Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Brian37]

Right, Brian.  Just antiquated horseshit like all religion.  The Neo-Platonists had a somewhat grander view of god than these yhwh+jesus fucktards anyway.

"God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)."


Celsus, c 180 CE

Minn, I will always love your doggedness on attacking absurd claims. But, as I have said many times, there is no way to force religion off the face of the planet. I will still side with the likes of a Malala, Martin Luther King Jr, or Ann Frank.

My Mom went to her death a Catholic, she believed in God and she was my biggest supporter. Was she full of shit on her beliefs? Sure, but was she a bad person? No.

At this point in history, it is extremely important to fight hyper nationalism and not ignore that it is based on religion. But even given that, we cannot as a species afford to become what we say we hate.

[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.

[Minimalist]

It isn't the ones who believe quietly who are the problem, Brian.  It is the ones who fly planes into buildings or kill abortion providers because their fucking "god" says its okay.

You have to learn to distinguish between the two.

I have said many times that I am not going to preface every anti-religion comment I make.... and there are many.... with a disclaimer that it does not apply to people who mind their own fucking business.  I don't have the time for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

OH, IDK..the quiet and productive ones are funding the plane tickets...and working with genteel efficiency as legitimate officials of every government in the world.

[Brian37]

It isn't the ones who believe quietly who are the problem, Brian.  It is the ones who fly planes into buildings or kill abortion providers because their fucking "god" says its okay.

You have to learn to distinguish between the two.

I have said many times that I am not going to preface every anti-religion comment I make.... and there are many.... with a disclaimer that it does not apply to people who mind their own fucking business.  I don't have the time for that.

Agreed, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or even Hindu or Buddhist.

There is not one aspect of our global species history that has not had zealots grab power and abuse others.

But, it is physically impossible to expect 7 billion diverse humans to always not express their beliefs. It is unreasonable to expect quite, it reasonable to call bullshit on bad logic. Just like it is reasonable to call atheist Ayn Rand's distopian bullshit bad logic.

[Minimalist]

Expressing beliefs is one thing.  Throwing rocks at the heads of unbelievers is something else.

[Jehanne]

Do try to pay attention. That was a quote from Jehanne--ask her.


The rest of your post is off topic.

What a ridiculous lie.

---

SteveII

Here's the book, RR:

A Brief Introduction to the New Testament 4th Edition

But it and enjoy!!

This is getting stupid. You claimed that RR's views "do not represent modern scholarship; you are an extremist, as far as higher Biblical scholarship is concerned."

There is no way you can support that. You overreached and now can't figure out how get out gracefully. Dodging specifics and then posting a book to buy is so lame.

I am not an expert in Biblical scholarship or classical studies, although, I have done readings in both areas.  I cannot give an impromptu class here, nor am I qualified to do so.

[Brian37]

Expressing beliefs is one thing.  Throwing rocks at the heads of unbelievers is something else.

Yep, your rights end where my nose begins. (don't remember the source).

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that people are expecting too much when they contend that...so long as someones firmly held religious beliefs remain private and do not interfere with others..they're kosher.  

This is not something that we've ever seen humankind show any aptitude whatsoever for.  If a person has such a strong position on an issue that it's core to their faith..they will express it, they will extend it, it will interact with others, and they will show and act upon a preference for it any moment that it comes into conflict with countervailing or contravening values...even if they can't quite (or simply wont) pinpoint exactly how the two positions are in competition, as we see in life, in politics, and on the boards.

[Angrboda]

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.