Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Angrboda]

Just as a counterpoint, and lacking the energy for a greater reply, I want to suggest something. I think, though I'd have to research it more, that what Paul is being credited for here is some of the more humanistic elements that he and his movement may have contributed to us. Thinking back to such examples as The Eloquent Peasant, I can't help but be skeptical that such impulses are original with Paul, but rather reflect a greater zeitgeist that was already present in society. (And I think it unfair to draw explicit comparisons to specifically Roman ideals as such a process leads to ignoring social elements that may have existed prior to Paul, but are not well represented by a simplistic take on Roman society. I think specifically of the contributions of Hellenism and Judaism here, in addition to other movements we are not well informed about. Such comparisons, especially in the hands of a dishonest and biased advocate, can be grossly misleading.) With that digression aside, I think that one of the things we can credit to Paul and Christianity is to give a divine mandate to some of these more humanistic impulses. However, in that I see a two-edged sword. Society as a whole seems to have progressed best over the past few centuries in as much as it became secular and abandoned such divine justifications for purely human and mechanistic ones, based on a philosophy of rationalism, rather than a divine mandate. It may be somewhat unfair to attribute this all to secularism in contrast to the religious impulse and its contribution, but I don't think it can be sufficiently minimized as to be ignored either. We have noticed in numerous contexts the effect of religion and Christianity impeding progress in various areas, from the scientific to the social, and often explicitly via the authorization of its divine mandate. So, in some senses, even if Paul's thinking brought us one or two steps forward, it simultaneously set us one or two steps back. (I think of the issues of free will and morals, and the notion that we should still be largely constrained in our search for answers by ancient appeals to divinely sanctioned bollocks like the soul and the divine origin of morality, particularly as it applies to same-sex relations, abortion, and so forth, and can't help but think we are still experiencing the regressive effects of sourcing our views in any religion's "special revelations.") Regardless of how much or how little one attributes the advances of the past few centuries to the rise of secularism, it's indisputable that some of the most profound contributions to the modern world and human well-being, from agriculture, to medicine, to government, to globalization, and to technology, have come in an era where divine mandates were pushed aside in favor of secular imperatives which did not impede our progress to the same extant as religion did.

So, ultimately, I'm skeptical of how much Paul and Christianity contributed that we supposedly wouldn't have had without them (and that seems to be the implicit thesis, not only that there were good things in Paul, but that without Paul and Christianity, we wouldn't have had these good things). I'm, as noted, highly skeptical of such a thesis, and, lacking specific competence in the relevant subjects of history, and so forth, I'm not inclined to believe such claims when put forward largely as mere assertions, many of which quite likely rest upon a selective and biased reading of the evidence. That being said, just intuitively, I think Paul and Christianity did as much to set us back as move us forward, and the ways in which they did were explicitly based in being religiously based contributions. I'm not inclined to favor the more general thesis of an overall benefit, given the slim evidence presented in this thread, nor do I intend to do a significant amount of research into the relevant fields to answer the question on my own. So I'm inclined to remain agnostic about Steve and Holland's claims, admittedly colored by considerable skepticism, as well as being colored by an element of cynicism on account of prior experience with apologists and apologist arguments, both as to the specific type of thesis -- Christianity's contribution to the greater good -- as well as generally -- being that apologist's have a well-attested track record of shitty and sophistic arguments, cherry-picking, distortion, bias, and outright dishonesty. My skepticism needs no defense. And I think my cynicism is quite well justified.

(Now, I've talked at length here and still haven't responded to Steve's most recent contributions. Hopefully, I'll get to that in the coming days. First, however, I'd like some clarity from Steve on just what his thesis is, as noted in my last post. He doesn't appear altogether clear himself. Anyway, as noted, I'll try to muster the energy to reply to Steve's latest volley at another date. I may not succeed. Oh well, I guess.)

[Brian37]

I do not care what Paul, or Mohammed or Yahweh or Buddha are have claimed to have said. Humans like the idea of a hero saving them. Religion has nothing to do with our source of morality other than where humans think it comes from.

[Angrboda]

If this subject is of interest to people, I'd alert you to an opportunity. Until the end of the month, July, Amazon US is offering three months of Kindle Unlimited for $0.99. This is relevant to this thread in that Robert Price, famed Mythicist, has written a volume examining what higher criticism has to say about Paul's epistles (supposedly from mainstream assumptions). His book, "Holy Fable Volume Three : The Epistles and the Apocalypse Undistorted by Faith" is available from Kindle Unlimited. So you can read about modern scholarship regarding Paul's epistles from a capable author, presumably without too much intervening bias, and all for only $0.99. Anyway, thought some of you might like to take advantage, as I have.

[Minimalist]

Thanks for the tip, Jorm.

[Angrboda]

As we will soon see, Paul (Rom. 3:10) believes in the universal depravity of the whole human race, and that the proud self-assurance of religious Jews is, if anything, even worse than the overt and unapologetic wickedness of the benighted heathen (cf., Matt.23:14; Luke 18:9-14).8 No one has any means of escaping divine judgment except through the atoning death of Christ.

Price, Robert M.. Holy Fable Volume Three : The Epistles and the Apocalypse Undistorted by Faith (Kindle Locations 115-117). Mindvendor. Kindle Edition.

One of Paul's more questionable contributions.

[The Grand Nudger]

So much for the dignity, decency, and value of man, lol.  As a semi aside...I've always wondered about the specifics of how so many moderns interpret the transactionary value of obediance in christian theology as being, in some way, a comment on the inherent value or rights of man (as it's so often claimed that both of these things derive from the other)?  A disobediant man has no such value, and where..after the transaction is made, does the value reside?    In the one case we have a man lacking that value, in the other it appears as a token to be paid before you get on the merry-go-round.  

Whatever value is placed in or upon us by this ideology...it isn;t essential to us, a characteristic attribute, or permanent.  The christian thesis on the value and nature of man is that were are fallen, in a word. There is no such thing.  Lowly degenerates..all of us.  Deserving of nothing but death, not party to any rights whatsoever.  We exist at and for the pleasure of the king. The token he desires has all the value that matters....not us.

[Brian37]

One of the verses attributed to the book of Paul that of "If through my falsehood", *the glory of God* sells,  is really nothing more than justifying "the ends justifies the means". It is basically teaching people that marketing matters more than facts. 

Yep, that mindset serves the powerful, even if it leads that power to become abusive.

[ohreally]

Modern Western Thought? I doubt it. The majority of people that make up the 'western thought' population have never read or know anything about Paul, obviously he's not needed. Paul McCartney has more influence on western thought.

[SteveII]

Hey Steve,

First of all, it's perplexing to hear someone laud Paul for fighting against the evils of slavery when he wrote this:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

I'm not trying to throw this verse in your face or anything. I can see that, in its historical and religious context, it might even be seen as a compassion-driven verse. After all, abolition of slavery in classical Rome/Judea was simply not a realistic agenda item to push. The common assumption was that slavery was an inescapable component of civilized society, and I don't blame Paul for sharing this common assumption. But by the same token, if this passage is supposed to be unblemished, timeless moral truth, it fails miserably. A call for the abolition of slavery would have been a bullseye, regardless of how impractical it was. In his idealism, Paul missed the mark there because (as we know in modern times) civilization can exist without ownership of human beings. 

A few things. 
1. I never said Paul fought against slavery. However, I would contend that the doctrines that he promoted entail the end of chattel slavery. If we are equal in Christ, love your neighbor as yourself, are incredibly valuable to God, etc. --eventually the grounds for chattel slavery erode to where you cannot justify it anymore. 
2. Beyond the short letter to Philemon, why wasn't Paul more opposed to slavery?
     a. Opposition to slavery would have been considered insurrection. The Romans were very keen on not having yet another bloody and costly slave revolt and would not have tolerated one bit a group telling slaves they were being wronged.
     b. Related to that, most of the recipients of the letters would not have been slave owners--and more probably would have consisted of slaves. What logic would there be to preach "contentment in all things" (Philippians 4:12-13) and then say--BTW...
     c. He thought the end was not that far--certainly not far enough to envision a change in the very fabric of Roman society. He preached on personal reformation--not societal reformation.
3. The test would be could we conceive of Paul--knowing all he preached--ever owning a slave? I think it is clearly no. The why is the answer to this objection.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. I never said Paul fought against slavery. However, I would contend that the doctrines that he promoted entail the end of chattel slavery. If we are equal in Christ, love your neighbor as yourself, are incredibly valuable to God, etc. --eventually the grounds for chattel slavery erode to where you cannot justify it anymore. 

A separate equality, lol.

     a. Opposition to slavery would have been considered insurrection. The Romans were very keen on not having yet another bloody and costly slave revolt and would not have tolerated one bit a group telling slaves they were being wronged.

So was proclaiming jesus king.  Here, though..really think about what you're saying.  Underneath it all there is an assumption that God Himself would be opposed to slavery..and that a proper understanding of scripture would effect that change...and laying aside the fact that it didn't (quite the opposite!)....you're only telling us that..maybe, "Paul" omitted this or that which might be politically or legally inconvenient in the word of the lord.  

     b. Related to that, most of the recipients of the letters would not have been slave owners--and more probably would have consisted of slaves. What logic would there be to preach "contentment in all things" (Philippians 4:12-13) and then say--BTW...

You're the recipient of the...... "letter".  They are polemics. 

     c. He thought the end was not that far--certainly not far enough to envision a change in the very fabric of Roman society. He preached on personal reformation--not societal reformation.

So..omitted politically inconvenient portions of the word of the lord in service to some personal fear of his that never came to pass?  Jesus christ...this all sounds so familiar, lol.