U2 and Sexuality - Page 6 - 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 07-24-2006, 04:03 AM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 04:36 AM   #77
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:51 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 06:10 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 08:22 AM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 08:43 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:51 PM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 09:02 AM   #81
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 03:51 AM
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
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 09:49 AM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:51 PM
U2 's the gays
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 12:36 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 02:51 AM
I posted, but I realized that my post could derail the thread, so never mind...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 02:29 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


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.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-24-2006, 05:30 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

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.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 10:30 AM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 08:51 PM
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.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 02:03 PM   #87
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:51 AM
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 is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 02:05 PM   #88
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:51 AM
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 is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 02:07 PM   #89
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Local Time: 02:51 AM
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.
__________________
cristiano is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 04:53 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:51 PM
http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/...ource=TiL&ct=5
__________________

__________________
diamond 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 09:51 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