From: skinner@sp2.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:30:51 GMT

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>>>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.

>>You're talking in circles now.  Let's review the high points.

>No I'm not; you just can't seem to grasp the possibility that
>Jesus was the son of god, but Paul made a lot of erroneous statements.

I don't know what I've said to make you think this.  I not only grasp
this possibility; I suspect it may be true.  But my beliefs are not
the subject here.  It is Christianity that is under scrutiny.  I
observe that Christianity holds that Jesus was the son of God and that
Paul did not make a lot of erroneous statements.

>>--You assert that Christianity prescribes the death penalty.  You
>>point to the Levitican law in support.

>>--I point out how the words of Paul, which I think Christianity take
>>seriously, seems to counter this idea.

>But Paul has to show that he has the authority to overturn laws from
>his god, and I don't think he has shown this.

Christianity holds that Paul had some sort of divine authority (Do we
agree?).  Whether there is any justification for this belief is not at
issue.  No justification stronger than "because Christians want to
believe this" is required.

Just as my beliefs are not relevant here, neither are yours.  We're
talking about the Christian religion.  We detach ourselves from our
beliefs in order to observe whether the Christian religion, for
whatever reason (none is required), holds that Paul had authority to
speak for God.  I observe that it does.

>>--You suggest that the words of Paul are not essential to Christianity.

>No, I suggest that Paul's words have no authority to change Leviticus.

What I wrote was almost a direct quote from your previous post:

>...just pointing out that Paul is not essential.

Your "No" is quite out of place.

The above quote was in answer to a question:

>> Is
>>"religion built on the supposition that Jesus was the son of God" also
>>part of your definition of Christianity?

Given that the answer to the question seems to be "no" and given also
your definition of Christianity (in brief: Christianity is what God
says it is), I have another question.  You wrote,

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

What does "a religion built on the supposition that Jesus was the son
of god" have to do with this religion "Christianity" you've defined?
I find no mention of it in your definition (which you've confirmed),
nor is it obvious to me how the quoted phrase follows logically from
the definition you've given.  (This is a request for clarification.)

>>--But now you agree that Christianity does take Paul seriously.

>That's an observation; most christian sects obviously DO take him seriously.
>I don't see why they OUGHT to, but they do.

Then it seems we have agreement: Christianity does take Paul
seriously.

Given that, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain again how it
follows that "Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual
acts."  Remember: The words of Paul, which Christianity takes
seriously, suggest that grace has superceeded any need for penalties.
Remember also that to prove the assertion, you shall have to show that
Christianity *must* do this; all that is needed to refute is a single
possibility.  To put it another way, you must show that the teachings
of Paul cannot be included in Christianity, that they necessarily lie
outside the religion.  Good luck.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.kibology