Paul's hyperbole
Anonymous Permalink
12 comments
In my last blog I showed just how deep a level of commitment Jesus commands his follower to go. It is complete self-abnegation. It has been pointed out that Jesus was not speaking literally here and he is rather using hyperbole to stress a point. I would like to know how one can determine what is hyperbole and what is not. But this is not the thrust of this blog so I will lay that topic aside.
I must confess that while writing that previous blog the issue of hyperbole came to mind. I wanted to address that but the article was getting a little long. In this blog I shall confront the claim of hyperbole.
Paul did not argue against my original conclusion in the previous blog but rather offered up hyperbole as the only rational explanation of Jesus' words. I can only take that to mean that I am right about the literal interpretation. Taken literally one would have to shrivel up and die for the cause of Christ. I must confess – Paul has been the victim of a diabolical plot.
Those of us who follow an objective approach know that in order for the ethical principle of altruism to be followed the follower must default on it at some point. The fact that Paul [by whatever means of deciphering] knows that Jesus is speaking hyperbole betrays the fact that he knows that life, in order to be lived, must have some other basis for living. What Paul embraces implicitly is what a person with objective standards embraces explicitly. That basis or standard by which man lives is life. Specifically, man's life. The question that arises is “Why does man need values?” The answer “To live.” Values are those things we seek in our existence in order to live and the fact that Paul has to use hyperbole to salvage Jesus' ethic betrays this objective fact. At the root, Paul's ethic is bankrupt.
What is even juicier is that because of divine command one follows the ethic of altruism not out of selfless devotion but out of pure selfish motivation. While a person may say that they are following the commands of Christ because they love him they cannot escape the fact that they follow him because their rear end is toast if they don't. So, even in matters of spirit they betray selfish motives for following an ethic of altruism.
One cannot escape the ethic of rational egoism. Paul's hyperbole proves that. Thanks Paul.
Post a Comment
12 Comments:
care to post a valid decuctive argument proving all those claims you made about my intersubjective state of beliefs?
No? Thought not. So, your post is subjective, you "objectivist." Thanks, Cadman.
Oh, and I dissected and autopsied Pauls hyperbole claim and his reinterpretation of Jesus' message in the comments section on the last blog entry just now.
Dont worry CADman, according to the evil, secular definition of the word "hyperbole" your analysis of Jesus' word still stands. ;)
"Then again, I did obtain my "hyperbole" definition from an evil, secular source: dictionary.com. And as we all know (according to Paul) using sources like dictionaries and wikipedia to define terms is "bad form" (like using the Bible isnt?)"
Aaron, are you still upset about this? :)
Why is Paul against using references ? The Bible sure doesn't define anything. But then again, they can redefine and reinterpret anything, I suppose.
Where in the Bible is the word "hyperbole" defined ?
Very nice post, Cadman. You nailed the pertinent issues firmly and succinctly. And I see no arguments have been presented against your points.
Franc: "Where in the Bible is the word 'hyperbole' defined ?"
Indeed, as you pointed out Franc, the bible is a miserable source for definitions. Key terms are continually thrown around without any stable meanings. Important words, which should be used with care, are frequently used with a wink and a nod. There's life, and then life'. There's death, and then death'. Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and he lost his life', but yet still he remained alive and had a long life. The apostle Paul made frequent reference to issues of life and death, but was really speaking of life' and death'. Makes me wonder what died on the cross: a god (which is immortal) or a man (whose death or death' cannot forgive sins). In so many ways, the atonement is the big 900-lb. gorilla in the Christian worldview. Don't tamper with it, because it will just explode into endless conundrums.
Paul: "care to post a valid decuctive [sic] argument proving all those claims you made about my intersubjective state of beliefs?"
Care to post a valid DEDUCTIVE argument proving that Jesus' statement should be interpreted as hyperbole? Please present it, and seal Cadman's point.
Meanwhile, I shall live, and love my life, regardless of who disapproves.
"Meanwhile, I shall live, and love my life, regardless of who disapproves."
That's the best revenge, or so I've been told.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Derek, you're the stupidest atheist alive.
haha... Derek you are almost too funny.
You just don't know when to quit do you?
Is "stupidest" a word?
Even the "stupidest" atheist alive is closer to the truth than the smartest theist.
Derek said "his's". Is that a word? Also, Derek what's up with at least 3 periods behind each sentence?
Derek said, "Do you have any comments on my posts? Or article on the front page?"
Yes I did and they were asked. Maybe you have problems reading like you do with punctuation, kid.
Derek said, "If not, don't bother me kid...."
You are cool Derek.
Derek said, "I came here to smoke Paul Manata out not his little 12 year old groupies...."
More drivel. By the way, you're cool Derek. Maybe one day I can be a "Sansonean" as well and a "reltaivist" (or just plain annoying and a stalker since you like to follow Paul around everywhere after he's told you he's finished with you).
See ya Derek the stalker "..........................."
<< Home