Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[Saltmeister]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, 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.

Thank you for the validation and confirmation of a portion of my assessment. Ain't peer review a great thing?

 

[cyberpi]

I read through "Faith of Apostles" and it confirmed it for me: Victor writes to promote Sharia over democracy. Both articles are aimed at that, and there are many clues in the argument style that I recognize. It is a common Islamist argument in a dehydrated and candy wrapped form. I understand Victor is a member here, so please speak up. I'd love to converse on the subject.

Realize: the Qu'ran verifies the form of the Gospel in the year that the Qur'an was written. It verifies it and refers to the 'People of the Book'. It directly tells Christians to judge by it. So to use the Qur'an to oppose the Gospel is a bit futile. I ask an Islamist to provide his version of the Injil, because the Qur'an says to believe in the gospel, to study it, and to even tell others that you believe in it. If anyone has a hidden version of the Injil, then please bring it out. Otherwise the Qur'an convicts whoever does not study from every prophet, because realize that anyone who follows Mohammud (pbuh) alone and oppresses others solely with the Qur'an is a hypocrite... a hypocrite per the Qur'an. Does that sound like strong language? It is. It is the same for Christians.

As I read it, the Qur'an alone convicts men's Sharia, and it promotes something like democracy; albeit not exactly like the representative version of Western countries. The point is, saying that this or that is God's law is prohibited. The Qur'an expressely prohibits that... even derived law. It is using God's name in vain. The other concept is election: The Qur'an says to NOT make any man your ruler: i.e., do not follow the laws of an intellectual or charismatic leader over God. Do not be a slave. Only permit a leader as a servant. The followers of Sharia law can be convicted with the Qur'an, but a person has to do it. A person has to read it, study it, know it, and use the words. Realize if a person opposes the Qur'an out of ignorance then it will only convict them. If a person opposes the Qur'an, then do so with full knowledge of it and providing arguments. But I am here to say the Qur'an is hope for anyone who appreciates democracy and capitalism. As I see it though, this whole situation is designed so that each individual needs to judge for themselves and to present it to others. Anything less and a person is a slave by their own choosing.

While it may seem like I am off topic, Victor's "Faith of Apostles" implies that the Qur'an is accurate and tests the 'Holy Gospel' against it, as well as opposing the Greek view of democracy and suggesting that religious leaders are the rightful makers and judges of law... as it was in the time of Jesus. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth and I would advise then using the Qur'an to reveal that. The Gospel can be used, but it requires understanding Faith as Faith in a person, Faith in Jesus, Faith in God, and NOT hope in the divinity of the corpse text left behind in any book, including both the Qur'an and the Bible. The books are not alive.

 

[Dondi]

So basically you are saying this has turned into a Christianity vs Islam thread? If that is the case, then I have no more to add to this conversation, for I am in the process of presenting a case for Paul on the basis that Victor was a Christian disillusioned by the works of Paul and aimed to emphasize the teachings of Christ. But if this thread is going to degenerate into a comparative discussion between Christianity and Islam, then I suggest that it be moved into a Comparative Studies forum.

But I also ask that before that move is considered that Victor be allow to respond to cyperpi's above post to confirm his charge. I'd like to know who I'm responding to.

 

[Quahom1]

So basically you are saying this has turned into a Christianity vs Islam thread? If that is the case, then I have no more to add to this conversation, for I am in the process of presenting a case for Paul on the basis that Victor was a Christian disillusioned by the works of Paul and aimed to emphasize the teachings of Christ. But if this thread is going to degenerate into a comparative discussion between Christianity and Islam, then I suggest that it be moved into a Comparative Studies forum.

But I also ask that before that move is considered that Victor be allow to respond to cyperpi's above post to confirm his charge. I'd like to know who I'm responding to.

It appears that this is becoming the case, and if so we will move it to comparative studies. I hope this does not have to come to pass.

v/r

Joshua

 

[cyberpi]

I'm sorry you feel the need for the 'Not in my back yard' approach Dondi. I simply read Victor's second article where he references the Holy Qur'an a number of times and it confirmed something that I see in the world but that many people do not. I think it is a worthwhile subject here. On this website, both articles are in the Christianity section.

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

I place Law... God's law into that verse. It is in the Qur'an too.

 

[Dondi]

I'm sorry you feel the need for the 'Not in my back yard' approach Dondi. I simply read Victor's second article where he references the Holy Qur'an a number of times and it confirmed something that I see in the world but that many people do not. I think it is a worthwhile subject here. On this website, both articles are in the Christianity section.

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

I place Law... God's law into that verse. It is in the Qur'an too.

I'm simply trying to establish where Victor is coming from. If this is some subversive ploy to introduce Islam into the Christianity board, then it is disingenous to portend one is a Christian. I do invite such discussions, but only if one is honest to begin with and opened with their intent. There are other forums to mix apples and oranges, and this is not one of them, IMHO.

ButI still haven't heard from Victor, so I suspend judgement in that regard.

 

[Saltmeister]

So basically you are saying this has turned into a Christianity vs Islam thread? If that is the case, then I have no more to add to this conversation, for I am in the process of presenting a case for Paul on the basis that Victor was a Christian disillusioned by the works of Paul and aimed to emphasize the teachings of Christ. But if this thread is going to degenerate into a comparative discussion between Christianity and Islam, then I suggest that it be moved into a Comparative Studies forum.

But I also ask that before that move is considered that Victor be allow to respond to cyperpi's above post to confirm his charge. I'd like to know who I'm responding to.

Cyberpi's view certainly does seem to be directed a bit unfavourably toward Christianity in some way, but my perception is that cyberpi is not just any Muslim chap you might meet out there in the neighbourhood.

Often when a Muslim says anything about Christianity, you'll get one of two different kinds of behaviour. They will either be decent about the problems they have with Christian concepts, or they will proceed to criticise those concepts, asserting Christian concepts are wrong and ill-founded and then moving on to say why Islam's concepts are the right ones. The latter group often assumes that Christians all have the same beliefs (ie. monolithic), or at least beliefs of the same nature (ie. fragmented, divided). It is this kind of thinking that we will often find offensive, that we're enslaved and blinded by some kind of rigid ideological system that demands our loyalty and that we can't think for ourselves and must listen to our religious leaders.

What offends us is that Christianity is not like that, but they perceive us to be like that. Usually what we get is the Islamic equivalent of Bible thumping -- Quran thumping. It's the our-book-is-better-than-your's sentiment or if-you-don't-read-this-book-you're-in-the-wrong. They may or may not quote verses in putting forward their views. The intention is to knock down this rigid ideological system that they believe is enslaving and blinding us and keeping us from Islam. It is not so much that I'm offended, we can't really blame followers of another faith of ignorance. It's the ignorance that we should blame, not the people. The same thing often applies when Christians criticise Islam. The temptation, once again is to think of Islam as some rigid ideological system that needs to be knocked down.

But when I read cyberpi's posts, I don't see this common Quran-thumping mentality. As cyberpi has said before, some time in the past which I can't remember, he still has a close affiliation with Christianity. Cyberpi, so far as I can see, knows that Christians are not all the same. There is diversity in the Christian population. Christianity is not some rigid ideological system to be knocked down. But maybe cyberpi isn't out to knock Christianity down. He may have embraced Islam, but may still value Christianity.

Cyberpi doesn't seem like our common Muslim friend. There's no denying that his beliefs are skewed toward Islam, but he also seems like some kind of maverick among the Muslim population. He seems like a guy with unconventional views, or has at least transcended conventional views. Maybe it's because of this unconventional approach that he has held on to Christianity while embracing Islam. That sounds like he's strongly influenced by Christianity. From our point of view, Islamic influence, in which we have little or no interest is a bit of an intrusion in the Christianity forum. But I think the person should be more important than the ideology.

We could think of him as much like Wil in the sense of not being conventional but a bit more assertive . . . and at times provocative . . . with his views. Not necessarily in a bad way, though. Better than a Quran thumper who wastes our time by treating our faith as a rigid ideological system to be knocked down. These guys are just too predictable, perhaps even manipulative.

(But then again, we all do it from time to time, thinking of Islam as some rigid ideological system to be knocked down, some of us going into the Islamic forum to get back at the "bad guys." Or . . . maybe we imagined doing it. Revenge.)

I believe cyberpi to be a person who, despite having embraced Islam, continues to see value in Christianity. I think it would be interesting to hear what he has to say, as the thoughts of anyone who continues to value Christianity and regard it highly should also be valued by other Christians.

What if a person who values Christianity, is alienated for being different, gave up Christianity altogether? A person who is Christian must always have a reason for being Christian. Otherwise there's no point being one. If cyberpi is exploring what he thinks may be the meaning of Christianity, what are we to do?

I am aware, though, that cyberpi mentioned the Quran, with perhaps just a little too much favour. That appears to be causing most of the discomfort here. It could possibly be balanced out with something positive and affirmative for the Christianity as we know it. But I heard he was reflecting on Victor's thesis . . .

 

[Dondi]

My contention is not with cyperpi, but with Victor, if you read my posts. I know where cyperpi is coming from. Victor I do not.

Actually, I benefit from some of cyperpi's posts, particularly in our current discussion on the daily bread, for which we seem to have similiar views. Like I said, I don't mind people from other faiths posting in here as long as their intentions are transparent. The OP suggests a person trying to make their point on the invalidity of Paul from what I believed to be a Christian viewpoint, albeit not an "orthodox" viewpoint. That I tolerated because I wished to reply to that contention, from one Christian to another, but now I'm not sure who I'm talking to. Victor definitely has liberal views about Christianity, and perhaps if this started out in the LC board, I would have less objection.

I'm not trying to discourage discussion here, but the rules in place on this forum are there for a purpose.

What if I were to go into the Islam forum and started tearing apart the Qu'ran? I don't think that would be received well. All I'm asking is a little mutual respect here.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Victor definitely has liberal views about Christianity, and perhaps if this started out in the LC board, I would have less objection.

I would be the one to blame for this. Victor's posts were on the B&S board in a thread on the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was myself who copied them and reposted here for ease of finding, no less because of occasional posts by still others on the subject (discrediting Paul) as well as because it has (had) been a long standing challenge open to anyone to offer a rebuttal / refutation. Since some open their posts with "no refutation has been offered" or like words, I thought it best to consolidate this material into one place. It was my personal choice to place this collected material here, not Victor or any other.

 

[inhumility]

I simply read Victor's second article where he references the Holy Qur'an a number of times and it confirmed something that I see in the world but that many people do not. I think it is a worthwhile subject here. On this website, both articles are in the Christianity section.

Hi
I have not read the second article from Victor. Please provide the link of the thread.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

 

[inhumility]

What offends us is that Christianity is not like that, but they perceive us to be like that. Usually what we get is the Islamic equivalent of Bible thumping -- Quran thumping. It's the our-book-is-better-than-your's sentiment or if-you-don't-read-this-book-you're-in-the-wrong. They may or may not quote verses in putting forward their views. The intention is to knock down this rigid ideological system that they believe is enslaving and blinding us and keeping us from Islam. It is not so much that I'm offended, we can't really blame followers of another faith of ignorance. It's the ignorance that we should blame, not the people. The same thing often applies when Christians criticise Islam. The temptation, once again is to think of Islam as some rigid ideological system that needs to be knocked down.

Hi
I think that followers of any Scriptures, whatever their concept of GodAllahYHWH is, do think that He is All-Wise, so must be the scriptures He has sent to us the humans for our guidance. He knows that we human beings are intelligent creatures, as He himself has created us like that. Alongwith the the dictates of the Sriptures, we cannot therefore deny He should mention the reasons or wisdom of those dicates invariably. Instead of Bible/Quran/Gita thumping, what we should do is to present alongwith the dictates those reasons/points of wisdom for our clear understanding to ascertain the truth from the untruth and also for comparison. No need of thumping whatsoever.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

 

[Dondi]

Hi
I have not read the second article from Victor. Please provide the link of the thread.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

Found in the General Articles section of the CR homepage:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/apostles_faith/

 

[cyberpi]

I regret the emotive word selection in my last post. It was not my intention to guide anyone away from what I view is an important subject. I have seen Victor’s viewpoints before from other people and I thank him for sharing it here. I was responding in part to what Victor summed up in his writing, "In defense of the apostles faith":

In the end of it all, I give you a theology of law that saves. If it does not, then all things are worthy of condemnation. Since Christianity today insists that even the Holy Scriptures as revealed to Judaism speak of Jesus, let us openly pursue that reference in denial of Paul's Hellenistic theology.

I recognize this concept of the ‘theology of Law’, and I read extremism in Victor’s words there for it. I think Paul's writings are viewed as an obstacle to be taken out to promote a belief with Law, and I find that these arguments are commonly spread in the Islamic community. I find the basic concept though is well within the minds of individuals in any group of people where a person believes in good or evil based solely on adherence to someone else’s Law. For example a woman who submits within a brutal marriage despite the screaming in her mind. Or a soldier that blindly submits to following any order unconditionally by wrongly believing that his superiors are responsible for his actions. Or a group of police officers who believe they can do no wrong as they ‘bust’ someone. Or a follower of a religion who believes the religious scholar or priest can do no wrong. But in the context that Victor presents, I find that is UNLAWFUL per the OT, Gospel, and the Qur’an to call Shariah or derived Islamic law... God's law. I view that Shariah is NOT God’s law and the Qur'an expressely prohibits calling it that. To be clear: I am for God’s Law, meaning that I am for Law between God and ALL people where even the slowest, uneducated, most impoverished person has the opportunity to judge what is right and has a voice and a vote in the Law and agreements that the person submits to.

As I used the word ‘convict’ I do not mean a person or group of people. I mean to convict a viral belief. I view that the rightful way to ‘convict’ a belief or spirit is to simply speak out against it. Words only. I view that it is each person’s choice to decide what a virus is, and whether to install virus protection. The question then is with an individual’s ‘firewall’ installed, will a person still be able to communicate?

I have to work for a week and hope to return to confront this ‘theology of law’ with detailed argument, probably in the ‘beliefs and spirituality’ section where Victor has posted.

 

[juantoo3]

Yours is an interesting view, cyberpi!

I am reminded, in a less virulent way (pardon the pun) of the argument of memes...that is, those that initially developed the concept of memes intended it to be somewhat derogatory, somewhat of a slur so to speak. Of course, using their own reasoning, I see them as guilty on all counts as those they point at. By extension, I see memes then as a "typical" and "normal" mode of operation. It seems to me we all tend to use memetic paradigms...and it ultimately is our choice which specific paradigm we prefer in that regard.

I look forward to what you have to add to further your points.

 

[Saltmeister]

I am reminded, in a less virulent way (pardon the pun) of the argument of memes...that is, those that initially developed the concept of memes intended it to be somewhat derogatory, somewhat of a slur so to speak. Of course, using their own reasoning, I see them as guilty on all counts as those they point at. By extension, I see memes then as a "typical" and "normal" mode of operation. It seems to me we all tend to use memetic paradigms...and it ultimately is our choice which specific paradigm we prefer in that regard.

What are memes? I tried finding it in a number of dictionaries but it wasn't in them.