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?)
Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.
Moderator: Moderators
-
jgh7
Post #41
Most of the OP's post was about showing mercy and not judging or condemning homosexuals.
Condemnation is unnavoidable in Christianity just like in all other beliefs or non-beliefs. We condemn ruthless murderers and corrupt thiefs. Sin is ultimately condemned to a greater or lesser extent.
It's up to Christians to either ignore their bible and not condemn homosexuals, or to accept their bible and at least view homosexuality as a sin.
Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
-----
Homosexuality is viewed as sinful in the bible, and judging by the OT it's considered a detestable sin at that. Either Christians can completely ignore this and thus not condemn homosexuals, or they can accept this to a greater or lesser degree. Acknowledging homosexuality as a sin is condemnation.
Condemnation is unnavoidable in Christianity just like in all other beliefs or non-beliefs. We condemn ruthless murderers and corrupt thiefs. Sin is ultimately condemned to a greater or lesser extent.
It's up to Christians to either ignore their bible and not condemn homosexuals, or to accept their bible and at least view homosexuality as a sin.
Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
-----
Homosexuality is viewed as sinful in the bible, and judging by the OT it's considered a detestable sin at that. Either Christians can completely ignore this and thus not condemn homosexuals, or they can accept this to a greater or lesser degree. Acknowledging homosexuality as a sin is condemnation.
Post #42
[Replying to post 40 by bluethread]
However, when it comes to the Bible.. we do not know that the words are anything more than a work of the imagination, that when we read English words, we understand them to be translated from the Greek, and we understand that it was meant to represent either Aramaic or Hebrew. We do not really know the exact context, because we do not have a time machine, and we do not really know all about the culture, for the same reason. We also do not know who the authors were, nor their motivations.
Scholarship does demonstrate that many passages in the Bible has ambiguous language that can be and IS interpreted in many ways, by many different people for many different reasons. There is a high degree of variability on the true meaning of biblical passages, and that is enough to warrant thousands and thousands of Christian variations on interpretations. If you want to convince people that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events that is historically reliable, then you might have some way ahead of you. If you go further and present some particular interpretation as the only correct one, then you have further yet to go.
But even though you understood exactly what the words in the Bible actually meant and could prove it to the Nth degree, it would still not prove that the words were an accurate description of real events, or or reality. Interpretations scholarly or not about fictional accounts are still not about facts.
So we might be able to explain the language, the "context", and the culture of the time that the stories are set in, but we still have not demonstrated that the stories are true. Literary criticism works best for fiction, after all. Criticisms on books supposedly about real events focus on the reliability of the facts, and not the language, the context, nor the culture.
But now, I find myself in a heated debate about the nature of literary criticism which might take place somewhere else than in this thread.
Thank you, that's the best I can hope for. I have to admit that I might not fit into the "usual" category of literary criticism. I have done my best to offer my ( hopefully ) humorous interpretation based on my sense of whimsy, wit and irony. I am very glad to let my evaluations rest on their merits.bluethread wrote: [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.
However, when it comes to the Bible.. we do not know that the words are anything more than a work of the imagination, that when we read English words, we understand them to be translated from the Greek, and we understand that it was meant to represent either Aramaic or Hebrew. We do not really know the exact context, because we do not have a time machine, and we do not really know all about the culture, for the same reason. We also do not know who the authors were, nor their motivations.
Scholarship does demonstrate that many passages in the Bible has ambiguous language that can be and IS interpreted in many ways, by many different people for many different reasons. There is a high degree of variability on the true meaning of biblical passages, and that is enough to warrant thousands and thousands of Christian variations on interpretations. If you want to convince people that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events that is historically reliable, then you might have some way ahead of you. If you go further and present some particular interpretation as the only correct one, then you have further yet to go.
But even though you understood exactly what the words in the Bible actually meant and could prove it to the Nth degree, it would still not prove that the words were an accurate description of real events, or or reality. Interpretations scholarly or not about fictional accounts are still not about facts.
So we might be able to explain the language, the "context", and the culture of the time that the stories are set in, but we still have not demonstrated that the stories are true. Literary criticism works best for fiction, after all. Criticisms on books supposedly about real events focus on the reliability of the facts, and not the language, the context, nor the culture.
But now, I find myself in a heated debate about the nature of literary criticism which might take place somewhere else than in this thread.
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #43
It appears to me that the beginning of your post is basically an argument about the nature of epistemology in general, ie how we can know something. I have not addressed that greater issue and so will focus on the second part. I have merely focused on internal consistency with regard to the Scriptures, applying the tools of literary criticism, because I can not expect acceptance of doctrine or dogma to carry any weight, in this discussion. I, in kind, do not accept the presumption of doctrine or dogma on my part by others. The argument that some propose something does not obligate me to justify that. If I state something that others believe, it is my obligation to provide what I believe to be their justification. It is not the obligation of the person I am talking to provide that. The other person is only obligated to support what that person believes or what they believe to be the justification is for the beliefs of others that they have presented.Blastcat wrote:
So we might be able to explain the language, the "context", and the culture of the time that the stories are set in, but we still have not demonstrated that the stories are true. Literary criticism works best for fiction, after all. Criticisms on books supposedly about real events focus on the reliability of the facts, and not the language, the context, nor the culture.
But now, I find myself in a heated debate about the nature of literary criticism which might take place somewhere else than in this thread.
In conclusion, judging a claim based entirely on how one chooses to see it and disregarding the justifications of the one making the claim, or the fact that the other person never made such a claim is intellectually dishonest. Again, sense this is the general chat forum, I put that out as my viewpoint and you are under no obligation to accept or defend anything I have said.
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #44
[Replying to post 41 by jgh7]
Homosexual orientation and homosexual practice are two entirely different things. Some people experience sexual attraction toward others of the same sex. This is something they can't control so it isn't a sin. If they yield to this attraction they sin because they are violating God's laws. The Bible condemns the act but doesn't condemn those who are tempted to commit the sin but resist the temptation.
Failure to distinguish between orientation and practice can lead to two errors. Those who recognize the the act is a sin are tempted to condemn those who experience homosexual attraction but don't act on it. Those who realize that orientation isn't a sin and we should love those who experience it can easily come to believe that we should approve homosexual practice as well.
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/ ... ity-house/
You seem to be using the terms "condemning homosexuals" and "viewing homosexuality as a sin" as if they mean the same thing. They do not.It's up to Christians to either ignore their bible and not condemn homosexuals, or to accept their bible and at least view homosexuality as a sin.
Homosexual orientation and homosexual practice are two entirely different things. Some people experience sexual attraction toward others of the same sex. This is something they can't control so it isn't a sin. If they yield to this attraction they sin because they are violating God's laws. The Bible condemns the act but doesn't condemn those who are tempted to commit the sin but resist the temptation.
Failure to distinguish between orientation and practice can lead to two errors. Those who recognize the the act is a sin are tempted to condemn those who experience homosexual attraction but don't act on it. Those who realize that orientation isn't a sin and we should love those who experience it can easily come to believe that we should approve homosexual practice as well.
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/ ... ity-house/
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
Post #45
[Replying to post 41 by jgh7]
In a hundred years or so, these will be MOOT points.. even the most fundamentalist Christian will have to accept that homosexuality is not sinful.
And maybe by then the idea that atheists are not of the devil might have started to trickle down to the masses... ( pun intended )
You forgot to mention the third option available to Christian apologists, and that is spin the story so that it's white-washed to mean the very opposite of what it says. I think that happened with slavery, and then women, and now, homosexuality.jgh7 wrote: Most of the OP's post was about showing mercy and not judging or condemning homosexuals.
Condemnation is unnavoidable in Christianity just like in all other beliefs or non-beliefs. We condemn ruthless murderers and corrupt thiefs. Sin is ultimately condemned to a greater or lesser extent.
It's up to Christians to either ignore their bible and not condemn homosexuals, or to accept their bible and at least view homosexuality as a sin.
In a hundred years or so, these will be MOOT points.. even the most fundamentalist Christian will have to accept that homosexuality is not sinful.
And maybe by then the idea that atheists are not of the devil might have started to trickle down to the masses... ( pun intended )
Post #46
[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]
On to interpreting the poetry, then !
Good, I agree that AT BEST all anyone can do is check for internal consistency in this case. We have checked for the consistency of factual claims the Bible has made, and we have noticed that many are false. So, the accuracy of the Bible is in question, to say the least as to it's being factual.bluethread wrote: I have merely focused on internal consistency with regard to the Scriptures, applying the tools of literary criticism, because I can not expect acceptance of doctrine or dogma to carry any weight, in this discussion.
On to interpreting the poetry, then !
Right, you can interpret the Bible any way you like. Just keep it consistent, and we are fine. If, however you make a KNOWLEDGE claim or a factual claim that we CAN verify, then we would need justification.bluethread wrote:I, in kind, do not accept the presumption of doctrine or dogma on my part by others. The argument that some propose something does not obligate me to justify that.
I stand accused.bluethread wrote:In conclusion, judging a claim based entirely on how one chooses to see it and disregarding the justifications of the one making the claim, or the fact that the other person never made such a claim is intellectually dishonest.
-
jgh7
Post #47
So what you are saying is that homosexuals are not sinful so long as they don't have homosexual sex? Homosexual sex is an expression of homosexuality. If you condemn homosexual sex, you are condemning a part of what makes homosexuals who they are. You are ultimately still condemning homosexuals.puddleglum wrote: [Replying to post 41 by jgh7]
You seem to be using the terms "condemning homosexuals" and "viewing homosexuality as a sin" as if they mean the same thing. They do not.It's up to Christians to either ignore their bible and not condemn homosexuals, or to accept their bible and at least view homosexuality as a sin.
Homosexual orientation and homosexual practice are two entirely different things. Some people experience sexual attraction toward others of the same sex. This is something they can't control so it isn't a sin. If they yield to this attraction they sin because they are violating God's laws. The Bible condemns the act but doesn't condemn those who are tempted to commit the sin but resist the temptation.
Failure to distinguish between orientation and practice can lead to two errors. Those who recognize the the act is a sin are tempted to condemn those who experience homosexual attraction but don't act on it. Those who realize that orientation isn't a sin and we should love those who experience it can easily come to believe that we should approve homosexual practice as well.
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/ ... ity-house/
And I don't even think the bible supports your notions. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex. That in itself should be sinful. The mere thought of looking at an opposite sex lustfully is considered adultery to Jesus, so all the more should it be sinful for homosexuals to even think of the same sex in a lustful manner.
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #48
[Replying to post 47 by jgh7]
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.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV)
This list of sins includes three involving sex. Two are sins by heterosexuals, one is a sin by homosexuals. Paul makes no distinction regarding the seriousness of these sins. They are all alike in that they can all be forgiven.
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 6:11 ESV)
All people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sinners because we have all violated God's commands. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is that they are tempted to commit different kinds of sin. If a heterosexual he must repent of that sin if he wants to be forgiven but he doesn't have to stop being a heterosexual. If a homosexual engages is sex with a person of the same sex he needs to repent and be forgiven but he isn't expected to stop being a homosexual.So what you are saying is that homosexuals are not sinful so long as they don't have homosexual sex? Homosexual sex is an expression of homosexuality. If you condemn homosexual sex, you are condemning a part of what makes homosexuals who they are. You are ultimately still condemning homosexuals.
To look at another person with lust is a sin regardless of whether that person is the same sex or of a different sex. That is why obedience to God requires that we control our thoughts as well as our acts.And I don't even think the bible supports your notions. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex. That in itself should be sinful. The mere thought of looking at an opposite sex lustfully is considered adultery to Jesus, so all the more should it be sinful for homosexuals to even think of the same sex in a lustful manner.
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.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV)
This list of sins includes three involving sex. Two are sins by heterosexuals, one is a sin by homosexuals. Paul makes no distinction regarding the seriousness of these sins. They are all alike in that they can all be forgiven.
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 6:11 ESV)
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #49
No doubt, evaluating an anthology of theistic philosophy, history and law based on empirical humanism would result in inconsistent results.Blastcat wrote:
Good, I agree that AT BEST all anyone can do is check for internal consistency in this case. We have checked for the consistency of factual claims the Bible has made, and we have noticed that many are false. So, the accuracy of the Bible is in question, to say the least as to it's being factual.
On to interpreting the poetry, then !
Not in this forum. That said, when I make such claims in other forums I do support them.Right, you can interpret the Bible any way you like. Just keep it consistent, and we are fine. If, however you make a KNOWLEDGE claim or a factual claim that we CAN verify, then we would need justification.bluethread wrote:I, in kind, do not accept the presumption of doctrine or dogma on my part by others. The argument that some propose something does not obligate me to justify that.
No you don't. I have not accused you of anything on this thread, that would be inappropriate in this forum. If you wish to say that is what you do, then that is our assertion, not mine.I stand accused.bluethread wrote:In conclusion, judging a claim based entirely on how one chooses to see it and disregarding the justifications of the one making the claim, or the fact that the other person never made such a claim is intellectually dishonest.
-
jgh7
Post #50
[Replying to post 48 by puddleglum]
I guess if that's how you interpret it then fine. Technically you're right in that the bible really only speaks about the act of homosexual sex as a sin, and it never seems to touch on whether or not homosexual orientation is a sin.
It really makes no difference to me. Your views are still highly intolerant. In my mind it's akin to saying someone who is naturally inclined to enjoy basketball is not a sinner, but someone who then commits the act of playing basketball has sinned.
See how absurd that sounds? That's how I feel about viewing homosexuality as a sin. That's why we're different. You respect your God for having that stance, I don't.
I guess if that's how you interpret it then fine. Technically you're right in that the bible really only speaks about the act of homosexual sex as a sin, and it never seems to touch on whether or not homosexual orientation is a sin.
It really makes no difference to me. Your views are still highly intolerant. In my mind it's akin to saying someone who is naturally inclined to enjoy basketball is not a sinner, but someone who then commits the act of playing basketball has sinned.
See how absurd that sounds? That's how I feel about viewing homosexuality as a sin. That's why we're different. You respect your God for having that stance, I don't.
