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!sun!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Unfinished Business (>2 weeks old)
Message-ID: <770@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jan-84 03:07:21 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.770
Posted: Fri Jan 13 03:07:21 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jan-84 03:25:31 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 117

[Because of the influx of net.religion article and my own busy schedule
(something called "working 50-60-oo hours a week), it will take me a
while just to catch up on the articles in just through today. The
current article deals with stuff at least two weeks old.]

[Continuation of discussion started by Pam Troy on "Life in a Judeo-
Christian state." I no longer have Pam's original reply, so will
paraphrase from memory. Other later articles I still have.]

On the subject of the courts reverting back from their clog-prone
adversary system back to a quest for truth, it was thought that I meant
"quest for THE truth" (i.e., Scriptural or whatever). Not so. A quest
for truth finds out the matter of the case: did the person do that which
he is charged with? I know this is a death knell for sue-happy America's
overabundance of lawyers, and will probably wipe out jobs for a lot of
appellate justices. But then, the idea of fewer muggers, murderers, and
rapists on the loose doesn't appeal to a lot of people. :-(

[Pam] "If I were browbeaten into adopting a 'Christian' lifestyle, would
that make me moral, even if my convictions about sex and religion remain
unaltered? If not, then what is the purpose of attempting to legislate
morality?"

I won't answer this until I get two straight answers:
	WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF "MORAL[ITY]"?
	WHAT IS THE BASIS OF MORALITY?
Pam keeps trying to separate legal from moral ("Murder and theft are
immoral...Murder and theft are also illegal, not because they are
immoral..."). No answer to this question will satisfy unless and until
I am able to address your idea of "moral." Then we will see the real
question is "WHOSE morality is legislated?"

BTW, if your "convictions" are indeed convictions, they will get you
into hot water just as surely as Daniel was (under the decree of Darius).

Perhaps you need to see one of your own points in the mirror - "a
society which allowed such things to go unchecked would not function."
1. Where have you been since Mohammed's forces swept across the Middle
East and northern Africa? Those societies still function (according to
their definition :-) Also, I seem to remember something called the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution...
2. America is losing its ability to function. As I noted in my first
reply, this society is making contradictory demands of its leadership,
and the adage of the house divides against itself applies well. But
then, to those who have already made up their minds, the evidence of
decay means nothing.

More on "The power to do good is also the power to do evil" (perhaps
better phrasing than my original): if an individual or group in any kind
of authority has the ability to cause you benefit, it also has the
ability to do you harm - otherwise it has no authority, by nature.

Laura:"I think that love has the power to do me good but not evil..."

Ever hear "The love of money is the root of all evil"?

Laura: "Punishment is only useful when it acts as a deterrent."

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed SPEEDILY, therefore
the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
					Ecclesiastes 8:11

Larry: "Further, any right you have depends on someone to enforce it."

Laura: "Rights do not come from laws - laws come from rights."

1. How do you keep your rights from being violated?
2. What do you do to someone who does violate your rights?

Laura, on how a Judeo-Christian state would handle witches: "Perhaps
they are going to use the more modern techniques of electroshock and
brainwashing."

Smells like a cow pasture. "Sword evangelism" doesn't do it. I can't
compel you to believe inwardly the way I do (the Baptist vs. the
Lutherans and the Presbyterians would prove interesting :-), but
obedience to the law is another matter... (see above on legal vs.  moral)

Laura: "I don't want to punish anyone...I would rather fix the people so
they would not murder or rape..."

"Fix"? With what? Lemme guess: "Electroshock and brainwashing." 8-)

Laura: "It sure seemed to me that the book of Judges was about the rules
of the various judges..."

Judges 2:11; 3:7,12; 4:1, 6:1 "And the children of Israel did evil
[again] in the sight of the LORD..." And when they did, God caused an
enemy to oppress them until they confessed their sin. THEN He sent the
judge to deliver Israel.

Ken Almquist: "...a proof of the existence of God would cause an
unpleasantly large change in my view of the world, because I have a
large body of ideas which assume that God does not exist and I would not
like to part with that investment. ...If I do see [a proof for God] I
will have to revise my beliefs, but not before taking a pretty careful
look at the evidence."

Very well stated, for the #1 reason why people refuse to accept Christ -
they feel they have to give up too much.  They only see Christianity as a
set of restrictions, of what you "can't do." Life in Christ isn't a
refurbishing of the old; it's a new life, with new goals. But oft-times
God has to bring a person to his knees to get him to realize that what
God has to offer is better than anything the world-system could offer.

KA: ">If I proved that blacks were less intelligent that whites, would
      you want your child to be held back in a racially integrated
      classroom? <"

Wait a minute, Ken - you're assuming too much. First you have to prove
that my child would be "held back" in a classroom where all the students
were less intelligent (regardless of race).  Then I might consider the
rest of your question.

Enough for this article.
			The igloo of Larry Bickford,
			{sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!lab