What's the deal? - Page 5 - 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 08-20-2002, 05:35 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase


Well, I disagree on this. The reason I quoted that verse was to show that Paul is very clearly refering to O.T. law. He goes so far as to quote it. He says that the law says "Do not covet" - a direct quotation from O.T. law.

As Paul concludes his letter to the Romans, he quotes several commandments from the O.T. law and says that it is summed up in (not replaced by) this rule: love your neighbor as yourself (another quote from the O.T. law).
I don't know what your book of Romans says, but read Romans 13:8-10:

"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."

I *really* don't know how much more I can get clear. As I read the rest of Romans, I see no more discussion of law. The above passage is what he tried to bring across to the legalistic Jewish Christians of Rome. "The law" is purposely ambiguous to appeal to their sensibilities and to then convert them to his sensibilities. Am I the only one who sees this passage in my Bible?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:39 PM   #62
I serve MacPhisto
 
TripThruUreWires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: prettiest mess you've ever seen
Posts: 1,135
Local Time: 04:46 PM
it's pretty evident to me that melon will continue to make "noble" attempts at misconstruing and manipulating God's Word in order to condone homosexuality. He writes off entire books from the Holy Bible, picking and choosing what he wants to believe. The Bible, IMO, is not a food menu, where you have option to buy only those dishes which appeal to your appetite.
__________________

__________________
TripThruUreWires is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:42 PM   #63
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Excuse me while I step in between the combatants. It's intermission, isn't it?

The phrase "loving the sinner, but hating the sin" has always bugged the shit out of me. I'm not a Christian, so I think I can bring a different perspective to this horrible phrase, especially when it is applied to homosexuality. (Actually, it's rarely used to apply to child-molesters, rapists, murderers, etc.)

This is a phrase that Christians like to trot out so they can condemn gays and lesbians and get away with it in the 21st century. To "hate" something that is so much a part of a person's expression of his or her humanity is wrong. To love someone is not wrong. To express that love is not wrong.

One doesn't have to like gays and lesbians, but please don't try to justify the bigotry with some perverted sense of "Christian love." It's akin to saying that you like that black woman, it's just her dark skin that you have problems with, or that guy would be great if he weren't Mexican, wouldn't he.

To those that insist homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be straight?

Oh man, this pisses me off.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:59 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Initially, I must admit, I was tempted to respond directly to Bubba's thread, but this isn't even about Mosaic Law anymore. What it ultimately comes down to is philosophical difference regarding the nature of God and the nature of the Bible. In an ideal world, indeed, there would be this uniformity, but Christianity is a diverse religion. Indeed, it is certainly deceptive on the part of Calvinist Protestantism, whose members cleverly refuse to acknowledge that they are members of a sect, instead blandly calling themselves "Christians," implying that they are representing the whole of Christianity. I have never once shyed away from letting you know that many of my beliefs rest somewhat in Catholic philosophy...but do we even know what Bubba's specific denomination is? All signs point to a form of non-denominational Calvinist fundamentalism, needless to say, which is why we are inevitably *never* going to agree. Allow me to elaborate on my religious background in the spirit of understanding.

My beliefs on the nature of the Bible were not invented by me, but is a direct reflection of Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible. In the 1930s, way before the liberalization of Vatican II, Pope Pius XII (?) released an encyclical encouraging scholarly and scientific research of the original texts of the Bible, which was reminiscent of the beliefs of medieval Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the nature of God was revealed in science. To the credit of the Catholic Church of the time, they knew their history and knew that there were many vastly different translations of the Bible over the millennia. The mindset, of course, was in revealing the original words and translate them closely to their original meaning, we would discover the original word of God. This is why I often reduce Biblical passages to their original language, because there are often many awkward phrases (what is "unlawful marriage" supposed to mean?) that are easily twisted to any kind of devious mindset as translated.

What is commonly thrown at me is that the Bible is not in contradiction; that, in fact, it all flows together and proves it is the "true word of God." That, in itself, is an example of willful blindness and is blatantly ignorant of even simple history. The New Testament is in implicit conflict with itself only because the Christian Church was borne of division between the Church of Jerusalem, led by St. Peter and St. James, which believed that all Christians must also follow Jewish laws and customs, and the Church of Antioch, led by St. Paul, which believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had freed us from Jewish laws and customs. As the New Testament is a mixture of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian texts, to cross-quote these books is sloppy at best.

To complicate this, the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, is an example of a Jewish Christian sect in direct conflict against an invading Gentile Christian sect.

Matthew 5:17 -- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."

Matthew 7:12 -- "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets."

Don't think too hard about these statements, because it is true: they do directly conflict with each other. A textual analysis of the original writing style shows Gentile Christian edits and additions to the original Jewish Christian text of the Gospel of Matthew.

You supposedly quote from James...but where is it? It isn't in the epistle at all. And I have a feeling that I already talked about that mirror passage in Acts. Please read it, because I'm tired of repeating myself to you. Why don't you quote this little passage from James?

James 2:19-24: "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Here's another nice little contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism: justification through faith alone or faith and good works. James here certainly proves that the Protestant belief is wrong, so why don't you follow this? But that's right. St. Paul directly contradicts that, saying that salvation is all on faith. Note: an obvious conflict between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity.

The beliefs of St. Paul and his Church of Antioch won out; by the time Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in A.D. 313 and made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, the Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem was long extinct. In formulating the New Testament canon and in debate of the Old Testament, the Jewish Christian texts were kept out of reference and completeness. The same holds true for the Old Testament--kept solely for reference, as the New Testament was written with Old Testament references. In no way or capacity did the creators of the New Testament canon ever wish for these texts to be taken so seriously. To them, the Church was the possessor of truth, passed on in inheritance from the theological beliefs of the Church of Antioch. The Gnostics, who were the first Biblical fundamentalists, were destroyed as heretics, done at the hands of the same church that created the New Testament canon. Yes, these historical facts may trouble you, but it is not my job to romanticize history. It is our task to learn from it. Protestantism, while admirable for challenging the autocratic imperialism of the medieval / Renaissance Catholic Church, was heavily guilty of romanticism, giving unwarranted deification to the Bible, some going as far as to ignore the fact that the New Testament was formed in a canon by men and stating that the Bible was written directly by God.

I must actually say that I agree with the spirit of conservative FOX News commentator, Bill O'Reilly, in his comment in protest of UNC's teaching of Islam to UNC freshman, stating that, while Islam is a peaceful religion, one must also teach the basis of fanaticism and terrorism--basically advocating a balanced, non-PC discussion of Islam. On the same vein, we must stop this unrealistic assumption that all of the Bible and Christianity is about "peace," when it is blatantly clear that an extreme-right interpretation of the Bible can easily lead to the same fanaticism of many Islamic terrorist movements. All we have to do is look back on history, which too many Christians try and willfully ignore. The Taliban had burqas, while Victorian England had corsets. Same purpose, different coverage. However, there seem to be too many threatened by such a thought, who would rather create an unrealistic history of Christianity than a truthful one, out of fear of losing converts. Lying is certainly not a Biblical value, now is it?

Regardless of this, my beliefs on the Bible are actually very much in keeping with the nature of Catholicism. In fact, dare I say, the amount of store I put into the Bible is far more conservative than Catholicism. To make reference to the original topic on the morality of homosexuality, not only does the Vatican grudgingly agree that the Bible is mistranslated in regards to the anti-homosexual passages (but refuses to change the Bible to reflect corrected translations solely out of stubbornness and to keep its followers in blind support of its anti-gay teachings), the Catholic Church doesn't even condemn it on a Biblical basis. It condemns it solely on maligned stoic tradition that all sexual acts must result in the possibility of procreation. Hence the Catholic Church's condemnation of all forms of birth control from condoms to birth control pills, condemnation of masturbation, condemnation of oral sex, etc. This being the same stoic tradition that effectively banned feeling pleasure from sex for well over 1000 years and told you that the "rhythm method" to consciously avoid having children was a mortal sin. Forget the issues of love; they don't care. It all comes down to reducing sex to its most banal and animal nature: to make offspring. Many Protestant sects disagree with this notion, but condemn homosexuality on a Biblical basis. I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?

So, no, this isn't willful blindness. I cannot help it if we come from different ends of the Christian spectrum.

-- "The fallen nature of man" is different than the actual theological concept of "original sin"--that is what I was talking about. I implore that you study the differences.

-- "The cult of marriage," if you would have comprehended what I wrote, was in reference to the Catholic Church making marriage a sacrament in A.D. 1100-1200, which is different to earlier concepts of marriage. That does *not* mean that marriage did not exist before then. I implore you to reread what I wrote.

In addition, I am also requesting the closing of this thread, out of the sheer fact that I find it blatantly insulting and filled with unintentional archetypes. Call it a selfish request if you'd like, but I certainly don't think that a thread supporting slavery or the repeal of women's rights on the basis of the Bible--which can easily be done--would nearly have lasted this long still open. Why it is still vogue to openly insult homosexuals--calling them mentally "defective," equating their pursuit of equal rights to "legitimizing orgies"--is beyond me, but I will no longer be party to it. I flat out HATE these threads, but I am always compelled to respond to them, because otherwise misconceptions are perpetrated further. Rest assured for those who love these threads, I'm sure someone else will create another one of these in due time. In the meantime, anyone with honest inquiry on my beliefs can PM me, and I will be happy to respond earnestly.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:00 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Excuse me while I step in between the combatants. It's intermission, isn't it?

The phrase "loving the sinner, but hating the sin" has always bugged the shit out of me. I'm not a Christian, so I think I can bring a different perspective to this horrible phrase, especially when it is applied to homosexuality. (Actually, it's rarely used to apply to child-molesters, rapists, murderers, etc.)

This is a phrase that Christians like to trot out so they can condemn gays and lesbians and get away with it in the 21st century. To "hate" something that is so much a part of a person's expression of his or her humanity is wrong. To love someone is not wrong. To express that love is not wrong.

One doesn't have to like gays and lesbians, but please don't try to justify the bigotry with some perverted sense of "Christian love." It's akin to saying that you like that black woman, it's just her dark skin that you have problems with, or that guy would be great if he weren't Mexican, wouldn't he.

To those that insist homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be straight?

Oh man, this pisses me off.
Couldn't agree more with your post, martha
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:03 PM   #66
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TripThruUreWires
it's pretty evident to me that melon will continue to make "noble" attempts at misconstruing and manipulating God's Word in order to condone homosexuality. He writes off entire books from the Holy Bible, picking and choosing what he wants to believe. The Bible, IMO, is not a food menu, where you have option to buy only those dishes which appeal to your appetite.
What do you think you do? There is no such thing as a fundamentalist. I don't see us suddenly taking upon ourselves to put St. Paul's anti-women writings in legislation.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:03 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Lemon Meringue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 3,851
Local Time: 02:46 AM
I am not getting into what I think about homosextuality or whether I think it is a sin or not. I am here to put some perspective on the phrase "to love the sinner, but hate the sin" that has been coming up. Try thinking of it this way...

You are a parent. You have done your best to raise your child and you love your child with all your heart. Now you find out your child has been arrested for being a thief. This would shock you and hurt you, but would you quit loving your child? I don't think so.

How many people have friends who are liers or cheats or who have mean streaks? You put up with these bad sides of them, sometimes even making a joke out of it, because you can also see their good sides.

These examples are how I see the phrase. People shouldn't hate the phrase in and of itself. Maybe they just don't like how it is being used.
__________________
Lemon Meringue is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:26 PM   #68
Registered User
 
chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 126
Local Time: 08:46 AM
Martha , you are right.

I think it is disgusting that people quote the Bible to justify their bigotry.

There were many that quoted the Bible to justify and legitimize slavery.

We live in an age where people are crucified on barbed wire fences, and drug to death behind pick-up trucks.

Using the Bible to argue for intolerance is repugnant.

The way some of you quote the Bible is silly. I see no expertise or understanding of the teachings of Christ. You need to go back to the beginning, you have missed the most basic concept, love.

Most hatred is rooted in self-hatred. Find peace with yourself, get down on your knees and pray for the blackness to leave your heart and be replaced by the light of Jesus' love.
__________________
chain is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:34 PM   #69
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Thread closed by Elvis' request.
__________________

__________________
Sicy 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 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com