Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[Thomas]

It's the nature of the animal. We are not promoting something like Eugenics, these do represent (at least those I've looked at, primarily the one by Garaffa) previous ways or alternate ways of looking at the subject (religion). It may be convenient to "cancel" those ideas we disagree with, but then do we not become the monster we rail on about? I don't know that my gist is clear, but there is something untoward to editing out those thoughts and ideas because of convenience (and power) rather than allowing for growth of understanding. To me it is the difference between teaching a child how to think as opposed to teaching a child what to think. I will always be a strong proponent for "how to think" teaching. You can't do that by cancelling competing thoughts.

Good points, well made, and I take them on board.

Interesting, perhaps 'the nature of the animal' in the virtue of the internet that once on a server, forever on a server! Although I went looking for an audio file, and it's gone (Dalai Lama in conversation with Dominican brothers – a great laugh).

a few things spring to mind:
that there are some really, really good books on theology that are now out of print because they are so specialist;
that careers have been blighted by 'naive comments' or less – I'm thinking of the elderly professor of something-or-other, a man with a global reputation, who was denied entry to the US because the border official Googled his name and came up with an LSD trial he took part in, in his youth...

I suppose there's a long and complex moral debate about whether everything should be allowed to live forever in the digital realm ... too much for me.

But your basic premise is sound, and I stand corrected.

 

[juantoo3]

Ok it has been published as a stand alone article. I've tried to do it neatly, but if you or anyone else would like adjustments, just say.
https://www.interfaith.org/articles/response-to-pauline-conspiracy/

I think as an article it needs an introduction, but I don't know what to write, so I have said this:

‘The Pauline Conspiracy’ linked at the bottom of this article: ‘concerns the accusation that Saul of Tarsus did not simply usurp the embryonic Jerusalem Church under Jesus’s brother James, but that he also corrupted the entire original message of Christianity.’
This is a response to the main points of that accusation contained in the summary of that article:

Can you come up with something better?

Brief and succinct, looks good to me.