You honestly aren’t aware that both the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures have been traditionally regarded as banning same-sex eroticism? And that Christianity was derived from Judaism?
Jewish Scripture- Leviticus 18:22
Christian Scripture- Romans 1:26-27
There are a few more passages, but those are the central ones.
I’m not saying that at all and I have no idea why you think I did. In fact, the above paragraph makes no sense to me.
Traditional Christianity has said that Sexual Love should be reserved to a married man & woman. It does not say that Love is reserved to them. Love is for everybody, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but Sexual Love has boundaries.
The exclusion is not a core tenet of traditional Judeo-Christianity, but it is a tenet.
Why? Because we believe the writers of Leviticus & Paul who wrote the Romans letter to be, respectively, faithful prophets of Yahweh to Israel & the faithful apostle of Christ to the Gentiles.
Like it or not, Western marital law has developed over the centuries in a Judeo-Christian cultural context, the central principle of which is heterosexual monogamy. A challenge to that is not just a challenge to a religious belief but to an ingrained aspect of a millenia-old legal-cultural tradition. If one believes it should be challenged, fine- but don’t expect the culture to automatically roll over.
Is a Sunday School teacher the best source for an unbiased definition?
When they say “I love my wife”, which does it mean? Love+ or Jesus-love?
Personally, if a guy says to me “I love my wife”, I am not making any assumptions about the state of his sex life. Are you saying that if a Christian says that to me (and they have) they are signaling something about the presence or absence of a sex live (love+ or Jesus-love)?
If so, I call TMI
If not, then is there really a practical difference when Bob says “I love my wife Jane” and when Joe says “I love my husband Jack”? Assume all are 4 are Christians.
Why don’t they understand it? Every Christian that has raised the subject with me tells me the teaching is clear in the Bible. Of course, that varies from denomination to denomination, but regardless of the view, they are all certain that the teaching is clear.
So what don’t they understand exactly? They seem to have studied it, or at least been taught it, on a Biblical basis.
I have never been told that. Are they holding back from me because I am Jewish? If anything, I have found that being Jewish has caused some Christians, both Protestant and not, to hold me in higher regard. It makes me uncomfortable frankly, and I think it has to do with being one of God’s chosen people :rolleyes:, but are you saying that the majority who are silent on the matter actually belittle Jews their faith? That would be news to me, and hardly in keeping with some of the other things that Jesus taught that I here bandied about often.
How did we get from “Jesus is love”, the golden rule, etc. to “There is only one correct path to God” and we are it? Even if that is their belief, of what consequence is it if it is not the belief of others? Someone (I forget who) already pointed out that Jesus loves everyone, so who are rank and file Christians to decide if someone else’s faith is worthy or not? Did Jesus teach them that?
,
LOL.
But so what - almost every faith thinks all the others are wrong. Why is this one special?
Well, I know I am, but I won’t be living in this part of the country forever
So other people are wrong in the way they live their lives, but for Christians it is a forgivable bad habit? “Jesus is love” gives Christians permission to talk smack about people - and act on it out of Church! -without compunction to behave better because Jesus also forgives? That strikes me as a very curious thing.
Are they really? See above.
So after thousands of years, of what benefit is it to stick with an ambiguous at best PR campaign? why not simply come up with a more precise tagline, or coin a new word that describes what is meant?
So Christians study the material of Judaism, but Judaism is wrong? Do Christsians ever stop to consider that might be considered insulting?
Perhaps Christians will refer to both, but ultimately they are speaking as Christians, not Jews. Because Jews are wrong I suppose. But we still don’t know why Christians, regardless of their faith, work hard to embed the core tenets of their faith regarding their amorphous definition of love into the specificity of secular laws. What’s the straight dope on that?
Funny as that is, it is a serious question, and a very very very organized campaign in all 50 states, and at the Federal level, and it is not the only such topic with Christians beating on the doors of our legislatures either of course.
Probably all faiths belief their God or gods in aggregate are the god or Gods of everything. But we don’t see them demanding their relgions be embedded in secular laws. Why does Christianity have such a drive among parts of it? How does your answer relate to “Jesus is love”, and why should the rest of us in secular-land sacrifice the secular to have a non-secular country? How does that follow, given the disdain you already said Christians have for other faiths such as Judaism as “wrong” and maybe (probably?) others too?
I know that Jews have a thoughtful tradition of arguing about rules, and even with God himself.
I know Jesus was Jewish, but I have not heard anyone say that Christianity is derived from Judaism. My gf and her family are pretty devout Catholics, and so I have been to lots of Catholic rituals. I have also been to lots of Jewish ones over the years too. I don’t really see the similarities in practice or in word. If anything, Christians have, intentionally or by 200 years of drift, gone to some extent to say define that Christianity in terms of how it is different from Judaism rather than how it is the same.
Except for the “Jews for Jesus” types, who are not Jews. Ann old friend lost many decades ago has reappeared as such on FB, and he and his friends seem to delight in making their Christianity into something like they perceive Judaism to be (Instead of just becoming Jews) but they are a very small minority of Christians I believe.
So no, I don’t think I have ever learned that Christianity is an evolved form of Judais,. Jews don’t think that, neither does anyone else. Is it a common feeling among Christians?
Honestly, it is an odd sounding question for you to even ask to my ears, but maybe they are tin?
You liked it when someone else described it in different terms.
As for the “Why don’t…” part, I guess I wonder why Christians don’t take into account the feelings of the people they are approaching with such potentially inflammatory material? I asked a Mormon guy this once, at my door with a couple of others like him, he told me they do get beat up quite regularly and are prepared to fight in order to make their point. I closed the door on him, but I am reluctant to bring it up with others in other venues where they find me.
So love is on the one hand proclaimed to be universal and forgiving without limits (“Jesus is love” + “Jesus died for you so you can be forgiven”), but on the other hand has limits that are amorphous enough to separate people into us and them in a way that can be exploited for political gain in one venue or another?
That is not the way it is presented by people fighting for secular laws in the name of the Church, and they have a lot of people willing to agree it seems. It seems extremely important to them.
Except, no.
Except, no.
Are you suggesting Christian leadership guides rank and file to not understand and/or accept the secular nature of our laws? If two Hindus who never have and never will set foot in a Church get married at City Hall, of what import is it to Christians as it affects their faith?
As an ex-Catholic I’m gonna step up to the plate on this. Let’s go back to the Greek for a second, because most people would say Jesus is love(agape), and I am in love(eros and/or agape) with my wife. The distinction is between love-as-brotherhood/family and love-as-affection/attraction.
To a certain kind of Christian, eros is only acceptable in certain contexts, most of which are varyingly strict degrees of “one man, one woman marriage for life”. Since English doesn’t have words with the same meanings as “eros” and “agape”, people tend to assume that you’re speaking of both anytime the target of love is not your biological family.
It’s pretty much all over the later bits of the New Testament–fundamentally, Christians are held to be bound to certain of the Old Testament laws (see Jesus in
Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”) but at the same time, aspects of the Pauline letters and the experience of Peter and the centurion (Acts 10:10-16) suggest that post-Resurrection Christians need only be bound by the rules of moral behavior and Jesus’ direct words, rather than by Jewish ceremonial law. How much of the Old Testament laws are binding are dependent on sect, of course, and there’s no small measure of potential argument (and potential hypocrisy) in what determines “ceremonial” vs. “binding” law regarding the abominations of male homosexuality, shrimp, and blended fabrics, among other things.
So potentially no differnce? Would " agape mean the marriage is chaste?
How do you pronounce “agape” anyway? I’ve seen that but not known it was greek.
If a Christian guy said to me “I love my wife and Jesus” would I get punched if I said “Love-eros or love-agape”? Because this is starting to sound like a difference where Christians do have words that are meant to represent different concepts, yet they go around in public using a lay word that confuses things, and then wonder why they are not understood.
Why would they project their own religious tenets on people whose faith they don’t know and ought consider none of their business? Jews don’t worry if others don’t keep kosher for example.
sure, you are hanging in there…let’s keep going.
BTW, what “kind of Christian” are we discussing now?
I know Christians include the OT in their canon, but that is hardly the same as that their beliefs are derived from another religion. Other than the (questionable according to threads I have seen here) belief that there is one God it is hard to see what is “Jewish” about Christianity except for incorporating (with new interpretations) the OT, apparently for continuity. to the extent that Jesus is love, I am not aware of any parallel in Judaism, are you ? It’s pretty much cut from whole cloth, the whole thing, right?
My understanding of the 600+ commandments is that they are not and never were bound on anyone except Jews. Could be wrong on that, not an expert. But if so, why do Christians care, surely they knew that from day 1. Are they pretending to be Jewish in some way, not unlike my friend I mentioned above? If so why?
Certainly not. But we are discussing how Christians view things, so I thought it fair to mention that I actually had a lesson about this in Sunday School, in order to show that Christians consider the topic. My descriptions are informed but not based on that lesson.
It’s context specific. As Zeriel said, there are two different Greek words at play (thank you for that!) Agape is the brotherly love that translates to God’s love and Jesus’s love. Eros is romantic love.
Oh look, here’s Wiki:
Really, the issue here is one of trying to parse emotions into terminology that is consistent and clear. Different languages parse the terms differently. English seems to lump it all together as “love”, which is what I am trying to explain.
Looking at the wikipedia, I would argue that agápe, philia, and storge are essentially the same thing. The distinctions listed appear to me to be based more upon the persons with which the relationships exist rather than upon the nature of the emotional bond. But that’s only my interpretation. Alternately, one could map philia to “friendship” and storge to “affection” and pretend they are then something else.
So I would map agápe to “love” and eros to “love+”.
So if a guy says, “I love my wife,” what was the context? Under most contexts, he is trying to tell you he has an emotional caring bond - that is the significance. He may or may not be trying to indicate there is a romantic element. Note that a romantic element does not require there to be sex.
Think about how we, in casual conversation, talk about “falling in love”, e.g. “love at first sight”. Those contexts are discussing romantic love, but they are focused more on the emotional content than the sex act. It’s about the type of bond, not the physical acts that occur.
When I parse out romantic love from “brotherly” love, I am trying to lump all the emotional content associated with “romance”, of which sex is only a component, and separate that out from the stuff that I call “true love” or “love”. That’s why I mentioned other words like lust, desire, etc. I’m trying to indicate those elements that are exclusive to a romantic relationship and don’t fit in the context of what you would have with your parents or children.
(I would pronounce it uh gah pay. YMMV.)
They may be focusing on having a romance, or they may be focusing on having an emotional bond like with other family members - that depends upon the individual and the context. Of course, he just might be trying to tell you about his sex life - “I love my wife, if you know what I mean!”
You want me to defend a point of view that I don’t hold? I see no distinction between those sentences.
I didn’t say that christians do not understand the scriptural basis of their rejection, I was saying that they do not understand how a man can have romantic feelings for another man - “That’s just wrong. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”
It’s very situation and person dependent. Certainly some Christians are not going to treat you poorly just because you have the poor judgment not to join their faith. And there are some who hold a bit of reverence for Jews, because of the whole “Hebrews of the Bible are God’s chosen people”. But there are also Christians that do cast Jews as evil - Aryanism is full of them.
I think the bulk of Christians are not going to launch into a tirade against you, but at the same time they will consider you in error in your beliefs and that their’s is superior.
Hey, there’s a reason I’m no longer a christian. (Well, that’s only part of it.)
As an example, the Southern Baptists got into a mess a couple years ago (okay, I don’t recall exactly - time flies when you aren’t paying attention) for having the nerve to say in their literature and churches something to the effect that they were superior to other beliefs. I don’t recall specifics enough to even characterize a google search, but I recall when I heard at the time when seeing everyone’s reaction about how parochial and arrogant they were, I thought, “Well, yeah, but you’re surprised they believe that?” I don’t know, maybe it comes from growing up in an SB church, but it seems pretty natural to me that if you believe your church’s practices and beliefs are correct, that others are therefore in someway defective. For instance, Baptists practice full immersion baptism, and don’t accept sprinkle baptisms as valid. Baptists use grape juice in communion (not called that, called “The Lord’s Supper” because “communion” sounds too Catholic) rather than wine. Baptists don’t believe confession through a priest is necessary nor advisable. You can seek counseling/advice/support from your minister (not priest), but it is not required. The important part is the individual relationship with God, praying to him on your own and ideally reflecting upon what he is telling you.
So when they see a Jew who thinks that keeping dairy separate from meat is crucial, or has to wear a cap on his bald spot, or keeps kosher, to that Christian the Jew is not just wrong, but focusing on the wrong thing. The Jew is clinging to meaningless rituals that God no longer cares about, because God sent his son, Jesus, and Jesus died on the cross, suffered in Hell for 3 days, and then was resurrected. Jesus paid the sacrifice, so the crucial point is to accept Jesus and try to emulate him and believe in God and, to some degree, uphold the Ten Commandments. But Jews don’t recognize Jesus as God’s son, so they are wrong. And many of them feel that because of that, Jews are no longer actually having a valid relationship with God - they are in a state of sin and will go to Hell because of it. That makes Jews targets for conversion - they need to be “saved”.
These same Christians are going to discount Catholics for praying to saints and Mary (worshipping idols), and find any number of reasons to discount other denominations of christians.
Psychology of groups? Historical precedent from Catholicism? It’s a natural outcome of monotheism arising in a polytheistic society?
Hey, I’m no expert. I’m just some schlub that grew up in an Southern Baptist church, decided I didn’t like what my denomination had to say so left, studied the Bible on my own and decided I didn’t agree with it, read a bit about the nature of God belief, the history of christianity, and the nature of atheism, and now poke around a bit on an internet message board.
Well, many of them say they act out of concern for others. They are motivated by their belief that to be separate from God is to be sent to Hell upon death. Jesus loves everyone, God loves everyone, but God has spelled out the path to forgiveness and, therefore, “eternal life”, i.e. going to heaven and spending eternity with God. That path to salvation is through acceptance of Jesus as their savior, and asking God for forgiveness. Given that belief, the adherents of other beliefs are not saved, they won’t go to Heaven to be with God, and so it is their mission as good Christians to inform others how to find salvation.
How far people take that admonition and in what manner they execute it is at an individual level, but certainly that fosters a mindset of you are wrong and I must convince you of that. Torquemada’s extent was to say that it was right and proper for him to torture people into conversion, because any amount of torture in this life is finite, but going to hell is infinite torture. Therefore, he was right and good to force conversion in order to ensure eternal rewards for his [del]victims[/del] beneficiaries.
Many other religions are polytheistic. Christianity is monotheistic. Buddhism and Hinduism are fatalistic - you strive to improve your status, but you can always try again until you get it right. Christianity believes in a time limit - you’ve got one life, and if you don’t accept Jesus before you die, then you are done. Deathbed conversions are iffy. Your soul can’t convert, can’t ask for forgiveness and be saved. Christianity holds in a definite bad outcome for non adherents - Hell, and being tortured. Plus, Christianity places strong moral judgement over the nature of belief itself. If you don’t believe in God, and accept him as your God, you are evil, or at least under the sway of evil (the Devil). That’s why it is so judgemental, and so vocal about trying to convert others. “It’s a duty.”
First, they don’t consider it a tagline or PR, they consider it an attempt to define the nature of Jesus, and why he is so special. “Jesus is love” is meant to convey the idea that the very nature of caring and commitment is Godliness, good, and thus the nature of Jesus and Jesus’ message.
Second, why should they coin a new word? The ambiguity of the word is inherent in the language itself, and is not the fault of Christians. It is a cultural acceptance of the ambiguity that christianity just rides on. There are plenty of secular reasons to distinguish romance from familial caring, but we still plod along calling both “love” and using context to make the intent clear. It would actually be detrimental to the christians point to define a new word, because they are attempting to use a common word to connect an emotional appeal. The best they could do would be clarify if asked the difference between romance and familial bond (brotherly love) - which they will if it comes up.
Sure, some do, but so what? Christians study the roots of christianity, which is Judaism, but Christians believe that God made a change via Jesus, so they also study the effects of Jesus and the changes that made in how they are supposed to interact with each other and with God. They don’t particularly care if you feel insulted if they say your current beliefs are false, because to them it is a fact. Any more than you would care someone is insulted if you told him his belief in a flat Earth is false. Or Creationism.
First, christianity has a strong moral judgement about its beliefs. God is the definition and source of all Good, and to be separate from God is to be separate from Good, thus to be Evil. Why this belief is held I can only speculate about, but I think it comes from Judaism’s monotheism (I am your God and you shall have no other gods before me) coupled with the divine consequences and the concept of Hell. Take this strong moralistic judgment and place it in a position of social/political authority (Emperor Constantine), and you get the power structure promoting a moralistic judgment and adjusting society to fit. Give centuries for this power structure/moral judgement combo to act, and it shapes the society and culture to expect the supremacy of the one religious idea.
When a society has a majority of one basic religion (many different sects that claim the same root belief and are similar in many beliefs) that has been largely that way for centuries, then the mindset becomes embedded that it is “natural” and “proper” and “the way it should be”.
So you have the United States government, built upon a culture and legal structure that has internalized the notion that this one religion is the basis of morality and the underlying principle of “good”. Suddenly you inject the idea that religion is not “truth”, that different religions have different answers and we must respect them equally, and that having no religion is equally valid. And through time and reflection, the privileges that that religion held in society are slowly recognized as being antithetical to the idea of equal treatment of beliefs, nondescrimination based upon religion. Slowly those privileges are recognized as conflicting with the ideal espoused, and they start being whittled away. And the slow whittling away of unfair privileges is seen as an erosion of “rights”. That manifests as a perception of an unfair attack on the predominate religion, and because of the root belief of the religion, is perceived as Evil subverting Good.
That is why christians react so strongly to the idea of homosexual marriage. The nature of relationships are taught in the Bible to be naturally a certain way, and only that way is acceptable. Trying to modify secular codes to recognize ideas that conflict with that opinion is seen as promoting the acceptance of Evil.
It is perceived as being the same thing as advocating equal right to marry infants, or equal right to kill your neighbor if he gets on your nerves.
Note I don’t agree with that sentiment, I am just trying to explain the belief as I understand it.
My funny response is a paraphrase of actual responses, meant to demonstrate the actual attitude. It’s not really a parody, not much of an exaggeration.
How does it relate to Jesus is love? Not directly. Probably not at all. Maybe only through the perception that christianity is Good and non-christianity is Evil, so promoting Christianity is promoting Good, which is thus expressing love. But that’s just me fanwanking it. The reality is probably that the two don’t make a direct mental connection in anybody’s head. They don’t think about it that way.
I think I have addressed this above.
The Christians that are motivated to approach strangers and try to “witness” are ones who see it as a duty to promote goodness and defeat evil, to bring nonbelievers to God and thus save them from an eternity of damnation. In that respect, they are a lot closer to Torquemada than they would like to admit. So while they may take people’s feelings into consideration, to them the truth requires them to tell you that you do not have a proper relationship with God and thus are doomed to hell unless you repent. And they claim they are acting on compassion - they want to save you for eternity, so what is a few minutes of discomfort while you get confronted by “the truth”?
Yes, perhaps not in all denominations, but certainly some promote the idea that our culture is based upon Christianity, and so is our government, and that God is the root of laws. I’m not making this shit up. Listen to Pat Robertson some time.
So how does two Hindus getting a civil marriage at City Hall affect them? Not directly, per se, but to the christian, the unexamined belief is that God created humanity, and thus created and shaped society, and laws are to some extent a manifestation of God’s intent. “Marriage” is a formalized and codified structure for the relationship that God intended when he created Adam and Eve. So as God made man and woman to be partners, and paired them “for life”, thus the “covenant” of “marriage” is defined. Therefore, to try to change the meaning of “marriage” to mean a bond between any two people is violating the “natural and inherent” nature of the word as it was created by God.
That’s why they cling so hard to the word “marriage”, and many moderate ones are willing to concede “civil unions” but not marriage. The terminology makes a distinction to them based purely on gibberish that they hold dear.
They are unaware and unwilling to consider “marriage” is a purely social convention that was created to formalize social conventions, and has had many variations and bases - including a strong element of economic and political purposes.
Thanks for the long message, I will get to it in in detail later, I just wanted to say this sentence left me feeling like Moses at the gates of the promised land. Of course I want you to go there and finish. I can separate you personally from your explanation - it’s already far more than anyone else has ever offered. It would suck to toss it out because there is no conclusion, which is where every other attempt at explanation has ended.
[QUOTE=Irishman;13426741In that respect, they are a lot closer to Torquemada than they would like to admit. [/QUOTE]
When I started the thread, I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!
More on the rest later…
But this is broken logic.
When Adam and Steve stand in front of a Justice of the Peace, most certainly not a man of God, and declare their love for each other, and Justice declares them married, Justice (and the State) does not ask Adam and Steve to either consummate the marriage, nor to distinguish between eros and agape type love.
So, the ambiguity is convenient for Christians in some cases, and inconvenient in others? this is even more disturbing than before, because now I know they DO have separate words to descirbe the difference, and I don’t buy “English doesn’t”. English incorporates Greek and other foreign words all the time, if they wanted to use them, they would become common English words in no time at all. As it is, they already use them, but only internally it seems, a sort of Shibboleth.
So, how do Christians know what Adam and Steve are up to, when no one asked? You said earlier that agape love is fine for best buddies, how do Christians know that is not the case in a civil marriage? Web cams in the bedroom?
They are most certainly not unaware. Sticking their heads in the sand perhaps, but let’s not say they are unaware of what contracts are. They know that God is not a factor in civil contracts, and they know their own marriages are civil contracts to the government and gladly accept the benefits thereof.
And complaining that marriage is ambiguous is pretty tortured too after the long (but I am sure just summarizing) explanation as to why there is no problem accepting ambiguity in the word “love”.
Do Christians discuss among themselves these pretty plain contradictions?
Anyway keep it coming, good stuff, I am jut picking your brains as long as you are up to it, not debating you.
Jesus also spoke of the narrow path and that no one could come through except through Him.
The truth can be “insulting” to some people.
Also a lot of your concern seems to be about Christians who wish to impose their morality via the law. Let me tell you-there are many Christians including Evangelicals and fundamentalists who are opposed to that. Unfortunately many of our Evangelicals are far too petty but the great Christians of the past such as J. Gresham Machen opposed such legislation.
Than why do believers want to drag other people onto a path that ends, well, before the end?
No kidding. You should see how insulted local and other Christians can be when they a represented with the Founders own words that this is not a Christian nation, and even worse, that they feared the tyranny of the majority could destroy what they set up so carefully in 1789.
You’d almost think they are feigning not understanding that last part and in fact see it as an opportunity instead of a threat to our nation.
Who are they? Why aren’t they organizing to effectively counter the message of those who would embed Christian doctrine into law? Why are they leaving it to secular and none Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians to fight?
Well that’s their problem not mine. I’ll of course if the opportunity arises tell them the truth.
Well first of all they aren’t as politically as active as the Moral Majority types. They (mostly) vote but its a bit awkward to organize an organization like Christians Opposed to the Imposition of Christian Morality in Law (COICML?). But there is debate within the churches, denominational organizations, and whatnot over this.
You quoted Jesus as saying no one could come through the narrow path except him. I took that to mean Christians are on the path (otherwise why would Jesus mention it?) but can not reach the end (I guess perfect divinity or something like that at the end?)
So on the basis that Christians are on the path, but know they won’t get to the end, why do they think I would want to get on a path that I can’t reach the end of?
If you are not American, it is not your problem, sure, but if you are, why is it not a problem to see the foundation of our nation under attack like that?
Yes, my question is, if they see a threat, why aren’t they active? Of what value is standing by, isn’t lack of dissent in such a case the same as assent?
I have personally never met an Evangelical person or Fundamentalist that said they thought these were religious matters, not secular ones, even in private. Are there any web sites even that you recommend as evidence of this? Could be good to know how people start from the same point but come to a different conclusion.
No it means salvation not “perfect divinity” or anything like that so Christians do expect to get to the end. Jesus said no one could come through the narrow path except through Him not except him.
Even if Moral Majority got everything it wanted they would probably not drag Jews out of the streets and murder them or anything. It’d be like 1950 (minus the Jim Crow laws) at worst. And they have lost much influence since the middle of this decade to the more libertarian Tea Party (which includes soc-cons and pure libertarians)
They don’t see it as a threat per se, more as an error.
I’m late to the thread and must admit I’ve only read it quickly. So, if someone has already made this point, I apologize. As an atheist but former Christian, I think I can answer the OP in GQ mode (as requested). When Christians say “Jesus is love,” what they have in mind is that he freely sacrificed himself for our sins with no prospect of personal benefit. IOW, he did it for us, for no better motive than love for us. Erotic love is a poor analogy. The love of a parent for its child is closest. Or the sacrifice of the little Dutch boy who put his finger in the dike. It’s a powerful image, if you accept it, because Jesus gets nothing from it.
SSM, slavery and equality of women are different problems. By comparison, “Jesus is love” is simple. Whether one accepts it is, of course, a different matter.
This has gone so many directions since I was last on.
First, the matter of “Love”. I don’t want to be offensive here, but is English your first language? Is it that hard to comprehend that “Love” can mean a variety of things depending on the context? And that some forms of “Love” can be universal while other forms have boundaries? Do you accept that one can love children, animals & blood relatives but that erotic love is out of bounds with them? Well, to traditional Jews & Christians, same-sex partners is just another category that is out of bounds. That is the Western legal-cultural consensus RE marriage & there are a lot of Christians & some Jews who think that boundary is not to be messed with.
Second, Christianity developing out of Judaism- Jesus (Jeshua) & his first followers were Jewish. They worshipped YHWH. They attended synagogue. They kept Sabbath & kosher diet & the festivals. The Tenach was their Holy Scriptures. They held that Jesus was Messiah- YHWH’s Anointed Priest-King, Heir of David, and moreso Jesus indicated & His disciples came around to proclaiming that Jesus was the human embodiment of YHWH (mystical Judaism has a concept of The Angel of YHWH, the Metatron, the lesser YHWH which parallels the idea of “God the Son”). The initiation rite into the Jesus circle was a form of the ritual bath/mikvah- baptism, which seems to have been practiced by the Essenes & was done by Jesus’ cousin, the rogue priest John “the Baptist” (John’s father was said to be a Levitical priest of the course of Abijah so John would have been groomed as a priest also). The covenant renewal meal of bread and wine derived from the weekly Sabbath meal & the yearly Passover. Jesus was considered to be the Fulfillment of the Animals Sacrifices & the Priesthood & the Temple, and is quoted as saying that within a generation, all that would be brought to a violent end (as it was in 70 CE) and that He would offer His Kingdom to the Gentiles after being rejected by the rulers of Israel.
Now, if this sounds weird, consider this-
Abraham left his household to follow the call of El Shaddai, those who did not join him were still related to him but they were not his covenant people in the faith of El Shaddai.
When the Israelites slaved in Egypt & were freed by God thru Moses, God gave Moses the Covenant & Commandments to give the people of Israel. What if some Israelites either stayed behind in Egypt or did not accept the Covenant? They were still kin, but they were no longer part of the Covenant People of Israel.
Over time, various Israelites groups broke away to either follow the pagan gods or to worship YHWH but without a proper priesthood on their own family shrines rather than with the Levites around the Tabernacle & then the Temple. They also ceased to be part of the Judaic-Israelite people.
And so Jesus came to introduce a new phase, a New Covenant, into the history of Israel, and when the leadership for the most part rejected that, Jesus & his disciples got as many of the people as would follow into his new “Called-out circle” (Church) and then reached out to the Gentiles also. And when the Jesus&Co-rejecting Jewish establishment was destroyed in 70 CE, the Jesus folk fled Jerusalem to continue elsewhere as The Christian Church, The New Israel.
In the intervening 2000 years, the survivors of the rabbinical establishment then formulated the basics of Judaism, which strove for fidelity to God thru Torah & Traditon, & then Talmud, until the Enlightenment introduced the elements which became the Reform & other modernizing movements. And the Christian Church grew from its Messianic Jewish origins thru Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, Protestant/Reforming, Evangelical, Charismatic & Mainline/Liberal churches & phases. And I know this is gonna make heads explode (like I care) but I believe this past century’s rise of Christian Zionism & Messianic Judaism heralds the eventual reconciliation of the two streams.
I’m gonna have to tackle the other stuff later. I worked last night & am very tired.
And there are some who hold a bit of reverence for Jews, because of the whole “Hebrews of the Bible are God’s chosen people”. But there are also Christians that do cast Jews as evil - Aryanism is full of them.