Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Monday, August 01, 2005

Paul's hyperbole

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


23 Comments:

At 8/01/2005 11:25 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

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.

 
At 8/01/2005 11:43 AM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Thanks Paul - always glad to get a pat on the back from you.

Be Well

 
At 8/01/2005 1:12 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

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. ;)

 
At 8/01/2005 1:39 PM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Aaron,
I think your examples are right on the mark. My intent here was to push it forward a little and show that given one attempts to tone it down with hyperbole or face it literally one cannot even hope to start being a follower of Jesus as he has commanded.

 
At 8/01/2005 2:33 PM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

"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? :)

 
At 8/01/2005 3:09 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

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 ?

 
At 8/02/2005 10:27 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

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.

 
At 8/02/2005 10:44 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

"Meanwhile, I shall live, and love my life, regardless of who disapproves."

That's the best revenge, or so I've been told.

 
At 8/03/2005 10:30 AM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8/03/2005 8:42 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Hey Paul...

Did Saul "see" and "hear" a "floating/glowing" Jesus on the road to Damascus???

Don't run brother....

I have been challenging Christians all over the net with this little baby....But no one wants to stay a play with it...

Come on....This should be easy for you...

It's right up your epistemic alley...

 
At 8/04/2005 10:13 AM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Derek can you send me your thoughts on that - I'd like to take a look at 'em.

cadman904@netscape.net

 
At 8/05/2005 12:35 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Derek, you're the stupidest atheist alive.

 
At 8/05/2005 2:16 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

"Paul Manata", is that you? I think it may be you, given my experiences with a man named “Paul Manata”, so I conclude the possibility or suppose it is the Paul Manata I have met and debated, but how can I be sure it's you? I guess I could only have faith or a justified supposition right? Because I of course can only say I know that the text states "Derek, you're the stupidest atheist alive."...and I don't know who typed it... Not based on my experiences thus far with the available data....

Crap my dad has his secretary type letters for him and he signs them….Does that mean he typed the letters? NOPE! The receiver can only suppose he typed them…Based on the letter alone...

So, I don't believe you.....yet…So I need more data….

I know the text states a “Paul Manata” wrote, "Derek, you're the stupidest atheist alive." But this is not observable so I cannot confirm the validity, for all I know, this could be a fictitious author and not really "Paul Manata"...

Why is this possible? I have a cognition of a gained mistake from when I supposed the validity based solely on a signature, then later cognizing that I was duped...You see, the perosn who allegdly wrote me the letter was dead, and the letter was "signed" by "him" two months later, and contained data that happend after his death...So, even though I don't know who wrote it, I do know he didn't write it...

This is structurally no different...


At best I could say the criteria for authorship has been met within the arena of computer discourse, but ultimately, outside of the computer criteria, we don’t know it was the “Paul Manata” I "know"….

So how do I know it's the “Paul Manata” I debated and not just another person using the name “Paul Manata”? I don't...

I also don't believe I am the stupidest atheist....do "you" “believe” it or do "you" “know” it?

Oh, and I am glad to see that whoever physically typed this, is validating the accuracy of sense perception in lue of conveying his knowledge and assumptions about reality.

Tootles.....

 
At 8/05/2005 2:36 PM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

haha... Derek you are almost too funny.

You just don't know when to quit do you?

 
At 8/05/2005 2:44 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Here "Paul"....

It's alink to infidelguy.com where Chaoslord (Alleged Philosophy professor) and I are going at it over “knowledge” and “belief”....

You don't have to be involved, but you could pick up on some points from "Sansonean Knowledge Theory"....hehe

www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-11646.html

 
At 8/05/2005 3:28 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Look "groundfighter"...

You want to play with me????

Let's do it.....(ringing bell)

 
At 8/05/2005 5:28 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Is "stupidest" a word?

Even the "stupidest" atheist alive is closer to the truth than the smartest theist.

 
At 8/05/2005 5:53 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Evidently, for Paul Manata it is...

I love watching him prove that his's a relativist....

I have welcomed him to the family many times....But he hasn't dropped by....Maybe he's trying to work it all out....

Crap, how can you use the TAG to defend "objective morality" when he himslef is a reltaivist...

What a balancing act??? Yikes!!!

 
At 8/05/2005 6:39 PM, Blogger Not Reformed declaimed...

Paul, you are more stupider than other people are the stupidest!

And that's pretty damn stupid.

Classic Clown prince of Calvinism, Paul Manata...

 
At 8/05/2005 7:35 PM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

Derek said "his's". Is that a word? Also, Derek what's up with at least 3 periods behind each sentence?

 
At 8/05/2005 8:09 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Groundfighter...

Do you have any comments on my posts? Or article on the front page?

If not, don't bother me kid....

I came here to smoke Paul Manata out not his little 12 year old groupies....

Take care...

 
At 8/05/2005 8:24 PM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

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 "..........................."

 
At 8/05/2005 8:53 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Hey putz...

You said:

Derek said "his's". Is that a word? Also, Derek what's up with at least 3 periods behind each sentence?

These were your comments? To point at a type-o??? Hummm, deep.

Now scram before I spank you infront of everyone here....

Send in your big brother so I can condition him....Bring the popcorn, you can have front row....

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home