From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:08:54 MST

In article <9208121925.AA28497@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU>, davec@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (David C. Choweller) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.151711.21180@csrd.uiuc.edu> Greg Skinner write:
>>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?

*Christianity* doesn't prescribe the death penalty for anything.
Christianity is defined in the NT, and the NT does not prescribe
the death penalty.  I don't ignore the OT, I just place it in its
proper context and perspective. 

>>
>>In a private exchange, I asked Mr. LeRoy to support for this claim
>>(that Christianity prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts).
>>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.
> 
> Do you agree, Greg, that the God that you believe in, at one time
> prescribed the death penalty for homosexual acts?  

I'm not Greg, but yes, this is correct.  However, one must be careful
to note that Israel was a "theocracy" at that time, a nation ruled 
directly by God.  The Law was given, and the nation lived under the Law
with its strict penalties for transgression.  In this Age of Law, God
exacted *earthly* judgment for wrongdoing.  For wrongs which could be
repaid, the Law required compensating the injured party.  For wrongs
which could not be repaid, and for 'acts against God', death was
prescribed.

> Regardless of
> whether the law was changed later, many people were put to death
> because of what your God laid down as the law.  Would you agree
> with this statement?  

Yes.

> I know that this is off the main point, but
> I'm curious.  I want to understand liberal Christianity, 

I'm not a "liberal" Christian.

> and how
> it can be justified in the face of the barbarity described in the
> bible.  Mostly I want to understand how liberal Christians can believe
> in a God who laid down a harsh, barbaric law--as a result of which
> many people were murdered--and then turn around and say that the
> actions for which those people were killed are no longer punishable.

You use some very emotionally charged and prejudiced words, "barbaric",
"harsh", and "murder".  They underscore a preconceived and biased
viewpoint.  But perhaps you can view this objectively.

Consider that God sets down a moral law, with certain acts requiring the
penalty of death.  If those acts so defined actually *deserve* the death
penalty, then such judgment from God is not barbaric, but just punishment.
And the penalty, when carried out, is not murder but execution.  Now who
are we to judge what is moral or immoral from God's point of view?  By
what standard do we judge God's judgments to be barbaric and harsh?

People who were judged by the Law in the OT have already paid a price for
their sins against God and humanity.  In the final Judgment, God will take
the judgment that they have already suffered into account.  They will suffer
far less (and may not suffer at all) in eternity than they would have had
they not been judged in this life.

We live in the Age of Grace.  God has chosen to defer the judgment of actions
(for the most part) until the final Judgment.  Many people go happily about 
their lives, doing what they will, never considering the eternal consequences 
of their actions, never feeling the hand of God's judgment in their lives.
They will face a more severe sentence in the Judgment than those who have
been judged in this life.  Those that spurn God's grace, and take advantage
of His patience on their account; these will suffer more in eternity.

So OT judgment by the hand of God is actually more merciful *for those under
judgment* than when God withholds His judgment until the Final Judgment.  The
OT period *seems* harsh compared to this period of Grace, but is it really?
I assert that it is not more harsh when evaluated from an eternal perspective.

Ultimately, all sin is punished.  Either one suffers for one's sins (on earth
and/or in eternity) or Jesus suffers instead.  Just because some have already
suffered, and the suffering of others is deferred, does not make either past
or future judgment by God "barbaric".  If sins deserve to be punished, as God
says they do, then judgment of sin, either on earth or in eternity, is just.
 
> --
>                                             davec@csufres.csufresno.edu
> I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash is
> they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash stuff,
> then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and go, "What
> was THAT?!"--"Deep Thoughts," by Jack Handey

Regards,

Jim B.
Please send a copy of your reply.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism