Which, to be fair..was also a trend in classical pagan thought.  It's a conversation that's been going on since the inception of the written word (and, in all likelihood..far longer, 50k years or thereabouts, at least - the earliest commentators didn't spring forth from a clam like venus anymore than "paul" did).  

There's a reason we call it "the western tradition"...and it sprang up centuries before "paul" or "jesus" were a twinkle in some cons eye.  Both judaism as we now have it and later christianity were the beneficiaries of that tradition..not it's originators.  

More than that..the same conversation has been had elsewhere, wholly apart frm the western tradition or from the mere presence of christianity as an influencer.  People the world over have wondered the same things and come to the same (and disparate) conclusions....and yet we find ourselves here considering the infantile proposition that some pious fucking fraud in the second century had a eureka moment.

There is nothing about the existence of a god that can give us  intrinsic value if that value is dependent on a god to exist

Moreover, limiting ourselves only to the irony of the claim present -within- the judeo-christian sphere..how is it that a person can claim..with a straight face... a meaningfully derivative faith and simultaneously claim to be progenitors of something not found in that faith, further..something closer to our modern sensibilities than that which preceded it?  When did their borrowed god change it's restless mind on those issues?  Before or after some guy wrote a screed to his sycophants addressed to his ideological competitors?  Just how feckless is this god that the timeless wisdom it deigns to present has a shelf life about as long as the people who write it?

(August 2, 2018 at 4:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Moreover, limiting ourselves only to the irony of the claim present -within- the judeo-christian sphere..how is it that a person can claim..with a straight face... a meaningfully derivative faith and simultaneously claim to be progenitors of something not found in that faith, further..something closer to our modern sensibilities than that which preceded it?  When did their borrowed god change it's restless mind on those issues?  Before or after some guy wrote a screed to his sycophants addressed to his ideological competitors?  Just how feckless is this god that the timeless wisdom it deigns to present has a shelf life about as long as the people who write it?

Indeed there is nothing that Christianity let alone Paul said that was not already said by Pagans or Jews once again Christians taking credit they don't deserve.

Literally nothing.  None of the good shit..none of the bad shit.  None of the shit about a christ or a messiah or salvation or god or ethics or the sky on a fucking tuesday.


Nothing.

It's more a case of a highly syncretic religion that found itself holding the bag when the world collapsed, and then enthusiastically set about to claim that it had built the world it inherited, with all order predicate upon it's authority, credibility, and ideology.

(August 2, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Literally nothing.  None of the good shit..none of the bad shit.  None of the shit about a christ or a messiah or salvation or god or ethics or the sky on a fucking tuesday.


Nothing.

It's more a case of a highly syncretic religion that found itself holding the bag when the world collapsed, and then enthusiastically set about to claim that it had built the world it inherited, with all order predicate upon it's authority, credibility, and ideology.

Reminds me of when Wooter tried crediting Christianity with Hospitals and Universities .Then when it was proven they existed before and without Christianity he doubled down by declaring they were not exactly the same so the didn't count though in every meaningful way they did.

(August 2, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I find Paul's view not to be that we are all worthwhile, just the opposite, being that we're all shit, and only succeed if God deigns to let us kiss his ring.  We can't even justify ourselves by being good men.  It's all about prostituting ourselves before the Lord because in and of ourselves we have no value.  That you can derive a message about the inherent worth of humanity from that just seems like doublespeak.  Paul eviscerates the meaning of our lives and replaces it with one based on servitude.

No, not at all. The entire message is that God loves you enough to do this great thing. 

 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 5:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 15:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Ephesians 2:4-5 New International Version (NIV)
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

1 John 4:8 ESV 
8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:9-10 New International Version (NIV)
9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Regarding our fallen condition, Paul actually explains that was what the Law of Moses was supposed to illustrate:

Romans 3:19-26 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

You cannot get the view you posted out of Paul's writings.

Is it really surprising to find that people who believe in an alternative history as a matter of faith also believe in alternative histories for matters of fact?

---

(August 2, 2018 at 4:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, not at all. The entire message is that God loves you enough to do this great thing. 

Extrinsic value, but only by implication even there...never quite gets around to why god loves you.

Not that it would help your contention if it did. Suppose god loves us because some of us are chuckleheads? Well..humor has long been seen as a valuable human trait. If you're going to continue with this charade I'll have to insist that you lay out precisely what it is in "pauls" writing that refers to any intrinsic value of man, and specifically some value that no one in the western tradition had already opined upon -at great length-. For him to have said it first or best..he;d have to have said it at all.

(July 26, 2018 at 5:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Intrinsic value. The Roman and Greek view was not that people had intrinsic values just for being people. When Paul said such things like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) this was revolutionary. Your birth, your societal status, your nationality, your gender does not give you value in the eyes of God. That would be a very appealing message to entire classes of people who were told otherwise and often lived brutal lives as a consequence.

There are actually a number of things wrapped up in this issue. If you believe everyone is highly valued by God, your worldview must change over time. Things like education and hospitals and social welfare are natural extensions of your worldview. I'm not saying if not for Christianity, then we would not have these, but I think that we can find other cultures to make a comparison and it turns out this is a very far-reaching feature of a Christian worldview.

I would argue that the West's intrinsic value of human beings cannot be attributed to Paul. You can get that stuff (maybe) if you look for it in the Gospels. But Paul delivered a message contrary to "all human beings are intrinsically valuable." Since we are talking about Paul's influence here, it is appropriate to bring up how Paul's notions actually stained Christianity with the idea that humans are only valuable after they accept Christ as Lord. That's hardly intrinsic value. In fact, quite the opposite. Human beings are extrinsically valuable... that is, only valuable when they accept something external to themselves (Christ), and otherwise are considered, according to Paul, depraved and irredeemable.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Wrote:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the [a]law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under [c]law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became [d]as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

-my bold-

"I have made myself a servant to all that I might win the more". NOT because they are suffering and struggling beings with intrinsic value... but because Paul wants to add them to the roster. That is the reason for his universal servitude to all men; he has an ulterior motive. Human beings are little more than fresh meat... worthless aside from one parameter: belonging to Paul's religion.

Again, since we are discussing Paul's writings, it is unfair to bring up the Gospels here. Maybe the Gospels do preach intrinsic human value. But if that is the case, maybe Paul's writings took Christianity in the other direction (which would explain all the beheadings, burnings at the stake, and torture of Jews etc. that is inextricable from Christian history). Regardless, something happened along the way with Christians that urged them to assign little to no value to nonbelievers (to the extent that they were executed for their disbelief). That's hardly what I'd call "intrinsic human value." Rather: "only believers of our religion are valuable." Where did that sentiment come from? I think much of it came from Paul.

"God so loved you that His only begotten son gave up a weekend for you."