What is the U2 song comparing Jesus to Mohammad?

[bloop]

It was clear to me that he was getting his information from 60 Minutes.  It wasn't immediately evident that they could have distorted that, but that is fair enough.

Now, let's deconstruct the statement itself, just a bit.  As quoted by Paul,

"Jesus, Jew, Muhammad, it's true...All sons of Abraham.

The founder (and more) of Christianity, the people of Israel, and Arabs such as Muhammed all have a common ancestor.  Nothing to disagree with here, unless one puts the condition that one must necessarily speak of Jesus as higher than the others in all statements where Jesus's name is present where members or representatives of other religions are present because to not do so is to give some credence to universalism.  Is this what we're arguing?

If we are, I think it is fair to flatly deny that it is a necessary thing to do for the Bono's purposes (presented in the next part of the quotation).  Take historical facts as what they are.  There is no need to be concerned about this, but maybe Paul sees such a reason.

Father Abraham, speak to your sons. Tell them, No more!"

Very apparently, given the current political climate, a call to non-violence.  I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with the sentiment being expressed here, or misunderstanding it.  It is the purpose and the crux of what Bono is saying, and IMO, it is admirable.

[murlough23]

It wasn't immediately evident that they could have distorted that

Hello, McFly! It's a news show. Of course they could have distorted it.

(Sorry, but you deserved that one.)

[bloop]

Hello, McFly! It's a news show. Of course they could have distorted it.

(Sorry, but you deserved that one.)

Heh.  Cool.

Hey, every once in a while, I'll assume the best in a news program.  Maybe that's not so wise to do when the news program aired fake, damning memos in an election year, but I didn't immediately make that connection.  Sure, they aren't perfect, but I haven't given in entirely to cynicism on the matter.

[ajyouthguy]

Your tendency to insert unhelpful comments into threads like this never ceases to amaze me.

  grow up.  i moved long past your crap a LONG time ago, and i think i've more than proven that, despite your desire for me to fail when i came back, something you sadly seem to still be carrying with you.  such a shame.

[PaulDA]

And lesson learned for Paul - please try to think more carefully before you turn second-hand information into an excuse to go on a witch hunt. Especially when it's comments that the mainstream media is making about Christian artists, whose words and actions we can't always expect the media to understand or portray accurately in the retelling. You'll avoid a lot of arguments if you keep that in mind.

I have not learned any lesson here except that I tend to get too excited.
I believe Bono is a Christian but I stand behind my statements 100% and I would do it again.
I don't like the fact that he has some sort of design with that connects Jesus/Mohammad/Jews as if they are all equal, and i am not the only one who feels this way.
It doesn't matter that they are all physical descendents of Abraham.
That is a given. Jesus decided to take on the form of a Jew. He could have taken any human form He wanted to and He could have used any people He wanted to for His purpose.
It's fine that Bono doesn't want Christians and Muslims and Jews to fight, although that is a little naive on his part if he actually thinks it is possible for everyone to get along or for all strarving people to have food. Christians and Muslims are going to be enemies and so are Jews and Muslims, and so are Christians and Jews to the extent that Jews don't believe that Jesus is God, until Jesus comes back.
It's nice to want people to get along, but you have to be realistic also and realize a utopia will not happen under man's rule.

[PaulDA]

Your tendency to insert unhelpful comments into threads like this never ceases to amaze me.

Murlough, for goodness sakes, he was teasing.

[PaulDA]

bloop, I forgot what an arrogant ass you can be sometimes. And no, I'm not saying that just to be provocative; I really feel that way. You're just as bad with the "I see it this way and it's plain as day to me, so everyone else who doesn't see it that way is a moron and I refuse to argue this point" business as Paul; you just come at it from an angle of academic superiority rather than religious piety, but it's really the same thing. And at least I'm getting somewhere with Paul.

Let's put all the cards on the table.
You, me and Bloop can ALL be arrogant at times.
Why can't we discuss something without calling others names?

[PaulDA]

Hello, McFly!  This isn't about nuance.  Bono's meaning is clear.  What Paul wanted is a qualifier that says "but these Christian folks are right about the Jesus is God thing" with every sentence.  Sorry, but that is ridiculous.
 

It's not ridiculous. I don't want him to say it in 'every sentence' but when a big part of his show is this so-called symbol that links Jesus/Mohammad'Jews under Abraham, it does no good for the non-Christians in the audience who just think Bono is trying to get people to stop fighting.
They have no idea what Bono thinks past that.
It's all secular reasoning.

[murlough23]

grow up.  i moved long past your crap a LONG time ago, and i think i've more than proven that, despite your desire for me to fail when i came back, something you sadly seem to still be carrying with you.  such a shame.

Well, you've apparently gone back to the same old bad habit that annoyed me in the first place, so I have the right to still be annoyed by it. We can have another exhausting round of arguing about it, or you can just agree with me that it was immature, and we can move on. I'm game either way.

I mean really, how helpful is it to stand by and instigate just because you enjoy eatching two people argue? Real mature. You don't seem to enjoy murlough/AJ fights too much, so about not encouraging them between me and anyone else?

[murlough23]

I don't like the fact that he has some sort of design with that connects Jesus/Mohammad/Jews as if they are all equal, and i am not the only one who feels this way.

The symbolism does provoke a bit of controversy. I understand why you feel that way. However, let's be careful - you are jumping to a bit of a conclusion by assuming that the symbol implies equality on the part of all three.

It's fine that Bono doesn't want Christians and Muslims and Jews to fight, although that is a little naive on his part if he actually thinks it is possible for everyone to get along or for all strarving people to have food. Christians and Muslims are going to be enemies and so are Jews and Muslims, and so are Christians and Jews to the extent that Jews don't believe that Jesus is God, until Jesus comes back.
It's nice to want people to get along, but you have to be realistic also and realize a utopia will not happen under man's rule.

Bono's a bit of an idealist. I don't think he expects, though, that world peace and an end to hunger will be completely accomplished in his lifetime. If he can put a dent in it, that's more than good enough. And he has the right to challenge other Christians to care about being peacemakers. Are we all required to agree that his methods of peacemaking are the best ones? No. But those who have better ideas should go ahead and try to put them into action as well. Question Bono's approach if you like, but I think his intentions are solid. He's not trying to prevent Armageddon or anything silly like that.

Murlough, for goodness sakes, he was teasing.

Teasing has a time and place. When I'm seriously involved in something to the point where I feel like I've been insulted (and bloop and I have more or less cleared that up in PM now, but at the time, I was very hurt), it's not exactly the most opportune time to throw in a friendly jab that makes reference to past wounds. I should know; I did the same to AJ once and he threw one of his many "I'm so done with you!" fits and left for several months. Then he came back and swore up and down he had changed. I came around to believe him. And then this. Like a dog to its own vomit, as they say.

It's not ridiculous. I don't want him to say it in 'every sentence' but when a big part of his show is this so-called symbol that links Jesus/Mohammad'Jews under Abraham, it does no good for the non-Christians in the audience who just think Bono is trying to get people to stop fighting.
They have no idea what Bono thinks past that.
It's all secular reasoning.

The argument between the two of you is about how people will generally perceive things. Paul, your point seems to be that non-Christians will perceive it pretty universally as a message of religious pluralism. bloop, you seem to think that most everyone will not naturally come to that conclusion, and that it's only wary Christians, judging more on the basis of fear and emotion rather than logic, who will be concerned when such things are said. I'm not sure how the hell to prove either of you right because it's a pretty wild conjecture on both of your parts, so it looks like we're at an impasse here.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether Bono should have the responsibility to care about how the things he says could be perceived. (Judging from history, he often doesn't.) I don't believe we should make celebrities walk on eggshells to the point where they can't be themselves, but at the same time, there's something to be said for considering how your words will come across to the average Joe, even if they make total sense to you. I don't know where I really stand on this one yet.

[bloop]

The argument between the two of you is about how people will generally perceive things. Paul, your point seems to be that non-Christians will perceive it pretty universally as a message of religious pluralism. bloop, you seem to think that most everyone will not naturally come to that conclusion, and that it's only wary Christians, judging more on the basis of fear and emotion rather than logic, who will be concerned when such things are said. I'm not sure how the hell to prove either of you right because it's a pretty wild conjecture on both of your parts, so it looks like we're at an impasse here.

No, my thoughts are better described as being that it takes an unwary person to jump to the conclusion that Bono is supporting universalism.  If one is thinking rationally, they will not come to that conclusion whether they're a Christian or anything else.  If a Christian makes that leap, I would guess that an emotional response is involved somewhere, but that's not my primary problem with it.

Gene Roddenberry created, in his mind, and "on screen", a very rational alien race, the Vulcans.  Could you see your average Vulcan making that jump?  If not, then chances are there is a problem with rationality in that instance, usually.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether Bono should have the responsibility to care about how the things he says could be perceived. (Judging from history, he often doesn't.) I don't believe we should make celebrities walk on eggshells to the point where they can't be themselves, but at the same time, there's something to be said for considering how your words will come across to the average Joe, even if they make total sense to you. I don't know where I really stand on this one yet.

However, your point that Bono and other Christians should perhaps consider these kinds of imperfections in the ways many people think is well-taken.  I'm not sure that Bono did anything wrong at all in this instance.  I think it's best to look at this particular statement as driven by purpose, but also by a desire to be powerful and challenging in the way it's worded.  He's using the most recognizable figures in each religion (most people have a basic idea that Jesus founded Christianity, Mohammed Islam, Abraham Judaism) and, IMO, artfully tying them together for his purpose.

The kind of clarity that rules out other, unintended interpretations, I think, lacks the artfulness of the way he was saying it, but maybe I'm just not thinking of a different way he could say it that would have the same value, and still serve his peaceful purpose.

(My wife calls me a vulcan sometimes.  I can't imagine why.)

That is a given. Jesus decided to take on the form of a Jew. He could have taken any human form He wanted to and He could have used any people He wanted to for His purpose.

*tangent alert*  I just have to say something about this.  Not if he was to fulfill the OT prophecies.

[ajyouthguy]

Well, you've apparently gone back to the same old bad habit that annoyed me in the first place, so I have the right to still be annoyed by it. We can have another exhausting round of arguing about it, or you can just agree with me that it was immature, and we can move on. I'm game either way.

I mean really, how helpful is it to stand by and instigate just because you enjoy eatching two people argue? Real mature. You don't seem to enjoy murlough/AJ fights too much, so about not encouraging them between me and anyone else?

Teasing has a time and place. When I'm seriously involved in something to the point where I feel like I've been insulted (and bloop and I have more or less cleared that up in PM now, but at the time, I was very hurt), it's not exactly the most opportune time to throw in a friendly jab that makes reference to past wounds. I should know; I did the same to AJ once and he threw one of his many "I'm so done with you!" fits and left for several months. Then he came back and swore up and down he had changed. I came around to believe him. And then this. Like a dog to its own vomit, as they say.

you are un-be-freaking-lievable...let it go...

[PaulDA]

*tangent alert*  I just have to say something about this.  Not if he was to fulfill the OT prophecies.

Well, Jesus chose the Jewish people from the beginning to fulful His purpose. He could have chosen Chinese people if He had wanted to.
It just doesn't matter that Jesus was a Jew!
That is just the people He chose to fulil His minsitry which if for the WHOLE world.

[bloop]

Well, Jesus chose the Jewish people from the beginning to fulful His purpose. He could have chosen Chinese people if He had wanted to.

He didn't choose Chinese people because those were not the group of people under the covenant with Him.  I don't know what God's entire purpose was, but I know He's purposeful, and that He was purposeful in choosing the Jewish people as His, and purposeful in how He became incarnate, and in the form.  God doesn't do arbitrary.

But, even if what you're saying is entirely true, the fact is that Jesus was a Jew.  The statement that Jesus and Mohammed both came from Abraham's line is a statement of fact - it's not something anyone with that factual knowledge can disagree with.  It takes a leap to go from that to saying he's calling them equals.  The logic in that move is quite poor, and easy to correct.

I realize you don't think he's saying that, but the concern for the perceptions of others is a little misplaced.  If you're afraid that they aren't getting that message, by all means, get it out to them.  I know Bono has in other, more appropriate contexts.    

By all means, if you find someone that mentions his little talk and says that Bono is intending to equate the world's major religions, do set them straght.  As it is, the problem is kind of, well, theoretical, and the logic it takes to reach the conclusion that person X out there somewhere may have reached is provably faulty, and that fault can be addressed if it proves to be an actual problem.

[PaulDA]

He didn't choose Chinese people because those were not the group of people under the covenant with Him.

You still don'r get my point.
I was saying that God could have chosen ANY group of people from creation to be the people He had a covenet with. He chose the Jewish people, not because they are any better but because He had to chose one group of people to begin His work.

[bloop]

You still don'r get my point.
I was saying that God could have chosen ANY group of people from creation to be the people He had a covenet with. He chose the Jewish people, not because they are any better but because He had to chose one group of people to begin His work.

That implies that God was arbitrary in which group of people He chose.  I can't believe that because of what I know to be the nature of God.  Sometimes, the reason he does things is a mystery, but I believe God is ultimately purposeful in his choices.

[murlough23]

No, my thoughts are better described as being that it takes an unwary person to jump to the conclusion that Bono is supporting universalism. If one is thinking rationally, they will not come to that conclusion whether they're a Christian or anything else. If a Christian makes that leap, I would guess that an emotional response is involved somewhere, but that's not my primary problem with it.

Guess I'm an unwary person, then. Because that would have been my first impression if it hadn't come from the mouth of someone about whom I knew better. First impressions often aren't my final conclusions, of course, and that's where the rational thinking part comes in... but most people's instant gut reactions to things are not a result of rational thinking, since by definition, I'm talking about how people feel about something before they stop to think about it. It's normal and understandable to have a statement like that provoke a certain response. How they act on that response is another matter.

Gene Roddenberry created, in his mind, and "on screen", a very rational alien race, the Vulcans. Could you see your average Vulcan making that jump? If not, then chances are there is a problem with rationality in that instance, usually.

We don't like in the Star Trek universe, as much as I wish we did. You might kiss the ground that logic walks on, and sure, I think logic is a pretty important capacity that more Christians need to develop. At the same time, we're human, we have emotional responses to things, and while I'm not an advocate of immediately acting on one's first emotional response, reducing all of humanity to cold, hard logic is not something I'd seek to do, either. Vulcans would probably say that the Christian faith is not logical.

However, your point that Bono and other Christians should perhaps consider these kinds of imperfections in the ways many people think is well-taken. I'm not sure that Bono did anything wrong at all in this instance. I think it's best to look at this particular statement as driven by purpose, but also by a desire to be powerful and challenging in the way it's worded. He's using the most recognizable figures in each religion (most people have a basic idea that Jesus founded Christianity, Mohammed Islam, Abraham Judaism) and, IMO, artfully tying them together for his purpose.

The kind of clarity that rules out other, unintended interpretations, I think, lacks the artfulness of the way he was saying it, but maybe I'm just not thinking of a different way he could say it that would have the same value, and still serve his peaceful purpose.

Sure, and it would be nice if the artful intent would be considered by Christians who honestly oughta know better about the guy than to think he's a universalist or something. But non-Christians, I can see where they would get confused by that, especially if they don't know a lot about the history of any or all of the religions being mentioned here. I tend to be more understanding about how non-Christians react to things than I do about Christians, simply because I hold Christians to a higher standard. We should know to look at pretty much everything in life with a different lens, and not always trust our gut reaction to stuff, simply because God established a highly unexpected and seemingly paradoxical way of getting is point across so many times throughout the Bible.

I'd like to see what you or Paul would suggest as a better way for Bono to have phrased it... I can't come up with anything off the top of my head. So I don't think he was wrong per se, but at the same time, it wouldn't have hurt for him to think through the ramifications of something like that.

(My wife calls me a vulcan sometimes. I can't imagine why.)

Maybe the fact that the wedding vows you wrote for her were "My mind to your mind, my thoughts to your thoughts" might have clued her in.

[murlough23]

you are un-be-freaking-lievable...let it go...

I did let it go, AJ. You promised me you were different, and I took your word for it and we coexisted peacefully for a while. Then you started with your unhelpful comment crap again, and I'm sorry, but you have a very bad habit of jabbing at me at the most inopportune times when you know it's not going to help the situation. I sincerely hope you do that in real life when people are angry and fighting with each other, just so that they turn on you and you get your ass kicked, and then maybe you'll learn something from it.

In the meantime, we can easily resolve the problem here. You annoy me by poking fun at me and/or telling me the discussion is entirely pointless at the most inopportune times. I annoy you by pointing out that you're annoying. So if you stop annoying me, then I will, as a very natural result of that, stop annoying you. And then we'll both stop annoying everyone else. Sound good?

[ajyouthguy]

Thanks, King David.  get over yourself and leave me the heck alone.

[murlough23]

Thanks, King David.  get over yourself and leave me the heck alone.

Much easier to leave you alone when you're not butting in with irritatingly stupid comments.

The sad part is that this time around, I had actually been willing to believe that you had really changed.

[bloop]

I'd like to see what you or Paul would suggest as a better way for Bono to have phrased it... I can't come up with anything off the top of my head. So I don't think he was wrong per se, but at the same time, it wouldn't have hurt for him to think through the ramifications of something like that.

I don't think we really disagree here, and I said that I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it to suit his peaceful purpose and the expectations his audience has of him as an artist.  But, further, I don't expect him to walk on eggshells and think of all possible interpretations of what he's saying before he says them, especially when the one presented hypothetically is rather illogical.  I don't expect that of anyone.  The primary purpose is clear.  Any secondary implications are merely jumps in logic, and worth addressing as they come up.

But, again, all of this just seems a bit of a waste.  Deal with the problem of misinterpretation if it in fact became one.  Address it directly if asked.  I can't yet name a real person that misinterpreted him at this point, so I don't see a real problem.

So, to sum it up, I can't fault the man for not seeing every possible illogical tangent that people might take on what he said, no actual person that we know did tack that interpretation (Paul, who we previously thought did, has said that he didn't, so he's out), and until I see someone that did, I don't see an issue.  When I do see that person, I'll be sure to clear it up for them a bit.  (note that even in that instance, the issue isn't exactly difficult to resolve)

Oh, and concerning Vulcans:  I don't see them as perfect, and never said they were, but I think that theoretical species works better on an intellectual level than people in most instances, rationally-speaking.  They're just about disabled when it comes to faith (though I don't think Rodenberry had to write that in.  Faith has a perfect logic about it.  It just also has some paradoxes that tend to throw rationality off).  

So, we humans can stand to be a bit more Vulcan.  Just my little take on another hypothetical group.

[PaulDA]

I'd like to see what you or Paul would suggest as a better way for Bono to have phrased it.....

"You may or may not know, but I am a Christian and I'm not endorsing any other religion here, but when Jesus Christ came to Earth to die for our sins He was born as a Jew and shares a common ancestry with the Muslim prophet Mohammad. Jesus is not our enemy, and we should use this fact that He came to earth as  Jew an example for Jews, Mulsims and Christians to get along better".

[murlough23]

"You may or may not know, but I am a Christian and I'm not endorsing any other religion here, but when Jesus Christ came to Earth to die for our sins He was born as a Jew and shares a common ancestry with the Muslim prophet Mohammad. Jesus is not our enemey, and we should use this fact that He came to earth as  Jew an example for Jews, Mulsims and Ahristians to get along better".

Um, yeah. That's not gonna work. Too wordy and disclaimer-y to really fit Bono's style.

[PaulDA]

Um, yeah. That's not gonna work. Too wordy and disclaimer-y to really fit Bono's style.

Well then he's going to be misunderstood by millions of people.
And, to put things in perspective, my criticism of Bono is mild compared to what I have seen elsewhere. It may seem I am being hardh here because most people here think of Bono as this fabulous crusading Christian. Everyone doesn't agree with the.

[bloop]

Well then he's going to be misunderstood by millions of people.

My question is still "where in the hell are these millions of confused people of which you speak"?

Josh, they're your favorite band.  Where did you go?

[murlough23]

Well then he's going to be misunderstood by millions of people.

Fair enough. I think we've established that. Maybe the issue that remains is whether that's such a bad thing. I mean, if we really think about it, how many things are said by Christians, even with the best of intentions, that could mislead non-believers into thinking we believe something that we don't? Maybe it would seem to have more drastic consequences if the implication is something like pluralism, as opposed to some other inessential doctrinal point or whatever. But the question still remains - is it the responsibility of non-Christians to consider the actions of Christians usign rational logic when evaluating their belief system, or is it the responsiblity of Christians to speak as unambiguously (and many would say, unartistically) as possible whenever given a platform?

We probably aren't going to see eye to eye on that one, because to you, clear meaning always trumps artistic license. For bloop, it's almost always the reverse. I'm somewhere in between. I don't think art should seek to intentionally obscure its intended message, but at the same time, if its only purpose is to instruct, then we might as well dispense with the music and any other entertaining elements, and just preach using plain spoken words. The Bible doesn't always follow that template - it's confoundingly unclear on many topics, and misunderstandings of those topics by people who take the Bible's words at face value have led to wars and genocides and all other kinds of injustice. Not to compare Bono to the Bible (oh no, I listed them in the same sentence!), but I just wanted to point out that clarity of language, complete with disclaimers, is often not how God speaks.

And I don't even know if that matters in this case, because Bono's meaning was clear to Bono, and apparently it was clear to a lot of other people (Christians and non-Christians) as well. I don't think it was intended to be ambiguous in this particular case.

NP: "The Best Song Ever", Chris Rice

[bloop]

Well then he's going to be misunderstood by millions of people.

Fair enough. I think we've established that.

Have we?  I mean, even assuming all n - 1 of those who watched 60 Minutes on that day latched onto a faulty interpretation (where n is the number of total viewers and 1 is PaulDA), I doubt there was 2 million or more people that tuned in.  Does "60 Minutes" get those kinds of Nielson ratings, even with Bono on board?  Add concert attendees and I still doubt the number was quite as high as that.

Sorry, I just had to.

*edit* I actually just did look it up.  Gracious, people watch too much TV.  So, yeah, apparently Bono does help.  So, the research is done - find those 13,000,000 households and find out if this is a problem or not (or even whether they remember the statement or not).  Best of luck to you!

We probably aren't going to see eye to eye on that one, because to you, clear meaning always trumps artistic license. For bloop, it's almost always the reverse. I'm somewhere in between. I don't think art should seek to intentionally obscure its intended message, but at the same time, if its only purpose is to instruct, then we might as well dispense with the music and any other entertaining elements, and just preach using plain spoken words. The Bible doesn't always follow that template - it's confoundingly unclear on many topics, and misunderstandings of those topics by people who take the Bible's words at face value have led to wars and genocides and all other kinds of injustice. Not to compare Bono to the Bible (oh no, I listed them in the same sentence!), but I just wanted to point out that clarity of language, complete with disclaimers, is often not how God speaks.

hmm . . . I don't disagree with any of this.  Having a clear meaning is great, if that's what is intended by the artist (there are valid reasons why an artist may want to obscure the meanings to the songs).  I think, in this case, it was intended to be clear, and it was to a reasonable degree.  At least until there's evidence otherwise, there really isn't much of a problem here at all.

[murlough23]

Our problem is mostly in defining "clear". How is that determined? Clear to a person of extraordinarily sound logic who will always wait and think things through before reacting? Clear to a majority of the people who heard the statement? Clear to Bono himself? What's the frame of reference here?

[BennieM]

Our problem is mostly in defining "clear". How is that determined? Clear to a person of extraordinarily sound logic who will always wait and think things through before reacting? Clear to a majority of the people who heard the statement? Clear to Bono himself? What's the frame of reference here?

The statement could also be clear, irregardless of the "to whom." I call the glass in a window clear, and that's a statement about the window. If some people are looking at it in the fog or through ill-cared-for eyeglasses, that doesn't affect what the window itself is.

[bloop]

I love a good BennieM analogy in the morning.

Clear to a person of extraordinarily sound logic who will always wait and think things through before reacting?

I just think of this one as "clear to someone of sound logic".  There's nothing extraordinary required, but I think it's fair to expect people to think, whether they are Christians or not.  I mean, how much formal logic did you go through to get to your own conclusion?

I'll add a bit more later.  My wife wants me out the door for black Friday shopping.

[PaulDA]

[bloop]

It is NOT clear. I don't even think most Christians believe or even understand that Jesus is God, let alone some poor unsaved shmuck at a concert who doesn't have a clue.
I can't even begin to tell you how many Christians I have spoken to from various denominations, some from no denomination, who don't even think Jesus is God.
People are confused. Churches don't even mention that Jesus is God most of the time.
And it is NOT clear to most unsaved people that Jesus is not just a human being.
Can I make it any clearer than that????

Wait, what's all that have to do with anything?  I'm talking about religious pluralism in general, and you're talking about a break in Christian theology itself (between liberal and more conservative theologies anyway)?

In any event, that's not what I'm talking about, as that's not the topic which Bono's quote here is trying to be clear about at all (he has other statements to get that idea across).  Anybody who reads or listens to Bono's words here will immediately know the primary purpose and meaning if they know the figures Bono is talking about, and/or have a very basic knowledge of the current situation.  So, what we're really talking about what people take the statement to imply, not what it outright says or doesn't say.

I'll admit that, at first, one might take the statement to imply some kind of universalism, or an equating of the world's religion.  The next step they may take (and hopefully will take, if they care to pursue it) is to sit down and think about it logically.  At that point, they will have little choice but to come to the conclusion that the statement doesn't necessarily imply universalism (incidentally, neither does it imply that Jesus is not God).  Then, maybe if they're really into looking into it, they'll look into other things Bono has said and do a bit of research.  That step will, of course, rule out their initial reaction altogether.  Problem solved for the thinking person.

Then again, they might not care enough to go past step one, and that's what murlough's been saying.  I'm saying that Bono or anyone else can't possibly head off any possible wrong interpretation of what he's saying, and that it is clear enough to anyone that would choose to rationally look at what it says, and that it's reasonable to expect that people think.  The others can be dealt with (or it might not even be important that they know what Bono's implying, honestly, as knowing the thoughts of Bono isn't exactly essential anyway) as the opportunities present themselves, but it seems to be yet only a hypothetical group of people in the scope of this conversation.

This is it in a nutshell, if Bono wants to open his mouth in front of millions of people and mention Jesus he better damn well make it clear who Jesus is or he needs to shut his trap.

Again, the Bible doesn't even do this with every mention of Jesus.  It's clear from the other things in the Bible.  Oh my gosh, the analogy extends perfectly well to Bono!

[PaulDA]

Oh jeez.....forget I even brought it up.
Let's just end this now because no one is going to change their minds.
I don't really care about Bono that much anyway, except that I like a couple of his songs.
I just watched the 60 Minutes show because my wife watches it.

[murlough23]

Hmmm... I'm not satisfied with bloop's definition of "clear". It presupposes that he has the logical clarity to determine who else's logic is clear. Kind of a circular argument, even if in this case, I might agree that his logic regarding Bono's statement is clear.

NP: "Apathetic Way to Be", Relient K

[BennieM]

Hmmm... I'm not satisfied with bloop's definition of "clear". It presupposes that he has the logical clarity to determine who else's logic is clear. Kind of a circular argument, even if in this case, I might agree that his logic regarding Bono's statement is clear.

By your argument, all thought is circular, then. To think you must presuppose your thought to be logically clear.  If I cannot accept my own logical clarity, then I cannot test anyone else's.

Someone's logic is clear if it is clear. I don't spend forever and a day looking at window and saying, "I am assuming my eyes to be free from fog and my eyeglasses to be free of scratches. Yet I think the window is clear. How is this? I cannot prove it! What do I now do? I can't call the window clear! Help!" That is normally considered a form of insanity. At least it was when one of my friends fell into it and couldn't get out on his own.

It is only sane to question your own logical clarity when it is specifically put to the test--not simply when it is doubted. It has to be forcefully put to the test. That is never done by someone saying, "But it's just not clear." It is only done by logical argument against your own presupposed logical clarity. Doubt isn't enough.

[murlough23]

Ah, Bennie and his verbiage. I missed them so.

I think I can dig through it and grasp what you're getting at. You don't make it very, um, clear. (Then again, it is 1 in the morning.) I think the main flaw amidst all of that nice prose is that I can see the dang window. People's vision can be tested to make sure it's 20/20, so that we know what's really unclear when they complain about the window being fogged over or dirty. Doesn't work nearly as easily with statements of opinion regarding a person's intent.

I suppose there are absolute constructs such as formal logic, and hey, I'm a big fan. But even among the greatest geniuses in the world, not all of them will recognize the same statements to be fully, logically clear. Understandable after taking some logical steps, yes, but not immediately clear.

I don't mean to be one of those "everything is relative" kind of guys, because that kind of thinking usually pisses me off. But when it comes to flawed humans and their brains' natural responses to things, they're not always the same. Not even among the smart ones.

You might say clear logic dictates that we take Bono at face value unless given strong reasons to think he's indicating otherwise. In songs, the man is known to speak in metaphor, but from stage, especially when speaking on political issues, he's usually pretty straightforward. Alright, I can accept that, if you know those things about Bono. If not, then OK, maybe you should just take a person's statements at face value in general. So what's "face value"? Is that a constant, or is it dependent on people's understanding of language and other human constructs? What if what I'm used to seeing, especially among more liberal-minded religious thinkers within my own culture, is that when leaders/icons from various religions are mentioned reverently within the same breath, some sort of belief in pluralism is being implied? Like it or not, that is what I'm used to seeing when I hear that kind of talk from most people. For me, that's the most logical conclusion to draw from such a statement, unless I know something about the person that would indicate otherwise. And I do know something about Bono that would indicate otherwise, but if I did not, I would likely come to the same conclusion that Paul is conjecturing some people would come to. And I don't think that's totally illogical.

I guess if you wanted to be really logical about it, you wouldn't assume any meaning unless Bono could be asked to say upfront exactly what he meant by it.

In any event, saying "This is clear because it just is and it's intrinsic to the statement, and there are no further implications to it because it's a clear statement in and of itself" isn't really getting you guys anywhere. I hate to play the part of the lawyer here, but I still think there's more than one sound, logical way to read that statement.

[bloop]

In any event, saying "This is clear because it just is and it's intrinsic to the statement, and there are no further implications to it because it's a clear statement in and of itself" isn't really getting you guys anywhere. I hate to play the part of the lawyer here, but I still think there's more than one sound, logical way to read that statement.

And I do know something about Bono that would indicate otherwise, but if I did not, I would likely come to the same conclusion that Paul is conjecturing some people would come to. And I don't think that's totally illogical.

It is illogical if they can know the same thing as you know about Bono by researching (making a conclusion without having the necessary relevant information is one definition of jumping to a conclusion), and it also is in itself illogical to keep it at that stage where they did think beyond what is stated.

Anyway, my entire arguement is rested on something you seem to uphold over and over throughout this thread:  that Bono's statement doesn't necessarily imply religious pluralism, and that it is an illogical move to make it so, even if it is an understandable first impression.  You said yourself earlier that if someone sits down and thinks about it, then it's pretty obvious that they should come to the conclusion that Bono is not necessarily isolating a universalist worldview as the correct one.  I'm not assuming anything about my own logic, except that it's sound enough to spot a fallacy.  Rather, I'm just trying to analyze what is and isn't a logical path for an individual (depending in part on how much they actually care to take it further - as I said, the idea you presented of people just going with a first impression often is well-taken.  Still haven't met the person who's first impression was that, and they've held onto it, but we'll assume such a person exists for the sake of arguement).

My secondary arguement is more pragmatic.  Basically, since the statement really didn't confuse anyone here (we thought it did, and, so long as you take his word on it, it didn't), and no one here knows a person that took it in this particularly erroneous way, then the problem may just be more imagined than real in the first place.  I'm guess I'm just willing to assume person X exists, just for fun.

In a nutshell, the mysterious figure with that impression of what Bono said may be a generally rational person, but he has not made a rational move, especially in the formal logical sense, which would make it irrational.  In this case, he's also wrong about the statement (I have to hand it to people's jumps in logic reaching a good conclusion sometimes - it just isn't such a good one in this instance, and further research on Bono's own beliefs would verify that to one who cared enough).

But, if you think there's another sound, logical way to interpret that statement (and you do understand what is formally meant by "sound"), then out with it.  I won't be able to do much of anything to it, not to the extent that this particular one has been shredded.  The problem is that Paul's feared interpretation is not sound as it is rife with fallacy that you have already recognized, even without calling them by name.  Bennie seems to be better in the area of formal logic than I am (or maybe it's just a purely philosophical background), so he could probably recognize more that is problematic with it.  I'm seeing at least one fallacy with only an introductory course in logic under my belt, and that was 5 years ago.

I suppose there are absolute constructs such as formal logic, and hey, I'm a big fan. But even among the greatest geniuses in the world, not all of them will recognize the same statements to be fully, logically clear. Understandable after taking some logical steps, yes, but not immediately clear.

Um, isn't that what I've been saying?  All I think I said was immediately clear is the non-violent purpose of the statement, and I thought we agreed on that.  Implications, or the lack of particular ideas wrongly implicated, follows from those logical steps, which presents no problem whatsoever to what I've been saying.  

If I said earlier that it's clear from the get-go (and I may have), I've long since conceded that point as my thoughts on the matter became clearer.  But, I'm not going to apply the "idiot rule" (any idiot should be able to get this on first read) to the things anyone communicates.  That's in the realm of unreasonable expectation.

[PaulDA]

Since i cannot compete with the three of you philosophically, I will just sum up my position and let the rest of you continue your discussion:
I believe Bono is a Christian, he has done may nice things, I just disagree with him in that one area. Ok, carry on. 8-)  

[BennieM]

[murlough23]

bloop: Sure, with further research about Bono, I think it would become clear to a logical person that he was not implying pluralism. But that's not what I'm arguing; I'm arguing about first impressions based on the data that one has. And I am your example of a person who would take it that way if I didn't know as much about Bono. That person does exist.

For you, it's "Bono said P; that doesn't imply anything other than P." Simple enough, except that Bono has said other things in other contexts that do imply somnething beyond what was actually said. He's an artist; artists do that, and not to be dishonest - that's just kind of what art is.

For me, it's "Bono said P, and people who say P are often implying Q, unless we already know that they believe R." I know P, and I know that P often implies Q, but if I don't know R, I'm lef tto believe that Bono is probably implying Q. THat's a reasonable first impression. If I were responsible, I'd know that I couldn't yet rule out R, so yes, that would require more research. But I would definitely have cause to be concerned - as Paul did.

Bennie: The whole purpose of poetry is the communication of thoughts or feelings in a "fancier" form of language. What is meant is not always directly stated. It may not be reasonable to jump to a conclusion and say "Bono is definitely implying Q when he says P" - because of the nature of poetry, we can't know for sure (unless you're willing to take a statement from stage more as prose, which is how I'd actually be inclined to take it, given what I know of Bono.)

Regarding your comment that we've known this about Bono for 25 years - you missed my point completely. I'm talking about someone who is not familiar with Bono at all, but just knows what he was told by the 60 Minutes broadcast, or what he knows on the surface from recently becoming a semi-fan of U2 who was interested enough to attend a concert.