Paul's Great Ad Hom

[James S Saint]

All I'm saying is that I don't A) revere that concept (not saying it's bad for people to revere it though), nor B) really see any reason to confuse common lingo from the social normality of the conventional understanding of that title.

Or, to say it another way, if I were to call it, "God", by title...it would have no effect for me personally than if I did not, aside from creating a confusion during conversation with others that believe in gods.

As always, if it works for you, rock it!
*shrug* I just have no real need to call that, "God".

"Force of product" - what you referred to as, "the ongoing cause of all that is".

Oh, I largely agree.
Likewise there is no real need to explain to the cat that the Earth isn't flat.

[Jayson]

What I'm discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion is in humanity.

Is that a sentence?

Yes.
Let me replace "is" with "exists"
What I'm discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion exists in humanity.

One thing is rather certain at this point in time: it isn't rational logic that brings people to their divinities.

You think that is certain? People have testified that their faith was based on reasoning. Like Spinoza, and Newton and Einstein and many others. Are you saying that they were lying or that you know their minds better than they did?

I never said people don't have reasoning regarding their religious beliefs.
I said that such is largely post-emotional.

Aside from that, I also mentioned several times that I'm referring to the mass majority; not the select few, as there are very few absolutes.

People aren't markedly praying and singing hymns with emotional devotion as a function of logical resolution.

So its impossible for a person to choose to sing or pray based on reason So an addict couldn't use induction to observe that the principles of AA have helped people recover from addiction and therefore pray to a higher power for strength

They could, sure.
Haven't met, read of, heard of, or otherwise encountered one yet that has.

If you want to stand firm that people are purely logical in their choice of religion; knock yourself out and enjoy trying to convince people that their beliefs in their religions are logically invalid (though, that's not a real big secret).
Seems like it's worked out well for Dawkins so far.

[anon]

I seriously doubt there are all that many Christians that are Christian today due to the logic of Paul directly.

Paul's "logic" is fear. You don't think many modern Christians' beliefs are fear-based?

Further, he was a zealot and perhaps the first missionary. He was to Christ what Plato was to Socrates. Modern Christianity is largely Paulism.

anon--I think there is more to Paul's gospel than an appeal to fear.

I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that his fear poisoned Christ's teachings.

His teaching has often been appropriated and distorted by the Church.For example, He did not teach eternal damnation, and yet the Church uses his epistles to support that doctrine.

No doubt. Fear breeds fear.

Your OP clearly presented Paul's attitude. I'm just asking that his words be interpreted honestly. I mostly agree with what you're getting at there. I think his words are "ad-hommish".

[felix dakat]

What I'm discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion is in humanity.

Is that a sentence?

Yes.
Let me replace "is" with "exists"
What I'm discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion exists in humanity.

One thing is rather certain at this point in time: it isn't rational logic that brings people to their divinities.

You think that is certain? People have testified that their faith was based on reasoning. Like Spinoza, and Newton and Einstein and many others. Are you saying that they were lying or that you know their minds better than they did?

I never said people don't have reasoning regarding their religious beliefs.
I said that such is largely post-emotional.

Aside from that, I also mentioned several times that I'm referring to the mass majority; not the select few, as there are very few absolutes.

People aren't markedly praying and singing hymns with emotional devotion as a function of logical resolution.

So its impossible for a person to choose to sing or pray based on reason So an addict couldn't use induction to observe that the principles of AA have helped people recover from addiction and therefore pray to a higher power for strength

They could, sure.
Haven't met, read of, heard of, or otherwise encountered one yet that has.

If you want to stand firm that people are purely logical in their choice of religion; knock yourself out and enjoy trying to convince people that their beliefs in their religions are logically invalid (though, that's not a real big secret).
Seems like it's worked out well for Dawkins so far.

Again you are posing a false dilemma. I never suggested that religion was an entirely logical enterprise. Now you are trying to make it that that is my position. Your simply setting up a straw man to knock down.

[anon]

...Paul's letters predate most of the gospels, so the guy you criticize does have a point because it is probable that Paul's preaching affected the gospel more than the one gospel affected Paul.

That's an odd argument, I think. If you take the entire Bible as literally the words of God, then it doesn't matter which came first. They shouldn't even print Christ's statements in red, since Paul's words are just as "holy". And if, like me, you think the idea of any of it being literally the words of God is nonsense, then you must judge for yourself which parts are valuable to you and which parts aren't. I find Christ's words valuable and Paul's much less so. Is this what you mean by me not being objective? Again, an odd argument.

[anon]

Anon,
If you really believe that, then someone should email Richard Dawkins that if he but only augments his argument to address Paul's illogical arguments, then the world will be free of a large portion of god believers in one swooping motion.

Paul didn't make logical arguments. He used a passive form of coercion, to play into people's fears. Dawkins uses a similar form of coercion in his own religious politics.

You may not realize this, but I have no problem with healthy versions of theism or Christianity. In fact, I think they are far superior to unhealthy versions of atheism.

[felix dakat]

I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that his fear poisoned Christ's teachings.

No doubt. Fear breeds fear.

Your OP clearly presented Paul's attitude. I'm just asking that his words be interpreted honestly. I mostly agree with what you're getting at there. I think his words are "ad-hommish".

anon -- What's you're evidence for that conclusion that Paul's message was based on fear? I know there is fear in a lot off gospel preaching today and they appropriate Paul's words to support their message. Paul's gospel was about the death and resurrection of Christ not about Jesus' teachings. That was a significant change. Whether it was poison, I don't know. How did you arrive at that?

[anon]

I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that his fear poisoned Christ's teachings.

No doubt. Fear breeds fear.

Your OP clearly presented Paul's attitude. I'm just asking that his words be interpreted honestly. I mostly agree with what you're getting at there. I think his words are "ad-hommish".

anon -- What's you're evidence for that conclusion that Paul's message was based on fear? I know there is fear in a lot off gospel preaching today and they appropriate Paul's words to support their message. Paul's gospel was about the death and resurrection of Christ not about Jesus' teachings. That was a significant change. Whether it was poison, I don't know. How did you arrive at that?

Well here's what you yourself quoted:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Extreme us versus them thinking, radical punishments for minor moral offenses, false accusations, "God gave them up"... It seems perfectly clear to me. This is not a message of love and compassion, or even of the need to have societal rules to protect the ability to practice. It's about the opinion that there is good and evil in the world and if you choose the wrong side you will go to hell and burn forever (or at least "deserve to die" and won't live forever in eternal bliss). He is instilling fear. And throughout the ages, people have responded in kind. Fundamentalist Christianity is based on fear.

[omar]

--- Paul presented arguments that can be analyzed in terms of their validity
O- Only to a point because one of his premises is the mystery and incomprehensibility of God.




--- According to whom?
O- Really? You doubt this?

--- If God is the result of projection, how were Newton and Einstein able to perceive reality incisively and simultaneously perceive God.
O- Notice that for them God is pretty void of personality like a mathematical necessity. The idea is that if all you have is a hammer the everything will look to you like a nail. The situation of the observer will partially determine the impression.




--- So one can't have faith and be logical too? How did Friar Mendel keep his faith and discover genetics?
O- Did the good friar say that the Trinity was logical or that mysteries are logical? Just because God's creation is subject to lawful or logical explanations this does not mean that God is. Science is a tool for many Christians but they do not mix and were not intended to according to tradition. Further it was secondary in nature because it was not essential for salvation. Other than this, under these disclaimers the friar was free to pursue the secrets of nature.



--- Both."Half full" and "half empty" are synonymous. It's a false dilemma.
O- not within a person. It is used to classify people as either optimists or pessimists. Who you are as a person will have an effect on how you see reality.

[omar]

...Paul's letters predate most of the gospels, so the guy you criticize does have a point because it is probable that Paul's preaching affected the gospel more than the one gospel affected Paul.

That's an odd argument, I think. If you take the entire Bible as literally the words of God, then it doesn't matter which came first. They shouldn't even print Christ's statements in red, since Paul's words are just as "holy". And if, like me, you think the idea of any of it being literally the words of God is nonsense, then you must judge for yourself which parts are valuable to you and which parts aren't. I find Christ's words valuable and Paul's much less so. Is this what you mean by me not being objective? Again, an odd argument.

All inspired by God but interpreted through Paul. Makes sense since it is by his interpretations about the death of Jesus that we even can talk about Christianity. It is by Paul that we get the Christian interpretation of the word of god.
Without Paul orthodoxy would not exist, not even a discernible target for your criticism.

[anon]

...Paul's letters predate most of the gospels, so the guy you criticize does have a point because it is probable that Paul's preaching affected the gospel more than the one gospel affected Paul.

That's an odd argument, I think. If you take the entire Bible as literally the words of God, then it doesn't matter which came first. They shouldn't even print Christ's statements in red, since Paul's words are just as "holy". And if, like me, you think the idea of any of it being literally the words of God is nonsense, then you must judge for yourself which parts are valuable to you and which parts aren't. I find Christ's words valuable and Paul's much less so. Is this what you mean by me not being objective? Again, an odd argument.

All inspired by God but interpreted through Paul. Makes sense since it is by his interpretations about the death of Jesus that we even can talk about Christianity. It is by Paul that we get the Christian interpretation of the word of god.
Without Paul orthodoxy would not exist, not even a discernible target for your criticism.

Without Paul, Pauline Christianity wouldn't exist. I'm not really sure what you're saying.

[omar]

That there is no distinction, no actual evidence that there is some Pauline Christianity instead of just Christianity period. What Christianity is about is in Paul. He forms the majority of the NT and predates most of the gospels. To reference to other authorities is to appeal to what was not yet Christianity and may never have become Christianity.
The other thing is that Jesus brings up the issue of Hell as much as Paul that it Jesus that pushes forth the idea of a vengeful god, just the type you would disapprove of.

[anon]

That there is no distinction, no actual evidence that there is some Pauline Christianity instead of just Christianity period. What Christianity is about is in Paul. He forms the majority of the NT and predates most of the gospels. To reference to other authorities is to appeal to what was not yet Christianity and may never have become Christianity.
The other thing is that Jesus brings up the issue of Hell as much as Paul that it Jesus that pushes forth the idea of a vengeful god, just the type you would disapprove of.

I'm not a Christian. I like Christ better than Paul. As in, I like the little red words in the Bible better than the little black words.

Christianity could mean following the recorded teachings of Christ, and interpreting those teachings without undue emphasis on conventional associated sources.

[Jayson]

What was the point of bringing the subject of the thread up, Felix?

[James S Saint]

The other thing is that Jesus brings up the issue of Hell as much as Paul that it Jesus that pushes forth the idea of a vengeful god, just the type you would disapprove of.

Bull.

As in, I like the little red words in the Bible better than the little black words.

Haha.. I remember thinking that same thing...long, long ago.

Christianity could mean following the recorded teachings of Christ, and interpreting those teachings without undue emphasis on conventional associated sources.

yeah but then people would have to pay attention to accuracy.
Where's the sadistic fun in that.

[omar]

That there is no distinction, no actual evidence that there is some Pauline Christianity instead of just Christianity period. What Christianity is about is in Paul. He forms the majority of the NT and predates most of the gospels. To reference to other authorities is to appeal to what was not yet Christianity and may never have become Christianity.
The other thing is that Jesus brings up the issue of Hell as much as Paul that it Jesus that pushes forth the idea of a vengeful god, just the type you would disapprove of.

I'm not a Christian. I like Christ better than Paul. As in, I like the little red words in the Bible better than the little black words.

Christianity could mean following the recorded teachings of Christ, and interpreting those teachings without undue emphasis on conventional associated sources.

Are you implying that Paul did not do this? Did Paul teach his churches to hate one another? I read in Paul much of the same moral advice Jesus gave as expected since he is regulated by Jesus' and jerualem's authority. If Paul did go beyond Jesus and he did he also did keep Jesus as a regulatory force that would shape his own vision as he feels it was Jesus himself addressing him.

[anon]

That there is no distinction, no actual evidence that there is some Pauline Christianity instead of just Christianity period. What Christianity is about is in Paul. He forms the majority of the NT and predates most of the gospels. To reference to other authorities is to appeal to what was not yet Christianity and may never have become Christianity.
The other thing is that Jesus brings up the issue of Hell as much as Paul that it Jesus that pushes forth the idea of a vengeful god, just the type you would disapprove of.

I'm not a Christian. I like Christ better than Paul. As in, I like the little red words in the Bible better than the little black words.

Christianity could mean following the recorded teachings of Christ, and interpreting those teachings without undue emphasis on conventional associated sources.

Are you implying that Paul did not do this? Did Paul teach his churches to hate one another? I read in Paul much of the same moral advice Jesus gave as expected since he is regulated by Jesus' and jerualem's authority. If Paul did go beyond Jesus and he did he also did keep Jesus as a regulatory force that would shape his own vision as he feels it was Jesus himself addressing him.

I'm not just implying it, I'm stating it. Paul's emphasis is far different, and emphasis is everything - especially in conservative contexts - and religion is nearly always conservative. Jesus couldn't just come along and say whatever he wanted - he was part of a tradition. Paul couldn't either, for the same reason. The tradition changes, and Jesus may have changed the tradition somewhat radically, but he couldn't act as if he were inventing history. There is a narrative that is malleable, but can't be erased from memory. They were both part of a religious tradition, and each expressed a very different relationship to that tradition.

Saying Paul and Jesus said the same thing is like saying the present (Benedict XVI) and previous (John Paul II) Popes say the same thing. But they don't.

Further, I don't see how Christians can be proud of the universality of the Christian message, while at the same time emphasizing barbarism. I suppose barbarism is fairly universal, but as Tolstory famously stated, "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." I do think there is a universal and valuable Christian message. But I don't think that message is very often expressed by modern Christians, tied as so many of them are to the bizarre idea that there is a little book that was written by some guys in the mideast a long time ago that to the exclusion of all other sources contains the literal words of God.

[anon]

Where's the sadistic fun in that.

Christ's message is radical.

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

I don't do that, but there it is. A universally powerful, compelling, inspiring, challenging, exhortation.

Enough already about people deserving to die because they coveted something of their neighbor's. That's just fear - an inability to face reality. The reality is this - I know it's healthier to not fear death and to not think about some kind of reward system for being a good or bad boy, but I'm not capable so I deflect and project. That's what people tend to do.

[omar]

Look anon I am not against inclusivism but Jesus message was not inclusivism. The world for this apocalyptic thinker was heading to a final conflagration where all of humanity would be judged, some deemed righteous worthy of heaven and others would not receiving hell instead.
Whatever you think of the gospels it is fairly safe to say that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet witha message of division, exclusion, according to the merits of a person. To this extent he is similar to Paul who also believes in a final day of judgment when each will receive according to his merits.
Jesus sent apostles to various cities to preached one message of salvation, not several, not the message that anything you believe is honky dory because in fact there were repercussions to which path you chose, his way or yours.

So, like I said, I appreciate the modern sentiment of tolerance but don't read that onto a first century prophet from galillee who preached hell as fervently s Paul. I say this not to cut some slack to Paul but because the trend is always to demonize Paul by se strict standard but then avoid using that standard for Jesus because the moderns can then project what they approve of onto Jesus without being hobbled by Paul. In this way people try to escape their own authority and rest in Jesus. People today need to understand that it is a package deal, a bundle, that the two breathed fire for a great majority deemed wicked. This is not Paul's invention, nor for that matter Jesus but it was accepted by both men and the men who followed in the hope that god would move to destroy their enemies that god would avenge them and the ones they loved and lost.

[felix dakat]

Well here's what you yourself quoted:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Extreme us versus them thinking, radical punishments for minor moral offenses, false accusations, "God gave them up"... It seems perfectly clear to me. This is not a message of love and compassion, or even of the need to have societal rules to protect the ability to practice. It's about the opinion that there is good and evil in the world and if you choose the wrong side you will go to hell and burn forever (or at least "deserve to die" and won't live forever in eternal bliss). He is instilling fear. And throughout the ages, people have responded in kind. Fundamentalist Christianity is based on fear.

anon--Let's put this in historical context. Not to minimize the judgmental tenor of the passage, but from what I read, Paul's viewpoint expressed here was consonant with the common Jewish opinion toward the gentiles at the time. You will recall that the book of Maccobees recounts the war that the Jews fought against the Greeks who they believed were polluting their land with idolatry and sexual perversion. This passage from Paul is so similar to passages in the Book of Wisdom and Apocaplypse of Baruch that Paul may have based it on them. Other Jewish commentators opined that the sinful condition of the the Gentiles was beyond hope. To Paul, all God's judgments have one intention--to awaken people to the Truth and conversion so that God "may have mercy upon all."

[felix dakat]

O- Only to a point because one of his premises is the mystery and incomprehensibility of God.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

--- According to whom?
O- Really? You doubt this?

Opinions don't float in the wind. Someone must express them. I'm asking whom. It seems like a fair question.

--- If God is the result of projection, how were Newton and Einstein able to perceive reality incisively and simultaneously perceive God.
O- Notice that for them God is pretty void of personality like a mathematical necessity. The idea is that if all you have is a hammer the everything will look to you like a nail. The situation of the observer will partially determine the impression.

Newton wasn't wasn't a deist. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. Einstein said he could accept Spinoza's God. My point is you are arguing that they are projecting. It would be a highly select form of projection which did affect their incisive perception in other areas. Why shall we not suppose that, rather then projecting, they were remarkably perceptive in the area of religion as well?

O- Did the good friar say that the Trinity was logical or that mysteries are logical? Just because God's creation is subject to lawful or logical explanations this does not mean that God is. Science is a tool for many Christians but they do not mix and were not intended to according to tradition. Further it was secondary in nature because it was not essential for salvation. Other than this, under these disclaimers the friar was free to pursue the secrets of nature.

I don't know his specific beliefs. jayson is arguing that that logic is irrelevant to religious belief. My point is he was capable of logic as are most Christians.

--- Both."Half full" and "half empty" are synonymous. It's a false dilemma.
O- not within a person. It is used to classify people as either optimists or pessimists. Who you are as a person will have an effect on how you see reality.

What does this have to do with the topic?

[felix dakat]

What was the point of bringing the subject of the thread up, Felix?

I noticed that Paul's line of argument depended on the self evidence of God, an assertion that has come up repeated here. I didn't suppose that that I would have more success than Dawkins at using logic to change Christian opinion.

[anon]

Omar & Felix,

If Christ was an "apocalyptic prophet with a message of division, exclusion" and the spirit of his message must always be "put into context", then the claim that his message is a universal one is patently false. He was just a middle eastern Jewish guy who lived a long time ago. Advertisers use things people think are nice and good as powerful associative tools. Associate sex and youth with some product - sell that product. Associate Jesus with some religion - sell that religion (let alone associating some religion with some modern nation state). But Jesus and Christianity don't mix so easily. The whole spirit and direction of his message is completely against the grain of the tradition he was a part of. Of course he utilized many aspects of the cultural narrative of the time. That's how you gain a voice. Was Jesus's death the blood sacrifice that would put an end to the need for any other blood sacrifices? Did Jesus himself actually believe, in any way, shape or form, that blood sacrifice has anything at all to do with spirituality? Could we trust his words if he said he did?

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

It's a clever narrative invention, and it was apparently a powerful one. But a narrative invention isn't enough - the spiritual practitioner must free himself or herself from the bonds of external tradition, and not resist the Holy Spirit. The point is to not cling to the past, to not cling to "context". "Heaven", of course could refer to the realm of purity; of open universality, as opposed to "division", "exclusion", "context". Christ presented an open, universal message. That message can be dragged through the mud, but it remains pure and inviolable. Yes, Christ presented a nearly impossible challenge to the world. We can live pure and fearless lives, or we can narrow our world according to our fears. Failure to read between the lines and grasp the essence of Christ's message is a reflection of our fears. We don't think we can do what he said we should do, so we pretend he didn't really say what, deep down, we know he said.

We know the spirit of Christ's message, but we're afraid of that message so we bog it down in "context" and academic interpretation.

Christ didn't come to bring peace, as Omar points out. But what is the nature of this "sword" he wields? Did he claim that people "deserve to die"? No, he claimed that family and friends would reject his followers for their beliefs.

Was Christ's message truly universal? The entire world can be converted to Christianity, but that doesn't mean the message is universal. I do think Christ's message is universal, but to make such a claim I think you have to discern what his message "really is", as opposed to finding historically and politically situated quotes and working like hell to coordinate it with all other statements and have it all magically mesh in the end into a single cohesive story. But it never does - religious narrative always relies on constant invention and reinvention. Is the essence of Christ's message about blood sacrifice? Is it about heterosexuality? Is it about "fulfilling the old testament"? Is it about fig trees and doves? Or is it about love and fearlessness?

The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

[Jayson]

What was the point of bringing the subject of the thread up, Felix?

I noticed that Paul's line of argument depended on the self evidence of God, an assertion that has come up repeated here.

Alright, but to what was you interest in pointing it out?
That this god is not self evident?

[omar]

Hello Felix,

--- "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."
O- It is a fine line that theologians must walk and they do well to pass in silence on quite a lot. Some of them did. Augustine often invited the hearer to share his feeling, but alas one cannot be tolk what honey actually taste like- they have to taste it. Same with Paul, another that placed argumentations as impotent.

--- Opinions don't float in the wind. Someone must express them. I'm asking whom. It seems like a fair question.
O- Cicero and Hume explored this aspect in their dialogues.

--- Newton wasn't wasn't a deist. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
O- Others would deny It's existence solely on the POE. But in any case that is quite compatible with the God of the philosophers, with Deism (See karen Armstrong for this in her "History...").

--- My point is you are arguing that they are projecting. It would be a highly select form of projection which did affect their incisive perception in other areas. Why shall we not suppose that, rather then projecting, they were remarkably perceptive in the area of religion as well?
O- Because the subject of religion, God, is not a direct object of perception. Indirectly all claimed that It is perceived, but we have to accept on faith what that feel like for each.

--- I don't know his specific beliefs. jayson is arguing that that logic is irrelevant to religious belief. My point is he was capable of logic as are most Christians.
O- Capacity also to compartmentalize. Most use logic selectively in their lives. Is love or beauty logical?

--- What does this have to do with the topic?
O- Who you are as a person will affect how you see reality, how you characterize reality. Isn't that Paul's point?