Bono confesses

[Jamila]

 

[Liesje]

The lyrics to Gloria, Tomorrow, October, With A Shout, Sunday Bloody Sunday, 40, Drowning Man, All Because Of You and YHWH aren't vague at all.

What specifics to do you see? From those songs, all I can tell is that Bono is a Christian and believes in God and Jesus. That's still pretty vague, but good enough for me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What specifics to do you see? From those songs, all I can tell is that Bono is a Christian and believes in God and Jesus. That's still pretty vague, but good enough for me.

BVS said that U2's lyrics about Christ are vague, and I simply said that they're not. None of the songs I listed have vague meanings; all are blatant.

 

[BVS]

The lyrics to Gloria, Tomorrow, October, With A Shout, Sunday Bloody Sunday, 40, Drowning Man, All Because Of You and YHWH aren't vague at all.

Well I would argue that some of those are vague, especially if you weren't well versed in Biblical readings.

But my point was he's vague in the sense of we don't know what denomination he leans towards, we don't know how or when he attends church, how literal he interprets the Bible etc...yet many in here think they know. That's all I was saying.

 

[BVS]

BVS said that U2's lyrics about Christ are vague, and I simply said that they're not. None of the songs I listed have vague meanings; all are blatant.

No no be careful about interpreting my post, that's not what I said at all.

But while we're at it, there's nothing blatant about October, context allows you to think so but really it's vague.

If you didn't know the name of God to be 'I Am' all because of you could just be another love song.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But my point was he's vague in the sense of we don't know what denomination he leans towards,

I misundertsood you, then,

 

[Lemonfix]

The ending of Tomorrow isn't vague at all.

Then Bono and Adam rerecorded it in the 90's and got rid of the obvious religious overtones.

I find that in itself, to be pretty vague

 

[BVS]

The ending of Tomorrow isn't vague at all.

Then Bono and Adam rerecorded it in the 90's and got rid of the obvious religious overtones.

I find that in itself, to be pretty vague

"Oh boy stop your crying
Soon it will be death that's dying
Oh boy stop your crying
Soon it'll be death that's dying
Everything, everything conquered"

May not be as obvious but it's still the same idea.

 

[Bad Templar]

One can say the same exact things about the "negative aspects" of Christian fundamentalism in regions of America. It's been said that, particularly with Appalachian regions of the U.S., "Christianity" is often abused to ignore the real problems. And, as such, these same people keep on voting back in the same corrupt politicians who keep them poor, just because they parade around as "good Christians."

Alabama is another good example. A few years back when the governor tried to fix their inadequate tax structure, the Christian Coalition came on in to condemn it. Now what does a religious organization have anything to do with taxation.

This goes without saying.

I just wanted to say that I don't like Catholic bashing, particularly when many people are perfectly contented to ignore the same problems that happen within their own Christian religion.

I can't see any evidence of Catholic bashing on this thread or anything to warrant your last assertion.

So would you come to the defence of a fundamentalist, 'brainwashed' 'religious nut' if they were being bashed?

Conversely, would you challenge an atheist or secularist who was contented to ignore problems within their own philosophy?

 

[financeguy]

I can't see any evidence of Catholic bashing on this thread or anything to warrant your last assertion.

So would you come to the defence of a fundamentalist, 'brainwashed' 'religious nut' if they were being bashed?

Conversely, would you challenge an atheist or secularist who was contented to ignore problems within their own philosophy?

Why should he? Melon is from a Catholic background (as am I). 'The old religion dies hard', as they say!

Why would it be behoven on him to come to the defense of a fundamentalist or secularist?

I dunno if I'd call it Catholic bashing as such but it was pretty close to it IMO.

Although personally I would say that if I returned to Christianity I doubt if it would be as a Catholic.

 

[Liesje]

I dunno if I'd call it Catholic bashing as such but it was pretty close to it IMO.

Can you please point this out b/c if it's something I said, then I need to clarify b/c I have nothing against Catholics or Catholicism.

 

[financeguy]

if it's something I said

It wasn't.

 

[melon]

I can't see any evidence of Catholic bashing on this thread or anything to warrant your last assertion.

So would you come to the defence of a fundamentalist, 'brainwashed' 'religious nut' if they were being bashed?

Conversely, would you challenge an atheist or secularist who was contented to ignore problems within their own philosophy?

My problem with this argument here is that you're focusing on one word, rather than the spirit of what you said and what I said.

My point was that what you accused Catholicism of with the "negative aspects" are just as apt in Protestantism, and that the sociopolitical problems in the South here in the U.S. are due to the evangelical Christian "hierarchy," just as the Catholic "hierarchy" causes problems in places like South America.

Melon

 

[Bad Templar]

My point was that what you accused Catholicism of with the "negative aspects" are just as apt in Protestantism,

I made no accusations of the sort... I was merely reporting issues my South American friend raised as being negative aspects of Catholicism.

Originally posted by financeguy
Why should he? Melon is from a Catholic background (as am I). 'The old religion dies hard', as they say!

You're kidding. You've abandoned Catholicism but you are still parochial (pardon the pun) towards it?


My point is that there seems to be a lot of selective compassion around here... Catholics/atheists/agnostics are off limits but US fundamentalists (or whoever) are fair game.

 

[melon]

Let me set things straight here:

I just spent some time out of my day here chewing out Catholicism to my family, so don't think I treat it with kid gloves. I see an arrogant, autocratic institution that doesn't give a rat's ass what its parishioners want and then gives guilt trips when the cash doesn't flow in. They could close the entire damn church out of spite for all I care.

But Christian fundamentalism? I reserve special vitriol for an institution that spreads pseudoscience and treats homosexuals like shit. Fuck the Bible, really, because passages like "Love one another" and "It is easier for a camel to pass through the needle of an eye than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" were tossed out a long time ago.

So if it makes you feel better, I see it as open season on hypocrites, no matter what their religion is.

Melon

 

[Bad Templar]

It wasn't.

So...was it something I said?

 

[Bad Templar]

Fuck the Bible

Are you trying to shock me?

I would rather hostility, than complete ambivalence.



It’s from delusion or a position of smug luxury that people become self-appointed arbiters of hypocrisy.

It’s too easy and too indulgent to accuse a faith or faiths which have been around for thousands of years of human history, with concrete organisational and hierarchical structures, a central text and central figurehead of hypocrisy… when these accusers don’t have such things to contend with.

What empowers you with the moral authority to demand that there not be inter-faith/inter-denominational criticism, citing hypocrisy (apparently the exclusive vice of the religious), yet stand in judgement over them yourself?

To do so, it’s essential that your own personal philosophy must be proven to be perpetually pure and flawless, otherwise...“ye who is without hypocrisy, first cast a stone at them.”

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I have a feeling that not a single one of us is qualified to cast stones.

Can we please bring it down a notch in here?

Thanks.

 

[melon]

Are you trying to shock me?

Why, yes, I was. I'm glad you're good humored about it, rather than taking it literally.

What empowers you with the moral authority to demand that there not be inter-faith/inter-denominational criticism, citing hypocrisy (apparently the exclusive vice of the religious), yet stand in judgement over them yourself?

To do so, it’s essential that your own personal philosophy must be proven to be perpetually pure and flawless, otherwise...“ye who is without hypocrisy, first cast a stone at them.”

I'm empowered with the same authority that allows clergy and clerics of all stripes and religions to throw stones to whomever and whenever they see fit. You see, they may have fancy garbs and tough talk, but all clerics have one thing in common: they're just as human as you and me. And, you see, they only have as much power as we allow them to have. Frankly, my patience has run out, and since I am equal to any religious cleric--just as you are too--I have as much right to be as tolerant, or should I say, "intolerant" as them.

Melon

 

[coemgen]

Nice point, Melon. The world would be a better place if we all realized we're all human (and more alike, than different. I know that sounds trite, but it's true.)

 

[melon]

Nice point, Melon. The world would be a better place if we all realized we're all human (and more alike, than different. I know that sounds trite, but it's true.)

I don't think it's trite at all. In fact, I think we should be reminded of this fact more often in society.

Melon

 

[Bad Templar]

Why, yes, I was. I'm glad you're good humored about it, rather than taking it literally.

Still surprised the mods are so cool about it, but perhaps not surprised.

I'm empowered with the same authority that allows clergy and clerics of all stripes and religions to throw stones to whomever and whenever they see fit. You see, they may have fancy garbs and tough talk, but all clerics have one thing in common: they're just as human as you and me. And, you see, they only have as much power as we allow them to have. Frankly, my patience has run out, and since I am equal to any religious cleric--just as you are too--I have as much right to be as tolerant, or should I say, "intolerant" as them.

This makes more sense than (x) saying is not allowed to criticise (z) because they are a hypocrite and vica versa, but (x) reserves the right to critise them both and (z).

We're all equal and have a right to an opinion... the onus on us is to be able to express and defend our views rationally... and be judged on the merits of what we say... not to be brow-beaten and labelled with holding views we don't subscribe to.

Anyway, it's nice to see that we share a similar suspicion of clergy.

 

[Liesje]

Anyway, it's nice to see that we share a similar suspicion of clergy.

count me in

 

[BorderGirl]

There are many aspects to organized religion.
One is to provide a common place/building in which to read/listen to the Word of God (the Bible) as a community. A rally place of sorts to gather and organize how to go about bringing the message of love and hope to the world.
The article "How old is your Church?" while it points to the oldest Church being Catholic, still gives some interesting facts:

How Old Is Your Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

 

[financeguy]

Oh dear. So we're back to deciding who are the most devout once again.

Incidentally I read recently that Bono brings his kids to the local Church of Ireland (similar to the Anglicans in doctrine I think) for worship (I know that the issue of Bono's allegiance is immensely important to some of us).

 

[BVS]

If you are Catholic, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

Jesus didn't find Catholicism.

Do you know how much is wrong with that comment?

 

[financeguy]

Jesus didn't find Catholicism.

Plus Jesus was Jewish and often quoted the prophets of the Old Testament, so if we are deciding which religion within the Judaeo-Christian framework is 'best' based on which has the longest provenance, which BorderGirl's post appears to suggest, I guess we should all convert to Judaism.

 

[BVS]

Plus Jesus was Jewish and often quoted the prophets of the Old Testament, so if we are deciding which religion within the Judaeo-Christian framework is 'best' based on which has the longest provenance, which BorderGirl's post appears to suggest, I guess we should all convert to Judaism.

With the logic of her post, which just looks like one you'd get as an email forward, you're right:

If you are Jewish your religion was founded by Jesus' father in BC.


Plus it's interesting that Jesus did the ribbon cutting ceremony on the apparant year which he died.


When are people going to learn that religion is an invention of man. Not God, not Jesus, etc.

I don't ever remember Jesus talking about confessions, the pope, saints, or really speaking about any ceremonial relgious practices for that matter.

 

[BorderGirl]

Oh dear. So we're back to deciding who are the most devout once again.

Those are your words, not mine.
I posted this info. for the sake of historical relevance which might add to the conversation/views.

 

[BorderGirl]

Jesus didn't find Catholicism.

You are right 'they' found him, the early Christ-ians, as they were called. Many people recognized him in their midst and followed him.
The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on the faith given to them by Jesus. After all Apostolic tradition began before the New Testament was actually written down. People learned by word of mouth.