Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Angrboda]

Well, I only watched the five minute version. Holland makes a number of claims that are not immediately obvious. Not being sufficiently familiar with Paul or the relevant history, I really have no opinion on the matter aside from the instinct of skepticism, as well as familiarity with how such claims of an inherently Christian basis of society often don't pan out. I'd have to read Paul to even begin to understand what he is claiming. But that being said, one can ask the still relevant question of whether Paul was simply riding a wave of change in society, or whether Paul was the wave. It's always been my belief that original voices are products of their age, rather than true signs of great originality. I note this particularly in science. No great scientific breakthrough occurs in a vacuum. They all are set within a context which uniquely made them possible. Einstein wouldn't have been Einstein if not for Maxwell and so on. One looks at the historic events predating Paul, such as the Hasmonean epoch and the wave of apocalypticism sweeping Judaism prior to Paul, and there seems to be reasonable grounds for at least suspecting that Paul, and Jesus as well, were simply the white caps on a wave that was already cresting. Given the boost to their visibility made possible by the triumph of Christianity, it seems rather unremarkable that in hindsight, his thinking may have shaped things considerably. But at the end of the day, it probably wasn't his thinking per se which had the most effect. Just as the decision to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States, it's questionable whether that change would have occurred if not for larger currents already underway within society. So, even without examining the actual Pauline contributions themselves, I suspect Paul was simply a rider on the wave of change occurring in society, and perhaps, if true, its most visible proponent. But at the same time, we have the preconditions existing in the world at the time, as well as mass movements which were reinforced by, but not originated by Paul, to thank for any supposed positive contributions from Paul. In addition to that, one has to ask what specific things Holland is postulating that were Paul's contributions. Given the rise of Christianity, it seems rather unremarkable that the main currents within Christianity would have a large influence on whatever society resulted. That's just the lottery effect -- somebody had to win, and perhaps in this case, it just happened to be Paul (if true).

I guess furthermore I'm wondering what your overall point is. Are you asking whether we should acknowledge Paul as a great thinker, philosopher and moralist? Are you asking if we think the contributions made by Paul specifically, and Christianity in general, to society have been significant and significantly positive, either absolutely, or relative to other thinkers, philosophers, moralists, people, or movements in history? Are you asking whether Paul's supposed effect upon future generations is evidence of a divine influence on his writings and their eventual wide spread adoption? There are many questions you might be asking, but it doesn't appear you've asked any of them. This seems like a form of "gee whiz" history; gee whiz, look at that, if there hadn't been a Paul, things would have been different. Well, generally if things had been different then, it's a truism that things would have been different. Just what are you trying to say, Steve? At the very least, I think some specific examples of Paul's supposed contributions to Western thought would go a long way to fleshing out Holland's contention and this thread.

So I guess my question, given my ignorance of any specifics about Paul, Holland's claims, and history in general is, was Paul the instigator of change, or just a visible witness to it?