Paul's Great Ad Hom

[felix dakat]

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.

The experts disagree on this, not to mention the rest of us.

He was just a middle eastern Jewish guy who lived a long time ago.

There is pretty good evidence for that'

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.

Even that is uncertain. There is no evidence that he broke with Judaism. Much of what he taught, if not all is consistent with the teachings of the leading Pharisees of his time.

Was Jesus's death the blood sacrifice that would put an end to the need for any other blood sacrifices?

How would we know that? It would require metaphysics or revelation. That is the meme we were born into in western society. It is a way of explaining Jesus' death and making it meaningful to his followers. But it is fraught with problems when you analyze it. Who required it? How does one death substitute for another? Why would God want a blood sacrifice in the first place? Why must something die so that others can live in nature anyway? Is the crucifixion part of some deeper reality? Or was it just a Roman execution of a guy we really know very little about with any certainty?

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?

How can we know for sure that the words attributed to him on the subject really his or were his followers telling stories and creating myths to justify their belief that he was the messiah--the fulfillment of all the prophesies?

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.

I guess this is a slam on my use of the word context. I was suggesting that we use de-demonize Paul by taking a fresh look at his teaching in as a product of his times and culture. That seems compatible with following the spirit of Christ's message to me.

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.

He may have thought that he was the messiah who was going to bring back God to free Israel from Roman oppression. That would explain the reference to the sword.

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?

Inquiring minds would like to know. There's no consensus. Jesus refuses to be put in a box. He is too big to be contained even in the Church.

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

Which quote suggests Jesus was some kind of humanist.

[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.

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

My point was that Paul was saying the same thing and that his argument for it is invalid. I thought the same thing. God appeared self-evident to me. But then you talk with reasonable people who say they don't see it that way. So then you can condemn them for rejecting God like Paul did. Or you might conclude that God is only self evident to spiritual people. Maybe there are different types of people. Or maybe people define god differently. Or maybe who think God is evident are deluding themselves.

I don't know. I was just pointing out that condemning people for idolatry etc. presupposes self evidence but doesn't constitute an argument for it. Then Paul goes on to make the conscience an argument for it. Everyone can't be condemned if they are ignorant of god's law. Their consciences show they are not etc.

I don't know the answers to these questions so I still find them interesting and perplexing.

[Jayson]

You don't know the answers to which kinds of questions?

To the rest, so this was more prompted as an expression from self awareness?

[felix dakat]

You don't know the answers to which kinds of questions?

The question of whether God is self evident or not.

To the rest, so this was more prompted as an expression from self awareness?

It was prompted by the observation that Paul claiming that god is self evident like I said.

[Jayson]

So really...no solid point. Just more random passing thought.
Okie dokie.

[felix dakat]

So really...no solid point. Just more random passing thought.
Okie dokie.

Jayson--
You don't see the significance of my observation. "Okie dokie." I feel the same way about some the threads you post. I don't post on them to tell you how worthless or futile your thoughts are. Instead I attribute it to differing interests between you and me. I read them without comment. I don't query you about why you are discussing something so pointless. But that's just me. You are making an issue out of it. I wonder why you are doing that. I don't think it has anything to do with Paul, or God or the Bible or Christian rationality or anything like that. I think it's more about process than content. Maybe its payback. Have I offended you somehow? Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss some issue privately.

[anon]

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.

The experts disagree on this, not to mention the rest of us.

He was just a middle eastern Jewish guy who lived a long time ago.

There is pretty good evidence for that'

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.

Even that is uncertain. There is no evidence that he broke with Judaism. Much of what he taught, if not all is consistent with the teachings of the leading Pharisees of his time.

Was Jesus's death the blood sacrifice that would put an end to the need for any other blood sacrifices?

How would we know that? It would require metaphysics or revelation. That is the meme we were born into in western society. It is a way of explaining Jesus' death and making it meaningful to his followers. But it is fraught with problems when you analyze it. Who required it? How does one death substitute for another? Why would God want a blood sacrifice in the first place? Why must something die so that others can live in nature anyway? Is the crucifixion part of some deeper reality? Or was it just a Roman execution of a guy we really know very little about with any certainty?

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?

How can we know for sure that the words attributed to him on the subject really his or were his followers telling stories and creating myths to justify their belief that he was the messiah--the fulfillment of all the prophesies?

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.

I guess this is a slam on my use of the word context. I was suggesting that we use de-demonize Paul by taking a fresh look at his teaching in as a product of his times and culture. That seems compatible with following the spirit of Christ's message to me.

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.

He may have thought that he was the messiah who was going to bring back God to free Israel from Roman oppression. That would explain the reference to the sword.

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?

Inquiring minds would like to know. There's no consensus. Jesus refuses to be put in a box. He is too big to be contained even in the Church.

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

Which quote suggests Jesus was some kind of humanist.

It doesn't really seem like you're disagreeing with me here. Seems like you're merely exploring, which I like. I'd characterize my own contributions in this thread as experimental in nature.

I'd only point out that I don't mean to demonize Paul. I actually like Paul better than Jesus. He's more real to me.

I think my main point is you have to make some personal decisions when relating to a religious text, a religious tradition, etc. You have to value some things more than others, you have to make your own interpretations, you have to rely on your own wisdom. Detracters call that approach "cherry picking", and of course the danger is that you dispense with any challenge to your ego when you take that approach. But "cherry picking" isn't what I'm suggesting. The approach I'm suggesting people take, and "cherry picking" couldn't be more different. That's why "not resisting the Holy Spirit" may be a useful conception.

[omar]

Sounds a bit like flopping anon. But that is you statement.
Rather than cherry picking I call it wrestling. Anyone who accuses you of this charge, take them up on their offer and see how committed they are to that premise of taking ALL of the Bible as a constant whole. Most of the time they ridiculize themselves or their version of their religion. I can tell you that theologians have long practiced alegorization that is positing the existence of a higher meaning behind the literal meaning and by this they were able to accept the OT as a respected gentle religion. Aside from this fundamentalists that insist on a total vision of literal interpretation then have to abandon any hope that they can teach any morality. What you see on Sunday is uplifting preaching that selects very specific passages and avoids the ones that would challenge their vision of a loving and tender god. So, in practice, unless a sadist, even the ones advising against cherry picking will inevitably veer away from challenging passages, which becomes a form of cherry picking, if not in letter then in it's spirit.

[felix dakat]

It doesn't really seem like you're disagreeing with me here. Seems like you're merely exploring, which I like. I'd characterize my own contributions in this thread as experimental in nature.

Right. Well we can't approach the historical Jesus with anything like certainty. So if we are going to put faith in him we are going to have to take a leap. To take the Bible as the Word of God takes a leap in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I'd only point out that I don't mean to demonize Paul. I actually like Paul better than Jesus. He's more real to me.

The typical fundamentalist approach is to try to harmonize everything he said with other books of the Bible. That is an unwarranted assumption. Then his teachings are harmonized with Church dogma and practices. Also unwarranted. Plus there are a bunch of books in the NT attributed to him that he probably did not write.So Paul deserves a fresh reading to sort out what he was saying from the service to which the church employed it IMO.

I think my main point is you have to make some personal decisions when relating to a religious text, a religious tradition, etc. You have to value some things more than others, you have to make your own interpretations, you have to rely on your own wisdom. Detracters call that approach "cherry picking", and of course the danger is that you dispense with any challenge to your ego when you take that approach. But "cherry picking" isn't what I'm suggesting. The approach I'm suggesting people take, and "cherry picking" couldn't be more different. That's why "not resisting the Holy Spirit" may be a useful conception.

That's why I have the Solaris quote-"There are no answers, only choices."- in my signature line. We have to make decisions based on limited information. May as well do it with our eyes open understanding that we may be wrong and ready to adapt if new info comes in. At this point when someone asks "What would Jesus do" the next question is "Which Jesus?"

[Jayson]

So really...no solid point. Just more random passing thought.
Okie dokie.

Jayson--
You don't see the significance of my observation. "Okie dokie." I feel the same way about some the threads you post. I don't post on them to tell you how worthless or futile your thoughts are. Instead I attribute it to differing interests between you and me. I read them without comment. I don't query you about why you are discussing something so pointless. But that's just me. You are making an issue out of it. I wonder why you are doing that. I don't think it has anything to do with Paul, or God or the Bible or Christian rationality or anything like that. I think it's more about process than content. Maybe its payback. Have I offended you somehow? Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss some issue privately.

I inquired because I was getting railed heavily for bringing up that validity really doesn't bear much relevance to belief in religion.

I figured perhaps I could have a different type of response if the ambition of the thread was known to me.
On one hand you say you just point it out, as if just passing random thought.
I asked twice and received no further explanation aside from that it was just merely being brought up.
But then you tell me I don't see the relevance when I respond to you saying that you were just pointing it out.

If it's just being pointed out because of your own self awareness of the matter, alright, then I probably wouldn't have responded at all to the thread.
If, on the other hand, there is any relevance to the weight of this subject, and the subject was posted because of that relevance, then I stand by what I have said previously.

[felix dakat]

So really...no solid point. Just more random passing thought.
Okie dokie.

Jayson--
You don't see the significance of my observation. "Okie dokie." I feel the same way about some the threads you post. I don't post on them to tell you how worthless or futile your thoughts are. Instead I attribute it to differing interests between you and me. I read them without comment. I don't query you about why you are discussing something so pointless. But that's just me. You are making an issue out of it. I wonder why you are doing that. I don't think it has anything to do with Paul, or God or the Bible or Christian rationality or anything like that. I think it's more about process than content. Maybe its payback. Have I offended you somehow? Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss some issue privately.

I inquired because I was getting railed heavily for bringing up that validity really doesn't bear much relevance to belief in religion.

I figured perhaps I could have a different type of response if the ambition of the thread was known to me.
On one hand you say you just point it out, as if just passing random thought.
I asked twice and received no further explanation aside from that it was just merely being brought up.
But then you tell me I don't see the relevance when I respond to you saying that you were just pointing it out.

If it's just being pointed out because of your own self awareness of the matter, alright, then I probably wouldn't have responded at all to the thread.
If, on the other hand, there is any relevance to the weight of this subject, and the subject was posted because of that relevance, then I stand by what I have said previously.

Jayson -- If this thread doesn't seem interesting to you by now, then maybe the topic just isn't your cup of tea. It could be that its just time for you to let it go. I'm just sayin'...

[Jayson]

Quite to the opposite.
What I didn't understand was the contention against what I was saying, which I thought was a fairly straight-forward observation: that religious belief is not based on validly rational logic.

After receiving the unexpected opposition to this with assertions that people do largely choose their belief based on rational logic, and thereby pointing out Paul's invalidity in asserting a self-evident god was in fact relevant to adherent's choices made by rational logic, I began to question whether I had missed the motive of the thread and therefore asked.

Again, I do not contest Paul's invalidity logically regarding a self-evident god.
Now...what about it is of importance exactly?

I continue to ask because if I state that people do not largely choose belief in gods based on rational logic again, or hit on that tangent, I will receive the same contention as before whereby arguments will be supplied attempting to assert that people do in fact do so largely.

Which circles back to the above question; if that is what is believed - that people do choose their belief in gods based on rational logic - then what was the aim in pointing out the invalidity of Paul's assertion of a self-evident god if the point was not to suggest that the claim of a self-evident god is irrational and thereby placing a chink in the armor of the asserted rationally logical choices of adherents to this god?

[omar]

Jayson, if I may, I think that Felix is more reasonable. If indeed the cause of belief or disbelief lies outside of reason in perhaps the cultural and social emotions a person has then it makes no sense to respond to Felix tread. What would you accomplish? There is a saying: "Never give excuses. Your friends don't need them and your enemies won't believe them".

You need not defend the case nor argue with Felix's belief. On the other hand Felix holds almost the belief that logic leads one to or away a position a conclusion and therefore making this tread is profitable. What is the profit of arguing for or against if it is all in the end pre or even anti-rational?

[Jayson]

Well, that was more or less my point to begin with.
This is why I brought up other examples, such as Churchill, and was attempting to point out that when such individuals speak; they are speaking with an inclusive social axiom due to their audience.
The arguments Paul, therefore, makes are not very good at being logical arguments because he assumes his audience caries with them the same social axioms of perspective as he.
These aren't letters to people that haven't converted to his ideologies; these are people who have, but are having issues whereby he addresses with the axioms assumed.

I don't see why we would expect Paul to be validly logical and lacking all social axioms.

I don't claim that all beliefs are purely pre-rational, but instead that concepts of identity towards all of reality - such as gods are - are typically pre-rational impulses from which a person will seek a theological holding which satisfies their longing in their emotion.
Which tool fits the hole?

[felix dakat]

I inquired because I was getting railed heavily for bringing up that validity really doesn't bear much relevance to belief in religion.

I figured perhaps I could have a different type of response if the ambition of the thread was known to me.
On one hand you say you just point it out, as if just passing random thought.
I asked twice and received no further explanation aside from that it was just merely being brought up.
But then you tell me I don't see the relevance when I respond to you saying that you were just pointing it out.

If it's just being pointed out because of your own self awareness of the matter, alright, then I probably wouldn't have responded at all to the thread.
If, on the other hand, there is any relevance to the weight of this subject, and the subject was posted because of that relevance, then I stand by what I have said previously.

Let's look at the passage in question again:

18-21 Now the holy anger of God is disclosed from Heaven against the godlessness and evil of those men who render truth dumb and inoperative by their wickedness. It is not that they do not know the truth about God; indeed he has made it quite plain to them. For since the beginning of the world the invisible attributes of God, e.g. his eternal power and divinity, have been plainly discernible through things which he has made and which are commonly seen and known, thus leaving these men without a rag of excuse. They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused to acknowledge him as such, or to thank him for what he is or does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and plunged their silly minds still further into the dark.
22-23 Behind a facade of “wisdom” they became just fools, fools who would exchange the glory of the eternal God for an imitation image of a mortal man, or of creatures that run or fly or crawl.

24 They gave up God: and therefore God gave them up—to be the playthings of their own foul desires in dishonouring their own bodies.

25-27 These men deliberately forfeited the truth of God and accepted a lie, paying homage and giving service to the creature instead of to the Creator, who alone is worthy to be worshipped for ever and ever, amen. God therefore handed them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged the normal practices of sexual intercourse for something which is abnormal and unnatural. Similarly the men, turning from natural intercourse with women, were swept into lustful passions for one another. Men with men performed these shameful horrors, receiving, of course, in their own personalities the consequences of sexual perversity.
28-32 Moreover, since they considered themselves too high and mighty to acknowledge God, he allowed them to become the slaves of their degenerate minds, and to perform unmentionable deeds. They became filled with wickedness, rottenness, greed and malice; their minds became steeped in envy, murder, quarrelsomeness, deceitfulness and spite. They became whisperers-behind-doors, stabbers-in-the-back, God-haters; they overflowed with insolent pride and boastfulness, and their minds teemed with diabolical invention. They scoffed at duty to parents, they mocked at learning, recognised no obligations of honour, lost all natural affection, and had no use for mercy. More than this—being well aware of God’s pronouncement that all who do these things deserve to die, they not only continued their own practices, but did not hesitate to give their thorough approval to others who did the same.
J. B. Phillips, "The New Testament in Modern English", 1962 edition by HarperCollins

The passage raises epistemological questions. Paul states that the nature of God is clearly evident in nature. So knowledge of God isn't something that people have to reason their way to. It's something they can perceive readily. Philosophy can't show whether Paul is right or wrong about this. But it can show whether his arguments for it are logical or not. Granted that religious belief is based on something other than logic, it still is open to logical scrutiny.

Plantinga has gone so far as to claim that most humans suffer from a cognitive affective disorder which, when healed by the Holy Spirit, restores a person to direct revelation of God in an "immediate non-inferential manner." [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Epistemology of Religion ] That may square with his own experience, but how can he know about the experience of others? Isn't talking about the experience of God like talking about qualia? I can't tell if your sense of redness is the same as mine. How can I know if what you are calling an apprehension of God is the same as mine when God itself is acknowledged to be ineffable?

[omar]

I think that what men like Paul alluded to is the near universality of the concept of god (not gods) evident in his time. His audience was probably already familiar with Plato or at least the meme he created in them OT perpetuated himself which is perhaps not monotheism but henotheism.
Reading Cicero for example gives you the feeling that the idea of god was being stripped of the barbarities of earlier authors, elevated by philosophies like plato's or stoicism. Later on in the battle for survival religious men would argue to Christian authorities that all rivers were valid as they led to the same ocean. Perhaps it was out of convenience but reading cicero for example makes me think that people in Rome felt that there was a divine reality expressed through diverse rivers that was perhaps erroneously described but universally accepted as Being.

[Jayson]

So knowledge of God isn't something that people have to reason their way to. It's something they can perceive readily. Philosophy can't show whether Paul is right or wrong about this.

Reflect on that line just a moment.
Then reflect on what I've been saying.
Do you see that you just wrote the same thing I said previously?

That:
1) Leaders tend to speak with an inclusive social axiom due to their audience.
2) Sterile validity really doesn't bear much relevance to belief in gods.

What I started off with was simple:
That even though Paul's argument hinges on a premise that is unproven acontextually, Paul was clearly writing with an assumption that those who he was writing to already understood his unproven premise and was using that axiomatic premise as the foundational premise for an argument on human behavior; specifically the difference between his view of people with and without his god.

When it was brought up that it was therefore still invalid; I then pointed out that god belief is not regularly based on a logical validity, but an emotional plea (either internal or external).

To hopeful make my point more clear; assume for a moment that you believe that his god is self-evident (as you once did) and rerun the argument.
If the foundational premise, which lacks an argument and is a given, is granted room to be a given as it is in Paul's hand; then, does the argument stop being invalid?

As to reform again: those who he was writing to, he was not being invalid; anymore than to those who Churchill was addressing, he was not being invalid.
Even though neither have valid arguments by proper logic as both rest their entire arguments on foundational premises which supply absolutely no argument for their granting (Paul: self-evident god, Churchill: free thought & expression is superior to restricted thought & expression).

So if you grant Paul a self-evident god, then his argument can begin to flow.
If you strip it away, then you have an immediately invalid argument because X can never be shown as solved.
If a variable is never capable of resolution, then the equation as a whole is an invalid equation.
But if you supply the variable with a value, then the equation can be tested.

If you supply Paul's variable with a self-evident god, then does his equation of the dichotomy of human relation to this god follow validly?
Or, if you supply it with a self-evident god as the value for the variable, does the equation still solve invalidly?

[James S Saint]

Paul made no fallacy of logic.

Even if every single thing he said was wrong, he still made no logical error.
Felix on the other hand...sigh... just more anti-Christian agenda.

[Jayson]

No, there is a logical error if the point is the proof of a self-evident god instead of the self-evident god being an axiom in an argument explaining the behavior of peoples with and without that god.
I tend to see it as the latter that was being done and not the former.

[James S Saint]

Jayson, as you have explained several times now, Paul was not making a logic argument or attempting to prove anything. He was simply explaining the behavior of an entity that his listeners already assumed existed. It doesn't matter if the entity is real. It does matter if anything Paul said was true.

At no time did Paul present the Logic stipulation, "If this ____ is true, then this ____ must also be true."
Without such a presentation, there is no case for logical fallacy any more than a case against the bachelor for beating his wife.

[Jayson]

*shrug*
Pretty much goes like this, as far as I see it:
God exists and is that which is, those that deny this, suffer a lie.

What's interesting, is that if you look at this with a background of Hebrew theology, then it's pretty circular logic in a reaffirming manner.
To put it another way:
Life exists and is that which is, those that deny this, suffer a lie.
But at the same time, also meaning this at the same time:
We exist and are those who are, those that deny this, suffer a lie.

Throw all three of those in a mix together so that they are at once the same and that would be more or less the logical implication if this were looked at from the era just before Paul and somewhat still at Paul's time in the Levant region's Hebrews.

I said it before...Paul was pretty screwed from the onset in his interest of creating a Hellenistic analog of this new Hebrew vision from Galilee.
The conceptual mind of the Hebrew theology isn't dichotomic at its root, but instead recursive and nodal.
It would have been like trying to figure out how to explain four dimensional existence to two dimensional people.

[omar]

What is missing is giving Paul the benefit of doubt. How important is logic in an average person's life? That would be my first question. In my opinion and that of some logicians, not very important because the business of life begins with axiom with weight garthered by faith. Logic cannot contain it's own validity. Faith is what gives it.
The next question is how important is a worldview in a person's life? For me it is very important because it develops before the ability to carry out a logical argument. After, it affects, probably unconsciously how we use logic and what we take at self evident.
What I have seen supports this. What I see is often attempts to salvage something of value that is not given logically such as the benevolence of Jesus. Similarly Plato and Socrates and others philosophers sought reinterpretations that would allow them to retain at least what was of value to them.

Paul may have been onto something of nothing else from the psychological perspective. From it it is argued that maybe it has nothing to do with god. Check out Loyal Rue's book. So maybe god is self evident or not; that is not as important as our human situation. That is why we (looking at different cultures and eras) seem almost predispose to see the hand of the divine in everything. It is not that god is self evident as in the Christian god but this di one quality men prayed to. Romans were disposed to accept the now modern sentiment that just as all roads lead to Rome, so too all religions led to the self evident divinity. And so Paul agreed that the divine is self evident but that it was reached only through one road. Some accepted this and others did not. Paul faults their moral but what he was probably remarking was a pre-rational cultural identity and indeed because of this identity they would have rejected Paul just as the Jews did and as the Muslims have even if they agree with Paul that only a fool would deny the existence of god.

Paul's faith was not simply seeking to demonstrate god exists. That was admitted by the crowds. But he was pushing a life style change and resistance to Paul meant a moral flaw since only his way was moral in the correct sense.

[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.

[felix dakat]

jason--

So knowledge of God isn't something that people have to reason their way to. It's something they can perceive readily. Philosophy can't show whether Paul is right or wrong about this.
Reflect on that line just a moment.
Then reflect on what I've been saying.
Do you see that you just wrote the same thing I said previously?

Right but that was never something I was arguing against.

What I started off with was simple:
That even though Paul's argument hinges on a premise that is unproven acontextually, Paul was clearly writing with an assumption that those who he was writing to already understood his unproven premise and was using that axiomatic premise as the foundational premise for an argument on human behavior; specifically the difference between his view of people with and without his god.

When it was brought up that it was therefore still invalid; I then pointed out that god belief is not regularly based on a logical validity, but an emotional plea (either internal or external).

To hopeful make my point more clear; assume for a moment that you believe that his god is self-evident (as you once did) and rerun the argument.
If the foundational premise, which lacks an argument and is a given, is granted room to be a given as it is in Paul's hand; then, does the argument stop being invalid?

As to reform again: those who he was writing to, he was not being invalid; anymore than to those who Churchill was addressing, he was not being invalid.
Even though neither have valid arguments by proper logic as both rest their entire arguments on foundational premises which supply absolutely no argument for their granting (Paul: self-evident god, Churchill: free thought & expression is superior to restricted thought & expression).

So if you grant Paul a self-evident god, then his argument can begin to flow.
If you strip it away, then you have an immediately invalid argument because X can never be shown as solved.
If a variable is never capable of resolution, then the equation as a whole is an invalid equation.
But if you supply the variable with a value, then the equation can be tested.

If you supply Paul's variable with a self-evident god, then does his equation of the dichotomy of human relation to this god follow validly?
Or, if you supply it with a self-evident god as the value for the variable, does the equation still solve invalidly?

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.

[James S Saint]

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.