Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Law and Christianity (sort of)
Message-ID: <278@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 10:36:34 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.278
Posted: Wed Feb 20 10:36:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 04:15:36 EST
References: <249@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <3299@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 199


 From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Mon Feb 18 23:43:18 1985:

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

Don't you think "tantrum" would have been a more appropriate term?  By the
way, I was not amused by your "followup-to" line, which attempted to prevent
me from responding in net.religion.  Your motivations are as transparent as
usual, jerk.

> > > 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. [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. [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.

Note that word "sole".  Almost slips right by you, doesn't it?  Almost.
Nice try, Chuck.  Clearly mainline Protestant denominations do believe in
basing some laws upon "Christian morality", even if not all.

> 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.

Oh, well, if volumes and volumes have been written on the subject, then I
guess that proves my position false.  Right.

You may not believe this, Charley, but I have read books on Christian
theology, as I have read books on every other major religion and many minor
ones.  (The ones on Christianity were the biggest time-wasters of the lot,
and I have no intention of wasting any more time on them when I could be
doing something constructive -- like finding out what the heck Sikhism
is....)  I am familiar with the usual rationalizations on the subject.  The
most prevalent one is that Hell is voluntary.  God supposedly does not send
people to Hell at all; they send themselves by refusing to bend to his will.
Mm-hm.  Let's try the following Gospel passages on the subject of Hell to
see which they support: voluntarism, or the position that damnation to Hell
is something that gets done to you.

Mat. 11:23 "And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be exalted as high as
heaven?  You shall be thrown down to hell."  Mat. 18:9 "... it is better for
you to enter into life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be thrown
into the hell of fire."  Mat. 18:34-35 "And in his anger the master handed
him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt.  And that is how
my heavenly Father will deal with you...." Mat. 22:13 "Then the king said to
the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the dark,
where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.'"  Mat. 24:51 "The master
will cut him off and send him to the same fate as the hypocrites, where
there will be weeping and grinding of teeth."  Mat. 25:30 "As for this
good-for-nothing servant, throw him out into the dark, where there will be
weeping and grinding of teeth."  Mat. 25:32,41 "[The Son of Man] will
separate men one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats....
Next he will say to those on his left hand, 'Go away from me, with your
curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

This includes an excerpt from every major passage on Hell in Matthew (except
the story of the foolish virgins).  They are unanimous in describing
damnation as something that God does to people.  So much for the voluntarism
rationalization.  It's amazing, how willing many Christians are to ignore
what their own scriptures say in favor of something they made up that they
find more palatable.

> > 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.

You want us to provide NT scripture to prove our position, but you don't
have to provide any to prove yours.  That's fair.  You put the burden of
proof right where it belongs.  ("Where's that, Uncle Timmy?"  "Why, on the
other side, of course!")

> 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!

An anti-Semitic tirade ("Pharisee" is synonymous with "Jew", modern Judaism
having come straight from the Pharisees) indicates tolerance should be given
to others' actions?  Mind running that one by me again?  As for the story
about the adulteress, all you have shown is a contradiction in Jesus'
behavior.  He says not to judge, all the while claiming that certain
specific groups of people (Jews, pagans, tax collectors) are horrible and
evil and deserve eternal torture.  Not only that, he says they should not be
treated well even in this life!  See Mat. 18:17: "... if he refuses to
listen to the community, treat him like a pagan or a tax collector."

> > 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....

Please tell me where you find in my message any reference to the Mosaic law
or any implication that Christians are bound by it.  You couldn't answer my
point, so you changed it to something you could handle.  The fact is that
virtually all Protestant sects hold that the Old Testament prophets who
personally ordered these slaughters were among the most virtuous of men.

> > 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.

My guess is that if you really knew much about it, you would have said
"hanging" rather than "burning", since that was by far the more common
method of execution.  And no, not all Christians would advocate this
imposition.  However, every mainstream Christian church today has in its
recent (the last 200 years or so) past periods when such practices were
openly advocated by the church hierarchy.  Furthermore, many such churches
still exist, such as the sects associated with the TV shows the 700 Club,
the Jim Bakker Show (formerly PTL Club), and the Old Time Gospel Hour
(Falwell's show).  These sects are all large enough to have revenues far in
excess of ten million dollars a year each.  And the most that any other
fundamentalist will say against the shows in public is that they are
suspicious of the shows' fund-raising practices.  Mainstream imposition of
morality is alive and well.

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

Obviously they were given theological justifications by the churches that
practiced them.  You seem to be implying some absolute standard by which one
can determine exactly what is or is not scripturally justified; if there
were any such, there would be only one Christian sect.  You have no greater
claim to scriptural correctness than the Christians who gave theological
justifications for imposing their morality.  I should note that you have
cited no scripture at all to support your position.

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

You might, but so what?  What difference would that make?  And why did you
put "Jewish" in all capitals?

> 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.

Yet more fun with double standards.  The mere fact that I have an opinion on
the subject means I am not worth talking to.  Of course, the fact that
Charley has already decided that Christianity is good couldn't possibly have
biased him the way he claims my opinion has biased me.  Certainly not.
After all, he's right and I'm wrong.  Who ever heard of someone within a
religion being willing to rationalize to justify that religion?

> 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...)

Why should I be proud?  I am somewhat embarrassed for you, since your
attitude is so transparent.  I showed your shoddy rationalizations for what
they are one too many times, so you're taking your ball and going home.  Why
don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and count as loud as you can
so you won't have to hear what I'm saying?
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.