From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:09:30 GMT

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>Suppose, for sake of argument, that Christianity is more-or-less true.
>>>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.

I am glad you're trying to do this, and I hope you will continue.
This is circular because you say "Suppose Christianity is more-or-less
true (and thus that God exists, etc.), then Christianity is whatever
God says it is."  

   (Christianity is true) implies (God defines Christianity)

This doesn't help me understand what you mean when you use the word.

>>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.

But I don't say that Christians don't follow Leviticus anymore; in
fact, I pointed out some groups that do (to some extent).  Rather, you
have said that Christianity includes Leviticus (whatever that means),
and cited the use of it by Christians as your support.  I don't see
how this fits, even given the above circular definition.

>>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'm having trouble understanding you.  Perhaps I will understand
better when I am clear on how you define Christianity.

Given what you wrote above, does your assertion that "Christianity
prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts" have any meaning?
How do you know what God would say any more than Paul?  You don't even
believe he exists!  Paul claims to have spoken with his son Jesus.

>>(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.

This sort of questioning is good.  But I must say that if our answer
is "no," then we cease talking about Christianity.  Christianity holds
that Jesus directly gave Paul authority:

>>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.

What do you doubt?  That Christianity holds that Paul was an apostle?
Or that his apostleship gives him authority?

>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?

(Clarification:  I do not hold Paul to be without error.)

Moses also made mistakes.  Where does that leave us?

>>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.

Christianity holds that Jesus comissioned Paul on the road to
Damascus.  I have no problem with questioning this.  What I do have a
problem with is calling a religion which throws out Paul, Christianity.
We are saying the same things over and over.  If this is to move
forward we will need your definition of Christianity.

>>>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?

I suspect you haven't actually spent time studying Christianity.  This
question brings out your ignorance of even the basic tenants of the
religion.  Christianity holds that Paul's words agree with God's.
Thus, neither can outweigh the other.

>(Also, this doesn't answer why Leviticus is carved (differently by
>different people) into some that apply to them and some that don't).

You deleted my answer.  I will replace it below.

#The Levitican law is
#held to be non-binding on the Christian, based partly on the words of
#Paul in the New Testament.  However, certain topics addressed in the
#law were also addressed by N.T. writers.

To make this more clear, I'll add that it is these references that
Christians use to "carve Leviticus," as you say.  Here's the "for
instance" that appeared in my last post:

#As I've said, admonitions against homosexuality were issued in the New
#Testament, at least according to English translations.  Most other
#Levitican sex laws, including the one you note, were not mentioned.
#That is the distinction Christianity makes.  Now you know.

Obviously some interpretation is required, which will lead to
different outcomes for different people, as you have observed.

>>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%.

Until you define Christianity, I am at a loss to know what you think
is the central tenet of Christianity.

Certainly Paul could be wrong.  I've made no claim to the contrary
(though I have said that Christianity claims Paul was right; you
should notice that I have not been presenting my own beliefs, just
those of Christianity).  However, if this is how you seek to prove
your assertion that "Christianity prescribes the death penalty for
homosexual acts" you shall have to show that Christianity holds that
Paul is wrong.  Good luck.
-- 
Gregg Skinner    g-skinner@uiuc.edu         I speak for no organization.