Paul's Great Ad Hom

[felix dakat]

James --An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). Paul is relating his standard gospel message to the gentiles. He must show why Jesus had to die to save humanity. To do this he argues to the conclusion that "all are under sin. His first premise is that everyone knows the truth about God. His second is that the gentiles willfully reject god. From there he argues that they descend into idolatry and sexual perversion. I don't know how you can maintain that this is not an argument in the face of this evidence.

I can because what you just claimed has little to do with logical fallacy.
The axioms were taken to be truth.
The discussion was about God and people and thus it is necessary that he speak of people (your "ad hom"). But the fallacy of ad hom refers to the conclusion that "My conclusion must be correct because my opponent is an ass."

The argument of "God did this or that because the people were being bad" has nothing to do with the logical fallacy of an "ad homenid".

He made no logical fallacy.

Previously you stated that Paul was merely explaining and not arguing. That is plainly wrong as I have shown above. Now you claim that Ad hominem argument are limited to arguments against an opponent in a debate. That is not true. Wikipedia lists the following examples of ad hominem arguments none of which are directed at a debate opponent:
Examples:

Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose, so his music was worthless.
Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit.
Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable.
What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes.
Brutal autocrat Joseph Stalin's favorite opera was Boris Godunov, so the opera must offend decent sensibilities.

Paul needed to prove that the gentiles were subject to god's judgment to make the case that they need Christ as a savior. To do this he employed arguments to show how culpable the gentiles were. So he says basically, the Greeks are homosexual and sinners and ; therefore, their religion is invalid. He goes on to state that the Jews are sinners too later in the epistle. Of course, Christians are not free from "sin" either. So how the sinfulness of gentiles or Jews constitutes evidence for Paul's case remains to be explained.

[omar]

Eh....
In some of those examples cited quality A was independent of quality B. (In the case of Hendrix however some might argue that the decadence of his life is what fueled the richness of his music). But what is the value of a religion ( A)is measured by the behavior of it's believer? At least in Jeremiah we see this example. It is not unimaginable that Paul's audience bought the idea that the serenity and beauty of a sage is evidence of the truth of their claims. Look at the fascination with Buddhism, yoga, and how this might have been self replicating. People seek reassurance of the truth of the belief in their salvation by radical means giving up to the lord whatever was of upmost value to themselves or their contemporaries.

[anon]

Interestingly, I've been told any number of times that you can be the best person in the world - the wisest, most compassionate, most pleasant to be around, and/or most morally upright person - but if you haven't asked Jesus into your heart you will go to hell.

[omar]

But this is counter intuitive. I am saying that in general the moral life of a person is seen and used as evidence. Christians have a hard time trying to condemn Buddha for example. Some do outright but against natural dispositions that we all live by.

[anon]

But this is counter intuitive. I am saying that in general the moral life of a person is seen and used as evidence. Christians have a hard time trying to condemn Buddha for example. Some do outright but against natural dispositions that we all live by.

It's an interesting question. What you say sounds reasonable, but who can make ultimate claims regarding what the "natural dispositions that we all live by" are? For instance, homosexuality is part of this conversation.

[omar]

Well for example Socrates had a liking for beautiful youths but what made him a moral example was his self control. Few would claim to be wise and show no control over their urges either hetero/homosexual. Again my point is that we make an inference over the value of a doctrine by the acts of the prophet or sage.

[tentative]

Well for example Socrates had a liking for beautiful youths but what made him a moral example was his self control. Few would claim to be wise and show no control over their urges either hetero/homosexual. Again my point is that we make an inference over the value of a doctrine by the acts of the prophet or sage.

So you are saying that truths are discovered in our acting out and not in our words? I could buy in to that. After all the parsing of the intricacies of language, it finally comes down to how we act our words out that makes the dfference.

[omar]

Well for example Socrates had a liking for beautiful youths but what made him a moral example was his self control. Few would claim to be wise and show no control over their urges either hetero/homosexual. Again my point is that we make an inference over the value of a doctrine by the acts of the prophet or sage.

So you are saying that truths are discovered in our acting out and not in our words? I could buy in to that. After all the parsing of the intricacies of language, it finally comes down to how we act our words out that makes the dfference.

More like "words can lie" or "talk is cheap". Whatever we say becomes suspect if I don't practice what I preach. I can tell a person that X is bad for them, but if I do it and not even avoid it, then how likely are we, as human beings, to believe him or her?

I am not saying that it makes sense in a logical sense but that that is how we are made, that we follow examples, that we learn even by imitation....and so often we learn not what we are told but what we see and we expect more of our so-called teachers the more their teaching demands of us.

Likely, in Paul's case, this teacher tried and was successful at compelling his audience by the example he himself set. And those who were unimpressed were accussed NOT of being unable to follow a line of argument more than that they were unable to follow a moral example.

[Jayson]

Are you saying that Paul didn't think he needed to support the assertion that God is self-evident because he assumed his audience would be sympathetic to the assertion?> So the problem arises when the epistle is interpreted for a general audience.

More or less, yes.
That has been my primary point from the beginning, and that is why I brought up Churchill back a few pages ago as an example of such discourse being rather normal for philosophical dispensations from a leader to their followers.

And that in looking backwards upon such instances, as non-inherent followers, the arguments are a bit difficult to inherently accept considering the lack of agreed and familiar axioms socially.