Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

No, see you said two different things and then declared them the same:

"I merely noted that any value that man has..in christian ideology...depends on the value god places." --That's pretty much my point all along.

"On a set of prescribed action, on fealty, on faith. " --God places value on these things. They are not the same as the intrinsic value of a human being and can easily be separate (or absent) with no effect. 

Can they be, in christian ideology?  So..if a person does not adhere to gods wishes..what value does that person have?  What is the intrinsic value of man, in christian ideology, in your estimation?  You've told us what you don't think gives us any valu..but you haven't explained what intrinsic value we have.   Put up or shut up time, lol.

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

More poigniantly.....this..
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.

Do you realize that none of the text you quoted has anything to do with humans having intrinsic value. The ancient philosophers were more interested in what made something good (moral questions). They did not believe in universal value of people. You cannot quote mine your way around that. 

Our value is entailed by the purpose/cause of our existence--not in any act we do/don't do nor any a posteriori action by God.

Maybe you should educate yourself by reading the link?  You said something flippantly stupid, you have an opportunity not to do so again, or you can double down.  Your call.  The value, worth, and nature of man (and everything else)..whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic (and what instrumental goods might best seek out the expression or possession of the intrinsic)..has been discussed since the invention of the written word at least, in every culture...all around the world.... and it's difficult to imagine that no one had ever wondered about it before they wrote it down.  Contending that "paul" began this discussion in the western tradition or anywhere is a fools fucking errand...and you're no fool...right?

Aristotle approached the question -directly-.



More to enjoy.

In their moral theories, the ancient philosophers depended on several important notions. These include virtue and the virtues, happiness (eudaimonia), and the soul. We can begin with virtue.

Virtue is a general term that translates the Greek word aretê. Sometimes aretê is also translated as excellence. Many objects, natural or artificial, have their particular aretê or kind of excellence. There is the excellence of a horse and the excellence of a knife. Then, of course, there is human excellence. Conceptions of human excellence include such disparate figures as the Homeric warrior chieftain and the Athenian statesman of the period of its imperial expansion. Plato's character Meno sums up one important strain of thought when he says that excellence for a man is managing the business of the city so that he benefits his friends, harms his enemies, and comes to no harm himself (Meno 71e). From this description we can see that some versions of human excellence have a problematic relation to the moral virtues.

In the ancient world, courage, moderation, and justice were prime species of moral virtue. A virtue is a settled disposition to act in a certain way; justice, for instance, is the settled disposition to act, let's say, so that each one receives their due. This settled disposition includes a practical knowledge about how to bring it about, in each situation, that each receives their due. It also includes a strong positive attitude toward bringing it about that each receives their due. Just people, then, are not ones who occasionally act justly, or even who regularly act justly but do so out of some other motive; rather they are people who reliably act that way because they place a positive, high intrinsic value on rendering to each their due and they are good at it. Courage is a settled disposition that allows one to act reliably to pursue right ends in fearful situations, because one values so acting intrinsically. Moderation is the virtue that deals similarly with one's appetites and emotions.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/

---

When you're reading that..pay special attention to the cynics and stoics...because it is their value setting schema which is represented in your silly magic book, by "paul". Combining those two, we arrive at the notion that most of what people take to be "good" is naught but ash, and the real good lies in perfection of human purpose. Contending that the purpose of human beings is divinely set by a canaanite war god.......we arrive at the hellenic syncretism we all know and love, christianity.