>At 07:42 PM 6/2/97 -0500, Russell Cannon wrote:
>>
>>There are really three points here: 1) that Christians can't really
>>agree on "Christian" morals; 2) that some Christians considered "crimes
>>against humanity" acceptable; and 3) the fact that Christians disagree
>>on the standard and that they do not live up to their own standards
>>anyway proves--or at least suggests--that the Christian moral system is
>>not transcendent. In other words, points one and two imply that the
>>system was created by men.
>>
>>(For the best--and simplest--argument against this view, please read
>>book I of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. You may not agree with it,
>>but it does provide a compelling counterpoint to these ideas leaving
>>them somewhat less than a slam dunk.)
>>
>>In refuting this argument, I will first deal with the second point which
>>was to remind us that Christians have justified the killing of many
>>different peoples en masse. In this premise, you are referring to the
>>behavior of people who did not know or understand true Christian
>>morality because it was forbidden them either by law or due to their own
>>ignorance. Those people who were motivated to hate their
>>neighbor--instead of loving them--or to kill their enemies--instead of
>>praying for them--were not animating true Christian morality as it is
>>taught in scripture.
>
>Really? Then why did Jesus say "Think not that I am come to send peace: I
>came not to send peace but a sword," or "But those mine enemies, which would
>not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,"
>or "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men gather them into
>the fire, and they are burned" (a quote that was particularly popular among
>members of the Inquisition).
>
>Or consider the following quote: "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send
>forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that
>offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of
>fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)
>How does one define "things that offend"? A Crusader in the 11th century
>would define that as a Muslim living in Jerusalem. Some modern Christians
>would define that as an atheist, or a homosexual, or an abortion doctor. And
>a few have apparently taken it upon themselves to do the job of the
>aforementioned
>angels.
>
>And what about slavery? Jesus said "And that servant [slave], which knew his
>lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
>shall
>be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) Jesus apparently had no problem
>with slavery -- or with the beating of disobedient slaves. Little wonder that
>slaveholders, all the way up to Abraham Lincoln's day, believed that they were
>being perfectly good Christians.
Is one of the posts about which you said:
>As I have pointed out in other posts (posts to which
>nobody has even tried to respond) one can find Biblical quotes to support
>racism,
>genocide contradictions in the Bible, leads me to the logical conclusion
>that >there can be nothing transcendent or objective about something so
>inconsistent >and illogical as Biblical scripture.
??
I'm going to asssume this is (one of) the one(s) and discuss at least some
of your points. I hope others will join the discussion. I'm not an expert
theologian, but I believe I can clear up some of these points.
First:
>Then why did Jesus say "Think not that I am come to send peace: I
>came not to send peace but a sword,"
One of the results of Jesus' coming was that people who disagreed over his
identity fought with one another. Initially Jews and Pagans attacked
Christians. Later, as we have acknowledged before, Christians attacked
Jews, Moslems and others. I see that statement not as a license for
Christians to attack anyone, but merely a prophecy of the inevitable
conflicts Jesus knew would result from his teaching.
>or "But those mine enemies, which would
>not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,"
This is from one of the parables. It's not a command to anyone to harm
anyone, but rather a warning of what's in store at the end of earthly life
for the rebellious.
>or "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men gather them into
>the fire, and they are burned" (a quote that was particularly popular among
>members of the Inquisition).
Again a figurative warning of the punishment that awaits the rebellious in
the hereafter. Not a command to anyone to harm anyone else. The
Inquisiton misapplied this passage.
>Or consider the following quote: "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send
>forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that
>offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of
>fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)
Again, a figurative account of what will befall the rebellious at the hands
of God (and only at the hands of God) in the hereafter.
>How does one define "things that offend"? A Crusader in the 11th century
>would define that as a Muslim living in Jerusalem. Some modern Christians
>would define that as an atheist, or a homosexual, or an abortion doctor. And
>a few have apparently taken it upon themselves to do the job of the
>aforementioned
>angels.
The Bible also says, "Vengeance is Mine. I will repay." Those who believe
they are the instruments of God's retribution have not read all of the
Scriptures carefully. Just as you rightly disavow (say) Hitler's actions
as being a valid practice of your worldview, I disavow the actions of
so-called Christians (they may be misguided Christians, or they may not
even be Christians at all.) when they violate clear teachings of Scripture
(e.g. love your enemies, visit the sick and those who are in jail, repay
evil with good, care for the poor, the widow and the orphan, etc.)
>And what about slavery? Jesus said "And that servant [slave], which knew his
>lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
>shall
>be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)
Again, this is a parable. You cannot consider a parable a prescription for
how society ought to function, except within the confines of the subject
the parable is intended to teach. A parable has a particular purpose.
It's dangerous to infer anything beyond the clear purpose of the parable.
Jesus apparently had no problem
>with slavery -- or with the beating of disobedient slaves. Little wonder that
>slaveholders, all the way up to Abraham Lincoln's day, believed that they were
>being perfectly good Christians.
But not as a logical consequence of the parable you quoted a fragment from.
Have you read St. Paul's letter to Philemon? If not, please do. It's
short -- it'll only take you ten minutes or so. It's true that the New
Testament doesn't speak out directly against slavery. But it does stress
treating people with love and compassion, and that emphasis contributed
rather strongly to the eventual outlawing of slavery. BTW do you know who
was primarily responsible for the law ending slavery in England? In the U.
S.?
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)