Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Rival]

I guess I haven't come across the line of thought that attributes Christianity to a Roman invention. That clearly doens't fit with the historical facts.

I see Paul as making major changes to the belief system, and I doubt that previous followers of Jesus would have seen his views as legitimate.

As to whether Paul was a 'real Christian' or not, that seems like a strange terminology dispute. I very much doubt that previous followers of Jesus would have called themselves 'Christian' and I would not be surprised if Paul was the one that introduced the term 'Christ' into the mix. So, in that sense, Paul may very well have been the first 'Christian' and the defining person for 'Christianity'.

As a side note: saying that Paul persecuted *Christians* as opposed to saying he persecuted 'followers of Jesus' may be debated on these grounds.

I think it ultimately stems from a certain Protestant tradition of 'Christianity was fine until Constantine ****ed it up and turned it into Roman Catholicism'.

 

[Zwing]

If someone is prayed for and healed how do you rule out 100% that a god did not heal that person?

You are asking the wrong question. It is not this which demands proof, it is the suggestion that the person was ‘healed’ by an unseen God. If we know someone is sick, and the person then recovers and becomes well, upon which you claim that you prayed and that God healed the person because of that prayer, then the onus of proof is upon you regarding that claim, not upon me to prove that claim false. If something is evident, and I claim that it doesn’t exist, then the onus of proof is upon me. If something is not evident, and I claim that it exists, then likewise, the onus of proof is upon me. If something is evident and I claim that it exists, or if something is not evident and I claim that it does not exist, then there is no onus of proof in either case.

 

[Rival]

@Polymath257

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors... by Valliant, James S.

Buy Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity Annotated by Valliant, James S., Fahy, Warren (ISBN: 9781949914627) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Caesar's Messiah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Romans Created Christianity

Being 'Inner-Circle' with regards to history & religion means viewing it with "inside" knowledge. Whereas, all others try to understand it by studying it from the outside looking in. Summary: Certain Romans created Christianity

www.academia.edu

Etc.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors... by Valliant, James S.

Buy Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity Annotated by Valliant, James S., Fahy, Warren (ISBN: 9781949914627) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Caesar's Messiah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Romans Created Christianity

Being 'Inner-Circle' with regards to history & religion means viewing it with "inside" knowledge. Whereas, all others try to understand it by studying it from the outside looking in. Summary: Certain Romans created Christianity

www.academia.edu

Etc.

All I can say is 'ugh'.

 

[Audie]

No, What I am talking about is like the example I already gave. Many people believe that Allah will heal people with prayer. If someone is prayed for and healed how do you rule out 100% that a god did not heal that person? There would not be a good reason to believe it but how do you rule it out 100%?

I just responded to another poster who
similarly assumed they know things about
me that they dont know.

What makes you think I "rule out",
"100 %" or otherwise?

Please give me your source.

 

[F1fan]

I don't hold any religious ideas as I am not religious.

You keep claiming this, but then reveal that you do hold religious ideas. It's like Jim claiming he doesn't drive a car, but then is seen getting into a BMW and driving off. That's Jim for ya. I don't know why you don't want to admit you hold religious ideas. Can you explain that?

Could it be that you think this will exempt you from the typical criticisms towards religious claims?

And I have stated many, many times that I have no idea what God is or even if God even exists. But you all read whatever you want and ignore whatever you don't like.

That is convenient for you as you promote your usual "mystery mind set" and claim "we can't know anything". We all know what you mean by this.

 

[Audie]

Belief in God has nothing to do with knowing Paul was a Christian who planted churches.

Now do you have evidence for Paul being a charlatan or not?

Nice that you are not repeating the
scurrilous falsehoods you claimed against me.

Let's see what kind of " evidence" you based them on.

While you search in vain for justification, you might
think whether J Smith / Brigham Young were con men.

Or if being sincerely deluded about " visions"
lends any air of respectable reality to the religion
du jour being promoted as God's Truth.

The non existence of " god" would be highly
relevant, limitting as it does the possibilities to
delusion or fraud. Of what value is someone's delusions?


Of all the many who promoted different gods,
ONLY one even could be telling the truth.
Just happens to be Paul?

One bit of direct charlatan- evidence is the snake story,
which is highly implausible in every detail.

Oh, one other thing to consider. I dont take lightly
the things you made up about me. If you are not
going to take them back, don't bother responding at all.

 

[Rival]

Nice that you are not repeating the
scurrilous falsehoods you claimed against me.

Let's see what kind of " evidence" you based them on.

While you search in vain for justification, you might
think whether J Smith / Brigham Young were con men.

Or if being sincerely deluded about " visions"
lends any air of respectable reality to the religion
du jour being promoted as God's Truth.

The non existence of " god" would be highly
relevant, limitting as it does the possibilities to
delusion or fraud. Of what value is someone's delusions?


Of all the many who promoted different gods,
ONLY one even could be telling the truth.
Just happens to be Paul?

One bit of direct charlatan- evidence is the snake story.

Oh, one other thing to consider. I dont take lightly
the things you made up about me. If you are not
going to take them back, don't bother responding at all.

I take back the aggressive response, but you do seem to deeply dislike Paul for reasons I can't understand and, imo, unfairly label him a charlatan without what I take to be strong evidence.

I'm also not claiming that visions are 'respectable' in the sense that they would convince others, but they certainly convince the visionary. Paul was convinced, thus he went out and preached. I'm not a Christian, I'm a Pagan, but I believe Paul had a vision which he took as confirmation of Christ's godhood and preached based on this belief.

You seem to believe that a God belief is necessary for someone to have a vision; this isn't true. There are many atheist mystics out there who have visions. Buddhists have visionary experiences, for example. So characterising Paul as either deluded or lying is a false binary. Even if we accept that Paul were deluded, his delusion was still real to him, and thus he still believed in the Gospel message he spread. If Paul were a fraud, I'd appreciate some evidence of that. You may note that Paul doesn't write the snake narrative, but Luke does in Acts. Acts often contradicts Paul's accounts, so we can't take it as a given that this isn't just a fable invented after Paul died and became sainted.

Paul certainly believed he had the only truth, which is why he went about preaching it. Whether he had is not really the point; the point is that he believed he had the truth.

Theism is not necessary to believe any of this, only the knowledge that Paul believed it to be true.

 

[Whateverist]

Now personally I chose to use God in a non-theistic sense, but you have given me pause to reflect on that.

When people speak of God I understand what they mean contextually rather than however it is they define it. I avoid using the word so as not to be mistaken as referring to what believers have in mind. I don’t have a lot of need for the word apart from as a curse word enhancement.

 

[Audie]

I take back the aggressive response, but you do seem to deeply dislike Paul for reasons I can't understand and, imo, unfairly label him a charlatan without what I take to be strong evidence.

I'm also not claiming that visions are 'respectable' in the sense that they would convince others, but they certainly convince the visionary. Paul was convinced, thus he went out and preached. I'm not a Christian, I'm a Pagan, but I believe Paul had a vision which he took as confirmation of Christ's godhood and preached based on this belief.

You seem to believe that a God belief is necessary for someone to have a vision; this isn't true. There are many atheist mystics out there who have visions. Buddhists have visionary experiences, for example. So characterising Paul as either deluded or lying is a false binary. Even if we accept that Paul were deluded, his delusion was still real to him, and thus he still believed in the Gospel message he spread. If Paul were a fraud, I'd appreciate some evidence of that. You may note that Paul doesn't write the snake narrative, but Luke does in Acts. Acts often contradicts Paul's accounts, so we can't take it as a given that this isn't just a fable invented after Paul died and became sainted.

Paul certainly believed he had the only truth, which is why he went about preaching it. Whether he had is not really the point; the point is that he believed he had the truth.

Theism is not necessary to believe any of this, only the knowledge that Paul believed it to be true.

"I take it back / apologize...BUT" is kind of thin.
Friendly hint: dont say it to a girlfriend.

Still, " seems", (to you) is an improvement on positive
statement of a falsehood.

Somewhat similarly a positive statement of
" charlatan " shoild properly be labeled " imo".
Though I have a basis, which you lacked.


Unfair though? The snake story is is of vanishing
credibility and at that rests on divine intervention that
only a Christian would believe.

As a tall tale it makes Paul, or Luke a teller of tall tales.
Which is the charlatan?

I don't " dislike" Paul. Or Joseph Smith.
I just think they are phony, like all the thousands, millions
who do or don't succeed in founding a religion.

Please note that a charlatan is one who falsely
claims special knowledge.

If Paul did not get special "knowledge" from God,
then where besides his own mind did he get it?
Or J Smith?

If no God. then charlatan. Or still could be anyway.
Christianity is sore beset by fakers.

One does not need a god have a vision. But
with no actual God, a vision about a non existent God
is very thin soup.

Finally, your statements about your knowledge that
Paul,was sincere, believed his story would be better
labeled " imo".

And if was sincere, what of it? Unless God is real,
and communicated said " knowledge" to Paul,
he was, yes, a charlatan.

You dont believe it either if you are a pagan, so,
why the disagreement?

 

[Rival]

And if was sincere, what of it? Unless God is real,
and communicated said " knowledge" to Paul,
he was, yes, a charlatan.

A charlatan knows he's deceiving people with false information. Paul believed he had real information. This means he is not a charlatan, just merely wrong (if you are not a Christian).

You seem to be saying that merely unknowingly disseminating wrong information makes someone a charlatan.

 

[Audie]

A charlatan knows he's deceiving people with false information. Paul believed he had real information. This means he is not a charlatan, just merely wrong (if you are not a Christian).

You seem to be saying that merely unknowingly disseminating wrong information makes someone a charlatan.

A charlatan is someone who falsely claims to special
knowledge that he does not have.

Regard yon dictionary. I looked it up lest I misuse the term.

And you don't know what Paul or ftm J Smith
really believed. " imo" is the way to go lest
" facts not in evidence" beset thee.

Othern that, what ARE we disagreeing about?

 

[Rival]

A charlatan is someone who falsely claims to special
knowledge that he does not have.

Regard yon dictionary. I looked it up lest I misuse the term.

And you don't know what Paul or ftm J Smith
really believed. " imo" is the way to go lest
" facts not in evidence" beset thee.

Othern that, what ARE we disagreeing about?

The key here is 'falsely' claims - the charlatan knows his claims are false. Paul doesn't believe his claims are false, as far as we can tell. He wouldn't gain anything from making such false claims and was infact imprisoned for them.

We're disagreeing about whether or not Paul believed his own claims. If he did he's not a fraud, if he didn't believe his own claims he's a fraud. Merely being wrong, however, would not make him fraudulent.

 

[Augustus]

Seriously?

Yes, the science overwhelmingly demonstrates humans are only intermittently rational.

We didn’t evolve to be dispassionate arbiters of objective truth and evolved many cognitive processes that actively work against this end.

 

[Rival]

Yes, the science overwhelmingly demonstrates humans are only intermittently rational.

We didn’t evolve to be dispassionate arbiters of objective truth and evolved many cognitive processes that actively work against this end.

No rational person would create and eat mouldy blue cheese but as it turns out...

 

[Audie]

Yes, the science overwhelmingly demonstrates humans are only intermittently rational.

We didn’t evolve to be dispassionate arbiters of objective truth and evolved many cognitive processes that actively work against this end.

That not quite the same thing

 

[Augustus]

No rational person would create and eat mouldy blue cheese but as it turns out...

I always think blue cheese tastes of nail varnish.

I blame Paul…

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think the "Paul is xyz" thing is kind of an American culture based guess, but could be wrong. In the context I've seen it used, keep in mind that Americans can be pretty "this or that". And with the assumption for example that Paul may be a false prophet, anti-Christ, etc, first one must take into account the Bible's warnings of "false prophets and false Christs". Then through studying Bible writings, some, especially Americans, may get the view that Jesus and Paul taught a polar opposite message, and also further blame Paul for the state of modern Christian churches. Some non-Christians may see the modern Christian churches, some of them, as following the writings of Paul over Jesus, as they see a church that would follow Jesus over Paul as a rule as 'looking different' - being less conservative, more forgiving and understanding, etc.

So I'm just going by the context by which I've seen "Paul is xyz" statements, but I wouldn't take it to heart too much if it's just:

Person A: "The church follows Jesus."

Person B: "The church follows Paul who was probably a false prophet."

In that case, whether wrong or right, it's kind of just a jab or retort to make one think more about their faith and statements. And make them think about whether their church or teachings may be applying the teachings correctly. Though, I admit, it does point out the slight pessimism of the subject Person B has, as well.

Honestly, living in the US, I've seen some things from Christians that don't at all seem "Christ-like", even if one can debate that they are still following the Bible - just not necessarily most of Christ's teachings.

 

[Rival]

I always think blue cheese tastes of nail varnish.

I blame Paul…

Blue Stilton is a God.

If you disbelieve me you're a fraud.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, the science overwhelmingly demonstrates humans are only intermittently rational.

We didn’t evolve to be dispassionate arbiters of objective truth and evolved many cognitive processes that actively work against this end.

We didn't evolve to do mathematics or science, either. Nevertheless people are able to learn those skills. The same goes for rationality and critical thinking. Nobody does it all the time and for everything but we can aspire to be as rational as possible.