There are hinge-point arguments used by Paul's promoters. One of the arguments concerns the path to life.

They say, good works are not a means to salvation; it is salvation that is the means to good works. Christ described the opposite, and the lessons of life teach the opposite.

Even though this is the age-old Catholic vs. Protestant argument, I must comment on it to put my views into perspective. My perspective hinges on logical evidence in objective reality, which is what Christ taught.

The promoters of Paul's theology have nothing but Paul's authority to base their position on. The result contradicts the obvious evidence in objective reality in addition to Christ's teaching.

Humans should have been able to determine the same truth about morality that Christ taught by rationally observing the lessons of life. Of course, it was too illusive for them. But after Christ taught the truth, there is no excuse for not seeing the evidence. Christ said we are expected to look for the truth and see it in the evidence of life (John 4:22)(Luke 12:57).

In other words, Christ taught religion as modern scientists approach a subject, which is to find evidence in objective reality. The standard that Christ taught made modern science possible by replacing fraudulent authority with objective evidence. He called the religious authorities of his time a brood of vipers and said people should seek and find the evidence themselves.

It's important to notice that all religious authorities and their supporters do the opposite of what Christ taught. They base their beliefs on absurd claims of authorities in conflict with objective evidence. Such frauds include Paul, Thomas Aquinas, the pope, and all fundamentalists.

Getting back to the specific question of salvation through a path of ovecoming sin, it is extremely obvious that overcoming sin requires behavior which is the opposite of the sin. The basis of sin is domination, which results in a war against all vulnerable and powerless persons. Therefore, anyone who is not totally brain dead should be able to see that doing the opposite of sin is necessary to overcome the sin. The opposite of destroying vulnerable and powerless persons is doing something good for them.

That Christ taught the same should not need mentioning. He said only those who fed the hungry etc. would get saved (Mat 25:31-46).

But Paul's promoters claim that doing so is the consequence of salvation rather than the cause. Like all frauds, endless trivial details have to be corrected to show the errors, and corrupters do not follow that many details in a reliable manner. I'll point out a few of the details, but the real significance is in the above explanations.

Here are some of the details to the argument. The path to life is hard to find and follow (Mat 7:14). There is no concept of any other path than do-gooding. It's the only path Christ taught. Paul did not teach a path.

If then, the rationale of Paul's bunch is that the difficult path occurs after salvation rather than leading to it, they are redefining salvation as some vagary that precedes the work. It's like saying you win a football game before you play it. But they don't explain their absurdities, because Paul has it all figured out, and his word is above rationality or evidence.

Even if there were some event called salvation which precedes the good works, it would not be an excuse for skipping the good works, because Christ taught the good works as the only thing relevant. But the promoters of Paul's theology never improve their standards or stop the sin. They trivialize the whole subject and use it for self-sanctification, while they continue to destroy vulnerable and powerless persons.

All of the arguing about words and quotes is irrelevant, because the requirements of morality are the same for everyone regardless of theology. Promoting life instead of destroying it is a human responsibility. The human responsibility wouldn't be any different if there were no Christ or God. Justice and morality have objective origins. People define what should be done to themselves by what they do to others. They define what should be done to others by what they demand for themselves. But Paul's theology is used to rationalize away the lessons of life.

Paul's Theology