Bono as an idol, CoeXisT and Bono's faith

[coemgen]

OK, so I'm posting this in FYM. At first glance that might seem dumb, but hear me out.

This person wrote an interesting article for Relevant magazine's newsletter about Bono's "Coexist" statement called "How to Dismantle an Idolized Bono." She heard Bono say at a concert "Jesus, Jew Mohammed it's true," and that's it. Not the part about "All sons of Abraham." This is important to Christians, of course, because we believe Christ is the only way, therefore any other way isn't. As a Christian, she was upset by this.

Well, Relevant received hundreds of e-mails from people clarifying Bono's point, as well as interesting points that supported the writer's stance on not having Bono as an "idol." Relevant responded by posting a special edition podcast on its site reading a number of the e-mails and discussing the topic of Coexistence, Bono's faith and Christians seeing Bono as the Christ, instead of who he is -- a mere human. (who does a crapload of cool things, I know.)

While the podcast gives some intimate details of Bono's faith I never heard before, his faith isn't necessarily the focus. The idea of Coexist, Christ being the only way, relativism, and idolism is the focus -- that's why I didn't post in The Goal is Soul. I thought it'd get better discussion here.

The article can be found at www.relevantmagazine.com in the "Progressive Culture" section. The podcast is available near the bottom of the site, or through iTunes. There's also great discussion going on in the Relevant message boards.

I'm anxious to hear what you guys think. (Also, these are the guys that published Steve Stockman's "Walk On -- The Spiritual Journey of U2."

coemgen

 

[BVS]

Well this was discussed ad nauseum in GIS.

It's a simple concept, and the only way we're ever going to have piece.

But you'll always have fanatics on all sides that won't allow it. Just take a look in GIS and you'll see the Christian fanatics that threw hissy fits that Bono would even suggest such a thing.

 

[coemgen]

That's partly why I posted this here. On the podcast the staff at Relevant has a great discussion on how so many Christians flip about this, when they shouldn't -- and there's a number of reasons why they shouldn't.
Then there's the controversy about Bono changing what he usually says to "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed — all true." This is what the author of the articule was upset about as a Christian. As Christians, we believe they're not all true.
Also, the fact that Bono did say this at the concert (IF he did -- it's completely different from his other comments from other shows) and Christians are so upset about it, what does that mean? Do some of us put that much stock in him?

 

[BVS]

Then there's the controversy about Bono changing what he usually says to "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed — all true." This is what the author of the articule was upset about as a Christian. As Christians, we believe they're not all true.

But they are true to their believers. That's all we have to know.

 

[coemgen]

Yes, we should respect that -- the idea that these faiths are seem true and meaningful to those who follow them. However, the whole discussion I was talking about and why the author of the article got upset is that as Christians, we don't believe they're all right. There's only one truth. Truth isn't relative. What do you think about that? Do you see Christians as close-minded because of this?

This is one of the discussions I was hoping would come out of this.

 

[BVS]

Yes, we should respect that -- the idea that these faiths are seem true and meaningful to those who follow them. However, the whole discussion I was talking about and why the author of the article got upset is that as Christians, we don't believe they're all right. There's only one truth. Truth isn't relative. What do you think about that? Do you see Christians as close-minded because of this?

This is one of the discussions I was hoping would come out of this.

To be honest I don't believe Jesus is the only way to God. To me it just doesn't make sence to have a loving God that created all, yet his power is limited by the fact that Christ's name hasn't even spread to every corner of the world after 2000 years. To send someone to damnation because they grew up in a Muslim home and never had a chance to be introduced to Christ doesn't sound like a loving God to me.

It reminds of the line "Where you live should not decide, Whether you live or whether you die".

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm Catholic but honestly I've never thought about it, I guess some people would say that doesn't make me a "real Christian". I guess I just prefer to believe that all highways lead to God no matter what on ramp one might take to get there

When I see and hear Bono say that all it means to me is that we all need to make peace with each other and not divide based upon our religions, not be arrogant that our way is the one and only true way. That arrogance can in some cases lead to hatred and prejudice. All one has to do is watch and read the news for even one day to realize the shameful and hateful things that are done because of religious bigotry, pride, and arrogance.

 

[coemgen]

That's a great point. Me personally, I see God as completely holy, pure and just. If someone hasn't heard of the truth of Christ -- how he died for our sins so we can have eternal life with God -- I think he'll see them where they're at as individuals and meet them there. However, Christ has been shared with billions of people over time and it's our duty as Christians to share this truth in love.
Also, I don't see God letting us go to hell as punishment. He does that because we don't chose to be with him. He actually puts us there because that's what we, in fact, want. Think about it: Hell is the absence of God. If we reject his sacrifice -- Christ -- and chose not to accept the lifeline he threw us, then we must not want to spend eternity with him. Does that make sense?

Also, Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody gets to the Father, but by me."
If God came down to our level and died in our place for the sins we've commited (for the wages of sin is death), why should he allow another way to heaven?

I know these are heavy, hard-hitting questions. I know FYMers can handle them though.

 

[coemgen]

When I see and hear Bono say that all it means to me is that we all need to make peace with each other and not divide based upon our religions, not be arrogant that our way is the one and only true way. That arrogance can in some cases lead to hatred and prejudice. All one has to do is watch and read the news for even one day to realize the shameful and hateful things that are done because of religious bigotry, pride, and arrogance.

I whole-heartedly agree with you here. I agree with his CoeXisT statement -- just not when he said at Maidson Square Garden that they're all true (if he in fact, said that.) This statement is very different from his previous CoeXisT statements, which said "Jesus, Jew Mohammed it's true -- all sons of Abraham."
This is true. No doubt. Saying they're all true as religions, however, I don't agree with. And if, he did in fact say that, I don't believe he truly believes either.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What do you mean by saying they're not all true? They certainly are all true in my opinion..do you mean they're not true because they are not Christian? I have to respectfully disagree with that.

 

[coemgen]

Yes, there is truth found in other faiths. I agree with that statement. I don't see them as "the ultimate truths though" or as ways to heaven.

Again, I know that sounds closeminded, but think about it: Truth can't contradict itself, yet this is exactly what all the religions do. Islam doesn't see Christ as a savior, no other faith does. Yet, Christianity does. That's my point.

 

[BVS]

Also, Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody gets to the Father, but by me."
If God came down to our level and died in our place for the sins we've commited (for the wages of sin is death), why should he allow another way to heaven?

But what does "by me" mean? Does this mean we have to know Christ? Is it possible that Christ's sacrifice can be like that of the benefactor in 'Great Expectations'? Where the artist makes it without ever knowing the man who made the sacrifice?

 

[Irvine511]

That's a great point. Me personally, I see God as completely holy, pure and just. If someone hasn't heard of the truth of Christ -- how he died for our sins so we can have eternal life with God -- I think he'll see them where they're at as individuals and meet them there. However, Christ has been shared with billions of people over time and it's our duty as Christians to share this truth in love.

well, as i haven't had the time to really elaborate in the other threads, my faith in god is rapidly slipping away ... it takes time to flesh these things out, and i haven't had the time to do so.

however, you ask an interesting question that i'd like to answer from a more intellectual/logical standpoint than as a person of faith.

if we are to take god to be omniscient, all knowing, etc., then it seems to make sense to me that people shouldn't and couldn't be limited in access to him due to earthly things like culture and geography. logically, a child born in Calcutta who is raised Hindu is every bit as worthy as the devout methodist in Tennessee. while Christ might be a way to achieve an understanding of the almighty and then achieve salvation, it doesn't make sense to me that it's the only way. in fact, i view that as a human assumption rather than a godly assumption -- yes, i know there are scriptural quotes to back up the assertion that Jesus is the only way, but i'd point to the fact that the Bible was written by people who thought the world was flat. i can't see any sort of logic behind taking the Bible literally, and if you're trying to grow a religion and start a movement, doesn't it make sense to insist on the exclusivity of your religion? it means that there's much more at stake -- this is the only way.

so, looking at it from my perspective, i'd say that it only makes sense that there are a multitude of paths to God and that God is capable of revealing himself in many different ways to many different people on their own terms and through a cultural language that they then will understand. to insist on the exclusivity of any religion is, i think, evidence of human chauvinism.

that said, the insistence on exclusivity -- made by all religions -- seems to me to be another symptom of the human imprint upon all religions, that religion itself is better understood as a symptom of man's response to the absurdity of the "human condition" -- that we are born to die -- than evidence of a diety.

but that is only my not-totally-thought-out-and-still-in-flux viewpoint right now.

 

[coemgen]

Christ certainly knew what he was here to do. Keep in mind the Bible tells us Christ was fully God, and fully man. He's a part of the trinity.
Some of his last words before he died on the cross were "It is finished." He knew he had a job to do. He knew he was the "Sacrificial Lamb of God."

 

[coemgen]

Thanks for your insight, Irvine. In regards to your culture/geography comment, as I mentioned above, I think God meets us where we're at if some of us haven't heard of Christ.

yes, i know there are scriptural quotes to back up the assertion that Jesus is the only way, but i'd point to the fact that the Bible was written by people who thought the world was flat.

Actually, this is untrue. The Bible teaches the Earth is round and spherical. See Job 26:10, Luke 17:31, Proverbs 8:27, Isaiah 40:21-22 and Job 26:7. Maybe the Bible is accurate.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually, this is untrue. The Bible teaches the Earth is round and spherical. See Job 26:10, Luke 17:31, Proverbs 8:27, Isaiah 40:21-22 and Job 26:7. Maybe the Bible is accurate.

or maybe they were edited in after the fact?

you know, the like re-released Star Wars movies.

 

[coemgen]

I'm going to work on some stories now, but I'll try to come back to this later. Thanks for your comments guys. Discussion is a good thing.

 

[coemgen]

or maybe they were edited in after the fact?

you know, the like re-released Star Wars movies.

Irvine, you're the man.

 

[BVS]

Christ certainly knew what he was here to do. Keep in mind the Bible tells us Christ was fully God, and fully man. He's a part of the trinity.
Some of his last words before he died on the cross were "It is finished." He knew he had a job to do. He knew he was the "Sacrificial Lamb of God."

That's not what I said.

I said is it possible for man to benefit from Christ's sacrifice without knowing Christ?

 

[coemgen]

OK, I couldn't stay away. I would argue no.
I don't see how it could be. That's what the whole NT is about. Does that make sense? Am I missing what you're trying to say?

 

[anitram]

How can you know that Jesus actually said that line and that his words were not later written down in a way to gain the most converts? Is it a polemic statement? And even if you believe he said it exactly, is it not possible that you can interpret it many ways by, for example saying "through/by me" means "through my works, through loving your neighbour, etc."

If you believe the Bible is 100% true and accurate, for you then I guess there is no argument. For the rest of us, there are many shades of grey.

Which is why I see no problem with Bono's statement nor do I believe that some of the hystrionic responses to it are appropriate. But to each his own.

 

[BVS]

OK, I couldn't stay away. I would argue no.
I don't see how it could be. That's what the whole NT is about. Does that make sense? Am I missing what you're trying to say?

Where does it say that? We're taught that we're saved by grace. That the sacrifice was made for man.

If what you say is true and the only ones saved are those that claim Christ as their savior then God's power is very limited, for many it wouldn't be possible to be saved.

 

[BVS]

And even if you believe he said it exactly, is it not possible that you can interpret it many ways by, for example saying "through/by me" means "through my works, through loving your neighbour, etc."

You stated it much better than I did.

 

[coemgen]

How can you know that Jesus actually said that line and that his words were not later written down in a way to gain the most converts? Is it a polemic statement? And even if you believe he said it exactly, is it not possible that you can interpret it many ways by, for example saying "through/by me" means "through my works, through loving your neighbour, etc."

I see where you're coming from, but if this is true, then why did he have to die on the cross? You know?

And Yes, I know there are shades of gray for a lot of people. However, if you look to the rest of the Bible and get an overall picture of what it's saying, it's pretty black and white. This may sound harsh, but I believe the shades of gray often occur when we want the Bible to fit our own views.

 

[anitram]

Well but I'm saying to you that what it means is that we are on two divergent roads and there is no compromise. So how can you have a discussion here? It's just two groups with different views and never the twain shall meet.

For example, it's possible that God revealed himself to the Jews. The Gentiles didn't buy it, nor did the Jews have any intention of proselytizing. So Jesus came and the Gentiles eventually converted in huge numbers. But the Arabs did not, so Muhammad, maybe a more "user friendly" prophet was sent down to them. Same goes for the Buddha. I have absolutely no idea if this is anything other than a theory. But I accept the possibility that it is true. You don't. So like I said, what is there to talk about? You can quote me 101 Biblical passages and it won't change my mind one bit, and I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face about what MrsSpringsteen so nicely put re: one highway using different ramps to get on and you will go do your death disagreeing.

Which is why I thought the Coexist debate in GiS was totally fruitless at the end of the day.

 

[indra]

Yes, we should respect that -- the idea that these faiths are seem true and meaningful to those who follow them. However, the whole discussion I was talking about and why the author of the article got upset is that as Christians, we don't believe they're all right. There's only one truth. Truth isn't relative. What do you think about that? Do you see Christians as close-minded because of this?

This is one of the discussions I was hoping would come out of this.

Yes. It sure is a HUGE part of what creeps me out completely about Christians who believe that. (Same thing applies to other faiths that believe their way is the only way.)

What I think is that there might be only one truth, and you believe it is what you worship. That, however does not automatically make it the truth. You can point to your "proof," but others can point to their "proof" as well.

I see religions not as the "truth" in and of themselves, but as a way people seek to find truth, therefore I don't think that one religion is right and all others wrong. Personally I don't think a god is worth worshipping if he/she/it has only made one "right" way. I would hope a god wouldn't be so petty.

 

[Liesje]

The way I see it, COEXIST is larger than religion, it trascends ANY religious context (thus the various symbols from different religions). It's a way of life, period. COEXIST means setting all your religious differences aside because regardless of who's right in the end, we're all stuck on earth together and might as well make the best of it.

 

[coemgen]

Personally I don't think a god is worth worshipping if he/she/it has only made one "right" way. I would hope a god wouldn't be so petty.

But that's just it, God did make only one way. Mohammed didn't claim to be God. Neither did Buddah. Christ did though. You see? These other religions don't have a savior either. How can they all be right?

 

[coemgen]

The way I see it, COEXIST is larger than religion, it trascends ANY religious context (thus the various symbols from different religions). It's a way of life, period. COEXIST means setting all your religious differences aside because regardless of who's right in the end, we're all stuck on earth together and might as well make the best of it.

I totally agree with you. I can disagree with someone's religion and coexist with them. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[coemgen]

Well but I'm saying to you that what it means is that we are on two divergent roads and there is no compromise. So how can you have a discussion here? It's just two groups with different views and never the twain shall meet.

For example, it's possible that God revealed himself to the Jews. The Gentiles didn't buy it, nor did the Jews have any intention of proselytizing. So Jesus came and the Gentiles eventually converted in huge numbers. But the Arabs did not, so Muhammad, maybe a more "user friendly" prophet was sent down to them. Same goes for the Buddha. I have absolutely no idea if this is anything other than a theory. But I accept the possibility that it is true. You don't. So like I said, what is there to talk about? You can quote me 101 Biblical passages and it won't change my mind one bit, and I can talk to you until I'm blue in the face about what MrsSpringsteen so nicely put re: one highway using different ramps to get on and you will go do your death disagreeing.

That's fine if you don't believe what I do. No problem. That's why I posted it -- to discuss all of this. That's what FYM is about. If you don't want to go any further, no problem.