seebs

Point to Gamera on the shellfish.

Gamera

[QUOTE=rhutchin;3852645]Honestly you seem profoundly confused. The gentiles didn't have the Law, yet Paul preached them the gospel. The gospel is God's method of salvation (taking that anyway you want to take it).

We need the gospel because we, as moral beings, constantly choose self over love. The gospel is the way to become a loving person. Forgiveness is just the way early Christians expressed this problem -- that we choose self over loving others. It has no theological content. Indeed the gospel isn't about theology. It's about an existential choice we are confronted with through the gospel.

"flee fornication" is just a subset of what Paul is always saying: conduct yourself with love toward others. It has no meaning beyond that.

By contemplating Christ and relying on the Spirit of God in faith.

Galatians 5:18 - But if you are
led by the Spirit you are not under
the law.

Nowhere do the Hebrew scriptures (or even the Christian scripture) describe the Law a method of knowing what love it. You seem to have made that up.

This is the essence of the Christian life, and it has nothing to do with Law.

1 John 4: 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because he first loved us. 20 If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

Gamera

A giant turtle should know about shellfish.

Angra Mainyu

Are you in favor of the democratic process?
And what if it results in something that’s against the Law?

What if democracy doesn’t result in gay people being executed?
Is that wrong?


Do you mean that people shouldn’t have the freedom to not follow your interpretation of Christianity (which in your view, would seem to amount to self-destruction)?



Why does the Law contains such atrocities, and punishes people in such a brutal manner?

Did God not commanded, in your opinion, the killing of homosexuals and blasphemers?
Should God’s command be obeyed?
What about democracy?

Johnny Skeptic

Since this thread is about homosexuality, I wish to say that regarding what the Bible writers wrote about homosexuality, there is not any credible evidence that they were speaking for God and not for themselves.

rhutchin

No one should be executed unless they are guilty of an act punishable by death.

Every person should be free to believe anything they want and to be held accountable for that which they do.

Don’t know. People want abortion; the law allows it.

If people want to be ruled by God, they would be subject to His commands. In a democracy, anyone with 51% of the vote can make his own laws.

Gamera

Well, no they can't. We have a constitution that guaranties rights regardless of the majority. It is vastly disturbing that you don't realize that.

More disturbing in your notion about being ruled by God. This is contrary to the gospels, since God doesn't provide laws for Christian living, but rather provides the spirit of God to help us in our walk in loving others. There is no law relating to that and can never be one. And it is the only thing that counts for a Christian:

As Paul said in Galatians, "the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

rhutchin

Paul preached to the gentiles because they has chosen self over love just like everyone else. What does it mean to choose self over love? Does it mean that people kill others or steal from others?

What exactly is the existential choice people are confronted with through the gospel? Is it to turn away from the things that they are doing for self and start doing things for love? If yes, what might a person stop doing, and what would he start doing?

So, Paul did not mean to suggest that people were doing something that they should not be doing? What exactly should we think that they (or people today) should flee? What is this “fornication” that Paul told people to flee?

So, your position seems to be that anything a person did in “love” would be okay. Is there anything that a person might do after contemplating Christ that would not be an act of love? For example, a man could have sex with his wife’s sister could he not and you would have to agree that there was nothing wrong with doing so.

OK. That just means that everything is consistent with love.

Hmmm. John calls certain people, liars. Are there such things as liars in your theology? Are there actions that a person could do that would not be described as consistent with love?

rhutchin

The Supreme Court, by a simple majority, once ruled that black people were not equal to white people. A person's "rights" may depend on another person's definition of those "rights."

Hmmm. Do you think the spirit of God leads people to do anything or are there some things the spirit of God would never lead a person to do?

Do you think faith expressing itself through love would allow a mother to kill her baby beofre it could be born? Would that be an act of love? The other day, the newscast told the story of a woman who was on the way to the hospital to give birth when she shot the baby in her womb killing the baby. Would you consider that action to be an expression of love?

rhutchin

Nice way to avoid an embarrassing situation for you.

If pain is the issue (and avoiding the pain felt by a baby being aborted), what is wrong with pain management? I know people with back problems who do not want to die and have to take pills to control the pain. They describe the pain as being pretty severe (we could even call it horrible). Perhaps the loving thing to do would be to put them out of their misery.

Would you mind if the person were required to ask the rich person for a piece of bread first before stealing it? Of course, if the rich person denied the request out of love, that would be OK. Maybe the government could tax rich people and take care of starving kids. Then people would not have to steal.

If I pick and choose, wouldn’t that be wrong? Does it matter whether I think a law applies. Don’t laws apply regardless what people think about those laws? Of course, as an act of love, a person could pretty much do anything couldn’t they? They could steal bread (to save a starving child) or kill a baby to keep it from starving.

Hmmm. The problem here is that no one can describe what a loveless relationship is so all relationships must be love relationships.

To people allergic to shellfish, it would be. Stealing from another person is not an act of love (unless of course the purpose is to save a child from death).