tmh@ihldt.UUCP (08/11/83)
I felt a need to reply to Paul Dubuc's rather long
article. He seems to assume that our goverment has been
Christian in nature and based on Biblical guidance, well
that's BS. Our goverment has virtually never based its
actions on Biblical stuff unless you want to take the
Bibilcal examples of the Romans toward the early
Christians with our government being Rome. In fact our
government has always used the seperation of church and
state to its advantage so that it doesn't have to follow
the Christian mores and laws in its dealings with
others. As an example take the goverments treatment of
the American Indian (there isn't a trace of Christianity
in any of that).
Furthermore most of the mores we hold true are not
Biblical in origin, but Hellenistic. If you write
enough words about people and their actions you can
prove anything and there are certainly enough words in
the Bible to do that and enough contadictions. Yet the
true origin of Christianity as a mass religion is in
Greece not in Judea, which if you have studied early
church history is where the Apostles based themselves
after fleeing Judea. (You should also remember that
Greek is the Ligua Franca of the Eastern Half of the
Roman Empire). In fact Paul is a Greek. I digress, at
any rate the early Christians being in a large part
Greek brought with them their own concept of how people
should act and imprinted it upon their new religion and
it fitted very well with the teachings of Christ (who
being raised in a Hellenistic envirionment would no
doubt have been influenced by Greek teachings). This in
fact was one of the things that helped the new religion
flourish, since the mythos that surrounded the Pantheon
(of the Greeks and Romans) did not match or support the
current mores and behaviors of the people (especially
the lower classes) who worshiped it (the Romans in the
several hundred years before Christ had also been
heavily Hellenized as most of their teachers were Greek
born). Some small evidence of this is that the mores
expressed in the surviving works of the Athenian Dramtic
Festival written five hundred years before Christ fit in
pretty well with our own mores and behaviors, while the
mores associated with Muhammadanism (which is based on
Judism same as Christianity) don't jive with ours.
In fact there is a great descrepancy between the God of
the Old Testament and the God of New Testament. In the
Old Testament God is vengful and prompt to punish vis
40ty years in the desert for one gold cow or Sodum and
Gommorah or wiping out the Egyptian army, while in the
New Testament he virtually never does anything that
kills people or causes them to suffer. Christ in fact
preaches an almost entirely different personality for
God the Father than the Old Testiment.
Also the mores that people take as self evident and
use to guide their lives are not by in large a product
of religion, but of what their peers see as aceptable.
If you take a random group of American Atheists and
comapre their actions to a random group of American
Christians I'll bet you see the same amount of crooks
among the Christians as among the Athiests. Atheism
does not mean that a person has no morals, it only means
that he doesn't belive in a God. There is a good
portion of the world that is non-Christian yet they
still have morals. Granted in many cases things that
Christianity condems are acceptable in these other
cultures, but there are things in Christianity that
Christians do that are condemed by them (i.e. Christians
can eat beef which a Hindu feels is wrong).
Christianity cannot in fact be defined as a very good
guiding principle since it is in fact subject to so wide
an interpretation, as seen in the amount of schisms from
the Orthodox Church (the original Christian Church) to
Catholicism to Protestantism to Mormonism. It has
always in fact relied on the culture surrounding it to
guide it's views of right and wrong. Religions in
general have always been willing to bend their laws to
that of the government. Examples are the removal of
permissable bygamy in the Mormon church so Utah could
become a state, the dispensations during wartime granted
by the Jewish and Catholic religions on food i.e. Jewish
soldiers were allowed to eat pork and Catholic soldiers
were allowed to eat meat on Fridays. An aside to Paul
what I am trying to say here is that while you may feel
that you government parellels your views as a Christian
are you sure that it is not the other way around?
I have always felt that Marxism (as proposed not as
practiced) parallels Christianity. The object of
Marxism being that the individual give of himself, for
the good of the whole, without thought of compensation
other than what he needs. This means that the Computer
Programmer and the Janitor should be paid the same wage
for what they do and in fact someone who can't work
should be paid the same wage as well. Sort of like the
government collects the Net National Product and divides
it equally among its citizens. Everyone in the country
would have the same amount of money there would be no
rich or poor i.e. only one class. I don't know how this
seems to you, but it seems a very Christian concept to me.
In fact it would be a great basis for a Theocracy.
Of course it is highly impractical and the current
socialist governments don't implement anything of the
sort.
Well that's all folks,
Tom Harris
Bell Labs, Naperville
ihldt!tmhcng@burdvax.UUCP (08/15/83)
I assume you meant Saul of Tarsus when you said Paul. Paul was a ROMAN citizen of Jewish lineage.
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (08/23/83)
[from Tom Harris:] I felt a need to reply to Paul Dubuc's rather long article. He seems to assume that our goverment has been Christian in nature and based on Biblical guidance, well that's BS. Our goverment has virtually never based its actions on Biblical stuff unless you want to take the Bibilcal examples of the Romans toward the early Christians with our government being Rome. In fact our government has always used the seperation of church and state to its advantage so that it doesn't have to follow the Christian mores and laws in its dealings with others. As an example take the goverments treatment of the American Indian (there isn't a trace of Christianity in any of that). You are correct in saying that racism has no part in Christianity. But I don't think the separation of church and state was the vehicle used by the government in it's treatment of the Indians. Indians were conveniently viewed as non-persons (savages) by many people, not just by the government. I think it has gotten away with this treatment because there was little public outcry--not because the government told those who objected, "Mind your own business. We don't have to obey your Bible". Also, many felt compelled to justify the slavery of the southern states on biblical grounds. On what standard of religion do you think the Supreme Court ruled that the polygamy of the Mormons was not a valid in the excercise of freedom of religion? Furthermore most of the mores we hold true are not Biblical in origin, but Hellenistic. If you write enough words about people and their actions you can prove anything and there are certainly enough words in the Bible to do that and enough contadictions. Then why have people appealed more to the Bible as a standard of morality than to the Greeks? I wish you would give some examples of the mores you are talking about. The Romans and the Greeks practiced infanticide and abortion--practices that were condemned by the early Christians even before the Hippocratic Oath came into strong acceptance. Who originated the practice of the orgy? Christians? Rather, I think the Greeks were best known for it in their worship of Demeter and Dionysus. Did the Greeks view moral values as absolute, or as evolving? If it is the former (which I doubt), what was their moral standard? I don't mean to deride the Greeks. Much of their mores strongly resemble Christian ones. But I think there is an important difference in the way the Greeks and the Hebrews obtained their moral values. The Greeks did it by applying logic to what they saw happening in nature. If Nature is the creation of the God of the Bible and that God is a moral being, then the observation of nature should allow one to gain a somewhat accurate picture of God's moral values. I have often heard the workings of nature referred to as God's "general revelation" of himself. There are, however, limits to this means of gaining moral values that would effect the accuracy of one's understanding of absolute moral values (assuming they do exist): 1) the objectivity and accuracy of man's observation. 2) proper use of reasoning to interpret correctly what one observes. 3) if this world is a "fallen world" (which the Greeks didn't really believe) as the Bible says, then there may be many things in nature that conflict with the ideal. The Hebrews took their moral values from God's revelation--his speaking directly to people, and "supernatural" intervention in history. The Hebrews also viewed God's works in nature (they attributed nature's workings to one God, instead of many), but they also based their moral values on what they considered to be definite, special revelation from God. What could not be accurately gleaned from observation alone could be provided by God's direct revelation of himself. I think that revelation also enabled the Hebrews to distinguish between God and his creation--an important distinction to make in order to understand what man's responsibility to God is, and how that responsibility is to be worked out. You also need to give me some examples of the biblical contradictions you mentioned. There have been many books written in a clear attempt to resolve many of the apparent contradictions found in Scripture. Are you familiar with any of them? (One that has been around for awhile is "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W. Haley, Baker Book House) Are there no contradictions in Greek philosophy? Yet the true origin of Christianity as a mass religion is in Greece not in Judea, which if you have studied early church history is where the Apostles based themselves after fleeing Judea. (You should also remember that Greek is the Ligua Franca of the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire). In fact Paul is a Greek. I have studied early church history somewhat. How do you know that the Apostles based themselves in Greece? The New Testament strongly contradicts you (Acts 8:1; Gal. 2:1-2,6-10; James 1:1; I Peter 1:1) and there is no other conclusive historical evidence that shows that the Apostles (the original eleven) did not live in Judea. "Paul" is a Greek name. His original name was Saul (Hebrew). Your statement that Paul is a Greek contradicts his own writings about himself. Paul's father was a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) and a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). Paul was also a Pharisee before his conversion. Do you know what it took to be a Pharisee? I cannot conceive of a Greek being a Pharisee. The Pharisees, as the keepers of the Hebrew Laws and traditions, hated the Greeks and Hellenist Jews. Paul was from Tarsus and had Roman citizenship, but he probably moved to Jerusalem when he was young to study under Gamaliel. To be sure Paul spoke Greek and at least knew some Greek philosophy. But I think his moral principals were strongly biblical. I digress, at any rate the early Christians being in a large part Greek brought with them their own concept of how people should act and imprinted it upon their new religion and it fitted very well with the teachings of Christ (who being raised in a Hellenistic envirionment would no doubt have been influenced by Greek teachings). Again, you need to give some examples showing which of the Greek mores were "imprinted" upon the Christian religion. If there is "no doubt" that Christ was influenced by Greek teachings concerning morality, what, in his teachings in the Gospels, shows that influence? Jesus quoted numerous times from Old Testament writings to support his teaching and his actions, especially in debates with the Pharisees. I think the Hellenist influence had a lot to do with the spread of Christianity but little to do with it's moral content. The Hellenist Jews were less bound to the strong traditions and laws that were built up around the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus often accused the Pharisees of viewing the traditions of men as having more importance than the commandments of God. (Matt. 23). The Hellenistic Jews were more open to accepting the universal claims of the Christian religion and preaching its message to those who were not Jews, including them as equals in the faith. This in fact was one of the things that helped the new religion flourish, since the mythos that surrounded the Pantheon (of the Greeks and Romans) did not match or support the current mores and behaviors of the people (especially the lower classes) who worshiped it (the Romans in the several hundred years before Christ had also been heavily Hellenized as most of their teachers were Greek born). Some small evidence of this is that the mores expressed in the surviving works of the Athenian Dramtic Festival written five hundred years before Christ fit in pretty well with our own mores and behaviors, while the mores associated with Muhammadanism (which is based on Judism same as Christianity) don't jive with ours. Originally the Romans offered to include Jesus in the Pantheon. The adamant refusal of this offer by the Christians contributed to their persecution. When Nero wanted a scapegoat it was easy to point to the Christians as a group that stood out among the rest. Showing that the Greeks had Christian-like moral practices before Christ seems to imply some non sequitur reasoning on your part. I think it is entirely possible for the Greeks and the Jews to develop similar morals independently of one another, for the reasons I gave above. In fact there is a great descrepancy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of New Testament. In the Old Testament God is vengful and prompt to punish vis 40ty years in the desert for one gold cow or Sodum and Gommorah or wiping out the Egyptian army, while in the New Testament he virtually never does anything that kills people or causes them to suffer. Christ in fact preaches an almost entirely different personality for God the Father than the Old Testiment. The coming of Christ did mark a radical change in God's mode of judgement for sin. This does not imply that that God's hatred for sin is any less. It was Christ who brought the Hell and eternal punishment into sharp focus along with Heaven. Also the mores that people take as self evident and use to guide their lives are not by in large a product of religion, but of what their peers see as aceptable. For the Christian, this ought not to be true. It is not true in many countries that outlaw the religion. It was not true in the Book of Acts. It was not true with the early Christians in Rome. I would also like to say that it is not true for me. There are many proscriptions in the Bible against adopting the values of society. A Christians should primarily be devoted to those moral values found in Scripture. If someone who calls himself a Christian lives to please their peers in contradiction to biblical mores, then it seems that they put the liking of their peers above the commandments of God. If a Christian truly loves and worships God above everything else this shouldn't purposefully happen. If you take a random group of American Atheists and comapre their actions to a random group of American Christians I'll bet you see the same amount of crooks among the Christians as among the Athiests. By what standard will they be judged a crook? My point in the original article was that atheism has no inherent moral standard. So for atheists your statement that the mores people adopt are "what their peers see as acceptable" is true. But the moral values of society rest on shifting sands if there is no higher standard. I have pointed out that many Christians act hypocritically to their supposed standard of conduct. These actions are not justified on biblical grounds. The Bible must define Christianity. Christians do not define the Bible. I realize that understanding and interpretation differ. But I think sincere Christians must be devoted to the best possible understanding of the Bible they can attain. When I am shown something in Scripture that improves on my understanding of it, I am obligated to live according to that better understanding, whether I like it or not. If I obey only those teachings of Scripture that I can handle, or are to my liking, I am being my own god-- creating my own religion. God holds us accountable for what we know. He also commands us to know all we can about him. Atheism does not mean that a person has no morals, it only means that he doesn't belive in a God. There is a good portion of the world that is non-Christian yet they still have morals. Granted in many cases things that Christianity condems are acceptable in these other cultures, but there are things in Christianity that Christians do that are condemed by them (i.e. Christians can eat beef which a Hindu feels is wrong). So what defines your idea of morals? If you believe that "right" and "wrong", "true" and "false" exist, then two contradicting moral values cannot both be right. They can both be wrong, but if they are then this implies that there must be another way that is "right". Situational factors may enter in, but most people operate as if there is a "right" way to do something in any situation, and that its being "right" does not depend on the values of the people involved (although they may consider it to depend on their circumstances). My point is that most people make judgements according to some standard as to what is "moral" and what is not. They also seem to operate on the assumption that this standard transcends their own subjective viewpoint. Otherwise, How could we judge another's actions to be "wrong"? I thought I made it clear that I do not believe that atheists have no morals. I said that atheism has no inherent moral standard--no "measuring stick" by which to judge right and wrong. The Bible, however does define a moral code; and I maintain that the Bible should define Christianity. Christianity cannot in fact be defined as a very good guiding principle since it is in fact subject to so wide an interpretation, as seen in the amount of schisms from the Orthodox Church (the original Christian Church) to Catholicism to Protestantism to Mormonism. This is because popular Christianity, as most people see it, is not defined by the Bible. The Bible is not as open to as wide an interpretation as many think--when it is studied carefully and with a real desire to know the truth. In the history of the church, many of the schisms you talk about came on the heels of a better understanding of Scripture. The teachings of men like Jon Hus and Martin Luther were not refuted effectively on biblical grounds. They were simply persecuted because their teaching made light of many unbiblical practices of the church. They were persecuted because the church, so drunk as it was with power, did not want to admit that its practices were wrong (according to Scripture). Both Hus and Luther encouraged biblical literacy among the common people--something the church viewed as a threat. Many of the church reformers employed the principles of philology in their desire to obtain and promote a better understanding of the meaning of Scripture. Instead of the church welcoming a more accurate understanding of Scripture, it was often perceived as a threat to the church power structure. An example of this occurred in 1516 when Erasmus published his version of the New Testament in Greek, printed with the commonly accepted Latin version of the church in parallel columns. This work pointed out many errors in the latin translation. It had the dubious honor of being placed first on the list of prohibited books by the Roman Church when it's "Index" of forbidden works was produced some years later. I would not consider Mormonism to be totally Christian in the biblical sense because Mormons accept The Book of Mormon as well as the prophecies of its leaders has having equal or greater authority than the Bible. It has always in fact relied on the culture surrounding it to guide it's views of right and wrong. Religions in general have always been willing to bend their laws to that of the government. Examples are the removal of permissable bygamy in the Mormon church so Utah could become a state, the dispensations during wartime granted by the Jewish and Catholic religions on food i.e. Jewish soldiers were allowed to eat pork and Catholic soldiers were allowed to eat meat on Fridays. An aside to Paul what I am trying to say here is that while you may feel that you government parellels your views as a Christian are you sure that it is not the other way around? I think the examples you give here are much too weak to support the rather absolute statement you make in the first sentence. There are too many counter examples of Christians not yielding to the mandates of their society. Picture the Christians under persecution in Rome and more recently in communist countries. The examples you give above take your generalization outside of biblicial (especially in light of the New Testament) teaching, which I prefer to remain within. Where in the Bible does it say that Christians are not to eat meat on fridays? I see nothing wrong with this as a religious practice. It certainly is not unbiblical (or anti-biblical) per se. But it is not biblical doctrine. I have always felt that Marxism (as proposed not as practiced) parallels Christianity. The object of Marxism being that the individual give of himself, for the good of the whole, without thought of compensation other than what he needs. This means that the Computer Programmer and the Janitor should be paid the same wage for what they do and in fact someone who can't work should be paid the same wage as well. Sort of like the government collects the Net National Product and divides it equally among its citizens. Everyone in the country would have the same amount of money there would be no rich or poor i.e. only one class. I don't know how this seems to you, but it seems a very Christian concept to me. In fact it would be a great basis for a Theocracy. Of course it is highly impractical and the current socialist governments don't implement anything of the sort. I understand how you can see parallels here, but there are strong points of opposition and inconsistency between Marxism and Christianity. The Marxist principle of "dialectical materialism" does not really apply to Christianity. According to biblical doctrine, man cannot be changed by simply changing the way he relates to materials. Man's view of materials is considered a product of his thinking and the desires of his heart, not the other way around. Christianity may change a persons material views as a result of the relationship that person experiences with God. A real change of heart and thinking occurs as a precursor to actions that reflect a change in material viewpoint. Marxism seeks to change man by altering the way he relates to materials. Changing a person's material viewpoint is not even the main object of biblical Christian teaching. It is often a byproduct of it, however. It is easy to overlook the fact that generousity and charity is held by Scripture as a virtue to be attained, not an action to be imposed. The Bible encourages the rich to be generous, among other things (I Tim. 6:17-19) but it should not say there should be no rich and no poor. It teaches that the *desire* for material wealth leads to ensnarement, that "the love of money is the root of all evils" (I Tim. 6:9-10), not the mere possesion of more money than someone else. It teaches that if men don't work neither should they eat (II Thes. 3:6-13). It is important to note that when the Christians in the book of Acts sold their possessions for distribution among the needy, it was not done as the result of command but in response to a need as seen by the individuals who gave. The judgement upon Ananias and Sapphira was not because they didn't give but because they lied about how much they sacrificed in order to give. (Acts 4:32-5:10). "Each one must do has he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Cor. 9:7) Overall biblical teaching does not seek to impose any particular economic or political form on society (although it does provide a moral basis for law.) The economic views of individual Christians in Bible result from seeing the relative importance of material wealth to a strong relationship with God. The two don't always clash, but when they do God is the one who is yielded to. On this basis the Christian would predict that Marxism will never achieve the ends it desires because only God changes men's hearts. Marxists look for patterns in history and view it as naturally evolving toward a socialist order. Christianity is not naturalistic in this sense. It acknowledges God's ability to intervene in history and change the "natural" course of events. Marxists seem to believe that a perfect social, political, and economic order can be obtained on earth. To biblical Christianity, this type of perfection is impossible. It views the world as fallen, not evolving. Biblical principals may be implemented in society successfully, but that success, great as it may seem, can never be more than a reflection of God's perfect order. This does not make the biblical principals inferior to any others because their success depends on the working of God, not man. It may come as a surprise to you, but I don't think theocracy is always God's will for government. It was during a certain period in Israel's history, but then the people of Israel were God's people by virtue of their physical birth as decendants of Abraham. This is not true for Christianity. There is no reason why God cannot work equally well through any form of government. The only thing Christians would ask of a certain form of government is that it not be opposed to the Christian influence. This influence is necessary to uphold the moral basis for law provided by Scripture. When Christian influence has not been tolerated many Christians find it necessary to disobey any anti-biblical government mandates. This is not a desirable arrangement--one that I hope can be prevented in this country. Inherent in socialism is the stifeling of the individual's motivation to be a productive member of society. In it's desire to help the masses the significance of the individuals who make up those masses is lost. I do not find this tendency in biblical teaching. With socialism the individual's only significance comes through his identification with the state. This is not enough. The state is only an extension of man's fallibility and temporality. It is impersonal. In the Marxist philosophy, religion is unnecessary, even a great hinderance. It predicts that religion will die a natural death once its principles are implemented on a grand scale. For the Christian, the working of God in the hearts of people is indispensable to social betterment. Paul Dubuc