Was the Apostle Paul Gay????? - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-10-2004, 12:09 PM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


It wasn't until I started studying other religions and esoteric spiritual paths that I began to understand the Bible better. One interpretation is that the 7 days of Genesis has its roots in what Hindus call Yugas, or vast cycles of time. In their cycles of time 1 day is 4,320,000 years, so 7 days would be 30,024,000,000 years. This would make the 7 days make more sense in terms of evolution.

right. and my rememberance from this bible story is not only an explanation of the beginning of the world but also why we have 7 days in a week and why we're supposed to rest on the seventh.

no literalness as far as the eye can see -- expanations for natural and human behavior.

not that anyone on FYM is about this, but there's recently been some, uh, *discussion* about the age of the Grand Canyon. there's now a book available called "Grand Canyon: A Different View," by Colorado River guide Tom Vail. it asserts that the canyon was formed by the Old Testament flood, the one Noah's Ark survived, and can be no older than a few thousand years. Vail writes in the introduction: "For years, as a Colorado River guide I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."

my mind doesn't understand this. not one bit. he's perfectly free to say whatever he wants, i'm also perfectly free to call his view idiotic.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-10-2004, 01:25 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:31 PM
Biblical interpretation for a "literal" seven days (measured in our time, not God - who exists outside of time) and the direct geneology interpretations are held by a small minority of Christians.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 05:38 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:31 PM
so ... why do we not take the literal interpretation of 7 days but we do take the literal interpretation of what is and what isn't 'abominations.'
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-10-2004, 08:16 PM   #154
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Congrats.

BTW... Thanks BVS
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 10:45 PM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic



Just the I for instance, still think it's quite creidble bit. Why?

Carrie
Just for the simple reason that reading the article it makes sense that he could have been gay. None of us will ever know for sure if Paul was gay, but none of us will also ever know for sure that he wasn't. It just seems fairly possible that he was indeed gay.

In some ways, I think the bigger question is, does it matter? If you believe and follow the writings of Paul, does it change anything if he was gay? Maybe it does.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 05:12 AM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


In some ways, I think the bigger question is, does it matter? If you believe and follow the writings of Paul, does it change anything if he was gay? Maybe it does.
For me it does. Hypothetically it would be very liberating for me if I were Gay to know that one of the church founders were gay.

That was really the point of the thread.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 06:16 AM   #157
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


Just for the simple reason that reading the article it makes sense that he could have been gay. None of us will ever know for sure if Paul was gay, but none of us will also ever know for sure that he wasn't. It just seems fairly possible that he was indeed gay.

In some ways, I think the bigger question is, does it matter? If you believe and follow the writings of Paul, does it change anything if he was gay? Maybe it does.
Hiya Indra,

Yeh I see it as changing things. I think I said it already... that if he was and didn't act on it then no, but he was and engaged in the activity, it would contradict his teachings on it and further undermine everything he wrote about.

See ya..

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 08:10 AM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic

Yeh I see it as changing things. I think I said it already... that if he was and didn't act on it then no, but he was and engaged in the activity, it would contradict his teachings on it and further undermine everything he wrote about.

"engaged in the acivity." what does that mean? are you reducing homosexuality to sheer buggery? is your heterosexuality only about intercourse?

at the end of the day, we're kind of missing the point here -- "gay" and "homosexual" are modern, 100 year old terms that i don't think can be accurately applied to someone writing 2,000 years ago.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 11:20 AM   #159
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



"engaged in the acivity." what does that mean? are you reducing homosexuality to sheer buggery? is your heterosexuality only about intercourse?

at the end of the day, we're kind of missing the point here -- "gay" and "homosexual" are modern, 100 year old terms that i don't think can be accurately applied to someone writing 2,000 years ago.
Hello Irvine,

Ok, er... HUH???

Yes my hetrosexuality is only about intercourse or the desire to have it. Anyone's sexuality is. That is the point of defining sexuality. Of course, I am talking in terms of the meaning of the word and am not philosiphizing around it.

Now if you catagorize people by their sexuality that is another thing. I do not nor do I identify who I am by my sexuality. My sexuality is only is a part of who I am, not SOLELY who I am.

I probably shouldn't have said if Paul were gay and didn't act on his desires etc.. that was a really poor choice of words and quite misleading as to what I meant.

Let me try to put it this way. If Paul had homosexual thoughts (which I have seen NOTHING to state he has) that in itself wouldn't make him a homosexual . His acting on them would. If he acted on them and began to have desries, or further more have actual intercourse with someone of the same sex that would contradict what he taught in regards to it. Which, by the way, was 2000 years ago and not 100 when these words first entered our vocabulary.

Carrie
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 12:02 PM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic

Yes my hetrosexuality is only about intercourse or the desire to have it. Anyone's sexuality is. That is the point of defining sexuality. Of course, I am talking in terms of the meaning of the word and am not philosiphizing around it.

Now if you catagorize people by their sexuality that is another thing. I do not nor do I identify who I am by my sexuality. My sexuality is only is a part of who I am, not SOLELY who I am.

I probably shouldn't have said if Paul were gay and didn't act on his desires etc.. that was a really poor choice of words and quite misleading as to what I meant.

Let me try to put it this way. If Paul had homosexual thoughts (which I have seen NOTHING to state he has) that in itself wouldn't make him a homosexual . His acting on them would. If he acted on them and began to have desries, or further more have actual intercourse with someone of the same sex that would contradict what he taught in regards to it. Which, by the way, was 2000 years ago and not 100 when these words first entered our vocabulary.
welll i feel bad for you then. while the root of my sexuality is who i find sexually attractive, it's a much more multi-dimensional thing for me. how you relate to diffrent genders, how capable you are of being vulnerable and loving and open and intimate. that's all tied to my sexuality.

you've also misunderstood what homosexuality is. if you have sexual thoughts and a desire to be physically intimate with and create romantic relationships, this makes you a homosexual. it is something you are, it is not something you do.

finally, you really need to understand that the word "gay" and likewise "homosexual" emerged around the time of the trial of Oscar Wilde -- that was when the "love that dare not speak it's name" was given a face (and a very, very witty spokesman). what passes as modern "gay" life these days did not exist 2000 years ago. what would Jesus or Paul have said to a boring homosexual couple who live in the suburbs, are very much in love, and have been together for 15 years? is it sinful because they have intercourse, as any straight couple would? garbage. love is love, and since homosexuality is as natural and involuntary as heterosexuality, it's flabbergasting when heterosexuals tell homosexuals "just don't act on it" as if it were alcoholism or kleptomania. yes, let's deny people love and relationships, that's surely the Christian thing to do.

it's attitudes like the one above that are, fairly or not, at the root of the Christian stereotype/caricature you objected to earlier -- where you ignore modernity and focus on a few sentences in the bible to understand the world.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 12:35 PM   #161
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


welll i feel bad for you then. while the root of my sexuality is who i find sexually attractive, it's a much more multi-dimensional thing for me. how you relate to diffrent genders, how capable you are of being vulnerable and loving and open and intimate. that's all tied to my sexuality.

you've also misunderstood what homosexuality is. if you have sexual thoughts and a desire to be physically intimate with and create romantic relationships, this makes you a homosexual. it is something you are, it is not something you do.

finally, you really need to understand that the word "gay" and likewise "homosexual" emerged around the time of the trial of Oscar Wilde -- that was when the "love that dare not speak it's name" was given a face (and a very, very witty spokesman). what passes as modern "gay" life these days did not exist 2000 years ago. what would Jesus or Paul have said to a boring homosexual couple who live in the suburbs, are very much in love, and have been together for 15 years? is it sinful because they have intercourse, as any straight couple would? garbage. love is love, and since homosexuality is as natural and involuntary as heterosexuality, it's flabbergasting when heterosexuals tell homosexuals "just don't act on it" as if it were alcoholism or kleptomania. yes, let's deny people love and relationships, that's surely the Christian thing to do.

it's attitudes like the one above that are, fairly or not, at the root of the Christian stereotype/caricature you objected to earlier -- where you ignore modernity and focus on a few sentences in the bible to understand the world.
Yeh I figured you were philosiphizing around the word as opposed to really speaking of terms of what exactly defines sexuality. In terms of intamcy and how I relate to someone that is more in line with my sensuality.

Sensuality and sexuality are two entirely different things. Sexuality is who you get it on with, sensuality is the manner in which it is done. That is how I see it. As far as how I relate to other genders that has nothing to do with sexuality either. That is to do with who I am as a person (which is an emotional human being with a mind and a heart) and not who I am in my bedroom.

Homosexuality by definition is having desires towards the people of the same sex and furthermore having intercourse with said people based on those desires. Toughts are one thing. A thought occurrs in your mind but letting the grow into desires is a totally different thing.

I really don't need a lesson in etomology Irvine. Furthermore, I am well aware of what occurred during the time of Oscar Wilde seeing as how he is one of my all time favorite playwrights.

Modern gay life as it is today didn't exist 50 years ago much less 2000. It still does not change the relevance of what was written in regards to it. Look if you don't want to believe what it says in the Bible in relation to that, hey man that is up to you. But don't deny what it is saying.

And finally its not my definition of sexuality, it is any standard English dictionary's. I am sure you have one lying around seeing as how you seem to be so well-versed in word origins.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 12:55 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


For me it does. Hypothetically it would be very liberating for me if I were Gay to know that one of the church founders were gay.

That was really the point of the thread.
Okay, but if you take Paul's words from 1 Cor 11 where, after running down the infamous list of those who would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, he says, "such *were* some of you," then -- if you accept the hypothesis that Paul was gay -- wouldn't it better to classify Paul as ex-Gay? That is, someone whose identity was transformed due to his relationship with Christ?

It's also pretty clear from Paul's own writings that he had chosen the celibate life -- as he says elsewhere when exhorting people to say single for service to God, "I wish you all were as I am -- but it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

So I'm not sure where the debate over Paul's sexuality doesn't take you back to the same place in the end.
__________________
nathan1977 is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 01:40 PM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:31 PM
If you believe that someone can become ex-gay I suppose. Paul didn't say that he had though. Chosing a life of celibacy does not demonstrate becoming ex-anything.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 02:16 PM   #164
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic



Modern gay life as it is today didn't exist 50 years ago much less 2000. It still does not change the relevance of what was written in regards to it. Look if you don't want to believe what it says in the Bible in relation to that, hey man that is up to you. But don't deny what it is saying.
What do you mean exactly by modern gay life? That there weren't homosexuals 50 years ago or that they just weren't out of the closet and on TV?

Oh and I love how you hold the authority of scripture interpretation. That's lovely .
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 02:54 PM   #165
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic
Sensuality and sexuality are two entirely different things. Sexuality is who you get it on with, sensuality is the manner in which it is done. That is how I see it. As far as how I relate to other genders that has nothing to do with sexuality either. That is to do with who I am as a person (which is an emotional human being with a mind and a heart) and not who I am in my bedroom.

Homosexuality by definition is having desires towards the people of the same sex and furthermore having intercourse with said people based on those desires. Toughts are one thing. A thought occurrs in your mind but letting the grow into desires is a totally different thing.

I really don't need a lesson in etomology Irvine. Furthermore, I am well aware of what occurred during the time of Oscar Wilde seeing as how he is one of my all time favorite playwrights.

Modern gay life as it is today didn't exist 50 years ago much less 2000. It still does not change the relevance of what was written in regards to it. Look if you don't want to believe what it says in the Bible in relation to that, hey man that is up to you. But don't deny what it is saying.

And finally its not my definition of sexuality, it is any standard English dictionary's. I am sure you have one lying around seeing as how you seem to be so well-versed in word origins.

well, based upon the above, you evidently do need a lesson in understanding personal, social and political contexts of words, which is the definition of ETYMOLOGY: The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.

i understand it's much easier to reduce people into "acts" when presented with a reality that doesn't lend itslef into tidy little boxes and easy labels. however, sexuality, to most people, is a multidiemsnional thing, it is not simply about who i get off with. sex is a very sensual experience, so it makes further sense that you can't extricate one from the other; you may have a sensual experience that isn't sexual, but it's hard to have a sexual experience that isn't sensual. certainly, sex is a large part of any adult relationship, but it stands to reason that you love those with whom you are physically intimate in a way totally unique from even the most profound of friends.

now, let's leave aside the demeaning reduction of homosexuality to a sexual act. you claim, and it does seem textually substantiated in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin -- it's something bad that a person freely chooses to do, like, say, steal. the question begged, of course, is why same-gender sexual acts are wrong in the first place. in the case of, say, kleptomania it's a no-brainer: someone else is injured directly by your actions; they're robbed. but, in the case of homosexual acts, where two consenting adults are engaged in a private activity, no one is injured. the opposite: someone, often an outcast, a historically despised minority, is loved.

"just say no to acting on your thoughts," appears to be the Church's message. so what is a homosexual to do? must i live denied, because of something i cannot change, a unitive sexual act? i cannot love a woman in the way that i can love a man. would you have me excluded from a loving relationship -- for no fault of my own -- and doomed to a loveless life as a result? no one should be singled out and stigmatized for something he cannot change, especially if that something is already a source of pain and struggle. how Christian.

finally, your "modern gay life" thing. how quaint. homosexuals have been around forever. men have loved men, men have fucked men (and same with women) forever (since you seem preoccupied with copulation as central to the identity of a homosexual). what is new is that homosexuals can now live lives of dignity and respect because society has changed. it is understood that homosexuality isn't an illness, isn't an uncontrolable impulse that flows from "thoughts," but utterly involuntary, natural, and as central to an individual's understanding of himself and the world as the heterosexual's sense of being heterosexual.

what we are all arguing is that since a modern understanding of homosexual came about 100 years ago, Paul could not have been talking about what i've spend several paragraphs elucidating. i'm fully willing to forgive Paul's (and The Bible's) ignorance on this matter.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com