Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Amarok]

No, not at all. The entire message is that God loves you enough to do this great thing. 

That has nothing to do with intrinsic value.Nor is the thing he did great .

(by the way why do i keep getting the impression that people think intrinsic value is a western idea)

---

"God so loved you that His only begotten son gave up a weekend for you."

To save you from his incompetence

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope.  Modern christians believe we have it, though...thus the need to reconcile this syncretism with the establishment legend of their faith.  This plays itself out over and over, in every faith, in all of history.

[Angrboda]

Romans 3:19-26 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

You cannot get the view you posted out of Paul's writings.

This seems a confirmation of what I said, not a refutation of it. Perhaps the view that God loves us is some sort of consolation and we're supposed to rest our self-worth on that, but to say that one "cannot" get the other message out of Paul seems laughable and nothing more than stale apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being "dead in transgressions" and in need of "grace" seems explicitly pessimistic on the nature and value of man, lol.

[Amarok]

Being "dead in transgressions" and in need of "grace" seems explicitly pessimistic on the nature and value of man, lol.

Indeed it teaches that people are broken and need a fixer or worst still some one to pity them . What a awful view of man .

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! 
Born under one law, to another bound: 
Vainly begot and yet forbidden vanity, 
Created sick, commanded to be sound: 
What meaneth Nature by these diverse laws? 
Passion and reason, self-division cause. 
Is it the mark, or Majesty of Power 
To make offences that it may forgive?

-Greville.

[Angrboda]

Paul teaches us that we're incomplete, and need another to give us self-worth. I can't imagine a more dehumanizing message.

[The Grand Nudger]

Paul teaches us that we're incomplete, and need another to give us self-worth.  I can't imagine a more dehumanizing message.

I-mine.

A self worth that..even with the addition of that other...leaves us in a state where we do not deserve what we will be gifted. I can;t hammer this home enough..but the idea that paul specifically or christianity in general underpin any modern -or- ancient notion of intrinsic value is absurd. Christian ideology is a full bodied rejection of the intrinsic value of man.

All we have from the camp that makes the claim is breathless repetition of "it's in there" followed by magic book inspired listicles that show otherwise.

[SteveII]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[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.