Christian compassion or: 'It shook the foundation of your hatred'

Boston wrote: »

Hey, I'm not the only responsible for your twisted miss interpretation of the good lords word. The bible is a book of hate and vengeance, it teaches us that we must smite those who would trespass against and cast time down into the the fire pits of damnation. Now your reformist sect may teach you that Christianity is all about love, but here in the catholic church me know the true path the salvation.

How is it misinterpretation Boston? You didn't deal with my question at all. Jesus taught us to follow his principles, He elaborated them one by one to us in the Gospels. Boston, seriously find the passages that indicate that Jesus did not say that we all needed salvation, actually where in the Bible did Jesus say that we should hate people for their iniquities. The entire purpose of Christianity is to liberate people from the slavery of sin, how on earth are you meant to do that if you are commanded to hate people. The only way one can be liberated from the slavery of sin is if they have been forgiven, and not only been forgiven but forgive others.

When you were reading through the Bible you obviously missed out the following:
"I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6)

"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little". (Luke 7:47-48)

"For if you forgive others their tresspasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your tresspasses" (Matthew 6:14-16)

I am actually committing a sin myself if I get in fury at you or hate you for what you do for anger is the same as murder under the Laws of Christ (Matthew 5:21-22). Also I am commanded not to hate one of the people he has come to save:

Matthew 18:10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you in heaven, their angels continually see the face of the Father in heaven".

He then continues in parable that we should be seeking the lost.

Now Boston, these are sins, and these sins are the same as homosexuality in God's eyes, whether or not Christians put more attention on some things than others is a matter we will have to review.

Yes, it is true that eternal damnation will come if you do not accept Christ, and yes it is true, that He is the way the truth and the life, but we are encouraged not to hate, but rather to bring people to Christ out of compassion. Whether or not this happens in practise is another thing, and I have failed at this at times too, but we must at least try to reach this standard.

As for the Reformed vs Catholic Church, that argument is irrelevant, if the Catholic Church have not taught you these things from the Gospel, then it has failed you. Paul said that there is only one Gospel, and he was right, there is only one, and there is only one message the Christian message:

Galatians 1:8 "As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed."

But please Boston, do not provoke people by insisting that they hate you when their message clearly advises them not to. You seem to think that Christianity causes this, but one cannot possibly accept this message and hate homosexuals.

MatthewVII wrote: »

And yet women were expected to be completely subservient to their husbands and were subject to much harsher punishments.

As for the "minor" issue of women in the ministry, I think it's a pretty big slap on the face to consider women unfit to serve god as one of his priests.

The truth is, women and men were not even close to equal, a mistake that society is still correcting

MatthewVII, firstly to establish this, a minor issue between Christian denominations. I didn't mean that it was a minor issue for the Roman Catholic church to deal with. I'm personally an Anglican so said issue doesn't affect me in the slightest.

As for women being subservient to their husbands, that is true, in Christianity the husband is seen as being the head of the household.

Husbands are explicitly warned in the Christian scriptures not to abuse their wives, and if they do it is a sin just as much as any other. I think quoting from Ephesians is apt to explain this:

In relation to wives:

Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives be subjct to the husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be in everything to their husbands."

In relation to husbands:

Ephesians 5:25-28 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up to her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot of wrinkle or anything of the kind - yes so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way , husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies".

Which part of that rings true for your original statement? I'm just confused in that respect. There is more in 1 Corinthians 7 concerning marriage and conjugal rights, but I will leave that for you to find for yourself.

Edit: If Fanny Craddock or PDN are reading, it would be great to split this as a new thread for discussion as not to ruin the current one on homosexuality that we are having.

MatthewVII wrote: »

On the matter of straying off topic, this tangent merely reflects how the church's views are hard to accept in a changing society

Again, we don't have to accept changing society, God's message is far removed from that of "changing society". If we take your point seriously, it's as if you are contending that we should get a pen, and stroke out the lines of the Bible which we don't like? See then we are conforming to what people want, rather than what God want's.

The following was said in the Bible concerning God and wealth:

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth".

I wonder does the same apply for God and society, and maybe the Christians including myself need to think about this more. Can one really serve God and conform to my society. I'm pretty convinced not. God's message is far removed from the desires of men.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 "but just as we have been approved by Go to be entrusted with the message of the Gospel, even so we speak, not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts".

See, this isn't the same as atheistic systems of ethics, whereby there is no consequence for altering or changing. We cannot cross out lines in the Gospel. God has given it to us, because He trusts us. The law which he has provided for Christians is just and right.

Paul's square on right that we don't do this to please men, we do this for the glory of God, because He has provided us the mercy to do so. If you look to the scripture I gave earlier to Boston, God desires mercy not sacrifice, the more we are forgiven the more we will love. These things which I follow are not popular, I'm quite aware of that by now. That's irrelevant though, Jesus makes it clear that to take up His cross, we have to deny ourselves and follow Him.

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus told His disciples, 'If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up ther cross and follow me'"

Also, if we deny God's will to be favourable to others, we will be denied by God:

Matthew 10:23 "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven."

The Scripture isn't as easy as saying "get up with the times", because for me the will of my Father is the "times". Some people don't appreciate that, but then again not all will.

MatthewVII wrote: »

The teachings of the bible are based on a society which bears no resemblance to our own. It makes sense that the teachings of the church be shaped to be more applicable, much as the austere teachings of the old testament were relaxed somewhat in the new testament, ie as times changed, religion changed. I don't see why religion shouldn't be like life itself, constantly growing and adapting to better reflect the needs of its followers, and compromise- people need to change, but not so much that it distorts their perceptions of what is obviously right and wrong in a mature society.

The New Testament isn't a case of conforming to society. The society of Jesus' time vilified and hated him, just as much as there are people who vilify and hate the teachings of Christianity on earth today (not explictly saying that is anyone here).

For the purposes of explaining the role of Biblical Law in Christianity, I will refer to a famous document in Anglicanism, and give you the link to it. I think many of the posters of other denominations will agree that this is the generally accepted view of Christianity on the Old Testament and the laws that bear onto us today.

These are the Articles of Religion:
http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

PDN wrote: »

I think that the primary factors in determining if something is sinful or not are
a) Does it displease God?
b) Does it harm others?
c) Does it harm myself?

Some sins, such as worshipping idols, would seem to be more a case of simply displeasing God.
Others, such as theft or adultery obviously hurt other people.
Others, such as viewing pornography, hurt yourself more than anyone else by eroding your own appreciation of the value and uniqueness of the gift of sexuality within marriage (although it could also be argued that you are helping sustain an industry that exploits others).

The relationship of the Old Testament to the New is always interesting, but allows room for debate. I do, believe, however, that we can follow a coherent pattern for reading the Old Testament in the light of the New. I teach our church people to ask the following questions about any Old Testament law or commandment:

1. Is it repeated and reinforced in the New Testament? (idolatry)
2. Is it abrogated in the New Testament? (circumcision, keeping the sabbath)
3. Is it clearly ceremonial rather than moral? (not eating shellfish)
4. Does it refer to a no longer existent cultural practice? (building a little wall round your roof to stop sunbathers rolling off - hardly applies in Ireland)
5. Is there an underlying principle that can be updated to our culture? (the command to help your neighbour when his donkey falls over can still apply to helping him when his car breaks down).

The reason for upholding the Moral beyond the Ceremonial and the Civil is as follows.

1. Civil law was intended for the Torah bound State of Israel, there is no such state anymore, and we as Christians don't rule a country except for perhaps the Vatican but Paul has told us that we are both bound to the law of the State (except in cases of denial of religious freedom), and the law of God.

2. Ceremonial law was intended for Jews to separate them from foreign nations, and to develop them so that they may have been the means for our salvation and a blessing until the Gentiles (Genesis 12, also elaborated upon in Galatians). Sacrificial law especially has been fulfilled, as Jesus is the means of our atonement not through blood sacrifice. As I mentioned previously God seeks mercy not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6).

3. Moral law concerns how we treat our neighbour and our deeds to one another, these are the laws that bind Christians, because God has deemed them to be the means by which we should interact with eachother. Jeremiah tells us in his prophesy that the New Covenant will be distinct from the Old Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 "The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. No longer shall they say "Know the LORD" for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquities and remember their sin no more".

MatthewVII wrote: »

That's the religious equivalent of someone saying to their gay friend "I don't mind you being gay, just don't do anything gay near me because I think it's wrong"

The church believes that homosexuality is wrong. This means that any homosexual who wishes to be happy must turn away from god, which doesn't strike me as a particularly christian way of doing things

Since when did sex become equivalent to happiness?

I guess that's where we differ, I see spiritual fulfillment as the path to happiness.

As for homosexuals having to turn away from God, of course not, they have a choice, to follow God's teachings or to reject them. Nobody in a church (or at least ones I have attended), are going to tell someone to get out of a church because of their orientation.

I see this as nonsense that the Church merely by upholding what God has commanded us are forcing homosexuals out of the church, as that is quite honestly ficticious.

The Christian way of doing things, that you are talking about, means that you serve God by following God's commandment. I've heard no other "Christian way". This is made clear by Jesus Himself. The first commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul and might" (based on Torah teaching Deuteronomy 6), and the second is like it, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself" (based on Torah teaching Leviticus 19).

I regard homosexuals to be my equal in the fullest sense of the word, but if I am to follow Christ, and not man, I am to say that I consider a homosexual lifestyle to be sinful, only due to the beliefs outlined for us as Christians. Nothing more, nothing less, not out of hostility but out of compassion.

Heterosexual Christians have very similar guidelines to follow, such as honouring marriage, and not engaging in sexual relationships until it is bound by marriage under God.

Thanks for that that makes it much clearer, if I can just pose a question:

In the description of how we should act to one another according to the Biblical narrative, does it seem more a message of compassion, or a message of hatred? And be entirely honest in a general sense though, not in relation to one thing in specific. Try to be as broad as possible in the Christian issues you raise.