From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 23:14:35 GMT

I think this is about the last time into the breach for me;
we're just restating our disagreements.

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>>Define justice: "Suppose God exists as above.  Then justice is
>>>whatever God says it is."  Have we defined justice?

>>Yes; a definition might not tell you how to determine attributes of
>>what you're defining.

>I'm at a loss to understand this.  How then shall we know that we
>correctly determine the attributes?

We don't; I see this all the time with theological arguments.
It ends up being an argument over what god thinks, just like
Paul's assertions that Leviticus no longer applies.

>>>...I suspect our disagreement is with the definition
>>>of Christianity.  If so, debating what is or isn't part of
>>>Christianity may be pointless.  For instance,

>>>>What?  If Paul died before writing anything, we'd still have the
>>>>words of Jesus as related by all the other writers.  But this wouldn't
>>>>be christianity?

>>>I suspect I'm supposed to agree that the answer to this rhetorical
>>>question is "no."  But I would answer "yes," for Paul was so
>>>influential to the beginnings of Christianity that I think the
>>>religion would be fundamentally different without him.

>>Different, yes, but does christianity not exist without Paul?

>As I see it, yes.  Another religion might have sprung up, but it would
>fundamentally different.

Then I would say you are holding Paul to be as important (or even more
important) as Jesus within christianity, since Paul's absence would
result in christianity not existing, even though Jesus would've still
existed.

>>>>  (I agree it would probably look different, but there
>>>>would still probably be a religion built on the supposition that Jesus
>>>>was the son of god).

>>>This sounds like an appeal to the definition of Christianity.  Is
>>>"religion built on the supposition that Jesus was the son of God" also
>>>part of your definition of Christianity?  Are there other inclusions
>>>we should know about?

>>No, just pointing out that Paul is not essential.

>What do you consider essential to the Christian religion?  Also, I'm
>not clear on your answer to this question (please repeat yourself if
>you've already answered): Is "religion built on the supposition that
>Jesus was the son of God" also part of your definition of
>Christianity?

I would say it is.

>>>>I still don't see why Paul must be considered right, unless you
>>>>take it as a given.

>>>In my opinion, Christianity takes Paul being right as a given.

>>And in my opinion, this is not justified any more than supposing
>>Joseph Smith was right.

>Outside religion, neither is justified, as you say.  But our context
>is the Christian religion.  Whether Christianity *should* take Paul
>seriously would certainly be an interesting topic to discuss.  But
>that is not what we are after here.

Actually, it seems to be about what I've been arguing; Paul waltzes into
an existing religious framework and says laws supposedly laid down
by god can be safely ignored.  Why should anyone listen to Paul on this?

>I say Christianity *does* take
>Paul seriously.  As evidence for this I note the inclusion of many of
>Paul's letters in the religion's canon and the heavy use of quotations
>from these inclusions in Christian teaching.

I say it takes him seriously, but with insufficient reason to do so.

>Appealing to your Joseph Smith example: It would be correct to say the
>Mormon religion holds that Joseph Smith was right.  Similarly,
>Christianity holds that Paul was right.

Yes, but someone who used to believe that Joseph Smith was right and later
decides Joseph Smith was wrong (and makes no other changes) would still
believe in some form of christianity, since they haven't stopped believing
in the divine attributes of Jesus.  I'd say the same holds for someone
deciding Paul was wrong.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism