From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:20:11 GMT

skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>>>merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>>Suppose, for sake of argument, that Christianity is more-or-less true.
>>>>What I mean by "Christianity" is whatever god says it is.
...
>This is circular because you say "Suppose Christianity is more-or-less
>true (and thus that God exists, etc.), then Christianity is whatever
>God says it is."  

I still wouldn't describe it as a circular argument; I'm not using my
assumption that christianity is more-or-less true to *prove* my other
assertion (that god gets to say what christianity is).  I'm defining
what I mean by christianity; what god says it is, not what humans think
it is.

>   (Christianity is true) implies (God defines Christianity)
>This doesn't help me understand what you mean when you use the word.

True, it says nothing at all about what christianity IS; I'm setting up
god as the sole authority to decide what it IS, to stress that humans'
opinions of what it is do not change what it actually is.  Part of this
is in response to your citing Paul as an authority on what christianity
IS; I say Paul does not get to decide what it is, only offer his views
on what he thinks it is.

>>>Further, I don't see how "Christians cite
>>>Leviticus" fits into this defintion.

>>It doesn't; I use that when you say christians don't follow Leviticus
>>anymore, to show that some christians still do follow parts of it.

>But I don't say that Christians don't follow Leviticus anymore; in
>fact, I pointed out some groups that do (to some extent).  Rather, you
>have said that Christianity includes Leviticus (whatever that means),
>and cited the use of it by Christians as your support.  I don't see
>how this fits, even given the above circular definition.

Like I said, it isn't part of my definition.  I didn't say it would
be part of my definition, you asked how it fit.

>>>As such, I am still at a loss as
>>>to how you define Christianity.

>>If it really exists, god gets to define it.
>>Paul's opinion doesn't change what it *IS*, only what he (and people
>>who agree with him) *THINKS* it is.  Don't confuse the model with
>>the reality; Paul says what (he thinks) christianity is, but Paul
>>could be wrong.

>I'm having trouble understanding you.  Perhaps I will understand
>better when I am clear on how you define Christianity.

>Given what you wrote above, does your assertion that "Christianity
>prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts" have any meaning?
>How do you know what God would say any more than Paul?

Paul (and Jesus) both agree that Leviticus was part of the law given
by god; they and the other disciples took this as an axiom.  However,
the claim that this law no longer applies is from Paul.

>You don't even believe he [god] exists!

Right; but if I started to believe in christianity, I would question Paul's
authority and accuracy in changing the rules.  He isn't perfect, nor is he
said to be perfect (and indeed he is shown to be imperfect).

>Paul claims to have spoken with his son Jesus.

Lots of people have claimed to have spoken with Jesus.
Doesn't mean they have.

>>>(I've pointed out already that the law originally came via a man,
>>>Moses.  If the mere man Moses was given authority to pen God's law,
>>>then could not Paul also be given such authority?)

>>Yes, but Moses' authority was accepted by Jesus and his followers;
>>not so Paul's authority.  Paul could have such authority, but does he?
>>That's what I'm questioning.

>This sort of questioning is good.  But I must say that if our answer
>is "no," then we cease talking about Christianity.

What?  If Paul died before writing anything, we'd still have the
words of Jesus as related by all the other writers.  But this wouldn't
be christianity?  (I agree it would probably look different, but there
would still probably be a religion built on the supposition that Jesus
was the son of god).

>Christianity holds
>that Jesus directly gave Paul authority:

>>>Operating under the supposition "Christianity is true," Paul was an
>>>apostle commissioned by Jesus, the son of God.  Therein lies his
>>>authority to say that the Levitican law has been replaced by grace.

>>Doubtful.

>What do you doubt?  That Christianity holds that Paul was an apostle?
>Or that his apostleship gives him authority?

That his apostleship gives him authority.  I don't see the implications
that apostle --> authority to proclaim god's laws as changed, nor
that apostle --> free of error.

>>Like I've said, you seem to think Paul to be without error, when there
>>is nothing to support this assertion.  Paul, like all the other apostles,
>>is shown to be an ordinary man who makes mistakes (he persecuted christians,
>>etc), so why must he be accurate now?

>(Clarification:  I do not hold Paul to be without error.)

OK; isn't it rather reckless to believe Paul when he says you can ignore
laws laid down by god?  (my opinion that they actually aren't from god
is irrelevant; both you and Paul believe Leviticus was given by god, so
why trust the word of a man who you don't believe is without error?)

>Moses also made mistakes.  Where does that leave us?

I don't know about you, but it makes me cautious and skeptical.

>>>If this is all we have, then we have absolutely
>>>no idea what the law of God is.  All we have is the opinion of Moses.

>>Yes, but that *IS* taken as an axiom, by Jesus and the apostles.
>>Jesus didn't say Paul's word would be 100% accurate.

>Christianity holds that Jesus comissioned Paul on the road to
>Damascus.  I have no problem with questioning this.  What I do have a
>problem with is calling a religion which throws out Paul, Christianity.

Why?  Isn't it possible that:

1) Jesus was the son of god, was crucified, etc.
   AND
2) Paul wrote a lot of things about what he thought all this meant,
   what god wants, etc. but was (partially or largely) wrong.

>We are saying the same things over and over.  If this is to move
>forward we will need your definition of Christianity.

I've given it; it's what god says it is.

...
>>>In any beginning study of the Christian religion (such as might be
>>>part of a good comparative religion course), one learns that the New
>>>Testament has more weight than the Old in Christianity.

>>What Jesus said, yes, but why should Paul's words outweigh god's?

>I suspect you haven't actually spent time studying Christianity.  This
>question brings out your ignorance of even the basic tenants of the
>religion.  Christianity holds that Paul's words agree with God's.
>Thus, neither can outweigh the other.

You seem to exclude the possibility that Paul was wrong; you can take it
as an axiom that Paul is right, but I don't see anything in (say) Jesus's
words to believe that.  If I believed that Jesus WAS the son of god, I
still wouldn't have any basis to believe that Paul's pronouncements were
correct.  If you want to take it as just one more axiom, fine, but
it looks like an additional assumption to me, not a conclusion drawn from
previous axioms.

>>(Also, this doesn't answer why Leviticus is carved (differently by
>>different people) into some that apply to them and some that don't).

>You deleted my answer.  I will replace it below.

>#The Levitican law is
>#held to be non-binding on the Christian, based partly on the words of
>#Paul in the New Testament.  However, certain topics addressed in the
>#law were also addressed by N.T. writers.

>To make this more clear, I'll add that it is these references that
>Christians use to "carve Leviticus," as you say.  Here's the "for
>instance" that appeared in my last post:

>#As I've said, admonitions against homosexuality were issued in the New
>#Testament, at least according to English translations.  Most other
>#Levitican sex laws, including the one you note, were not mentioned.
>#That is the distinction Christianity makes.  Now you know.

>Obviously some interpretation is required, which will lead to
>different outcomes for different people, as you have observed.

>>>If someone
>>>thinks this should be different, he is free to do so, but the
>>>resulting religion is not called "Christianity."

>>Like I've been trying to say, it's perfectly possible that Jesus is the son
>>of god, and that Paul's opinion is simply the opinion of a fallable human.
>>This would make the central tenet of christianity true, but all that Paul
>>wrote about it wrong, or at least suspect.  You don't even seem to consider
>>it a possibility, thus inappropriately elevating Paul's accuracy to 100%.

>Until you define Christianity, I am at a loss to know what you think
>is the central tenet of Christianity.

Jesus being the son of god.

>Certainly Paul could be wrong.  I've made no claim to the contrary
>(though I have said that Christianity claims Paul was right; you
>should notice that I have not been presenting my own beliefs, just
>those of Christianity).  However, if this is how you seek to prove
>your assertion that "Christianity prescribes the death penalty for
>homosexual acts" you shall have to show that Christianity holds that
>Paul is wrong.  Good luck.

Just that Paul has no authority to repeal laws laid down by god.
I still don't see why Paul must be considered right, unless you
take it as a given.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15798 talk.religion.newage:4038 alt.pagan:8317 talk.religion.misc:14747