"a new ideology of evil" - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-24-2005, 07:40 AM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Dreadsox - Chapter 5:25-33

25. People, love your partners, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26. to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27. and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28. In this same way, people ought to love their partners as their own bodies. The person who loves his partner loves themself.
29. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-
30. for we are members of this body.
31. “For this reason a person will leave his father and mother and be united to their partner, and the two will become one flesh.”
32. This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33. However, each one of you also must love your partner as you love yourself...
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:10 AM   #122
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 07:35 AM
"That’s me in the corner
That’s me in the spotlight
Losing my religion"
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:13 AM   #123
The Fly
 
earthshell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Local Time: 01:35 PM
this is why i don't follow a religion. people get hung up about when you correct what is wrong about it. of course none of it is actually true. if the bible is fucked up, just rewrite the damn thing.
__________________
earthshell is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:35 AM   #124
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by earthshell
if the bible is fucked up, just rewrite the damn thing.
That is getting done all the time....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:40 AM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


That is getting done all the time....
As it was being done in the past as well.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 10:49 AM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Exactly what about calling homosexual marriage "a new ideology of evil" is repsectful?
While I would be the first to admit that the pope's comment is rather harsh, I am trying to encourage a respectful discussion. The pope is not on a politically correct campaign when he states his views in which he believes are what we should and should not do as Christians. I myself - a Non-denominational Protestant - have a few theological disagreements with the man, but admire his commitment to Christ enough not to politicize him in a negative fashion - especially while he is regularly going back and forth to the hospital.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
This could be said about almost any book from the Old Testament. There are plenty of things that we adhere to from the Old Testament and plenty that we no longer find relevant.
I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
If it's acceptable to pick and choose what we find relevant....why should it be acceptable to someone who is gay, born gay, loves another human soul with the same kind of Love as Christ loved the Church as Paul writes, that we pick to cling to passages that reinforce this one prejudice.
This is where it gets grey - according to your point of view, it seems that my stance is an intentionally wrong prejudice I hold. Trust me when I say this much - there are some within the conservative Christian community who love all people regardless of their lifestlye and want them to know that they respect where they are coming from whether or not they agree with gay marriage, and there are others who pervert the message by making noise and feeding them with vicious attacks. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Can a Gay person love someone of the same sex the way Paul described in Epheisans? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing in that passage that a Gay person is not capable of doing other than our gender specific word "wife".

Most people I know would do almost anything to have this kind of love between two partners.

And this is where I see the church as WRONG.
Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
You in your post disrespect another human being by implying that being gay is a choice. You lump it in with drug use, pornography, and a bunch of other things that we do. It is no more a choice than your "choice" to be heterosexual.
You clearly did not understand the point I was making in my last post. The point about pornography, etc is that Jesus would discourage it, as would any sane disciple would. I don't claim people are born gay, nor do I claim it is a choice. This has been questioned for over a century. At least as far back as 1899, German researcher Magnus Hirschfeld made this claim, and yet today, many have been led into that assumption.

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."

- Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.

As of now, science does not support that claim.

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf - This is a long read, but I would still suggest reading it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The Church is wrong because it does not take a male part or a female part to LOVE AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Which is the MAIN point Paul is trying to make. Paul was NOT running around defending men loving men, or making a point about women loving women. He was making a point obout the KIND of love that two people committed to each other should share.

And there is nothing a MALE part or a FEMALE part can do to improve on loving as CHRIST loved.
I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 11:24 AM   #127
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
While I would be the first to admit that the pope's comment is rather harsh, I am trying to encourage a respectful discussion. The pope is not on a politically correct campaign when he states his views in which he believes are what we should and should not do as Christians. I myself - a Non-denominational Protestant - have a few theological disagreements with the man, but admire his commitment to Christ enough not to politicize him in a negative fashion - especially while he is regularly going back and forth to the hospital.
Who's saying anyting about being politically correct. He's going against Christ by claiming people are evil. Christ spoke a lot about looking at yourself before casting stones. Christ never said anything about homosexuals, and he definately didn't call them evil.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.
Everything should be questioned. But when I have this many hundred verses telling me to love my neighbor, don't judge, and we're all God's children and I have only two portions of the Bible, one of which most would agree doesn't apply once you look at the context and another which has a vast ammount of information saying it was poorly translated to fit someone's agenda, then I don't see a whole lot to question when it comes to this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

This is where it gets grey - according to your point of view, it seems that my stance is an intentionally wrong prejudice I hold. Trust me when I say this much - there are some within the conservative Christian community who love all people regardless of their lifestlye and want them to know that they respect where they are coming from whether or not they agree with gay marriage, and there are others who pervert the message by making noise and feeding them with vicious attacks. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.
I've tried and played the politcally correct game here for a long enough. But when you show context, and you show original translations and people are still telling you homosexuality is a sin then yes, it's due to homophobic prejudices. Not one person has shown me Biblical evidence otherwise, and I don't have to do anything but look around to see that it doesn't harm anyone.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.
When you speak to straight people you speak in terms they understand, simple as that. You don't derive sin by reading between the lines.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

As of now, science does not support that claim.
A lot of scientist would say science doesn't support the existence of God either.


Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently?
What's different the genitalia?

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?
Well one can be holy without marriage. So I guess according to your logic...to make us happy.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-24-2005, 11:29 AM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I give you the benefit of the doubt that things should be questioned, obviously. With that said, we should also question the world's point of view as well.


I am not sure it is the World's point of view that gay marriage is acceptable.

[Q]It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conservative stance on the issue as prejudiced and hateful, especially when they are attentive to your point of view.[/Q]

Exactly how are they attentive to my point of view?

[Q]Since this is clearly a theological discussion, I will acknowledge it in that fashion. Yes, a homosexual is more than capable of loving someone like Ephesians suggests. With that said, I don't agree with dismissing gender differences in the Bible, where clearly men and women operate differently. Jesus himself spoke in gender terms. We are to provide for our wives security, patience, love, kindness, protection, respect, and comfort. We are to provide a safe environment and support them emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Trust me, I respect your point of view, I think it's interesting. I don't entirely agree with it, but I respect. it.[/Q]

So because there are gender roles, which are NO LONGER valid in the society in which we live in, we should go back because the Bible has Gender roles. Again, the Bible makes many claims about gender that we have picked and chose fromt o believe in and follow.

How else would Jesus have spoken? He was a man of his time and a man ahead of his time in many way.

[Q]You clearly did not understand the point I was making in my last post. [/Q]

I still do not understand it. In a discussion of homosexual marriage you have used as you closing argument points about drug use and pornography. These are not things that people are born into. They are CHOICES that people have made. I am sorry, I fail to see your point as a valid one.


[Q]I respect your views and your thoughts. But - I ask this again - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? If God created a partner suitable for Adam - why do you think he created Eve - a woman? What do you think that symbolizes? Did God create marriage to make us happy, or to make us holy?
[/Q]

You believe that marriage makes us holy? I do not.

God did create a partner for Adam, a mythological story which explains the origins of those calling themselves Jews. Kind of hard to have a race of people, without being able to reproduce.

Am I missing something, did God create a woman for every man on this Earth? There are many single people out there, unholy types that have not been married.

I agree, God created Eve for Adam, but I have seen enough to know that just because there was a woman created for Adam, it does not mean that he created a woman for everyone.

But I am curious, how does marriage make someone holy? Is it the ability to procreate? Not everyone can....so I would think it is not that reason. Are marriages outside of the Christian faith, unholy?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 11:30 AM   #129
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Again, GENETALIA are not necessary for two SOULS to share in the kind of love described in Ephesians.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:02 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Who's saying anyting about being politically correct. He's going against Christ by claiming people are evil. Christ spoke a lot about looking at yourself before casting stones. Christ never said anything about homosexuals, and he definately didn't call them evil.
Nothing quoted in in the bible was directly stated by Christ about homosexuals, but his intentions for marriage are clear to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Everything should be questioned. But when I have this many hundred verses telling me to love my neighbor, don't judge, and we're all God's children and I have only two portions of the Bible, one of which most would agree doesn't apply once you look at the context and another which has a vast ammount of information saying it was poorly translated to fit someone's agenda, then I don't see a whole lot to question when it comes to this.
I would like you to be more direct with this, please present a professional theological point of view, and elaborate on specific examples.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I've tried and played the politcally correct game here for a long enough. But when you show context, and you show original translations and people are still telling you homosexuality is a sin then yes, it's due to homophobic prejudices. Not one person has shown me Biblical evidence otherwise, and I don't have to do anything but look around to see that it doesn't harm anyone.
According to your point of view, the vast majority of credible theologians have a prejudiced agenda. You continue to dismiss anything said of man and wife, and duties of men, and duties of wives. Again I ask you to present something valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
When you speak to straight people you speak in terms they understand, simple as that. You don't derive sin by reading between the lines.
Kind of contradicting, don't you think? You seem to imply that The Bible is just for straight people. You also seem to imply that duties of husband and wife is the message, ironically enough. This message has been perverted to fit the glove of society. Try fitting a fully-functional glove onto a society with it's middle finger up in the air. It doesn't work unless you make it politically correct, yet it beats up on the glove.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
A lot of scientist would say science doesn't support the existence of God either.
This would explain why they have tried to prove the genetic connection for over a century. It would also explain why the theory of evolution was the conclusion that Darwin had after he completely eliminated the possibility of creation or a supreme being. We know where the a lot of them stand, but they have nothing to show for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
What's different the genitalia?
This is a question that a radical feminist is likely to ask as well. They deny any differences between men and women, even though their bodies and minds are much different. Their needs are different as well. It is painfully naive to deny that it exists.

http://www.bvte.ecu.edu/ACBMEC/p1999/Griffin.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Well one can be holy without marriage. So I guess according to your logic...to make us happy.
No - you aren't seeing it. Scripturally - it says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. Does that mean Christ spent his life to make the church happy? Not exclusively, it means Christ loved it enough to die for it. He shaped the church into an institution that glorified God. Not a retailer.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:05 PM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
No - you aren't seeing it. Scripturally - it says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. Does that mean Christ spent his life to make the church happy? Not exclusively, it means Christ loved it enough to die for it. He shaped the church into an institution that glorified God. Not a retailer.
Exactly how did Christ shape the church, when he was Jewish?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:29 PM   #132
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Exactly how did Christ shape the church, ?

because we have always been told this

and critical thinking is not allowed
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:38 PM   #133
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



because we have always been told this

and critical thinning is not allowed
It explains why the early church got off the ground so well...without the emporer.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 12:58 PM   #134
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 01:02 PM   #135
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Ceremonies and commitments of love among same-sex couples were known all over the ancient Christian world. Initially these ceremonies were a set of prayers, but by the twelth century they had become a full service, involving the burning of candles, joining the two parties' right hands, placing their hands on the Bible, saying the Lord's prayer, and a kiss. It was closely related in ceremony to a heterosexual marriage.
The following liturgical office of same-sex unions dates from the 11th century in the Greek church of Grottaferrata in southern Italy (in part). (Boswell, op. cit., p. 295):

The priest [shall say]:
Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholemew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together, bless also these thy servants, N and N, joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit, granting unto them peace and love and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity, and vouchsafe unto them all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine. [see Boswell, op. cit., for scholarly research footnotes to this text.]

As late as 1578 there was a gay marriage ceremony held in Rome in the church of St. John of the Latin Gate between a group of men. Roman theologians said that "since sex between male and female could be legitimate only within marriage, it had seemed equally fair to them to authorize these ceremonies and mysteries of the church." But this was already the time of the Inquisition, and capital punishment was meted out to some of the men by homophobic civil authorities, doubtless with ecclesiastical tacit consent. However, in other areas (Greece, Dalmatia), same-sex church ceremonies continued on into the 17th and 18th centuries.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com