Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!mephisto!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Tools of the Antichrist
Message-ID: <Sep.20.04.01.26.1990.19747@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 90 08:01:28 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner)
Lines: 92
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

All this business about killing, death, murder, torture, has nothing
whatsoever to do with the subject under consideration.  I really have no
idea where it came from, certainly not me, because I know jhpb's
theology pretty well.

Darren's original objection that started this whole thread was that
putting people to death for what they believe is a tool of the
Antichrist.

My point is that, abstracting from what form such opposition might take,
opposing people on grounds of what they believe -- AND cause to be acted
out -- is quite appropriate.  (Beliefs not translated into acts
are certainly beyond the scope of any government.)

Darren wrote:

    The main point of Joe's article seems to be here:
    
    > Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of
    > Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.
    
Yes!

    But this has two problems:
    
    1) Jesus did not tell us to do this; he told us to spread the Gospel,
       not murder the unconverted.
    
    2) Doing this interferes with obeying Jesus' commands, by clearly
       informing the unconverted that Christianity is something nobody
       sensible wants anything to do with.

Besides the point.  My point is quite a good one, and is nothing else
than Christian common sense.  I'll repeat it:

    Those who wish to spread ideals that, according to the teaching of
    Jesus, lead to eternal death, should be opposed.

Notice, I said "opposed".  I didn't say "murdered", "tortured", or even
"beaten to death with a wet noodle".  I said OPPOSED.  I said nothing
about murder or mayhem of any kind.  Ecuador had none of that, yet you
saw the article in the concordat.  Probably a complete surprise to
everyone here.

I admit the force of your essential objection, only it has nothing to do
with the argument.  You are only touching on what OPPOSED would mean,
which is in great part a matter of prudence.  Great prudence.

I am not addressing that matter, however, I'm talking about the idea of
governmental opposition to spiritual havoc in and of itself.  What I
just repeated in that indented paragraph above is both logical and in
accord with Jesus's teaching.

It is quite as possible to be a murderer in the spiritual realm as it is
in the material.  That is the entire gist of what I'm saying.  If the
charity of Christ urges me to defend my brother from temporal death, so
much more does it urge me to defend him against those who would murder
his soul and cast him alive into Hell for all eternity.

"Christian" Liberals believe in giving perfect freedom to anyone to
ridicule the Bible, blaspheme Christ and his Blessed Mother, push as
many people as possible into atheism, immorality of all kinds, as long
as they preserve public order.  In a word, take as many as they can to
Hell, but don't give anyone a headache.

I think that sort of thinking is worthy of ridicule.  Don't steal his
car, but feel perfectly free to convince him that God doesn't exist?  A
case of slightly disordered values. I think.

Governments are obliged to watch over the temporal order, yes.  But
Governments composed of Christians have an added duty, to defend their
weaker brothers in Christ from those who would rob them of Christ, given
half a chance.  And there are always such around.

Christ had to be crucified.  But when Christ is in danger -- in your
brothers in Christ -- you don't stand idly by while He's killed again.
You do something about it.  I think the pro-life people would
understand.

Keep in mind that I am saying nothing about the US of A, but rather, how
things *should* be in a nation made up of followers of Jesus.  We hardly
have such a situation here at the moment.

And please forget this stuff about death and torture.  There have been
*plenty* of Catholic countries in the past few centuries, just like
Ecuador under Garcia Moreno, and they had none of that.

A modern example to some extent is Ireland, where, so one poster in
t.r.m told us a while back, abortion, divorce, and contraceptives are
illegal.  Undoubtedly, for the reasons I have just given.

Joe Buehler