U2 and Sexuality - Page 2 - 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 07-20-2006, 05:36 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U2 and Sexuality

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i would encourage you to check out some posts in FYM by a guy named Melon -- he knows a tremendous amount about the Bible and disagrees that the Bible condemns homosexuality at all, and that it's mostly due to errors of translations. i don't know nearly enough to argue these points, but i do know it's a point of contention.
I cannot search here in this forum (I don't know why!!!), so if you put the link for me, I'd appreciate that.

Nonetheless, I study myself hard the Bible since I was a child (and I'm an adult now), read and study a lot, and I already know these opinions about translation errors. In fact, me and several christians, pastors, masters and doctors in Theology worldwide who still disagree with these kind of opinions. But, in the end, accepting it is due the action of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, and not by themselves alone (as explained, for example, in the Westminster's confession of faith).

As I said, I respect your opinion (and all of you guys here), but I think it's more logical and correct simply accept the fact that God, through its Revelation in the Bible, said that He didn't create mankind for this behaviour, and this behaviour (and many many others) has come from the mankind itself, with our imperfectness, and not from Him, who is Perfect and Saint; it's clear enough there. And its Word does not need to fit into our culture, but the contrary, whose core message doesn't change in time, despite the fact the cultures involved there had changed.

Maybe it's a bit complex explain all of this without raising any doubts; I think I cannot put the whole thing here, but what I'm trying to say is that It's not a problem with the Bible, but our culture and society, for many reasons, who doesn't agree with it anymore. Simply that, you know what I mean?

Finally, yes!, I think the band thought that too, specially after your considerations, and admire the way and all the fight Bono inspired inside the Church, even if sometimes I disagree with him.

Thanks for the answers, I'm also learning with them
__________________

__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 06:46 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 09:08 PM
but i didn't ask to be gay. i simply am gay in the way that you are heterosexual. why is my sexual orientation bad and yours good? and sexual orientation is much, much more than simple behavior -- it is all about love. do you know many gay people? do you know that gay people can and do love each other every bit as much as straight people can love each other? it's not just about sex, it's not about a behavior, it's about who you are and how you were hardwired (by God) to love.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-22-2006, 08:40 AM   #18
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511 do you know that gay people can and do love each other every bit as much as straight people can love each other? it's not just about sex, it's not about a behavior, it's about who you are and how you were hardwired (by God) to love. [/B]
Yes, I really know you people love in respect each other, and more, you have your moral, and you deserve respect.

I simply want to show that not always what we considered as "good" it's what God considered as "good" and "ok". For example: we can practice justice because God is Just (we are His image). But, because of our corrupted and imperfect nature, originated from our sin and not from God, we not always can practice perfect Justice as He can, or be good, or be saint, and so on.

God has put what he considered good and correct before him, in all aspect of all life, including sexuality. He created the mankind perfect, and the mankind freely rejected it. If we live as close as we can of what He said to us, that's the better. Homossexuality is not what he designed for us (I think you guys have seen the biblical verses of it here in this forum anywhere, so I'm not going to put them again).

So, Irvine, God "has not hardwired" nothing inside you, you are wrong about that, and wrong if you think the Bible teaches it. He wouldn't put in us a behaviour He dislikes. We do bad things because we are bad, point. Our behaviour is our responsability and not His. He doesn't sin as we does.

Sin is kind of rebellion against God, a negative, irracional and rebel reaction against Him, originated in our pride a enmity against Him. A moral deformity that all of us have (Romans 3.9-18). God has explained us why we are imperfects and how can we live in Him, because He loves us and outside Him we are dead, and because we cannot live in sin before Him: we naturally die. Today, this explanation is in the Holy Bible.

In fact, He did more than this: He died for us to rescue us from our sinful state, and to give us life. That's the great real love, to say the least: die for one we love not die. And God has done that for all of us.

Well, I think I explained what I could: God rejects homossexuality, it's cleary and rightly put in the Bible, that did not need to fit in our reason, culture or society, neither God, who is Immutable. Saying that the Bible is bad translated was discussed and proved wrong many times ago. The correct reason is: God say something about sexuality in the Bible, others say the contrary of Him, and life moves on...

I don't pretend to prolong this conversation because I don't want to fight with anyone, I created this topic only to know the view of the band in this subject, and I got it.

So, Irvine (and anyone here), my respects and God bless. My apologies if I disrespected you anywhere.
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-22-2006, 01:53 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:08 PM
This is why religion will be the downfall of man...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-22-2006, 10:56 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but i didn't ask to be gay. i simply am gay in the way that you are heterosexual. why is my sexual orientation bad and yours good?
Let's face it. Bigots are always going to look for any reason to maintain the status quo, no matter what kind of evidence you and I can show to the contrary.

And that's why I chuckle, because that makes them no different from fundamentalist Muslims or even the Pharisees of the New Testament. It's not about strict adherence to the "Word of God." It's about maintaining tradition, and it's quite amazing what terrible things people will do in the name of it.

But no matter what, just remember that they're wrong. Jesus sure knew how to make a fool out of the Pharisees who had spent hundreds of years expecting Him and couldn't even recognize Him when it came down to it. I suspect that today's "Christian Pharisees" shall share a similarly embarrassing fate the next time around.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-22-2006, 11:03 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
So, Irvine (and anyone here), my respects and God bless. My apologies if I disrespected you anywhere.
You like Bible passages, yes?

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 8:9-10

These are very explicit passages within the Bible. Your supposed anti-gay passages do not pass similar scholarly muster.

And you're right. God wouldn't put in a behavior that He dislikes. That's why the existence of homosexuals, who span the entire history of mankind and have passed through sufficient scientific scrutiny, are undeniably a part of nature. They are not mentally ill, as any credible psychologist or psychiatrist has proven. No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 06:53 AM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You like Bible passages, yes?

Yes, I like very much. Including this passages of the same apostle Paul, in the same book:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1.24-27

It's a lie to say this passage not refers to homossexuality. It does.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


And you're right. God wouldn't put in a behavior that He dislikes. That's why the existence of homosexuals, who span the entire history of mankind and have passed through sufficient scientific scrutiny, are undeniably a part of nature. They are not mentally ill, as any credible psychologist or psychiatrist has proven. No matter how much you tell yourself otherwise, you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

Melon
Yes, they are ill. In fact, we are all ill. Since Adam, in the History, the mankind was always ill. We are so greatly ill, that God had to die for us, because we were "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2.1). Haven't you read what I've explained about our imperfect nature before God? Simply put: God created Adam morally good (Genesis 1.31), but all men sin, and because of that, we need God (Rm. 3.23, 5.12). Any doubts?

I dislike labels. In fact, I hate labels. I even don't know if I fundamentalist or not, because I don't care of it. What label do you give to a man who seeks to live right before God, as stated and His Word, and simply that, with good sense and the orientation of the Holy Spirit? You called me Pharisee, and I simply wanted to discuss some biblical lessons, for God's sake...

I commit sins like everyone, and like everyone I need the Grace of God, because I regret from them. Like Paul explained in one of his epistles.

But now I'll say one thing: I respect Irvine, gay or not, even when I disagreed with him. I'm brazillian, but if I were in Irvine's country, I'd drink a beer with him with pleasure. I've said all these things, seeking to explain to him respectfully, not because I wanted to condemn him (God will judge us all, not me), but to help, and he doesn't know what the Bible say about some things (and he's not obligated to, since he's not from the Church). But in the end, I cannot convince anyone about the Truth: the Truth itself who convince us. I expect for him all good in life, and for the gay people, and let's move on coexisting until God's judgement day.

But people like you, Melon, I don't respect. You are like one of those false prophets, who knows the Word of God, and through manipulation confunds the people, saying words from your heart and not from God, moving the people away from the real love and knowledge of what God wants for us. Prophets like Jeremiah met and fought people like you, who always existed. People like you, who always divided the Church. Call me whatever you want, I don't care.
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 09:05 AM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
And another thing: "judge" is not always about "sentence". "Judge" can be reasoning, understanding of something.

I'm not blind. I see the world, I comprehend it, I analyse it and conclude about it. That's the "right" judgement the Bible accepts, performed by the prophets, apostles and Jesus itself. Like Paul's verse in Romans I put to you.

The "wrong" judgement, reproved by Jesus, is to sentence someone as good and bad, wrong or not, without right knowledge about him/her. For example (forgive me Irvine, because I'm using your name so much ... ): I don't know if Irvine is a good guy or not (it's an example, Irvine, I think you're cool... ), but I know what's the healthy sexuality created and designed by God for us, among others aspects of life also discussed in the Bible. As I already have said, I'm talking about the sin, not the sinner. All christians worldwide help each other combating our failures.

Only God can sentence us, because He can see inside us, even more deeply than us.
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 11:34 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
Yes, I like very much. Including this passages of the same apostle Paul, in the same book:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1.24-27

It's a lie to say this passage not refers to homossexuality. It does.
Then you'll like Romans 2:1 that I showed you earlier. St. Paul was baiting the Jewish Christian audience by appealing to their moral sensibilities. Romans 2:1, where he condemns Jewish Christians for judging and looking at Gentiles with utter disdain was what he was leading into.

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1

As such, your utter disdain at homosexuals makes you no different than the Jewish Christians that St. Paul was trying to convert to his brand of Gentile Christianity.

Regardless, this passage is about homosexuality the way that that Judges 19 is about heterosexuality. God's destruction of Gibeah is after a mob gang raped and killed a female concubine. By your logic, this should be a sweeping condemnation of all heterosexual sex.

Have you ever actually analyzed Romans 1, though? It is a description of a Greco-Roman cult engaged in a temple orgy, which were bisexual. Romans 1:22-23 makes that clear. Like Judges 19 and 20, this is a condemnation of a specific practice, and given the fact that St. Paul spends lots of time in his epistles condemning idolatry, that would be precisely why he would have been disgusted at a temple orgy. But I think we can all agree that the Bible has a disdain for rape, orgies, and idolatry?

Quote:
Yes, they are ill. In fact, we are all ill. Since Adam, in the History, the mankind was always ill. We are so greatly ill, that God had to die for us, because we were "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2.1). Haven't you read what I've explained about our imperfect nature before God? Simply put: God created Adam morally good (Genesis 1.31), but all men sin, and because of that, we need God (Rm. 3.23, 5.12). Any doubts?

I dislike labels. In fact, I hate labels. I even don't know if I fundamentalist or not, because I don't care of it. What label do you give to a man who seeks to live right before God, as stated and His Word, and simply that, with good sense and the orientation of the Holy Spirit? You called me Pharisee, and I simply wanted to discuss some biblical lessons, for God's sake...

I commit sins like everyone, and like everyone I need the Grace of God, because I regret from them. Like Paul explained in one of his epistles.
Like St. Paul, I call a spade a spade. When you state something like this, you're merely using it as justification for your prejudices. What you're really saying is,

"I am a sinner, but homosexuals are all going to hell.""

You might state that you don't judge, but, frankly, your intentions are evident beyond your words.

Quote:
But people like you, Melon, I don't respect. You are like one of those false prophets, who knows the Word of God, and through manipulation confunds the people, saying words from your heart and not from God, moving the people away from the real love and knowledge of what God wants for us. Prophets like Jeremiah met and fought people like you, who always existed. People like you, who always divided the Church. Call me whatever you want, I don't care.
Like I said. It's not about understanding the true Word of God. It's about maintaining tradition at all costs. The Pharisees had thought that they had it all right. You might be interested in knowing that the book of Revelation is a record of what the Pharisees believed would happen with Jesus' first coming. They were expecting a warrior Messiah who would vanquish their enemies and lift Israel into the most powerful kingdom that the world has ever seen. And because of their inflexibility, they missed the boat. The actual source texts to the Bible do not support your prejudices. Period.

The Bible's vague references to same-sex acts are in the context of temple orgies, which was a common pagan practice that stretched back thousands of years, and pederasty, the Greco-Roman practice where adult men would have sex with teenage boys until the latter reached the age of marriage, whereupon he would get married to a woman. If the destruction of Gibeah is not a condemnation of all heterosexual acts, then these stories of idolatry, orgies, and pedophilia are not a condemnation of all homosexual acts.

And this was more than evident through the first 1000 years of Christianity. It is known that early Christians looked at the Bible and focused mainly on idolatry, much in the same way that today's Christians look at the Bible and focus mainly on sex. Have you ever asked yourself where this focus shift came from? For that, we can blame the medieval Christian stoic movement, who finds its ideological father in St. Augustine. While he claims to have converted from Manicheanism to Christianity, the evidence is overwhelming that, much of the time, he used his influence to put Manichean theology into Christianity. Manicheans had two main obsessions:

1) Dualism--"good versus evil," a concept they took from the Persian religion, Zoroastrianism.

2) Purity, where they avoided the material, passionate, and emotional, along with all meat and sex, which they believed polluted the body, condemning them to an eternity of rebirth cycles.

Now just imagine what a disaster it is combining these two extreme philosophies. As a result, the post-Augustine Christian church developed a hatred of sex of all kinds. Sex for pleasure, even between married couples, was a mortal sin worthy of eternal hell. For a married couple to see each other naked would have been "lust," which was a mortal sin. This meant that a married couple was to only have pleasureless sex (probably through a hole in a sheet or something) only when they were ready to conceive a child.

This went further, as well. This philosophy is also the originator of the concept of "original sin." While today we believe that it is the sin of Adam and Eve, it was originally a belief that we were all tainted with sin, because we all came out of women. There was a particular disdain for women in these days, and, in fact, this was why female priests, who existed from the beginnings of the Christian church (so much for excuses claiming that they were forbidden because of the Bible) up to the 4th century A.D., were banned. It was their belief that the mere existence of women was from the result of Satan. Men were the lifebringers, while women merely held the incubating waters. Because men were the bearers of life, it was then believed that all fetuses were inherently male, and that female fetuses were a result of Satan's interference in the womb.

Proper behavior for men were to be strong and emotionless in every instance (hence today's adjective, "stoic," meaning "one who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain"). Feelings of happiness and sadness were equally condemned. Women were allowed to cry, merely because they were already "fallen," and, as such, "weakness" was expected.

Homosexuality, as such, was reserved for their deepest vitriol. It violated every tenet of Christian stoicism. It was pleasureful! It was lustful! It treated a man like a (*gasp*) woman! And because they believed that men were the lifebearers, they had a genuine fear that a man would get pregnant. This is where Christianity gets its anti-gay prejudices, not through the Bible. The Christian stoics did not even use the Bible to justify these prejudices. It was just obvious through their understanding of "natural law." Indeed, even today, the Catholic Church has quietly acknowledged that the Bible has nothing to do with their anti-gay sentiments, and a good many Catholic Bibles actually have contextual footnotes on the supposed anti-gay passages that echo exactly what I've stated in regards to idolatry, temple orgies, and pederasty! This homophobia, instead, has everything to do with medieval "natural law" tradition.

Christian stoicism, obviously, has changed over the centuries. Manicheanism became forgotten, so nobody would ever have known its influence on Christianity. "Original sin" was later redefined as being the equal sin we bear from being descendent of Adam and Eve, rather than being a result of childbirth through a woman's sinful vagina. 19th century Protestantism came up with the revolutionary concept that men and women should get married for love. Prior to that, it was about business and property alliances. Many kingdoms, after all, were created through such alliances.

"Homosexuality," as we know it today, was not even theorized until 1874 Germany. It was a revolutionary concept to believe that homosexuals were not merely heterosexuals who slip up once in a while. In the 132 years since then, it has been more than confirmed that homosexuals are a distinct part of nature. They are not merely heterosexuals that decide to fool around with the same sex here and there. It is not a mental illness, as determined by all credible psychologists and psychiatrists.

I'm not surprised that you have disdain for me, because what I tell you goes against everything you've believed to be true about Christianity and sexuality. However, the lesson of the post-Reformation world has been to ignore tradition, in favor of discovering the true "Word of God." It is blatantly clear what falls under "tradition" and what falls under the "Word of God" through textual analysis of the source texts and an understanding of Christian history and how the early Church understood the Bible.

Just because your beliefs are old does not mean that they are correct, and that "false prophet" label could easily be applied to you. If I were you, I'd start taking the lessons of Romans 2:1 to heart.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 01:01 PM   #25
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Regardless, this passage is about homosexuality the way that that Judges 19 is about heterosexuality. God's destruction of Gibeah is after a mob gang raped and killed a female concubine. By your logic, this should be a sweeping condemnation of all heterosexual sex.

No, and you have a little problem in understanding my logic (or bible's logic). The condemnation should sweep only to the gang who raped and killed the concubine, and not all heterosexual men, like happened there, and Judges shows as the wrong thing that happened.


Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Have you ever actually analyzed Romans 1, though? It is a description of a Greco-Roman cult engaged in a temple orgy, which were bisexual. Romans 1:22-23 makes that clear. Like Judges 19 and 20, this is a condemnation of a specific practice, and given the fact that St. Paul spends lots of time in his epistles condemning idolatry, that would be precisely why he would have been disgusted at a temple orgy. But I think we can all agree that the Bible has a disdain for rape, orgies, and idolatry?

Yes. In rape, orgies, idolatry and homosexuality, as showed in Leviticus too:

"You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD... Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18.4-5, 22

I think God's speaking in it as clearly wrong, whether in an orgy or not.

I think you don't know a simple lesson for right biblical interpretation. Let me show you this lesson explained in the Westminster's Confession of Faith, extracted from Chapter 1:

"IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

Any Bible commentary relates Romans with Leviticus, for the people who don't understand this. Check Genebra's Bible, for example.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Like St. Paul, I call a spade a spade. When you state something like this, you're merely using it as justification for your prejudices. What you're really saying is,

"I am a sinner, but homosexuals are all going to hell.""

That's wrong again. I am a sinner, and I'm going to hell if I don't hold on to God's Grace in Jesus to purify me, justify me like everyone who sins, whatever the sin, including the homosexuality. I can't understand why don't you comprehend this simple biblical lesson.

A concept is not simply "prejudice" if it's cleary said from God itself. What can I do if He's the first who dislikes this behaviour? Say to Him he's in prejudice with them.

As I said (again, read carefully!): like Jesus, I hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't like homosexuality, because a lot of things I've already said (I won't repeat it again, sorry), but I (would, if I met him) like gay people like Irvine. Do you understand now or must I draw a picture for you?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You might state that you don't judge, but, frankly, your intentions are evident beyond your words.

I can say the same for you, who called me first "Christian Pharisee", when I was simply discussing somethings with Irvine, without offending anyone, in love, without irony, as you did.

If I'm walking in the street, and a guy with gun appears wanting my money, I know who he is: a robber. I don't know why he is a robber, if he's only a good guy hungry, or a bad one. But he's a robber. And that's why I considered you like someone who divides the Church (I call a spade a spade too... like St. Paul and John Calvin), someone who knows the Bible but not by Holy Spirit's ilumination, but by concepts from your heart and head to fit the Bible in this culture and society. Someone who confuse people, moving them away from right understanding of God's Word. Like the false prophets in Jeremiah's time. People like you always existed, and God never has abandoned his Church against them.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Just because your beliefs are old does not mean that they are correct, and that "false prophet" label could easily be applied to you. If I were you, I'd start taking the lessons of Romans 2:1 to heart.

Just because your beliefs are "new", to fit in the reasoning of actual culture/society, does not mean that they are correct. And yes, the "false prophet" can be applied for me. But I read the Bible, seeking to understand God's will for my life, so I kind of police myself to don't commit this mistake.

Thanks, but I'll take lessons in Romans 2:1 with someone who I trust. Not with you.

So, if you're happy with your ideas... be happy. I'd still drink a beer with Irvine, despite your ideas about me, because I respect him. You, I don't.
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 01:42 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
Yes. In rape, orgies, idolatry and homosexuality, as showed in Leviticus too:

"You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD... Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18.4-5, 22

I think God's speaking in it as clearly wrong, whether in an orgy or not.
Leviticus 18 is mistranslated. It roughly says this, with the key words in the original language:

"Ish" shall not lie with "zakar" as with "ishah." It is "to'evah."

If it was meant to be a condemnation of homosexuality, it would have been:

"Ish" [Man] shall not lie with "ish" [man] as with "ishah" [woman]." It is "to'evah" ["ritual taboo," a signifier that it is part of the purity codes; exaggerated in translation as "abomination."]

This passage illustrates my problem with Biblical translation. "Zakar" is a likely reference to an obsolete concept, such as a temple prostitute. This is reinforced by the placement of this verse, which wedged between a condemnation of offering your children to Molech, an idolatrous practice, and bestiality, which was also an idolatrous practice in these days.

This verse, properly translated, approximately states this:

"Men shall not lie with temple prostitutes as with women. It is unclean."

Quote:
Any Bible commentary relates Romans with Leviticus, for the people who don't understand this.
Considering that both deal with temple idolatrous practices, I'm not going to disagree with this contention. However, it appears that most modern Christians are placing their modern prejudices onto ancient texts that had completely different societal customs and practices.

Quote:
And that's why I considered you like someone who divides the Church (I call a spade a spade too... like St. Paul and John Calvin), someone who knows the Bible but not by Holy Spirit's ilumination, but by concepts from your heart and head to fit the Bible in this culture and society. Someone who confuse people, moving them away from right understanding of God's Word. Like the false prophets in Jeremiah's time. People like you always existed, and God never has abandoned his Church against them.
John Calvin divided the church, by definition. He did not conform to strict Roman Catholic theology, and, in fact, Calvin's theology is attributed to more demoninational divisions within Christianity than any other Reformation-era theologian. Even Martin Luther only created one division: Lutheranism.

And again with the judging! I see that Romans 2:1 is lost on you. You do not know my heart, and nor do you know the theological experiences I have had for years.

Quote:
So, if you're happy with your ideas... be happy. I'd still drink a beer with Irvine, despite your ideas about me, because I respect him. You, I don't.
You respect Irvine, because he gives the semblence of asking you questions, and you feel that you can convert him. But if you realized that his beliefs are as concrete as mine, something tells me that you would stop respecting him too.

I'm not interested in converting you, frankly. I know when it's a lost cause. I am merely explaining that gay Christians have a theological basis for what they believe, just as any mutually incompatible Christian denomination has a theological basis for what they believe.

The fact that you put such heavy weight on homosexuality in Christianity shows your prejudices, flat out. It is not a requirement for being a Christian. The Nicene Creed, in the 4th century A.D., outlined the beliefs that they believed necessary to be a Christian. I will post a literal translation of the creed that they wrote:

Quote:
I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
Not once does it state that, to be a Christian, that one must a red-blooded heterosexual. That is the bias of modern Christians. Homosexuality is no more or less sinful than heterosexuality, and the fact that there is unequivocal proof that there are loving, monogamous homosexual couples out there is proof that God's love knows no gender boundaries. Just as the Holy Spirit broke down hateful Christian traditions that looked to the Bible to support anti-Semitism, misogyny, racism, and slavery, the Holy Spirit is gradually breaking down the last "acceptable" prejudice: homophobia. Just as gay Christians know through their personal relationship with Jesus Christ that they are loved just as they are, eventually those heterosexuals who judge from the outside on something that they refuse to understand will find their tradition-hardened hearts healed someday. This is ultimately my prayer for you.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 02:05 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

You respect Irvine, because he gives the semblence of asking you questions, and you feel that you can convert him. But if you realized that his beliefs are as concrete as mine, something tells me that you would stop respecting him too.
No. I respect him because he's not like you, who knows the Bible and use your (personal hebrew, for example) knowledge to divide the Church, leading it to accept this. As Caifas, who might recognize Jesus as the Messiah instead of killing him, because he was the great priest (? = I don't know the correct word) of his time. I sincerelly have no prayer for people like you anymore. Let the Lord rebuke you.

Why John Calvin and Martin Luther divided the Church, because they lead it to believe in the authority of the Scriptures, instead of tradition, as the primitive church? Luther, for example, didn't want to get out of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a Reform, not a Reinvention of something, you know.

For you all in this forum, I recommend to check the Hebrew translation with some other people, because for sure you will find some other opinions with specialists, and find why the most of people accepts the "other" translation instead of Melon's, despite his prejudice for who's inside the Church. For example, as I learned, this verse means what it really says.

And another thing: I base my reason upon the Holy Spirit orientation, as Jesus said when announce him. It's not only about experience. So, keep yours
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 02:18 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
No. I respect him because he's not like you, who knows the Bible and use your (personal hebrew, for example) knowledge to divide the Church, leading it to accept this. As Caifas, who might recognize Jesus as the Messiah instead of killing him. I sincerelly have no prayer for you, because he was the great priest (? = I don't know the correct word) of his time.
Well, now I know your true nature behind the smiles. Apparently, you cannot accept that someone can accept Jesus as their Messiah and not be a raving homophobe. This would certainly have been the attitude that racist segregationalists would have had towards those Christians who supported integration.

On a side note, I don't know where you got the idea that Christianity is *not* divided. But, apparently, that weak and illogical argument is the best that you can come up with.

Quote:
Why John Calvin and Martin Luther divided the Church, because they lead it to believe in the authority of the Scriptures, as the primitive church? Luther, for example, didn't want to get out of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a Reform, not a Reinvention of something, you know.
Catholicism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism are about as distinct as Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, despite both having a central belief in the Prophet Muhammad. The fact that you call it "reform," instead of "heresy," reflects your Protestant bias.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 02:45 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon Well, now I know your true nature behind the smiles. Apparently, you cannot accept that someone can accept Jesus as their Messiah and not be a raving homophobe. This would certainly have been the attitude that racist segregationalists would have had towards those Christians who supported integration.
No, I won't, because the Bible does not teach it. Racism is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime, but God reproves it (got it now????). But with people like you, inside the Church, I will disagree, won't respect, and fight (verbally, only verbally), because of my faith and love in Jesus and his Word.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
[B]On a side note, I don't know where you got the idea that Christianity is *not* divided. But, apparently, that weak and illogical argument is the best that you can come up with.
On the simple idea that the invisible Church is not divided at all, despite the "visible" divisions. God always has kept it in History, through the work of the reformists, for example.

If you think my reasons are illogicals and weaks, so yours for me. In fact, if you still want that picture drawed for you better understanding that I don't hate homosexuals ("homophobic" for me is hate, and I don't hate them), even when I disagree about homosexuality with them...
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 03:14 PM   #30
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Wow the hatred is deep...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

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 09:08 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