By moving past, I meant that it was established...now what's the point, because that is not what people approach religion for.
The point is to examine the logic of Romans, a text that is taken as authoritative for the religion of a whole bunch of religious people.
That is one of the reasons that some secular counters to established religion despise it in principle; because it is rooted in invalid presentation according to logical pursuits, and then from that people can be compelled to act without logical rationality as motive.
Why is my character of matter?
Nice try. I said nothing about your character.
What I did or did not do as moderator has no bearing on the matter of whether there's more to Paul and his work than simply logical validations, or whether religion, in practice, is primarily conveyed by logical validations.
Your argument here was similar to the argument you made for a special theology section. I haven't asserted that my argument about a short passage in Romans 1 exhausts all there is to Paul or that religion is reducible to logic. You employed a straw man fallacy.
And as a side note: the theological section wasn't for exempting logic - it was for axiomatic discussions of further tangents within a given religious theology. An example would be if a person wanted to discuss the context of Baptism within Protestant Christianity and the arguments for and against the concept in all fashions, but did not wish to have a thread ripped apart in discussing the axioms of Christian belief just to get up to the point where the discussion may hope to talk about Baptism.
At the time, there were such discussions started previously that ended in railed off discussions of the validity of the divine in general. It wasn't an exemption of discussion on logic. I did not suddenly shut down the main religious section proper and force axiomatic dogma upon the forum.
But this is a side-note, for clarification, and not the tangent.
You said what you did as moderator is irrelevant to this discussion. Now it appears you wish to talk about it. It's not a big deal to me either way.
And no, I'm not making a special case for religion.
Religion is approached by people with a special case in their sensation.
People don't practice religion, nor belong to the community therein, by logical rationality from which they have deduced the conclusion of better weight in rational value in return by adhering to a given religion as if they are all Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory.
Christians including Paul use arguments to persuade people to convert people to their religion. Examination of the arguments and methods used in preaching is all too relevant to the discussion of religion
I'm not saying that in a rational examination that the premises and conclusions of a theological foundation are excused from being invalid. No, but what I'm saying is that you can chant that a thousand times at any pulpit or temple top and it will have next to no effect upon the adherence of those to their theological holdings which are derived in motive from personal proofs of emotion rationalized only in reflection when pressed to do so. Which circles back around to what I said previously: even with Paul being invalid, it doesn't change the weight of his words to those he wrote who were part of this new forming cultural community and identity.
Paul's words are taken to be the Word Of God today. So his arguments are significant today not just 2000 years ago when the Church was a "new forming cultural community and identity."
The very basis of existential transmission from one human to another effectively is irrational.
Music, painting, the core impulse for religious involvement; these are not logical analogs of one person conveyed to another whereby the receiver can then adopt the perspective of the transmitter in shared conception on existence.
So existential stuff has to be transmitted irrationally? We have to exclude logical argument, philosophy and such? Music and painting are strictly irrational? They don't have rational structure that is analogous to logic in anyway?
Religion, by default of employing the keystone of emotion, is illogical before it begins to speak.
It was speaking in Paul.
We can talk of Religion logically, but being in the middle of it? No.
You're really keen on this notion aren't you? Was Paul a raving lunatic because he was in the middle of religion? Christianity doesn't think so. Why should we?
And you were looking into the truth of what exactly? The existence of a god based on the logical validity of Paul's writings?
To repeat myself yet again, the issue is whether or not God is self evident.
Because Paul is invalid, therefore his god is not self-evident universally; therefore what?
What's the point?
Paul is invalid? Where did you get that? Is God self evident or not? People claim as much. Paul thought so. Are his arguments for it sound? If not are there sound arguments for it somewhere else?
I could point out several, probably hundreds or thousands, of logical fallacies in any given canon of Abrahamic fashion (or any religious text for that matter).
I'm not saying Paul is my man; I think you know I'm not a huge fan of Paul's theology or his philosophies.
But I really don't quite understand what the point was at this stage, considering the only derived point I can conclude since you keep wanting to remove any other conversation save for that which is already agreed upon...is implicitly something akin to, 'Paul is illogical.'
What's agreed upon? anon's the only one who seems to agree with me lately. One failed argument does not Paul illogical make. What are you talking about with the reference to removing other conversations?
What's the "truth" bearing in this?
It has to do with the condemnation of the human race according to Christianity on the basis of the self evidence of God.
Perhaps this would have been something of shock two or three centuries ago, but I'm not really seeing what the point was if all you want to discuss is how a guy's personal addresses to some people long ago regarding their community bond through religious culture, and the retention of it therein, fails to meet logical validity of rationalism.
That's because you have moved on beyond as you said. You are apparently unaware that there are a lot of Christians who take Paul's arguments seriously. "The Roman Road" based on Paul's arguments is a common method of preaching the gospels. Christianity is still a growing religion. It's very popular in America and has a lot of political clout. Have you ever heard of Rick Santorum?
Are you attempting to accomplish an absolute truth or some such?
As I said before, to them...Paul would not be invalid...because they weren't in a rationally logical discourse; they were in an emotionally spiritual discourse - specifically ones rooted in axioms negligent from this citation.
Yep you said it before, and I answered it before.
It is as if I just wrote:
- Code: Select all
If Var4 = Var3
It really means nothing until we know what the variables contain.
As of the above, they are just empty.
So are Paul's variables.
We don't know their values.
On their face, because of this, if they are attempted to be used by any as evidence of his god; then they are logically invalid due to a complete lack of information - with or without the ad hom.
But I don't think that was Paul's point.
I don't think Paul was actually trying to prove the existence of his god to his reading community.
It appears instead, that he is resting his argument on the assumption that they agree already that their god is self-evident and that therefore the warnings are valid on the conduct of behavior; which summarizes to something akin to, 'people are bad without (our) god; we have seen their actions. We do not approve; therefore let us not be as they and deny (our) god or we shall suffer the same as they do.'
Which, as I said just above, is littered all through any related canons.
How many times do the Israelite's in the text compare others to their own selves in such manners?
How many times are peoples of other cultures declared as bad because they deny the obvious deity of the protagonist peoples; and therefore have unruly culture?
Has anyone stopped practicing Judaism because these declarations are invalid?
Is it the logical validity and invalidity in rational focus that people trans-induce spiritual evocation from at the praying wall?
I don't care if Paul is invalid or not; great.
The guy looks to be a philosophical invalid...so...what now?
All that circumlocution and then you jump to the conclusion that Paul is invalid. I'm talking about one of Paul's arguments not everything he ever said. Besides just because Paul's argument may be invalid, it doesn't follow that God is not self evident.