Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Man, not even deep plays the devil's advocate card this hard.
I love you.
Man, not even deep plays the devil's advocate card this hard.
I love you.
I'm telling Mary.
Are you calling Nick giant?
I see your point about the strict definition of the term "tolerance." My point, I suppose, is that tolerance of intolerance is often abetting a problem
Why are you guys surprised by this? He met the fucking pope, how many years ago? 10? That dude hates gays, porn, condoms, beer, women, abortion, pretty much everything "Focus On The Family" hate.
This is like an outrage grenade.
I don't tend to "side" with Peterr very much on..anything, really..and I don't even profess to understand what his beefs or arguments about God are, really...
But as someone who actually has studied the bible, quite extensively (I'd call 20 years fairly extensive), he alludes to some worthwhile points.
Taken as it is written, the god of the Old Testament was at many times a very..exacting and vengeful god (I think Peterr would call this "cruel" or "murderer"). There's no spin or interpretation on that comment, it is what it is.
So this is where I get off the boat with Bono and religion, because he sometimes seems to want to reinvent God and Jesus into this giant bundle of love and I'm sorry, but even Jesus said he came to put a sword between brothers etc.
So it does in fact come off like a bit of cherry-picking in the end. He wants to use scripture to counsel leaders on poverty, but what about the passages just a few verses before and after that talk about segregating the believers from the non-believers, not even eating with such people, etc? It just seems that Christians with a "progressive" view do cherry-pick alot.
I find it hard to listen to Bono talk about God sometimes, knowing that. It's either one big giant fairy tale or it's not, imo, in which case my rational side wants nothing to do with it all.
I
Bono can sort of identify with this, as he himself is a tax cheat, like the people in heaven.
There's a lot that I identify with here. The God of the OT is frankly psychotic a lot of the time- controlling, paranoid and abusive. And Jesus says some sweet things but his issue are complex; it's not all sweetness and light. The thing is that modern non-fundamentalist Western Christianity does in fact promote a certain kind of cherry-picking, which we call common sense. But neither the Bible nor classical Christian doctrine actually teach that common sense should be used to moderate one's Christianity. So those who do use scripture as their final arbiter can rightfully say that Bono is less Christian than them, and more liberal Christians can fairly label that position as a kind of idolatry, worshipping the Bible rather than God.
For me, it's rather like gvox said. If all we are using Christianity for is a final result of kindness, generosity and ethical behavior- hell, I can justify those things through reason and common sense. I don't need the sorts of acrobatics that it would take to make me feel good about the god of the Bible.
And I totally hear what Peterrr what saying earlier- sin and redemption are essential to orthodox Christianity, and the doctrines of redemption and salvationism are pretty disgusting to someone who doesn't believe in fallenness. If those are not morally objectionable to you than Christianity may be a good fit. And if they are, there's not a reason in the world to spend time on it.
But in this case with Focus on the Family, Bono is rather like God himself: inscrutable. Bono will do what he will do, and how can we know the whys and wherefores? We just like him or we don't. For me, I'm deeply uncomfortable with it, but I do like him and I probably will.
Fundamentalists usually take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is contrary to accepted, othodox Christian scholarship. Most current scholars understand the Bible to contain different kinds of literature. The different books of the Bible have to be read in the context of their literature type. Psalms, for example, is poetry. Proverbs is wisdom literature. Revelation is apocalyptic. The gospels are a cross between history, biography, and personal experience. What this means is that not all books of the Bible can be read literally. Scholars have found evidence that Revelation, for example, was written as "apocalyptic" and not meant to be taken word-for-word literal, because other ancient apocalyptic texts from that era have made it obvious that that type of literature is meant to be read symbolically. Whereas scholars accept that the Gospels are meant to be taken more literally, while a book like Jonah is probably fiction entirely. This is different than what we are used to in western culture in 2013, where we read texts on a more literal level. (I.e. you can read a book by Stephen Hawking and expect that he is talking literally and not symbolically).
Fundamentalist Christians tend to interpret more of the Bible literally, and often have more harsh and judgmental stances on issues. They often "cherrypick" scriptures to justify their point. Accepted biblical scholarship warns against the "cherrypicking" method because scriptures are taken out of context and used to say what they are not really saying.
I'm a seminary student that studies the Bible, so I had to throw in my 2 cents. But i respect other views on this subject.
I acknowledge the point of your post was to be humorous. However, I disagree with this sentence. Bono (and really, the rest of U2 because this isn't just Bono) are NOT tax cheats.
Do you own a house? If so, you can deduct interest from your mortgage. Is that a tax cheat? You can deduct charitable donations. Is that a tax cheat? If you get profits from stock, you can redistribute them to either pay less taxes or no taxes. Is that a cheat? All of these are allowed under U.S. law. This is why Mitt Romney, and people like him, can pay 15% tax while making far more money.
Bono, and U2, are doing what MANY artists have done. It is legal and not a tax cheat.
The question is why is Bono asking for people to forgive debt when it will cost taxpayers. The answer is three-fold. First, taxpayers already paid for the original loan - the money was given away to 3rd World nations long ago. So he's not asking people to pay more. Second, this debt will NEVER be repaid. But by forgiving the debt, the people of these nations have a chance to move forward - not be burdened by debt from money that was essentially stolen by dictators. Third, Bono pays lots of taxes. In every city he tours, there's a city tax, county tax, state tax and federal tax. He pays more in taxes that we'll probably earn in our lifetimes.
As for the creationism vs. evolution debate - why can't there be both? Hawking has stated that the laws of physics allow the creation of everything from nothing; therefore, God is not required. I am not a theoretical physicist nor do I have the intellect of one. But I often question this "laws of physics" part. Laws as defined by whom? I still support the notion of both. And if one believes in the paranormal at all, an existence beyond this life is possible. So...
Christianity has indeed changed considerably over 2000 years. It is like the English language: it takes ideas from other sources; is constantly expanding; and is constantly growing. Another similarity is that both can be heavily abused. But in the end, Jesus gave just one command - to love one another. And to me, THAT is what Christianity is really all about. To really follow that one command, one has to forgive and be forgiven, to give and to receive, to love and to be loved. Alas, abuse and close-mindedness sadly dominate too many minds.
. It's a fine line that I don't miss walking at all.
Just skimmed through this thread having just had this interview pointed out to me by a friend - got to say I'm always pretty amazed when people post on this site with such strong anti-faith views simply because I would not necessarily expect people with such strong beliefs to like U2 - songs like 'Gloria', 'Magnificent', 'Yahweh', 'Grace', etc. must surely be irritating/annoying to listen to knowing that Bono is talking from his point of view as a Christian.
I am convinced Bono is very well aware of the nature of people and institutions he associates himself with when it comes to campaigning. And I'm also very sure that the band aren't always happy with these decisions, he's talked about that in the past and the band has also said so on numerous occasions. Now while we all know or should know what Bono and U2 stand for and why Bono is doing what he's doing (meeting with Bush, evangelicals etc.), I'm sure it looks a bit fishy to people who like to see everything as either black or white.
If I didn't know as much as I do about Bono and the band I would be outraged by him talking to these folks (and yes, Focus on the Family is indeed a horrible program), but I've learned to come to terms with the fact that Bono is a truly complex individual who is willing to talk to everyone and anyone without automatically agreeing with all of their views. He's just looking for common ground with these people and tries to give credit where credit is due.
There's no clear category for Bono to be put into and many people hate that because they like and need clear structures and systems, but someone who's involved in bi-partisan political work and talks to everyone from right to left - hell, even to people who, ideologically, go against many of the things U2 have been known to be committed to - is very difficult to handle. I have my troubles with that as well, but I try to understand where Bono is coming from and what he's trying to achieve. Doesn't make the other side "better" or more acceptable, but maybe it makes his decisions a little bit more plausible and tolerable. Still, it's hard. I consider myself a very spiritual person, that's one aspect that connects me to U2, but I have a huge problem with Christian (or any religious) fundamentalists. I dropped out of church because of that and witnessing Bono visiting the Pope was a really irritating thing for me. But one thing I learned from Bono is that you have to talk to everybody to get things done, even if it means that you're making unpopular decisions. I think that makes him really brave - braver than most politicians - but it also earns him a lot of flack, which he's perfectly aware of.
I also don't think it will turn those away who really follow Bono and U2 and are commited to the band and know everything about them and their history. Now if he'd suddenly come out with a whole new view on things like, let's say, gay rights, or similar issues that the religious right has strong views on, that would be a whole different story, but that won't happen because it's now who Bono is. I think deep in his heart he has strong convictions and also a private opinion that he keeps to himself because he doesn't want to spoil it with certain people.
I think this is a good post. But i keep asking: what exactly is Bono trying to achieve by talking to people like Focus on the Family? Is he under the illusion he will change those peoples views on certain subjects? That would be both naive and presumptuous...
Well, there are several reasons for this, for me. First of all, Christianity has a strong imaginational, mythic quality which can be appealing no matter your personal beliefs. It taps into universal mythic themes that are meaningful to everyone. Some of us have a childhood background that makes the Christian imagery and language in U2 very accessible, even comforting, even when we rationally reject the premises. Also, the band are clearly beautiful human beings who are trying to live well, which is a lovely and appreciable thing no matter where you find it. And lastly the music is just good without being didactic and hamfisted. They're using their faith to make beauty, and there's no reason to reject that just because we don't personally share the religion.
Gvox, lost faith fist bump!
I think this is a good post. But i keep asking: what exactly is Bono trying to achieve by talking to people like Focus on the Family? Is he under the illusion he will change those peoples views on certain subjects? That would be both naive and presumptuous...
This is the core issue for me. Bono can talk with whoever he wants ofc, but if his goal really was to "re-educate" in one solitary broadcast, then I think it was quite naive, presumptuous (and a tad arrogant) on his part. FOTF enjoyed a boost to their profile by having an international celebrity with a huge worldwide fanbase on their show. What exactly Bono achieved from that interview is...debatable.
I consider myself a moderate Christian. The problem with being a moderate is that you can see the ugly on both sides.
Bono clearly has no problem talking to, or having a dialogue with, those he doesn't agree with. To me, that takes more guts and character than labeling everyone you don't like as "whackos" or "idiots" and not talking to them at all. And make no mistake: having a dialogue with those you don't agree with can cause positive change. It make come slowly, or incrementally, but it can happen.
Revelation 3:16
It's interesting that he's doing all these interviews that could be viewed as polarizing just before an album runup. It seems a little counter intuitive, doesn't it?