Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Catching up
Message-ID: <678@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 02:03:05 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.678
Posted: Thu Dec  8 02:03:05 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 02:28:15 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 117

Yeah, me again. I hope you all enjoyed the absence of any major articles
by me (one paired posting since I broke my ankle three months ago).
Well, if you didn't, too late now. Let's see what we have where my input
might be profitable:
	Creation vs. Evolution (separate article)
	Authority of Paul's Writings (and the Bible for that matter)
	Life in a Judeo-Christian State (it's been a while)

Byron Howes cast doubts on any divine authority of Paul's writings. Why
not take it a step further and doubt the authority behind anything in
the Bible; after all, weren't the words written down by mere men? :-(
The authority of the Bible is one of the two presuppositions of the
Christian faith ("God is, and He has spoken in the Bible"). If each man
can judge the authority of a passage, who needs God?

A book has no more authority than its canonizer(s). If the Council of
Carthage canonized the New Testament, then it has only as much authority
as the Council (and hardly that of the Word of God). To be the Word of
God, with the authority of God, the books had to be canonical *when they
were written.* All man can do is recognize what God has done. Paul
recognized Luke's writings; Peter recognized Paul's; in the era just
after the apostles, virtually all of the New Testament books had been de
facto accepted. (The writings of the early church fathers prove most
helpful here. It is noted that their writings include all but 11 verses
of the New Testament.)

Pam Troy's article on "Life in a Judeo-Christian" brought more than a
few thoughts to mind. The first is the definition of a Judeo-Christian
state. Two possibilities: 1) like Israel of old, with a sort of semi-
official state "religion" (although there would be problems arising from
disagreements on how God should be worshipped); 2) a state where the
laws generally conform to what has been called the "Judeo-Christian
ethic," with laws regarding sexual behavior, abortion, theft, murder,
and the like.

Before I get to those, some thoughts regarding powers in general. That
which has the power to do you good also has the power to do you evil.
In our desire to ensure the legal rights of everyone and to keep the
innocent from being punished, dangerous criminals are let loose because
a fallible human made a mistake. The guy may be clearly guilty, yet in
our efforts to protect a high and holy law, we sacrifice society and
cause the non-criminal to live behind locked doors and barred windows.

Further, any right you have depends on someone to enforce it. People
scream about fraud (welfare, employee, employer, etc.), yet because of
privacy laws (to avoid Big Brother), background investigations which
would have brought these to light are stifled.

And then there's the question of whether powers should keep secrets, or
whether they should all be public knowledge. The latter is the height of
naivete, for it assumes everybody, everywhere, is totally trustworthy. If
that were the case, who would need governments? Reality speaks otherwise.

Finally there's the matter of real religious freedom as the country
stands now. I hear so much about "you can't legislate morality."
BALONEY! Every law on the books is legislated morality! That's what
legislatures are for - to determine right and wrong, and associate
punishment with the wrong. The question is WHOSE morality. If your
religion practices human sacrifices on the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial, I think you'll definitely find there has been a law passed
regarding your free exercise thereof. (Don't laugh too hard; there was a
convict in a California prison who claimed a religion that required the
sacrifice of a nude young woman.)

Now back to the original questions. If (1), the question is already
answered in the Bible, in the history of the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah. Depending on the particular person in power, life for a devout
follower of the God of Israel could either be wonderful or miserable.
Depends on the one(s) in authority being trustworthy.

Before considering (2), let us consider the opposite of (1), which is
also illustrated in the Bible: essentially, anarchy, or (Judges 21:25)
"In those days, there was no king in Israel: every man did that which
was right in his own eyes." That pretty well summarizes the whole book
of Judges. Yet in the press for personal "freedom"s in this country,
this is what we are headed for. And it only takes one with a mind to
misuse "freedom" to make the rest regret. So we have the same problem as
before - untrustworthiness of people.

(2) re-establishes "one nation under God." It acknowledges that our
"rights" are not ours innately, but are granted to us by the One who
also laid down the guidelines for the law. The emphasis would be on
responsibilities, and the need for each of us to fulfill our particular
one(s). It establishes a morality profitable to the majority of the
well-intentioned. It would change the judicial system from the current
adversary system back into a quest for truth. Certainly, there are more
possibilities for abuse than the current system, yet I think the reward
is worth it: a safe and sane society, peace in the streets, a respect
for those in authority, an active discouragement of wrongdoing; a
resulting benefit is that those in positions of potential abuse would
realize that abuse would be more dangerous to themselves and thus not
worth it (Economics of Crime 101).

Would witches have problems? Probably. Although worship of God could
not be compelled, it would be made evident to all that the basis for
both law and government is God, and that practice which would place
another above the law-giver shows disrespect for the law.

Would public-school children be compelled to pray as their teacher does?
Even as the school day begins with the Pledge of Allegiance, so the
teacher can also ask the class to pause and remember the Source of the
laws, freedoms, and privileges they have.

And with the emphasis on responsibilities, we would see a lot of things
that the government is unnecessarily involved in (but placed there
because we can't trust others to do them) placed back in the hands of
the people - education and welfare among them. It would be to the
advantage of high-tech business to sponsor educators, so that the stream
of bright young minds doesn't dry up. Supply-and-demand would ensure
that we would have the training we need in the fields where it is needed.

I don't have Pam's article in front of me, so I don't remember the rest
of the questions. But I hope this has given insight that the problem is
not cut-and-dried, and that where we are is not a stopping point but a
transition to one. And no points other than the three above come to mind.

Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab