U2 and Sexuality

[melon]

No, I won't, because the Bible does not teach it. Racism is a crime. Homosexuality is not a crime, but God reproves it (got it now????). But with people like you, inside the Church, I will disagree, won't respect, and fight (verbally, only verbally), because of my faith and love in Jesus and his Word.

I appreciate the fact that, despite our very deep theological differences, your hatred of me extends only verbally and not physically. Despite the fact that I think your theology is horrendously flawed, I do not believe in physical retaliation either.

On the simple idea that the invisible Church is not divided at all, despite the "visible" divisions. God always has kept it in History, through the work of the reformists, for example.

If you think my reasons are illogicals and weaks, so yours for me. In fact, if you still want that picture drawed for you better understanding that I don't hate homosexuals ("homophobic" for me is hate, and I don't hate them), even when I disagree about homosexuality with them...

You accept the idea that reformists can exist. As such, you also accept the idea that Christianity is apt to corrupted theology in need of reformation. I am merely a reformist in a logical line of reformers.

The fact is that you cannot refute anything that I say, short of losing your temper and touting me as a "false prophet." You also cannot logically defend theology against homosexuality outside of vague Biblical texts that can be explained through textual analysis, through history, and through logic. When you state that homosexuality is an illness, for example, you are willfully ignoring decades of research that has stated otherwise. As such, you can either say that the Bible is wrong, or you say, as I have proven adequately, that we merely did not understand what was actually written in the Bible in the first place. Understanding it in the proper context of idolatry, prostitution, and pederasty would sufficiently explain why science has long since contradicted the traditional interpretation of the Bible on the subject of homosexuality.

As such, this is within the logical role of a reformist. You know that within your theological studies that there's only one requirement for salvation, at least according to late-derivative Calvinist theology: an acceptance of Jesus as the Savior. The burden of sin upon the entire humanity is so great that we are incapable of saving ourselves, and that it is through the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved at all.

Nothing that I have said above negates the logical existence of gay Christians. Within different Christian denominations, there are going to be differences in what specifically constitutes sin. However, rather than nitpicking and condemning those who share a different theological position of what constitutes sin, we are freed through the grace of Jesus Christ, who will save us in spite of it.

To hone in and focus on homosexuality as an especially grievous sin worthy of condemnation (which you are essentially doing) is to negate that above position and to, essentially, disprove the entire foundation of Protestantism--that it is faith, not good works, that save us.

This is where I call you on your prejudices. There is no logical position to support what you believe regarding homosexuality. Not Biblically. Not theologically. Not through logic, reason, or blatant fact--all of which are representations of God's will.

Melon

 

[cristiano]

I appreciate the fact that, despite our very deep theological differences, your hatred of me extends only verbally and not physically. Despite the fact that I think your theology is horrendously flawed, I do not believe in physical retaliation either.

Sometimes I think you manipulate my words, distorting them. I don't hate you. I don't want to see your bad. I don't want you to die or similar things. I apologize if I passed this image to you. I simply don't respect you, with your ideas, and people like you, inside the Church, I'll oppose.

If you think I hate you, well, that's your problem.

You accept the idea that reformists can exist. As such, you also accept the idea that Christianity is apt to corrupted theology in need of reformation.

Yes, I do. Like what people like you are doing now within the Church.

I am merely a reformist in a logical line of reformers.

No, I don't think you're a reformist. Far from it.

Originally posted by melon The fact is that you cannot refute anything that I say, short of losing your temper and touting me as a "false prophet."

Yes I can, and I did. You only not agreed with me, which necessarily doesn't mean you're right. Speaking about "losing your temper", who called me "Christian Pharesee" in the first place, offending me?

Originally posted by melon You also cannot logically defend theology against homosexuality outside of vague Biblical texts that can be explained through textual analysis, through history, and through logic.

Bible teaches us, through the work of the Holy Spirit, that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." I refuse any extra-understanding from that. Yours, for example. And, you know, through the same biblical texts analysis other people understand the contrary of you, great hebrew translators. For sure, someone is wrong.

Originally posted by melon When you state that homosexuality is an illness, for example, you are willfully ignoring decades of research that has stated otherwise.

Let me translate for you: a "spiritual" illness, not a physical illness. Medical scientists can run any examination they want in homosexuals, and they will find nothing. It's not a matter of science, but of faith. You missed the whole point, again, of what I've said, distorting it, again, so I'm translating to you, again.

And to say the least, God is better than any psychologist (my respects to the psychologists, I admire people like you) to determine which is the behaviour that He doesn't and does approves.

Originally posted by melon As such, this is within the logical role of a reformist. You know that within your theological studies that there's only one requirement for salvation, at least according to late-derivative Calvinist theology: an acceptance of Jesus as the Savior. The burden of sin upon the entire humanity is so great that we are incapable of saving ourselves, and that it is through the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved at all.

Amen.

Nothing that I have said above negates the logical existence of gay Christians. Within different Christian denominations, there are going to be differences in what specifically constitutes sin.[/B]

The right understand of God and His Word is from Him to, not beginning from us, and that's why some denominations define "sin" different from each other. Unfortunately.

To hone in and focus on homosexuality as an especially grievous sin worthy of condemnation (which you are essentially doing) is to negate that above position and to, essentially, disprove the entire foundation of Protestantism--that it is faith, not good works, that save us.[/B]

The Bible condemns homosexuality, not me. To homosexuals, and any other sinners, like me, the Bible presents the love of God in Jesus Christ.

And yes, we're saved by the God's Grace, in Jesus, not for works. By God's Grace, we regret from our sins and receive the justification, including when we sin after it (and we do that, unfortunately). But our works are a sign of the Grace of God in us, a sign of who truly belongs to Him, and He knows exactly who belongs to Him. That's Calvinism too.

And, you know, christians are not blind. I think they recognize (understand, comprehend, this type of "judgement") each other, the people in the same family.

Originally posted by melon This is where I call you on your prejudices. There is no logical position to support what you believe regarding homosexuality. Not Biblically. Not theologically. Not through logic, reason, or blatant fact--all of which are representations of God's will.

I think there's no logical, theological, biblical support for prejudices at all. But there's some concepts, some "ways" that God reproves, condemns, because they are not what He designed for us. You think homosexuality is not from those things, I what can I say different from this?: I really cannot convince you, only the Truth. Only the Holy Spirit iluminating you.

Because it's only through the Holy Spirit that we can comprehend the Bible, not from acumulated academic experience. That's why the reformists, you know, translated the Bible for the people to read.

 

[BVS]

I simply don't respect you, with your ideas, and people like you, inside the Church, I'll oppose.

If you think I hate you, well, that's your problem.

If you can't see that that's hate, you are blind.

 

[Rachel D.]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[melon]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

I presume that God did create Adam and Steve, along with people of all other names, races and religions.

Melon

 

[cristiano]

If you can't see that that's hate, you are blind.

No, I don't hate him at all. It's not hate: it's opposition of ideas, non-recognition of his biblical knowledge, distrust, and a level of indifference: my disrespect. Inside the Church, I cannot, and will not, be silent before him, as Jesus, the prophets, and apostles and reformists did before who deserved it.

 

[Rachel D.]

Leviticus 18 is mistranslated. It roughly says this, with the key words in the original language:

"Ish" shall not lie with "zakar" as with "ishah." It is "to'evah."

If it was meant to be a condemnation of homosexuality, it would have been:

"Ish" [Man] shall not lie with "ish" [man] as with "ishah" [woman]." It is "to'evah" ["ritual taboo," a signifier that it is part of the purity codes; exaggerated in translation as "abomination."]

This passage illustrates my problem with Biblical translation. "Zakar" is a likely reference to an obsolete concept, such as a temple prostitute. This is reinforced by the placement of this verse, which wedged between a condemnation of offering your children to Molech, an idolatrous practice, and bestiality, which was also an idolatrous practice in these days.

This verse, properly translated, approximately states this:

"Men shall not lie with temple prostitutes as with women. It is unclean."

You have failed to mention the fact that temple prostitutes were men, often eunuchs. If they were women, why would it go to the trouble to say that a man should not have sex with them as he would with a woman?

 

[cristiano]

I presume that God did create Adam and Steve, along with people of all other names, races and religions.

Melon

Yes, and He gave the Man to the Woman, and the Woman to the Man, despite of its religion, race or name (Genesis 2.24).

 

[melon]

Sometimes I think you manipulate my words, distorting them. I don't hate you. I don't want to see your bad. I don't want you to die or similar things. I apologize if I passed this image to you. I simply don't respect you, with your ideas, and people like you, inside the Church, I'll oppose.

Here's the thing. It's not your decision to make. You are not God. You do not have sole possession of the truth. You do not get to decide who is Christian and who is not.

It's simply not your decision to make, no matter how much you have a temper tantrum about it.

We're going to disagree on the rest. Frankly, the fact that I'm even arguing on a fundamentalist level is out of courtesy to you. Catholic theology actually prohibits Biblical fundamentalism, and there's been more than one encyclical on the subject. The beauty of Catholic education, of which I have 12 years to my credit, is that they have fantastic religious education on comparative religions. A kind of "know thy enemy." Essentially, my attitude towards the Bible and my translations are on par with Catholicism. It's just their traditions and their faulty justifications based on that tradition that I have problems with.

So, frankly, I have more than enough Christian justification to say:

"I simply don't respect you, with your ideas, and people like you, inside the Church, I'll oppose."

Melon

 

[melon]

You have failed to mention the fact that temple prostitutes were men, often eunuchs. If they were women, why would it go to the trouble to say that a man should not have sex with them as he would with a woman?

I know that they are male temple prostitutes. I neglected to include one word in my translation:

"Men shall not lie with male temple prostitutes as with women. It is unclean."

It still does not change the fact that sleeping with a prostitute, male or female, is likely not what the Bible had in mind for morality. Even then, the fact that these orgies were in the context of a pagan religious ritual would not have helped.

Melon

 

[melon]

Yes, and He gave the Man to the Woman, and the Woman to the Man, despite of its religion, race or name (Genesis 2.24).

Not my point. Despite the fact that I believe that Adam and Eve are mythological (again, on par with Catholic theology that teaches evolution), does that mean that God only created Adam and Eve, thus meaning that the rest of us (including yourself) are not a creation of God?

Adam and Eve are not exactly the paragons of morality, so I would not use them as an ideal to justify a condemnation of homosexuality. In fact, they have probably the most dysfunctional family in the Bible.

Melon

 

[cristiano]

Here's the thing. It's not your decision to make. You are not God. You do not have sole possession of the truth. You do not get to decide who is Christian and who is not...

Everything you've just said about "God knows who's a christian", I said posts ago. And everything you've just said about Catholicism and me, I say the same thing about Calvinism, and for you, Melon.

 

[cristiano]

Adam and Eve are not exactly the paragons of morality, so I would not use them as an ideal to justify a condemnation of homosexuality. In fact, they have probably the most dysfunctional family in the Bible.

Melon

That's the reason we were "dead in our sins", and Jesus died for us, as I explained posts ago.

 

[melon]

Everything you've just said about "God knows who's a christian", I said posts ago. And everything you've just said about Catholicism and me, I say the same thing about Calvinism, and for you, Melon.

Now we're back to square one. I'm not interested in converting you. I'm merely stating that there is a school of thought within Christianity that does not believe that homosexuality is a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. It is not based on ignoring the Bible or doing whatever the hell you want.

Melon

 

[cristiano]

It still does not change the fact that sleeping with a prostitute, male or female, is likely not what the Bible had in mind for morality. Even then, the fact that these orgies were in the context of a pagan religious ritual would not have helped.

Melon

Yes and no.

Yes, sleeping with a prostitute is not the biblical idea of morality.

No, It helps. God reproved the pagan pratices because, in other things, there was homosexuality in them, and, another example, bestiality.

 

[cristiano]

Now we're back to square one. I'm not interested in converting you. I'm merely stating that there is a school of thought within Christianity that does not believe that homosexuality is a sin anymore than heterosexuality is a sin. It is not based on ignoring the Bible or doing whatever the hell you want.

Melon

Back again. I've told you why they exist posts ago.

Man, I'll sleep now, it's more than 9 PM here in Brazil, and I really tired.

I don't hate you, but I don't respect you. Even so, good night.

 

[melon]

Yes and no.

Yes, sleeping with a prostitute is not the biblical idea of morality.

No, It helps. God reproved the pagan pratices because, in other things, there was homosexuality in them, and, another example, bestiality.

Bestiality is objectively wrong, because an animal can never consent. As such, this is similar justification as to why pedophilia is objectively wrong, as a minor can never consent.

But that's besides the point. It's my argument that it was the idolatry that provoked that statement, not the same-sex act. If it was meant to be a sweeping condemnation of all homosexuality, then the writers of Leviticus were perfectly capable of doing that. However, they did not. I will remember not to lie with a temple prostitute the next time I travel to Asia Minor.

Melon

 

[melon]

Back again. I've told you why they exist posts ago.

I've told you plenty of things too. So why don't you listen?

Melon

 

[Rachel D.]

I know that they are male temple prostitutes. I neglected to include one word in my translation:

"Men shall not lie with male temple prostitutes as with women. It is unclean."

Oh, now you mention that they were men. What else have you neglected in your translations?

[/i] It still does not change the fact that sleeping with a prostitute, male or female, is likely not what the Bible had in mind for morality. Even then, the fact that these orgies were in the context of a pagan religious ritual would not have helped.

[/QUOTE]

If this verse was talking about prostitutes in general, it likely would not have gone to the trouble to say "male." It does not need to mention female prostitutes, because extramarital sex is already covered in other verses.

 

[melon]

Oh, now you mention that they were men. What else have you neglected in your translations?

Cute. To be honest, I've made this argument repeatedly here in this FYM, where I have mentioned that they are male temple prostitutes dozens of times. In writing my explanation, I made an assumption that readers would understand that the temple prostitutes I was talking about were male. I'll make sure not to make that kind of assumption again in the company of religious fundamentalists.

If this verse was talking about prostitutes in general, it likely would not have gone to the trouble to say "male." It does not need to mention female prostitutes, because extramarital sex is already covered in other verses.

It is presumed that they are male temple prostitutes, in keeping with knowledge of Greco-Roman temple cult practices. However, if you have ever studied a foreign language, you would understand that, in some languages, there are masculine and feminine forms of nouns, and if gender is unknown or if the group is a mixture of male and female, the singular or plural form will, by default, be a masculine noun.

The fact that you care whether or not it is a male temple prostitute or a female temple prostitute is because you're looking for a condemnation of homosexuality. However, I believe it is a condemnation of idolatry, with the gender of the prostitute being irrelevant. Again, if we are going to be literal, it is obviously not a condemnation of all same-sex acts. It is a condemnation of having sex with a male temple prostitute.

Melon

 

[Rachel D.]

But that's besides the point. It's my argument that it was the idolatry that provoked that statement, not the same-sex act. If it was meant to be a sweeping condemnation of all homosexuality, then the writers of Leviticus were perfectly capable of doing that. However, they did not. I will remember not to lie with a temple prostitute the next time I travel to Asia Minor.

Melon

So now you're saying the verse is about idolatry? It was about prostitutes on the last page.

 

[BVS]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Are you serious? This is a completely weak and juvenile argument.

Yeah, Adam and Eve the shining light of morality. Commited the original sin, raised a murderous son, and then had incest to populate the world...

Since we're taking Genesis at face value.

 

[melon]

So now you're saying the verse is about idolatry? It was about prostitutes on the last page.

Now you're just being obstinate. The previous verse in Leviticus states not to offer your children to Molech, a specific idolatrous practice common to the ancient Israelites.

The fact that the next verse forbids men to have sex with male temple prostitutes indicates that they made this condemnation out of their revulsion to this specific idolatrous practice common to the ancient Israelites.

If you're looking for a sweeping statement applicable to your life, I'm sorry. This is the same book that goes out of its way to forbid the mixing of two different fibers, so they have a habit of making very specific pronouncements in this book.

Melon

 

[Rachel D.]

Cute. To be honest, I've made this argument repeatedly here in this FYM, where I have mentioned that they are male temple prostitutes dozens of times. In writing my explanation, I made an assumption that readers would understand that the temple prostitutes I was talking about were male. I'll make sure not to make that kind of assumption again in the company of religious fundamentalists.

Ooh, I'm a fundamentalist! It's funny how fundamentals are praised in other areas of life, but not in Christianity. God forbid you should believe the Bible as it is without twisting it.

 

[Rachel D.]

Are you serious? This is a completely weak and juvenile argument.

Yeah, Adam and Eve the shining light of morality. Commited the original sin, raised a murderous son, and then had incest to populate the world...

Since we're taking Genesis at face value.

Who said it wasn't juvenile? The point is that humans were made males and females for a purpose and being gay goes against that.

 

[melon]

Ooh, I'm a fundamentalist! It's funny how fundamentals are praised in other areas of life, but not in Christianity. God forbid you should believe the Bible as it is without twisting it.

But that's the joke. Christian fundamentalists twist the Bible to extreme right-wing ends, and then have the arrogance to state that everyone else is wrong. I don't think you have the Bible right anymore than Muslim fundamentalists have the Koran right.

The funny thing is, I have stated repeatedly that I'm not interested in converting anyone here. I'm merely looking for acceptance that there are other Christian philosophies out there. But that's not enough for the Christian fundamentalist. They are threatened by the idea that someone else besides themselves might be right.

Melon

 

[melon]

Who said it wasn't juvenile? The point is that humans were made males and females for a purpose and being gay goes against that.

And homosexuals exist to prove that there's more to love than just having a penis and a vagina.

Melon

 

[bonosloveslave]

I know the thread starter intended this to be about u2 and sexuality - but no one seems to care about the u2 aspect at this point. We'll let this go a bit longer, in FYM, if we can keep it civil.

 

[Rachel D.]

Now you're just being obstinate. The previous verse in Leviticus states not to offer your children to Molech, a specific idolatrous practice common to the ancient Israelites.

The fact that the next verse forbids men to have sex with male temple prostitutes indicates that they made this condemnation out of their revulsion to this specific idolatrous practice common to the ancient Israelites.

If you're looking for a sweeping statement applicable to your life, I'm sorry. This is the same book that goes out of its way to forbid the mixing of two different fibers, so they have a habit of making very specific pronouncements in this book.

Melon

If it's OK for men to have sex with men who aren't male temple prostitutes, then does that mean that it's OK to sacrifice your children, as long as it's not to a pagan god? No, of course not. So does that mean that it's OK for a man to have sex with a man who isn't a prostitute? No.

 

[BVS]

Who said it wasn't juvenile? The point is that humans were made males and females for a purpose and being gay goes against that.

So our purpose is strictly procreation?