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 49 by bluethread]

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 !

No doubt, evaluating an anthology of theistic philosophy, history and law based on empirical humanism would result in inconsistent results.

Based on WHAT ???

If we can't even agree what TRUTH means... then we can't really have a debate about the truth of the Bible, OR anything else, for that matter. This is a typical apologetic ploy of putting out a red herring when things get dicey for their position. How about we argue now about what TRUTH means, instead of wondering if the Bible can be a reliable history?

Nice diversion if it would only work...

I dont know what you mean by "empirical humanism", really. But if you mean that there are different KINDS of fact checking, and that "empirical humanistic" kind is inferior to some other kind, you would have to at least try to demonstrate that your truth theory works better than what you call "empirical humanism".

This is a semantic red herring that I wont follow. How about we stay on track? The truth is whatever matches with reality. The Bible has a LOT of trouble acting as a reliable historical account.

If we try to check that what the Bible says are true facts that can be verified somehow, then we do get into a great deal of difficulty.

There are contradictory versions of the same stories..to almost EVERY story and we don't know which ONE of them is true, because they can't be all true. They don't AGREE on the facts they present. And although not ALL of them can be true, all of them CAN be false. People DO make things up.

We have no way to verify that the Bible wasn't all made up like fictions are all made up. For all we know, the Bible might have been a collection of PURE FICTION.

You may well ask why would anyone write a work of pure fiction.. why indeed?

1) we don't even know who the authors of the bible were.
2) we don't know the author's motivations.. they MAY have intended to be propaganda, and purely fictional, or partly fictional accounts.

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.

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.

Not in this forum. That said, when I make such claims in other forums I do support them.

Ok then, I can make any claim I like too. I will offer no justification for whatever I claim. Wont that be fun?

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.

I stand accused.

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.

You won't justify your claims, and i won't either then. We can literally say anything and everything that we like. In conclusion, making a claim that no claim has been made whilst disregarding the the justifications of the one making the claim is intellectually dishonest. This is also no accusation, as it would be totally inappropriate in this forum. If you wish to say that you do, then that is YOUR assertion, and not mine.

Now, I wont feel the need to justify that, since we can say whatever we like in this forum, without any justification, apparently. And I won't argue your point because there is no reason to. We can literally say anything you like. ( as long as it's seen as civil, of course )

So much for debate.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 51 by Blastcat]

As far as I know, them's the rule for this forum. Say whatever you like, as long as it is civil. You are not required to provide any justification. If you wish to have a debate, choose the appropriate forum and have at it. Now regarding my reference to philosophical prospective, it is the case that what appears to be true and untrue will change based on which prospective one chooses. If one believes in absolutes, a particular philosophical viewpoint, then one would say that truth does not depend on how something appears. Do you hold to a philosophy that is based on absolutes?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by Blastcat]

As far as I know, them's the rule for this forum. Say whatever you like, as long as it is civil. You are not required to provide any justification. If you wish to have a debate, choose the appropriate forum and have at it. Now regarding my reference to philosophical prospective, it is the case that what appears to be true and untrue will change based on which prospective one chooses. If one believes in absolutes, a particular philosophical viewpoint, then one would say that truth does not depend on how something appears. Do you hold to a philosophy that is based on absolutes?

I'm not even sure what "absolutes" means... so I try not to base anything on an "absolute", no.

I wouldn't presume to pretend to know anything "absolutely"... I think that my information gathering abilities are quite limited, actually.

It's an epistemic problem for me... How can I know anything absolutely ?...

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 51 by Blastcat]

As far as I know, them's the rule for this forum. Say whatever you like, as long as it is civil. You are not required to provide any justification. If you wish to have a debate, choose the appropriate forum and have at it. Now regarding my reference to philosophical prospective, it is the case that what appears to be true and untrue will change based on which prospective one chooses. If one believes in absolutes, a particular philosophical viewpoint, then one would say that truth does not depend on how something appears. Do you hold to a philosophy that is based on absolutes?

I'm not even sure what "absolutes" means... so I try not to base anything on an "absolute", no.

I wouldn't presume to pretend to know anything "absolutely"... I think that my information gathering abilities are quite limited, actually.

It's an epistemic problem for me... How can I know anything absolutely ?...

So, which do you think would be more productive, taking that into account when reading your posts, or reading them presuming that you choose to view the universe the way I do?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

So, which do you think would be more productive, taking that into account when reading your posts, or reading them presuming that you choose to view the universe the way I do?

I don't know what you're getting at. You asked me a question about absolutes.. and I answered it.

I can ask you the same question, so we can get that out of the way.. do YOU believe in absolutes, what are they, how do you know what they are or THAT they are.. and so forth.

If you believe in certain absolutes, and can give me a good reason why, maybe you will convince me. Right now, my opinion about absolutes is ... something like agnosticism, or ignosticism. But then again, maybe what you MEAN by "absolutes" isn't what I understand by the word.

If you mean that I should try to understand your point of view properly in order to have a reasonable debate, then I would agree. I should understand what you mean.

Right now, I have to admit to some difficulty in that regard.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

So, which do you think would be more productive, taking that into account when reading your posts, or reading them presuming that you choose to view the universe the way I do?

I don't know what you're getting at. You asked me a question about absolutes.. and I answered it.

Well, this is a thread about what Adonai meant when He said, "I desire mercy not sacrifice." I was just wondering if you thought it is more reasonable to determine what something means based on the viewpoint of those to whom it is addressed, or whether any viewpoint will do. The concept of absolutes is just a side issue that appeared to fit your approach to interpreting things. If that is not the case that is fine, after all we are just chatting here. How is it you think we should determine what that phrase means?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 56 by bluethread]

Well, this is a thread about what Adonai meant when He said, "I desire mercy not sacrifice." I was just wondering if you thought it is more reasonable to determine what something means based on the viewpoint of those to whom it is addressed, or whether any viewpoint will do. The concept of absolutes is just a side issue that appeared to fit your approach to interpreting things. If that is not the case that is fine, after all we are just chatting here. How is it you think we should determine what that phrase means?

I don't know how we can tell

1) Who wrote the Bible and exactly who was the intended audience.
2) What the stories meant... allegory, metaphor, poetry, contradictions don't add up to a lot of ACCURATE interpretations.
3) What possible thoughts were running through the minds of the people the stories were intended for when "they" read the stories.

So what the phrase "means" depends on who is interpreting it, why and how.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 56 by bluethread]
How is it you think we should determine what that phrase means?

I don't know how we can tell [/quote]

Well, one can begin with internal attribution. That is how Hamlet is interpreted.

1) Who wrote the Bible and exactly who was the intended audience.

Well, it claims to have been written by various individuals, which are generally identified and nearly all of the passages identify the intended audience.

2) What the stories meant... allegory, metaphor, poetry, contradictions don't add up to a lot of ACCURATE interpretations.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it.

3) What possible thoughts were running through the minds of the people the stories were intended for when "they" read the stories.

Well. if one looks at prior passages, and takes into account the archeological information related to the historical and topographical setting, using the information provided in the passage, I can generally get a reasonable idea of the mindset of the intended audience.

So what the phrase "means" depends on who is interpreting it, why and how.

Of course, that is what any phrase "means". This phrase I am responding to here is dependent upon historical, literal and cultural context. That is why such things are so important.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 56 by bluethread]

How is it you think we should determine what that phrase means?

I don't know how we can tell

Well, one can begin with internal attribution. That is how Hamlet is interpreted.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Please show how internal attribution has anything to do with what you are saying. Hamlet, as far as I know, is almost purely fictional. Are you saying that the Bible is the same in that regard?

When I tried to find out what that term meant on the internet, I got this:

"Blaming a factor, agent, or force within one’s control for causing an event. Also known as a dispositional attribution.
Example: When a cashier is short with her at the grocery store, the woman decides he must be a rude and crabby person all the time."

http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/20 ... tribution/

and this:

"When we use internal attributions, we infer that a person is behaving in a certain way or that an event is due to factors related to the person."

You can begin perhaps by showing us what you mean by using this... method? ... with Hamlet, and then show how this works with the passage in the OP.

1) Who wrote the Bible and exactly who was the intended audience.

Well, it claims to have been written by various individuals, which are generally identified and nearly all of the passages identify the intended audience.

So what, really, if they have a NAME attached to the passages? We still cannot mind read. What we HAVE is the text, and the text alone. Anything else is almost pure speculation.

We know that the Bible authors are anonymous. For all we know, the Bible might have been authored by committee. I don't really care about what the Bible CLAIMS are... And I am not convinced that anyone knows precisely who the intended audience was. The passage in question here might have been purely fictional, and intended to a purely hypothetical audience. Who KNOWS?

If you have a time machine and a mind reading machine, I will gladly go find out with you... until then, you can speculate ALL you like. But speculations are not facts.

What exactly ARE you saying about this passage, anyway? Are you saying anything in particular about it other than your opinion?

2) What the stories meant... allegory, metaphor, poetry, contradictions don't add up to a lot of ACCURATE interpretations.

That is your opinion and you have a right to it.

Thank you.

3) What possible thoughts were running through the minds of the people the stories were intended for when "they" read the stories.

Well. if one looks at prior passages, and takes into account the archeological information related to the historical and topographical setting, using the information provided in the passage, I can generally get a reasonable idea of the mindset of the intended audience.

You get a reasonable idea of the mindset of the intended audience by way of archaeology and TOPOLOGY? Very strange.. could you elaborate?

So what the phrase "means" depends on who is interpreting it, why and how.

Of course, that is what any phrase "means". This phrase I am responding to here is dependent upon historical, literal and cultural context. That is why such things are so important.

Ah the context. Well we should know precisely what that is.. and what is the context of the MINDS of the authors and the possible intended audience. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical that anyone really knows the intentions of the authors from thousands of years back.

[bluethread]

"When we use internal attributions, we infer that a person is behaving in a certain way or that an event is due to factors related to the person."

You can begin perhaps by showing us what you mean by using this... method? ... with Hamlet, and then show how this works with the passage in the OP.

We accept for analysis purposes that Hamlet is the crown prince of Denmark, because the novel attributes that to Him. I did not choose Hamlet because it was fiction, one could use the same method when analyzing Commentarii de Bello Gallico, by Julius Caesar.

1) Who wrote the Bible and exactly who was the intended audience.

Well, it claims to have been written by various individuals, which are generally identified and nearly all of the passages identify the intended audience.

So what, really, if they have a NAME attached to the passages? We still cannot mind read. What we HAVE is the text, and the text alone. Anything else is almost pure speculation.

We know that the Bible authors are anonymous. For all we know, the Bible might have been authored by committee. I don't really care about what the Bible CLAIMS are... And I am not convinced that anyone knows precisely who the intended audience was. The passage in question here might have been purely fictional, and intended to a purely hypothetical audience. Who KNOWS?

If you have a time machine and a mind reading machine, I will gladly go find out with you... until then, you can speculate ALL you like. But speculations are not facts.

What exactly ARE you saying about this passage, anyway? Are you saying anything in particular about it other than your opinion?

I was not stating that as a proof, but answering your question by pointing out one of many factors that one can use in analyzing the text. 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.

3) What possible thoughts were running through the minds of the people the stories were intended for when "they" read the stories.

Well. if one looks at prior passages, and takes into account the archeological information related to the historical and topographical setting, using the information provided in the passage, I can generally get a reasonable idea of the mindset of the intended audience.

You get a reasonable idea of the mindset of the intended audience by way of archaeology and TOPOLOGY? Very strange.. could you elaborate?

Combined with the internal attributions, these are used in establishing the historical, grammatical and cultural contexts. For example, we have artifacts that give us examples of the languages and practices of the ancient near east and understanding what happened where and the topographical nature of the area can give us clues to the lifestyle and mindsets of the peoples of the region.

So what the phrase "means" depends on who is interpreting it, why and how.

Of course, that is what any phrase "means". This phrase I am responding to here is dependent upon historical, literal and cultural context. That is why such things are so important.

Ah the context. Well we should know precisely what that is.. and what is the context of the MINDS of the authors and the possible intended audience. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical that anyone really knows the intentions of the authors from thousands of years back.

I don't know why we should have to know "precisely" what the context is. I am happy to go with the best information available. If you are not, that is fine. I'm not proving anything here. I am just explaining.