From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.215032.13899@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug18.191600.11977@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Aug18.142438.8656@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>  Suppose that I
>>>>was in a position to make laws, and that I made a law which said the
>>>>speed limit shall be 55 mph and anybody who exceeds it shall be shot.
>>>>Then I get run over by a truck.  Now Paul comes along and says that 
>>>>since Doug has paid the price, the old speed limit, although it still
>>>>exists, is no longer enforced.
>>>
>>>To be precise, the analogy should stop here, IMO.
>>>
>>>>  Paul says that since we are now living
>>>>under Grace, the speed limit shall be 65 mph and anybody who exceeds it
>>>>will get a speeding ticket.
>>>
>>>I will need an explanation as to why this is analogous.
>
>>Don't worry about whether it's analogous or not.  What I'm wondering
>>is whether or not you agree that Paul's teachings conflict with Doug's
>>in this particular example.  Would it be fair to say that those who
>>live by the later rules are actually following the teachings of Doug?
>
>Not in this case, as "Paul"'s teachings contradict "Doug"'s.

No, they don't.  The can be harmonized nicely. Doug's teachings were
valid for his time, but since he paid the price for all our sins,
we now live under grace where the rules can be relaxed.

>>>(Point of information: Many Christians don't have a priest.)
>
>>Alright, call them preachers, or ministers, or witch doctors, or
>>televangelists, or shamans, or charlatans, or whatever.  It's all
>>the same to me.
>
>There is a distinction to be made here.  In not every sect of
>Christianity does someone lay down the law in the way you imply a
>priest does.

Of course they do.  It's just that you don't always know it, because
rather than making rules for you to follow, they program you to behave in
a certain manner.  That way, you don't know you're being oppressed.
It's quite brilliant actually.

>>>I glean from this that you might agree that it is very difficult to
>>>make accurate generalizations about Christianity, beyond certain
>>>basics.
>
>>The only generalization that I would make about Christianity is
>>that it is a confusing and contradictory mess of mumbo-jumbo that
>>disables its victims ability to develop a rational philosophy for
>>himself.
>
>I take it then that you now back off from your agreement with the
>original generalization about the death penalty.  My job is done; I
>need say nothing more.

I don't really know what you thought your job was.  Of course I know
that everything can be fuzzified to the point where a draw must be
declared.  Of course I know that any statement of the form "Christianity
teaches X" will be met with lots of drivel, until everybody gets
bored and goes home.  That's why I generally try to avoid debating
the details of the gibberish.  But I think that your job should be
just beginning.  Rather than trying to rationalize things so that
you don't have to give up your absurd belief system, why not take
a critical look at it instead?  For example, while I suppose it's
possible that Paul's nonsense about Law and Grace was inspired by God, 
don't you think it a tad more likely that he made that stuff up
all by his lonesome?
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.