I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

[rogue06]

I side with the scholars who think in that section in Romans 1, Paul is quoting his opponents' view, and that Paul then denounces that view in Romans 2. So in that reading, it's not Paul who's full of crap in Romans 1. Paul's view is then given in contrast to this in Romans 2:

Are there other examples among Paul's writings of him employing this particular technique to this extent?

This reading is a minority view among interpreters but seems to be gaining more traction.

FWICT, it isn't far beyond the stage of if it got three more adherents it would double.

[Starlight]

That would make more sense, except for the fact that everyone sins, or breaks the law, whatever, and so, if the above were true, if each is repayed according to their deeds, then all would go to hell. The only way to be saved then, would be to be a believer in Jesus as god.

I think Paul, like the Jews in general at the time, thought you'd go to hell only if your life had more bad deeds than good ones in it. Paul thought of this as God judging people by their level of Christ-like-ness. The early Christians assumed the average person was entirely capable of living a sufficiently good life so as to get into heaven. To them a 'sinner' was a person who habitually did wrong rather than right (if you read Proverbs for example you'll see it used this way). A person who sinned once wasn't "a sinner", anymore than a person who did right once in their lives was "righteous". Rather these terms depicted general character tendencies.

The notion that a single sin ever in your life makes you deserving of hell is a product of a couple of different theological changes introduced by Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 11th century, where the standard God required of humanity was upped to 'perfection'. Paul's words in Romans 3 are commonly misinterpreted as 'proof' of this doctrine, in a way that would mean Paul was misusing every single proof-text he cites in his argument, since all those OT passages contrast certain historical sinful humans and certain historical righteous humans (using the standard OT overall-sinful overall-righteous terminology). Obviously using passages that speak of historical righteous humans isn't legitimate as a proof-text for the claim that all humans in history were sinful.

Are there other examples among Paul's writings of him employing this particular technique to this extent?

In Romans, far more than his other works, the are lengthy passages where Paul asks and answers questions. Sometimes these are described as rhetorical questions, or fictional dialogues, or him interacting with an imagined interlocutor, or him asking and answering questions that the Christians at the church of Rome might have in their minds.

Also, unusually in Romans, Paul cites passages from the apocryphal work Wisdom of Solomon to an extent not found in his other works. Wisdom of Solomon is a work that originated around the time of Paul, but which is strongly antithetical to Paul's views on the topic of the Jews and gentiles.

Also, unusually in Romans 1, Paul gives the single longest quotation/paraphrase of any passage in any of his works, or in the entire bible for that matter, with the entirety of Rom 1:18-32 being a paraphrase of Wisdom of Solomon 13-14, and much of Romans 2-3 and elsewhere in Romans Paul appears to attack the view of Jewish sinlessness that appears in Wisdom of Solomon 15 and elsewhere in that work.

I think it is therefore reasonable to conclude that in Romans Paul is trying to contrast his own views with those being taught by another Jewish teacher or Jewish school of thought, presumably whom he has reason to think might be influencing the Church in Rome, whose views are represented in the work Wisdom of Solomon (which may have been finalised into the written version we have it in either before or after Paul's lifetime). I think it is reasonable to read then the questions and answers throughout Romans as a dialog between Paul and this other teacher whom he disagrees with. If I had to guess the specific identity of this individual, I would say it was the particular Jewish teacher mentioned but not named in Josephus' history whose antics in Rome with regard to the theft of donations to the Temple and adultery with converts there, led to the Emperor expelling all Jews from the city of Rome after it became a public scandal there, since those are specific crimes Paul mentions in Romans 2 in relation to describing his opponent as a Jew who views themselves as a great teacher of the gentiles but who actually caused God's name to be "blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you".

[Tassman]

That was never my argument

in this life

He doesn't. You are condemned by your own actions.

"in this life"?

Yes. So you have no excuse.

Belief is always a choice.

[JimL]

I think Paul, like the Jews in general at the time, thought you'd go to hell only if your life had more bad deeds than good ones in it. Paul thought of this as God judging people by their level of Christ-like-ness. The early Christians assumed the average person was entirely capable of living a sufficiently good life so as to get into heaven. To them a 'sinner' was a person who habitually did wrong rather than right (if you read Proverbs for example you'll see it used this way). A person who sinned once wasn't "a sinner", anymore than a person who did right once in their lives was "righteous". Rather these terms depicted general character tendencies.

The notion that a single sin ever in your life makes you deserving of hell is a product of a couple of different theological changes introduced by Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 11th century, where the standard God required of humanity was upped to 'perfection'. Paul's words in Romans 3 are commonly misinterpreted as 'proof' of this doctrine, in a way that would mean Paul was misusing every single proof-text he cites in his argument, since all those OT passages contrast certain historical sinful humans and certain historical righteous humans (using the standard OT overall-sinful overall-righteous terminology). Obviously using passages that speak of historical righteous humans isn't legitimate as a proof-text for the claim that all humans in history were sinful.

So you think that Paul believed people were graded as to their level of goodness or of their evil and that a passing grade was needed in order to be saved and if one gets a passing grade then he is given a glorified body incapable of sinning while one with a failing grade is condemned to hell? I mean that is a possible interpretation of Paul I guess, but it's still rather silly in my opinion. And it certainly isn't what most christians believe because they believe in atonement wherein even the worst of the worst, say a Hitler, can atone for their misdeeds and be forgiven.
Even in Genesis god describes all men as being nothing but evil "how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil". Adam sinned once and was banned from the Garden, and god killed everyone in a flood.
And what would be the purpose of Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of man, if only the sins of those with a passing grade were forgiven, unless of course there was a catch, i.e. that only those sinners with a passing grade are forgiven if they believe Jesus is god and could forgive them? Did he sacrifice himself for the sin of just those who got a passing grade? And where would be the dividing line between the wheat and the chaff?
Come to think of it, Paul himself would have to have been considered a great sinner prior to his conversion and belief in Jesus. What if he had died prior to his conversion? Instead of a saint in heaven, according to himself, he'd have been condemned to hell.
So, yeah, I agree, the bible is all over the place and people, including Paul, will interpret it to their own liking, and that is a major problem when considering ones belief in it.

[Sparko]

in this life

I didn't mention they could get saved at the 'pearly gates'




[quote]"in this life"?

Since they accepted Jesus, in this life, they are saved. How is that hard to understand?


If a person is a Christian, then they will not be judged for their sins at all. They are credited the righteousness of Jesus. On the other hand, you will have to face judgment for your sins.


I never said to pretend. I said to choose. You look at the evidence, then make a decision to believe or not. To have faith.

[Starlight]

So you think that Paul believed people were graded as to their level of goodness or of their evil and that a passing grade was needed in order to be saved and if one gets a passing grade then he is given a glorified body incapable of sinning while one with a failing grade is condemned to hell? I mean that is a possible interpretation of Paul I guess, but it's still rather silly in my opinion.

Pretty much all religion is rather silly.

And it certainly isn't what most christians believe

Indeed. Christian teachings gradually evolved over time, building on previous changes and adding new ones, and convincing themselves their new ideas were 'biblical'.

because they believe in atonement wherein even the worst of the worst, say a Hitler, can atone for their misdeeds and be forgiven.

The Jews (and Christians) thought that God was kind and forgiving and that anyone who genuinely repented of their past wrongs and resolved to act in a new way could be forgiven and provided with a clean slate. They viewed God as more interested in current human character than as an accountant who kept careful tally.

Even in Genesis god describes all men as being nothing but evil "how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil".

It's referring to God's opinion of men who lived at that specific time, but even at that time there were exceptions - Noah's family.

And what would be the purpose of Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of man, if only the sins of those with a passing grade were forgiven, unless of course there was a catch, i.e. that only those sinners with a passing grade are forgiven if they believe Jesus is god and could forgive them?

Indeed the modern Protestant notion of the atonement wasn't believed by the early Christians.

[Tassman]

Since they accepted Jesus, in this life, they are saved. How is that hard to understand?

If a person is a Christian, then they will not be judged for their sins at all. They are credited the righteousness of Jesus. On the other hand, you will have to face judgment for your sins.

Seriously?

I never said to pretend. I said to choose. You look at the evidence, then make a decision to believe or not. To have faith.

Presumably one needs because the evidence comprises nothing but highly embellished hearsay anecdotes emanating from a gullible era of myths and magic.

[Sparko]

He is concerned with your heart, so when do something wrong without understanding it is wrong, how can he hold you accountable for that? But when you do something wrong and you KNOW it is wrong, then you are doing evil on purpose and will be judged on that. Then you have no excuse.

Seriously?

You might want to try reading the book of Romans in the bible. Here is a link:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+1&version=NIV

It answers all of your questions. It is like Paul was talking directly to you, Tassman. You are asking all the same questions that Paul goes through in that book.

For example your question above, should or can Christians go on sinning and murdering after being saved?

Romans 6:

[Tassman]

He is concerned with your heart, so when do something wrong without understanding it is wrong, how can he hold you accountable for that?

But when you do something wrong and you KNOW it is wrong, then you are doing evil on purpose and will be judged on that. Then you have no excuse.

Obviously, that applies to the rules of behavior in every society whether they apply with an alleged divine imprimatur or secular authority.

So please try reading the book of Romans. It's not that long. At least know the material you keep trying to argue against.

Can't answer Huh? Trying to palm me off with bible quotes.

[Diogenes]

"Good" is that which reduces the unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures. The unnecessary suffering of conscious creatures is therefore "Evil".

In that case, a militant antinatalist could become a negative utility monster and, in the least, go around kidnapping, sedating (presumably before the kidnapping to avoid suffering), and sterilising people to prevent any suffering of future "conscious creatures".

Necessity should be obvious.

Our negative utility monster would argue that all suffering in life is, in aggregate, unnecessary, as life itself is unnecessary. Furthermore, our (friend/fiend) could argue that there is greater number of non-human conscious creatures that are unnecessarily suffering due to human activity than there are humans thus their aggregate unnecessary suffering is quite high compared to the aggregate unnecessary human suffering. In the interest of the aggregate amount of unnecessary suffering, human-attributed unnecessary suffering should be ended.

This standard is objective in that anyone with access to the person and the aforementioned technology can look to see whether the person's suffering has lessened, and therefore, whether Good exists. The observer doesn't need to accept the standard as their own. All they need is to understand this standard, and to recognize when it's been met.

It's more in a gray area of "objective" as it's not "objective" in the strictest sense of ontological objectivity. We can say the moon's existence is objective as it's not dependent on a mind for it's existence. Also, basing morality on qualia will run afoul of hard physical monism. If we are p-zombies, then we don't actually suffer. We may have specific neural patterns, but there's not qualia of suffering present.

[Sparko]

Again, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him. You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.

Obviously, that applies to the rules of behavior in every society whether they apply with an alleged divine imprimatur or secular authority.

So you understand. You will be judged on the sins you commit with full knowledge that you did wrong.

Can't answer Huh? Trying to palm me off with bible quotes.

I did answer. Sorry you can't read.

[JimL]

Again, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him. You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.

Right, so mercy, so long as you believe, and hell if you don't happen to believe. That's a silly idea of a just god, Sparko, particularly when you take into account that most people who have ever lived never even heard of your god.

So you understand. You will be judged on the sins you commit with full knowledge that you did wrong.

And because you happen to believe, you won't be punished. Give me a break. The whole point is fear. Either accept it whether you believe it or not, or go to hell. Dumb!

[Electric Skeptic]

Sneering mockery does nothing to solve the moral problem for atheists. If atheism is true,

Atheism is neither true nor false. It is a lack of one particular belief.

then any atheist who expects or demands that others live according to whatever objective standard of morality the atheist has defined is rejecting the logical implications of his own world view.

Atheism is not a world view. It may well form part of any number of world views; it is not a world view in and of itself.

Why would you do that? Aren't you comfortable with where atheism ultimately leads?

Atheism doesn't "ultimately lead" anywhere.

If it's really the worldview you believe, then why not gladly embrace it's implications and live and let live? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.

Atheism doesn't have any implications to embrace.

Why is it that (some) theists want to constantly tell atheists what their atheism means, leads to and involves? They're invariably wrong.

[Tassman]

Again, he won't hold you accountable for not believing in him.

Good of him.

You just won't get Christ's righteousness to cover your sins and will have to face judgement for your own actions without forgiveness.

So you understand. You will be judged on the sins you commit with full knowledge that you did wrong.

card.

[Sparko]

Good of him.

yes.



He will hold you accountable for what you did that you KNEW and UNDERSTOOD it was wrong but did it anyway. That is what the Christian is forgiven of.

card.

Part of being a Christian is putting your trust in the Lord and wanting to follow him and not sin. Although we still sin, we try not to. It is a state of being. We are forgiven for our sins, past and future. You are not. Anyone who becomes a Christian merely as a "get out of jail free card" is fooling himself. It isn't an excuse to just sin freely by making some magical prayer. It is committing yourself to God and Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And that is a decision you need to make. It is "choosing sides" - and those that don't choose Jesus are already choosing the wrong side.