Comments on: Bono’s Remarkable Confession

By: Natalia V.

Natalia V. — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:19:35 +0000

somebody wrote : “Stop idolizing this man. He is flesh, sinner, and enemy of God and will burn in hell if he doesn’t repent and become born-again.”
And I agree 100%!!! Bono, If you are reading this then repent!! God Bless You all But repent!

By: Steve Wilson

Steve Wilson — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:43:50 +0000

From a once huge U2 fan – I have devoted my life to Christ. Which is in large part why I do not listen to the bands music anymore.
Bono needs to learn that:
1) the reap what you sow stuff is from God
2) Jesus is the only way to heaven, and anyone who does not serve Christ is not of Christ and will justly burn in hell for eternity
3) it is not the hearers of the word, but the doers of the word that belong to God
4) ecumenicalism is of Satan; not everyone goes to heaven Bono; and many will say “Lord, Lord” and get the following response, “I never knew you, depart from me you who work eniquity”
5) Friendship with the world is enmity with God – I do not see Bono renouncing the ways of the world, serving God rather than self, preaching the law of God and the wrath to come on all who are not born-again – where is the fruit? A tree is known by the fruit
6)Our righteous deeds are like dirty rags to God – why? because they are done in the flesh as if we are trying to bribe God with our good works after much sin and rebellion to God – if I kill your mother, then give you 10 thousand dollars, would that 10 thousand dollars mean anything to you? That is our good works to God in the face of our rebellion and sin. Bono helping humanity in the name of Christ is pleasing to God, but helping humanity for the sake of humanity and “the reputation of our generation” (paraphrase from Conon O’ Brian show), then his good works are filthy rages to a God that truly Bono does not know. In other words: Bono accepts Christ as savior, but not as Lord of his life – you must have Christ as both, or you are not a Christian.
Stop idolizing this man. He is flesh, sinner, and enemy of God and will burn in hell if he doesn’t repent and become born-again.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:54:36 +0000

You’re welcome – thank you! “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
Shalom to you as well!

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:54:56 +0000

Those are good Scriptures, however one must always be mindful that if they are intended to be aimed at someone that we disagree with in respect to interpretation or authority of Scripture that one finger pointed toward someone usually involves three fingers pointed back at ourselves.
Yes, the discussions have been good. I wish I were capable of having such discussions with more people, but I’ve wounded too many people and been wounded by others such that the trust factor is not always high enough to get this far.
Thanks for your respect. Shalom chaver.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:30:26 +0000

I think where the confusion arises is where people forget that God is holy in their efforts to emphasize His love. Yes, He loves His creation, but He is also holy, and that was why He sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world – because He could not look at sin.
But the discussion has been good – interesting and thoughtful.
“[B]ut whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6.
“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Rev. 22: 18-19.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:51:53 +0000

I didn’t mean my words as an insult. I was simply acknowledging that when one, as I, take the Bible as God’s inspired Word but written nevertheless by flawed human beings, that I will always be at a disadvantage in arguing from a Scriptural viewpoint because I don’t consider the Bible inerrant. Your belief seems to be that if I don’t accept the Bible as inerrant that I cannot accept it as having any authority at all. I, on the other hand, don’t insist that you view the Bible the way I do in order for it to have authority. So I disagree with your assessment that I don’t accept the authenticity of Scripture. From my viewpoint, authenticity doesn’t stand on all the same legs for me as it does for you, but it still stands.
For instance, I don’t think God ever considered it “just” to stone adulterers or homosexuals to death. Rather, I believe God was moving humanity toward the Logos incarnated one step at a time. Thus, God didn’t so much change his mind about an eye-for-an-eye as he saw that the prophets that he had given had adequately prepared the people to receive a higher level of truth.
I believe that God is still revealing (I like the UCC language “God is still speaking” and their “,”), but I grant that is a tall order to discern because of the danger of false teaching and the possibilities of self-deception.
However, I didn’t just wake up one day and say to myself, or to God, “I’m going to ignore your teaching on homosexuality.” I read the Scriptures over and over. I prayed. I participated in Bible study and covenant groups. I read literature by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, associations of social workers, pediatricians, etc. I listened to school counselors. And even more, I heard the testimonies of people such as Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty. I faithfully believe that God is revealing different understandings about sexual orientation and how all of us can best live in community. But I admit to “seeing through a glass darkly.”
Sadly, during the Civil Rights days, many people used Paul’s words to Philemon as a justification for slavery. I didn’t say Paul was wrong in what he told Philemon. But it is a matter of history that Paul was wrong in believing that Christ would return in his lifetime. And it is absolutely wrong to apply Paul’s words to the institution of slavery.
Certainly the church has greatly contextualized Paul’s admonition not to marry — so much so that I have never heard much of a sermon on the passage even at the numerous Baptist services I’ve attended. The fact of the matter is the church as a whole is not very kind to people who don’t marry — the issue of sexual orientation completely aside. I’m confident of my position there, because as pastor I’ve been in quite a position to observe human behavior.
I believe that many conservative evangelicals place Scripture as a higher revelation than the being of Jesus Christ, when it is supposed to reflect his revelation, not confine it.
Thanks for all the interactions.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:09:01 +0000

In follow-up to the previous, I have a tendency to be a know-it-all, and I have successfully been accused of being a smartass many times, but if I’m wrong, I usually have no trouble admitting it.
I think where we’re missing the connection here is that we disagree about interpretation – I don’t think my interpretation is incorrect, based on what I know about the Bible.
What you’ve shown me so far has not established that my interpretation is incorrect, invalid, unreasoned or at serious odds with the rest of Scripture. Under such circumstances, I’m not sure that “admitting [I] could be wrong” is either warranted or even the right issue.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:53:29 +0000

Wow. You can’t imagine my admitting to being wrong because I disagree with you? I think it is safer to say that we disagree on the authenticity of Scripture and whether it should be taken as written or not, instead of saying that I can’t admit I’m wrong because I don’t think that changing the Scripture to suit current mores is an appropriate way to approach Biblical interpretation.
Paul’s admonition to Philemon, as well as his admonition to slaves to be subject to their masters, was neither wrong nor short-sighted. The purpose of his instruction that slaves should be submissive to their masters was intended to encourage them to acknowledge that they were to be obedient no matter what their circumstances.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:44:57 +0000

Look at Paul telling slaves to obey their masters. Not because he approved of slavery but because he (wrongly) considered that Christ would return in Paul’s lifetime and that further, resistance to slavery at that time and place was futile.
To me, society’s attitudes toward homosexuals is so illogical as to make traditional interpretation of Scripture on that issue suspect.
I will admit that I might be wrong; I can’t imagine you admitting that you could be wrong, however.

By: lawyerchik1

lawyerchik1 — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:17:51 +0000

“I believe that Paul’s teachings on homosexuality were necessary for that culture at that time, just as the need for women to keep silent in the church was and the need for people not to wear gold.”
Except the point was that women in the church were shouting across the aisle separating the men from the women at the synagogue to ask for an explanation of what the rabbi was saying, and it was disruptive – there is nothing wrong with maintaining order, and that was consistent with Paul’s point about speaking in tongues: that things should be done decently and in order.
There is a difference between that instruction and the extrapolation that women should never speak in church, and again, it goes to interpreting Scripture in the context of the rest of the word, not in the context of human experience.
If you look at the rest of the Bible, you see that God not only wanted women to be active in their service to Him, but He actually used women instead of men in those places and instances where the men at hand weren’t doing the job.
As far as the admonition in Timothy about wearing gold, the point was that women should not be so consumed with outward appearances at their worship that they forgot why they were there. That is not limited just to that culture; it’s a proper admonition to the present, in that the focus of going to church should be worshipping God, not who’s wearing what designer or driving what make/model car.
And again, look at how God judged Sodom and Gomorrah – how can you consistently interpret Romans and Genesis (and those are just 2 passages off the top of my head) as being “cultural”?