HomoSexuality - Page 5 - 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 03-07-2006, 07:38 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Would Jesus support Gay rights, Mohommod, Moses, Noah, Mary??
I'm not going to venture as to what Muhammad would do (since I don't believe in his divinity). Likewise, I believe that Moses and Noah are mostly figures of mythology. I believe most "Mosaic Law" was written by agents of Persian King Cyrus the Great, who, rather than forcing his subjects to convert to the state religion, Zoroastrianism, would instead subvert local religions and change them beyond recognition to ensure loyalty. Much of Mosaic Law echos Avestan purity codes, who themselves likely have origins from the Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations.

As such, I'm not surprised that Jesus defied Mosaic Law, much to the anger of the Pharisees.

But as to whether Jesus or Mary would support gay rights, Mary makes absolutely no theological positions in the Bible, and if you believe in Marian apparitions, she has never once spoken out against it. In fact, much of her messages are generally quite consistent with Protestant ideas of faith over good works. Her apparitions have always emphasized faith, repentance, and prayer in a general sense.

In terms of Jesus, he also never spoke out against it, and there's a scholarly question mark regarding the Centurion and his "servant/slave" in the gospels. It was not uncommon in the Roman era for centurions to have a male slave lover. The original Greek in the Gospel of Mark uses a word that could also be translated as meaning "slave" in a homosexual context.

Of course, it's inconclusive from a textual standpoint, whereas logic dictates that a Roman official of any kind would never show any concern for a run of the mill slave that they weren't having sex with. However, if their relationship was of a sexual nature, Jesus never once condemns the centurion, and, instead, commends him for his faith and love.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 07:42 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 06:15 PM
I am a catholic, but I have watch some documentaries stating that the bible was written well after apostles were dead, so how do we not know that the bible was written by the vatican and meant to be the word of God and same goes with the Koran.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 07:45 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 06:15 PM
Do you believe in the Bible Melon? Do you follow it? If you do why do you not listen to Livitcus??
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 07:51 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
I am a catholic, but I have watch some documentaries stating that the bible was written well after apostles were dead, so how do we not know that the bible was written by the vatican and meant to be the word of God and same goes with the Koran.
There were some interesting characters back in the old days. Some theories have gone as far as to say that all of Christianity was invented by Gnostic philosophy. They were, in many ways, excellent precursors to postmodernism, apparently, and went as far as to say that the actual existence of the Messiah was unimportant. All that mattered was the effect that the existence of the Messiah would have on the world. As such, with this theory, the entire New Testament was written as legends based on proto-Gnostic theology. Not entirely illogical, considering the myriad of texts that were not included in the Bible, and the tendency of all religions to create "legendary scripture."

In the end, really, the validity of anything religious boils down to faith, I guess.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 07:51 PM   #65
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Do you believe in the Bible Melon? Do you follow it? If you do why do you not listen to Livitcus??
melon has already explained in detail what he believes Leviticus actually says.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 07:59 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Do you believe in the Bible Melon? Do you follow it? If you do why do you not listen to Livitcus??
I believe neither in the fallibility of the Bible or the inerrancy of the Bible. Even if I were a devout Catholic still, the Vatican teaches against both ideas.

But even if I were to believe that the Bible is correct, I would still be influenced by Catholic support for Biblical scholarship, as supported in a papal encyclical written by Pope Pius XI in the late 1930s. The idea is that to know the original interpretation and original words using the earliest available source texts would be to know the true Word of God. It is under this philosophy that the Catholic Church has gladly included changes into newer editions of their Bibles to include knowledge attained from the Dead Sea Scrolls over the last decade or so.

I don't believe in Leviticus, not only because Acts 15 revokes the authority of Mosaic Law, not only because St. Paul's Church of Antioch (the precursor to the modern Catholic Church) blatantly ignored that compromise in Acts 15 immediately after he made it (due to his strong belief that faith in Jesus and love superceded all the ritualism he saw in Mosaic Law), but also because scholarly research indicates that it likely referred to a prohibition against having sex with temple prostitutes, which would have been seen as a horrible idolatrous offense.

Let's say that I've done my research.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:07 PM   #67
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 05:15 PM
The variety of levels of response in this thread are making my head swim.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 09:26 PM   #68
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: kingston, jamaica
Posts: 63
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Does anyone think that polygamy is right given that each member of the 'family' loves each other as much as say in an ideal hetero/ homo relationship?

If there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, shouldn't polygamy be legalized too?
__________________
djfeelgood is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 09:29 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 10:15 PM
__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 09:34 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by djfeelgood
Does anyone think that polygamy is wrong given that each member of the 'family' loves each other as much as say in an ideal hetero/ homo relationship?

If there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, shouldn't polygamy be legalized too?
If we're going to argue the morality or immorality of something using the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible has many polygamist marriages in the early Old Testament with no explicit condemnation against it. As such, another question that could be asked is if marriage is going to be defined by primarily Judeo-Christian definitions in the United States, shouldn't polygamy be legalized too?

In reality, you can argue in favor of monogamous marriages, both gay and straight, in humanist terms. Polygamy, more or less, is rarely egalitarian. In the Old Testament, there is some jealousy between Leah and Rachel with Jacob, as Leah knows that Rachel is the one that Jacob loves, not her. In Utah, where there are some de facto polygamist relationships, the problem occurs in that you usually have a much older man marrying young girls, all of whom are generally treated as property.

As such, I have no problem limiting marriages between two people of any gender.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-07-2006, 10:06 PM   #71
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:15 AM
I don't really see the analogy here--polygamy is not a sexual orientation; there is no biological predisposition unique to all polygamists. An argument could be made in favor of legalizing polygamy on freedom of cultural expression grounds, but that is not analogous either--homosexuality (in the modern sense) is not a cultural practice. And I have never heard of a polygamous culture or subculture where romantic love of multiple persons is commonly cited as the rationale for adding another spouse.

Incidentally, polygamy has been banned in Judaism since the tenth century--though Jews living in the Islamic world, where multiple wives were a status symbol, did not uniformly accept the ban, and in fact Israel had to grandfather in a few polygamous marriages among Jews arriving from Arab lands when it was created in 1948.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:48 AM   #72
Refugee
 
JMScoopy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Near Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,268
Local Time: 08:15 PM
what about someone like me who doesnt give a shit what other peoples sexual orientations are?

why should i care if you putt from the ruff?

unless you hit on me or something.
__________________
My Recordings
http://www.freewebs.com/jmscoopy
JMScoopy is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:05 AM   #73
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: kingston, jamaica
Posts: 63
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Reason I ask was i read this little bit earlier on and it provoked a few thoughts...

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
"Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. "

Overall the article is fairly biased and aggressively based on assumption but i felt the part above had some pertinance.,
__________________
djfeelgood is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 05:10 AM   #74
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 01:15 AM
I love that the Bible has been brought up here. Let's discuss all the homosexuals in the Bible.
David and Johnathan - the Bible states that they claimed their love was greater for each other than their love for women. And, there is an occassion where johnny boy stripes off all of his clothes right in front of David. Culturally speaking, if David had not wanted his FRIEND to be undressed, this act would've been seen as offensive to David.
Ruth and Naomi - Ruth grabs "hold" of Naomi. The hebrew (i think it's hebrew at least) that is translated in english as "hold" carries a sexual connotation.
Ooh and here's the big bang!!!!
Jesus and John. Yes, that's right. At the last supper John is laying all over Jesus. John is the disciple Jesus says he loves. Hmm.....
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 08:16 AM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by djfeelgood
Reason I ask was i read this little bit earlier on and it provoked a few thoughts...

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
"Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. "

Overall the article is fairly biased and aggressively based on assumption but i felt the part above had some pertinance.,
When you state that the article is biased, you've said a mouthful. Family.org is the official site of "Focus on the Family" (or, as I affectionately call it, "Focus on the Fascism"). There is no greater bigot when it comes to homophobia than FOTF. They also are the driving force behind the "ex-gay movement," which itself only boasts a supposed "30% success rate" and whom psychiatric organizations deem complete quackery.

Part of this "success rate" is a matter of semantics. FOTF's definition of "ex-gay" is pretty much down to convincing a homosexual to be completely celibate or convincing a bisexual to ignore their same-sex aspect of themselves, for the most part.

I hate all this "slippery slope" talk. If they are THAT afraid of polygamy or bestiality, then why don't they have a constitutional amendment to specifically ban only polygamy and bestiality? Because what they're really doing is making up a bunch of nonsense to support homophobia, which they believe to be in the Bible.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 08:15 PM.


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