Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscd5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd
From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: back to Paul Dubuc again.
Message-ID: <483@cbscd5.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Sep-83 10:28:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscd5.483
Posted: Thu Sep  1 10:28:54 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Sep-83 04:04:01 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 450


	[from Tom Harris]
	   ...However, I also have to point out several similar mistakes in
	Paul's article.
		...--practices that were condemned by the early
		Christians even before the Hippocratic Oath came into strong
		acceptance.
	The Hippocratic Oath was strongly accepted long before
	Christ was born (among the Greek doctors at least).  In
	fact the oath was old enough and well enough accepted
	that Hippocrates himself had become a part of the
	mythos.  Also while the Greek's (with some pride) claim
	to have invented the Orgy I seriously doubt that it is
	true (they probably just invented a name for it).

Thanks for correcting my history here.  But you missed the main point
of my statement.  The Hippocratic Oath (actually it's origin, author,
and degree of accptance are unclear to modern scholars) seems to forbid
abortion and infanticide.  Yet the Greeks practiced them extensively.
Both Plato (*Republic* 5.9) and Aristotle (*Politics* 7.14.10) promoted
them for the good of the state.  To Plato and Aristotle human rights
were not absolute.  All human rights were subordinate to the welfare
of the state.  The Bible does not view human rights this way.  They
are viewed as unalienable.  Our government was also founded with this view
of human rights.
	
	My reply to several other points in the article.
	I. The U.S. Govt and the Bible
	    If I didn't know better I would assume that Paul was
	actually siding with me here.  The various churches have
	always treated the Amerinds as human beings and
	attempted to convert them.  Few churches taught that
	they were inferior beings especially after conversion. 
	The treatment of them as inferior was a cultural
	phenomenon totally unrelated to Christianity (however
	some people tried).  Therefore had the U. S. Government
	truly been motivated by the Bible they should have taken
	an entirely different path in their dealings.

My point in discussing the American Indians was that, for the most
part there was little strong objection to the Government's treatment
of the Indians.  Whatever the church taught, it seems to me that most
people did not love Indians, but considered them to be "savages" and "heathen".
It's true that some groups of Christians actually lived out biblical
teaching and treated the Indians as equals on a human level.  But I think
they were quite exceptional.

Anyway, I wonder why you have chosen such a negative example to illustrate
the fact that the government has not always acted upon a biblical basis
of morality.  Maybe we can both agree that the government should have acted
according to biblical principals in it's treatment of the Americian
Indian. In my original response to Pamela Troy's article I admitted
that the governments submission to the biblical standard of morality has
not been ideal.  But in your response to that article you said that "Our
government has *virtually never* based it's actions on Biblical stuff.."
[emphasis mine].  In this response you seem to have ignored my question as
to why people have tradionally appealed to the Bible as the basis for
morality instead of the Greeks.  You have maintained that the traditional
mores of our society were Greek in origin.  I have pointed out the Greek
acceptace of abortion, infanticide, orgies, and their rejection  of human
rights as being absolute are strong conflicts to your assertion.  I would
agree that the mores of our society are moving toward those of the Greeks
but I don't think they have always been there.  I also do not think this
shift is for the better.

Up until about the time Oliver Wendell Holmes presided on the Supreme Court,
law was viewed as being determined according to an absolute standard,
not an evolving one.  Also, those in government
would tend to submit to biblical morality when that standard was held
up to them.  If it was not, that was another matter.

	As for the
	Mormons where in the Bible does it say that a 
	man is not allowed to have two wives?  (Note it would
	have to be the word of God saying it.  The fact that the
	Jews culturally took only one wife is irrelevant in this
	context. The same goes for Englishmen).  Thou shall not
	commit adultery won't wash as you can have two wives
	without being adulterous.

Biblical teaching assumes monogamy as the marital arrangement that
is acceptable to God.  In the abscence to commands to the contrary, it
holds that polygamy is unbiblical.  For example:

Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and
cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." (RSV)

Note that "wife" is singular and that if a man becomes "one flesh" with
a woman it is implied that he cannot also be one flesh with another woman.
The Bible records the practice polygamy among the Hebrews, but that does
not mean it was condoned by God.

In Matthew 19:3-9 Jesus confirms Genesis 2:24 as the acceptable form of
marriage.  Also in verse 9 he says, "whoever divorces his wife, except
for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery".  Jesus considered
this adultery because he considered the man to still be married to his
first wife.  This implies that if a man does not divorce his wife and takes
another, this also constitutes adultery.

I do not think that Jewish cultural practices are irrelevant.  The culture
of the Jews was influenced strongly by it's religion (Scriptural teachings).
	
	II. Greece vs the Bible
	   I was commenting that the Greek culture was a filter
	through which the early church passed and which gave
	the church some direction.  This doesn't
	mean that converts did not modify their behavior,
	virtually every human organization has some form of (for
	lack of a better word) hazing by which to test its
	members.  In Catholicism for a long time this was that
	you can't eat meat on Friday and you had to attend
	church every Sunday.

In your previous article you seemed to be implying that the content
(moral standards, specifically) was influenced by the Greeks in the
following statement from your last response:

	"I digress, at any rate the early Christians being in a large part
	Greek brought with them their own concept of how people
	should act and imprinted it upon their new religion and
	it fitted very well with the teachings of Christ (who
	being raised in a Hellenistic envirionment would no
	doubt have been influenced by Greek teachings)."

I asked you to give examples from Jesus' or Paul's teaching to support
this statement.  I would agree that the teaching (of Paul especially)
was conveyed in terms that were easily understood in Greek thinking.
But I do not agree that the substance or quality of that teaching was
either sourced in, or influenced by, Hellenism.  Again, the examples
of "hazing" you give are not of direct biblical origin.  There is nothing
wrong with them as religious practices, however.  Christians are
admonished by Paul not to neglect meeting together, but a specific day and
frequency are not commanded--they may be left up to the culture.

	As I
	said before for a good example of how the church was
	influence by Greece look at the Moslems. 
	They have virtually the same input, but their
	interpretation is vastly different.  To the point where
	Christ is not the son of God, but only a prophet.

Christianity does not have Mohammad's input.  I would not agree
that their input was virtually the same, because Mohammad's influence
on Islam was substantial.
	
	III. Culture vs Religion.
	  It is here that I see Paul and I differing the most. 
	I think that the following statement by Paul can best be
	used to illustrate our differences.
		If you believe that "right" and "wrong", "true" and 
		"false" exist, then two contradicting moral values
		cannot both be right.
	I believe that two contradicting moral values can both
	be right, because the guides used to measure them are
	different.  Let me use a very crude example of what I
	mean by restating Paul's sentence above.
		If you believe that "feet" and "gallons" exist, then two
		contradicting measurements (of the same thing) can not both
		be right.
	Of course if you measure in the metric system you'll get
	a different answer, but it is still the right answer. 
	(As I said a very crude example).  My point can also be
	illustrated using the Geometry example of the two
	dimension world vs a three dimension world i.e. a point
	to point measurement in two dimensions could be different than
	that in three dimensions even if both used the same yard
	stick.  Paul claims that Christianity has only one
	measurement in the Bible, yet could he go out and burn
	me at the stake as a heretic?  I think not (at least I
	don't smell smoke yet).

Aren't you comparing quantitative measurements with qualitative one's here?
In your examples changing the system of measurement alters neither the
substance or the actual quantity of what is being measured.  However
the labels "true" and "false", "right" and "wrong" describe the actual
content of what is being measured.  We can say that 3 feet = 1 yard,
but how many "wrongs" are equal to one "right"?  It doesn't make sense to me.
To me, the Bible is more than the measurement of Christianity, it is
the *definition* of it.

	Yet Christians of at least equal
	intelligence and interpretive powers (and you would be
	gravely mistaken to say that the people of the 15th, 16th and
	17th centuries weren't equal)who read the same book he
	is reading today, but of an ancestral culture have used the Bible
	to do just that.  More importantly they have used one 
	interpretation of the Bible vs another to do that.

Scripture (N.T.) justifies the exclusion of heretics from the
Christian community, but not their execution.  The Jews stoned
heretics, but, as I said before, being a Jew was more than a matter
of faith--a Jew was a Jew by virtue of his physical birth as a
decendant of Abraham.  Gentile converts to Judiasm were not even
allowed into the temple.  Their status as "Jews" were restricted in
other ways also.  The only way to completely deprive a Jew of his
status was to take his life.

	   Paul says that 
		"The Bible is not as open to as wide an interpretation
		as many think--when it is studied carefully and with a
		real desire to know the truth"
	yet what is interpreted as truth is based on culture. 
	When you find a passage in scripture that causes you to
	go up a level in understanding, how do you know it was
	even translated correctly or that you have correctly
	interpreted the syntax of the author?

You might be able to answer that question yourself if you first ask
yourself the question, "How are we sure we know any thing that we know?".
No method of written communication is exaustive.  Yet is is possible
to determine, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the most correct
translation, and meaning.  There are places in Scripture where this is
difficult--and strong doctrine cannot rest on these--but the meaning
of much of Scripture can be accurately determined.  The rules of logic
may be applied within a Scriptural context to determine the meaning.
If you think that no significant contributions have been made in
biblical hermeneutics or exegetics since the 15th, 16th, or 17th
centuries, you are wrong.

Most rational people are able to recognize when one argument is better
than another on a certian subject.  Many are even open to changing
their opinion on a certian matter on the basis of this.  Problems
come in when those of opposing views are not willing to take a critical
look at their own views.  Within a Christian context, this critical
analysis can be done within a biblical framework.

	There is so much
	play in translation, in interpretation of the words
	through time and even the difference between how the
	translator thinks and how you think, that some external
	reference point will always be used to judge right from
	wrong.  For example, the sentence "Upon this rock I will
	build my church" is a pun in Greek.  Peter is a
	transliteration of a mans name but it is also a
	mistranslation since Christ chose that name for its
	meaning i.e. both translations would be right (Peter
	(org. Petros) is the Greek word for rock BTW).

Are you saying that we should call Peter "Rock" instead of Peter?
Maybe so, but what difference does it make in the teaching of the
Bible?  If you are refering here to the Catholic Church's use of
this Scripture to claim that Peter was the first Pope and all Popes
since are his spiritual successors, that is another matter.  Things
like this can't be taken out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
I idea that Peter was the foundation of the Christian Church is
contradicted by the teaching of both Peter (I Peter 5:1-4 Peter
considers himself only one of the leaders of the church and implies
that Jesus is its "Chief Shepherd" and not himself) and Paul (I Corinthians
3:11).  In light of these Scriptures it makes the most sense to
say that the rock Jesus had in mind is not Peter but the statement
Peter had just finished making: "You are the Christ, the Son of the
Living God" (Matthew 16:16-18).

	The Jewish 
	religion and Christian have argued about the phrase in
	the Old Testament predicting the savior would 
	be born of a virgin (the Rabbis translating it as young
	woman).  Young woman implies Virgin more or less,
	depending on your point of view.

At the time of Christ, "virgin" seemed to be the accepted translation.
It seems to me that the motivation to reconsider this translation may
have been composed largely from the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the
Messiah.  It wasn't an issue until the Christ was born of a virgin.
I have no problems with "young woman" being used here because it does
not exclude the young woman being a virgin.  But its use as an alternate
to "virgin" raises some questions in my mind.

1) Are there distinct O.T. Hebrew words for "virgin" and "young woman"
   (who is not a virgin)?

2) If Isaiah meant "young married woman", what is the significance of
   even mentioning the conception?  It seems superfluous to prophecy.
   Aren't all men born of a woman?  Why even mention that she was young?

	   At any rate you have not reconciled how cultures
	which have never heard of Jesus can be moral.  How
	primitive cultures which do not really have any Gods
	(just ancestral spirits) could have any mores at all.
	Christianity and even Judeaism are relative late comers
	on the human scene, yet morality was there with out any
	word from God.  I say its the culture not the religion
	that gives us these things.  The culture may indeed
	modified by the religion, but the reverse is equally
	likely to happen.

Judeaism and Christianity claim to go back to the creation of mankind.
It follows that if God is moral, man (created in his image) is also
moral.  There are a number of non-physical qualities that distinguish
man from animals that could be considered to be vestiges of God's image. 

In a moral society that has no religion (although worship of ancestral
spirits could be considered a religion which dictates a certian morality)
it could be argued that culture produces the morals.  But does this
prove that culture produces the morals in all societies, even those
strongly influenced by religion?  I think not.

What happens when God reveals himself to a people who have had no
direct knowledge of his existence and reveals his own moral code?
If the people then adhere to that code, can it still be said that
their morals are dictated by their culture?

It is not always easy to distinguish what characteristics of a society
are purely of a cultural derivation and which were influenced by religion.
	
	IV. Shifting Moral Values
	   Can anyone out there say that the moral values of our
	society have not changed?  I have seen our culture
	change.  I have seen the moral basis this country
	operated on change.  I can remember when the draft and
	being a soldier were good things to the people of this
	country.  Hell, I can remember what real soldiers look like.  
	I have read about times less than 100 hundred years ago
	when a person was inferior because of his skin color or
	his accent and I am damned happy to live in a time when
	that is changing.  I have seen an era when our society
	has accepted free love and gay Christians as a valid part of
	itself.  The moral views of our society have evolved and there
	are no absolutes.  Paul wrote:
		But the moral values of society rest on shifting
		sands if there is no higher standard.
	It seems to me that, if we assume that the Bible is our
	higher standard it fails miserably.

When a standard is not adhered to, is it the standard that is a
failure, or the adherents?  I do not make the claim that the Bible
is America's moral standard, only that it has been--more than it is
today.  The Bible is no longer the basis for morality in the U.S.
You have quoted me out of context here and have not answered the
question I asked, "By what standard are they [Atheists and Christians]
to be judged as crooks?" [ if not biblical morality ].  The standard
you propose must trancend the culture to be valid.  If it depends
strictly on it's cultral context then we would have to say that
all Christians in Russia are crooks, and the Blacks or women of
some cultures are actually inferior to whites or men.

Deviation from a moral standard does not necessarily mean the standard
has changed, it may just reflect the abandonment of it by the people.
I understand that there are many religious practices and beliefs that
vary according to the culture.  From a biblical standpoint there is
nothing wrong with this as long as such practices and beliefs are not
in contradiction with Scripture.  The Bible does not explicitly dictate
a certian, acceptable form of culture.  It is, however, very clear on
what moral conditions are unacceptable to God.  Galatians 5:19-21 contains
a definite list.  It is also interesting to note that Romans 1:14-32
speaks of mankind in general, irrespective of religion.  Here Paul notes
that certian moral values of God are revealed in nature (His creation),
yet man has transgressed them.
	
I am not against moral change.  But what do we use to guide that
change, to determine whether or not the change is better?  How
would we decide that the morals of our society are heading in
the wrong direction and we ought to turn around?  What would give
us the authority to tell the individuals in our society that their
values are destructive?

	V. Marxism
	   It seems to me that our inherent cultural fear of
	Marxism seems to plague some people.  Yet nothing I said
	was contradicted.  In fact the discussion turned
	decidely in its course from BR (Biblical Reference) to
	BS (figure it out yourself).  It also seemed to me that
	Paul proved Marxism superior to Christianity.  The
	syntax I got from his words was that Marxism thinks men
	can be made better on Earth, but God prevents this.
	
		On this basis the Christian would predict that Marxism
		will never achieve the ends it desires because only God
		changes men's hearts.  Marxists look for patterns in
		history and view it as naturally evolving toward a
		socialist order.  Christianity is not naturalistic in
		this sense.  It  acknowledges God's ability to intervene
		in history and change the "natural" course of events. 
		Marxists seem to believe that a perfect social,
		political, and economic order can be obtained on earth. 
		To biblical Christianity, this type of perfection is
		impossible.  It views the world as fallen, not evolving.
		 Biblical principals may be implemented in society
		successfully, but that success, great as it may seem,
		can never be more than a reflection of God's perfect
		order.  This does not make the biblical principals
		inferior to any others because their success depends on
		the working of God, not man. 
		(I think this paragraph needs work, Paul you
		ought to tune god down a little!)

You're right in that the paragraph needs work.  But I think it made a
little more sense in its original context.  If you are saying that
I prove Marxism superior to Christianity because with Christianity
there is no way for men to become gods, you have a point.  But all
I was saying here is that men, by their nature, are not, and never
will become perfect as a result of their own efforts. I did not say
that God prevents man's betterment.  Maybe all I was really trying
to do was apply Jesus' statement here: "With men this is impossible;
but with God all thinks are possible". (Matthew 19:26)
	
	Actually the dialectic principle works really well in
	hindsight since it is basically that when you combine
	two things you get a third.  I have used translated
	Soviet Archeological articles written with a dialectic
	twang that are just super.  It works for religion as
	well i.e. you combine Luther with Catholicism and you
	get Lutheranism.  The place it falls down is in
	predicting the future.  Nevertheless, while not a
	Marxist, I prefer evolution since I don't believe there
	is such a thing as devolution.  After all evolution
	really has no direction all paths lead onward through
	time.
	
I don't think synthesis is a valid form of logic.  Just how do
you combine Luther (a person) with Catholicism (a religious
ideology)?  If by "Luther" you mean Luther's ideology, how is this
different from Lutheranism?  On what basis do you make the distinction?
What you really seem to be saying is
that Lutheranism + Catholicism = Lutheranism, which doesn't make
sense to me.  You say that the dialectic principal is not of much
use in predicting the future.  Yet the Marxists seem to rely on it
for this.
	
Evolution, by definition, involve a development, from a lower,
simple state to a higher, more complex state through the passage
of time.  It is not simply the passage of time.

In the closing of another long article I would like to say that I
have tried to enter into a reasoned discussion of the subjects
discussed.  I do not feel that the categorization of my statements
as "BS" contributes to this in any substantial way.  I also
am frustrated by any discussion in which a person ignores my requests
to support his own statements. (I do not ask all questions rhetorically.
I am often in need of a clear explanation of another's point of view).
I invite criticism (I wouldn't bother with the net otherwise) and
do not expect others to accept what I say without discussion.
But I don't like to argue for the sake of argument.  Perhaps this is
too much to expect on the net.  I don't know.  Tom, if all you want
is to have the last word in this discussion, I will be happy to comply.
>From the manner in which you have responded to my articles I get the
feeling that you are not really interested in my point of view, but
only in making light of the obvious (I admit) weaknesses in my communication
of it.  I submit this article to the net in the belief that there are
those who are interested.  I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart here, I just
hope to express some of the frustration that I feel many experience
with discussions on the net.

I also realize that many who are not Christians are not interested
in biblical references.  But in discussing what Christianity teaches
I find it impossible to do otherwise.  As I said, I consider the Bible to
define Christianity. 

Paul Dubuc