Paul's theology … r=1&verse=

I was reading this, the first few chapters.
I think it’s rediculus that God would judge us all as worthy of death just because we sin. And next that Jesus dieing on earth somehow removes that sin, but despite the death of the Christ we still die. We can’t control whether or not we sin. That doesn’t mean we are all 100% worthy of some kind of death penalty. Also there is the claim that we can’t earn forgiveness on our own, no matter how many good works we act out, because of the whole Adam and Eve thing.

Despite how insane this theology is, it spread. People took it up. Humans surely must be very irrational beings to believe such things.

However, I live in Canada, and it’s way more secular here than it is in the USA. Way less religious.

You don’t have Paul’s expereince Different experince=>different worldview. Doesn’t make his view crazy and yours not. What is the likelihood that we would be in total agreement with ANYBODY that lived 2000 years ago? I think that probably approaches absolute zero. And that might true to a fraction of a % even if you, lived in the US.

You don’t need to have cancer to know it’s no fun. You don’t need to be a doctor to know that cancer can make a person sick. You don’t need to see God yourself if you find someone trust-able that has seen a miracle, just like you don’t need to see a red stone yourself if you find someone trust-able that has a red stone.

I have tried my best to make my view in the likeness of the most sound minded, but the common people are themselves crazy in many ways, so that I can’t compare myself to the moderns or even to the intellectuals.

That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. They were just as human back then as they are now, and they lived on the same earth with very similar experiences and encounters.

The issue here is not whether or not I am in agreement with old historical figures.

The issue is that i think christian theology has certain extremely irrational and immoral postulations about God. To the point of making God look like a piece of shit. And that is a serious offense, even though some people go on to praise it as a good deed instead of a serious offense.

You know the stereotype of cancer. Turns out for some people it’s the highpoint of their life. They testify that they never really lived until cancer made them aware how precious life is. The miracle aspect I will address on our miracle thread. It isn’t necessarily relevant here.

How carelessly you fling the word around. It is a word often brandished by one dismissive of the perspectives of others. Understanding the perspective of others is a goal that leads often leads to the discovery that given they’re POV they are not crazy after all.

Then, why talk about Paul’s theology? No one even knows what that is entirely. All we have is a few letters that he wrote. Scholars don’t agree about which of the letters attributed to him he actually wrote. None of the fragments of his thought that we have is a thoroughly worked out comprehensive systematic theology. Orthodox theology as embodied in the creed is but one interpretation of what Paul implied. And theology, to the chagrin of anti-religion posters here, continues to evolve. It is a moving target. So, there are as many Pauls as there are Jesuses.

Having said that, let’s look at the problem of sin as understood by Paul in Romans [one of the books which scholars agree he probably wrote]: One possible explanation is that Paul did not come to Christianity with a pre-formed conception of humanity’s sin problem, but rather deduced the problem from the solution. Once he accepted it as revelation that God intended to save the entire world by sending his son, he naturally had to think that the entire world needed saving. His theory of salvation is more consistent and straightforward than are his conceptions of the sin problem. His fixed view of salvation demanded the universality of sin. This would explain why the argument for the universality of sin is so weak in the first two chapters but lead to such a definite conclusion: redemption through Christ. Paul was still under the spell of his Christ vision. The conclusion that all need to be saved through Christ, since Paul received it as revelation, could not be questioned. Paul’s arguments in favor of universal bondage to sin, then, might be efforts at rationalization. His expereince makes this explanation seem plausible.

I’ve been partially crazy before. I know what it’s like. I know what it is like to live through it. It has to do with philosophical error and all kinds of factors. Moderns are not immune. Moderns actually seem less resistant to madness than the ancients.

I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your post. It’s just a note, an observation. But I do feel I know about crazy. I’m not tossing the word out carelessly either.

It was Milton’s idea that God allowed us to be ill in order to make us well. (Felix culpa–happy guilt, the fortunate fall.) The idea does seem to stem from Paul’s ideas about sin and redemption. If I had a choice in the matter , I’d rather skip the whole sickness thing. The only good thing Paul preaches, IMHO, is universal salvation.
Problems with the Pauline/Miltonic formula? See Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessing” . In that work, based largely on the teachings of Meister Eckhart and other Christian mystics, Fox dismisses the concept of original sin.

Christian mystics are in way better shape spiritually than the church.
Christian magicians are too.
They at least have one piece of the puzzle, instead of spiritually having almost nothing.

Another theory is that Paul was influenced by aspects of a dualistic Zoroastrianism, according to which the created order is partly under the control of the god of darkness. This Iranian religion permeated the Mediterranean. It can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, which distinguish between the angel of darkness and the angel of light, the children of darkness and the children of light.

Paul’s terminology shows the influence of Zoroaster in 2 Corinthians 11: 14, for example, where Satan is said to disguise himself as the ‘angel of light’. Satan is really the ‘angel of darkness’ according to Paul. Paul considered Creation to be in need of redemption (Rom. 8: 19–23). How could Creation itself be guilty of sin?

But Paul stops short of dualism ultimately. He asserts that it was God himself who had subjected the creation to ‘futility’, and that he had done so ‘in hope’, planning its redemption. This God did in order to glorify Christ in his ultimate divine plan. Romans 8 does not admit a second power.

Still, Paul did believe in evil spiritual forces-the principalities and powers. These non-gods could blind (2 Cor. 4: 4) and enslave (Gal. 4 : 8 ), as could Sin (Rom. 6: 6). To trust God is to trust that it’s all worth it. “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Romans 8:28 -30.

What do you personally think about paul, regardless maybe of what you have read?
I don’t have a solid opinion, even though my OP may portray that in a way.
He might have had an encounter with an angel or something similar to one, so that he could heal and resurrect.
Or the story was construed. But I am certain such things are possible.

Hello Dan

— I was reading this, the first few chapters.
I think it’s rediculus that God would judge us all as worthy of death just because we sin.
O- It is actually logically consistent. If death is the wage of sin…“Just because” is your judgement, not God’s. What for you is a trivial matter, apparently for God is the difference maker between life, and life more abundantly, and death.

—And next that Jesus dieing on earth somehow removes that sin, but despite the death of the Christ we still die.
O- Incorrect. In Paul’s theology, those in Christ only sleep until the day of judgement.

—We can’t control whether or not we sin. That doesn’t mean we are all 100% worthy of some kind of death penalty.
O- That is what it must mean given the premises of his theology. There are holes there, but you are getting caught up in something that logically follows.

— Also there is the claim that we can’t earn forgiveness on our own, no matter how many good works we act out, because of the whole Adam and Eve thing.
O- Paul’s theology is concerned with making Jesus’ death, the central event of the Christian experience, a necessary event. If good works were sufficient then Jesus’ death was an unnecessary excess.

— Despite how insane this theology is, it spread.
O- Don’t believe the hype. His theology was only one of possible theologies that were around in those years. It didn’t just spread on its own power, but was assisted by imperial power and also transformed along the way to become an umbrella for everyone.

Should I throw away a knife because there is a dent in it?
That is basically what the all-intelligent God is doing.
I don’t see how logical that is.

I don’t know. How can one? Paul’s epistles are not beyond criticism, but the high points are like fingers pointing at the moon of ultimate reality.

It all depends on your premises and definitions. For some, a dented knife is still good for something. For others, with a higher standard of quality, simply will not accept a knife with any imperfection. I’m not saying I agree with Paul, but that formally he is consistent.

“Felix culpa” is usually attributed to Augustine’s reading of Paul and is associated with his doctrine of original sin. John Owen protestant theologian connects it to Paul:

. … i.ii-p45.2

Original Blessing sounds interesting. I just ordered a copy. Thanks.

Understanding the perspectives of others often means one must engage in the practices they suggest that led to those experiences or can lead to those experiences, not simply shifting words around on a screen or in the mind. I find his dismissal of paul no less polite than your dismissal of various religious ideas and experiences on other threads. And I think Paul was on the nuts side, though not because he had ideas that are not confirmed via scientific methodology, but because of those ideas themselves.

Please tell me what religious ideas I have dismissed. I plead agnostic on the matter of religion entirely. If you can show that I have held otherwise, please do so. From my POV, your defensive posture has been unwarranted.


15 seconds well spent. A thread devoted to how crazy and stupid religious people are, and other than the threat starter, you’re the only fucking participant.

How about you, Uccisore? What’s your position on paul’s ideas?

I think some people find it necessary to project their negativities on a godhead.
Creating life on earth would have taken a near infinite amount of intelligence and logic.
I don’t see why a creator would later destroy so many animals, in the flood for example.
The ideal is that God loves. But in my example of the dented knife, it is allot more like God hates.

Nothing I posted there dismisses religion. Other people’s behavior in the name of religion can look strange when it is different than one’s own. I have argued against the notion that is crazy just because it is different. I have also argued for understanding. I consider myself religious so to dismiss religion would be self defeating. That thread, as I understand it is devoted to religious behavior that seems strange to V. Examining religious behavior in order to understand it better seems like a good thing to do IMO.

The thread is called Religion Watch …

It’s where anyone, not just me, can post something about religion that we can watch. And let the presentation speak for itself … and the reader to make whatever they wish of it.

Just so happens I’m the one carrying it so far.

So Ucci, don’t just be critical, tho it’s welcomed, present something for us to watch. Be constructive, or destructive, toward religion. Do something related to the thread.

Unlike this post.