Paul's Great Ad Hom

[felix dakat]

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.

Right

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).

OK

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?

And?
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?

No.

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

Var1=x
Var2=y
Var3=z
Var4=Var1+Var2
If Var4 = Var3
   {
     True
   }
Else
   {
     False
   }


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.

[Jayson]

Bottom line:

To repeat myself yet again, the issue is whether or not God is self evident.

No.
And as I agreed; if this is the argument, then Paul is invalid - plainly.

You care not for the rest of this, but all I have been trying to explain is the quite simply obvious fact that religious tenants are not logically rational, and instead typically rely on an agreement of the community on a common axiom.
In this case, that their god is self-evident.

I'm good though.
We've gone around in circles in more or less a pointless manner.
Your aim is to point out that Paul is invalid in his argument for a self-evident god, and that's fine; I agreed with you on that way back at the beginning.

I guess I just don't grasp the point.
*shrug*

[alyoshka]

Deuteronomy 20:10-20

Did Paul write Deuteronomy?

Also, I think it's wise to be discerning when it comes to any and all statements in the Bible issued by a human being on behalf of God. It's also wise to be discerning when it comes to any and all statements issued by God.

Sometimes God's representatives misrepresent God. Sometimes God lapses in God's judgment when emotions flair. We must always be mindful of wisdom, even when that means speaking against what is said by those we are meant to hold in esteem (Moses, God, etc). This is not indicative of faults in the Bible, but is an important teaching of it.

The example of Moses decimating Israel after the golden calf incident is telling. When God at first wanted to do this out of anger Moses talked God down. But when Moses saw for himself Israel's betrayal and became incited against them Aaron did not have the presence of mind to advocate on Israel's behalf. Thus the slaughter ensued. Not by God's word but by Moses'.

The point? God proposed killing. Moses corrected God. Moses then proposed killing. Aaron failed to correct Moses. Killing ensued.

Maybe we can see something similar here in Deuteronomy. What we should be doing is speaking against Moses by advocating on behalf of the peoples he says are to be slaughtered. Since no such voice (of wisdom) was present, slaughter ensued.

(But do bear in mind my previous comments to the effect that there comes a time to kill. When killing is the only way forward.)

[felix dakat]

Bottom line:

To repeat myself yet again, the issue is whether or not God is self evident.

No.
And as I agreed; if this is the argument, then Paul is invalid - plainly.

You care not for the rest of this, but all I have been trying to explain is the quite simply obvious fact that religious tenants are not logically rational, and instead typically rely on an agreement of the community on a common axiom.
In this case, that their god is self-evident.

I'm good though.
We've gone around in circles in more or less a pointless manner.
Your aim is to point out that Paul is invalid in his argument for a self-evident god, and that's fine; I agreed with you on that way back at the beginning.

I guess I just don't grasp the point.
*shrug*

Paul goes on to argue that the presence of a sense of morality among the gentiles is evidence of their innate knowledge of God and hence their culpability. While that line of argument is controversial, it is one of the best available as Kant recognized.

It's interesting that you don't grasp the point. I think most Christians would. For them the Bible is existentially relevant so its arguments matter.

[Jayson]

I suppose I don't get the point because I don't see someone with investment either A) agreeing to the argument you present, or B) even if they did, changing their belief.

I seriously doubt there are all that many Christians that are Christian today due to the logic of Paul directly.
More the common, such readings are interpreted and understood in various manners which support what they are already compelled to believe by pre-rational emotion.

Now, how to be a Christian?
That is heavily reliant upon most of Paul's writing (all claimed by tradition to be of his hand, excusing from this, the secular investigation of authenticity which is typically not attended to by most congregations in America).

Pointing out logical errors in assertions of how to be a Christian, as according to Paul, would make sense because that is not something pre-rationally determined by their emotion. It is learned.

But the belief in a god?
That's an emotional call; not a logical one (despite the constant attempt of people to make it a logical attempt).

Most Christians would simply disagree and form counter arguments because you just "attacked" something holy and infallible.
The formula of infallibility dictates that if the adherents disagree with you regarding something that is claimed as infallible by them, then you are immediately assumed wrong and folly by no other merit than that you argued counter to a proposition contained within the infallible.

So you would either be told that you are wrong, reading it wrong, or mistaken.
You would be given several responses, but none of them would really be, "Well crap...God doesn't exist then."

I also disagree with Kant, regarding Paul.
Paul was a terrible logician; he was more akin to a Presidential Candidate than a logician (Paul is a great example of appealing to emotion - which is probably part of what causes him to be so provocative to adherents throughout history).
There are far better examples of clever logic in the synaptic gospels than there are in Paul.

[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.

[Jayson]

Anon, no...I meant that "directly"...they are not feeling their belief in their idea of the Christian faith as they view it (and thereby their understanding of "reality") by wrote of anyone.
The belief in a god is not really something people typically pick up due to a logical argument winning or losing.
It's typically pre-rational.
Later, they may use logic to wrestle with uncertainty, but I would venture to say that by the time they begin to do so, they have already reached a conclusion emotionally and are simply attempting to sate their cognition with the conflicting emotional change (for or against).

And I will absolutely agree that modern Christianity is Paulism; hell, I'll be the first to jump on that boat and stand right next to Felix in that debate (and have).

I'm not arguing over these things.
I'm regarding human behavior. As far as experience has shown...it doesn't appear that humans use logic in provocation for a belief in a god.
Instead, people tend to have a lack of logical explanation for why there is a given god.
They may try to make arguments for explaining why their god is known to be true, but, as we see here with Paul...such attempts do not typically work out.

That said, I don't see the population of "god believers" switching gears because Paul can be pointed to as illogical according to rational discourse.

If it were but that easy to change peoples religious compelling...well...for one, I wouldn't have hear words at work every day such as, "the unrighteous", "some people have wickedness in them", "Obama is the true antichrist, you'll see", and the like.

I would just need to walk over, point to Romans and say, "Paul was illogical in his account for the self-evident nature of God, therefore, your grounds of belief are invalid by proxy since your religion rests on many tenants derived from the articles of Paul; of which were based on his assumptions of the existence of God and God's self-evident state in humanity."
Then this coworker would just up and lightbulb switch over and stop bantering the annoying comments; hurray.

Not going to happen.

[Calrid]

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.

I definitely agree with that, Catholicism is Pauline, in fact his teachings dominate the faith far more than Christ himself. I know not everyone was enamoured of his teachings, after all he was not Christ.

How Paul become a zealot is interesting though, I find the story lacking in rigour: a sudden miraculous conversion, with a story that can only be verified by him. Someone doesn't just go from being a non believer to a founder of some church. The story seems fishy to me, there's something missing because the whole divine revelation, I am blind etc thing seems hokey to me.

I think he was taken more seriously because his views were insinuated in the new church more for expedience and politics than for the sake of fact, I don't think other more apposite leaders were given half a chance. I do wonder over those early Christian leaders, and the fact so little of their literature survives apart from Pauls. Catharsis of other ideas, we cannot dismiss it...

[Jayson]

There's a hell of allot of interesting philosophical ideas explored in the other sects' writings, definitely.
Taking the breadth of them in is sensationally akin to what experiencing parallel universes must be like.

[James S Saint]

The belief in a god is not really something people typically pick up due to a logical argument winning or losing.
It's typically pre-rational.

Although I agree with that, the logical argument can convert just about anyone.
I have said that for years because I noticed many years ago that no one seems to be able to be around me for very long without admiting that indeed there is a God, and I have had some pretty stout anti-god types try to avoid it. To save their stance, they end up merely avoiding me instead.

Just a few days ago, I ran into another guy (the first in some time) telling me how ridicules the whole God story is. I smiled and said, "Ya know, if you really wanted to know the truth, within 24hrs, 48 at tops, I bet I could cause you to not only believe in God, but you wouldn't be able to be convinced otherwise. You would know that you knew it to be a fact, not merely a faith." He looked at me a bit surprised, "why 24 hours?" I told him that it would take that long for your mind to settle and unravel all of the confusion that has been cast into your mind on the subject and that for some people, it might take a little longer, but seldom less.

"So why don't you just explain it to everyone?"
"Why?" I asked. "What do you think they would do differently?"
"Well, if you really convinced me, I would be on my knees praying to God in a heart beat."
"Oh really? Do you think that is what I would want of you? Exactly what would I get out of that? Or more importantly, what do you think that you would get out of that? I merely stated that you would know without doubt that God really does exist and really is what they have been saying for so long. I didn't say there would be anything you could do about it."

We left it at that for a day. The next day another conversation started up that led back into the subject. About 4 hours later, I asked,
"So now, do you believe in God or not?"
He hesitated;
"You mean do I believe that there is some guy up in the clouds watching and judging my every thought and move?"
"I said nothing of any guy in any cloud. That would be a different guy entirely. I asked if you believe in the God that we were just talking about. The ongoing cause of all that is - the cause of the universe and all within - the God that controls what can or cannot be. Yes or No?
Again he hesitated.
"Well, yeah, I guess."
"You guess?"
"Well, yeah"
"So you do indeed believe in God?"
A bit sheepishly, "yeah"
"Well, do you know or do you merely now suspect? Considering what you have seen, do you doubt?"
"Well, no, I don't doubt. I am just not used to seeing it that way."
"Yeah. I takes time. People are immersed in the noise of their politics. The truth isn't their priority."

Merely a few minutes later, pointing quickly straight at him with my finger, a bit boldly, "NOW! DO YOU know that God is REAL and always has been?"
"Yes" Smiling, "Yes without question. That's cool."

And though the challenge hasn't been made, I already know that you could say anything you like to him and never be able to convince him otherwise. He would more likely convince you, "converted for life".

No one really denies logic in the end. It just takes seeing the right light, a little time to sort out the noise, and having the right finger pointed at them when asked.

[anon]

Anon, no...I meant that "directly"...they are not feeling their belief in their idea of the Christian faith as they view it (and thereby their understanding of "reality") by wrote of anyone.
The belief in a god is not really something people typically pick up due to a logical argument winning or losing.
It's typically pre-rational.

I disagree. I think Christ tried to present a philosophy of fearlessness, and Paul subsequently poisoned that philosophy with his own fear-based philosophy. In other words, he regressed. He used Christ's life and teachings to uphold certain pre-Christian attitudes. As I said earlier in this thread, I think Paul was only human (like Christ, imo), and my point isn't to pass judgment. But others disagree, they believe everything written in the Bible is literally spoken by God, and therefore Paul's words have very special import for them.

Fear-based beliefs are a significant basis for any form of Christianity that is more or less "fundamentalist" in nature. How could anyone think a particular book like the Bible is the literal word of God, to the exclusion of all other sources? That is not an innate belief - it can't be. But it is what many, many people believe. And Paul's writings are a significant part of that package. Christian fundamentalism is an entire package based on scaring people into submission. And it works. So yes, many people directly (though not necessarily wholly) believe in their Christian faith as a result of Paul's teachings.

[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.

I definitely agree with that, Catholicism is Pauline, in fact his teachings dominate the faith far more than Christ himself. I know not everyone was enamoured of his teachings, after all he was not Christ.

How Paul become a zealot is interesting though, I find the story lacking in rigour: a sudden miraculous conversion, with a story that can only be verified by him. Someone doesn't just go from being a non believer to a founder of some church. The story seems fishy to me, there's something missing because the whole divine revelation, I am blind etc thing seems hokey to me.

I think he was taken more seriously because his views were insinuated in the new church more for expedience and politics than for the sake of fact, I don't think other more apposite leaders were given half a chance. I do wonder over those early Christian leaders, and the fact so little of their literature survives apart from Pauls. Catharsis of other ideas, we cannot dismiss it...

Interesting points. Yes, his conversion story sounds like something colorful he made up for journalists. Of course, the "real" story may have been unknown even to himself.

[Jayson]

Anon, my central point on this part of the tangent is that people do not believe in a god because Paul made a logical argument.
Pointing out that Paul made an illogical argument for the self-evident nature of a god is not likely to change peoples belief in a god.

If, as I said, we were to talk about how to be a Christian; then hell, Paul is the man to rip into because most of the dogmas in Christianity today are derived from variations of Paul's ideals on how to be a Christian.

[anon]

Anon, my central point on this part of the tangent is that people do not believe in a god because Paul made a logical argument.
Pointing out that Paul made an illogical argument for the self-evident nature of a god is not likely to change peoples belief in a god.

If, as I said, we were to talk about how to be a Christian; then hell, Paul is the man to rip into because most of the dogmas in Christianity today are derived from variations of Paul's ideals on how to be a Christian.

Right, and my counter-thesis is that people really do "believe" in God because of Paul's logic of fear. He presents a logic for why you ought to believe in God. And that logic compels many people to believe in God. Why not believe in God? Because you deserve to burn in hell if you don't. That's pretty strong "logic".

I grew up in a fundamentalist family. I heard the church sermons, studied the texts, and observed the people involved. They prefer Paul to Christ. They really do. They don't preach that you should give up your worldly posessions to follow Christ - they teach that gays are the reason for the flooding of New Orleans.

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Some quotes from that source:

Brethren sometimes tend to view Paul’s letters from the vantage point of the Gospels, when proper interpretation demands that we view the Gospels through the Epistles.

It is more and more common in our churches to hear it said, “I believe the words of Jesus more than the words of Paul.” The question we face today is this: Are we to relegate the Scripture writings of Paul to a lower level then the teachings of Christ?

The Apostle Paul himself claims divine inspiration for his writings. The Gospel which Paul preached was not of human origin, but it was received directly from the Lord. He says, “For I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). This is an emphatic statement which insists that Paul’s message is completely divine in nature. He received it as a direct revelation from Christ, not as a tradition handed down from the past.

What Paul conveyed to the church through his preaching and writing is indeed trustworthy, and we had better pay attention to what he says.

The new cafeteria-style approach to the Scriptures will never stand the test of the Judgment Day! Those who choose to accept parts of the Bible, and to reject other parts, are trifling with the Word of God, and I fear, with their eternal destinies.

Paul’s words are God’s words, and they may not be altered by sinful human beings.

So yeah, I think you'd better believe in Paul's God. Before his conversion he scared the shit out of many a Christian. After his conversion, he scared the shit out of many a non-Christian. He continues to scare the shit out of anyone unfortunate enough to need to care what he would think. People are "Christians" because of his logic, and they use his logic, in turn, to convince others to become "Christians".

[omar]

Anon
Two things
Be careful that your childhood trauma cloud your objectivity. Second, 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.

[felix dakat]

I suppose I don't get the point because I don't see someone with investment either A) agreeing to the argument you present, or B) even if they did, changing their belief.

I seriously doubt there are all that many Christians that are Christian today due to the logic of Paul directly.
More the common, such readings are interpreted and understood in various manners which support what they are already compelled to believe by pre-rational emotion.

Now, how to be a Christian?
That is heavily reliant upon most of Paul's writing (all claimed by tradition to be of his hand, excusing from this, the secular investigation of authenticity which is typically not attended to by most congregations in America).

Pointing out logical errors in assertions of how to be a Christian, as according to Paul, would make sense because that is not something pre-rationally determined by their emotion. It is learned.

But the belief in a god?
That's an emotional call; not a logical one (despite the constant attempt of people to make it a logical attempt).

Most Christians would simply disagree and form counter arguments because you just "attacked" something holy and infallible.
The formula of infallibility dictates that if the adherents disagree with you regarding something that is claimed as infallible by them, then you are immediately assumed wrong and folly by no other merit than that you argued counter to a proposition contained within the infallible.

So you would either be told that you are wrong, reading it wrong, or mistaken.
You would be given several responses, but none of them would really be, "Well crap...God doesn't exist then."

I also disagree with Kant, regarding Paul.
Paul was a terrible logician; he was more akin to a Presidential Candidate than a logician (Paul is a great example of appealing to emotion - which is probably part of what causes him to be so provocative to adherents throughout history).
There are far better examples of clever logic in the synaptic gospels than there are in Paul.

Jayson--

It seems to me that what you are arguing about Christians is similar to what Paul was arguing about gentiles. You and Paul seem to think you know the true motives and thought processes of large groups of people for their religious choices. I think that a person's motives for doing anything are usually multiply determined and complex. Multiply that times the number of gentiles in Paul's time or the number of Christians today and you have a stew that is not reducible to your simple recipe.

As for Kant, I don't know what if anything he ever said about Paul. He rejected the ontological and cosmological argument and advance a moral argument which is not inconsistent with Paul's IMO.

[felix dakat]

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. 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.

[felix dakat]

The belief in a god is not really something people typically pick up due to a logical argument winning or losing.
It's typically pre-rational.

Although I agree with that, the logical argument can convert just about anyone.
I have said that for years because I noticed many years ago that no one seems to be able to be around me for very long without admiting that indeed there is a God, and I have had some pretty stout anti-god types try to avoid it. To save their stance, they end up merely avoiding me instead.

Just a few days ago, I ran into another guy (the first in some time) telling me how ridicules the whole God story is. I smiled and said, "Ya know, if you really wanted to know the truth, within 24hrs, 48 at tops, I bet I could cause you to not only believe in God, but you wouldn't be able to be convinced otherwise. You would know that you knew it to be a fact, not merely a faith." He looked at me a bit surprised, "why 24 hours?" I told him that it would take that long for your mind to settle and unravel all of the confusion that has been cast into your mind on the subject and that for some people, it might take a little longer, but seldom less.

"So why don't you just explain it to everyone?"
"Why?" I asked. "What do you think they would do differently?"
"Well, if you really convinced me, I would be on my knees praying to God in a heart beat."
"Oh really? Do you think that is what I would want of you? Exactly what would I get out of that? Or more importantly, what do you think that you would get out of that? I merely stated that you would know without doubt that God really does exist and really is what they have been saying for so long. I didn't say there would be anything you could do about it."

We left it at that for a day. The next day another conversation started up that led back into the subject. About 4 hours later, I asked,
"So now, do you believe in God or not?"
He hesitated;
"You mean do I believe that there is some guy up in the clouds watching and judging my every thought and move?"
"I said nothing of any guy in any cloud. That would be a different guy entirely. I asked if you believe in the God that we were just talking about. The ongoing cause of all that is - the cause of the universe and all within - the God that controls what can or cannot be. Yes or No?
Again he hesitated.
"Well, yeah, I guess."
"You guess?"
"Well, yeah"
"So you do indeed believe in God?"
A bit sheepishly, "yeah"
"Well, do you know or do you merely now suspect? Considering what you have seen, do you doubt?"
"Well, no, I don't doubt. I am just not used to seeing it that way."
"Yeah. I takes time. People are immersed in the noise of their politics. The truth isn't their priority."

Merely a few minutes later, pointing quickly straight at him with my finger, a bit boldly, "NOW! DO YOU know that God is REAL and always has been?"
"Yes" Smiling, "Yes without question. That's cool."

And though the challenge hasn't been made, I already know that you could say anything you like to him and never be able to convince him otherwise. He would more likely convince you, "converted for life".

No one really denies logic in the end. It just takes seeing the right light, a little time to sort out the noise, and having the right finger pointed at them when asked.

It's all about you, James.

[omar]

Felix, I would agree with Jayson on this.
Paul insisted on many places about the weakness, intellectually of his message.
Reality has been argued, through natural theology, to be the best argument for the existence of God or God's non existence. In this regard then reality, an arguments proceeding from it, become a Rorschach test, a vacuity that is filed by the contents that exist in the beholder. Jesus was fond of making the distinction that it was THEIR faith that saved them.

So is the glass half full or half empty? The answer lies in you.

[omar]

I'm going to add as I have time.
Psychology was what Paul was attempting. He should not be explained through Kant but through Nietzsche and Freud. They tried to look behind the arguments because I think they knew their own experience had lead them to revaluations of and from the same tradition.
Augustine was another who was compelled to reevaluate the meaning of the book of Genesis from a Manichean perspective to an orthodox one. What the Bible said or what Paul meant was mediated. For this reason there was not one but several christianities. What happened was not that the text affected the reader but that the reader affected the text. They saw in themselves then that it was not what they learned but what was in their hearts that truly changed what the text came to mean for them.

[Jayson]

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.

Felix,
I'm not dictating what peoples motives are in their cognition. What I'm discussing is the systemic measure by which spirituality and the compelling draw towards religion is in humanity.
One thing is rather certain at this point in time: it isn't rational logic that brings people to their divinities.
People aren't markedly praying and singing hymns with emotional devotion as a function of logical resolution.

James,
While not directly the tangent, I would personally class that as no different than TPT or Turtle's redefinition of, "God".
I can extract "God" into many things; many do.
Extracting to the conceptual force of product doesn't equate to "God"; a sentient being.
When I state that I do not believe in a god, it is a pretty simple stance. Gods are defined by personal motive of being sentient super-beings which have controlling power over universal forces of nature.
I don't, either, consider the conceptual force of product, "God".
I consider it the conceptual force of product.

Omar,
More or less, that's a kin of the concept I'm going at.
We can argue gods logically all we want; religious adherence is not going to drop markedly below 80% as a result, nor will the ~70% Christian adherence shift much worth noting as a result of any logical points made.

All,
I think if 6.3 million people are willing to believe Joseph Smith was a neo-Pauline incarnation (figuratively speaking) and that a band of Hebrew peoples navigated to South America and founded a new Eden, completely flying in the face of all archaeological and anthropological findings, then I don't think logic is our basis of leverage - keeping in mind that this isn't even as personally rooted as believing in a god. As such, I strongly have doubts that the emotional connection people have to their divinities will be so easily subjected to rational logic of pointing out the illogical prose of Paul.

And finally: Paul wasn't writing for rational logic.
He will, therefore, suck at logical arguments.
He was making a socio-emotional plea; ergo the earlier comparison to Churchill (who's words neither would hold to rational logic).

Paul can be considered the spirit builder of Christianity; nearly being exclusively interested in defining what the nature of the spiritual connection to Jesus and their god is for the follower, and how that in turn creates a spiritual bond within the community.

His takes on these matters have been a large and consistent resonant stay in Christian culture over time.
But these are not logical arguments properly. People are not compelled to them because they proofed them and found no logical fault, and therefore found reason to believe in this god.

It tends to work the other way around in religion; there is a sense first, and emotional existence and desire. Following that, rational justifications begin to formulate around cohesion with this emotional stance.
This is one of the reasons many of science strongly dislike theological discourses; because theology works pretty much opposite of the (expected) scientific approach.

And lastly on logic and religion; the phrase is not, "Have you reasoned god?"
The phrase is, "Have you found god?"
(the same phrase exists for Jesus as well)

If someone has found their god; you will be rather hard pressed to reason them out of it.
And that's because finding is done by arriving on a concept of a god which satisfies some form of emotional rest or satisfaction in the individual.

An example: the down and trodden do not turn to believing in a god because there was a proper logical argument presented by an advocate. Instead, they are "rescued" in their "soul" by a compelling plea of hope and sympathy. They find hope renewed and are from that point partially dependent on this facet as part of their new formed self identity emotionally.

If rational logic were the primary motive of religious belief, then it would not be isolated from rational logic in the secular view in society.

If rational logic were the primary motive of religious belief, then Paul would be relatively correct; if religious belief were rationally logical as the primary motive, then there would be no reason for such grand dismissal by secularist academia of religious integration aside from the postulation that secularist academia was avoiding truth through negligence.

However, secularist academia, instead, dismisses religious integration for a simple reason: religious belief is not a rationally logical pursuit.
(those terms are being used in the academic categorical sense; not in common tongue phrase that would otherwise imply that I thought religious belief was a retardant to intelligence.)

[James S Saint]

James,
While not directly the tangent, I would personally class that as no different than TPT or Turtle's redefinition of, "God".
I can extract "God" into many things; many do.
Extracting to the conceptual force of product doesn't equate to "God"; a sentient being.
When I state that I do not believe in a god, it is a pretty simple stance. Gods are defined by personal motive of being sentient super-beings which have controlling power over universal forces of nature.
I don't, either, consider the conceptual force of product, "God".
I consider it the conceptual force of product.

Oh I'm sure you do. Many people do. But many people understand rather than merely believe ("Eyes to see. Ears to hear").
Consider that it is the notion that God is "a sentient being" that is the "redefinition" allowed to occur very long ago (anthropomorphism).
Realize that what you and so very many think is required to constitute "sentience", is perhaps naive and all too arrogantly human.
Also, I'm not certain exactly what you mean by "force of product". Any notion of God includes the force/cause behind the happening.

[felix dakat]

Felix, I would agree with Jayson on this.

Why am I not surprised

Paul insisted on many places about the weakness, intellectually of his message.

Paul presented arguments that can be analyzed in terms of their validity

Reality has been argued, through natural theology, to be the best argument for the existence of God or God's non existence.

According to whom?

In this regard then reality, and arguments proceeding from it, become a Rorschach test, a vacuity that is filled by the contents that exist in the beholder.

If God is the result of projection, how were Newton and Einstein able to perceive reality incisively and simultaneously perceive God.

Jesus was fond of making the distinction that it was THEIR faith that saved them.

So one can't have faith and be logical too? How did Friar Mendel keep his faith and discover genetics?

So is the glass half full or half empty? The answer lies in you.

Both."Half full" and "half empty" are synonymous. It's a false dilemma.

[Jayson]

James,
While not directly the tangent, I would personally class that as no different than TPT or Turtle's redefinition of, "God".
I can extract "God" into many things; many do.
Extracting to the conceptual force of product doesn't equate to "God"; a sentient being.
When I state that I do not believe in a god, it is a pretty simple stance. Gods are defined by personal motive of being sentient super-beings which have controlling power over universal forces of nature.
I don't, either, consider the conceptual force of product, "God".
I consider it the conceptual force of product.

Oh I'm sure you do. Many people do. But many people understand rather than merely believe ("Eyes to see. Ears to hear").
Consider that it is the notion that God is "a sentient being" that is the "redefinition" allowed to occur very long ago (anthropomorphism).
Realize that what you and so very many think is required to constitute "sentience", is perhaps naive and all too arrogantly human.
Also, I'm not certain exactly what you mean by "force of product". Any notion of God includes the force/cause behind the happening.

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".

[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? I don't understand what you mean.

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?

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