Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

[tam]

May you all have peace!


Christ is written to have said the words in the title of this thread, quoting from Hosea 6:6 on what His Father desires of us, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." (NIV)

In Matthew, He also said, "IF you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice', you would not have condemned the innocent."

His words are in response to pharisees who are sitting in judgment of the sinners, and of the disciples who were doing what was unlawful.


In light of the above (and more below) and in light of all the judgment and condemnation surrounding the issue of homosexuality, I have to ask - have we YET learned what this means: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" ?


How many Christians out there point the finger at gay people, and claim that they are unacceptable? Or that one can be gay, or one can be Christian (as if it is their call to make), but not both?


What... who... give us the right to say something like that? To override Christ Himself who said there is only one unforgivable sin, and homosexuality is not that sin. Christ, who never said a word about homosexuality, but who spoke out against divorce, adultery, hypocrisy, and had quite a lot to say about judging others.


I think it is a red herring (for someone who claims to be a christian) to focus upon whether or not homosexuality is a choice. What does it matter? Truly? Even IF homosexuality is a sin (and I am not saying it is, and I am certainly not saying that it is a choice - unless I am willing to call someone who has said they have no choice a liar - leaving myself open to being guilty not only of judging but also of bearing false witness), that does not mean that a gay person is unacceptable to Christ. That does not mean that a gay person cannot seek Christ, love Christ... be loved AND chosen in return BY Christ. That does not mean that a gay person cannot know Christ. Or follow Christ, or keep His commands.

And what is the promise that Christ made?

"If ANYONE loves me, they will keep my word. My father will love them, and we will come and make our home with them."


Even IF homosexuality is a sin - love covers a multitude of transgressions. A gay person can (and does) love, give to the poor, feed the hungry, forgive (and they probably have more opportunities than most TO forgive, considering how they have been persecuted, beaten - verbal or physical - killed, mocked, bullied, threatened with hell, shunned by loved ones, etc, etc.).


I know that not everyone thinks or claims that a gay person cannot be a Christian, anointed by holy spirit, part of the Body of Christ, His Bride. But some/many do think that.

Who among us has the right to call unclean what Christ has made clean? Do we think His blood so weak... His sacrifice so meaningless... that He cannot cover over any sin (save the ONE unforgivable sin)?



Mercy and love are the most important matters of the law. Love is the law that Christ left us with - love one another as He loved us.

Where is the love in telling someone else that they are unacceptable?

Where is the love in telling someone else that they are lying (or deluded) when they say that they cannot change their sexual orientation, even though they have tried?

Where is the love in preventing the 'little children' from coming to Christ? Which is exactly what we do if/when we tell others that they are too 'bad' a sinner to belong to Christ.

Where is the love in beating someone down - even to the point where they commit or attempt suicide - just because of your understanding of a law, which may or may not be correct - as the pharisees were not correct? When in doing so you have to ignore the more important matters of the law: mercy and love?


The woman caught in adultery - the law said she should be stoned. Christ forgave her. Mercy over sacrifice. And that was a sin that He spoke about.

The pharisees and teachers of the law who used the law to condemn others - they were the ones who Christ told to go and learn what it means that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. That if they knew what that meant, they would not have condemned the innocent.


Which brings me to another point: Do you know, for sure, that a gay person has a choice in his sexual orientation? Do you know, for sure, that it is something that can be changed?

Because if it is not a choice, if it is inherent, if it cannot be changed... then are you not condemning the innocent?


Are we stuck on the letter of the law and what we think that means... using the law to judge and condemn others (all the while avoiding the mirror)? Or have we learned what it means, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," so that we do not condemn the innocent?


**

Some additional questions:

Considering that Christ said not one word about it, does anyone truly think that the sexual orientation of another person is worthy of so much condemnation, so much focus, so much judging?

Do you hold yourself to the same standard when it comes to any other sin? If not, and if you judge people for being homosexual (and acting upon it), isn't that hypocrisy?

Maybe it is time to stop judging people for what we think is unlawful - and move past the letter of the law - to the spirit of the law: love, mercy, compassion.


***

I am not stating that homosexuality is a sin. The spirit that is given to me from Christ protests at even the thought of asking Him that question - because it is not my business. Not only that but:

Being homosexual does not prevent a person from showing mercy… and so being shown mercy. Being homosexual does not prevent a person from forgiving and so being forgiven. Being homosexual does not prevent a person from ‘not judging’ and so not BEING judged. And being homosexual does not prevent a person from being perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect: By loving their friends AND their enemies. (those who set themselves up to be their enemies)

These things I have learned from my Lord.


So what concern is someone else's sexual orientation of mine?



I am not going to sit here and pretend that I have never thought the things that I have written against above. I once did think them. But I did not learn them from Christ. I learned those things from my personal interpretation of the bible (from what little I knew of what is written) from the media on christian opinion, and from what little I knew from religion. And I was wrong.

And while I never take part in debates or even discussions on homosexuality, there are so many threads on that issue... and in one of them, I read someone's post who is gay, and there was so much honesty and also pain - well, I was compelled to write this.



May you all have peace,
your servant, and a slave of Christ,
tammy (who was not sure where to put this thread, so this might not be the right place. Please don't move this thread to the holy huddle room if possible. I would like anyone to be able to comment who wants to comment. If it must be moved, then perhaps that rant sub-section?)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 60 by bluethread]

What I am saying about the passage is that historical, grammatical and cultural contexts matter. Though this is a generally accepted tenet of literary criticism in general, it need be no more than my opinion here, because we are chatting, not debating.

Great then. Since we aren't debating, and only chatting, any and all interpretations are as valid as any other. Here is another:

"Paul does sometimes use sacrificial metaphors for Jesus, such as: "Christ our Pascal lamb has been sacrificed," (1 Cor. 5:7) or "present your bodies as a sacrifice… pleasing to god" (Rom. 12:1). He also refers to Jesus as a "sacrifice of atonement [hilasterion]" (Rom. 3:24–25). As mentioned above, given the prominent role of sacrifice in Paul's religious world, it is not surprising that he would use sacrificial symbolism for Jesus. But metaphor is as far as Paul goes. He never says, "Jesus is a true sacrifice, and the Temple sacrifices are not." The idea that Gentiles would one day turn away from their gods to worship (and sacrifice to) Yahweh was a common piece of ancient Judean eschatological speculation. This is likely the vision of the future Paul imagined. "

http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/re ... e_nt.xhtml

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 60 by bluethread]

What I am saying about the passage is that historical, grammatical and cultural contexts matter. Though this is a generally accepted tenet of literary criticism in general, it need be no more than my opinion here, because we are chatting, not debating.

Great then. Since we aren't debating, and only chatting, any and all interpretations are as valid as any other. Here is another:

"Paul does sometimes use sacrificial metaphors for Jesus, such as: "Christ our Pascal lamb has been sacrificed," (1 Cor. 5:7) or "present your bodies as a sacrifice… pleasing to god" (Rom. 12:1). He also refers to Jesus as a "sacrifice of atonement [hilasterion]" (Rom. 3:24–25). As mentioned above, given the prominent role of sacrifice in Paul's religious world, it is not surprising that he would use sacrificial symbolism for Jesus. But metaphor is as far as Paul goes. He never says, "Jesus is a true sacrifice, and the Temple sacrifices are not." The idea that Gentiles would one day turn away from their gods to worship (and sacrifice to) Yahweh was a common piece of ancient Judean eschatological speculation. This is likely the vision of the future Paul imagined. "

http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/re ... e_nt.xhtml

That is a good article and, save one or two points, I do agree with it. I do agree that Christianity, ie. RCC theology, does seek to say that the view of sacrifice changes under Paul. However, as the article states, that does not really line up with what Paul says and does. I do not believe in any form of replacement theology, be it "the Church" for Israel, or Yeshua's self sacrifice for the Temple sacrifice. Paul does compare the various Temple sacrifices to Yeshua's self sacrifice in arguing certain principles, but that is as far as it goes.