Definitions

I promise that this is not a petty junior high school girl question; I have a larger philosophical question in mind. So do me a favor and follow this dumb scenario for a second.

There is a guy and a girl who are seemingly friends. The girl has a crush on the guy but we are unsure of the guys feelings. One day, the guy asks the girl to go to the movies but never once calls it a date. The girl happily agrees expecting it to be as friends and to pay for her own ticket. Once there, the guy insists on buying the ticket, but never once does he call it a date, try to make a move, or really even flirt. The girl insists that it wasn’t a date. Her family disagrees.

Is it a date?

If you say no, leave this post. My question doesn’t apply to you.

If you say yes, congratulations you’ve just made things very complicated.

If you say yes, then you are saying that what people define something as does not actually affect what something IS. It is a date because of certain intrinsic characteristics whether you define it as one or not. If you said no and decided to keep reading, you have said that human definitions are everything. We define what something is and we have the final word.

If you call a dog a cat, is it still a dog? Or is it now a cat because you have called it so? Now I’ve brought the evolution of language into the question, but that is not the point. Your calling a dog a cat does not actually make the dog like the animal that we normally call a cat. You might think that this is irrelevant but I have not reached my main question yet.

Let’s look at it from the opposite direction. If there is an animal with every anatomical characteristic of a dog should we not be so ignorant to call it a cat?

Enough with metaphors…

Is it possible that two people who check off almost every characteristic of being in a dating relationship can sensibly define themselves as friends?

Note*, this is not a conversation concerning friends with benefits or otherwise, and this is intended to be from a Christian perspective.

Now you might ask what my characteristics are so here is a non-exhaustive list:

The obvious–physical affection (although not necessarily including kissing (I say this because a lot of Christians wait until marriage); i.e. snuggling, holding hands, long hugs, etc.), deep and meaningful personal conversations, paying for one another’s meals, flirting, using pet names like “babe” or “love”, making a conscious effort to get to know one another more every day.

I could go on but if we’re being honest, the big difference between a friendly and romantic relationship is physicality and intent.

Now, how would your opinion on the above scenario change if I told you that the two people were of the same gender? What if I specified that gender? Would your opinions be different depending on if it were a male-male relationship or a female-female one? If so, why?

You see our definitions get us into a little bit of trouble, and we often hold men to different standards than women.

More importantly, how crucial is intent to sin? If two men/women are acting under what they believe to be friendship, even if to the outside world it looks to be otherwise, is it sinful? If the explicit sexual acts and intent are missing, can it be accurately defined as a sinful, homosexual relationship?

What if one of the people has intent but the other does not? Obviously the one would be sinning, but what about the other?

You might argue that it is the intent which really matters, but let me ask this–if you accidentally kill someone, did you still commit murder? Was it still a sin? The law thinks so; even if it was a complete accident you will go to prison.

Furthermore, does the realization of this potential problem take the place of intent?

I find myself being tempted to hold one rule of logic to some and not to others or myself. We must make a decision or else we are hypocrites.

Let me try a different scenario.

Suppose a married man finds himself alone at an office event with a female coworker who is not his wife. If the woman flirts with him, even without the man acknowledging it or returning it, are they both not still in the wrong? If I were his wife I would not be happy about the situation.

How accurately can we define sin from what the Bible gives us? And just how important are our definitions?

If there is anything that scripture supports, it is that we are not pure enough in heart to save ourselves or make ourselves worthy. We will never be able to be good enough on our own to make it to heaven. So that begs the question, can even humanly defined “good intent” be ruined by our definitions?

Maybe it is like Phoebe Buffay believed–there are no completely selfless actions. And, by extension, no completely good, sinless intentions either.

Whether the Bible defines something as explicitly wrong or not is irrelevant if we think it to be wrong on our own and still continue to do it. It then becomes a sin by our definition. (This is biblical. See James 4:17.)

Does thinking about this make me a pessimist, an existentialist, or worse?

I have digressed considerably, but I feel as though it is all worth examining.

I want to believe that intent matters. Perhaps the only reason why it doesn’t in our government is because it is so difficult to prove. I suppose this is where we should count our blessings that God knows our hearts. Or maybe not; maybe our thoughts and fantasies are appalling despite our resolve to do what’s right. I’ll leave that up to you for personal assessment.

As for me, there is a fine line that I want to be careful not to cross. I am aware that it is there. Undoubtedly because society so often reminds me and tempts me towards it.

How important are our definitions?

I do not know.

Sorry for the long post…however I define “long” that is. 😉