From: David.Choweller@bbs.oit.unc.edu (David Choweller)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.090011.273@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In article <9208140532.AA15381@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU>, davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug13.181452.17042@csrd.uiuc.edu> Greg Skinner writes:
>> :>... I mainly agree with Mr. LeRoy.  Leviticus does
>> :>prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality.  And Jesus said something
>> :>about not changing one jot nor tittle of the Law, and that he came
>> :>not to change the Law, but to uphold it.  And Christians claim that they
>> :>follow the teachings of Jesus.  Therefore, Christianity prescribes the
>> :>death penalty for homosexuality.  What's wrong with my logic? 
>> :
>> :(In every translation I have seen, the word is "fulfill," not
>> :"uphold.")
>
>Jesus fulfilled the moral requirements of the Law by living a sinless life,
>and He fulfilled the justice requirements of the Law by suffering the penalty
>of our (believers') sins in our place.  He fulfilled the Law so that, as Paul
>says, we are no longer under Law but under Grace.

Whether or not Jesus suffered the penalty in our place, the question still
remains:  is God's death penalty for homosexuals justified?  Christians would
say that anything that God does is just, ergo God's death penalty for homo-
sexuals is just.  In this sense, it can be said that Christians prescribe
the death penalty for homosexuality.  They may have differences over who is
allowed to exact the penalty, but that the "sin" of homosexuality deserves
the death penalty would seem to follow from God's judgement of Israelite
homosexuals.

Greg Skinner:
>> :Your logic is fine.  I got nothing so clear from Mr. LeRoy.  He
>> :himself would have a problem with the last part because it relies on a
>> :step from "Christians...." to "Therefore, Christianity...."
>> :
>> :You logic is clear and we can continue if you like.  I begin by
>> :stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
>> :Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?
>> :
>> :If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>> :longer under the law, but under grace."  Also, Christianity holds that
>> :Jesus Christ payed all penalties for moral wrongs with his death.
>> 
>> But the people who were executed for homosexual acts, per orders of
>> the God Christians believe in, had to pay the ultimate price for their
>> moral "wrongs."
>
>How do you know they paid the "ultimate price" for their actions?  What is
>the "ultimate price"?  Is it death?  If so, then it is tantamount to assuming
>that God doesn't exist.

O.K.  Forget I said "ultimate price."  My point was that, contrary to what
Greg said, Jesus Christ did not pay the price for all "sin."  Clearly,
the Israelite homosexuals had to pay the price themselves.

[stuff deleted]

>
>But death is not the "ultimate price", *separation from God for eternity*
>(hell) is.  And you have no indication from scripture that Israelites who
>were judged harshly in this life have not been redeemed in the next.  Perhaps
>God wanted them to pay for their sin in this life so their place in eternity
>with Him would not be affected.

Whatever.  The fact still remains that homosexuality is considered a sin
by Christians, and the fact still remains that death is considered a just
punishment for this sin, providing that God is either directly doing the
punishing, or those who do the punishing are controlled by God (as you 
mention below).  As such, it never ceases to amaze me that some homo-
sexuals want to be Christians; this is analogous to a Jew wanting to join
the Nazi party.

>You have no idea if these people "paid the
>ultimate price" or not.  In fact, it is more likely that they are far better
>off than you will be when you stand before God yourself.

I'm sorely tempted to say something rude here, but I'm going to pass.

>> :This happened before Christianity even existed.  From these I conclude
>> :that Christianity does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual
>> :acts.
>> 
>> Do you mean that it does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals
>> acts, *if* this punishment is administered out by humans?  In and of itself,
>> the death penalty for homosexuals is just?  Further, why do Christians
>> consider it allowable for OT followers to execute homoseuxals, while
>> modern Christians are prohibited from doing this?
>
>The OT Israelites were under the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses. 
> It prescribed
>exact and immediate penalties for sin.  The reasons that God gave the early
>Israelites the Law in such a form are varied and could be discussed at length,
>but are somewhat tangent to the discussion here.

You mention some of the reasons below.

>
>The early Israelites were ruled by God directly through the Law as it was
>interpreted for them by the Judges.  It was God's authority which gave the
>Judges the power to enforce the penalties of the Law.
>
>When the period of the Israelite kings began, elements of religion (the Law)
>and government (the kings) were separated.  The king still ruled by the

Was this separation because God wanted it this way, or was it because the
nasty kings rebelled?

>authority of God vested in him through the anointing given him by the 
prophets,
>but God no longer directly ruled the nation of Israel.  The kings were free to
>exercise their own autonomy and moral free will which they did.  As the kings
>moved further and further from the moral precepts and the penalties prescribed
>by the Law, the more into sin and rebelliousness toward God they fell.  This
>ultimately led to the judgment of the kings and Israel as a nation.
>
>With the judgment of Israel, and the removal of it as being a "light for the
>Gentiles", the elements of law, judgment, and religion were forever separated,
>until the Messiah sets up His kingdom.  Law and judgment were given over to
>governmental authority, whether it be good or bad, and religious institutions
>lost the right to judge and exact penalty according to God's authority.  This
>was done in accordance with God's wisdom, for whenever the power to enforce law
>and religious authority are joined together without the benefit of God's
>control, the worst abuses of power and corruption occur.  This is clearly
>seen in the Middle Ages when most government authority and religious authority
>was held by the Pope. 
>
>So the separation between religious authority and the state is a very real
>distinction of power ordained by God.  Jesus re-affirmed this separation 
>when He said to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto
>God that which is God's".  This rule was pronounced in the context of 
>taxation, which is the perogative of the government, but it also refers to
>other powers of state delegated to it by God.  Paul affirms this when he
>exhorts Christians to be submissive to government authority in all things,
>except, of course, when such action would be in direct contradiction to
>God's commands.  There is a type of tyrannical, evil government, given over
>to the abuse of its power, that Christians are not required to obey.  This
>is derived from the principle that each person is responsible before God
>for their own actions.  "But I was ordered to" was not an excuse at
>Nuremberg, and it won't be before God either.
>
>So to conclude, even though a sin such as homosexuality may be wrong, it is
>not the *Christian's* perogative to judge that sin nor to exact a penalty
>for it.  It is the responsibility of the government to uphold moral behavior
>among it citizens through the process of law and to exact punishment for the
>violation of that law.  If a government chooses not to enforce laws that are
>just in God's sight, then that government invites the judgment of God upon
>that nation like was done to Israel and many of its neighbors.

How does one judge a nation, I wonder?  Seems that this is in contradiction
to each individual being responsible for their own actions.

Another question.  How should the government enforce "laws that are just
in God's sight"?  How should the government enforce the law against homo-
sexuality?

>As each 
>nation is given "light" (moral knowledge), each nation is judged according
>to the light they have been given.  For a nation such as America which has
>been blessed by God for the moral virtue of our forebears, to fall into the
>general moral decay and hedonism invites a much more severe judgment upon
>our nation than those who have not received such blessing.  And regardless
>of whether the government considers an action such as homosexuality to be
>wrong or not, each individual is responsible for their own actions before God.
>

It's a good thing that this God is just a figment of the Christians' collective
imagination.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80