Freethought & Rationalism Archive

davidstarlingm · 06-02-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Pretty much everyone agrees with the author of 2nd Peter that "[t]here are some things in them [i.e. the letters] hard to understand" (2Pe 3:16 RSV). Every single attempt to make sense of them I can think of has done so assuming that the key is in the Christology. When I first read the Paulines myself as a 16 yr old high school student, I remember thinking that they were "choppy" (i.e., jumped around in subject matter a lot). I couldn't seem to make any sense of his arguments.

A couple years after graduating from college I began to try and follow arguments through, ignoring digressions or what seemed to be off topic, and quickly realized that the only connected ones were about justification of gentiles before God, and that the Christological statements were all digressions and not integral with those justification arguments.

I think the "real" Paul was writing to slaves and clients of wealthy Jewish households. A summary of the theory is on this page of Ben Smith's Text Excavation website. I had taken a year each of NT and Classical Greek in college, and the breakout is based on the Greek text, although I wouldn't call myself a Greek expert. I reserve the right to tweak the breakouts a bit, and have already done so with parallel Greek-English tables for Galatians and Romans, with the rest to come as I find the time.

DCH

I looked at the summary, as well as some of the examples; it seems like a very interesting approach. I would definitely be interested in seeing more from this, along with the more rigorous statistical approach you mentioned.

Personally, I've never felt that Paul's letters were terribly difficult to understand; he occasionally digresses, but these seem more centered around mutual cultural understandings than topical divergence.

I would be curious as to what sort of control could be devised for a more statistical approach. The propensity of confirmation bias is high; it could subconsciously become a "cut out references to Christ" exercise.

andrewcriddle · 06-02-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Compare this:
Rapture Ready: The Science of Self Delusion by Chris Mooney
with this:
Justin Martyr

[I haven't read other posts in the thread, sorry if I am repeating argument or something]

From Chris Mooney:

Quote:

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.

Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, "Sananda," who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.

Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin's followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.

Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the "boys upstairs" (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?

At first, the group struggled for an explanation. But then rationalization set in. A new message arrived, announcing that they'd all been spared at the last minute. Festinger summarized the extraterrestrials' new pronouncement: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction." Their willingness to believe in the prophecy had saved Earth from the prophecy!

From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. "Their sense of urgency was enormous," wrote Festinger. The devastation of all they had believed had made them even more certain of their beliefs.

In the annals of denial, it doesn't get much more extreme than the Seekers. They lost their jobs, the press mocked them, and there were efforts to keep them away from impressionable young minds. But while Martin's space cult might lie at on the far end of the spectrum of human self-delusion, there's plenty to go around. And since Festinger's day, an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called "motivated reasoning" helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, "death panels," the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. ....

I have heard it claimed that the number of psychologists infiltrating the rather small group of genuine Seekers was high enough to potentially bias the way the group behaved when the prophecy failed.

Andrew Criddle

davidstarlingm · 06-02-2011, 04:21 PM

Do we have any evidence that early Christians were ever significantly less evangelistic than as depicted in the New Testament? Before the fourth century, that is.

DCHindley · 06-02-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I have heard it claimed that the number of psychologists infiltrating the rather small group of genuine Seekers was high enough to potentially bias the way the group behaved when the prophecy failed.

Andrew Criddle

Correction, those would be principally sociologists (cultural anthropologists to you Brits). There is a Methodological Appendix to the book When Prophecy Fails (pages 234 to 249). It says, in part:

In our very first contact with the central figures of the group, their secrecy and general attitude toward unbelievers made it clear that a study could not be conducted openly. Our basic problems were then obtaining entree for a sufficient number of observers to provide the needed coverage of members' activities, and keeping at a minimum any influence which these observers might have on the beliefs and actions of members of the group. We tried to be nondirective, sympathetic listeners, passive participants who were inquisitive and eager to learn whatever others might want to tell us. As we shall point out later, our initial hope - to avoid any influence upon the movement - turned out to be somewhat unrealistic for reasons outside of our control and inherent in making such a study as this.

... [description of their efforts and possible influences on the group follow]

In spite of our best efforts, then, we did have some effects on the movement. We have perhaps overemphasized the effect of the observers by pulling out the major incidents that evidence our influence, but our presence alone, and some of our actions, did lend lend support to their convictions and activities. On the other hand, at no time did we exercise any influence whatsoever on proselytizing activity. We were meticulously concerned with this point and we were completely successful in avoiding any impact upon our dependent variable.

The Observers and Their Task. All observers were either students or staff members in departments of psychology or sociology, and all had some previous experience in interviewing and observational technique.

FWIW, Festinger presented the first version of dissonance theory at a graduate seminar in January 1954, so the study under discussion did not really cause the theory to be formulated. According to the authors, a newspaper article featuring a very precise prediction and date and which indicated a willingness to spread the word with outsiders "seemed to be an opportunity to conduct a 'field' test of the theoretical ideas."

The events of the case study under discussion spanned between September 1954 and summer of 1955. The forward to the book was dated December 21, 1955, the one year anniversary of the original date the flood was prediction to occur. The book was published in 1956 and the formal presentation of the theory was published separately in 1957. It took about 2 more years to develop an experimental model for testing dissonance theory that produced replicable results (the goal of all scientific testing, even in social sciences).

DCH

aa5874 · 06-02-2011, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think the "real" Paul was writing to slaves and clients of wealthy Jewish households.....

Have you FORGOTTEN that "Paul" was given the MANDATE to preach to the UNCIRCUMCISION?

Gal.2

Quote:

...7 But contrariwise, when they saw that] the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentile...

DCHindley · 06-04-2011, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think the "real" Paul was writing to slaves and clients of wealthy Jewish households.....

Have you FORGOTTEN that "Paul" was given the MANDATE to preach to the UNCIRCUMCISION?

Gal.2

Quote:

...7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentile...

Why would you think the slaves and clients of a wealthy Jewish household would be Jewish?

Technically, the Law forbids Jews from enslaving fellow Jews. If he circumcised his household (forced conversion) he would be obligated to free them all, which would complicate things. Hence the provision to become circumcised upon manumission. Even for those slaves for whom manumission was not so likely in the near future, it is always good politics to fit in with the master's belief system as best as possible. It is the hard working and reliable slaves who are respectful of their masters' traditions and beliefs who get manumitted. Until then, an intermediate status in the master's tradition would be better than no status.

Clients, such as craftsmen and merchants, may receive a large amount of their income from one or two wealthy patrons, so I can understand why some might find interest in their patrons' religion or God. Other gentiles might just have found popular Jewish views about resurrection into a fruitful and just messianic age appealing, and wanted to be a part of it.

Masters may even have promoted "bible studies" within their households, and at the synagogue for clients and those interested, to educate them about the God and traditions of the Jews.

DCH

aa5874 · 06-04-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Have you FORGOTTEN that "Paul" was given the MANDATE to preach to the UNCIRCUMCISION?

Gal.2

Why would you think the slaves and clients of a wealthy Jewish household would be Jewish? ....

Why would you think "Paul" is a 1st century character?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....Technically, the Law forbids Jews from enslaving fellow Jews. If he circumcised his household (forced conversion) he would be obligated to free them all, which would complicate things. Hence the provision to become circumcised upon manumission. Even for those slaves for whom manumission was not so likely in the near future, it is always good politics to fit in with the master's belief system as best as possible. It is the hard working and reliable slaves who are respectful of their masters' traditions and beliefs who get manumitted. Until then, an intermediate status in the master's tradition would be better than no status....

But, you do have TECHNICAL problems.

"Paul" claimed his preaching was a STUMBLING BLOCK to the Jews and FOOLISHNESS to the Gentiles.

1Co 1:23 -

Quote:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness....

Your HYPOTHESIS has been SMOKED.

Neither Jews nor Gentiles wanted "Paul".

And NOW LOOK.

The Jews, (the wealthy Jews?) they're GONNA BEAT him up and STONE him to the point of DEATH.

2 Cor. 11

Quote:

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned.....

Jews (wealthy Jews?) did NOT need the BLASPHEMOUS Gospel of Paul.

Php 2:10 -

Quote:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth...

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get familiar with Jewish traditions in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

The Jews would have MASSACRED "Paul" and WEALTHY Jews would have DONE it.

The Pauline writings are historically FRAUDULENT and do NOT belong in the 1st century. They PERFECTLY MATCH the 4th century.

It was in the 4th century that JESUS CHRIST had a NAME above EVERY NAME in the Roman Empire, even ABOVE the name of the DEIFIED emperor of Rome and to whom EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW ON EARTH and CALL JESUS LORD.

davidstarlingm · 06-04-2011, 08:16 AM

Does this forum have an option to automatically hide certain people's posts?

DCHindley · 06-04-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Does this forum have an option to automatically hide certain people's posts?

When you are logged in, click on "User-CP", then click on "Edit Ingore List" and add the member's display name. Now, whenever that member posts, that person's message is hidden from your view only (you can still see a placeholder with their name, sort of a message header). There will be a button to click that allows you to read the hidden message if, god forbid, curiosity gets the better of you (I just did that with aa).

It serves to tune out irrelevant "noise". You like serious discussions? Ignore the arguers. You like arguing but don't particularly like using your brain? Ignore those pesky serious people. Then there are the ones with hobby horses that hijack every thread, or heap abuse on anyone who cannot see the "truth" ...

I've got a couple of folks on mine, and I suppose a couple have me on theirs, for one or more of the reasons noted above.

DCH

ApostateAbe · 06-04-2011, 08:58 AM

I don't recommend using the forum's ignore function. When you put someone on your ignore list and other members don't, then the conversations can be difficult to follow. Just use the ignore function in your brain.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2011, 04:21 PM	#53
davidstarlingm Junior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: United States Posts: 99	Do we have any evidence that early Christians were ever significantly less evangelistic than as depicted in the New Testament? Before the fourth century, that is.

06-04-2011, 08:16 AM	#58
davidstarlingm Junior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: United States Posts: 99	Does this forum have an option to automatically hide certain people's posts?

06-04-2011, 08:58 AM	#60
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I don't recommend using the forum's ignore function. When you put someone on your ignore list and other members don't, then the conversations can be difficult to follow. Just use the ignore function in your brain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.