THE CHRIST ’S ATTITUDE TOWARD IN LOVE

Translated from the original by Costas Balomenos

O

n the subject of lovemaking, in the ecclesiastical place became one more perversion of Christian teaching, which was based on the impression, that the sins - associated with the love, but also the various erotic diversions - employing mostly the genuine Christian tradition and by Christ treated with great rigor, which do not apply to any other sin...

In fact, the supporters of this aspect - older and younger - continuing this perversion, they isolate phrases either of the Fathers, either of Christ, to prove the right at their word. But with this practice, as is known, you can do the Bible to tell you what you want, by distorting completely the truth and the meaning of Christianity.

Based on this logic, was developed the slave trade of African slaves to the plantations of America during the 19th century. The - at the other “pious Christians” - white large landowners who they needed cheap and abundant working hands for their plantations, had no problem of conscience for the cruel and inhumane attitude toward the black slaves, since - as was supporting - their attitude is in harmony with the Bible. Were referring to the narrative of Genesis in which Noah a darn his son Ham (father of Canaan), who represents the black race, to be a servant of his brothers Shem and Japheth, who represent respectively the Semitic and the white race: «“Cursed be Canaan! Becoming worse than a slave to his brothers”. “After he said: “Blessed to be the Lord, the God of Shem! The Canaan to be his slave. God to raise people of Japheth! His descendants to inhabit together with the people of Shem, and Canaan to be his slave of Japheth”». Genesis 9:25 - 27.

Christ as presented to us through the Gospels, nor systematically dealt with the lovemaking, neither developed a comprehensive view about him. Since his part there was only an epidermal confrontation, which did not exceed the 4-5 cases. Nevertheless, we can perhaps arrive at some important conclusions. From his attitude seems then, that when he talks about lovemaking and the various erotic diversions, confronts them with a special leniency. Not stand out from the other human sins, neither gives to these any particular weight, nor ranks them as “large and unforgivable sins” as it call these the subsequent Christian hypocrisy. It's another “invention” of Christian hypocrisy! It was considered as a great and unforgivable sin! Like someone he can weigh the sin!

What it means small and big sin? Sin or do or not do. Of course there are smaller and bigger crimes, but the evil and sin are not assessed by the quantity. When we see a woman three months pregnant and another woman eight months pregnant, we do not say “this woman is a little pregnant and the other lot?” Of course not! And the one and the other woman are pregnant. This is why, knowing the real dimension of sin, James the brother of the Lord writes: “Because anyone who adheres whole the law but to blame for one point, has become guilty of infringement of all the law. Because, he said, do not commit adultery, he said not to commit murder. So, if you do not commit adultery, but commit murder you have become law offenders”. Catholic Epistle of James 2:10 - 11.

Christ therefore, by facing the various erotic diversions, as for the other sins, is interested almost exclusively for the inner mood and the motivation, rather for the external behavior. Thus is justified and the “scandalous” attitude towards the adulteress, who she ought to be killed. This attitude is a slap in the face for everywhere “devout” Christians of all time, for it they tried to eliminate this. As inform us newer critic editions of the Bible, in many ancient manuscripts, containing the Gospels, in which is described the scene in which the Pharisees are leading before Christ “woman, who has been arrested in the act of adultery”, the curtailment from the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verses 3-11, has occasionally been eliminated. According to the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:20 - 23) the adultery, not only in married as well as the engaged, were considered one of the greatest sins of religious and social Morals. Based on this, Christ - if he was “correct” and “fair” - ought to consent to the stoning of her. But instead, Christ tells to her accusers the famous phrase “whoever of you is without sin, let's throw the first stone”, reminding thereby the universality of the human failure and sin, which not only is not counted with the human hypocritically measures, but it is also a personal failure for each of us to live his true nature, loving others and being loved by others. That is why, those who were ready to stone her is likely were not commit adultery - although some of them may were and adulterers - but may were liars, thieves, murderers, avaricious, and so forth. And the climax of the “scandalous” attitude of Christ for the everywhere “devout” Christians of all time, is completed with the attestation of Christ (verse 11), that he does not criticize her, although - according to the evangelical narrative - he not discern to the adulteress no outward manifestation of repentance!: “Neither do I blame, go and from now on you do not sinning more”.

For the prostitute who anointed his feet with myrrh, Jesus said, “the many sins of her are forgiven, because she loved much”, Luke 7:47. In the Samaritan woman, who was living in sin, behaved very warmly. Initially, he requested from her some water, obviously to give her a sense of value, because then was it improper to talk someone to women, since they considered inferior to men and subsequently he has revealed to her some of his highest teachings. Not he ignored, nor hushing up her personal situation, but neither stood in it, nor he was prevented from his sinful state, to approach to her.

To the bishops and other religious leaders of his time, that are supposed they were not guilty of any erotic sin, Christ was repeating constantly: “I say to you the truth, that the publicans and the prostitutes go before you into the kingdom of God” Matthew 21:31. In the parable of visceral Father, known as the parable of the Prodigal Son, the oldest son - reminding the Puritans, who they have preached “holy war” against love - says with “sacred” indignation to his father: “Here, I work to you so many years and never I disobeyed your command, and never you gave me a baby goat to enjoy it with my friends. When your son, the one who squandered your fortune with the prostitutes, returned, you sacrificed for him the calf fattened”. Luke 15:29-30

But what about the mention of Christ for adultery in the Sermon on the Mount? It does not appear there, that condemns adultery? Let us see first what Christ says at the specified point and after we comment: “You have heard that the ancients were told, to do not commit adultery. But I say, that every man who sees a woman and he wishes her, already she committed adultery with her in his heart”. Matthew 5:27 - 28. Here Christ uses an example because he wants to show it that about him, what is important is not the external behavior of man - which often leads to erroneous conclusions - but his inner disposition. This is also evident in the other examples that he uses for the same reason:  “You have heard that they were told to the ancients, not commit murder, he which will kill, should be prosecuted. But I say to you that everyone who acts up against his brother without reason should be prosecuted. Yon who would tell to his brother "raka" should be referred to the Court. Yon again who will say "moron", should be delivered in an igneous geena”. Matthew 5:21- 22. The human law judges the man based on the external phenomena and regards as murder, the act of that kills the body. But for Christ, murder is the internal mood of rejection of the other that can kill his soul. However it is worth noting and pointed out that in the example, where Christ refers to the sexual diversion, he does not mention any punishment for the sinner, while on the contrary he says that anyone who will call “moron” his brother is guilty and should be delivered in igneous geena.

From the above references of Christ to the lovemaking we see that not only seems not some hostility towards him (lovemaking), but the addressing is natural, and furthermore the addressing of the erotic excesses is very mild.

And while Christ is facing mildly the erotic sins, for other sins that they have nothing to do with the love, shows an unrelenting rigor. As for example, the sin of the rich man, from the parable of poor Lazarus, for which the rich man had found at a situation of intolerable torment after death, so that to plead Abraham, in the bay of which were Lazarus: “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dive into water the tip of his finger and cool my tongue, because I suffer through in this flame”. Luke 16:24. What terrible had made the rich and ultimately what was his terrible sin so that he suffer such a horrible martyrdom? Because reading the narrative of the Gospel, we find that the rich man each other despite was a sinner. He was a proper man, an honorable businessman, he was not stealing, he was not killed a man, he was a faithful husband and still does not refused when someone it asked something from him. In a few words he was a devout Christian today, who all obviously we wanted to be in his position in order to found ourselves in Paradise. Lazarus wanted the crumbs that were falling from his table and the rich man left him to take them. We have no reason to believe - such as St. Chrysostom notes - that if Lazarus had asked for anything more, he would had not given it. Well, what did that was so terrible, so that he incur the tougher punishment mentioned in the Gospel for any sin?

The sin was that he devoted itself exclusively with himself. Was not interested in anyone else, nor was observing anyone else. The others namely about him was invisible, nonexistent.  For the Gospel, this seems to be the greatest sin, since for this refers the most heavily punishment. But this sin - unfortunately for all of us-is a sin that constantly we repeat.

In the Gospel - in the narratives of parables - referred heavy punishments not for those who commit erotic aberrations, but for those who were self-centered. In the parable of the talants, Christ described a heavy punishment equally for the man who had not exploited his capabilities, placing them at the service of others: “The miserable slave throw out in the dark, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”, Matthew 25:30. In the corresponding parable, with the ruthless slave, who refused to donate the little fellow servant's debt, while he was exempted from an incomparable large debt, the Lord delivers him to the torturers. Matthew 18:34.

Finally, in the parable of the final judgment, who read in church every Sunday of Carnival – it is a hymn in philanthropy, as he said and the blessed professor Nicholas Matsoukas - Christ describing his Second Coming, says to those who they did not showed love to their fellow man: “Go away from me, damned, into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels, because I was hungry and you not gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you do not give me some water, I was a stranger and you do not got me at home, I was naked and you do not give me clothes, I was patient and prisoner and you did not visited me”.  Matthew 25:41 - 43.

Even in the most cursory reading of the gospel becomes clear that Christ, nor believed that the greatest human sin is associated with the lovemaking, nor considered him as sinful, but - basically for him - sin is lack of love for God and man, who is the image of God, and that any human manifestation or action is sinful when it is not an expression of love.

All the above expresses very beautifully Raul Follero, a French missionary and humanist of the 20th century, in a aversion from his book “Love and Practice”:

«I saw this dream: A human was presented to the criterion of the Lord: “Look, my God”, he was telling “I kept your law, I did not do anything disgraceful, bad or anti-religious. Sir, my hands are clean”. – “Certainly, certainly”, responded the good God ... “but they are leave”! »

Bibliography

F. Faros: Of Eros Nature

F. Faros: The Church as a scandal and as salvation

Chr. Giannaras: The freedom of the ethos.

Writer Christos Pal