From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:05:29 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>You, of course, have repeatedly asked me to define what I mean by Christianity
>>versus what I mean by "[some] Christians say xxx".  Let me try to explain.
>>Suppose, for sake of argument, that Christianity is more-or-less true.

>I assume this suppostition holds for the remainder of the post.

>>What I mean by "Christianity" is whatever god says it is.

>The definition is circular.

I don't see that it is; I am defining who gets to say what christianity
is, to show that it isn't Paul.

>Further, I don't see how "Christians cite
>Leviticus" fits into this defintion.

It doesn't; I use that when you say christians don't follow Leviticus
anymore, to show that some christians still do follow parts of it.

>As such, I am still at a loss as
>to how you define Christianity.

If it really exists, god gets to define it.
Paul's opinion doesn't change what it *IS*, only what he (and people
who agree with him) *THINKS* it is.  Don't confuse the model with
the reality; Paul says what (he thinks) christianity is, but Paul
could be wrong.

>[I wrote]
>>>Without a definition of Christianity, does Mr. LeRoy's assertion have
>>>any meaning?  Perhaps what he really means is "Religion X (which has
>>>no adherents) prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts."  But
>>>this is not a very useful statement, especially when Mr. Brown was not
>>>talking about religion X when he used the word "Christianity."

>>I hope my assertion has meaning now; I assert that, if Christianity is
>>more-or-less true, god would say that Leviticus still holds (I don't see
>>where he has retracted it) and that the penalty still holds (since I don't
>>see where he retracted that either).

>>I would say that Paul's opinion change NOTHING as to what Christianity
>>REALLY IS, as only god (assuming he exists) defines what it is.

>(I've pointed out already that the law originally came via a man,
>Moses.  If the mere man Moses was given authority to pen God's law,
>then could not Paul also be given such authority?)

Yes, but Moses' authority was accepted by Jesus and his followers;
not so Paul's authority.  Paul could have such authority, but does he?
That's what I'm questioning.

>Operating under the supposition "Christianity is true," Paul was an
>apostle commissioned by Jesus, the son of God.  Therein lies his
>authority to say that the Levitican law has been replaced by grace.

Doubtful.  The Apostles were repeatedly shown to be quite error-prone humans.
Do all of the apostles have equally accurate opinions?

>>If you claim that xxx is part/not part of Christianity, you have to advance
>>an argument for it; saying it's true because Paul said so holds no weight.

>No more weight than to say that Leviticus is the law of God because
>Moses said so.  If we are to be fair in our skepticism,, then neither
>Paul's nor Moses' words have any weight.  If we suppose "Christianity
>is true," then both have weight.

Nope; Moses' revelations were taken as true by Jesus; not so of Paul.

>If we suppose "Judaism is true,"
>then Moses has weight, but not Paul.  I am truly at a loss to see how
>we can throw out Paul, and still claim to be talking about
>Christianity.

Like I've said, you seem to think Paul to be without error, when there
is nothing to support this assertion.  Paul, like all the other apostles,
is shown to be an ordinary man who makes mistakes (he persecuted christians,
etc), so why must he be accurate now?

>>You can take this as an axiom, but I don't see how you can justify putting
>>so much faith in the statements of a human; I don't see why Paul should be
>>considered largely correct any more than he should be considered largely
>>incorrect.  All you have are the opinions of humans.

>...from square one.  If this is all we have, then we have absolutely
>no idea what the law of God is.  All we have is the opinion of Moses.

Yes, but that *IS* taken as an axiom, by Jesus and the apostles.
Jesus didn't say Paul's word would be 100% accurate.

>>Well, your opinion of what Christianity is...

>...based on study of the subject, Christianity, in college courses.
>This is still my opinion, of course, but it is an informed opinion.
>Evidence suggests that your opinion is not informed.  For instance, in
>another article you wrote,

>>How do the Christians who do this justify carving (supposedly) their god's
>>laws into some that apply to them (i.e. non-Jews) and some that don't?
>>I know there are Christians who do this, but I've never seen any reason
>>within their religious framework for such selective enforcement.

>In any beginning study of the Christian religion (such as might be
>part of a good comparative religion course), one learns that the New
>Testament has more weight than the Old in Christianity.

What Jesus said, yes, but why should Paul's words outweigh god's?
(Also, this doesn't answer why Leviticus is carved (differently by
different people) into some that apply to them and some that don't).

>If someone
>thinks this should be different, he is free to do so, but the
>resulting religion is not called "Christianity."

Like I've been trying to say, it's perfectly possible that Jesus is the son
of god, and that Paul's opinion is simply the opinion of a fallable human.
This would make the central tenet of christianity true, but all that Paul
wrote about it wrong, or at least suspect.  You don't even seem to consider
it a possibility, thus inappropriately elevating Paul's accuracy to 100%.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16341 talk.religion.misc:15382