Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Romans 1 in My Own Words.


...what does Saul-Paul state?

Rom 1:18-25   

[poor translation removed}

In your own words, what is Saul-Paul claiming?  iamaYEC

You forgot to include 17..."The righteous will live by faith."  and the rest of Rom 1 and Rom 2:1-3.  But don't worry you all do that.

All Paul is doing in 1:18 through 2:3 is making sure that everybody understands that God made, or 'gave up' all people to be sinners in need of a savior.  That is appreciating art, sexuality and everything else that humans that humans enjoy is sinful, even judging others.  

This is Marketing 101.  First you have to create a problem to be fixed by your product.  Whether it is a real problem or a created one, is really unimportant if you can convince the marks that it is something they must correct.  He sets up the product by his remark about faith in 17, and then later on faith becomes faith in Christ.   

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Bayesian Jesus

JC do you have ANY idea what the elements of this historical method even is?  Fact is that your dimissal of people's lifelong work without knowing anything about it or them is your bias. Kwinters

I dismiss nothing.  Everything is in the pot.  Even the canonical garbage. 

In Bayesian analysis each bit of data is assigned a likelihood of being relevant and correct. Biases of the contributor are part of the equation.  Also it is important to know what you are trying to study. 

In re. a Galilean Jewish preacher probably named Jesus or one of the common cognates, who was strongly influenced by Hillel the Elder and the Mithra myths and by his wife (who was never allowed to speak at his gatherings according to Jewish religious traditions) I find his existence to be nearly certain.  One critical piece of authenticating data is Paul's need for a popular, charismatic, contemporary preacher to become his Christ.  
In re. the words put in his mouth by oral history of contemporaries including his wife who I find quite likely to be the Q source and nearly as likely to be Mary Magdalene, I assign a high probability of authenticity to all.  Even in English translations.

In re. the disruptions at the Temple in Jerusalem I find them to be likely in essence and consistent with his preaching in the sticks. That he pissed off the Jewish authorities in some way to cause them to take action against him is even more likely.  Whether the Romans even cared is insignificant, but the Jewish authorities probably did try to kill him. Such an important challenge to their authority could not be ignored.

I assign a low likelihood to actual death, but a reasonable probability to his appearance to followers after his punishment by the authorities as a spectacular blow off to his ministry and his resumption of a normal life with family after the show.  I find it unlikely that he was a leader of any of the Jesus cults, his part of the show was over.  

In re. anything related to God and Christ, there is a high probability of everything being fabulous stories made up by followers and the usurper Paul.  Truth value negligible, influence value high.  

Monday, March 23, 2015

Why I am Not a Christian J'C Version


I have mentioned that I consider many parts of Christian scripture to be dysfunctional for Christians and society as a whole.  Probably the most misinterpreted and misused chapter, is Romans 1:17 through 2:3.  (The chapter break is artificial). It is obviously crucial to Christian dogma as it establishes the sinful nature of Christians.  

From a marketing (proselytizing) point of view it creates the problem that Christianity provides a solution for: Salvation.  In the question the OP responded to the lives of all (Christians) are wretched, and the only redemption comes after death, (the first death) when some will be chosen for some wonderful continued existence, and others "confounded" for eternity.  (Catholic formulation.) 

In the KJV 17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.  -- For those who don't (18-23) 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts in their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  1:25-2:3 is a long litany of what God gave them up to.  That is being human.  

I for one, and as I read the Synoptic Gospels Jesus agrees, have no problem with being human.   Jesus preaches to humans, exalting their humanness, with all the issues of being human.   Jesus and I part ways in loving God anyway, even though according to Paul God cursed us with humanness for not having faith.

That, in a nutshell is the problem I have with the Christian faith.  Why would any rational human even consider it?

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Paul's sins

Sex and spirituality. - Beliefnet:

"I do blame Paul. He needed a bunch of sins that people could adopt to consider themselves sinners so that they would need his savior. In Romans 1 he really covers the waterfront, and in Corinthians he picks up normal sex as a sin. You say you are not a sinner? Do you have sex of any kind? Gotcha! The Romans sins are easier to deny, or point at others as examples, but 'God knows' so all need salvation. This was the genius of Paul. Call it perverted genius if you will, but every Christian can find a sin for hermself in Paul. And for everybody else so hesh doesn't feel lonely."

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Who Cares?

The 'existence' of gods - Beliefnet :

"'Who cares?' or its many street language equivalents is a 't'riffic' argument against any religious assertion. It is the one argument God can't deal with.

God says do this or don't do this with your penis (God doesn't care about women,) someone says 'Who cares?' and sin and Paul evaporate from the world and salvation is a non issue. But then, who cares?"

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Jefferson Bible

Dawkins Scale - Beliefnet Forums: "I find the Jefferson Bible useful in focusing on just what it was that induced Jesus' cult (the original disciples) to follow the Roman custom of making a God out of any special person. It is not to be read instead of the Gospels, but along with them.

I think the deification of Jesus was also critical in preserving the Gospels in the canon after Paul trashed his message to create the Christ he needed to save Christians from the sins that Jesus seemed to care little about. Reading the Jefferson Bible along with Paul is an exercise in cognitive dissonance that makes one wonder why Paul chose Jesus."

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Paul's Contribution to Christian theology

Dust - Beliefnet Forums: "The good news is that in order to support Paul the council had to preserve the Gospels to give Paul the charisma of Jesus to build his Christ on. The bad news is that Paul's proscriptive top down theology appealed to the Christian priesthood, and not incidentally to Constantine, who needed a unifying religion that he could control through the same priesthood to keep order in the populace. The preservation of the Gospels is about the only good thing Christianity did theologically for over a thousand years. Opinions may vary on their political contributions."

On the Bible, the Liturgy and Paul

The Atheist Test - Beliefnet Forums: "Please understand that I can live without God for my entire life. I find the Bible to be a poor guide to anything, too much extraneous garbage getting in the way of the message. I much prefer the distillation of the meaning of the bible contained in the Mass and other Christian Liturgy. There are some useful messages there, but even in the liturgy there are inclusions from the teachings of Paul which I reject in their entirety. The most important that I reject is the concept of Christ as Savior. I find nothing in the teachings of Jesus suggesting that concept which was created out of whole cloth by Paul and grafted on the charisma of Jesus, who after all was too dead to complain."

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Paul's sexual immorality rants.

If it is better to marry than to burn, it would seem that committed homosexuals are better off than fornicating heteros.
what do you think about being homosexual and being a christian? - Beliefnet Forums