Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The Qu'ran is contradictory in dealing with people not of the faith of Islam.

If you see a contradiction then I hope you improve your argument and present it in a better way than Victor.

Here is a contradiction: Paul refers to an object as "the faith", "of the faith", "of faith", "by faith", "through faith", "in faith", "that faith", "first faith", "one faith", despite that Jesus Christ does NOT and neither did any profit or anyone prior in the bible. Paul has 'faith' as some kind of object, belief, or religion. That is a massive change in definition. It appears to me as a crumbled cornerstone in Salt's anectodal bucket.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

except, the word Muslim means a person who submits to God.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

It is NOT in my religion to NOT hear from someone who claims to be a messenger from God... let alone a wayward sheep.

I appreciate your rational approach.
Labels are though useful, yet if the contents are different than the labels denote, then it is misleading. The true definition of a Mulsim is indeed who submits to GodAllahYHWH truthfully, yet there could be Muslims who do not submit to Him and hence are not in His eyes Muslims. God knows what is the intentions of a person. Then there could be persons who don't yet have label of being a Muslim but at heart they are submitter to God and truth. I know of a steadfast Sikh, who under this definition asserts that he is a Muslim, I cannot deny him his right.
It is very good that you intend reading Quran by yourself.May God bless you! I have read OTBible and NTBible and many other scriptures of other religions, to see things by myself and the search on the path of truth continues. May GodAllahYHWH guide us unto his rightful path!.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If you see a contradiction then I hope you improve your argument and present it in a better way than Victor.

Here is a contradiction: Paul refers to an object as "the faith", "of the faith", "of faith", "by faith", "through faith", "in faith", "that faith", "first faith", "one faith", despite that Jesus Christ does NOT and neither did any profit or anyone prior in the bible. Paul has 'faith' as some kind of object, belief, or religion. That is a massive change in definition. It appears to me as a crumbled cornerstone in Salt's anectodal bucket.

Actually it appears that Paul is referring to an action or an act when using the word "faith". This is what Jesus and the other prophets stated as well. It is not enough to believe but to act upon that belief.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Victor

Jesus speaks of 'works', doing. He (Paul) speaks of teaching men to disregard and ignore God's Law. Between Paul and Jesus? I choose Jesus!

My statement that Victor did not compare with Jesus or gospel was clearly wrong. I've been reading through Victor's refutation more and despite my words I see that Victor compares to some Gospel verses on the subjects of Faith and Law. Without judgement of the substance to those arguments, my apologies to Victor.

Originally Posted by Victor

In this case, 'I have not come to praise Caesar, but to bury him.'

Kind of a theme though. If it is character assasination I agree with Salt or anyone who would say that you can not prove a person's motives. Leave that to God. Paul surely helped bring more people to the Gospels than any Romans who were killing alleged Christians or censoring them. While I submit that Paul described a very different concept of 'Faith' than Jesus that detracts or misleads, I would estimate that his Faith was strong.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

You can only refute reasoning that is logical, mathematical or has formal semantics. Reasoning that isn't logical, mathematical or has formal
semantics cannot be refuted.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False.

By "reasoning" I am not referring to "raw statements" like "the umbrella is yellow," to which you could say "false" and "refute" (prove false) that statement. By "reasoning" I am referring to general statements that don't refer to any particular object.

General statements in logic, mathematics or any formal reasoning system can be refuted because once you've covered all the loopholes, that's it. Your reasoning is watertight.

Outside of logic or mathematics, you can say really ambiguous statements, use puns, use lateral thinking, exploit the double meanings in what you say, etc. That's where you have to think in context and be more specific in what you're saying. But even then, there will still be loopholes. No legal system in the world has yet been able to define itself completely without ambiguities.

Because of ambiguities, you could prove that the same statements are true or false and it really depends on what assumptions you've made. Anything that has been argued to be true (satisfiable) has yet to be refuted. I could say "arrogance is bad" but another might say "arrogance is good" and argue their case. I could say "arrogance is evil and immoral" and someone else would answer back, "what is evil?" and "what is immorality?" If you then go on to define evil I could wiggle my way out of your arguments and show that you really don't have a clear definition of evil. Same with immorality.

Ultimately, we find that nobody really wins the debate. Each side's arguments are plagued by assumptions as well as loopholes. Even if one side emerges victorious, it's only because they were smart and quick and creative enough to come up with assumptions to overwhelm the opposition before they could find the loopholes. Whether or not what I said was false depends on whether it is possible to argue it as true. If I can argue it as true then my reasoning is "satisfiable" and has not been refuted. That really depends on what assumptions you've made -- and I never claimed to have a watertight concept, and nor have I made sure I have covered up the loopholes. That's not my intention.

I didn't set myself up to be refuted and I believe the same for Paul. I may have made a few audacious statements, but so did Paul. I admit I accidentally spilled some sensationalism into the mixture. Paul spoke in the affirmative, so obviously he wasn't concerned about the negative. The negative didn't matter. The big rocks of affirmation were more important than the small rocks of pessimism.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

That of course, makes it possible for Victor to say Paul was a control freak and a Christian to argue that he was nice guy, and for both to be "correct" so much as their reasoning is concerned, given the limited information they have both been given. Victor affirms that Paul was a control freak and the Christian affirms that he was a nice guy and both their views could be justified, impossible to refute given the limited amount of information available.

So Victor and the Christian can affirm their views but neither can refute the other. They can affirm their beliefs because they don't need to prove that the other is wrong, they only need to justify their own beliefs.

I'll leave you with this one: If an idea can be justified, it can't be refuted.

Note: Justifying is not the same thing as proving. Methinks Paul wasn't out there to prove anything. He was there to justify himself.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Saltmeister!

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

So Victor and the Christian can affirm their views but neither can refute the other. They can affirm their beliefs because they don't need to prove that the other is wrong, they only need to justify their own beliefs.

I'll leave you with this one: If an idea can be justified, it can't be refuted.

Note: Justifying is not the same thing as proving. Methinks Paul wasn't out there to prove anything. He was there to justify himself.

Very well, I think I see your point, and even find myself wanting to agree.

There is one thing though...if not for logic, then by what measure does a Western mind validate or invalidate, well...anything? To be sure, I have seen Vajra and BB both validate things without appeal to logic, but this is foreign reasoning to a Western mind. Even staying with the topic at hand...how then may a Christian or Muslim validate or invalidate Paul and his teachings without the use of logic? Without, it gets very subjective and emotional indeed. Hmmm...war, committed by followers of "peaceful paths"...how much more illogical, subjective and appealing to emotion can one get than war in the name of peace?

[Dondi]

j3,

I've read with great interest the heart of this thread, at least the continued dialog between you and Victor. I am tempted to comment, but I wish to preuse the original thread. However, when I tried to link to the original thread on the OP it brings up CR homepage. I've taken the liberty of correcting the link below, I hope you don't mind.

Knowledge of Good and Evil

BTW, where can I view Victor's thesis on Paul?

ETA: Nevermind, I found it.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Originally Posted by Dondi

j3,

I've read with great interest the heart of this thread, at least the continued dialog between you and Victor. I am tempted to comment, but I wish to preuse the original thread. However, when I tried to link to the original thread on the OP it brings up CR homepage. I've taken the liberty of correcting the link below, I hope you don't mind.

Knowledge of Good and Evil

BTW, where can I view Victor's thesis on Paul?

ETA: Nevermind, I found it.

Wow! You're right! I'm not sure what happened there. Thanks for the updated link.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I didn't set myself up to be refuted and I believe the same for Paul.

False.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False.

Not sure if you understood this . . . but, as I said in the previous post, if I speak in the affirmative, my view is upheld by the justifications I make for my views, ideas and reasoning.

Concerning what I said about not setting myself up to refuted, I really didn't. I spoke in the affirmative, told everyone what I thought and believed, justified my views and ideas and went my separate ways. Since I see the affirmative as greater than the negative, especially when the affirmative concepts can be justified, I think I can happily continue on the path I've been travelling on from the start. There may be loopholes and "flaws" in my thinking, but I'm more interested in what will propel me forward in life.

The "flaws" and loopholes in my thinking might be seen as a "refutation." But then it goes back to the thing about the "big rocks," the "small rocks" and the grains of sand. Where "reasoning" is involved, it isn't all about covering loopholes. It might be to put an emphasis on the important things and moving on in life, which is what emotional reasoning is about. Logic captures everything, right down to the minute details, which might not be important. No point "proving false" elements that aren't important.

One may "prove false" the minute details of an argument, but miss the big picture altogether. That's why the argument isn't "refuted" or "proven false." The big picture still holds true.

If my statements were false it depends on what you saw as the big picture. Perhaps we saw two different things as the "big picture."

It's not a question of whether I'm deluded or not. I see what I see. I wrote what I saw. I described, to the best of my ability, that vision.

I saw a beautiful, clear, blue sky, but maybe what you saw were the dark clouds of a nuclear winter.

Might be the tragedy of poor communication . . .

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Saltmeister!

Very well, I think I see your point, and even find myself wanting to agree.

There is one thing though...if not for logic, then by what measure does a Western mind validate or invalidate, well...anything? To be sure, I have seen Vajra and BB both validate things without appeal to logic, but this is foreign reasoning to a Western mind. Even staying with the topic at hand...how then may a Christian or Muslim validate or invalidate Paul and his teachings without the use of logic? Without, it gets very subjective and emotional indeed. Hmmm...war, committed by followers of "peaceful paths"...how much more illogical, subjective and appealing to emotion can one get than war in the name of peace?

Maybe it's a matter of seeing the big picture . . . knowing the important things in life -- the big rocks.

Did Paul explain what the big rocks were? . . . .

In Matthew 13:45-46, a man discovers a pearl and sells all of his property to buy it. As Jesus says, the kingdom of heaven is like that -- a priceless pearl. If we could find that pearl, tomorrow we may sell our barns and fields, our cars and mansions, for the Kingdom of God.

Maybe by discovering and "validating" something as the "most important" thing in this world we automatically "invalidate" all of the other things in this world as things God would prefer us not to touch or waste time exploring.

So if Paul has shown us the "big rocks" (the most important things) then maybe that validates Paul. Otherwise if the Quran reveals the big rocks than maybe Islam is the Truth instead.

Concerning Victor, Paul is described as a control freak that manipulated the events in the early church and as a person who replaced much of what Jesus taught with his own ideas. He was vindictive and had no concern for the personal needs of the members of the church, except his own. He forced his own agenda without regard for others' opinions. He was bent on enforcing and imposing his own concept of "the Christian church."

I think if we wanted to see Paul as a malevolent agent we could be led to think that way with some imagination. The opposite may also be true. If we wanted to think of him as a mild, passive leader, we could be led to think that way as well.

I could well derive the same conclusions as Victor by pulling verses from the New Testament to back it up. The evidence would be there to suggest it. My depiction would stand. The rosy picture may also work. Pull out a few verses and hocus pocus, I have an even-tempered Paul. The evidence, once again, would be there to make the depiction work.

I think the reason why both views would work is because, just like in today's world, leading figures can be controversial. The actions of political, social and spiritual leaders may be seen in the positive or negative, but sometimes when it's negative, it appears that way because of the way the media depicts the person's actions. We often don't know the details about what's happened. Just the rosy picture that we see on TV.

Paul could be seen as a violent and oppressive leader who persecuted innocent people, "imaginary enemies" within the church, just because they didn't think the same way as he did. But the opposite could also be true -- diversity was encouraged, but the individuals he expelled could have been disruptive and a bad influence in the community. There may have been no way to resolve the problem without excluding them from the community.

In today's world, there are laws that forbid us from entering places that we have no legal right to enter. It's called trespassing. I could walk into a synagogue and start proselyting. That would be trespassing. I could sneak into a Jewish or Muslim community centre, visit their synagogues and mosques, pretend I am one of them, and maybe gradually influence them to give up their beliefs -- or vice versa for a Jew or Muslim going into a church. What if I went to a Wiccan coven and interfered with the rituals they performed there? I would be desecrating something sacred to the Wiccan community.

So when someone walks up to me and says, "Sorry, friend. You're not welcome here. Please don't come here again," it's not the religion or the spiritual leader that wants to get rid of me that is the problem -- it's me.

Some people don't go into a church to be part of the community. They're there to do business. They sneak in and talk people into buying their products, making "friends" along the way. I heard from someone that, personal property, a handbag, was stolen once -- inside our church building. I was shocked. I would have thought that everyone went to church for social interaction and for seeking a spiritual experience but obviously there were some lurkers around with an "alterior motive."

In the early church, there would, no doubt, have been people of that character. Whether it's a church, synagogue, mosque or coven, you would not want someone who just came along to disrupt the activities that formed a part of your religion. It's ok if they're interested. No problem if they are. Diversity could be encouraged. Open doors for all walks of life.

How do we know if Paul was as vindictive, domineering, controlling and manipulative as Victor depicted in his essay? How do we know if he wasn't just talking about people who were disrupting Christian communal activities? How diverse did Paul allow Christian communities to become? Paul may well have encouraged diversity. But that didn't mean he could allow anyone to come in for the joy ride. Otherwise the flock of sheep might have turned into a mob.

I don't think we can prove either way. It's up to our imagination. Much of Christianity is fuzzy. At least I think so . . .

But maybe this means something else -- Paul's writings are simply too insufficient and too incomplete for us to form conclusions about the nature of his ministry and his character -- we can only speculate.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Not sure if you understood this . . . but, as I said in the previous post, if I speak in the affirmative, my view is upheld by the justifications I make for my views, ideas and reasoning.

Concerning what I said about not setting myself up to refuted, I really didn't. I spoke in the affirmative, told everyone what I thought and believed, justified my views and ideas and went my separate ways. Since I see the affirmative as greater than the negative, especially when the affirmative concepts can be justified, I think I can happily continue on the path I've been travelling on from the start. There may be loopholes and "flaws" in my thinking, but I'm more interested in what will propel me forward in life.

The "flaws" and loopholes in my thinking might be seen as a "refutation." But then it goes back to the thing about the "big rocks," the "small rocks" and the grains of sand. Where "reasoning" is involved, it isn't all about covering loopholes. It might be to put an emphasis on the important things and moving on in life, which is what emotional reasoning is about. Logic captures everything, right down to the minute details, which might not be important. No point "proving false" elements that aren't important.

One may "prove false" the minute details of an argument, but miss the big picture altogether. That's why the argument isn't "refuted" or "proven false." The big picture still holds true.

If my statements were false it depends on what you saw as the big picture. Perhaps we saw two different things as the "big picture."

It's not a question of whether I'm deluded or not. I see what I see. I wrote what I saw. I described, to the best of my ability, that vision.

I saw a beautiful, clear, blue sky, but maybe what you saw were the dark clouds of a nuclear winter.

Might be the tragedy of poor communication . . .

False.

I said a single word... 'False'. I did not provide any logical or mathematical reasoning with formal semantics. With only a single word I set myself up to be refuted, and twice you refuted my word. I refer you now back to your own statements where I had responded with a single word.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False.

I said a single word... 'False'. I did not provide any logical or mathematical reasoning with formal semantics. With only a single word I set myself up to be refuted, and twice you refuted my word. I refer you now back to your own statements where I had responded with a single word.

Man I knew that's where you were heading...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False.

I said a single word... 'False'. I did not provide any logical or mathematical reasoning with formal semantics. With only a single word I set myself up to be refuted, and twice you refuted my word. I refer you now back to your own statements where I had responded with a single word.

An amazing twist to the whole drama . . .

So what do we have? A contradiction?

I think it really depends on what I was trying to do.

Refutation of your declarations of falsity weren't my intention in those two posts. I was merely justifying my own words. There was the case of me not making false statements and merely being misunderstood. If there was room to be misunderstood the whole drama might be seen differently. I personally didn't see them as refutations, but as I didn't explicitly say that, my posts are pretty much open to interpretation on those grounds.

While I said before that "justifying" isn't the same as "proving," my post may have sounded like a refutation (my tone) when I was really just trying to justify my view. But this might still be seen as a refutation. Justifying my view might be proving you wrong at the same time . . . but as I just said I don't claim to have refuted anything. Sounds a bit like the coward's way out for me but it was never my intention to make over-unrealistic claims. I was describing the greater picture that I was seeing.

I had been wondering where that declaration of falsity without justification might lead us. So what are the implications now?

If I had actually refuted you twice, the whole issue would be a paradox. I could not have refuted you if I had set myself up to be refuted. If I hadn't refuted your declarations, the idea of non-logical reasoning not being able to refute something would be true. If I did, it would be false.

Actually, scrolling up, I found something I said before that might be worth noting.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

By "reasoning" I am not referring to "raw statements" like "the umbrella is yellow," to which you could say "false" and "refute" (prove false) that statement. By "reasoning" I am referring to general statements that don't refer to any particular object.

The declaration "false" may count as a raw statement without any generalisations. "False" might actually fall inside the area of logical and mathematical reasoning as it's unambiguous. Logic and maths deals with the unambiguous and quantitative. We can't really debate about what "false" means . . .

But . . . let's not dwell to deep . . .

That wasn't an attempt to cover flaws or loopholes, just a disclaimer. I perhaps should have put up the disclaimers earlier. But this has been an interesting experience filled with unforeseen dramas. But it's almost always like that anyway. I post something about ideas I've formed in my head and then I wait and see what happens and what I can learn.

Nonetheless, what I said about minor details (lol, the devil in the detail) and the big picture is still something I uphold. You may call that a refutation, making my own statements false, nullifying my own words, . . . but only for the special cases, the exceptions . . . not for the big picture. I see the word "false" as a special case. There's the refutation again . . . but remember the big picture . . . Round and round in circles we go . . .

[Dondi]

OK. I spent some time reading Victor’s thesis on Paul, located in the General Articles section of CR. I read roughly half of the article, but I got enough of get the point to know how and why Victor vehemently dislikes Paul. And I was prepared to make a rather lengthy point-by-point rebuttal…that is until I read a substantial portion of Victor’s other article “Faith of the Apostles”. Quit frankly, Victor has left little to debate from. Not only does he broadly dismiss everything about Paul, but he virtually has reduced anything he might believe about Christianity down to the Gospel of Mark, but even that gospel open to scrutiny. It didn’t bother me that he dismissed the virgin birth or even the deity of Christ, but he has gone so far as to completely render the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith as useless, that is the sacrificial atonement of Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.

So what are we left with? Jesus has been reduced to a Rabbi who preached some elevated form of Judaism. But that makes him little different than the prophets before him, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. If one is going to go that far, one might as well convert to Judaism, or at least adjust one’s orientation to the default of a Noachide. Or if one insists on hanging on to a sliver of Christianity that is subject to the various “swoon” or “replacement” theories, one might consider swinging the other way and consider the tenets of Islam. I see really know reason to adhere to the name Christian, for it has all but disappeared at this point.

That being said, I will at least give my assessment of the fundamental problem that Victor has with Paul, that is the idea that Paul a summarily dismissed the Law. This I will do in a later post.