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?)

[Divine Insight]

I would like anyone to be able to comment who wants to comment.

I would like to comment on your thesis.

The problem I have with Christianity is not with the teachings attributed to Jesus. The problem I have is with the overall religion as a whole which basically demands that Jesus was the only begotten demigod Son of Yahweh.

Consider the following:


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."

Who was Jesus exactly? And who would his father have been?

These are the paramount questions for me.

The problem I have is with Yahweh, not with Jesus.

If the whole of the law is to love one another then why did Yahweh not make this crystal clear from the very beginning. And please don't try to tell me that he did because the Old Testament is not anywhere near compatible with that claim.

Yahweh is the one who instructed men to judge each other and stone sinners to death in the first place. Yahweh is the one who condoned and taught male-chauvinism and misogyny against women. Yahweh is the one who commanded men to go to war against their neighbors. Demanding that they kill without mercy. Yahweh even condoned and instructed these people to keep the young virgins from these wars for themselves.

Jesus cannot erase the horrors and immorality of Yahweh.

Moreover, Jesus has no feet of his own. He cannot stand on his own. His word is worthless in Christianity if he is not the Son of Yahweh. The claim that he is the son of Yahweh is the only thing that gives Jesus any authority at all. Take that away and Jesus has no authority.

So the problem I have with all of this is that Jesus did not teach the same things that were taught and commanded by Yahweh. And that brings up the following very important questions?

1. Why was Yahweh so different from Jesus in his commands and directives?

2. If Yahweh really was the "Father" of Jesus why was Yahweh himself so inept at getting this same message across from the get go?

3. If we wish to claim that Jesus was the demigod son of some other God (i.e. not the Yahweh described in the Old Testament), then we would need to trash the Old Testament and everything in it, and then the question becomes, "Why didn't Jesus then do this?"

4. And finally, a message from Yahweh coming to us through Jesus where Yahweh has Jesus ultimately crucified on a pole to "pay" for our sins would be an extreme contradiction to any message that love and forgiveness should be the whole of the law.

The very "Sacrifice of Christ" to pay for our sins would be the greatest hypocritical statement that the Father God could ever make. He would be preaching to us a morality of forgiveness and love whilst demanding that someone be crucified on a pole to pay for our sins. That would be an extreme hypocritical behavior on the part of the "Father God".

~~~~~

In short, I don't see where Christianity has a leg to stand on. It fails when it tries to focus on Jesus as the superstar "Godhead". Jesus is nothing if not the demigod Son of Yahweh. And Yahweh is an extremely immoral example of how a God should behave.

Christianity cannot claim Jesus as their God. Because Jesus is nothing if not the demigod Son of Yahweh. Yahweh is the God that Christians must love with all their heart, mind, and soul, not Jesus.

And there's no way that the teachings of Jesus are compatible with the teachings attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament.

So Jesus is nothing in this religion. He has no authority of his own. Yahweh is everything, and if the purpose of Yahweh was to teach humans love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness, then Yahweh failed miserably to teach this the whole way through the Old Testament.

Yahweh would be the inept Father God in this religion. And no matter what Jesus taught that cannot be changed. Yahweh would be an extremely inept Father God.

So Christianity has some very serious problems.

Christianity cannot make Jesus into a "God" in his own right. It's way too late for that now. This religion (and the original New Testament Rumors) proclaim that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh. That cannot be change.

Jesus is no God. At best he was the demigod Son of Yahweh, and Yahweh would necessarily then need to be the most inept God ever since he was totally unable to teach love, compassion, forgiveness, and mercy clearly from the very beginning.

Jesus cannot save Yahweh.

And that's the bottom line right there.

Christianity cannot make Jesus into a "God" no matter how much they would like for that to be the case. It's simply too late. It's already been established by the New Testament Gospels that Jesus was nothing more than the demigod Son of Yahweh.

Yahweh is the God of Christianity, like it or not.

[Lion IRC]

Interesting Op.

I don't know "how many Christians out there point the finger" because they honestly believe homosexual acts are (biblically) immoral/unacceptable.

Neither do I know whether those Christians have "the right" to speak their mind and express themselves - their religion - in public.

It seems to me that if we expect the sort of tolerance which allows same-sex attracted people to express their sexuality, then we ought to let other human beings express their spiritually.
#equality

The Op suggests that, apart from one unforgivable sin - blaspheming the Holy Spirit - Jesus/God is going to be very lenient (not only with sexual immorality) and give a hall-pass on many other things that Christians generally think of as sins.

How can we reconcile this exceedingly tolerant Jesus with the same person who said;

"...The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

[bluethread]

Yeshua was talking about Shabbat, yet it appears that the posters here wish to use that in diatribes to support other issues. The point is that the purpose of forbidding work on Shabbat was not to stop people from doing hand to mouth eating. The term mercy here is not talking about forgiveness, but reasonable interpretation. It is not a sin to remove a husk or skin off of food that one is going to eat immediately on Shabbat.

[tam]

Peace to you LionIrc

It seems to me that if we expect the sort of tolerance which allows same-sex attracted people to express their sexuality, then we ought to let other human beings express their spiritually.
#equality

Other human beings are permitted to express their spirituality. However, just because the law permits something, does not mean one should do that something. It also doesn't mean that you are following Christ in what He taught - by word and deed.


Hence my post. Hence all the questions asked IN that post. Including if we have learned what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

How can we reconcile this exceedingly tolerant Jesus with the same person who said;

"...The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

What do you think needs to be reconciled? I have not suggested that the above is untrue.

Mercy incompatible with the law; on the contrary. And if the law is love, then what is lawlessness?


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

[tam]

Yeshua was talking about Shabbat, yet it appears that the posters here wish to use that in diatribes to support other issues. The point is that the purpose of forbidding work on Shabbat was not to stop people from doing hand to mouth eating. The term mercy here is not talking about forgiveness, but reasonable interpretation. It is not a sin to remove a husk or skin off of food that one is going to eat immediately on Shabbat.

Is there any reason that the words "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" could ONLY apply in this one instance? It is a quote from Hosea 6:6. What about the woman who had committed adultery, to whom Christ showed mercy and forgave? There was no question of reasonable interpretation in that instance.


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

[tam]

I am not sure that you fully understood the point of my post, DI, but if I am able, I would like respond to a couple of yours:

These are the paramount questions for me.

The problem I have is with Yahweh, not with Jesus.

Is it? Or is the problem you have with a particular interpretation of God, which you get from a particular interpretation of the bible (or sect of Christianity)... all the while dismissing the part of that book that says that Christ is the Word of God, the Truth (of God), the Image (the exact representation) of God? By dismissing the part of that book which states that Christ speaks only what He learned from His Father? By dismissing the part of the book where Christ states that if one knows Him, then one knows His Father also?


Christ shows us God. Not the bible, or men, or religion. The bible is not a perfect means to know the truth about God (unless perhaps one actually follows through and turns to Christ - the one the bible points TO - to know God). There is the lying pen of the scribes who have handled the law falsely; the errors that their pens put into the writing - be those translation errors, copying errors, inserting a meaning based on their own misunderstanding of what is written OR spoken; etc, etc. There are also allowances made for the people whose hearts were too hard to do what was true from the beginning, from God.

2. If Yahweh really was the "Father" of Jesus why was Yahweh himself so inept at getting this same message across from the get go?

This is a problem is with the receiver, not the transmitter. Hard hearts - refusing to hear and to listen - makes for faulty receivers.

"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts..."

"But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me."


Christ also said (or for those who do not accept that, Christ is written to have said):

"If you know ME, then you know my Father also."

Are we listening yet?

And there's no way that the teachings of Jesus are compatible with the teachings attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament.

I would rephrase like this:

And there's no way that the teachings of [Jesus] are compatible with SOME of the teachings attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Yahweh would be the inept Father God in this religion. And no matter what Jesus taught that cannot be changed. Yahweh would be an extremely inept Father God.

He is the Father of Christ, and I think you agree that Christ is pretty awesome. While it is possible for a son to be pretty awesome DESPITE His Father, this Son said that all He knew, taught, spoke... was exactly as He had learned FROM His Father.


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

[Lion IRC]

Peace to you LionIrc

It seems to me that if we expect the sort of tolerance which allows same-sex attracted people to express their sexuality, then we ought to let other human beings express their spiritually.
#equality

Other human beings are permitted to express their spirituality. However, just because the law permits something, does not mean one should do that something. It also doesn't mean that you are following Christ in what He taught - by word and deed.

Many Christians follow Jesus by seeking to have no part in evil. So when they shun homosexuality, they are expressing their deeply-held spiritual feelings. They see Jesus words and deeds (John 8:1-11) (Matthew 7:5) and embrace them in their totality - not just the mercy, forgiveness, grace, but ALSO the fact that Jesus' said to the adulterer go and "sin" no more. Stop sinning.
What you did was a sin. I love you - therefore I desire (command) that you stop sinning or else!

If an adulterer feels offended by the Christian (or the Messiah) who says..."I think adultery is immoral/sinful" are we supposed to stop stating our religious beliefs in public just because the adulterer thinks it amounts to hate speech or intolerance?

...Hence my post. Hence all the questions asked IN that post. Including if we have learned what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

How can we reconcile this exceedingly tolerant Jesus with the same person who said;

"...The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

What do you think needs to be reconciled? I have not suggested that the above is untrue.

OK allow me be more direct. Apart from the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is there an eventual limit to the mercy Jesus offers and an eventual time at which He will punish sinners who ignored His command to "go and sin no more"?

Because, although I may be misreading you, it seemed to me that you were trying to make a case that we should judge neither the sinner NOR the sin.

...Mercy incompatible with the law; on the contrary. And if the law is love, then what is lawlessness?

This appears to be an equivocation. Law = Mercy.
...which is problematic because a law which isn't enforced can hardly be called a law.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 8 by Lion IRC]

In my view, it is better for people to reject ALL of the Bible than to try to water it down. And the pattern that I find is that the hard-to-accept areas are usually the parts that get watered down.

Good points by the way!

[tam]

Many Christians follow Jesus by seeking to have no part in evil. So when they shun homosexuality, they are expressing their deeply-held spiritual feelings.

Then they cannot complain if they receive the same judgment in return for their sins and "their own part in evil", can they?

By the measure you use, it will be used against you.



Is there any part of this that you disagree with:

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)

People are shunned solely because they are gay. They have been shunned, oppressed, told that they are unacceptable to God, told that they have no part in Christ, told that they cannot be Christian, told that they are going to hell, told that God hates them. They have been beaten, verbally and physically, mocked, teased, bullied, spat on, driven to suicide (children included), and even murdered.

So what was that about wishing to have no part of 'evil' again?


Oppressed, shunned, looked down upon, and abused... even if it is a sin... this is the exact thing that the Pharisees did to the sinners of their time... well, even worse.


But you need not take my word for anything. If you (general you) think you know what it means: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"... so be it... that is between you and Christ. Perhaps the above gives someone food for thought, something to ask Christ about. So that you can take HIS word.

But this is what I have learned from Him, and so I shared that, for the reasons I stated in the OP. What others do with that is entirely up to them.



May you have peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy