Do you believe that consentual BDSM is a sin? What about consentual adultery (where the husband and wife are in agreement over their desire to commit adultery, but still wish to live together, and still profess to love one another)?
Erm, not sure what BDSM is or involves, but assuming some form of extreme sexual activity, then no, not between consenting adults, but
only as long as no-one actually gets hurt, either physically or emotionally. Which, I think, is a great danger in any such activity, and probably makes it sinful for most of those who engage in it. But the same caveat applies to sex within marriage too.
Adultery is contrary to the ten commandments, so that is much easier. Consent or not, God does not like it. But yes, they may well still love one another, and may even love God.
Do you not hate sin, though? Do you not hate the detrimental quality it has on a person who's enslaved to it? Is this not a reaction to your love for the individual who's enslaved to it?
I am human. I can hate with the rest of mankind. The question is, does God hate, and are we called to include hatred as a component of our faith, or not? I believe not, and that any hatred in me is not of God, and is to be repented. No, I do not hate sin, though. I hope I have compassion for it, as I hope that God will have compassion on me for my sins, when I stand before him.
If they continue in their sickness and do not seek a hospital, what do you think the effect would be?
Same as with physical illness, when life comes to its end. They will be left in God's hands, which are hands of love, mercy and compassion.
He drew from the Law of Moses, which makes the Law of Moses important for understanding it as well. If these elements are removed from pertinence in understanding the teachings Christ presented to us, then we're left to make faulty presumptions about what the way Christ related to people meant.
I agree that you cannot take Christ out of his context. But the fact remains, he is primary, and all else is, at best, secondary. If there is anything anywhere said by anyone, which is contradicted in the person and example of Christ, I will take Christ to be true, and whatever is not the same, as less true.
And this is very true, it's an excellent point. I somehow doubt, though, that he meant it in such a way that simply showing love to one another is the full extent of what it means to be a Christian. Even atheists can do that.
'Simply showing love to one another'. You think that is
easy?
I have been a Christian for many decades now, loving those around me, but I do not think I have ever come even close to loving my brothers and sisters as Christ loved those he met. Without condemnation, and with full acceptance of every failing, every frailty; with compassion and acceptance of who they are, and what they have to deal with. With unfailing patience and sacrificial love.
If Christians could only focus on this, to the exclusion of all else, do you really think life would be easier than taking the moral high ground and preaching to everyone?
I agree completely. The problem is that Christ was the transmission of the Law and the Prophets (the promise of God to Abraham) manifest in the Flesh on Earth, to fulfil the promise of God. Thus all the portions of the Bible are equally relevant and important, but they haven't retained the same meaning they had before Christ. They're no longer absolutely propositional and legalistic, but they are delegated to a complete understanding of Christ, in an absolute way.
I would not say that Christ is the transmission of the Law and the Prophets. Rather, I would say he is the fulfillment, and the First Fruits of the new creation.
But it is not true that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant and important. To say that is, imo, to make the Bible into God, which it is not.
The Law of Moses was given by the mouth of God, the finger of God wrote the ten commandments. Christ is the manifestation of God's Word.
I disagree. The Bible tells us that Christ is God's Word. Not a manifestation, but his identity. The Gospel of John is clear on this, and Revelation says that Christ's name is the Word of God.
For instance, would it be wrong to denounce ritual human sacrifice, if it manifest itself in society, and society accepted it as normal?
Our society does accept ritual human sacrifice. Four people a day in the UK die on the roads, and we all accept it. If 4 people died a day on the railway, or in the air, there would be an outcry.
This is about perception. Four deaths a day is not acceptable, and it ought to be stopped. But stopping this needs human will and action. Nothing to do with hatred.
But is this something you can consistently hold?
I don't know. Ask me again in five years time. Christ held it all his life, but I have some way to go.
But is it wrong to be opposed to sin, in and of itself?
No, of course not. It is only wrong to use the language of hatred, in relation to a faith based on God's love.
And it is also wrong to pick on sins that others have, but that one is free of oneself. For example, I am qualified to speak out against anger, or jealousy, or fear. But I am not qualified to lecture on the evils of sexual licence, homosexuality, etc etc. Not because I do not have a viewpoint, but because my own sins are my concern, and they are going to take a lifetime to deal with.
Most of these debates, in general, are started in an attempt to do one of two things (this is not universally true, but relatively); either to justify the sin, or to condemn the sin. Both modes of thought act in opposition to peace-keeping and love for one another. This makes people who come later and argue on either side look bad, do you not agree?
I think there is a third option. The third reason for starting these debates is for me, the instigator, to show how holy I am, by the strength of my vitriol poured out on my brothers and sisters in sin.
Such behaviour is anathema.
I am not sure that anything can make a person look bad, unless they collude in that making. In other words, a reasonable person can debate on any topic, and not be defiled by it, or by the tone of debate. Maybe they can even do some good, by keeping their temper, and an open mind to debate.