writing in response to another tangent that was already taking place.
That tangent was essentially suggesting that Paul was writing so strongly on sex because the sexual concepts (specifically mentioned in the tangent; homosexuality) were in some manner less natural “de facto”.
It was also brought up that Paul is party to the “protest too much” type of psychology, suggesting that he draws attention to his own sexuality with his writings.
I was pointing out that everyone is looking at Paul’s writing without considering what time period he was in, or who he was writing to.
He’s writing to people literally surrounded by sex culturally.
He’s trying to teach them a new culture, which, among many other differences, has a radically different view on sexual conduct than their homelands.
Why would he not focus on sex so much?
But this thread is not intended to be a course in understanding the new testament. Its suppose to be about why do people accept an adhominem. I think we are all aware of the need to know how to read ancient text. The salient point of the thread is why do people accept his words at face value when they are not the norm. What is about paul that people believe him. He refers to his life as a higher love not an easier one. If it was blatantly easier there would be no need for ad hominem. I cannot see anyone describing any love as easy. My reflections which you regard as a tangent relate directly to the theme because they show that people may believe an ad hominem if it is projected fiercely as someone in denial may want to. If you listen to any commercial or sales pitch you will notice that it is imperitive the person appear to believe in what they are selling. So again why would anyone believe that this guy had the authority to teach them anything much less a very different perspective on life and sexualtiy. I mean really if someone tried to do that to you today you would laugh and go about your way. So what gave him this ad hominem ability. Could it possibly be he was addressing some deep seated fear of theirs? And if so are we still susceptable to that today?
