The fatal flaw of Paulianity

[LGM]

LGM then goes on to argue as if the teaching was that the dead in Christ would be resurrected immediately back into this world. Don't worry about the debate. Much of the point is to "throw witty insults at each other." If this were a serious debate LGM is bright enough not to use such inconsistencies.

Jed

I'm sorry Jed...why don't you explain EXACTLY what is going to happen to the "dead in Christ"?

The evidence seems to be, the same thing that happens to the "dead in Newark, NJ".

[Jedidiah]

I'm sorry Jed...why don't you explain EXACTLY what is going to happen to the "dead in Christ"?

The evidence seems to be, the same thing that happens to the "dead in Newark, NJ".

whoa there young fella, I was just quoting your OP. You said that Paul taught that the dead would be resurrected in a new and perfect world. That excludes this world, unless you want to include me as perfect (not to mention Jason).

[Cognos]

He and I are a tag team. He is the straight man and I am the comedian.

How about the TWeb version of the Marx Brothers? You are Groucho, Powell is Chico, and I'm Harpo. (Didn't you notice all my funny visual gags in this thread?)

Now, who do we get to play Gummo, Zeppo, and Karl?

[Darth Executor]

How about the TWeb version of the Marx Brothers? You are Groucho, Powell is Chico, and I'm Harpo. (Didn't you notice all my funny visual gags in this thread?)

Now, who do we get to play Gummo, Zeppo, and Karl?

[attachment=1]

[Duder]

Hola Duderino –


Thanks. I’ve been trying so hard to impress you.

Well, you didn't do that very well this time. But we'll get to that.

Interesting. I would like to see this movie. Did you enjoy it?

All right, you asked for it! Skip to the next section if you don't want to hear about this movie.

It's a great film, called Bound for Glory (1976). I know its out on DVD because I got a copy in that format for Christmas.

Carradine does all his own singing and playing (he had to learn guitar for this role), and does some dangerous stunt work, like jumping off of moving freight trains. Randy Quaid plays a fellow Okie struggling in the fields and jungle camps of Califiornia. Melina Dillon (the mother on A Christmas Story, the single mom in Close Encounters) has a dual role as Woody's wife and as fellow musician Memphis Sue. Carradine even sneaks in his friend David Lo Pan, a regular from the TV series Kung Fu in a cameo as the chili joint owner.

Ronnie Cox plays folksinger and social activist Ozark Bule, who gets Woody his first gig on the radio. You may remember Ronnie Cox in his role as the replacement captain of the Enterprise while Picard was held captive by the Cardasians. Cox is also a real folk musician - and he gives an enthusiastic performance of Pie in the Sky in this film.

If you don't know much about Woody, you'll find it an entertaining biography. Those who know a bit about Woody will enjoy its fresh perspective. Woody is shown as a complx man with both heroic qualities and terrible flaws. The film is downright likable in an "aw shucks", down-home kind of way, without being sappy . It is often hilarious, and often tragic, and it has an underlying John Ford, Grapes of Wrath kind of tone.

It's the first motion picture that made use of the "steady cam", in a shot that follows behind Woody as he walks through a Hooverville camp. The film was critically acclaimed and was nominated for several Academy Awards, but it bombed at the box office. It's definately on my all-time, top-ten list.

Encourage me to comment on a movie at your own peril!

No, I was making a basic statement. That the salvation and eternal life theology of Paul, is a vain lie. Christians, just like everybody else, just like every other biological organism, die, and don't come back to life. It's pretty obvious.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, what you are claiming is based on some very deep metaphysical theories that are debated by philosophers - and if your intent is to convince anyone that you are correct, you need to do better than this sort of dismissive hand-waving. Even Nietzsche made the point in his eternal reccurrence doctrine that he would come back to life one day, on the basis that every pattern that particles of matter can make is bound to pop up more than once, if the universe is big enough and long-lived enough. A more contemporary philosopher named Alan Watts made the same point saying, "If the universe did me once, it can do me again."

So it is not obvious that the dead cannot come back to life, but it is a claim that requires quite a bit of argumentation if you have an expectation that someone will accept it.

Just like I pity the 39 cult members in Heaven's Gate who believed Marshall Applewhite.

Yeah, those guys who suicided to catch a ride on comet Teenie-Bopper, or whatever its name was. They had some very unusual beliefs, didn't they? But of course, their beliefs were not ruled out a priori as logically absurd. They could have been right. It's possible. If one wants to show that they were wrong, one needs to make arguments. The fact that the Teenie-Bopper sect was a bunch of oddballs should not be taken to mean that everyone with a belief different from our own is a self-deluded fool.

Well that’s nice. But it’s a meaningless platitude. It’s what I call theobabble.

The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Life is a bowl of cherries.
The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.

What am I supposed to do with that, LGM? Can you give me an example of a theological statement, with which you happen to disagree, that is not theobabble? If you can't, then I suggest that "theobabble" is just your name for whatever religious ideas you don't like.

As you may have figured out, I don’t have much use for pretentious speech, meaningless platitudes or heavy handed metaphor when people are trying to communicate an important idea or concept.

You mean the important idea that the dead cannot come back to life? I agree that it is an important idea that should be given sincere attention - but why don't you respect that idea by treating it better? If you don't have much use for "pretentious speech", you do seem to apply hand-waving quite liberally. Have you got something better? Give me more that "Pah!" and then I can argue with you.

I certainly enjoy poetry as much as you do, but there is a time for poetry and there is a time for speaking plainly. Please speak plainly Duder.

I referenced no poetry in that paragraph. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking poetically or metaphorically when he said the kingdom of heaven is at hand. I take him to mean that the kingdom of heaven is as close to us as it can possibly be (and that is probably the reason we miss it when we look for it).

Or maybe this is just a made up story?

Yes, that is possible. If it is a made-up story, then it's only a literary Jesus who said that to the robber on the cross. I am willing to assume that for the purpose of discussion, if you wish.

However, you have to understand that we are talking about Christianity, and so it is almost mandatory that we base the discussion somewhat in the primary documents of that religion. Whether they are right or wrong, true or false, literal or metaphorical, is a matter for debate - and simply raising the possibility that they might be wrong does not advance the discussion very far. Of course they might be wrong. We can all agree on that, I think. So if they are wrong, then the conversation nbetwen the respective crosses of Jesus and the robber never happened - that is obvious. So what's the point? Do you want to try and demonstrate that the conversation never happened, and that the point I made is therefore useless? Be my guest, but do say something!

Or perhaps Jesus was just trying to cheer him up?

Like Eric Idle in Monty Phython's Life of Brian, leading a chorus of crucifees in "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life"?

Editing for brevity: I have chores . . . .

I’m not inclined to believe that I’m in possession of much of the teaching of the human named Jesus. Clearly Paul’s letters provide the reader with Paul’s teachings. And IMO, the synoptic gospels are mythical hagiography that spend way too much time trying to establish Jesus as the messiah with its collection of miracle anecdotes and OT prophecy being fulfilled. What sparse moral or wisdom teaching there is in the NT, is either densely cloaked in pretentious speech, or pithy parable.

Now you've said something interesting. Probably, the Gospels were written with an eye toward bolstering doctrines about Jesus that arose in the decades after his death. I have always looked with suspicion on the passages that seem contrived to fulfil OT prophesy. For instance, I think Jesus was born in Nazareth, and not in the "City of David" - and I think the whole scenario of Caesar ordering every Galilean to his hometown to be counted is absurd. Imagine the civil disurption and the logistical nightmare! Could an administrator as smart as Augustus have enacted such a stupid plan throughout the Empire?

Be that as it may, no reasonably informed person can think the life and sayings of Jesus are a total fabrication cut from whole cloth. Don't you get the sense of an actual person when you read the gospels? I do - and it comes from a witty dialectical style and an unusual and counterintuitive spiritual message that is unlikely to have originated in the minds of tradesmen and fisherfolk. There was a real rabbi named Jesus whom they followed, and some of what he was about comes through in the surviving documents.

Stripped of its vain salvation theology, I find the other alleged “teachings” in the NT to be a collection of mostly superficial, nebulous, and ambiguous guidelines that Christians don’t really feel all that compelled to follow.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. And in a very strange way, a lot of Christians would appear to agree with you, as dismissive as they are of his teachings. How many Christians here are in favor of having a Department of Homeland Cheek-Turning?

If you went by the posts of the alleged “Christians” on these boards, beyond salvation theology, you would think the only other thing that the NT talked about was abortion, homosexuality, and the dangers of being a political liberal.

You bettcha. It is very difficult to resist the temptation of projecting you own biases onto your favorite figure. If I weren't careful, my Jesus would be a wandering communist agitator. But I do try to be cautious when I appeal to Jesus' authority, because others who hold different views would spot my sloppiness a mile away.

Again, the focus of modern Christian theology that we see demonstrated on these boards is the narcissistic notion of “salvation”, which is really just a code word for “I get a pleasant eternal life after I die.”

Yes, I agree that that is how most folks take the Christian religion. It's their panacea against death, the great buggaboo. My feeling - and I think Jesus' feeling - is that eternal life is gained when death is completely embraced. Do you notice . . . there again is that "law of reversed effort" that is so characteristic of Jesus. The first shall be last, the last shall be first, and the one who would save his life will lose it.

I don’t know what Jesus would say or what any other imaginary deity would say. I speak only for myself. The salvation theology of Christianity is a selfish, morally corrupt, yet very appealing dogma...

Don't get me started on atonement theology, which I see as the worst error of institutional Christianity. The only way God could temper his rage and stop himself from sending everyone to the fire was by torturing his only child? If Jesus believed that, then I'll eat my hat.

The only way I have been able to assimilate the Christian path is by taking a universalist position. The whole thing crumbles into absurdity otherwise.

This is just so sad.
Instead of babbling like a pretentious, humble, pious dork, why don’t you try speaking like a man?

Oh, knock off that spit, LGM. Why do you insist on trying to provoke everyone - even those who like you?

Mixing Buddhism with Christianity is always interesting.

Hmmm. Could be I'm not the mixer. Ever hear of the philosophia perennis? It's a term T.H. Huxley coined for the deep mystery he said lays hid in all of the great religions. Its an esoteric core principle that the mass of followers don't get. When you try to speak it plainly, it doesn't come out quite right - which is why they sometimes burn the people who try to say it plainly. Sometimes they nail you for letting slip things like "I and the father are one."

But its amusing to listen to you convince yourself you've finally figured out which key unlocks the open door.

Me? I'm an ignorent slob just like everyone else, who knows exactly nothing about God. Whenever I talk about God - the attributes he must have and the kinds of things he must do - you have to take me with a grain of salt because I have no special gnosis or revealed wisdom on the subject. But what I am on about is not so much a metaphysical or intellectual reality, but an experiential one that is difficult to describe except in religious terms. It is very easy, LGM, to nitpick at someone's religion from the outside - to show how it results in a load of intellectual horse-hockey - when one does not apprehend the experiential reality from the inside.

[LGM]

Well, you didn't do that very well this time. But we'll get to that.

Well you did much better this time. There was much less pretentious theobabble in this reply.

I'll eventually beat it out of you yet.

All right, you asked for it! Skip to the next section if you don't want to hear about this movie.

Thanks for the excellent review! You have inspired me to want to rent it, as it sounds exactly like the kind of movie I like to watch. I know a little something about Guthrie and certainly know his more popular songs. It sounds like a folk version of the movie “Ray”.

Have you seen that movie? It was superb. The best biography movie and best performance I’ve seen in quite sometime. The music (on a good 5.1 system) is also a treat.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, what you are claiming is based on some very deep metaphysical theories that are debated by philosophers - and if your intent is to convince anyone that you are correct, you need to do better than this sort of dismissive hand-waving.

Yes…Xavier has already asked me if I’ve tracked down every dead person to see if they're still dead.

I guess as a typical, anthropocentric egotist, he just "assumes" all the dead microbes, insects, and chickens stay dead…thank goodness I don’t have to check all those as well.

Microbes actually are the lifeform that come closest to coming back from the "dead". we're much more fragile...but we have much better sex...

Even Nietzsche made the point in his eternal reccurrence doctrine that he would come back to life one day, on the basis that every pattern that particles of matter can make is bound to pop up more than once, if the universe is big enough and long-lived enough. A more contemporary philosopher named Alan Watts made the same point saying, "If the universe did me once, it can do me again."

After theobabble, the next, and very closely related tripe I abhor, is philosobabble.
Philosophy and Theology both employ people who enjoy making crap up when they don’t have anything else to do. It sure beats tending the flocks...

Sorry Nietzche, sorry Watts…you’re not a simple pattern of molecules that are going to “pop up again”.

Why are you wasting my time with this ridiculous distraction?
Is this some new age form of Duder Christian afterlife? Gee…I wonder if we wait around in the universe long enough, another solar system exactly like ours will form and another psychologically disturbed, but brilliant man named Frederich will think:
hrmm…”Thus Spoke Zarathustra” sounds like a good name for my next book.

As much as I love the idea that the Knicks are going to win 2 championships again in this parallel universe, and little LGM will get to see that, I’m not buying it.

I’m sorry Duder, perhaps you didn’t understand, but I’m talking about the more common Christian notion that human beings come back to “life” after they die. Not that they “pop up again” in a parallel universe like on Star Trek except Mr. Spock is really mean, and Lt. Uhura shows a lot more cleavage.

So it is not obvious that the dead cannot come back to life, but it is a claim that requires quite a bit of argumentation if you have an expectation that someone will accept it.

No. Everyone pretty much accepts it.
We don’t post lookouts at cemeteries keeping a vigil in case someone starts knocking on the door to their tomb.

If YOU want to make the claim that people come back to life after they are dead, YOU’RE THE one who needs to make the argument and show some evidence.

So far…no one has in this thread.

People come back from the dead beacuse I read about it somewhere in a letter by somebody named Saul or Paul or Ralph... is the best they can do.

Yeah, those guys who suicided to catch a ride on comet Teenie-Bopper, or whatever its name was. They had some very unusual beliefs, didn't they?

No, they had some modified, evolved Christian beliefs…that’s all. Christianity is just as insane...its just mainstream insanity...so we accept it as normal.

But of course, their beliefs were not ruled out a priori as logically absurd. They could have been right. It's possible. If one wants to show that they were wrong, one needs to make arguments. The fact that the Teenie-Bopper sect was a bunch of oddballs should not be taken to mean that everyone with a belief different from our own is a self-deluded fool.

I actually prefer religious nutjobs who just commit suicide to rendevous with invisible spaceships and don’t kill anyone else in the process. If only we could convince the Islamists.

What am I supposed to do with that, LGM?

You’re supposed to stop babbling. So far you have. I appreciate you speaking plainly in this post.

Can you give me an example of a theological statement, with which you happen to disagree, that is not theobabble? If you can't, then I suggest that "theobabble" is just your name for whatever religious ideas you don't like.

Here are some examples of theological statements that are coherent, but I don’t believe are true..
They are NOT what I commonly call theobabble.

1. God doesn’t want you to eat pork or shellfish.
2. God doesn’t want you to eat cows.
3. God wants you to eat fish on Friday.
4. God doesn’t want you to have sex.
5. God doesn’t want you to drive on Saturday.
6. God wants men to cut off their foreskin.
7. God wants you to pray in a prone position facing Mecca
8. God wants married women to wear a burka.
9. God wants you to sacrifice a goat with unblemished testicles to him
10. God hates fags.

Here, on the other hand, is an excellent example of theobabble.
Incoherent, meaningless, theological code speak that is supposed to sound profound.
I guess it works better if angels are singing in the background…but I never hear them.

Do you understand what theobabble is now?
This WILL be covered on the test.

You mean the important idea that the dead cannot come back to life? I agree that it is an important idea that should be given sincere attention - but why don't you respect that idea by treating it better?

I dunno…why don’t you respect the idea that you should be praying towards Mecca better?
Why do you eat cows? That steak or burger could be some reincarnated Hindu guy.

If you don't have much use for "pretentious speech", you do seem to apply hand-waving quite liberally. Have you got something better? Give me more that "Pah!" and then I can argue with you.

I’m sorry if you’re joining the crowd that says I’m supposed to "disprove" every fantasy you can conjure up. I'm not interested...

It could be Posiedon is causing all these hurricanes this year. He’s quite upset that no one is praying at his temple anymore.

Why don’t you try and “disprove that” without “hand waving” Duder?

What "evidence" would convince you that dead people don't come back to life?

I referenced no poetry in that paragraph. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking poetically or metaphorically when he said the kingdom of heaven is at hand. I take him to mean that the kingdom of heaven is as close to us as it can possibly be (and that is probably the reason we miss it when we look for it).

Well then please explain what the “kingdom of heaven” is Duder. You seem to like the phrase, but can’t quite describe it.

Here let’s play a game…

Is it animal, vegetable or mineral?
Is it invisible or do you just need special glasses to see it?
Is it bigger than Rhode Island?

However, you have to understand that we are talking about Christianity, and so it is almost mandatory that we base the discussion somewhat in the primary documents of that religion.

When I talk about the Illiad, do I need to believe that every conversation was a real historical thing that happened?

So what's the point? Do you want to try and demonstrate that the conversation never happened, and that the point I made is therefore useless? Be my guest, but do say something!

I don’t know. What’s the point Duder? Where is “paradise” Duder?... where Jesus and the thief are hangin' out together? I always thought it was an island in the Bahamas. You do see some native guys down there who look a little like Jesus...

Tell me what the exchange means Duder. Why should I care Duder? Is it profound? Does it affect me or you in some profound way?

Achilles said to Hector, “I’m gonna kick your little Trojan butt”. Shall we discuss the significance of that?

Be that as it may, no reasonably informed person can think the life and sayings of Jesus are a total fabrication cut from whole cloth.

Good, why don’t you tell me then. What is real and what is fictional in the gospels? I'd assume that'd be an important thing to know.

Don't you get the sense of an actual person when you read the gospels?

No. I get a sense of a mythical archetype invented to give a fledgling cult a historical account of a human Jesus. And then the idea was obviously copied and modified by later writers. That's the sense I get.

You bettcha. It is very difficult to resist the temptation of projecting you own biases onto your favorite figure.

Yeah…well if people wouldn’t try to speak for any gods, this would be a much better world in my opinion. You oughta try it…

My feeling - and I think Jesus' feeling - is that eternal life is gained when death is completely embraced.

Whatever that means.

Do you notice . . . there again is that "law of reversed effort" that is so characteristic of Jesus. The first shall be last, the last shall be first, and the one who would save his life will lose it.

Yep…more babble. In my universe, the first will be first and the last will be last and everyone eventually loses their life no matter what they do. Cryogenic freezing and parallel universes aside…

Don't get me started on atonement theology, which I see as the worst error of institutional Christianity. The only way God could temper his rage and stop himself from sending everyone to the fire was by torturing his only child? If Jesus believed that, then I'll eat my hat.

Good. So we agree. So why are you pretending to be a Christian?

The only way I have been able to assimilate the Christian path is by taking a universalist position. The whole thing crumbles into absurdity otherwise.

Why are you so desperately trying to “assimilate the Christian path” Duder.
What does that mean Duder?
Please talk plainly.

Oh, knock off that spit, LGM. Why do you insist on trying to provoke everyone - even those who like you?

Do you know the story of the fox and the scorpion?

Hmmm. Could be I'm not the mixer. Ever hear of the philosophia perennis? It's a term T.H. Huxley coined for the deep mystery he said lays hid in all of the great religions.

Well gosh…it’s no deep mystery to me why man made cultural religions share some common attributes. Why do philosophers want to make things so hard?

Its an esoteric core principle that the mass of followers don't get. When you try to speak it plainly, it doesn't come out quite right - which is why they sometimes burn the people who try to say it plainly. Sometimes they nail you for letting slip things like "I and the father are one."

“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

The church of George Lucas that worships here will get that...

Me? I'm an ignorent slob just like everyone else, who knows exactly nothing about God.

Mind if I quote you the next time you start explaining god to me?

It is very easy, LGM, to nitpick at someone's religion from the outside - to show how it results in a load of intellectual horse-hockey - when one does not apprehend the experiential reality from the inside.

I understand the “experiential” quality of religion.

And all I’m asking in this thread, is that if you “experience” a dead person you know, who either comes back to life, or just “pops up again” in this universe…

…please let me know.

[Alchemist]

Effective at what?

My speech is inflammatory in the same way the speech of the pious prigs around here who boast of their “salvation”, while condemning others, is inflammatory to me.

Ok. I can't really disagree with that.

I must have missed the “witty” insults. Clearly you can’t be referring to anything Hockey Mask Jason posted…

Duder gave an interesting reply, but it is really John Powell’s replies that have been on topic, interesting, intelligent and insightful…without the hint of any insult or pious blather. He and I are a tag team. He is the straight man and I am the comedian.

You are quite right. I was negligent when I left out John Powell. I hope you can forgive me Mr. Powell, your posts have been on topic as well as insightful.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If emotion was insignificant in the society then I guess it wasn't an appeal to emotion. Was emotion insignificant to the culture of Paul's readers?

JPHOLDING:
Compared to ours, yes. For example, they would never ask the question, "How do I FEEL abiout [about] this?" which is so much a staple of the average person here.

POWELL:
Perhaps you're right when speaking of the men.

I think a major reason we ask questions like that is because we have come to better appreciate the female perspective.

There were women among Paul's readers and their emotions would have been significant to them.

POWELL:
First, let's suppose that somebody is claiming that "there is no resurrection of the dead." Paul claims that "Jesus resurrected."

JPHOLDING:
You need to add also that "somebody" also agrees that Jesus resurrected.

POWELL:
It is accepted here that Paul believed that Jesus resurrected.

POWELL:
So, based on the following argument should Paul's readers conclude that whoever is claiming "there is no resurrection of the dead" is wrong?

JPHOLDING:
Based on their own collectivist logic, it should certainly give them pause at the least. It is, by the way, a qal volmer (IIRC) rabbinic argument: What is true in the greater case is true in the lesser.

POWELL:
I thought "qal volmer" meant something like "what applies in a less important case will apply in a more important case." You seem to be reversing the implication. That's a formal fallacy of deduction. "If p then q" does not imply "if q then p".

POWELL:
Now, let's suppose that somebody is claiming that "all have sinned."

JPHOLDING:
Paul does say that in Romans. Do you think he included Jesus in that?

POWELL:
No. I'm using that scenario because I expect you don't either.

If Paul EXcluded Jesus from "all have sinned" then it shouldn't surprise him that others EXcluded Jesus from "there is no resurrection of the dead." Paul's argument that we've been focusing on betrays no understanding of that realistic possibility. Apparently, he assumes that "there is no resurrection of the dead" is meant to INclude Jesus. Why would he assume such a thing when he doesn't assume that "all have sinned" INcludes Jesus?

POWELL:
It seems to me that if the second argument is understood to exclude Jesus then the first should too.

JPHOLDING:
I'm afraid not, John, because you're not accounting for the collectivist mentality at all in either point.

POWELL:
Whatever effect that might have, it should be applied consistently.

POWELL:
Ancient people recognized that their leaders were special. For example, just because it was ok for the king to X was not, in general, justification to believe that it was ok for those below to X.

JPHOLDING:
That depends on what X is, John.

POWELL:
Sometimes what the king does is justification for those below to do, but generally it isn't because the king is special. The king is justified in doing lots of things that those below aren't justified in doing. So, merely because the King does X is not justification for those below to do X. More information would be required concerning the particulars of X. However, the contrary (the "qal volmer" type argument) seems more likely: whatever the peasant can do then the king can do. If there's a resurrection of the rank and file Christians then there's a resurrection of their Lord Jesus.

What are the particulars about the resurrection that would justify someone born of mortal parents to expect to resurrect given that a son of God, their "king", resurrected? Because Jesus or God said they would? Then Paul should be posting a different argument.

POWELL:
However, if that's what they understood then that part of Paul's argument has little, if any, persuasive power.

JPHOLDING:
Well, I wouldn't expect you to find any qal volmer argument "persusasive" in that sense, for that matter -- would you?

POWELL:
I'd have to read the particular argument.

John Powell

[John Powell]

LAKEGEORGEMAN:
Duder gave an interesting reply, but it is really John Powell’s replies that have been on topic, interesting, intelligent and insightful…without the hint of any insult or pious blather. He and I are a tag team. He is the straight man and I am the comedian.

POWELL:
You get almost all the best lines. I'm jealous, but that's ok.

ALCHEMIST:
You are quite right. I was negligent when I left out John Powell. I hope you can forgive me Mr. Powell, your posts have been on topic as well as insightful.

POWELL:
No problem. I try to be insightful.

John Powell

[jpholding]

POWELL:
Perhaps you're right when speaking of the men.

There were women among Paul's readers and their emotions would have been significant to them.

That's actually not true of collectivist socities either, John. I think you're being a bit of a chauvanist.

POWELL:
I thought "qal volmer" meant something like "what applies in a less important case will apply in a more important case."

That can apply here, in terms of the point at hand: Jesus (a single resurrection) vouches for the greater event of the general resurrection (of all people).

If Paul EXcluded Jesus from "all have sinned" then it shouldn't surprise him that others EXcluded Jesus from "there is no resurrection of the dead."

I don't expect that it surprised him, but I do expect him to refute it either way if it comes up. After all, non-Jews had been mocking Jewish ideas of resurrection for a long time already. But there's no parallel there for the idea of sin, except maybe among the minority of the Bacchans.

So, merely because the King does X is not justification for those below to do X.

For a collectivist, it indeed is -- or else, a justification to support the king in doing X. But it simply does not work in reverse. The head leads the body, not vice versa.

What are the particulars about the resurrection that would justify someone born of mortal parents to expect to resurrect given that a son of God, their "king", resurrected? Because Jesus or God said they would?

No, because Jesus DID (as Paul does argue).

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps you're right when speaking of the men.

There were women among Paul's readers and their emotions would have been significant to them.

JPHOLDING:
That's actually not true of collectivist socities either, John. I think you're being a bit of a chauvanist.

POWELL:
Actually, the role of emotions was very strong in the past. Troop morale, for example, was crucial to military success. It was important that the troops get excited for battle. In the ultramodern battles of today, on the other hand, the button pushers are in more need of clear thinking than in large doses of adrenaline.

POWELL:
I thought "qal volmer" meant something like "what applies in a less important case will apply in a more important case."

JPHOLDING:
That can apply here, in terms of the point at hand: Jesus (a single resurrection) vouches for the greater event of the general resurrection (of all people).

POWELL:
It's discouraging how each time I think the discussion has trapped you, you slip out.

If asked which event is more important, I think the vast majority of Christians would rate the resurrection of Jesus above the general resurrection.

Furthermore, I think the Rabbis who supported qal volmer generally would judge events occurring to the peasants to be less important than events occuring to the king.

POWELL:
If Paul EXcluded Jesus from "all have sinned" then it shouldn't surprise him that others EXcluded Jesus from "there is no resurrection of the dead."

JPHOLDING:
I don't expect that it surprised him, but I do expect him to refute it either way if it comes up. After all, non-Jews had been mocking Jewish ideas of resurrection for a long time already. But there's no parallel there for the idea of sin, except maybe among the minority of the Bacchans.

POWELL:
It would seem that the idea that the king can do things that the peasants can't was shared by all monarchies of that time.

POWELL:
So, merely because the King does X is not justification for those below to do X.

JPHOLDING:
For a collectivist, it indeed is -- or else, a justification to support the king in doing X. But it simply does not work in reverse. The head leads the body, not vice versa.

POWELL:
I'm not talking about the leadership relationship. I'm talking about the ability relationship. It's understood that the king is able to do what the peasant isn't, so merely because Jesus resurrects is no guarantee that the rank and file Christians will resurrect.

My focus here is on the question of Paul's argument disputing the claim that there is no resurrection of the dead, given they accept that Jesus resurrected. It should be an unpersuasive argument to those who don't mean to include Jesus in the rule. Since Paul didn't include Jesus in his rule "all have sinned" it's inconsistent for him to assume Jesus is included in the other rule.

It seems to me that rather than Paul's Modus Tollens-type argument being an example of clear, logical thinking, (as it appears on the surface) it's actually either an example of sloppy thinking or deceptive arguing. Either Paul doesn't realize that it's reasonably possible that Jesus was meant to be excluded from the rule or he realizes that but hopes his readers don't realize that so he can discredit his opponents with a straw-man argument.

POWELL:
What are the particulars about the resurrection that would justify someone born of mortal parents to expect to resurrect given that a son of God, their "king", resurrected? Because Jesus or God said they would?

JPHOLDING:
No, because Jesus DID (as Paul does argue).

POWELL:
Then it's a non sequitur. The mere fact that Jesus resurrected is no guarantee that anybody else will. It's only a guarantee that a specific special person did. It's a guarantee that the statement "there is no resurrection of the dead" is false if Jesus is included in the rule. More to the point, it is NOT a guarantee that the statement is false if Jesus is EXcluded from the rule.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Actually, the role of emotions was very strong in the past. Troop morale, for example, was crucial to military success.

In such cases, John, the effectiveness of the rhetoric was of more importance and emotions were, shall we say, contrived for the occassion....remember the custom of paid mourners.

It's discouraging how each time I think the discussion has trapped you, you slip out.

I'm sorry.

If asked which event is more important, I think the vast majority of Christians would rate the resurrection of Jesus above the general resurrection.

That depends -- important to what? For what Paul is arguing?

Furthermore, I think the Rabbis who supported qal volmer generally would judge events occurring to the peasants to be less important than events occuring to the king.

I'm not sure why this doesn't support my point.

It would seem that the idea that the king can do things that the peasants can't was shared by all monarchies of that time.

Nevertheless kings could and did expect to be suppported in what they did, at least, by the collective.

I'm not talking about the leadership relationship. I'm talking about the ability relationship. It's understood that the king is able to do what the peasant isn't, so merely because Jesus resurrects is no guarantee that the rank and file Christians will resurrect.

Well, John, apart from adding the matter of the collectivist mentality, there's nowhere you can go with that point. Ability was simply not as important as being the head who set the example and pattern; and it doesn't work in reverse. I don't suppose you have time for reading on this subject?

Then it's a non sequitur. The mere fact that Jesus resurrected is no guarantee that anybody else will.

For the collectivist, it is the best guarantee, when the leader does have the power to do the job.

JP

[Doubting John]

JOHN POWELL, I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here.

Paul actually uses several inter-related and seemingly circular arguments.

But he starts out with this one:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
Christ has been raised.
Therefore, there is a resurrection of the dead. (I Cor. 15:13)

And this is a valid argument, Modus Ponens, even if I don’t think it’s sound. You’re asking why it follows merely from the fact that Christ arose that there shall be a resurrection of the dead. When I think about this there seems to be nothing in the belief that Jesus arose that would lead me to think that there is a general resurrection. It just might be the case that Jesus arose because he’s special and that’s it.

I could ask the same question about how Jesus argued here too:

“And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.” (Mark 12)

How that statement is suppose to lead to the belief that the dead do in fact arise is convoluted to say the least.

The answer for Paul is that Christ is the head of those who believe, just like Adam is the head of humanity (vs. 21-22). And what is true of the head will likewise be true of his followers. But this kind of inferential argument makes no sense in today’s world, no matter what JPH says people believed in the past. Paul’s logic is flawed here, or at least there is room for doubt. Although it’s still possible to hope for a general resurrection if Jesus arose from the dead, for then there is that possibility, even if Paul doesn’t argue effectively for this.

POWELL:

Now, let's suppose that somebody is claiming that "all have sinned." Paul claims that "Jesus did not sin."

So, based on the following argument should Paul's readers conclude that whoever is claiming "all have sinned" is wrong?

4. If all have sinned then Jesus sinned
5. Jesus didn't sin
Therefore
6. Not all have sinned.

It seems to me that if the second argument is understood to exclude Jesus then the first should too.

It’s here where you are demanding from Paul an exactitude that you don’t demand in any usage of language except technically precise writing. Contextually Paul’s argument here may be understood by Christians to speak of all created human beings, or all non-incarnate Gods, or all sinful non-virgin born people. These are the kind of human beings that have all sinned, and his argument could be rephrased in this manner. Paul is saying “all of US have sinned,” but Jesus is different from “us” in that he is God incarnate. Of course, at this point Christians would be forced into looking at how Jesus is both like and unlike us.

POWELL:

The readers would seem to be consistent if statements like "there is no resurrection of the dead" and "all have sinned" were understood to generally exclude special persons like Jesus Christ.

That’s exactly what Christian readers believe, and they see no inconsistency in believing what they do. The reason they believe this is because of the wider context of Paul’s claims both in I Corinthians and Romans.

POWELL:

However, if that's what they understood then that part of Paul's argument has little, if any, persuasive power. It would be like a fellow theist arguing with you that since nobody has the power to X therefore God doesn't have the power to X.

How exactly does this follow for you? This is the part I’m having trouble understanding. Maybe you’ve made yourself clear elsewhere. But you need to be more specific here.

[jpholding]

But this kind of inferential argument makes no sense in today’s world, no matter what JPH says people believed in the past. Paul’s logic is flawed here, or at least there is room for doubt.

Much of ancient rhetoric of the sort writers of that day used (Quintillian, etc) would not be regarded as logical and was really never intended to be.

DJ, are you sick? We're actually agreeing against John Powell a bit.

[Doubting John]

DJ, are you sick? We're actually agreeing against John Powell a bit.

I agree with most all I know of what Powell and LGM believe about Christianity.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

But I do want to make sure that the stated reasons justify our beliefs.

Much of ancient rhetoric of the sort writers of that day used (Quintillian, etc) would not be regarded as logical and was really never intended to be.

That seems correct. I see the same thing when I consider the evidential weight of Matthew's use of the O.T. Anyone who used the OT like Matthew did in today's scholarly world would be laughed at, don't you think?

But, if the people in the NT used a rhetoric that was not regarded as logical, and carried little by way of evidential weight in comparision to out standards today, then what becomes of their case? What's wrong with evaluating their arguments by today's more rigorous standards--after all, it took us millennia to understand how to best argue for a case?

By the way, do you ever get tired, being one of the most able Christian TWEBbers here, in having accepted the burden of almost single-handedly defending the Christian faith against the likes of us?