From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:31:23 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

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?

>>Is it fair to say that the teachings of Paul contradict those of Doug,
>>or do we sit back in awe of Paul's tricky word games, and allow that
>>the teachings do not really contradict?
>
>With the more precise (IMO) analogy, we choose the latter, though the
>tricky word games are noticeably absent.

IMO, the tricky word game is when Paul declared that while the Law
still exists, it is irrelevant.  After that, the field is wide open
for him to teach whatever he pleases.

>>Alright, let me make sure that I've got this straight.  First, we have
>>Jesus, the great moral teacher, the Son of God, whose teachings all
>>Christians claim to follow.  Jesus teaches on a number of occasions that
>>he has no intention of changing the Law.  Seems pretty straightforward to
>>me.
>
>This leaves out much that Jesus taught about the law, but it is
>acceptable for our purposes.
>
>>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 think (correct me if I'm wrong) that
Sons of God rank higher on the authority scale that apostles.
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?

>>>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.

>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.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15182 talk.origins:9471