From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:50:32 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

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.

>>>Then Paul comes along and cooks up some story about penalties being paid,
>>>and that the Law is irrelevant -- Grace is where the action is now.  Of
>>>this, Jesus never mentioned a peep.  I suppose I can accept that this is
>>>Christianity, but I think then that it may be stretching the truth quite
>>>a bit for Christians to claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus.
>>
>>As we have been unable to precisely define Christianity, this
>>observation is not surprising.  I think that a definition of
>>Christianity, if we could find one, would include something about
>>Paul's words having a certain authority due to his status as an
>>apostle.

>But this misses the point.  That point is that Paul changed the
>rules layed down by Jesus.

I'm still not clear on how Paul changed the rules.  Does this refer to
the analogy?  If so, then please don't gloss over my request for an
explanation as to why it should be considered analogous.

>Doesn't it bother you Gregg, that you are unable to even begin
>defining the "philosophy" upon which you have chosen to base your
>life?

I see no reason to shift the focus to a personal level.  I am not
discussing my own beliefs in this thread, and I will not begin to do
so now.  (My experience in a.a. is that folks here are not interested
in hearing about my beliefs.)

I do not mean to say that I have no definition for Christianity.  I
refer to the fact that you have not given my yours.  As such, the
assertion that "Christianity prescribes the death penalty for
homosexual acts" is pretty much meaningless.

>>>>The question is, Does Christianity still prescribe the
>>>>penalties associated with the law?  Because Christianity holds that
>>>>all penalties have been paid, I think the answer is "No."
>>
>>>I think the answer has disappeared in a blur.  I think the answer is
>>>whatever our priest says it is, and can change daily depending on the
>>>aspirations of our priest.
>>
>>(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.

>>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.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Please send a copy of your response to g-skinner@uiuc.edu, as my
newsfeed will unreliable for a short time.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton