.

Dear One Under God,

.

I am inclined to conclude that Saul’s conversion to Christianity which, obviously, he did not invent, but, reinterpreted, reoriented, reconceived, reconstructed, redeveloped and recorded (cf. his clash and rupture with Peter in Antioch related in Galations 2:11-14) should be understood as the sublimation of his natural perversion, masochistic tendencies and disposition for the death impulse.

It was a personal triumph for him, a moral victory. He managed to elevate himself and come out on top. I understand the “illumination” he experienced on the road to Damascus as the “flash” of his sub-conscious mind associating his personal stigma (deep, internal wound) with the stigmata of Jesus on the cross, triggering the mutation of his Calvary into a source of personal fulfilment. His life suddenly took on a new dimension, a new meaning, a new direction and a new mission.

Today’s Christianity is Saul’s legacy to mankind. Instead of persecuting it, he promoted it. His internal struggle finally found pacification. It nevertheless remains that the Christianity Saul bequeathed to us clearly bears the mark of his personal stigma. It permeates 94% of the text of the New Testament.

We should be aware that Saul’s vision is heavily influenced by his natural perversion, his masochistic tendencies and his disposition for the death impulse. He glorified ignorance (cf. : “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” : 1 Corinthians 14:38 King James Version), obedience and submission.

It was, no doubt, this philosophy which found favour with the Roman emperors, Constantine and Theodosius I, prompting them not only to adopt it but also to promote it and finally to impose it throughout the Roman Empire as the sole authorized religion.

I should like to feel that we are all free to chose to adhere to Christianity if we so decide. As it happens, I, personally, was not given the choice. My dear mother had me baptised shortly after birth, without my having any say in the matter.

My two daughters are adults now and neither of them has felt the need to be baptised.

.

AJ Philips,

Thanks for illustrating my contention that what is often allowed to be said on this OLO about Christian thinkers would not be allowed to be said about atheist preachers by their apologists, c.f. reactions Peter Sellick is getting for his articles.

Dear david f,

I would not use the word evil in vain. We can still remember where a recent rhetoric about “evil empires” brought us to. So I would certainly use less offending words if I wanted to express my dislike or disapproval of a religion adhered to by millions of people, even less when the number is 2.2 billion. That was all that my remark was about.

I am not a historian, but I agree with the historian Herbert Butterfield who wrote

“if history can do anything it is to remind us that all our judgments are merely relative to time and circumstance ... We can never assert that history has proved any man right in the long run. We can never say that the ultimate issue, the succeeding course of events, or the lapse of time have proved that… [Steven Weinberg, Physics and History, in Labinger Jay A. and Collins Harry (Eds), The one culture?, U. of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 119]

Another quote:

“The study of the past with one eye upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history. It is the essence of what we mean by the word “unhistorical”. – Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931).

As you can see Dawkins needed to be defended here, although nobody accused him of having done “evil” things, (or being “naturally perversed”, or having “masochistic tendences”). Paul/Saul, who inspired thousands of thinkers over centuries, does not need such defence, only the standard of our discussions here, I thought, needed such defence.

banjo..<<..I am inclined to conclude that Saul’..reinterpreted, reoriented, reconceived, reconstructed, redeveloped and recorded>>

THATS INDISPUTABLE/HIS MANY LETTERS GUIDED/MANY
[assuming they were sent/recollected etc[collated together at/nicea?]

<<..(cf.>>

darn george just said/the same thing
research/needed..#The abbreviation cf. is interpreted, and can be read aloud,..as "compare"...It is the/imperative singular form of the Latin word confer,..literally meaning "bring together

<<..his clash and rupture..with Peter>>
http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-14.htm

But when I saw..that they were deviating..from the truth of the gospel,..I told Cephas..in front of everyone,.."If you,..*who are a Jew,..live like a Gentile..and not like a Jew,..how can you compel Gentiles..to live like Jews?"

puts this in different context<<..the sublimation of his natural perversion,..masochistic tendencies..and disposition for the death impulse.>>

never the less/these were the times of many messiahs
[and holy men/well to put it truthfully/often have a longing/A DRIVE..TO LOVE]..AND WOMAN of course made jews unclean/before ritual/the unspoken to me..always seemed..to lack the mention of act/only specifically..the opposing sex.

also/the 'wisdom..of soloman..[u seem to recall he was monosexual/thus the strangeness of his love poems

IM NOT SURE IM FOLLOWING..BUT<<>>It was a personal triumph for him,..a moral victory...He managed to elevate himself..and come out on top.>>

HE HAD OVERSEEN THE DEATH OF HIS NEMISIS/JESU
WHO HE HOUNDED/TO DEATH/thereby setting up a scape goat/dying for us
and perverted much jesus really did say[ie not into miracles/no church/personal god/predictable god//served by loving neighbor

maybe he over compensated
or was taken over spiritually..[NAME CHANGES OFTEN REFLECT RADICAL personality CHANGES..[MAYBE JESUS HAUNTED HIM[AT LEAST ONCE/ON THE Road..much was inspired/

and few recognize the dead have real power to influence the living/especially one as powerful as Christ/who did return many times[even reportedly/has kiDS IN INDIA

George,

I don't understand how you could have possibly interpreted what I had said in such a way.

<<Thanks for illustrating my contention that what is often allowed to be said on this OLO about Christian thinkers would not be allowed to be said about atheist preachers by their apologists, c.f. reactions Peter Sellick is getting for his articles.>>

I said nothing about who is allowed to say what, here, so I don't see how I could have illustrated that. You are free to say whatever you like on OLO. I was simply pointing out the possible responses you would receive if you were to make such an erroneous statement while pointing to the flaws in the analogy you were simultaneously putting forth.

Please don't confuse hurt feelings for attempts from others to silence you, or your apparent discomfort with what is being said for a low standard of discussion. If you feel unable to express your views when others are not restricting you from doing so, then perhaps that's a good indication that you yourself are not comfortable with your own position? Surely if you were, then you would not feel the need to hold others to a standard or tone that you feel comfortable with; a standard to which nothing negative can be said in anything other than the most softly, softly manner.

AJ Philips,

I think you have correctly spelled out the reasons why it is pointless for me to argue with you, especially since argument was not my intention in the first place.

.

Dear david f., George & AJ Philips,

.

The word « evil » is not part of my vocabulary. I feel it has a religious connotation: “devil” without the “d” - which is not at all to my liking. I have also heard it in the mouths of particularly lecherous individuals who pronounce the word with undisguised appetence. There are many other words in the English language which I feel are much more appropriate.

For example, David, you wrote:

“Perhaps there are no completely evil human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for evil as far as I am concerned”.

May I suggest the following alternative:

“Perhaps there are no completely vile human beings, and there was a spark of goodness even in Paul. However, his attitude toward sexuality and his intolerance which was a consistent feature in his entire life makes him an inspiration for wickedness as far as I am concerned”.

Perhaps George may find that version a little more palatable.

.

Dear One Under God,

.

You wrote:

"maybe he over compensated
or was taken over spiritually..[NAME CHANGES OFTEN REFLECT RADICAL personality CHANGES..[MAYBE JESUS HAUNTED HIM[AT LEAST ONCE/ON THE Road..much was inspired/

and few recognize /especially one as powerful as Christ/who did return many times[even reportedly/has kiDS IN INDIA".

That’s interesting. I didn’t know Jesus had popped-up in India and is reported to have set-up a family over there. Who with ? Mary Magdalene ?

That sounds like Yuyutsu’s stamping ground. He may have something on that. If Jesus is in India perhaps he'll send his kids to school in Australia.

By the way, you indicated that “the dead have real power to influence the living …”. I guess you were referring to the “previously living” or possibly “the memory of the dead”. Once you’re dead you’re dead … right ?

Otherwise, the only influence I can think of is the possible inheritance … or pile of debts !

.