Johnny Skeptic

This is what I have been waiting for, a battle between you and Gamera. It eventually had to happen. Obviously, God is not able to keep his own church in order. He is also not able to choose more than a very few of the elect from Muslim countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. The governments of Syria and Saudi Arabia have been able to effectively limit how many of the elect God is able to choose in their countries. Of course, the spread of the Gospel message has always been substantially limited by the entirely SECULAR factors of geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, communication, transportation, and translation, which is EXACTLY what would be the case if God does not exist, or if he exists and has gone out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. A similar situation exists regarding the distribution of tangible benefits. While tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that God does not exist, or that he has gone out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist, and that tangible benefits are distributed at random according to the laws of physics, not only to humans, but to ANIMALS as well. Unlike many Christians, some animals live long and healthy lives, and yet at the EofG Forum you once said that people can test God by honoring their parents and tithing. I easily refuted absurd and you wisely left that issue alone from then on. Would you care to try again? Today, there is absolutely NO empirical, tangible evidence that God is active in tangible ways that indicate that he has good character.

Angra Mainyu

Do you think that Christians are bound by the law, then?
How about dietary laws?
Is it wrong to eat certain foods?
If the expression of love results in a person not wanting to lie with a male as with a woman, then does the expression of love results in a person refraining from eating certain foods?
If Christians are bound by the law, should blasphemers be put to death?
Will the expression of love result in people stoning blasphemers?

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3850632]Christians are not under the Law. Period. If you think you're under the Law then you better start keeping the Sabbath on saturday, and you better not eat shellfish. You're picking and choosing what you want to follow based on your own convenience and biases.

We are not "free to kill" whatever that means, because we follow Jesus commandment to love one another. In most cases that bars killing somebody. But of course, it's possible for a mercy killing to be an act of love. So Christian's follow Jesus' commandments, not the OT Law.

Same is true with sexual issues. The OT Law agains homosexuality is defunct, dead, done. Period. Now if you want to construct an argument that homosexual relationships are contrary to Jesus' commandment, be my guest. But don't avoid the issue by claiming that some OT Laws apply (the ones you like) and others don't (the ones you don't like).

Here's what James say to you about that:


James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.

If you're trying to keep part of the Law you like, you're stuck with the whole thing, and I'm willing to bet you don't keep the whole Law

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3850632]You are free associating here. The purpose of the Law was not to lead persons to Christ. That's not what Paul teaches. Paul teaches that the Law was intended to teach the Jewish nation, who had the Law, that it could not live up to it, and hence needed a savior. Gentile never had the Law and learned nothing by it. The gentile Christians came to the faith by the gospel, not by the Law. The vast majority of Christians have never even read the Law (and why should they).

Paul tells Christians to avoid fornication because he thought it was a selfish sexual relationship that was without love. That's the criterion for Christians, not violation of the Law. I'll quote you what Jesus said again -- it isn't keeping the Law that matters, it's whether you love others and act accordingly:


Matthew 5:22 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3850632]Rubbish. 90% of the Law is pure nonsense. There is nothing morally wrong with eating shellfish or mixing cotton with linen. You have confused form with substance, as the author of Hebrews points out.


Hebrews 10:1 - For since the
law has but a shadow of the good
things to come instead of the true
form of these realities, it can never,
by the same sacrifices which are
continually offered year after year,
make perfect those who draw near

Let me state unequivocally that God isn't interested in your sex life. He's interested in your intentions. The NT makes that clear over and over again. If you marry somebody not out of love, that marriage isn't anything that God approves. If you have sex with somebody you love and care about, that doesn't violate any law. Because Christians are under the law of liberty, which is the law of love.

James 1:25 - But he who looks
into the perfect law, the law of
liberty, and perseveres, being no
hearer that forgets but a doer that
acts, he shall be blessed in his
doing.

To gloss this, James is saying things done out of love are never wrong, even if we screw up (and we will). Why are you burdening yourself with following a code that Jesus died to free you of?

.

We do what mature people always do, realize that the Hebrew Scriptures are texts that were meant for a certain audience at a certain time for a certain purpose. That's what it means to find meaning in a text. If the Hebrew scriptures never existed, it wouldn't change my Christianity a bit, since I take Paul seriously when he says the gospel saves, not the bible, not the Law, the gospel.

So is your position that Paul is wrong and that you need not only the gospel (which is a message that exists independent of the bible), but Deuteronomy?

Give us your support for that.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Apikorus

There's nothing morally wrong with rejecting Christianity and living life as an ethical Buddhist, too.

Gamera

Maybe. That's not the topic I was discussing with Rutchin, but rather his insistence that the Law embodies moral restrictions on Christians. It's hard to believe that eating shellfish and mixing linen and cotton has any moral content at all.

NZSkep

we all know 'lie with' means have sex right.
Seeing as how the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, why not intepret this verse as instructions on how to be gay. The first bit says 'you must not lie with mankind, as with womankind.' IOW if you are gay and want to have sex with a man, you must not try to do it as you would with a woman (vaginal) because that would not work. You must do anal instead.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree entirely. I suggest that skeptics divert their attention to rhutchin. He is much more dangerous than Gamera is. As far as I know, Gamera does not oppose homosexuality, same-sex marrigage, and physician assisted suicide. He is more liberal than the typical liberal Christian is. He does not believe that heaven is a place. The most dangerous Christians are those who attempt to legistlate the Bible according to fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Bible. What Gamera wants the most is for people to have a relationship with God, not to promote a political agenda. You can bet the rhutchin has a political agenda. We already know that he opposes homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and you can bet that he opposes physician assisted suicide. If all Christians were like Gamera instead of like rhutchin, the world would become a much better place in which to live.

rhutchin

Neither I nor Gamera are dangerous. Each of us is an advocate for a belief system that is based on the Bible. That belief system is harmless.

That would mean that you are not an advocate of the democratic process or maybe not of allowing groups that you do not like (fundamentalist Christians) to participate. While I may oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriage, I understand that boys will be boys and whether a boy has sex with a girl or a boy, it happens. I see no reason for society to bless a boy and a girl having sex outside marriage than I do a boy and a boy having sex. People have the ability to engage in sex no matter what society says. If a majority of a society says that it is perfectly fine for boys and girls to have sex, then society can do that. Same for marriage, suicide, prostitution, drugs, etc. However, for now, I have the freedom to warn people that they must stand before God and give account of all this. Why is that a problem? Whether the world would be a better place by giving people the freedom to destroy themselves is debatable.