U2 and Sexuality

[Rachel D.]

And homosexuals exist to prove that there's more to love than just having a penis and a vagina.

Melon

You seem to be confusing love and sex.

 

[melon]

If it's OK for men to have sex with men who aren't male temple prostitutes, then does that mean that it's OK to sacrifice your children, as long as it's not to a pagan god? No, of course not.

There's a sweeping prohibition against murder. The fact that they had to go back and make a specific prohibition against sacrificing your children to Molech meant that Israelites must not have thought it to be murder. The fact that additional gods are not mentioned is probably because there were no other gods that Israelites were using to sacrifice their children.

So does that mean that it's OK for a man to have sex with a man who isn't a prostitute? No.

Your logic is completely twisted. I'm sorry. If the Bible had intended to make a sweeping prohibition against homosexuality, they were capable of doing it. Yet, they chose not to. Instead, modern translators had to go in and place in their biases for concepts that they did not understand.

Melon

 

[melon]

You seem to be confusing love and sex.

And, apparently, you are doing the same. There's more to homosexuality than having sex.

Melon

 

[BVS]

You seem to be confusing love and sex.

You did that a long time ago...

 

[Irvine511]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

boy, you're realy fucking original.

you embarass God and make your religion look foolish.

i'm so sick of this shit, in light of certain events, that i'm not even going to entertain dialogue anymore. you're free to have your bigotry and to enjoy it, just don't wrap it in the cloak of piety and self-righteousness to make it more pallatable to yourself. you're no different than a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite.

Melon -- sorry i've been away from the computer all day, you've done well as usual, but its increasingly obvious that logic, facts, reason and compassion aren't enough for people who need various boogeymen to define themselves against and give more meaning and importance to lives that obviously aren't terribly fufilling.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

(stands and applauds)

 

[anitram]

We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.

 

[BVS]

We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.

 

[yolland]

I do agree that telling someone they're morally wrong on account of their sexuality is fundamentally different from telling them they're wrong on account of their views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or for that matter their beliefs about God. Condemning someone for something they understand themselves to believe in, or to wish to freely practice as they like, can't be fairly compared to condemning them for something they understand themselves simply to be, and to need to realize their very existence through in a holistic way.

Nonetheless, it is very important that at least some of us remain willing and able to discuss these things. I'm as grateful as anyone else that, in the main, segregationism and organized anti-semitism are no longer with us. But if they were, if they were front and center in public debate today, I would think it important that we be able to discuss them here. Looking away from what just is out there will not help matters. Neither will settling for shouting about it.

 

[maycocksean]

Sometimes I wonder why we, as fundamentalist Christians, make such a big deal out of homosexuality. . .what's really going on here? I can't figure it out. I mean I can understand why a gay person would get hot under the collar in a discussion like this--their very personhood is being attacked. But why do those who believe homosexuality is a sin get so riled up? Is it that we're scared? Grossed out? Do we feel like we need to "stand up against the world" on some point, and these seems like a fairly easy point to do it on? It seems that no other "sin" sets conservative Christians off like this, and I'm not sure why.

Of course, the obvious explanation, would have to be homophobia (a fear of homosexuals and a fear of what might become of our society if they were fully accepted into our society). I think this is why people who say gay sex is wrong are automatically assumed to be homophobes, because why else the extreme responses? We all say, "we're all sinners" but that's not what comes across at all. What comes across is something more akin to "It's got to be STOPPED!!"

I'm a Christian "fundamentalist", I guess. Anyone who's read many of my posts here on FYM knows that. I believe in Adam and Eve and a six day creation and Noahs Ark and all the rest. I believe that the Bible is written by men, but inspired by God. I believe it is true and it can be trusted. However. . .I think the one place where I apparently differ from most of my fellow conservative Christians is that I recognize that understanding the truths of Scripture is a dynamic, growing process. There is always the possibility that I might be wrong. That what I THOUGHT the scripture said, and what it actually says might be two different things. I also recognize the danger inherent in wanting to hold on to a particular belief and then ignoring all Bible scholarship that might require me to give up that treasured belief.

So I have to ask Rachel D, and castriano, have you ever considered the possiblity that you MIGHT be wrong? And have you considered that you MIGHT not want to change your views on certain issues, such as homosexuality because it scares you, makes you uncomfortable, and just seems weird to you, and thus you might NOT WANT to consider any scriptural evidence that would force you to reevaluate what you always thought to be true?

It's scary to think we might be wrong. But it's important to hold on that possiblity, if only because it keeps us relying on God's grace. This is what is missing for most fundamentalist Christians, I'm discovering, the willingness to concede the possiblity of being wrong. Contrary to what you may think, it's is not our righteousness that offends people, but our self-righteousness. Is it possible that the very thing you accuse gay people of, you may be doing yourself, "making the Bible say what you want it to say to support what you already think."

My views are still pretty conservative when it comes to sexuality--I should make that clear, and I know most people would disagree with my belief that sex should be reserved for marriage, for example. Paul wrote that he thought (and he said, interestingly, that this was only his opinion, and not from the Lord) that it was better to be single. But, he said, if you can't control yourself, it's better to marry. For those of us who are heterosexual, we have an "out" for our sexuality. We can get married and share that with someone in a lifetime, monogamous relationship. Check out 1 Corinthians 7: 1-9. But what opponents of homosexuality are saying is that for the gay person, there is no "out." There's no options for you, other than to grit your teeth and be celibate for life. Or you can pray for "healing" but unlike the cancer patient who prays for healing, if you don't get healed, you'll go to hell. For the cancer patient, there is no sin in failing to be healed, but not so for the gay person. Where is God's justice and mercy here?

And you know, I don't think (and I know many here don't support this contention) that homosexuality was a part of God's original plan, before sin. But God has allowed all kinds of things that were not part of his original plan--polygamy and slavery during Biblical times, eating meat, warfare, and others. God's principles are of course unchanging, but the application of those principals, He has in His mercy, allowed to change in accordance with the culture and times of His children. Note, that there God's "stand on slavery" in Scripture is as "clear" as His "stand on homosexuality." slaves were to be obedient to their masters. If you were to stick to a strictly "literal" reading of Scripture you could conclude that God did not support the ending of slavery. And indeed slaveholders in 19th century American turned to these "plain" scriptures to SUPPORT WHAT THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE. Fortunately, there were other Christians who were able to look beyond the letter of the law, to the Spirit of the law, who were able to draw not from "literal" readings but from a broader understanding of God's character found in Scripture that slavery was something that God had allowed for a time, but whose time had come to an end. I wonder if we are not perhaps approaching something similar in regards to homosexuality, where we must look beyond the "literal" reading that conveniently fits with our fears and prejudices to the Spirit of the law, a law of mercy, compassion, understanding, and love.

So to me, if a gay couple sincerely wants to do God's will and follow God and they do all that they can to live up to His will as they understand it by choosing to commit to one another in a lifelong, monogamous relationship, then that is for God to judge, not us. Man looks out on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.

If I've learned anything from my study of Scripture, it's that God is a lot more patient and a lot more understanding of our struggles down here then we give Him credit for.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.

I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.

It's sickening and it's getting old.

Precicely, opposition to the reactionary beliefs and retrograde social pressures demands unequivocal and loud condemnation, just because somebody believe something to be true doesn't stop it being any less offensive or deserving of contempt.

 

[yolland]

^ From this POV it would seem that MLK Jr. was a patsy and a weakling, since he did not fight contempt with contempt, and insisted on respect even towards men who used violence to keep down those he stood for.

His may not be the answer to everything, but contempt and refusal to extend respect make a poor basis for a social liberation movement.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wow the hatred is deep...

The hatred is sanctioned, and no matter how much is dredged from the well of revealed truth it will always bring forth the same answers. The days of bronze age semitic tribal law is over, reason and rationalism prevailed; bring on the free love, faggotry and blasphemy

 

[A_Wanderer]

^ From this POV it would seem that MLK Jr. was a patsy and a weakling, since he did not fight contempt with contempt, and insisted on respect even towards men who used violence to keep down those he stood for.

His may not be the answer to everything, but contempt and refusal to extend respect make a poor basis for a social liberation movement.

But it makes for a very fierce defender of ideas and enables the middle ground to be won; there are matters that are simply non-negotiable that have to be defended vigorously and in many of those situations respect for other peoples alternative opinion is simply untenable and in some rarer circumstances an respect for them period is null. Ideas have to be fought for and strong oratory is the prime weapon, just look to the early days of evolution and Thomas Henry Huxley.

 

[yolland]

I don't think you can compare the acceptance of evolution to the success of the Civil Rights movement; the stakes in terms of human dignity were just not the same. Scientific debate, while obviously not unrelated to social progress, is a different arena and calls for different strategies. Granted, there are of course situations where "respect is null" as you put it--e.g., at the point where you're talking about the government-planned extermination of an entire race, then respectful dialogue is probably no longer of help. But that's not the sort of scenario we're talking about here.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We are talking about religiously inspired bigotry derived from an ancient tome, I fail to see how such ideas should be granted respect when they run contrary to the principles of an open society, I recognise and grant the right to bigotry of all kinds but that isn't granted without pointed criticism and if push came to shove ridicule.

 

[yolland]

Perhaps we aren't understanding the same thing by "respect"--I don't see it as being incompatible with pointed criticism nor firm resistance. Segregationists also frequently justified their views according to the Bible (as did, of course, their co-religionist opponents in the Civil Rights Movement). What I am suggesting is that contempt and ridicule are not sound attitudes to base a social liberation movement on. While certainly understandable emotionally, they tend to further harden hearts and seal up ears on the other side.

It is an awfully tough ideal to ask people live up to though, especially when they're not being responded to in kind.

 

[A_Wanderer]

they tend to further harden hearts and seal up ears on the other side.

Yes and that makes them prone of saying what they really think, and at that stage the nature of their ideas is there for the world to judge and in most cases it ensures they are discredited to the mainstream, the debate is won.

Respect is civil recognition of their ideas or them as people, and in certain situations that is just untenable - I fully support and engage in civil argument and debate without resorting to verbal violence but that is quite removed from treating evil human beings with a modicum of that civil recognition when they do not deserve it, in context evil human beings does not refer to anybody on this thread or even creationists.

 

[melon]

And you know, I don't think (and I know many here don't support this contention) that homosexuality was a part of God's original plan, before sin. But God has allowed all kinds of things that were not part of his original plan--polygamy and slavery during Biblical times, eating meat, warfare, and others.

I appreciate the depth of your post, but let me comment on this concept.

You could say that lefthandedness was not part of God's plan before sin. Or different hair colors. Or different languages. Or black people--an argument I've heard from Christian white nationalist movements.

That last part kind of hits what I'm touching on here. The "Christian ideal," ultimately, is one of fascism, where everyone is exactly the same in lifestyle, in biology, in looks, and in thought. When I think about the implications of Christians getting exactly what they desire, I don't see God's will either. I see man's will. I see man's narrow idea of "perfection."

As I stated earlier, I don't believe in fundamentalist theology. I think that Adam and Eve are mythological based on overwhelming evidence. The evolutionary model, which I believe to be a mechanism of God, is full of diversity in creation. I find it very telling that strict sexual roles are not even maintained in the animal kingdom. In seahorses, for instance, it is the male who is "pregnant," as the female deposits the eggs into him.

I could go on and on (and something tells me that I will end up doing so in this thread), but I do take issue with comparing homosexuality with polygamy, slavery, and warfare. I believe it to be as much of nature as anything else. If anything, homosexuality exists to prove that God's love in infinite, and that even man-conceived gender roles cannot stop Him.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Polygyny and polyandry are represented in the natural world as are coerced sex, homosexuaity and mass spawnings. Sexually exclusive monogamy is not the majority system - it is by far the minority especially in mammals even with our most related species the chimanzees and bonobos being highly promiscuous (especially bonobos did God make this bisexual species?).

I can understand that all this varied behaviour is difficult to comprehend in humans on the basis of theology - but if we place ourselves as a higher vertebrate but still animals the nature of our sexuality becomes a bit less mystic and a lot more understandable and explainable.

 

[Salome]

now I remember why I usually summarize the entire bible to "God is love"

re. U2
I'm sure most and probably even all of them are aware of both the good and the bad coming from religion
and that alone would prevent them using the bible or God for any message but a message of love

 

[Irvine511]

U2 's the gays

 

[nathan1977]

I posted, but I realized that my post could derail the thread, so never mind...

 

[maycocksean]

I appreciate the depth of your post, but let me comment on this concept.

You could say that lefthandedness was not part of God's plan before sin. Or different hair colors. Or different languages. Or black people--an argument I've heard from Christian white nationalist movements.

That last part kind of hits what I'm touching on here. The "Christian ideal," ultimately, is one of fascism, where everyone is exactly the same in lifestyle, in biology, in looks, and in thought. When I think about the implications of Christians getting exactly what they desire, I don't see God's will either. I see man's will. I see man's narrow idea of "perfection."

As I stated earlier, I don't believe in fundamentalist theology. I think that Adam and Eve are mythological based on overwhelming evidence. The evolutionary model, which I believe to be a mechanism of God, is full of diversity in creation. I find it very telling that strict sexual roles are not even maintained in the animal kingdom. In seahorses, for instance, it is the male who is "pregnant," as the female deposits the eggs into him.

I could go on and on (and something tells me that I will end up doing so in this thread), but I do take issue with comparing homosexuality with polygamy, slavery, and warfare. I believe it to be as much of nature as anything else. If anything, homosexuality exists to prove that God's love in infinite, and that even man-conceived gender roles cannot stop Him.

Melon

Thanks, Melon. Obviously, the fact that I do believe in a more fundamentalist theology and you do not means that at some point we are going to part ways.

My comparison of homosexuality to polgamy, slavery, and warfare was insensitive, I admitt, and I sincerely apologize. I'm sure no gay person wants to be considered on par with polgyamists, slaveholders, and warmongers, and it was not my intention to place them on the same moral level. It was a poor comparison.

Your points on what God's "ideal" is are well taken. You're right, in that we have to be careful about claiming to know absolutely what is God's ideal. I do believe that God is a God of creative variety not one of sameness, and perhaps that variety does indeed extend to include sexuality. I don't know, I'm not convinced, but I'm certainly willing to concede the possiblity.

And I would also add that we really don't know what life will be like "post-sin", in heaven, when we return to the "ideal." I was just reading in Matthew 22 where Jesus said that in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven. So much for the sanctity of marriage, eh! Now, of course, Christians widely disagree on what Jesus actually mean't by this. Some say that this means that marriage will disappear in heaven. Some can't accept that. Even my grandparents who were happily married for 59 years until my grandpa passed away couldn't agree. My grandpa insisted that there would be marriage. My grandma said there wouldn't. Whatever the case, the point in what Jesus was saying was that the way things work down here is not necessarily the heavenly ideal. Taking the same principal, it's possible you may be right. Jesus' warning in Matthew 22:29 "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of God" is a potent warning for me, and for all of us really.

We know that there will be love in heaven, for God is love. How that will pan out, I believe, remains to be seen.

 

[nathan1977]

I'm sure no gay person wants to be considered on par with polgyamists, slaveholders, and warmongers, and it was not my intention to place them on the same moral level. It was a poor comparison.

It's interesting though -- on a moral level, it seems that everyone is the same in God's eyes, with no one sin judged more or less heavily than another. Isn't that part of the frustrating thing about Christians who seem to single out homosexuality as the greatest sin?

It seems to me that everyone is (or should be) equal at the foot of the cross.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Every single sin is the same because every single one´s punishment is hell. However we´ve all been cleansed by Christ´s sacrifice.

Being that said why should you single out one person for "one" of their "sins"? No one is perfect but the only difference is that their "sin" is more conspicous than yours. No one sees you when you lie, or knows when you stole that one thing the other day. But everyone´s aware that so and so is gay.

The God I believe is all-inclusive and though he may hate sin he loves the sinner and welcomes every one of his children to his kingdom. And that´s it.

Have a good day.

 

[cristiano]

After almost two long hard work days, without time even to get lunch properly, and after some thinking, let me finally end my participation in this discussion.

For the gay people

I'll do now a resume of my ideas the way I tried to put them here: I don't hate you, I don't want to harm you, I don't want to kill you, I don't want to see you in the deepest circle of the hell, I have not any kind of bigotry of you, I don't fear you, and I respect your decision of being homosexuals. I simply does not agree with that decision, what doesn't mean I disrespect you. Any understanding beyound that about my opinion is wrong. If I've put in a way you understand me different, I apologize.

With Jesus inside our heart, we have no space for bigotry or fear, but for things like joy and love. I don't fear about the future of the Church, because I'm confident that God Himself is taking care of it, like He have already done and proved in other times. Like in Reformation's time, for example.

My disagreement is not something like about prejudice, as racism against the afro-american or indian people, or homophobia. It's acceptance, by faith, of a biblical lesson (yes, Melon, biblical, despite of your wrong interpretation of the Bible), a concept about God's ideal healthy sexuality before Him. And the acceptance of that other simple biblical lesson:

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3.21-23

You know, justification implies first leaving the sin, regretting it for life, and be accept again through the faith in God's Grace in Jesus Christ.

So, what can we do now, if you think there's no sin in being homosexual to leave, or it's not unhealthy, before God or not? Kill each other because of that? No, of course not. Terrorists who claim they're christians are not christians at all. I say let's coexist in peace until God's day, or like U2's music, until the end of the world. The fact is that coexistence will not change my opinion.

So, if you accept that, thank God. If not, God bless you even so.

 

[cristiano]

For Melon

Leviticus 18 clearly talks about sexuality, or illicit sexual practices that is detestable for God, as it's said in the text, in more than one verse of this chapter (in fact, all the chapter if I'm not wrong), and not about idolatry. In Romans, St. Paul relates it to idolatry because this distortion of the natural adoration to God leads to others, as he says (New International Version), unnatural relations (it's not a scientific matter, but faith's). And homosexuality, that was practiced in pagan temples, History proved that, is detestable for God as stated clearly in verse 22 of Leviticus 18. Saying different about this chapter is untrue, a vicious interpretation. That's why I think your considerations as weak and illogical as mine, to say the least.

That's the first thing. Let's move on to the second, the great lesson I (re)learned with this discussion.

In your first post of this discussion, you called me bigot, "christian pharesee", fundamentalist, and offended me. But I might not call you "false prophet", because:

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also".

And that's why I say I'm sorry about it and apologize to you and Jesus, the author of this biblical lesson.

Everything I said in my previous post from "I don't hate you" to "I don't fear you" I say for you too. Nonetheless, I still don't respect you, and to the people I don't respect I'll oppose their ideas and not be silent before them. In your case, inside the Church.

Piece of advice: when you call someone these things like "christian pharesee" and so on, you are using the same prejudice against the christians that you accused we have against the homosexuals. Please, don't do that.

 

[cristiano]

General observations

First: someone, somewhere here in this forum (I forgot), asked me if I consider if I might be wrong about all that things. My answer is: yes, I have done that. When this happens, I seek God's orientation, through the ilumination of the Holy Spirit in God's Word, in prayer. So, what can I do if I concluded different? Seek again? Ok, I'll do it. I'll seek again the right interpretation, the unique meaning of a biblical text, that does not depend on cultural or historical moments.

Second, about the "Adam and Steve"'s phrase. The idea behind this is really simple: God created man to the woman, and woman to the man, and created the family. The family is God's creation, and everything He does is Good and Perfect (we cannot say the same thing for all that we do, unfortunetaly). Despite the Fall, despite Adam and Eve's mistakes, the family is still God's creation and what He have designed for the mankind. That's the idea.

So... até mais, pessoal.

 

[diamond]

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articles/23238605?source=TiL&ct=5