Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Law and Christianity (sort of) Message-ID: <574@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 11:25:38 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.574 Posted: Thu Feb 21 11:25:38 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 01:27:18 EST References: <249@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <3299@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 95 >>>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. [CharlEY Wingate] >>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. 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? [TIM MARONEY] > 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. [CHARLEY WINGATE] But, alas, during most of history since then they have been, and they have done so. As Tim mentioned, laws were in force prohibiting non-Christians from any number of actions. But even today, in a supposedly democratic non-religiously-controlled state, the public mindset stigmatizes those who are not "good Christians", thus debasing in one swipe both non-Christians AND anyone within the Christian community who doesn't adhere to what any given group may perceive as a proper sense of "duty". > 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! In reading such passages in terms of today's world, who are the Pharisees if not the church itself. If Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) were to appear today, would his invective not be directed straight at the same churches which proclaim their "rightness" in his name? >>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. [TIM] > 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. [CHARLEY] (I'm noting the current date and time!!! There is a god, and there are miracles!) > That doesn't mean that all of Christianity today (or even in the past) would > advocate such practices. Please explain what precisely has CHANGED resulting in the Christian mainstream no longer advocating such practices. > It doesn't mean that such practices can be theologically justified, even in > Christianity. The practices have been justified theologically, and doubtless will continue to be justified in that way. > And I might point out that it was also JEWISH sexual morality which was > written into law. Yeah, that's always bugged me. Earlier in your article, in response to Tim's comments about the Old Testament, you claimed that as a Christian (not a Jew) you were not obligated to follow the laws of the "Old Testament" (they weren't applicable to Christians). Why then, are laws like the ones you describe above somehow arbitrarily codified as societal 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...) Somehow, I don't feel either honored or defamed by this. I *do* resent the fact that people DO choose to simply delete EVERYTHING that ANY particular given individual has to say using a "kill file". It speaks ill of one's acceptance of what other people have to say, and one's willingness to listen to those who disagree with you. This belongs in net.religion.christian, where discussion of Christian issues takes place. (By the way, I find your tactic of using the Followup-to line to reroute any rebuttal to your arguments into net.flame to be rude and offensive.) -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr