From: skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:19:41 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>>>    ...Christianity doesn't teach
>>>>    war but peace (no Crusades).  It doesn't teach conformity
>>>>    but freedom to choose (no Inquisitions).
>>
>>>C'mon, it prescribes the death penalty for many things I don't
>>>consider crimes, like homosexual acts.  Where's the peace & freedom
>>>here?  Or do you ignore that part of the bible?
>>
>>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).

>Actually, he first challenged me to point out any christians who
>advocate the death penalty for homosexual acts; I pointed out that
>wasn't what I claimed.

Yes, this is true.  Seeing the bold claim about Christianity above, I
was interested in knowing whether he got this idea from Christians.
Certainly if he knew Christians who felt this way, he could appeal to
their exegesis, but a lack of such examples does not disprove
anything.  After this, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support his claim.

>>He gave me Leviticus.  I countered with Paul ("no longer under the
>>law, but under grace") and pointed out that for Christianity the new
>>covenant has replaced the old of which Leviticus is a part.  I
>>explained that this is straightforward, orthodox Christianity.

>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).

Here I became confused, because Mr. LeRoy insisted that we must talk
about Christianity, not Christians, yet the actions of Christians were
somehow relevant in including Leviticus.  I have repeatedly requested
clarification on what I perceive as a rather fuzzy definition of
Christianity.

To make what I am saying clear, these two are in conflict:

   1.  Whether Christians prescribe the death penalty is irrelevant
       to whether Christianity prescribes it.

   2.  Whether Christians quote Leviticus is essential to whether
       Christianity includes Leviticus.

We need to know the rule that covers both.  Better yet, we need a
definition of Christianity, as I've requested before.

>>He countered that Paul, being just a human, had no authority to say that
>>about God's law.  I pointed out that if we throw out the authority of
>>the apostle Paul, we are no longer talking about Christianity, which
>>was essentially founded by Paul.

>I'd say this is a false dichotomy; Paul could be the founder of christianity
>AND be wrong about no longer being under the law.  I don't see where, *within
>christianity*, Paul has the authority to say these laws no longer apply.
>He claims this, but the laws were supposedly handed down by god, and
>Paul is just an imperfect human being according to christianity, so I
>don't see how his opinion is supposed to be convincing in this matter.
>How is it more than the opinion of one man?

Let me clarify.  Note that the original law came from God via a man,
Moses.  Christianity holds Paul to be at least as important as Moses.
Detaching ourselves from the religion Christianity, we can talk about
Paul's opinions as just the opinions of one man.  Under the umbrella
of Christianity, though, Paul holds considerable authority, that of an
apostle.

>>I asked him to differentiate between
>>Christianity and Judaism.  He had nothing more to say.

>What I had done at this point was point out some christians who
>quote Leviticus (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell), and some who still
>obey (at least parts of) Leviticus (7th day adventists, Amish),
>implying that Leviticus isn't null and void according to some
>christians.

This is not strictly true.  Seventh day adventists were never
mentioned (Aside: Do they follow Leviticus?  I lived with some
observant adventists for 3 months and never noticed).  The Amish were
mentioned only by myself.

>  I also pointed out that Paul does not have the authority
>to rescind laws of god.  Skinner's question was irrelevant (but I would
>distinguish Cs from Js in that Cs believe Jesus was the son of god and
>the messiah, Js don't.  Notice this doesn't require Paul being accurate,
>or Leviticus being in effect or not.  Like I said, irrelevant).

My question was exploratory.  My hope was to get some sense for what
Mr. LeRoy means when he says "Christianity."  If this is the only
difference he sees between Christianity and Judaism, then I suggest he
doesn't have a very clear sense of what Christianity is.  That in
mind, I don't think it is proper for him to tell Christians what their
religion prescribes.
-- 
Gregg Skinner                g-skinner@uiuc.edu   |  Skip the above
Center for Supercomputing Research and Development|  if it is of
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign        |  no interest.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism