From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:04:40 GMT

skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>Mr. Graham
>>>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>>>Mr. Graham
>>>>... 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.")

>>You could be right.  I was speaking from memory.  I'm not sure I
>>know what it means to fulfill a law though.  Do you?  Anway, the
>>jot and tittle stuff still stands doesn't it?

>Christianity holds that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law
>with his death.  The Law is still there, but the penalties have been
>paid.  Under the new covenant of grace, the only use for the law is as
>some indication of what God likes or doesn't like.

I can point to plenty of Christians who think homosexual acts should
be punished, and who point to Leviticus as justification of punishing
said acts; apparently, not all Christians agree with your opinion.

You, of course, have repeatedly asked me to define what I mean by Christianity,
versus what I mean by "[some] Christians say xxx".  Let me try to explain.

Suppose, for sake of argument, that Christianity is more-or-less true.

What I mean by "Christianity" is whatever god says it is.
Presumably, there are real answers to questions like "are homosexual
acts a sin" and "does Leviticus' prohibitions and penalties against
homosexual acts still apply" if only god would show up and enunciate them;
the opinions of humans DO NOT CHANGE WHAT THE ANSWERS ACTUALLY ARE
(unless god says they would, but I don't see any indication to believe this is
true if Christianity is more-or-less true).

However, all we have are the opinions of humans.

>>>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...."

>>Well, I'm at quite a loss as to what to use for a definitive description
>>of Christianity.

>Without a definition of Christianity, does Mr. LeRoy's assertion have
>any meaning?  Perhaps what he really means is "Religion X (which has
>no adherents) prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts."  But
>this is not a very useful statement, especially when Mr. Brown was not
>talking about religion X when he used the word "Christianity."

I hope my assertion has meaning now; I assert that, if Christianity is
more-or-less true, god would say that Leviticus still holds (I don't see
where he has retracted it) and that the penalty still holds (since I don't
see where he retracted that either).

Jesus paying the penalty doesn't even change this; the penalty is still
there, it is just being paid for you.  Presumably, someone who has committed
homosexual acts and does not have Jesus pay the penalty will still have to
pay the penalty him or herself.

>>>...I begin by
>>>stating that Christianity includes most or all of the teachings of
>>>Paul, one of its founders.  Do we agree?

I would say that Paul's opinion change NOTHING as to what Christianity
REALLY IS, as only god (assuming he exists) defines what it is.

If you claim that xxx is part/not part of Christianity, you have to advance
an argument for it; saying it's true because Paul said so holds no weight.

You can take this as an axiom, but I don't see how you can justify putting
so much faith in the statements of a human; I don't see why Paul should be
considered largely correct any more than he should be considered largely
incorrect.  All you have are the opinions of humans.

>>I dunno.  What do we do when the teachings of Paul contradict those
>>of Jesus?

>We'd have to work out any contradictions, giving precedence to Jesus
>in the final analysis.

I'd say you are giving unwarranted weight to Paul's opinions; you are
saying most of his opinions are correct, but I don't see why I should
agree.  You are almost saying his opinions are only wrong if they
contradict Jesus.

>>>If so, I note that we have words from Paul to the effect "you are no
>>>longer under the law, but under grace."

>>But this directly contradicts the jot and tittle stuff spoken by
>>Jesus.  Why should Paul, a mere mortal, be able to override Jesus,
>>who was God?  

>(Correction: Son of God.)  Christianty holds that he does not override
>Jesus.

Well, your opinion of what Christianity is...

>Jesus said that he would not change the law ("jot and tittle,"
>as you say).  Paul says the penalties have been paid.

So what?  That's Paul's opinion.  He's not god, nor does he claim to be.
Why should I bet the rest of my eternal existence on his opinion?

>The law remains
>unchanged.  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'd say that definitely means "yes", but the penalties have been paid
for those who have Jesus pay it; those who do not have Jesus pay it
have to pay it.  Not at all the same as no penalty.  No penalty means
no penalty, period.

---
Merlyn LeRoy