Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Regarding the original topic of this fine thread…..let’s take a look at what Paul had to say (since I just did such a wonderful job of restoring his credibility a bit, after Andrew’s scathing verbal assault…..right?). In 1 Corinthians 15, he talks about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
....he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also….
Now, I’ve read the link, and I understand that maybe one person could have a hallucination of 500 people seeing Jesus alive. But could over 500 people, in reality, all have the exact same hallucination, at exactly the same time?
And just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about Paul’s credibility…..Paul has just fingered over 500 eyewitnesses, a couple of whom he named specifically, and most of whom were still around at that time. If Paul was making things up, or embellishing at all, there were hundreds of people who would have been all too happy to publicly correct Paul and set the record straight that they did NOT, in fact, see Jesus alive after the crucifixion. But if Paul had anything to hide, why would he be pretty much saying “hey, Jesus appeared to me, but don’t just blindly believe ME….there are Peter, James, and hundreds of other people that you can ask about this. Go ahead, check it out for yourself!” Why would he put his reputation on the line by pointing us directly toward the very people who could easily destroy his credibility for all time? Unless there really WERE more than 511 people who saw Jesus walking around when he was supposed to be dead…..
Also, Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him. He then suffered everything I mentioned in my last post, and died, for this claim. Why would anyone willingly undergo torture and death for something they KNOW is a lie?
This kind of argument makes sense to me, Josh, but Andrew has latched onto his interpretation of I Cor. 9 (which relates more to Paul taking on the cultural attitudes of different groups in order to be able to communicate, rather than with lying), and has convinced himself that Paul is an admitted liar. You won’t convince him. He’s invested.
Regarding the original topic of this fine thread…..let’s take a look at what Paul had to say (since I just did such a wonderful job of restoring his credibility a bit, after Andrew’s scathing verbal assault…..right?). In 1 Corinthians 15, he talks about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
....he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also….
Now, I’ve read the link, and I understand that maybe one person could have a hallucination of 500 people seeing Jesus alive. But could over 500 people, in reality, all have the exact same hallucination, at exactly the same time?
(Andrew): Who says they did? Paul, that’s who. The guy who says he’ll lie if it suits him.
Josh - 10 February 2012 01:30 PM
And just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about Paul’s credibility…..Paul has just fingered over 500 eyewitnesses, a couple of whom he named specifically, and most of whom were still around at that time. If Paul was making things up, or embellishing at all, there were hundreds of people who would have been all too happy to publicly correct Paul and set the record straight that they did NOT, in fact, see Jesus alive after the crucifixion.
(Andrew): I’ll give you the stock answer on this: The word that Paul used for “was seen of”...ophthe...when he says that Christ “was seen of” Cephus, etc—-can refer either to a physical experience or to a spiritual experience. Paul may have been talking about Cephus, et al having experienced the risen Christ (something millions of Christians admit to every Sunday, at least, and which the disciples and the five hundred that Paul mentioned would probably not have bothered to dispute), rather than saying that these people had actually seen a resurrected Jesus in the flesh. He then went on to say that he, Paul, had experienced the risen Christ in the same way that the others had.
Josh - 10 February 2012 01:30 PM
Also, Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him. He then suffered everything I mentioned in my last post, and died, for this claim. Why would anyone willingly undergo torture and death for something they KNOW is a lie?
(Andrew): I don’t think Paul thought that his religion was a lie. He was willing to lie to people to get them to accept his “Christ”, but I don’t think he thought that his “Christ” was a lie.
Such is the nature of delusion?
To believe that Paul was truthful is a step toward searching in the right places for the right answers.
...
Reading is a first step to a long process. If all you have is reading, then you have only dipped your toe into the game.
Hold on now, you don’t only need to believe Paul, you also need to believe ... TheTwistedSister!
Again, why should we believe that Paul was truthful when he, himself, said that he couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth? You still haven’t answered that question.
I’ll take a stab at it…..you contend that 1 Corinthians 9 was a confession on Paul’s part, that he would say or do anything to make a sale.
I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
If this was Paul letting us all in on his secret opportunistic proclivities, then I agree with you that we shouldn’t trust another word he says. However, I don’t think this comparison of Paul to a sweaty fast-talking salesman holds up, when we look at this honestly. The guy who wants to sell you something is motivated by money and/or career advancement. We know that he doesn’t really care what’s best for us, but only what’s best for his bottom line….so we know not to trust him. If Paul was “selling a product”, what was his commission? What did Paul get out of all his “sales”? Money? Power? Prestige? No. He got persecution, rejection, torture, imprisonment, and a grisly death out of it. Why would anyone be willing to suffer all this, with nothing to gain, unless he had a genuine concern for the people that he was trying to reach? Look closely at his words….“so that by all possible means I might save some”. He didn’t say “by all possible means I might get a promotion, and $400 for each sale”. His motivation appears to be saving other people.
Also, why would Paul actually TELL us that he becomes all things to all people? Have you ever met a salesman who said to you “I’ll say anything you want to hear to get you to buy this car” or “who do you want me to be, to get you to buy more life insurance”? Of course not! Paul seems to be unafraid to be completely honest and say exactly what’s on his mind, because of a confidence that he has nothing to hide.
I’m not saying that this is all the reason you need to blindly believe every single word that comes out of Paul’s mouth. I’m just saying that Paul’s motivation, when analyzed with honesty, gives him a little more credibility than you may wish to admit. Let’s at least give him the benefit of the doubt, before we write him off as a crooked salesman.
No credit will be extended due to obvious insolvency. Your entire rationale for considering paul to be credible is completely ridiculous. You credit one thing paul says by referring to yet another thing that paul says. Is that becasue it’s impossible for a liar to be lying about more than one thing at a time? You also seem to be unable to question paul’s motives out of some conclusion that his motives are pure, which seems to me to be either absurdly naive or totally unexamined claptrap.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that paul’s motives are above reproach. Are we supposed to believe that somebody attempting to found a new religion cannot possibly be motivated by a desire for influence, power or money? What exactly supports that conclusion, all of the religious leaders out there with no influence, power and money? Hmmm, no that’s not accurate. Should we leap to the conclusion that paul couldn’t have been motivated by derangement or zealotry? Would that be based on, the complete absence of shoulder-biting lunatics within the ranks of religious founders? Hunh, no. I guess you shat the bed there too.
How about your other apparent reason to credit paul? You know, his suffering? How exactly do we know that paul suffered for his efforts, and therefore, his motives must have been unimpeachable? Oh, right, because it’s supposedly in paul’s own writings? Facepalm! Where is it recorded how or when paul died? Oh yeah, nowhere.
If this counts for analysis, you better make room for another lemon on your lawn.
Regarding the original topic of this fine thread…..let’s take a look at what Paul had to say (since I just did such a wonderful job of restoring his credibility a bit, after Andrew’s scathing verbal assault…..right?). In 1 Corinthians 15, he talks about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
....he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also….
Now, I’ve read the link, and I understand that maybe one person could have a hallucination of 500 people seeing Jesus alive. But could over 500 people, in reality, all have the exact same hallucination, at exactly the same time?
And just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about Paul’s credibility…..Paul has just fingered over 500 eyewitnesses, a couple of whom he named specifically, and most of whom were still around at that time. If Paul was making things up, or embellishing at all, there were hundreds of people who would have been all too happy to publicly correct Paul and set the record straight that they did NOT, in fact, see Jesus alive after the crucifixion. But if Paul had anything to hide, why would he be pretty much saying “hey, Jesus appeared to me, but don’t just blindly believe ME….there are Peter, James, and hundreds of other people that you can ask about this. Go ahead, check it out for yourself!” Why would he put his reputation on the line by pointing us directly toward the very people who could easily destroy his credibility for all time? Unless there really WERE more than 511 people who saw Jesus walking around when he was supposed to be dead…..
Also, Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him. He then suffered everything I mentioned in my last post, and died, for this claim. Why would anyone willingly undergo torture and death for something they KNOW is a lie?
Whaaaat? Seriously? Jesus was resurrected and appeared to more than 500 hundred people, but the one and only place these events were recorded is in the bible—and virutally all of the alleged 500 are totally anonymous. No contemporaneous historian of Roman or Jewish extraction, even though they would have been interested in this unbelievable event, makes a record of Jesus at all, not his arrest, not his public trial, not his crucifixion and not his alleged resurrected and appearance to a huge number of people. Also according to Matthew, when Jesus was resurrected, the tombs of dead jewish saints also opened and the occupants came out and started walking around meeting up with the townsfolk. Where’s the contemporary historical record of that happening? Even if you missed the hundreds of people who saw the one resurrected guy, surely no historian living at the time would have overlooked the thousands who must have witnessed the resurrection of the dead en mass. Right????
Give me a break. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny await your defense of their existence.
This kind of argument makes sense to me, Josh, but Andrew has latched onto his interpretation of I Cor. 9 (which relates more to Paul taking on the cultural attitudes of different groups in order to be able to communicate, rather than with lying), and has convinced himself that Paul is an admitted liar. You won’t convince him. He’s invested.
How disappointing! I thought I was gonna singlehandedly convert one of the most obstinate atheists on this forum with just two posts….and have him singing Amazing Grace loudly and off-key while posting on this forum about how much he loves Jesus…....by 9pm tonight! Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to try my luck with GAD.
This kind of argument makes sense to me, Josh, but Andrew has latched onto his interpretation of I Cor. 9 (which relates more to Paul taking on the cultural attitudes of different groups in order to be able to communicate, rather than with lying), and has convinced himself that Paul is an admitted liar. You won’t convince him. He’s invested.
How disappointing! I thought I was gonna singlehandedly convert one of the most obstinate atheists on this forum with just two posts….and have him singing Amazing Grace loudly and off-key while posting on this forum about how much he loves Jesus…....by 9pm tonight! Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to try my luck with GAD.
Atheists do not need converting to Christianity. Most of them would be lukewarm inactive Christians anyway. And, seeing as how God sees beauty in the humblest of his creatures, and ugliness in proud people who take his gifts and make them their own, God is certainly not all that interested in their attention.
No. Atheists need to see themselves for who they are—humanity’s most superficial thinkers posing as humanity’s best thinkers. Furthermore, they will do less damage to themselves and others if they get muzzled from time to time, if even for a brief moment when they gnash their teeth at the truth being told to them.
Oh, and to the…gulp…philosopher of Project Reason, who asks, “What is a person?”
Here’s my answer:
A person is a contingent being because of being part of a creation, a rational animal because of having a superior intellect, and a child of God because of having been thought of before time began and loved for all eternity.
You credit one thing paul says by referring to yet another thing that paul says.
And the fact that he gained nothing and lost everything trying to save people, which lends credibility to his claim about wanting to save people. Then, with purer motives established, I’m more inclined to believe that he was not just a lying opportunist.
You also seem to be unable to question paul’s motives out of some conclusion that his motives are pure….
....and you seem to be unable to give Paul the benefit of the doubt out of some conclusion that his motives are shady. What now? By the way, I actually HAVE undergone the same critical evaluation of Paul’s motives that you have. I’ve just reached a conclusion that disagrees with yours.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that paul’s motives are above reproach.
Agreed. But there IS some reason to give him a chance, and not be so eager to write him off as a liar or a lunatic (or both, according to Andrew).
Are we supposed to believe that somebody attempting to found a new religion cannot possibly be motivated by a desire for influence, power or money?
I never said that, Mr. 78. Those are plausible motivations. I just don’t see it in Paul’s case.
What exactly supports that conclusion, all of the religious leaders out there with no influence, power and money? Hmmm, no that’s not accurate. Should we leap to the conclusion that paul couldn’t have been motivated by derangement or zealotry? Would that be based on, the complete absence of shoulder-biting lunatics within the ranks of religious founders? Hunh, no. I guess you shat the bed there too.
I’m just as sickened as you apparently are, by the rich and powerful leaders who pour millions of dollars into their mega-churches, and thousands of dollars into their haircuts….while kids starve to death just a few blocks down the street. I’m also not any more amused than you are about the shoulder biters, who are constantly providing more and more material for the atheist’s derogatory caricatures of Jesus’ followers. However, Paul doesn’t appear to be hoarding money, or biting any shoulders…..so you may wish to re-investigate exactly whose bed that foul fecal odor is wafting from, my friend (nudge nudge, wink wink).
All facetiousness aside, you actually have raised a few points that have given me pause, and I’ve got a little “homework” to do before attempting a response to the rest of your arguments. You’re feisty and sanctimonious, but you also appear to actually know what you’re talking about. I’ll get back to you soon.
Again, why should we believe that Paul was truthful when he, himself, said that he couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth? You still haven’t answered that question.
I’ll take a stab at it…..you contend that 1 Corinthians 9 was a confession on Paul’s part, that he would say or do anything to make a sale.
I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
If this was Paul letting us all in on his secret opportunistic proclivities, then I agree with you that we shouldn’t trust another word he says. However, I don’t think this comparison of Paul to a sweaty fast-talking salesman holds up, when we look at this honestly. The guy who wants to sell you something is motivated by money and/or career advancement. We know that he doesn’t really care what’s best for us, but only what’s best for his bottom line….so we know not to trust him. If Paul was “selling a product”, what was his commission? What did Paul get out of all his “sales”? Money? Power? Prestige? No. He got persecution, rejection, torture, imprisonment, and a grisly death out of it. Why would anyone be willing to suffer all this, with nothing to gain, unless he had a genuine concern for the people that he was trying to reach? Look closely at his words….“so that by all possible means I might save some”. He didn’t say “by all possible means I might get a promotion, and $400 for each sale”. His motivation appears to be saving other people.
Also, why would Paul actually TELL us that he becomes all things to all people? Have you ever met a salesman who said to you “I’ll say anything you want to hear to get you to buy this car” or “who do you want me to be, to get you to buy more life insurance”? Of course not! Paul seems to be unafraid to be completely honest and say exactly what’s on his mind, because of a confidence that he has nothing to hide.
I’m not saying that this is all the reason you need to blindly believe every single word that comes out of Paul’s mouth. I’m just saying that Paul’s motivation, when analyzed with honesty, gives him a little more credibility than you may wish to admit. Let’s at least give him the benefit of the doubt, before we write him off as a crooked salesman.
Not the old, tired and lame “nobody would die for a lie” argument that history has proven wrong innumerable times…....
...
Oh, and to the…gulp…philosopher of Project Reason, who asks, “What is a person?”
Here’s my answer:
A person is a contingent being because of being part of a creation, a rational animal because of having a superior intellect, and a child of God because of having been thought of before time began and loved for all eternity.
Your turn.
This sounds like a catechism answer. I gave up on catechism a long time ago. Memorizing it is boring, and it doesn’t seem to have much to do with empirically-verifiable aspects of reality.
Actually, I was looking for an attempt at a set of attributes that would tell me if an entity was or was not a person. Your answer doesn’t help with that; it merely situates the class “person” within your ontology.
Another digression: I’m struck by the similarities between St Paul and Mitt Romney so far as preaching to his audience and telling them whatever he thinks will advance his agenda:
“He was always uncomfortable on the issue [abortion], but he was penned in by having run as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and by the political realities of Massachusetts in 2002,” said Rob Gray, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign for governor. “It was made clear to him by advisers early on in his gubernatorial race that he had to be pro-choice, and he could not show any hesitation.”
(...)
By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform. “My political philosophy is pro-life,” he told National Review, a conservative magazine, in an article that June. That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”
“...all things to all people…”—Paul.
Sure, for more than a decade he said he was pro-choice, but [it] wasn’t what he really believed. And why did he lie for all those years? He was running for office, for Pete’s sake. And why should anybody believe him on anything now?
