rhutchin

How about you staying on target with the subject of the thread and when you want to get into another subject, start a NEW thread. Why complicate the existing discussion in a thread?

Since your claim is that you are a really loving person, why not express that love by treating all those who are commenting in a thread with respect by staying on target with the subject of the thread.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, since this thread is about the Bible and homosexuality, where is your evidence that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves?

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3856059]No I discuss it in the next sentence.


Now you've avoided the issue. Let's say there is no way to manage the pain. Use your imagination, man, to discuss the principle. Quit trying to pretend there isn't one.

Assume no way to mitigate the pain and the person wants to be put out of their misery -- if you do it, is it wrong from a Chrstian perspective. The answer is surely, only if you're burdened with the OT Law, and I'm not.

Again, focus and use your imagination. Let's say the rich person refuses, or isn't there -- it's sitting on a window sill. You seem so embarrassed by your legalistic position that you can't answer directly.

The choice in my scenario is (a) stealing bread to save a baby's life or (b) not stealing bread and letting the baby die.

It's an easy choice for me. It seems to perplex you.

That's the point, the Law doesn't apply and can't help you as a Christian. You have to make a choice. Sounds like you're being faciteous and that's sad.

Maybe that's because it's not your businesss to decide if somebody's relationship is loveless or not; that's between them and God. You seem to want to intervene with your odd view of the OT. What gives you that right again?

Again, you seem incapable of addresssing the issue, which shows the weakness of your position.

Are you allergic to shellfish. Do you eat them. Do you keep the sabbath on Saturday.

I'm sure you don't uphold OT Law. But you do want to impose anti-homosexual aspects of the Law on gays. Why? What is this obsession you have of imposing rules on other, which you yourself don't keep?

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3856024]Probably not (but I can imagine situations where stealing does show love, as in the starving baby example). Does it mean they choose to avoid eating shellfish. Probably not. That's irrelevant to showing love.

So having cleared that up and shown the OT Law cannot determine what actions show love or not, how is having gay sex per se contrary to Jesus' admonition to love one another.

Each Christian must decide for himself in his own life how to show love. It's not for you to decide. Where did you get this notion that you're the arbiter of other Christians' conduct in showing love.

I told you, but am happy to repeat it: any loveless sexual relationship is fornication as Paul uses the term.

Since having sex with your wife's sister most likely doesn't show much love for your wife, the answer is obvious to me. Are you saying that if the OT Law didn't bar this kind of relationship, you would be at a loss to know that it is loveless?

Nope, everything is not, as everybody knows. All you have to do is discern the motive and voila, you can tell if an action is out of love.

You seem confused. There are liars as a matter of imperical fact. Is lying wrong. Depends. If a man lies to trick somebody out of his money, that's a loveless act and wrong. If a man lies to protect a friend from persecution from a cruel dictator, that's a loving act and is right.

Are you saing that when somebody lies to protect the innocent, it's wrong? Has your bizarre misinterpretation of Christianity really led you so far astray?

seebs

I think that, before anyone talks too much about how God never likes lying, we should all take a quick hop over to, I dunno, Exodus 1 or so?

The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus, Chapter 1, Verses 15-22

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

So, uhm. Lying is apparently not always frowned upon.

That said, the number of times in my life so far when I think lying was actually morally justifiable is nearly, that is to say almost, well. One. But not actually one yet. Any day now. Probably.

I think you guys are talking past each other, because rhutchin's trying to come up with a list of actions which are inherently loving or unloving, so we don't have to talk so much about circumstances and motives, and I think Gamera's trying to talk about circumstances and motives, so we don't have to spend so much time arguing about actions.

I apologize if I am misrepresenting either position.

scisyhp

I do find it funny how this sin is focused on more than others, especially when it says in the bible that it is a sin to not forgive sin.

rhutchin

Maybe other sins are less interesting. Not everyone acknowledges that sex outside of marriage is sin, so not everyone is seeking forgiveness for such sins.

rhutchin

My take on the situation is that Gamera wants to identify love as a motive exclusive of any other factor. By taking this position, he is unable to explain what love is NOT without establishing a law. Consequently, any person can declare that he is a "Christian" and that he acts in "love" and Gamera cannot object because he cannot identify any action a person might do as not being an act of love (and thereby questioning the person's motivation) resulting in the establishment of a law. I think Gamera understands the corner he has painted himself into.

rhutchin

Yep. Your position is that “the OT Law cannot determine what actions show love or not.” Consequently, neither gay sex, eating shellfish, murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc. is against “love” under your philosophy.

This is situation ethics. One person in a given situation may decide that adultery is wrong. Another person in the very same situation may decide that adultery is OK. Each person builds his own ethical system based on his personal value system. We have as many value systems as we have people and nothing done by any person can ever be declared to be “wrong.”

True, but there is no such thing as a loveless sexual relationship. By definition any sexual relationship is a “love” relationship or the people would not be participating.

Are you saying that it is loveless. Certainly, you would not (and cannot) judge whether it is or is not. If the OT did not bar this kind of relationship, you would have no grounds to declare it to be loveless. The most you might say is that it does not fit your personal values system so you would not do it.

That’s nice but nobody, certainly not you, can discern the validity of a motive. You have no basis for evaluating a motive to determine that it was not “love.”.

I am not sure, under your system, why lying to trick somebody out of his money is a loveless act. About all you can say is that you would not do such a thing. You are unable to compare the value system of any other person to yours and judge any act as loveless and wrong just because you would not do it.

Lying, under your system, is not wrong regardless of the innocence or lack of innocence of the person being protected. Lying under the Biblical system is wrong no matter what the situation.

rhutchin

That is the testimony of the witers themselves. You are free to accept it or reject it.