Christians! It may be time to convert->
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
True and I always enjoy the hypocracy of when someone has served for 10 years and everyone loves them, but as soon as they say those three words everyone's opinion changes.
But then you also have church's like we have here in Dallas the Cathedral of Hope which is one the largest gay churches. Designed by Philip Johnson and one of my favorite services to attend here in town.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
That's why religion =
. It brings out nothing but the worst in people. Look around the world, and the most fucked up regions of the world are the most religious.But we'll learn that first hand. The religious zealots in Iraq are certainly giving the U.S. a run for its money. And after reading this, my blood is boiling. So, come Easter, when my parents visit in Boston, I hope they don't mind when I tell them that I refuse to ever step into another Catholic "church" ever again.
Melon
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
icelle said:
Why not?
melon said:
I think it's a shame the church is turning people away like this. I have multiple other issues with the church, like birth control and the like, but this issue is definitely one of the ones on the forefront.
I wish you luck, Melon. I have been blessed to have parents who support my lapsed status, and understand the need for people to find their own way. I'm thankful to them every day.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
melon said:
Pardon my language, but...shit, that's just...
...that's just insane. "The church says it isn't threatening anyone with anything except "Christian ethics"."
Yeah, 'cause, you know, in order to be a true Christian in these people's eyes, you gotta discriminate against people.
. Does the name Jesus Christ ring a bell to these people? Ay, carumba...Angela
cell
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
martha said:
its a contradiction to what's preached in the bible.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
icelle said:
But we all do things that go against the Bible, right? So, if that's the case, then really, nobody should have a leadership role in the church, be they gay or straight.
Angela
beegee
Neon Zebra
Moonlit_Angel said:
well, yes. we all do things that go against the bible, and the bible teaches that all sins can be forgiven if we repent. can't really compare being gay to that set of rules, can ya?
and anyway, i think icelle's point is that a gay preacher would be deliberately and willingly living a life that the bible says is sinful, which would be a direct contadiction to it's teachings.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I always thought that god will judge if someone is not living acourding the Bible but there are lot of people around who want to take this burden of God`s shoulders.bonosgirl84 said:
When i looked at this picture for the first time , i thought that god want us to quit smooking,....
Salome
you are what you is
my brother is a priest and he likes to tell the joke that every priest is either gay or an alcoholic ....
he usually says that when he gets another beer
personally I don't really see why someone who's gay can't become a priest
my knowledge of the bible is very limmited, but I do know that most passages can be explained in more than one way
I also know that if you're not willing to recognize that things written 2,000 years ago were written in a different context that you could argue that according to the bible being a feminist is as bad as being gay
he usually says that when he gets another beer
personally I don't really see why someone who's gay can't become a priest
my knowledge of the bible is very limmited, but I do know that most passages can be explained in more than one way
I also know that if you're not willing to recognize that things written 2,000 years ago were written in a different context that you could argue that according to the bible being a feminist is as bad as being gay
icelle said:
So is women teaching over men. St. Paul gleefully tells us that. We should now do a purge of women out of schools, because of their immoral presence. Evil women are probably teaching men sinful things!
But that's beside my point. As translated, it is the equivalent of mistranslating "prostitution," "idolatry," "rape," etc. and then choosing to translate it as a blanket condemnation of heterosexual acts. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Melon
"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." -- 1 Timothy 2:8-15
Melon
Melon
Lilac
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 231
bonosgirl84 said:
I don't mean to get into any specific issues here, or call anyone a sinner, but I think the point they're trying to make is the entire purpose of a religion or a particular church doctrine is a set of rules and beliefs. If you go against them, ignore them, or want to change them for your own personal situation, then why even bother to have them in the first place? Might as well follow some other religion or make up your own to suit what you want to do and not have to feel guilty or sinful- which is what Henry VIII did. At that time, divorce was sinful, wrong and against the church and against God according to the rules. So he changed them! Thus the birth of the Protestant church and all its stemming factions. But if you change it to be what you want it to be instead of following what it was set out to be, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?
Last edited:
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
melon said:
Its just dandy. Someone should write a book on this shit. Then a billion or so people around the world can all follow it and all will be just dandy.
Offensive, aren't I? A bit of too bad really. Is there anyone who is not offended as a result of religion, I wonder?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
bonosgirl84 said:
No. But hey, then again, if Catholic priests who molest children can still have their jobs, well...
But if they didn't choose to be gay, they're not deliberately breaking the rules, now, are they? God would've created them to be that way. And if we're referring more to the fact that they choose to act on their love, and that's how they deliberately break the rules...well, yeah, they're human, too, they want to act on their feelings for somebody.
Angela
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
Speaking as an uppity woman who teaches, absolututely delights in gold, pearls, and costly array, and who has chosen to not participate in childbearing, it's a damn good thing I'm not a Christian!!
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
icelle said:
There's part in the Bible that says gays can't be preachers and church leaders?
cell
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
no there isnt. in general, what's being taught in the bible is that homosexuality is a sin.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
icelle said:
Ignoring the fact that I don't actually agree with that...
The Bible says lying is a sin. Do you believe all who have ever lied should be excluded from leadership roles in a church?
Or are you judging homosexuality to somehow be a "worse" sin than lying and therefore an acceptable reason to exclude a person from a leadership role in a church? If so, what is your basis for judging one sin to be worse than another?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Thank you. Exactly what I was trying to get at, only said much better.
.Angela
cell
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
FizzingWhizzbees said:
im not judging anyone, and i dont percieve one sin to be worse than the other. i think everyone knows where im coming from with my past experiences.
as i have said before in my previous post in here, i dont have any issues with gays doing everything else. im fine with that.
but anyone who's in a leadership role in church is supposed to be christlike, if you will.
i wouldnt want to be in a leadership role if it paid me mucho money.
i think i'm done with this thread, as it might lead to more questions being asked that i seriously can't answer, being that i still have questions about my faith also. thanks for not flaming me...
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Meh. Nevermind. I've had this discussion enough times to know that it'll only end in both sides being offended. I'll just keep quiet this time.
Last edited:
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Actually I do have one quick question to those of you who have said you think the Bible condemns homosexuality. How many of you would take a literal interpretation of the quote melon posted -- ie would say women should never be allowed to teach or have authority over men? And if you don't interpret that literally can you explain how you know what to interpret literally and what to interpret differently?
Salome
you are what you is
you'd almost forget that the bible for the larger part isn't even about gays or about the differences between men and women
yes, imagine that!!
I thought the bible foremost teaches us that God loves everyone and that we should try to do the same
yes, imagine that!!
I thought the bible foremost teaches us that God loves everyone and that we should try to do the same
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I'll trust this is an honest spiritual question. My wife and I both struggle with the scope and meaning of the passage. And I have discussed before how a former friend of ours used this passage to tell my wife that she should not teach at all (she gives weekly lectures to women and continues to do so).
From my experiences, I have respect for those who struggle with this passage honestly, taking a high view of God and His Word. If we can dismiss this passage as completely unapplicable, what is to stop us from dismissing any other passage?
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I agree with you, Salome. 
Nbcrusader, it was an honest question, thank-you for your response. The entire question of whether the Bible is to be taken literally is one of the things I find most confusing about religion. I honestly don't understand how some people seem to "pick and choose" what they will take literally and what they won't. I mean if you say everything is to be interpreted literally then...well, I don't get much further than the idea of the world being created in seven literal days as from everything I've learned in science, this is impossible. If you say nothing is to be interpreted literally, it's all about the context, then how can a person know that the beliefs that are sort of central to Christianity are true? And if you choose a position somewhere in between, some parts are literal, some aren't, well how on earth do you know the difference?
I haven't yet heard a single answer to this question which made sense to me. Although if anyone wants to attempt to explain then you should feel free.
*Fizz.
Nbcrusader, it was an honest question, thank-you for your response. The entire question of whether the Bible is to be taken literally is one of the things I find most confusing about religion. I honestly don't understand how some people seem to "pick and choose" what they will take literally and what they won't. I mean if you say everything is to be interpreted literally then...well, I don't get much further than the idea of the world being created in seven literal days as from everything I've learned in science, this is impossible. If you say nothing is to be interpreted literally, it's all about the context, then how can a person know that the beliefs that are sort of central to Christianity are true? And if you choose a position somewhere in between, some parts are literal, some aren't, well how on earth do you know the difference?
I haven't yet heard a single answer to this question which made sense to me. Although if anyone wants to attempt to explain then you should feel free.
*Fizz.
nbcrusader said:
This passage, amongst others, is why I base my faith on the test of Romans 13:8-10 ("Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law," etc.). Sure, St. Paul (FYI, for those who don't realize this, the epistles of Timothy are written by Paul to Timothy) may have honestly believed that women had no place in society, except to be a baby-making husband trophy, but, as I base my faith on the totality of St. Paul's message--which is, repeatedly, that love is the greatest commandment--I can look past his prejudices. As I am not burdened with attempting to deify every last sentence of the Bible, I am willing to accept that the Biblical writers had biases and prejudices consistent with a 2000+ year-old Hebrew / Greco-Roman culture.
Sheer *reality* has proven that women are just as capable of teaching as any man is, if not better, in individual cases. Thus, I believe it is completely logical to dismiss this passage as a cultural antiquity, back in the days when women were viewed completely differently. "Love," as always, wins out, and denying women the right express themselves would be, to me, a complete violation of love, and, thus, be the greatest sin.
Melon
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm still a little worried about the not being able to wear gold and pearls.
Similar threads
