A question for Agnostics...

I'm talking about assimilation, where a group like the Irish or the Italians gets assimilated into the larger culture. Prejudice against the Irish was extreme, a long time ago.

That is what you are seeing.

 

His misogyny, his advocacy of the doctrine of the divine right of kings, his original sin teachings, etc. But above all else, he's the only New Testament author to advocate the death penalty for crimes against his religion.

 

Vicarious redemption too. It is extremely messed up to declare that you can be redeemed from moral responsibility for your wrongdoing by the suffering and death of somebody else. That's one of Paul's assertions, yes?

First he says that I am personally responsible for something I did not do, but an ancestor did, then he says I deserve to suffer eternally for it, and then he says I can become blameless if I accept the suffering and death of another innocent person.

Really?

 

Oh, very good point. Vicarious redemption and, more importantly for me, vicarious guilt. Being cursed for the actions of another. Just absolutely shameful. Frankly, if it hadn't been for Paul, then maybe (big maybe) there would have been a doctrine allowing for the salvation of non-believers. Pelagius had something like that, but it took more than 1,000 years. I don't see how anyone can subscribe to Paul's teaching that you can't be forgiven without converting when Jesus LITERALLY forgave people who hadn't converted.

 

What makes you think Paul was misogynistic? And what did he teach about "original sin"?

And what did he teach about the death penalty?

 

To be fair to Paul, pretty much everyone was misogynistic at that time and place. He was a man of his time at least in that one regard.

 

He forbade women from teaching men, said they should speak in church, etc. and said that they carry additional guilt for Eve tempting Adam. I can give you more info on original sin, but that involves several verses, so let me work on that. As for the death penalty, he stated that people who hate his God (and also those guilty of other sins) were deserving of death and stated that all earthly governments are personally appointed by God and wield the sword as his executioners.

 

True, but he's the only New Testament author who went into specific teachings regarding it, and his writings make it clear that there were other Christian groups at the time that had women leaders, where women were allowed to talk and teach, etc.

 

That also reminds me of another problem. That it is faith moreso than good works that they say gets you the good afterlife. I agree with you that it is seriously messed up to claim the only way you may escape eternal damnation is to believe what I tell you and to obey me. I get why this was useful to the preacher class. But it is a direct power play.

 

Great point. And note: I actually very much enjoy reading the Bible, and its existence really lead to the whole field of literary criticism in the West. James has a take on this that I prefer over Paul's, obviously, on the works and faith side, and his book is one of my favorites.

 

I suppose a religion that didn't threaten people into joining it would be less likely to persist and grow. Mutation/doctrine shift plus time plus reproduction and survival. We should teach evolution to creationists with this analogy.

 

Congrats. In either case, we're talking about Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The most well known epistle in the NT and one of the most well-known books of the Bible. I don't know how you never encountered it before, but now you know about it. You're welcome.

 

sorry you gave a choice between "book" or "romans" and a book is an inanimate object that cannot do anything, such nonsense you post.

 

There goes the Koko again, going out of his way to make sure he misunderstood you, pretending you said what you didn't, and trying to gaslight to show you up. What a guy. Always winning. Such a hero.

 

I see you learned another new word from me LOL Too bad its just another for your arsenal to use improperly.

 

I'm sorry you've never heard of Paul's Book of Romans, AKA the Epistle to the Romans. Now you know about it. It's one of the most well-known books of the Bible and is required reading for the post you were quoting earlier.

 

but you said book or romans, dont you comprehend how a disjunction works.

 

A self-described secular humanist, I would fall into the 'weak agnostic' group. For me, a retired scientist, proof of the existence of a supreme being would have to satisfy the criteria applied to scientific knowledge. As an aside, I do not discount the benefits which obtain to those who believe in a god.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

I'm well aware of how a disjunction works (and, by the way, you seemed to miss the fact that they are non-exclusive in formal logic). Meanwhile, if you have anything of substance to add and/or find yourself capable of addressing what was said, feel free to give it a try.

 

Modern summary of the Letter of Paul to the Romans:
God is a teacher.
God gave Jews a test based on the Torah.
They all failed.
God gave everyone else a test based on natural law.
They all failed.
God gave everyone an extra credit question:
Did Jesus die for your sins?
Everyone who said yes passed.
The rest failed.

 

Funny how you skip over the parts where he advocates the death penalty for religious crimes, advocates the divine right of kings, and forbids women from teaching. Paul's God is a monster.

 

The occasion in which he tells people God appoints governmental leaders to punish criminals is unrelated to salvation. Generally, Christians are better off when criminals are removed from the general population. He also tells Christians to obey laws.
The restrictions on authority of women over men comes in the letter to the Corinthians. He was addressing practical matters to make life better in that troubled church. The Romans had no such problems and he mentioned 2 women entrusted with some authority.
Which religious crimes are you talking about? Endorsing the Torah as having authority is far from advocating that sinners within the church be executed by the clergy.

 

How about telling people somebody else's death cleans them of being held responsible for their wrongdoing? Is that in Romans? Do think that's somehow ethical?

 

Such a great feeling when you have been abused by someone who then declares themselves forgiven because they jumped in a fountain.

 

You forgot the repentance part there...