John J. Hlavaty ([email protected])
Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:03:13 -0400
J <[email protected]> wrote:
>PS: I have never been reading the flame wars about homosexuality so I
>don't have a clue about whats going on. I just worte this because I
>saw one post saying the Bible denounces homosexuality.
The Bible does denounce homosexuality; however, as J
pointed out, the passages need to be interpreted and
read VERY carefully.
The two most prominent places of this supposed denounciation
are within the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (as J illustrated)
and within Leviticus. The story of Sodom is about much
more than the apparent denounciation of homosexuality. The story
focuses on inhospitable, lascivious, immoral behavior.
"Sodom" deals with the debaucherous corruption that had
overwhelmed these people and the subsequent ruin they brought
upon themselves. I do not consider homosexuality as inhospitable,
lascivious or immoral, but I do consider this thread on WIRE as
inhospitable and quite possibly immoral. How hypocritical
for one to call oneself a Christian and then slander others with
their own prejudice and intolerance.
The verse in Leviticus that denounces homosexuality is part of
a large passage which discusses numerous "wrongful" or
"instructional" acts, including when and how to eat certain foods,
when sex between a man and woman is allowed and how a woman
should "behave" when menstruating. Numerous people, including
the "holy roller" televangelists that Bono mocked during the
ZOO TV era, claim that most of those passages are out of date
and can be disregarded. How "convenient" that certain
passages from the Bible can be "outdated" but that others
are valid when they support one's own intolerance and prejudice.
If one fails to follow all of the "rules" stated in Leviticus, then
why allow one verse to stand undisputed?
I cannot understand why some people are so against any
particular race of people, any gender or sexual preference, but
I will acknowledge that we all have our prejudices. They are a part of us
and the only way to deal with them is to confront them.
To support them in any fashion only gives them power.
I do not accept "morally wrong" as an "excuse" for why
a person cannot accept homosexuality - the logic breaks down.
But I will accept that some people have this intolerance.
This is the true "illness": intolerance, not homosexuality.
If one cannot accept homosexuality, don't examine the Bible to
support these negative thoughts; rather, examine one's self. Any claims
that God or the Bible denounce homosexuality are readily negated when
one reads the ENTIRE passage in which they are written.
Three of the four members of U2 are openly Christian. U2's
thoughts on religion are very inspirational. Since
1987, Bono stopped writing "Praise the Lord" type of
songs and started focusing on aspects many of us have in
our faith: doubt, confusion, sin and searching. "I Still Haven't
Found What I'm Looking For" may be a gospel song, but it's also
a song about a quest to find God, not a song praising Him. "The First
Time" is a song about sinning and doubt, knowing God is there
with heaven awaiting us yet still "leaving through the back door"
by rejecting God's kingdom through our sins. "If God Will
Send His Angels" and "Wake Up Dead Man" are prayers -
pleas to God asking for His help. As Christians, U2 acknowledge
their own weaknesses. As Christians, U2 embrace all aspects of humanity.
We should look beyond U2's music and to their beliefs and acts as
examples for us to follow.
Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>I found out about a track listing for a 'Restored Joshua Tree', based on
>interviews given by members of U2, about 4 years ago. It reads as
>follows:
Did *all* of the members of U2 give this order?
Originally, Bono wanted JT to be a double album.
However, double albums can often be more of a curse
than a blessing. True fans are thrilled since they receive
double the music, but an average fan may scoff at
paying the extra money just to hear one or two songs
that they enjoy. For this and other reasons, Bono was
talked out of the double album notion. This is one
reason why the JT singles have all of those new songs
as b-sides - they were originally recorded for the album
and were ready for use.
While it's true that JT was to be a double album
and Bono did have some thoughts as to an order, I do
not think that this order was "universal" throughout
the U2 camp. Some WIRE members created an album set-list
based on Bono's words, but I do not believe it was ever meant
to be "official" in any format.
The "short of it" (speaking of Bono ;-D) is that you can make
any JT song list order you choose. Like you, I adore
the "Streets", "I Still Haven't..." and "With or Without
You" combination. But more importantly, I feel that the current
order of JT's songs is the ONLY order that is relevant.
khufu <[email protected]> wrote in reply to the following:
>> DAVID CARR ([email protected])
>> There's a bit in the Bill Flanagan book which has always niggled me, I
>> think it's around the time of the Sellafield raid, where he's talking to
>> Bono about Achtung Baby and oral sex. Out of the horse's mouth comes
>> something that sounds very much like a semi-confession. I hope not, but he
>> does have a tendency to say more than he ought to sometimes ...
>
>now it's been well asserted that oral sex does not constitute 'sexual
relations'...
>it's equivalent to the 'i didn't inhale' defense, or in this case that
would be
>'she didn't inhale'.
LOL! Very cute! But as you may guess khufu, "inhaling" is
not the verb most men care about in this situation! ;-D
To Dave:
When I read the above passage, I never got the impression
that Bono was "confessing" to anything. Flanagan mentioned
the numerous oral sex references in AB's lyrics but Bono
dismissed them - almost as if Flanagan had read too much
into the lyrics. Even if we examine Bono's "69" comments, why does this
necessarily mean that Bono cheated - couldn't he have had oral sex with
his wife (oh the horror of having sex with one's partner!)?
Prarit wrote:
>Taken from U2NEWS-History:
>
>March 31 1992 U2 perform in Chicago, Illinois. U2 attend a Chicago Bears
>football game during the afternoon before their concert that evening. The
>person escorting U2 around for the afternoon knows famed basketball star
>Michael Jordan, and knows which skybox he sits in while watching the games.
>When asked if they want to meet Jordan, the band excitedly accepts the offer.
>They proceed to Jordan's skybox and are introduced to him. After about
>5-10 minutes of talking U2 has to get going and they depart from the
stadium to
>prepare for the concert. Immediately after U2 leaves, Jordan asks "Now
>who were those guys again?"
LOL! I LOVE the Bulls (being from Chicago, this is
a given) and MJ is clearly one of the best, but
the fact that MJ doesn't know U2 only demostrates how wrapped
up he is in his own little world. This was U2 in 1992 - it's like not
knowing who the Beatles were in 1967! MJ, it may very well
be time for you to retire and start living life a little. Of course,
if my mother met U2, she'd probably say the same thing (to
her defense, she's also 25 years older than MJ, so rock music
isn't exactly "her thing" these days! ;-D).
Cat <[email protected]> wrote:
>This cd has been in existance since Melon was released and it is a mystery
>as to why it is being promoted as a new release. It is a further mystery as
>to why Disney would put their name to something unauthorised. It is easily
>apparent as to why is it under imports; the fruit boots mostly originate in
>Europe.
While it's true that the "Orange" remix boot is nothing more
that remixed b-sides or unofficial remixes, something tells me
that this "Orange" that may appear in the next issue of
"Propaganda" - which I must emphasize is only a RUMOR -
is not the same. Until more information is revealed, I think
it's best not to speculate too much on this.
O.K., I'm done.
Ciao,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Jul 05 1998 - 11:06:02 PDT