U2 and Sexuality - Page 7 - 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 07-25-2006, 05:44 PM   #91
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
[BSecond, 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. [/B]
if the story is that God created man from sand or clay or whatever and his own breath and whatnot it does make sense that the story follows with woman following shortly after man
otherwise it would be a short story since procreation definitely plays a part when there's just 2 people

I don't see how this in any way shows that God means for every man to fall in love with a woman, for every woman to fall in love with a man and for them to have babies

especially when the future of mankind doesn't rely on procreation that heavily that we need each and everone of us to contribute (that's not mentioning adoption etc) I think we agree that "a family" as God wants to see it comes closer to "the love between people who have a direct bond together" or something like that
that than a family resembles "a man and a woman who have children"
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 06:07 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/...ource=TiL&ct=5
Yep, gay marriages get called off like heterosexual ones do. What's your point?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-25-2006, 06:13 PM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano

Leviticus 18 clearly talks about sexuality, or illicit sexual practices
How closely do you follow Leviticus? You touch pork? Are you going to sleep in the same bed with your husband when you are unclean? Will you sleep on the couch? Your husband, are you going to let him shave his sidburns?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-25-2006, 06:33 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Cristiano, I have a question for you - is your heterosexual orientation something you think you can change?
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 06:38 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
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.
This argument willfully ignores the previous verse:

"You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD." - Leviticus 18:21

The plain fact that Leviticus 18 is clearly divided between taboos against incest and idolatry, and it makes little sense to go on a multiverse tirade against sexual practices and then separate it with one clearly idolatrous prohibition. The ancient Hebrew clearly shows a problem with the traditional anti-gay interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, and I don't need to repeat myself, as I've thoroughly explained my reasoning previously in this thread.

In case you don't believe me, here's a footnote on another supposedly anti-gay passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Quote:
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9
Quote:
The Greek word ["malakos"], translated as boy prostitutes, may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term ["arsenokoitai"] translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.
This is not my interpretation. This is an actual footnote in one of my Bibles. This ends up being a particularly useful footnote, because it essentially wipes out all the anti-gay passages, including Leviticus 18. This is because the nonsense word, "arsenokoitai," corresponds to the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18; and since this footnote has clearly linked this to both idolatry and pederasty, as I mentioned repeatedly, this is merely confirmation that Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of an idolatrous practice with no wider intention beyond that. This should be obvious, however, merely by the fact that the preceding verse is clearly about an idolatrous practice.

As an aside, that footnote also links idolatry and pederasty directly to Romans 1:26-27, which we also had an argument over earlier.

And we're back to square one. The best argument you can seem to make to me is that I'm supposed to trust that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct, even though I have made a thorough argument to the contrary, corroborated even by an outside Biblical footnote.

Quote:
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.
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as "false modesty." I think you really do believe me a "false prophet," as evidenced by the fact that you said it repeatedly. I'm not sure I believe your apology.

In terms of calling you a "fundamentalist," well, that's about as much of an "insult" as calling someone a "Republican." Your interpretation of the Bible is clearly what one would call "fundamentalist." Since you have not told us your specific Christian denomination, your words are the best I can go by here.

And in terms of you being a "Christian Pharisee," I've explained my reasoning for it. It was not meant to be an insult, as much as a warning. The Pharisees of Jesus' time were self-righteous and believed that they had the Bible correct down to the letter. The sheer fact of the matter is that, when push came to shove, they were unable to recognize the Messiah right in front of them. And now 2,000 years later, Christians seem to have fallen into the same trap: self-righteousness (cloaked in false modesty) and an inflexible self-assuredness that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. To put icing on the cake, as I mentioned before, the Book of Revelation is almost exactly what the Pharisees believed would happen for the Messiah's first coming, in spite of the fact that it was wrong the first time around. For whatever reason, these beliefs were repackaged into a "Second Coming," and slightly altered to become the Book of Revelation.

In other words, can you say with 100% certainty that you're not falling into the same trap that the Pharisees fell into?

(Note that this is not meant to be an insult to Jews in this forum. This distinction obviously matters only to Christians.)

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 06:46 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cristiano
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.
Since you've brought out the "terrorist" comparison to gay Christians, let's look at the facts.

Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are self-described fundamentalist Muslim organizations, who have a strong record of killing any gay Muslims they see. As such, if we're going to throw out a loose comparison to "terrorists" (which you did, not me), the best comparison we can give is to Christians like yourself: self-described fundamentalist Christians who have a strong record of contempt for any gays that they see.

But I'm not actually going to go this far myself. The next time, before you go around comparing people you dislike to "terrorists," pay attention to what those terms mean next time.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 07:01 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:59 PM
And finally, you've also arrogantly mentioned before that you think I'm manipulating the Bible and ignoring the Holy Spirit in interpreting it. No, this is what the Holy Spirit tells me that the Bible means:

Quote:
"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 13:8-10
And that's that. As someone who comes from a religious tradition that specifically condemns Biblical fundamentalism, I really could leave it at that. But, essentially, I view the entire Bible through the lens of love. The traditional interpretation of the Bible that created those anti-gay passages never really made all that much sense to me, but understanding it from the vantage point of someone 2,500 years ago, who condemned sexual acts linked to idolatry and pederasty, makes a lot more sense.

This obviously does not forgive the fact that these passages referring to obsolete practices were somehow mutated to reflect cultural prejudices, much in the same way that the Bible was once manipulated to support slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, anti-Semitism, and misogyny. Homophobia is merely the last "acceptable" bastardization of the Bible.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 07:29 PM   #98
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Melon, thank you.

As well said as any non-false prophet could say it.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 08:54 PM   #99
Refugee
 
Mofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: MTY, Mexico
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


And that's that. As someone who comes from a religious tradition that specifically condemns Biblical fundamentalism, I really could leave it at that. But, essentially, I view the entire Bible through the lens of love. The traditional interpretation of the Bible that created those anti-gay passages never really made all that much sense to me, but understanding it from the vantage point of someone 2,500 years ago, who condemned sexual acts linked to idolatry and pederasty, makes a lot more sense.

Melon
Great discussion Melon and as always I really enjoy your posts you're by the far the most informative "false prophet" I've ever met
__________________
Mofo is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 09:17 PM   #100
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: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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.
I went a couple rounds with my mom on this one. She said something similar to what you said, which sounds very good and inclusive on the face of it. But here's the thing:

The question is not whether it's a "big" sin or a "little" sin.

The question is whether it's a sin at all!

My mom believes that it's a sin a but that it shouldn't be "made a big deal of". I've come to believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

That's the real debate. Think about it this way. What if someone said, "hey, being white is no more of a sin than lying or stealing or pride etc." What would your response be to that?

You'd say: "That's crazy! It's not a SIN to be a white. That's just what I am." (assuming of course you're white

That's what's going on in this debate.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-25-2006, 09:44 PM   #101
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


The question is not whether it's a "big" sin or a "little" sin.

The question is whether it's a sin at all!

I completely agree with this. But some you just aren't going to convince of this, at least not right away.

So you get them to quit using this hierarchy of sin to justify their mistreatment of homosexuals. Maybe after homosexuals do start getting equal treatment, some people will start seeing things different and perceptions will change.

I think many, MANY use the Bible to justify their homophobia. Rather than their judgement of homosexuals is based on the Bible.

I wonder how many had no problem with homosexuals and would have supported homosexual marriage when they were atheists and then converted and dissapproved. I bet that percentage is very small.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-25-2006, 11:47 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
especially when the future of mankind doesn't rely on procreation that heavily that we need each and everone of us to contribute (that's not mentioning adoption etc)
I'm not going to get into the argument over homosexuality, but I just gotta ask. What do you mean "the future of mankind doesn't rely on procreation"? Of course it does. How else will mankind continue if people stop having babies?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-26-2006, 01:32 AM   #103
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I'm not going to get into the argument over homosexuality, but I just gotta ask. What do you mean "the future of mankind doesn't rely on procreation"? Of course it does. How else will mankind continue if people stop having babies?
Last time I checked there were to many people in this world!

Maybe its time to start to slow the procreation train down a bit?
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 07-26-2006, 04:31 AM   #104
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:59 PM
I didn't say procreation is unnecessary
I just said that it doesn't make sense to me to act as if it must be God's wish for each and everyone to be in a relationship with someone of the other sex so that we can have babies
I would reckon that even if 1/3 of the world population was gay this wouldn't be a threat to the existence of mankind
so I don't see it as being opposed to God's big plan or something when a man falls in love with a man or a woman with a woman
__________________
“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 07-26-2006, 07:56 AM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I'm not going to get into the argument over homosexuality, but I just gotta ask. What do you mean "the future of mankind doesn't rely on procreation"? Of course it does. How else will mankind continue if people stop having babies?
The scientific estimate is that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, whereas anti-gay groups like "Focus on the Family" derisively put the number at 1%.

Either way, we have somewhere between 90% and 99% of the population that are baby-making machines. Treating homosexuality as a threat to human civilization is nothing but babble.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 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