The Gay Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you guys. If only that is all that needs said to those who don't believe like us, specifically I mean the religious right.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 

He was basically saying that Paul was the one who spoke on Homosexuality, not Jesus. The general thought is that Jesus came to fulfill the law, thereby "doing away with it" in a sense. Paul, however, was struggling to convince Jews (and himself)that following the old law was no longer necessary and basically the entire book of Acts deals with coming to a understanding between the two that would please Jews and convince them to convert to Christianity while also allowing Gentiles to become Christians as well.

Meanwhile, Jesus never said anything about most anything concerning the Law, especially when it comes to homosexuality. So, the question is: Do you follow Jesus' teaching (love one another as I have loved you) or Paul's (which was basically trying to rectify Christianity with the old law).
 
He was basically saying that Paul was the one who spoke on Homosexuality, not Jesus. The general thought is that Jesus came to fulfill the law, thereby "doing away with it" in a sense. Paul, however, was struggling to convince Jews (and himself)that following the old law was no longer necessary and basically the entire book of Acts deals with coming to a understanding between the two that would please Jews and convince them to convert to Christianity while also allowing Gentiles to become Christians as well.

Meanwhile, Jesus never said anything about most anything concerning the Law, especially when it comes to homosexuality. So, the question is: Do you follow Jesus' teaching (love one another as I have loved you) or Paul's (which was basically trying to rectify Christianity with the old law).


Thank you Bono_212! I wish I had the gift of speech. Sadly, mine is the gift of gab. I didn't realize galeon girl was asking for explanation. I'm so used to forums where persons often jest. I'm new here, but I'm sure I learn the mannerisms of the regulars with time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think GG was just being a bit sarcastic, but I figured, eh, just in case.


I appreciated your well written explanation. It's nice to know that occasionally someone understands what I'm trying to say.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
He was basically saying that Paul was the one who spoke on Homosexuality, not Jesus. The general thought is that Jesus came to fulfill the law, thereby "doing away with it" in a sense. Paul, however, was struggling to convince Jews (and himself)that following the old law was no longer necessary and basically the entire book of Acts deals with coming to a understanding between the two that would please Jews and convince them to convert to Christianity while also allowing Gentiles to become Christians as well.

Meanwhile, Jesus never said anything about most anything concerning the Law, especially when it comes to homosexuality. So, the question is: Do you follow Jesus' teaching (love one another as I have loved you) or Paul's (which was basically trying to rectify Christianity with the old law).

Thanks for clarifying, I really couldn't make sense out of that post.

So basically the whole "ermagherd jesus says dem gayz are wrong" hobo argument is pretty much void? Kinda funny how easily people copy statements like that, while the basis is totally unfounded. So if you interpret it from Jesus' teachings, now even the bible actually says that it's okay to be gay? :lol:


That's one nonsentical argument tackled then. Now the whole homosexuality is gross...
 
Thank you Bono_212! I wish I had the gift of speech. Sadly, mine is the gift of gab. I didn't realize galeon girl was asking for explanation. I'm so used to forums where persons often jest. I'm new here, but I'm sure I learn the mannerisms of the regulars with time.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

English isn't my native language, and while I've had a religious upbringing, I don't remember most of the stuff. So I was honestly not quite sure what you meant with your post.
 
Thanks for clarifying, I really couldn't make sense out of that post.

So basically the whole "ermagherd jesus says dem gayz are wrong" hobo argument is pretty much void? Kinda funny how easily people copy statements like that, while the basis is totally unfounded. So if you interpret it from Jesus' teachings, now even the bible actually says that it's okay to be gay? :lol:


That's one nonsentical argument tackled then. Now the whole homosexuality is gross...

Hey, no problem. I figured I'd play on the safe side and just answer you sincerely ;).

Basically, yeah. As far as I know, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, at least not in what's recorded in the Gospels, and if we're to believe the Bible is what God wants us to have from that period, well, then, as far as what matters, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

But, by that same logic: Paul DID speak on homosexuality and he did still call it a sin. As we've talked about before, though, it's mentioned in the same reference to being a sin as any kind of sexual "immorality" so I'm not sure what makes it any "worse"/"Better" than adultery or sex outside of marriage, etc.

Anyways, I'm just putting out both sides of the Christianity argument. Just to try to help answer questions.
 
So if one speaks against homosexuality, and another doesn't mention it, does that imply that people just simply choose to be against it, rather than be indifferent?

Fair point on the other immoralities. Seems like this is the last big hurdle then, since sex outside of marriage is pretty accepted nowadays. In our parts of the world that is, though.
 
So if one speaks against homosexuality, and another doesn't mention it, does that imply that people just simply choose to be against it, rather than be indifferent?

Fair point on the other immoralities. Seems like this is the last big hurdle then, since sex outside of marriage is pretty accepted nowadays. In our parts of the world that is, though.

In my personal opinion, I think it speaks to the sort of protestant viewpoint of forming your own relationship with and understanding of the Bible's message. So, you could say it's a simple choice, in a sense.
 
I wonder why it's then preached as the mother of all sins, while things like eating seafood and divorce and premarital sex are now deemed a choice. Where does the difference come from? Because it's so hard for people to understand someone can love another from the same gender, so it must be unnatural or something? I just don't get it.
 
I wonder why it's then preached as the mother of all sins, while things like eating seafood and divorce and premarital sex are now deemed a choice. Where does the difference come from? Because it's so hard for people to understand someone can love another from the same gender, so it must be unnatural or something? I just don't get it.

I think some of it may be the idea that it's "living" in sin, perhaps. More to it, though, I'm sure that it's simply being uncomfortable with something outside of the "norm", so people fall back on the Biblically given excuse they have to not except it.

As far as the whole thing about sins about eating, that is more of a Jewish tradition. There's a lot also said in Acts about that being up to the individual to decide. Again, because they were bringing Gentiles into the new faith who, obviously, didn't follow the Old Law.
 
So in order for the Biblical folk to start accepting gay people as humans, they should accept that the norms of today's society are different than the ones from the book they follow? It does show the complexity of the issue though, people don't like change, and they certainly don't want to hear what they believe is wrong or outdated. I find that challenge more and more with my aging father. He's stubborn as hell and convinced he's right in everything, whenever you try to correct him or explain things differently, he gets angry or ridicules you, rather than being open for something new. Guess we just need a new generation to make a difference, and in a few generation, we can finally accept that we're not that different at all.

Maybe one day, generations far away from now, the same thing could happen with people of different religion. Especially in the middle east, where people just kill each other for believing in something different..that could be of great impact. It's madness.
 
Well, it's very complicated on a spiritual sense, if you can understand. Just because times have changed, doesn't mean that the Bible has. So there's this big rift behind the idea of what is acceptable vs. what is Biblically OK. I know I've spoken enough about it in here for you all to know what side of the fence I lean on. I've spent years figuring out where I stand and it just seems to me that the world is a much different place and the best I can do is care about the people around me and not do harm to one another. So, I just try to let people live their lives, you know?
 
I think that's the biggest crux of the matter. To let people live their lives. If people started to focus on their own lives, and not feel entitled to make decisions that heavily impact other people's lives, that'd be pretty great. We can all get along that way. :)
 
I mean, it's funny what people pick and choose to accept from the Bible. Many people seem to ignore the very strong sentiment present in the New Testament to spread God's message, but not to judge. Let God sort it out, is basically the way I take it. That doesn't mean to remain silent about the message itself and what it says, but I don't think it's meant to mean, berate everyone who doesn't agree with you, spread hatred and definitely, definitely tell people they're going to hell
 
That's pretty much the nice sentiment I have with the Bible.. the whole message of spreading love and be kind to thy neighbour, that's a good thing to teach people. There's plenty of good stuff in there, I just don't get why people are using it as an excuse to hate or exclude others. It's such a shame.
 
That's pretty much the nice sentiment I have with the Bible.. the whole message of spreading love and be kind to thy neighbour, that's a good thing to teach people. There's plenty of good stuff in there, I just don't get why people are using it as an excuse to hate or exclude others. It's such a shame.

We are in absolute agreement, here.

This was also a really nice and pleasant conversation, I enjoyed it :lol:
 
I mean, it's funny what people pick and choose to accept from the Bible. Many people seem to ignore the very strong sentiment present in the New Testament to spread God's message, but not to judge. Let God sort it out, is basically the way I take it. That doesn't mean to remain silent about the message itself and what it says, but I don't think it's meant to mean, berate everyone who doesn't agree with you, spread hatred and definitely, definitely tell people they're going to hell


I'm jumping in late to this thread, but your comments about the Bible galvanized me into replying.

The most famous statement against homosexuality is in Leviticus (and this statement is geared toward men - there are no statements about homosexual women). But it's been stated by many scholars that the passage was misinterpreted from the original language.

You mention "picking and choosing" and that is a key point. If one were to read ALL of Leviticus, I guarantee you that we are all horrid sinners. There are instructions about when to mate, when not to mate, what to eat, how to prepare it, and on and on. Back then, there weren't 7B+ people. It was viewed as a "waste" not to procreate, especially given the short life expectancy of most people. This is why the Bible has comments on masturbation or having sex for "fun" (including homosexual interactions).

But as you wrote, the world has changed. Sticking to a misinterpretation of a few passages written thousands of years ago seems illogical.

I prefer the New Testament. Jesus never once mentions homosexuality or masturbation as a sin. Jesus had his moments of childhood rambunctiousness (recall him preaching at the age of 12 without telling his parents, then almost telling them off stating where else would he be - in today's world, we might call that being a "brat"), anger (destroying merchants' tables in the temple) and even doubt ("My God, have you forsaken me?"). This is why looking toward an Old Testament filled with mythical about creation and floods (numerous other documents have the same creation story and mention worldwide floods, but they are considered myths), genealogy, and instructions hardly seem relevant to today.

Plus, While there is considerable debate about whether Jesus was married, it is well accepted that Peter, often deemed the "first Pope" was. Yet, why are many ministers in various faiths not allowed to marry? It seems man-kind is all too quick to interpret the Bible to best suit himself/themselves.

This is why your last statement is the most powerful - "not to judge. Let God sort it out". Perhaps if we all lived this way a bit more, life would be better for everyone.
 
And to add to my post above:

10347176_10152616988319941_5456897530424506494_n.jpg
 
Plus, While there is considerable debate about whether Jesus was married, it is well accepted that Peter, often deemed the "first Pope" was. Yet, why are many ministers in various faiths not allowed to marry?


Interesting points that you raise here. I found out quite recently that there are several Roman Catholic churches - in full communion with Rome - that allow married priests (but not female priests, and I doubt if they would allow married gay priests, barring of course priests in heterosexual marriages that are closeted gays, lol ). As a baptised but lapsed Catholic, this was complete news to me - and also, by his own admission, was complete news to my elderly acquaintance who was amazed to encounter married CATHOLIC priests in his class when he was pursuing an MPhil in Theology.

One is the Lebanese-based Maronite church, article about them here:

Getting Lebanon's Catholics to work and play well together | National Catholic Reporter

I will also mention in passing that the same elderly acquaintance is a member of a Masonic-type Catholic lay organisation which traces its origins to the time of the first crusades, and is also fully accredited and recogised by the Vatican, that - unlike the actual Freemasons - does admit women members. Its official patron in Ireland? The current Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland. As you say in America, go figure!

http://www.holysepulchre.ie/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom