Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Law and Christianity (sort of)
Message-ID: <3299@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 23:43:18 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3299
Posted: Mon Feb 18 23:43:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 08:42:31 EST
References: <249@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Followup-To: net.flame
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 89

[Go ahead, read this flame; you've earned it, Tim]

Ahem. In article <249@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:

>>>They share more than a "label".  When part of the belief system itself
>>>GLORIFIES the rightness of the believers and their RIGHT to "correct"
>>>the behavior of others around them, that's more than just sharing a
>>>label.  And that's my point.  [Rich Rosen]

>>Rich, if you think that every sect and denomination of christianity believes
>>in a right to force everyone into line with their particular morality, then
>>you either don't what you're talking about or you don't care.  Quote me some
>>NT scripture to justify your point. [me]

>Yes, Charles, virtually all Christian sects DO believe that.  The only
>exceptions are those churches that believe in universal salvation.  I would
>expect you, a Christian, to be aware of the doctrine in the Gospels that God
>has the right to force everyone to follow his particular opinion on morals,
>and even to torture those who refuse.  Virtually all Christian churches
>believe in this right. [Tim]

No mainline protestant church has as one of its aims the establishment of
"Christian" morality as the sole basis of law.  I can't speak for the rest.
I won't even attempt to explain doctrine of salvation, since Tim has
demonstrated that he is not ready to receive my words on the subject (and I
suspect that anyone who would listen has enough sense not to read this
article).  Volumes and volumes have been written on the subject.  I suggest
Tim might want to read some Reinhold Niebuhr, or some other protestant
thelogian.

>When it comes down to the rights of HUMANS to do this, nothing in the New
>Testament comments either way.  At all.  Can you cite any scripture which
>shows clearly that people do NOT have the right to impose Christian morality
>on unbelievers?

THe NT does not concern itself with rights; it concerns itself with duty.
Now I suppose I might find some scripture to quote on my side, but I doubt
it; christians in Paul's time were not in a position to dictate public
morality.

On the other hand, I would argue that Jesus' invective against the hypocrisy
of the Pharisees indicates that a certain tolerance of other's actions.
Also, consider the Pericope of the Adulteress (commonly placed in John);
Jesus refuses to condemn the woman EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS CLEARLY SINNED.  And
she was SUPPOSED to be an adherent of the religion which prescribed that
law!

>Since the Old Testament is crammed full of "good" people
>serving God by killing and persecuting unbelievers, and the New Testament
>contains no scriptures that contradict this, and Christians don't have the
>moderating rabbinical interpretations of the OT, then, yes, it is safe to
>say that imposing your beliefs on others is a inherent part of Christianity.

Totaly wrong.  OT law is certainly not binding upon me, since I am not a Jew;
the same is, of course, true for the overwhelming majority of christians.
The fact that you, Tim, should make such an argument indicates to me the
hopelessness of me trying to explain what I believe to be a more correct
position to you.  However....

>Allow me to point out that until this century (that's nineteen centuries if
>you're counting) almost all Christian countries had laws against
>non-Christians holding public office; Christian sexual morality was written
>into law; particularly deviant heretics were put in jail or executed by
>Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on.  Christianity is and always has
>been a religion that practices the harrassment of unbelievers; and if you
>disagree with these historical facts, it is you who are ignorant or
>uncaring, not Rich.

I know all this; in fact, when it comes to burning heretics, I would venture
a guess that I know more than you do, Tim.  I'll even agree that Christianity
has a long history of persecuting non-believers.

That doesn't mean that all of Christianity today (or even in the past) would
advocate such practices.

It doesn't mean that such practices can be theologically justified, even in
Christianity.

And I might point out that it was also JEWISH sexual morality which was
written into law.

But I don't expect you to listen, Tim, because you've already decided that
christianity is evil.  So I won't waste any further time arguimg.

You should be proud to be only the second person to be removed from this
group by my kill file.  (No, Rich, you aren't #1; I haven't dealt with YOU
yet...)

Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe