Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[The Grand Nudger]

In fact..nothing about you gives you value in the eyes of god, which is why it categorically fails as intrinsic or inherent value.  If you happen to be obedient enough to please his arbitrary strictures..however....you're golden.  You tell us that "paul" underpins intrinsic value but only deign to provide a list of things which you contend granted no value at all (despite some of those things being very much on gods radar, and pauls....and most of them being intrinsic in ways that obedience simply isn't.

OFC, we have the new wrinkle of your stuffing modern egalitarian and secular values into the mouth of an iron age nativist god.  God is gender neutral..suddenly.  God doesn't care about the circumstances of your birth despite making a covenant with his chosen master race.  Do you imagine that "paul" was drawing from judeo-christian tradition in any divergence you see there (real or imagined)...or expressing his then-current hellenist upbringing?  I think it;s breathtaking that you've imagined that greek or roman philosophy was somehow silent on this issue in a way that paul was not.  The oldest treatises we have on the subject in the western tradition...are from pagan greeks and romans.

First, Your rebuttal is predicated on our value to God depending on our obedience. That is completely false. 

Irrelevant, since I said no such thing and don't remotely need it.  What is it with batshit christers that they want to talk about anything other than the subject at hand.  We've got RR shitposting about some MIA argument from silence..we've got you musing over the dependencies of a god.I merely noted that any value that man has..in christian ideology...depends on the value god places. On a set of prescribed action, on fealty, on faith. I will repeat this point again...if you'd like to discuss your own contention, as I am..at any point.

Second, show me where Greek or Roman philosophy even spoke about universal intrinsic value--let alone where that was actually part of anyone's worldview.

Enjoy.  

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value
First published Tue Oct 22, 2002; substantive revision Wed Dec 24, 2014
Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic.
Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments. For example, according to a fundamental form of consequentialism, whether an action is morally right or wronghas exclusively to do with whether its consequences are intrinsically better than those of any other action one can perform under the circumstances. Many other theories also hold that what it is right or wrong to do has at least in part to do with the intrinsic value of the consequences of the actions one can perform. Moreover, if, as is commonly believed, what one is morally responsible for doing is some function of the rightness or wrongness of what one does, then intrinsic value would seem relevant to judgments about responsibility, too. Intrinsic value is also often taken to be pertinent to judgments about moral justice (whether having to do with moral rights or moral desert), insofar as it is good that justice is done and bad that justice is denied, in ways that appear intimately tied tointrinsic value. Finally, it is typically thought that judgments about moral virtue and vice also turn on questions of intrinsic value, inasmuch as virtues are good, and vices bad, again in ways that appear closely connected to such value.
All four types of moral judgments have been the subject of discussion since the dawn of western philosophy in ancient Greece. The Greeks themselves were especially concerned with questions about virtue and vice, and the concept of intrinsic value may be found at work in their writings and in the writings of moral philosophers ever since. Despite this fact, and rather surprisingly, it is only within the last one hundred years or so that this concept has itself been the subject of sustained scrutiny, and even within this relatively brief period the scrutiny has waxed and waned.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

More poigniantly.....this..

It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness (cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1094a). That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake.

There is nothing about man..in either the judeo-christian or pauline theology..that is non-derivatively good, good for it's own sake.  Quite the opposite.  We are fallen.   You might be able to contend that following christ is good for it's own sake...or that god is good for it's own sake...but not man..nothing about man.  We must be redeemed through a transaction we had no party to...in order to receive grace that we do not deserve. We exist in a divine melodrama of extrinsic goods and our task, which many will fail, is to secure them here in preparation for the hereafter.