This one is more specifically directed at non-Christians. I'm not asking that you explain away Saul of Tarsus's conversion... I'd just like to hear a few theories as to why he did it. Did he just go insane? Do you think he might have had something to gain? Just what do you think... I won't be arguing... just listening. I've never heard any skeptic's ideas of what happened on the road to Damascus and I would enjoy reading a few.
Some people here doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but there is little doubt that Paul was... and also little doubt that if he hadn't gone so nutso for Christianity and become such a news item in Rome, that Christianity might have died off quickly-- fading off into the Gnostic Stoicism of communities like the ones that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I'm supposing us all to be familiar with the story... if anyone isn't, let me know and I'll give a synopsis.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Synopsis, if you please. Haven't heard/read the story in years.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
"Some people here doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but there is little doubt that Paul was..."
Seems like an incongruous statement to me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I actually wrote a 20-some page paper on approximately this topic in college. I won't go into all the details, but basically, I argued that Paul was on a power trip, and made himself the sole authority figure for all these churches he started.
He had told them what to do, how to believe. He put himself in the position of being their only authority on the teachings of Jesus.
His letters are very interesting reading, especially if you read between the lines and try to figure out what might have been going on in the various different churches, which prompted each letter.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Basically, Saul of Tarsus was an influential Jew and a Roman citizen. He oversaw the early persecution of Christians, including the execution of the first Christian martyr, Stephen.
In the midst of this persecution, while traveling to Damascus, Saul is blinded by a vision of the Risen Jesus. Saul is the only one who hears Him and the only one who is blinded for any extended time. In Damascus, he goes to visit a Christian who "cures" Saul's blindness. Saul takes the name Paul and becomes the foremost proponent of Christianity in the Mediterranian, travelling all over the place preaching. He is arrested for doing so at several points, and eventually uses his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar and gets taken to Rome, where he is, presumably, martyred after bringing the message of Christianity to the capital of, well, basically, the western world for the next couple of centuries.
So my question is, on the presumption that he was wrong, why did he do all that?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Seems like an incongruous statement to me.
Why? I've heard the historicity of Jesus questioned repeatedly. I've never heard anyone maintain that Paul never existed...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Paul was incredibly ambitious. He was making a name for himself as a leading figure against the Christ followers prior to his conversion. He was also very smart. Perhaps he saw an opportunity to moev beyond being a middle wheel in the Jewish world and become one of the main guys in a region spanning movement.
Alternatively, let's say he was a true believer who lost his faith. A fast, dramatic conversion to the thing he was strongly against actually fits pretty well with that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And not to be inflammatory, but there is the possibility that Saul/Paul was...well...I don't want to say "insane". But if he was the only person to witness this vision, it is completely possible it was something that happened in his brain alone. Maybe he had a seisure, or a stroke, or a hallucination.
Which doesn't mean he wasn't necessarily sincere in his beliefs.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I think Saul was like a modern day televangelists... he saw an opportunity to make a name for himself by appealing to the need of people to believe, and he stepped up to refine their beliefs into something that would leave them dependent upon his guidance.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't find that inflammatory, Javert. And again, my intent here is to listen to what you have to say... not to contend with any of you.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Jim-Me:
The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain why kranky?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Jim-Me:
The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly.
No more silly than the fact that the world Tolkien created exists without real orcs or dragons. Lots of stories have main characters who were fictional, or were exaggerated in the telling.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kkat, whether there is historcial evidence for Jesus or not, there does remain dispute over His historicity.
There is little to no dispute over Paul, who is the focus of my question.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Yup Cow, I have heard that argument before.
So do you maintain the existence of Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed are merely fictitious too?
[ March 26, 2007, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Krankykat ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You seem to be suggesting that he has to maintain those things in order to be consistent, which isn't true.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There is significantly more evidence of the latter two.
Look... I don't think anyone has argued that Jesus never existed in this thread. I have seen it argued before that He didn't, most often by Lisa. Again, the point is, Jesus's existence *is* disputed by some, Paul's isn't. The existence of Paul doesn't imply the existence of Jesus.
Can you accept that, please? Because I want to hear more of what they have to say about Paul, rather than getting into a debate about whose historical documents carry how much weight.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
I know that there remains dispute, Jim. The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did exist.
Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
Like I said: "The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
I don't think that this is a tenable statement. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for Paul's ministry absent Jesus's existance.
edit: Expanded from: I don't think that this is a reasonable statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do, however, think it is a true statement.
Edit: This was in response to something similar to the following which was later edited:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
I don't think that's a reasonable statement.
I am reciting from memory.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Are you saying that Paul's ministry could not have existed without Jesus existing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, Are you saying that Paul's ministry could not have existed without Jesus existing?
No - as I indicated in my edit, I was responding to a different post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see how my edit changes the meaning of my statement. And the statement that you were asserting is true did not change.
I initially said I didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry could not exist without Jesus. I only changed it to tenable when I decidesd to expand it with a reason for saying this and didn't want to say reasonable twice.
This is the statement you said was true:
quote:Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
How is asserting that this is true not saying that Paul's ministry couldn't exist without Jesus existing?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Not being an orthodox Christian doesn't make you a "skeptic." I dismiss orthodox Christianity for entirely philosophical reasons, not historical ones.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: This one is more specifically directed at non-Christians. I'm not asking that you explain away Saul of Tarsus's conversion... I'd just like to hear a few theories as to why he did it. Did he just go insane? Do you think he might have had something to gain? Just what do you think... I won't be arguing... just listening. I've never heard any skeptic's ideas of what happened on the road to Damascus and I would enjoy reading a few.
Insufficient data. But assuming the story is a true one, it may have been guilt. Or he may have had a seizure, and interpreted it as a sign. Or some combination of the two.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Some people here doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but there is little doubt that Paul was... and also little doubt that if he hadn't gone so nutso for Christianity and become such a news item in Rome, that Christianity might have died off quickly-- fading off into the Gnostic Stoicism of communities like the ones that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
<dreamy sigh> That would have been lovely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I initially said I didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry could not exist without Jesus.
Not true. You initially said that you didn't think it was reasonable to say that Paul's ministry would not exist without Jesus. A very different statement.
quote:
quote: Without Jesus there would not have been Paul's ministry.
How is asserting that this is true not saying that Paul's ministry couldn't exist without Jesus existing?
It's saying that Jesus did exist, that his visitation to Paul on the road to Damascus is what caused Paul to begin his ministry, and that without the power of the Holy Spirit the ministry would not have succeeded.
I'm making a statement about what happened: Paul was motivated by words he received directly from Christ. Without those words, he would not have begun his ministry. Could someone of Paul's ability have done this without the visit and without the Holy Spirit? Possibly. Therefore it "could" have happened, but it wouldn't have.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Basically, Saul of Tarsus was an influential Jew and a Roman citizen.
Where do you get that he was an influential Jew? Before his little trip to Damascus, he seems to have been a lot like radical college students in the 60s who were willing to commit or aid in violence for the sake of their extreme views. And who were used by others because they were so... well, usable.
As a Roman citizen, he probably was above average in wealth. Which fits again with the image of the spoiled kid going off to be a radical.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: The whole notion that Christianity exists and came to exist without Christ is rather silly.
Why? Does the existence of Scientology imply that Xenu was real? That the story of JC exists is incontrovertable (or we wouldn't be talking about it). That it's historically true is something else entirely.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
It's unlikely that Josephus ever mentioned JC.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
That's what I am saying, Squick.
Jim:
Discussing Paul w/o acknowledging Jesus is like trying to discuss a scientific theory w/o the acknowledging the scientist who developed the theory, the religion w/o acknowledging the founder of it, a philosophy w/o the acknowledging philosopher etc.
I will bail so the thread can discuss Paul w/o Jesus.
Doubting Lisa:
Josephus did mention Jesus.
"The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Source: Wikipedia
[ March 26, 2007, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Krankykat ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kranky, what do you think that last paragraph proves?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Not being an orthodox Christian doesn't make you a "skeptic." I dismiss orthodox Christianity for entirely philosophical reasons, not historical ones.
Granted... I was generalizing trying to catch many different people under one term to attract them to the discussion, not to convey anything pejorative.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
So it was the mushrooms on the veal marsala from the night before?
Summarizing... so far we have, essentially: Paul saw a means to expand his personal power, influence, and "legacy".
and
Paul was seeing things (for whatever reason) and had an internally consistent, but mistaken, conversion experience.
is that a fair summation?
Oh... left out Squicky': he was deeply Jewish, suffered a crisis of conscience of some sort, and latched onto what he saw as the opposite course.
Thanks for all the contributuions. Keep 'em coming.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Where do you get that he was an influential Jew? Before his little trip to Damascus, he seems to have been a lot like radical college students in the 60s who were willing to commit or aid in violence for the sake of their extreme views. And who were used by others because they were so... well, usable.
As a Roman citizen, he probably was above average in wealth. Which fits again with the image of the spoiled kid going off to be a radical.
Fair enough. I took it as granted that Roman citizenship implied that he was at least from an influential family.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
If non-Christians either don't believe Jesus was more then a mortal man, or don't believe he existed at all, I'm not sure why we would even have opinions on Paul?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Because Christianity has, for good or ill, been a gigantic part of Western History and without Paul it probably wouldn't have?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Squick: Besides the Bible, volumes have already been written on the subject starting about 2000 years ago with Flavius Josephus.
It's unlikely that Josephus ever mentioned JC.
Well, he didn't call him by name. He mentioned the incident with Pilate, though. As for the rest you've said about insufficient evidence, I've heard from some that there could easily have been more than one person who was amalgamated into the single character. There was no shortage of people around that time who did the whole preaching-in-the-streets-about-messianic-prophecy in that region, right?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What was Joseph Smith seeing, that made him willing to go to jail for it? Power, prestige, and yes, chicks. Paul has had the advantage that we basically only know him through his own writings, so we see him in a more flattering light than a recent character like Smith. If other people had written anything about Paul that survived to the present day, we might know about his five concubines.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Paul has had the advantage that we basically only know him through his own writings
That and the author of Acts (was that usually credited to Barnabas or Luke? anyone remember?)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: As to the thread's actual subject, it's entirely possible that Saul/Paul did have a vision of some kind, and so his conversion was genuine; it's also entirely possible that he didn't, and MrSquicky/David Bowles' views are more accurate. I don't think having had a vision necessarily makes him insane; the human brain is capable of all sorts of interesting things under the right conditions.
So it was the mushrooms on the veal marsala from the night before?
Summarizing... so far we have, essentially: Paul saw a means to expand his personal power, influence, and "legacy".
and
Paul was seeing things (for whatever reason) and had an internally consistent, but mistaken, conversion experience.
is that a fair summation?
Oh... left out Squicky': he was deeply Jewish, suffered a crisis of conscience of some sort, and latched onto what he saw as the opposite course.
Thanks for all the contributuions. Keep 'em coming.
It could also have been a combination of any two of those, or all three. Actually, I think Squick's crisis of conscience could quite possibly have triggered the kind of "vision" we're talking about, even without the mushrooms. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chaim Potok actually has an interesting version of that as a possibility for Moses's vision of the burning bush in Wanderings.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Mushrooms?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah. Apparently, Moses was crazy for those freaky fungi.
---
Actually, it was a crisis conscience/nagging question latent from when he (an Egyptian prince) slayed the Egyptian overseer to save a Hebrew slave.
[ March 26, 2007, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Doubting Lisa:
Josephus did mention Jesus.
No, I don't think so.
The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled. That's just the first site I happened upon at the moment. But scholars have dismissed that particular forgery for years.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Note that Chaim Potok was a Conservative rabbi. A member of a movement which denies the authenticity of the Torah.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:on the presumption that he was wrong, why did he do all that?
I think that for all prophets/ religious founders/ etc. there are a great many reasons for why they believed as they did. It's my own opinion that the vast majority were sincere in their beliefs. That's not really based on anything, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think though that all of them have an incredibly high ability to deceive themselves and live in cognitive dissonance. They can say something that feels somewhat true and then they become utterly convinced of its truth. Then they can easily find rationalizations that make everything still feel consistant. I don't think this is a rare trait. In fact, I think that many, many people do it to an alarmingly large extent. I don't know what happend on the road to Damascus, but I would assume the story was greatly exaggerated and I would not be suprised if Paul believed that the greatly exaggerated story happened verbatim.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Jim-Me: I've usually heard Acts attributed to Luke.
This thread made me think of something interesting (sorry Jim-Me, it's a little off topic) - Do people who don't believe the existence of Jesus but accept Paul point to Paul as the person who made Jesus up? Kind of like people who don't believe Mormonism or Scientology point to Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard (I think I got the Scientology guys name right). Just kind of a random thought that this thread created.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't mind a little drift... I just didn't want to get sidetracked onto a discussion of whose sources were more correct.
Edit to add: The Josephus above was quoted by Eusebius. The accuracy of this quote has been disputed by multiple scholars, citing that Early Christians familiar with Josephus seemed not to be aware of the particular quote (notably Origen and Clement). Nonetheless, they do seem to be aware of another, less dramatic quote regarding Jesus. So it's a case of my authority is bigger/better than your authority, which, IMO, threatened to bog down the whole thread... and which, for the moment, I'd like to continue to leave behind.
I think there's very few who would say that Paul made the whole thing up, but I could be wrong. It's not something I've heard alleged before (of Paul).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It is unlikely that people familiar with the history believe that Paul made it all up. There was a community of Jesus followers that had a hard to deny footprint in history prior to Paul entering the scene.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You probably need to provide a source for such a thing. And in any case, the fact that there were groups that believed in this or that messianic figure isn't the issue. Paul focused on one of those, and made it the "star" of the show.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Hey, I'm familiar with history and find it unlikely that Jesus was made up. Just sayin'.
(What are the chances that after 3 hours of inactivity, 2 people post at almost the exact same time?)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Edit to add: The Josephus above was quoted by Eusebius. The accuracy of this quote has been disputed by multiple scholars, citing that Early Christians familiar with Josephus seemed not to be aware of the particular quote (notably Origen and Clement). Nonetheless, they do seem to be aware of another, less dramatic quote regarding Jesus.
Source?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's my attempt at summarizing the wiki article incompletely cited by Krankykat as evidence that Josephus described Jesus in the quote he uses.
The actual article is about the dispute concerning that quote.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Hey, I'm familiar with history and find it unlikely that Jesus was made up. Just sayin'.
(What are the chances that after 3 hours of inactivity, 2 people post at almost the exact same time?)
In this case, roughly 100%.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I really thought this was going to be about Paul McCartney...
The more important question is: Why isn't it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No kidding, when I first saw the thread, I thought the same thing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: Why isn't it?
Is anyone really skeptical of that?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I doubt Paul did it for the chicks, given the things he wrote. Power and prestige, maybe. Dunno why he'd allow himself to be jailed and killed over it if he were faking. I suppose it's possible he started out as a manipulator and ended up believing his own preaching. Or he didn't suffer quite as much as he claimed. Do we have extra-Biblical evidence that Paul was executed for his beliefs?
Also, has anyone ever gotten the impression from his writing that perhaps Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was homosexuality? It might explain the whole "gift of celibacy" thing. However, I see no way of deciding one way or the other.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I have wondered about it, Shigosei. I have read that "scholars" believe it was some sort of epilepsy.
I'm not sure that we have Biblical documentation of Paul's execution. He certainly seems to expect martyrdom in some of his writings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shigosi,
It's possible although homosexuality wasn"t really understood the same way then that we understand it now. People didn't so much identify with sexual orientation.
I think that, more likely, it was that Paul was heavily influenced by the Stoics who shunned physical pleasure, strong emotion, appetite etc.
Also he was trying to bring Greeks into what was a Jewish movement. A great deal of negotiating had to be done regarding how much of the law these newcomers had to follow. Food and circumsion for example.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I doubt Paul did it for the chicks, given the things he wrote. Power and prestige, maybe. Dunno why he'd allow himself to be jailed and killed over it if he were faking.
I don't see that there's any contradiction between believing that women should take your order and shut up in church, and enjoying their company in bed. As for faking it, again, why did Joseph Smith allow himself to get jailed? Jail is a temporary condition, admiration from your followers is permanent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I doubt Paul did it for the chicks, given the things he wrote. Power and prestige, maybe. Dunno why he'd allow himself to be jailed and killed over it if he were faking.
I don't see that there's any contradiction between believing that women should take your order and shut up in church, and enjoying their company in bed. As for faking it, again, why did Joseph Smith allow himself to get jailed? Jail is a temporary condition, admiration from your followers is permanent.
And what of being beaten numerous times, and living your life with almost at least ONE law suit pending against you, over a hundred appearences in court rooms, poisonings, abandonment by almost everyone you love, and ultimately being killed?
Do you know of anyone else who endured that for the sake of power or the comfort of multiple women's beds?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
ok all... calm down... the "did it for the chicks" thing was meant to be tongue in cheek... let's not get into an argument about whether religious figures are in it for sex, please? I think it's safe to say that anyone would take offense at being told that's why their religion exists. So let's not take my wise crack as carte blanche to violate the ToS...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shigosi,
It's possible although homosexuality wasn"t really understood the same way then that we understand it now. People didn't so much identify with sexual orientation.
I think that, more likely, it was that Paul was heavily influenced by the Stoics who shunned physical pleasure, strong emotion, appetite etc.
Also he was trying to bring Greeks into what was a Jewish movement. A great deal of negotiating had to be done regarding how much of the law these newcomers had to follow. Food and circumsion for example.
I know you were not speaking to me kmbboots, and I hope you will forgive the intrusion. But I have always had trouble swallowing that argument.
For one thing I believe Paul actually strongly disagreed with the stoics, neoplatonics, and the gnostics.
I also do not think it is a current doctrine even TODAY that a person's gender can be female and that their anatomy can be male or vice versa. I would propose and I think Paul agrees with me that every man and woman has a soul, and that soul is certainly male or female, it is from there that we get our gender. If we were God's sons and daughters before we were born, it seems consistent that we would remain sons and daughters after being born. Since there are far more verses condemning the act of homosexual intercourse and encouraging a coupling amongst opposing sexes I think the weight of evidence is against God allowing us to decide what gender we are and to act accordingly. But I invite you to cite your own passages.
If equally sanctifying love were possible in Christianity between males and males or females and females, why do you suppose no mention is made of it? Interpolations by men?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that on denying the physical/temporal world and concentrating on the spiritual world Paul was very much in line with the Stoics. And by that time, the Stoics and the Epicureans were opposed.
I should have been more clear, by sexual orientation I meant heterosexual, bisexual etc., not one's gender identity. Though it does beg the question of what soul people with gender differentiation have?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I think that on denying the physical/temporal world and concentrating on the spiritual world Paul was very much in line with the Stoics. And by that time, the Stoics and the Epicureans were opposed.
Well on that point Jesus himself would heartily agree. But I think the gnostics took it way to far with their whole, "Torture and kill the physical body to bring free the spirit." I don't get the impression from Paul's writings that he felt that our bodies are a curse.
quote: I should have been more clear, by sexual orientation I meant heterosexual, bisexual etc., not one's gender identity. Though it does beg the question of what soul people with gender differentiation have?
Indeed, I personally think the gender of one's soul is almost always obvious, but hey Ill concede my opinion matters little.
I do think the current trend of separating gender with sex has exacerbated the confusion people feel with their own sexual identity.
Thanks for that clarification kmbboots.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I should have been more clear, by sexual orientation I meant heterosexual, bisexual etc., not one's gender identity. Though it does beg the question of what soul people with gender differentiation have?
Do you believe that people with gender differentiation are literally "women stuck in men's bodies" and vice versa?
This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, I'm just curious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think Paul (thank goodness) went as far as any of those movements.
I think that the current trend has acknowledged the confusion* that some people feel with their identity. And that is a good thing.
*for some it isn't confusion at all, but clarity.
And you're welcome. Any time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I should have been more clear, by sexual orientation I meant heterosexual, bisexual etc., not one's gender identity. Though it does beg the question of what soul people with gender differentiation have?
Indeed, I personally think the gender of one's soul is almost always obvious, but hey Ill concede my opinion matters little.
I don't think souls have gender/sex. At least not when a person is born. I think it's a function of chemistry and/or brain structure. But then, I don't think souls are differentiated at all prior to birth (or conception, or whenever). I think they start out tabula rasa, except for their connection to God, and they grow inside of us, becoming what they become over a person's lifetime.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Do you believe that people with gender differentiation are literally "women stuck in men's bodies" and vice versa?
Not for nothing, but "gender differentiation" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers, if anything, to a stage in fetal development where the fetus develops morphologically as a female or a male. You're talking about gender dysphoria.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you do not think the events outlined in Job actually took place, I can understand that. But if its true and God actually said that, the sons in that verse were cheering as God laid the foundation of the earth.
Why should humans as they existed before being born be devoid of a sex? At what general point would you say the sex of a human is set more or less in stone?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Do you believe that people with gender differentiation are literally "women stuck in men's bodies" and vice versa?
Not for nothing, but "gender differentiation" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers, if anything, to a stage in fetal development where the fetus develops morphologically as a female or a male. You're talking about gender dysphoria.
Ah, thank you. That will show me to read too fast. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My fault. I posted in a hurry and wasn't clear. When I referred to gender differentiation my intent was to refer to people whose gender differentiation (fetal development of gender) differs from the usual pattern. I was searching for a way to say this without using "disorder" or other perjorative term (because it isn't necessarily inherently "bad", but I got interrupted and forgot to finish before I posted.
Thanks for the fix.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: How to reconcile that idea with Job 38:3-7?
If you do not think the events outlined in Job actually took place, I can understand that.
I'm not sure if the events did, but this isn't a narrative event. This is citing God, and even if God didn't say those exact words (it's in the Writings, after all, and not the Torah), it's still true.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But if its true and God actually said that, the sons in that verse were cheering as God laid the foundation of the earth.
Angels. God is the father of all creation.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why should humans as they existed before being born be devoid of a sex? At what general point would you say the sex of a human is set more or less in stone?
<shrug> I don't know. I think that a person's sense of gender identity is hardwired into them, physically. In most cases, that means that an XY person develops a sense of self which is male, and an XX person develops a sense of self which is female.
But there are many intersex conditions, where individuals have some physical characteristics of both sexes. In its most extreme case, this is known as hermaphroditism, but there are cases that aren't nearly as extreme. This is medical fact. What isn't medical fact at this point in time, but isn't a stretch, I don't think, is that it's possible for a person who is slightly intersexed to be XY and anatomically male to all appearances, but have female characteristics in whatever part of the brain is responsible for the development of gender identity.
So when you ask "at what point", it's hard to say. If someone like this were to undergo brain surgery of a type that's currently not medically feasible to have that part of the brain adjusted to match the rest of his body, would he grow up with a male gender identity to match his anatomy? Probably. What if this were done at the age of 6? Would the 6 years of development with an essentially female brain have introduced changes into the person's personality/soul that the physical adjustment could only partly compensate for? Beats me. What if it were done at the age of 15?
I know that people in this situation today commonly report having known about their situation as early as 3 or 4. That's my experience as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you know of anyone else who endured that for the sake of power or the comfort of multiple women's beds?
You might want to consider that your average criminal will spend many years of his life in jail, and is extremely likely to be beaten up when free, because of their chosen means of pursuing wealth.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And what of being beaten numerous times, and living your life with almost at least ONE law suit pending against you, over a hundred appearences in court rooms, poisonings, abandonment by almost everyone you love, and ultimately being killed?
Do you know of anyone else who endured that for the sake of power or the comfort of multiple women's beds?
A bunch of hip-hop artists? You highly underestimate the power behind notoriety.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)