The Christian Response To Orlando

[Moreau]

As a student of comparative religion the emotional response I've gotten by some Christians to the events in Orlando & their knee-jerk condemnation seemed in stark contrast to my understanding of the biblical view regarding Sodomites. Not being a Christian myself, i decided to give their contention the benefit of the doubt, and went in search of an authoritative Christian response to Orlando in light of the biblical text. Lo and behold, this is what i found.

 

THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE 

Delivered by Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, California.

 

Please be respectful and remember to backup your arguments with scripture. Thank you.

[Alex]

This is a singular response, from someone who identifies as a Christian. This is not "the Christian response."

 

To expand on this: 

 

Jesus showed compassion, even to sinners. Here's relevant scripture:

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NLT

 

A Woman Caught in Adultery

8 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 â€œTeacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said,“All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman,“Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 â€œNo, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, â€œNeither do I. Go and sin no more.”

[Thalmor]

Moreau III, you seem to base your idea that homosexuality is punishable by death because of Leviticus, right?

 

Well, Leviticus 20:10 states: 

 

''And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.''

 

So, by that same measure, adultery should be punishable by death, right?

 

Well, as stated in the other thread, Christ told an adulterous woman in John 8 that he didn't condemn her:

 

³ And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

⁴ They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

⁵ Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

⁶ This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

⁷ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

⁸ And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

⁹ And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

¹⁰ When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

¹¹ She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

You said yourself, Moreau III, that:

 

 

Go grab yourself a red letter bible & focus on the words of Jesus (AS) as opposed to random other people who have no divine sanction whatsoever.

and

 

What you need to realise is that Paul WAS NOT a Prophet of God & everything that he/anyone else wrote in the bible that's not the words of Jesus (AS) need to be EXPUNGED.

 

You put a lot of focus on what Christ did, Moreau III. Well, Christ didn't condemn the woman whereas the Mosaic Covenant said she should've been killed. What say you?

[Moreau]

1. Who wrote the book of John? These are words ascribed to Jesus (AS) by an unknown individual. 

 

2. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Moreau III

[Alex]

Regardless, you don't have to be 100% supportive of someone to feel compassion. Here's a good example of what I feel is the Christian response:

 

https://www.facebook.com/attorneytothestars/photos/a.367948301573.164633.126211331573/10153481425086574/?type=3&pnref=story

 

Text:

Chick-Fil-A Did WHAT After Gay Club Shooting?

Chick Fil A has made national news for its owners’ stance on gay marriage. Anytime they do something even remotely non-PC, their supposed slip up goes viral. Hash tags pop up all over the place.


So why is that what they have done in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting hasn’t received a single mention on the mainstream new outlets?

It’s probably because people like New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio might have to eat crow instead of chicken. DeBlasio has said that Chick Fil A spreads a message of hate.

Not so yesterday. In a shocking move, the Orlando location at University and Rouse Road quietly fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on a Sunday. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.

Then, instead of making a single dime, and without pomp and circumstance they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.

So far, the only mentions of the incident have been from individuals on Facebook. They have posted photos thanking the restaurant for their thoughtfulness and generosity.

But, wait, those people were waiting to give blood to victims that were mostly gay people. Doesn’t Chick Fil A hate gays? That’s what we keep being told.


Turns out, that while the founders definitely don’t approve of that choice of lifestyle, they believe in compassion. Who knew? A bunch of people claiming to be Christians care about others even when they don’t agree with them. This group took time out of their schedules to volunteer to help those who were also trying to do their part.

On top of that, the franchise’s location on Wells Road in Orange Park is even offering coupons for a free frosted lemonade to anyone who donates blood when the One Blood mobile unit is at their store on June 14th.

In times like these it's comforting to share a feel-good story about caring individuals and the company they work for - So much for “Chick Fil hAte” becoming a thing.

[Rozalia]

1. Who wrote the book of John? These are words ascribed to Jesus (AS) by an unknown individual. 

 

2. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story.

 

Who recorded the Hadiths? 

[Moreau]

Who recorded the Hadiths? 

 

Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawud, Imam at-Tirmidhi, and Al-Nasai.

[Rozalia]

Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawud, Imam at-Tirmidhi, and Al-Nasai.

 

They compiled them yes. Who were the sources they used?

[Sketchy]

God isn't real you delusional morons.

[Moreau]

They compiled them yes. Who were the sources they used?

• Every Hadith has a separate chain of narration and every individual in the chain of narration (as well as their trustworthiness) is known.
• Each Hadith is graded for it's authenticity as either Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Daif (weak), or Maudu’ (fabricated).

If there is discontinuity in the chain of narrators or if one of them has a disparaged character and does not posses the ability of retaining the text the Hadith is graded as weak. If even a single untrustworthy individual is found in the chain of narrations then the entire Hadith is discarded as a fabrication.

 

Let me give you a quick example of a Hadith with a strong chain of narrations that's graded Hasan (good).

 

Imam Ahmad reported that Yahya Ibn Saeed told him saying that Bahz Ibn Hakim said that his father informed him on the authority of his grand father: I said to the Prophet: Messenger of Allah, to whom should I be (specially) good ? The Prophet said,†to your motherâ€. This he repeated thrice. Then he said, “to your father, then to him who is near of kin, one after the otherâ€. 

 

This Hadith qualifies for all the characteristics of a Sahih (sound) Hadith except that one of the Hadith compilers has pointed out slight weakness in the dabt (memory) of Bahz Ibn Hakim. However his father Hakim has been declared trustworthy by critics like Ibn Hibban and Imam Nasai.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Moreau III

[Rozalia]

 

• Every Hadith has a separate chain of narration and every individual in the chain of narration (as well as their trustworthiness) is known.
• Each Hadith is graded for it's authenticity as either Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Daif (weak), or Maudu’ (fabricated).

If there is discontinuity in the chain of narrators or if one of them has a disparaged character and does not posses the ability of retaining the text the Hadith is graded as weak. If even a single untrustworthy individual is found in the chain of narrations then the entire Hadith is discarded as a fabrication.

 

Let me give you a quick example of a Hadith with a strong chain of narrations that's graded Hasan (good).

 

Imam Ahmad reported that Yahya Ibn Saeed told him saying that Bahz Ibn Hakim said that his father informed him on the authority of his grand father: I said to the Prophet: Messenger of Allah, to whom should I be (specially) good ? The Prophet said,†to your motherâ€. This he repeated thrice. Then he said, “to your father, then to him who is near of kin, one after the otherâ€. 

 

This Hadith qualifies for all the characteristics of a Sahih (sound) Hadith except that one of the Hadith compilers has pointed out slight weakness in the dabt (memory) of Bahz Ibn Hakim. However his father Hakim has been declared trustworthy by critics like Ibn Hibban and Imam Nasai.

 

 

So there was no human error, nor any human greed/desire/whatever involved? Na, the Hadiths are a mess themselves. Having some fancy men give themselves fancy titles and appoint themselves "scholars" or whatever else doesn't change that fact. 

 

What of the Quran also? You seriously believe everything is truthful and no one had a hand in there? Quite the naivety if you think all the people of the time were perfect little creatures.

The bible ultimately is much the same as it does not include all gospels/books. An example being the Gospel of Judas which asserted that Judas was not a betrayer and the only one who truly understood Jesus's teachings. Considering the Church claims descent from Peter who according to that did not fully understand the teachings of Jesus it was of course discounted before it was lost and then thankfully turned up again as it wasn't completely destroyed. 

[Restius]

A Christian response is exactly what Alex showed about Chick-Fil-A. There's a time to set aside our differences, to lay down our arguments, and just come together as a nation and help mend this wounded community. 

 

The fact that this is even a thread just shows how sad and divided our country has become. We could learn when to be silent about debates and come together to solve a problem, to come together and heal those who are in a state of shock, a state of dismay, and need all the support they can get. 

 

Christianity is and never was about pushing agenda's down someone's throat, and it's sad so many have turned it into such. Not once did Jesus ever force someone to do something, not once did He urge someone to do something, or threaten anything over them. No, He showed us how to love through actions, how to see past the walls we create, and break the lines we draw. 

 

So this debate, this trolling in some respects if you may, is exactly what this country could do without. We've been analytical and debating too much for too long. Let those who lost loved ones or were affected through trauma or experience take time to rest. Find ways to show them our support instead of create another useless debate. 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Regardless, you don't have to be 100% supportive of someone to feel compassion. Here's a good example of what I feel is the Christian response:

 

https://www.facebook.com/attorneytothestars/photos/a.367948301573.164633.126211331573/10153481425086574/?type=3&pnref=story

 

Text:

Chick-Fil-A is a chain we NEED in the UK. They do the best Chicken I had in TX. I like how they rock the Christian ethics as well.

 

 

Delivered by Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, California.

Who is this pastor? I have never heard of him. Baptists are well known for their squabbling as they are often unaccountable to anyone but themselves.

Christianity is and never was about pushing agenda's down someone's throat, and it's sad so many have turned it into such. Not once did Jesus ever force someone to do something, not once did He urge someone to do something, or threaten anything over them. No, He showed us how to love through actions, how to see past the walls we create, and break the lines we draw. 

Here are the words of Jesus where he does not force someone to follow him. It's interesting this story makes it into most of the Gospels.

 

1. Who wrote the book of John? These are words ascribed to Jesus (AS) by an unknown individual. 

 

2. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story.

Why do you say an unknown individual? It is well known that St John the Apostle wrote the letter, clue in the name and all that. Whether or not it was in the earliest manuscripts it is certainly in line with the Gospel. Luke's writings speak of the same forgiving Lord. In fact this is not going against the charecter of the God of the Old Testament, the whole book of Jonah is in line with the forgiveness that Christ brings.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I'll skip the holy book here, and focus on my feelings.
 

God is love and we're all to love each other.  Killing other people is a very unloving act.  

 

Ok, not skipping scripture anymore...

 

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

 

Again, killing other people is a very unloving act.  

 

 

Edit:  The Jiminez guy is not "an authoritative Christian response".  I'm not sure there can be such a thing given the disunity of the various Christian sects.  The Catholic Church would be the most authoritative probably, and I'm certain they've condemned this attack.

 

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/06/12/pope_francis_decries_orlando_massacre_and_prays_for_victims/1236740

Edited June 16, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Moreau]

Why do you say an unknown individual? It is well known that St John the Apostle wrote the letter, clue in the name and all that. Whether or not it was in the earliest manuscripts it is certainly in line with the Gospel. Luke's writings speak of the same forgiving Lord. In fact this is not going against the charecter of the God of the Old Testament, the whole book of Jonah is in line with the forgiveness that Christ brings.

 

The overwhelming majority of mainstream New Testament scholars would not agree with you! Nowhere in the Gospels does it explicitly claim Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John as their authors. Instead, the Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition κατά, meaning “according to†or “handed down from,†(instead of "written by") followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled εá½Î±Î³Î³Î­Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ κατὰ Μαθθαίον (“The Gospel according to Matthewâ€).

 

Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

 

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.â€

 

What of the Quran also? You seriously believe everything is truthful and no one had a hand in there? Quite the naivety if you think all the people of the time were perfect little creatures.. 

 

The Quran was fully written down & memorised by the companions of the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Moreau III

[Rozalia]

The Quran was fully written down & memorised by the companions of the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime. 

 

Nice try cupcake. Allegedly, and doe not in any manner address what I asked. Why do you trust these men to be perfect? You really think none of them didn't if legitimate add some words here or there? Memorised it slightly off? Invented things? Never heard of Chinese whispers? You really think all these oral chains somehow persisted perfectly? Don't make me laugh, I doubt you actually believe that. If it's all so perfect also why are there Hadiths, "valid" ones mind not the discounted ones that contradict each other? Worse when it involves the Quran... Lets face it, your religion has holes in it and until you can admit that your attacks on other religions, which we all know you do because Islam you think is simply the best and perfect, can be safely ignored as the ravings of a fanboy. 

 

You are no student as you have claimed, If you constantly using the old testament to attack Christianity didn't give it away but we know you know better and are simply trying to score some points. You're no Hadith Scholar either obviously, that requires some thinking in regards to religion. You mindlessly swallow down your religion and ask no questions, it is perfection itself to you. 

 

So we got a couple of scenarios here in regards to the contradictions. 1: They're all 100% and Mohammad simply made them up as he went along, as his memory failed him here and there he contradicted himself here and there. 2: Be it Chinese Whispers, political reasons, fabrications, or whatever else many "sound" hadiths are false, if not all of them.

 

Pick one. Oh and if you mention Scholars, they will differ on things and aren't perfect either, I mean there is no doubt many are corrupt.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Rozalia

[Moreau]

@Rozalia

 

There are no contradictions in the Quran: The onus is on you to present them if there are, but apart from your baseless accusations, that's exactly what you have unsurprisingly failed to do. 

[Arthur James]

it obviously not a fair judgement, so compassion is alright for both sides??? bulll no.

[Donald Trump]

Have you even read it?

It's full of contradictions.... like, completely full of it.

so has bible. which is why biblical literalism is stupid 

[Rozalia]

@Rozalia

 

There are no contradictions in the Quran: The onus is on you to present them if there are, but apart from your baseless accusations, that's exactly what you have unsurprisingly failed to do. 

 

I don't even have to care to say you're wrong (it's simply irrelevant if it does or not here) because I did not state that. I stated:

 

If it's all so perfect also why are there Hadiths, "valid" ones mind not the discounted ones that contradict each other? Worse when it involves the Quran...

 

As in Hadiths contradicting the Quran. In fact you seeing the Quran as 100% credible is even better, though you don't exactly operate using logic so I am aware it won't exactly matter. So nice try, but try again. The subject is the Hadiths which are either human error at work, human corruption, or both. So address that post again, thanks.

[WISD0MTREE]

Chick-Fil-A is a chain we NEED in the UK. They do the best Chicken I had in TX. I like how they rock the Christian ethics as well.

IIRC, Boston keeps changing the zoning laws to prevent a Chick-Fil-A because he hates their ethics. Good luck with that in the UK.

[Moreau]

@Rozalia

 

There are no Shahih/Hasan ahadith that contradict the Quran. The onus is on you to present them if there are but as always, apart from your baseless accusations, that's something you unsurprisingly fail to do.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Moreau III

[Doktor Avalanche]

@Rozalia

 

There are no Shahih/Hasan ahadith that contradict the Quran. The onus is on you to present them if there are but as always, apart from your baseless accusations, that's something you unsurprisingly fail to do.

The topic is about what a Christian response is to the Orlando shooting, not you and Rozalia's jerk-off session on whether Islamic scholarship is valid or not.

 

Not every post has to have some Islamic bullshit thrown in expressing the Islamic view or its "superiority" over other faiths. Most people do not give a flying !@#$. Nor do we need a rebuttal every time Islam is mentioned nor its "failures" at its self-claimed authenticity by an angry wrestling fan.

[Rozalia]

@Rozalia

 

There are no Shahih/Hasan ahadith that contradict the Quran. The onus is on you to present them if there are but as always, apart from your baseless accusations, that's something you unsurprisingly fail to do.

 

This is the part where you, no scholar will dismiss anything a non scholar could present. You know I've not studied the Quran in depth, though you never did the Bible (and often get wrong the most basic aspects) and yet you still try so whatever.

 

http://www.mohammedamin.com/Community_issues/How-reliable-are-hadith.html

 

 

One unfortunate side-effect of the collection and validation effort of scholars such as Bukhari is that some Muslims think that all the hard work of validation has been done by these historic hadith collectors. The attitude is that if a hadith is in a collection such as Bukhari or Muslim, then automatically it must be a “sahih hadith†i.e. a “sound or authentic hadith.†Indeed the collections of Bukhari and Muslim are referred to as "sahih collections".

 

The Muslims who hold such a naive belief are not the ones who have been trained in hadith studies. Properly trained hadith scholars (such as the authors of the books mentioned above) are well aware that the hadith in collections such as Bukhari vary from highly reliable to relatively unreliable. Instead it is Muslims who have been brought up to believe that they must accept what they are told without critical thinking who are prone to believe that if a hadith is in Bukhari, it must be accurate and true.

 

In regards to your statement. As for examples, some are provided there but you know, just google search and you'll see some more. You've also not given a definate answer to what I asked of you so I'm just going to take it you agree that all the people involved were perfect and Chinese Whispers never distorted anything because uh, Allah made it so or something.   

 

Though I'm not shocked at your ignorance and behaviour as it's the norm in Islam. Thinking that because Islam opposes something, such as Homosexuality that it means people should be killed. The radicals believe it should happen in all countries, the "moderates" think just in Islamic countries. The more "liberal" Muslims I've seen have stated something which is the norm in you know, a civilised society, which is that you can disagree (a lot of such people hate Homosexuality too) but killing them is simply wrong. Not killing them doesn't mean they condone homosexuality as the "Radicals" and "Moderates" believe, they still oppose it and will say as such however killing them is wrong. 

 

The topic is about what a Christian response is to the Orlando shooting, not you and Rozalia's jerk-off session on whether Islamic scholarship is valid or not.

 

Not every post has to have some Islamic bullshit thrown in expressing the Islamic view or its "superiority" over other faiths. Most people do not give a flying !@#$. Nor do we need a rebuttal every time Islam is mentioned nor its "failures" at its self-claimed authenticity by an angry wrestling fan.

 

Please, spare me. It is relevant to bring the matter up as his own religion has large holes in it. His dismissing and denial of this shows his facade of being a "student" of religion to be bunk, and that he is in a glass house throwing stones. Additionally he started the thread with this exact purpose and you know this.  

Edited June 16, 2016 by Rozalia

[Moreau]

This is the part where you, no scholar will dismiss anything a non scholar could present. You know I've not studied the Quran in depth, though you never did the Bible (and often get wrong the most basic aspects) and yet you still try so whatever.

 

http://www.mohammedamin.com/Community_issues/How-reliable-are-hadith.html

 

I am not sure if you even read the content of the link you provided as it does not support your assertion that Sahih/Hasan ahadith contradict the Quran.