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?)

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Second,

Quote:
1 Corinthians 5:12-1312
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

Please note that Paul had to recant his command here in his third letter to the Corinthians (which we record as his second letter, but it is really his third. 1 Corinthians is actually his second letter; he states that himself in the letter when he says 'this is the second time I am writing to you').

Where did Paul recant this statement?

[beeswax]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I have just picked up this thread as directed by Tam on a thread today and just browsed through it and have to say the post above by Divine Insight really should be in every Christian Church as Jesus could NOT have been the Son of God for the reasons stated by DI and if he wasn't and for me, he wasn't anyway as he got too many things wrong and so he then had NO authority to command ANYONE to do anything and what was that you must love him bit? I'm always thought that gay people were born that way and not by choice and its just my opinion that Jesus and the disciples were a Gay Cabal as it was it was not usual for Jewish men not to get married and go out and multiply as per God's commandment. Paul was probably gay too and was the thorn in his flesh. No man says to another man, do you LOVE me more than the others unless they are gay and that is what Jesus said according to the Gospels. Christians then add but that is the love of God and not of men. But then Jesus should have chosen his words more carefully. Wasn't the whole point of the 10 commandments to love God first and not each other?

Sorry Jesus another 2 out of 10 for clarity!

Its why the Church attracts so many gays anyway and just a pity the leaders have condemned lots of its own members as evil and disordered, even to probably its founders.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 1 by tam]

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.

The word "homosexuality" has two different meanings. It can mean a condition of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex or it can mean sexual activity between members of the same sex. It appears from your use in this paragraph that you are using the second meaning so I will use it in that sense in my response.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)

Homosexuality just like other sins; its practice will keep a person out of the kingdom of God but like any other sin it can be forgiven.

Who among us has the right to call unclean what Christ has made clean?

Who among us has the right to call clean what God has said is unclean?

Do we think His blood so weak... His sacrifice so meaningless... that He cannot cover over any sin (save the ONE unforgivable sin)?

His blood can cover any sin if the person acknowledges it is a sin and repents of it. Jesus said, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners
to repentance."

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

Love tells others the truth about themselves. If they are doing something that will cause them harm we must warn them if we truly love them.

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?

The Bible says nothing about sexual orientation. It only speaks of homosexual practice. If a gay person could change his orientation that would be good because it would remove one source of temptation from his life but he doesn't need to do so to live a life that pleases God.

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.

We can also keep someone from coming to Christ by telling him that what he is doing isn't a sin and doesn't need to be forgiven. The worst enemies of gay people aren't those who abuse them physically but those endanger their souls by telling them that what they are doing isn't a sin and doesn't need to be forgiven. Perhaps this will help you understand better what I mean:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

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?

I am certain that they do not have a choice in their orientation. However that is irrelevant to any discussion of what the Bible teaches about the subject. The Bible says nothing about orientation but about practice, and all of us, whether we are gay or straight, can choose what we do.

Here is a link to an article called "Seven Things I Wish My Pastor Knew About My Homosexuality" that might throw more light on this subject:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14149/

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by 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."

It appears the sinful God condemned the innocent Jesus to sacrifice. OR the perfectly good God condemned a GUILTY and SINFUL Jesus to sacrifice. Either way, someone is guilty. God, Jesus, or BOTH.

Sending Jesus to die on a cross isn't what I would call very merciful to JESUS. And I have often heard people call what Jesus did WAS a sacrifice.

MAYBE the terrible agony due to the torture leading to death was MERCIFUL in the sense that it never HAPPENED.

No punishment is quite as merciful as one that never HAPPENS.

But in the story, it does happen. Jesus accepts to be sacrificed. After all, it seems that SOMEONE has to be sacrificed. God can't be expected to just FORGIVE out of MERCY, after all.

A sacrifice is NEEDED.. for some reason.
Hey, that's the way the magic works in that Old Time religion.

So, of course it makes sense to some Christians that being GAY needs to be punished... a SACRIFICE is needed. Homosexuality is a SIN, after all.

Jesus is sacrificed to atone for an OLD COVENANT sin that humans are guilty of. OLD COVENANT sins are what Jesus coming to earth is all ABOUT.

God could NOT have just pardoned the human sinners due to MERCY, but needed to have his son SACRIFICED on a cross.

The god you talk about doesn't DO mercy, not to the one he should love the MOST.. not to his son. What a HORRIBLY MONSTROUS parent that God is to his son.

He should have shown his only son some mercy, instead of offering Jesus up to some barbaric and superstitious blood sacrifice.. don't you think?

[ttruscott]

...

Paul had to recant because Paul was wrong. What Paul wrote and commanded the others to do in that congregation was not in keeping with what Christ taught, and Paul caused a lot of confusion with what he told them to do.

...

Umm, could you help an old guy out and share the specific verses that this contention refers to? Thanks...

[tam]

Peace to you Puddleglum and Ted, as you both asked for the same thing:

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Second,

Quote:
1 Corinthians 5:12-1312
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

Please note that Paul had to recant his command here in his third letter to the Corinthians (which we record as his second letter, but it is really his third. 1 Corinthians is actually his second letter; he states that himself in the letter when he says 'this is the second time I am writing to you').

Where did Paul recant this statement?

He did not recant the statement (as in say that he was wrong). He recanted the command when he told the Corinthians to instead embrace the man he previously told them to expel/shun. That all was forgiven, if indeed there was anything that needed to be forgiven to begin with.

His reason was also based on the Levitical laws regarding sexual immorality; not upon Christ. Hence, he does not state that Christ wanted them to do this. Paul states that he told them to do this as a test, to see if they would be obedient in all things.

That is all in his second (really his third) letter to the Corinthians.



Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 36 by tam]

. He recanted the command when he told the Corinthians to instead embrace the man he previously told them to expel/shun.

He wasn't recanting the command. He was saying that it had accomplished its purpose because the sinner had repented.

In one of your posts you said that when Paul commanded the expulsion of the sinners he was contradicting what Jesus taught. Here is what Jesus commanded to be done in such a situation:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.�
(Matthew 18:15-20 ESV)

Paul told the Corinthians to obey the command that Jesus had given. One reason modern churches are so ineffective in carrying out God's work is that they refuse to discipline members who sin.

[bluethread]

It appears the sinful God condemned the innocent Jesus to sacrifice. OR the perfectly good God condemned a GUILTY and SINFUL Jesus to sacrifice. Either way, someone is guilty. God, Jesus, or BOTH.

Sending Jesus to die on a cross isn't what I would call very merciful to JESUS. And I have often heard people call what Jesus did WAS a sacrifice.

Since you seem to consider yourself a scholar regarding the Scriptures, stating these things established points and all, let me ask a few questions do I can more rightly interpret the Scriptures.

First, what is the standard you are using to judge guilt with regard to Adonai and Yeshua?

Second, what is the purpose of a sacrifice and does the attitude of the person offering the sacrifice matter?

MAYBE the terrible agony due to the torture leading to death was MERCIFUL in the sense that it never HAPPENED.

No punishment is quite as merciful as one that never HAPPENS.

Could you be specific as to what punishment you are referring to, so we can be clear as to what is and is not alleged to have happened?

But in the story, it does happen. Jesus accepts to be sacrificed. After all, it seems that SOMEONE has to be sacrificed. God can't be expected to just FORGIVE out of MERCY, after all.

A sacrifice is NEEDED.. for some reason.
Hey, that's the way the magic works in that Old Time religion.

Oh, so are you saying that this is a voluntary sacrifice? Could you elaborate on why a sacrifice was needed and what "magic" you are referring to?

So, of course it makes sense to some Christians that being GAY needs to be punished... a SACRIFICE is needed. Homosexuality is a SIN, after all.

Jesus is sacrificed to atone for an OLD COVENANT sin that humans are guilty of. OLD COVENANT sins are what Jesus coming to earth is all ABOUT.

God could NOT have just pardoned the human sinners due to MERCY, but needed to have his son SACRIFICED on a cross.

The god you talk about doesn't DO mercy, not to the one he should love the MOST.. not to his son. What a HORRIBLY MONSTROUS parent that God is to his son.

He should have shown his only son some mercy, instead of offering Jesus up to some barbaric and superstitious blood sacrifice.. don't you think?

So, His only purpose in coming was to be part of "some barbaric and superstitious blood sacrifice"? Where do you get this? Also, please explain how mercy works?

If it is any help here are the contexts of the passages in question. Do the emboldened portions effect the interpretations in any way? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Hosea 6:6-7 "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to me there."

Mt. 9:10-13 "While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""

Mt. 12:1-7 "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

It appears the sinful God condemned the innocent Jesus to sacrifice. OR the perfectly good God condemned a GUILTY and SINFUL Jesus to sacrifice. Either way, someone is guilty. God, Jesus, or BOTH.

Sending Jesus to die on a cross isn't what I would call very merciful to JESUS. And I have often heard people call what Jesus did WAS a sacrifice.

Since you seem to consider yourself a scholar regarding the Scriptures, stating these things established points and all, let me ask a few questions do I can more rightly interpret the Scriptures.

Huh?
It's that easy to become a Biblical scholar? And I didn't even have to send three box tops and the $20!!!

First, what is the standard you are using to judge guilt with regard to Adonai and Yeshua?

My normal thinking does the trick.

Second, what is the purpose of a sacrifice and does the attitude of the person offering the sacrifice matter?

I think BLOOD-LUST sums it all up.. but if you want the gory details, allow me to elucidate thus:

The purpose of a sacrifice is to do some magic. It's a barbaric and superstitious practice from LONG ago. No, the attitude does not matter. Spill some blood, humiliate a god, kill a goat.. attitude doesn't enter into the ritual. You can do it happy, you can do it sad, you can do it angry, you can do it afraid. Just DO IT is what matters.. Have some mercy, and DO the sacrifice OR ELSE... god's gonna cry.

MAYBE the terrible agony due to the torture leading to death was MERCIFUL in the sense that it never HAPPENED.

No punishment is quite as merciful as one that never HAPPENS.

Could you be specific as to what punishment you are referring to, so we can be clear as to what is and is not alleged to have happened?

Humiliation, torture, and death. The top three S&M barbaric bloodthirsty rituals.

But in the story, it does happen. Jesus accepts to be sacrificed. After all, it seems that SOMEONE has to be sacrificed. God can't be expected to just FORGIVE out of MERCY, after all.

A sacrifice is NEEDED.. for some reason.
Hey, that's the way the magic works in that Old Time religion.

Oh, so are you saying that this is a voluntary sacrifice? Could you elaborate on why a sacrifice was needed and what "magic" you are referring to?

It's all about the [strike]BASS[/strike] GRACE, no [strike]treble[/strike] devil.

Apparently, the FATHER orders his son... OR ASKS POLITELY, OR BEGS.. his son to become a man, and then be humiliated, tortured, and killed. But since I am a BIBLICAL SCHOLAR... I'm going to say that.... It was a voluntary act of the "SON GOD" to OBEY the order of his GOD father. The son had NO CHOICE but to choose whatever his father wanted. It's all about the BASS, no "treble".

I don't know if it was NEEDED, or even if it WAS voluntary... It was all imaginary, that's for sure, but we can INTERPRET all the live long day about Bible PASSAGES, that's why they are so FUN.

So, of course it makes sense to some Christians that being GAY needs to be punished... a SACRIFICE is needed. Homosexuality is a SIN, after all.

Jesus is sacrificed to atone for an OLD COVENANT sin that humans are guilty of. OLD COVENANT sins are what Jesus coming to earth is all ABOUT.

God could NOT have just pardoned the human sinners due to MERCY, but needed to have his son SACRIFICED on a cross.

The god you talk about doesn't DO mercy, not to the one he should love the MOST.. not to his son. What a HORRIBLY MONSTROUS parent that God is to his son.

He should have shown his only son some mercy, instead of offering Jesus up to some barbaric and superstitious blood sacrifice.. don't you think?

So, His only purpose in coming was to be part of "some barbaric and superstitious blood sacrifice"? Where do you get this? Also, please explain how mercy works?

Who KNOWS what really makes a psychopath tick.

Humiliating, torturing and killing someone for BLASPHEMY is barbarous.
That all of this sado-masochism leads to ATONEMENT or forgiveness or something like that is the superstitious insane part.

The FATHER GOD should have shown his own son some MERCY and NOT SACRIFICE. but nah... it's sacrifice for JC.

Kill ONE god, kill a TRINITY half off this week only !!!

Kill the god/man/son/Christ/Savior, get SAVED somehow. Yeah, that's magical thinking at it's wildest and weirdest.

If it is any help here are the contexts of the passages in question. Do the emboldened portions effect the interpretations in any way? If so, how so? If not, why not?

It's the HEATHEN BIBLE INTERPRETATION HOUR featuring our resident Biblical Scholar BLASTCAT.

Hosea 6:6-7 "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to me there."

As you would know if you were as scholarly as I apparently am, this is GOD saying that he doesn't LIKE his sacrifices to be burnt, but NAILED to A CROSS in the future.. Oh and god wants mercy for being such a ... TORTURING MURDERER in advance.

God begs for mercy for his sins.

Mt. 9:10-13 "While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""

Easy for a scholar like me :

Since JESUS is going to be sacrificed he is calling himself a SINNER and sick, and his dad rightly PUNISHES Jesus and "heals" him by way of humiliation, torture and death. This is like a sado-masochistic suicidal dream "treatment", but of course, back then, they didn't have the DSM-5 yet. Paraphilic Disorders weren't understood as well as modern scholars do today.

Mt. 12:1-7 "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

That's an easy one. Jesus is saying that people should chow down on 12 grain bread on Saturdays. Maybe with a little butter and jam...

Who knew biblical scholarship was so TASTAY?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 39 by Blastcat]

Since this is the general chat forum, your approach does not require any justification. I will just say, from my understanding, literary criticism usually involves explanations based on language, context, and culture, not just one's personal visceral reactions. So, I will just let your evaluations rest on their merits.