joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
Brilliant.
Sullivan is one brilliant man.
Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- 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.
Brilliant.
Sullivan is one brilliant man.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
sullivan can be maddening -- he just *loves* the Iraq war, and there's something a little weird about a conservative, libertarian, Englishman being the annointed voice of gay America -- but he's a real thinker, and is my second favorite Brit-in-DC after Hitchens, and believe me i've seen both men at bars. one day, i'm going to produce a talk show with the two men as hosts, and they'll get to drink the whole time. i can just see the insults -- "Hitch, you drunken sod!" "Andrew, you overweight queen!"
i'm telling you, it'll be great.
on a more serious note, i can post the whole thing, but it is substantial. if there are any requests, i'll do so.
or you can google "Andrew Sullivan" "we are all sodomites now" and you should be able to pull it up.
i'm telling you, it'll be great.
on a more serious note, i can post the whole thing, but it is substantial. if there are any requests, i'll do so.
or you can google "Andrew Sullivan" "we are all sodomites now" and you should be able to pull it up.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
Oh, believe me, I find Sullivan maddening, too, as is Hitchens. But they're both still brilliant thinkers. I've met Hitchens and seen him shitfaced onstage. He seems to have gone off the deep end lately and his muckraking gets tiresome. But Sullivan always makes me think and even when I disagree with him, it's obvious he's sincere and has put great thought into it. He's an independent thinker and that's what I like about him.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
joyfulgirl said:
ditto. sullivan's blog is fascinating, because you can watch him work out issues over the course of a week. i disagree with him a good 50% of the time, and there's an element of careerism to his skillful positioning of himself as a "gay conservative" -- but i find this applies less now than 10 years ago when he was making a name for himself.
i also hear fun gossip about him. but that's for another time.
but would you watch my talk show? Hitch vs. Sully.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
With popcorn!!!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
joyfulgirl said:
three parts Jack, one part Coke for me.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
Well in that case, I'm lightin' up a fatty.
Ahem! Okay, back on track. Now, about that gay apostle...
speedracer
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,604
Paul spent his entire life studying the law, being a missionary and getting thrown into jail. Probably he just didn't get to talk to women much.
Dreadsox said:
Hiya Dread,
In reponse to your earlier post.. no thank you for the fine debate. Very enjoyable and challanging.
I do not see Romans 1 showing how God "turned people gay". It says as a result of the corruption in a society, and the people in said society rejecting the truth of God that He then gave them over to their shameful lusts etc. That latter being the product of the former.
This is not unlike what happened in Sodom. Because of the gross corruption of that society it led to numerous sins. I thought I said that when I said that the actions were manifested as a result of the corruption of the society within Sodom.
The specific actions that are written about are that of them wanting to have sex with the angels who visited Lot. Because of that, the definition of sodomy was born. I don't believe that Sodom was destroyed simply because of the homosexual population which resided there. It runs much deeper than that.
It creeps me out that Lot offered up his daughters in place of these angels visting him. I do not see however how God viewed that favorably. I think that Lot and his family being spared had more to do with Lot being related to Abraham then it did with his being holy and pure. It says that "God remembered Abraham" and brought Lot out safely. I do not think Lot is what anyone would deem a "patriarch of the faith". The story of Lot has more to do with the city in which he lived than it does with Lot himself.
Are far as Lot's freaky-deaky daughters, their reasoning was they could protect the family line by getting pregnant by their father. (Can I get an EWWWWW?!) The first night the eldest daughter got him liquored up to the point of where he didn't know what was happening and then proceeded to you know... well. The next day this daughter told the youngest daughter what she had done and suggested she do the same. Same thing happened.
It is written in a very matter of fact way. His daughters got him liquored up, banged him, (two nights in a row, no less) and Lot was none the wiser. In this passage there is n mention of any due penality they recieved for this sin, however I am going to say I think, (THINK) don't know for sure, that there is some reference to this elsewhere in the Bible and what they did, is not viewed too favorably. I really don't know though and I'm too tired to look it up at present LOL.
I really hope your migraine subsides. I feel for you. I get one eyeball headache each month, I think you can figure out why, and it is not a pretty scene. I am fortunate however, in that all I need is a verrrrrrry cold rag and verrrrrry dark room and complete silence for half an hour (no more and not a minute less).
Again here's to feeling better soon and I look forward to more of your wonderful and challanging posts.
Carrie
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'll take your word for it, although I did find this kind of stuff a little over the top:BonoVoxSupastar said:
I haven't made any personal cheap shots to you or anyone else in here. If you can prove me wrong then please do so and I will openly apologize. I will debate hard with someone, I will pull off the gloves sometimes, but never will I attack someone. And I will debate someone even harder when they hold a weak argument. For this is something that truly bothers me, I have seen people jump through hoops show you post after post of information and facts and you reduce everything they say to an emotional argument. You'll ignore everything this person tells you. That is not how you debate and yes I will call you out on it, but this is not a personal attack.
I have much respect for many people who do not share my opinion in here. I never have called anyone or even hinted to the idea that anyone in here was heartless, mindless, or soulless.
I have also never used the word redneck and never have I called an individual a homophobe for that matter.
I'm sorry if you see my calling a person out on a weak argument as a personal attack. Yes I can get very passionate about that, but never will I call names or dismiss someone's opinion just because it doesn't match mine.
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl
I feel sorry for her loss and am grateful of her sons sacrifice. But, this woman's a loony. This letter wasn't written immediately after his death, it was 7 months after so the woman had a long time to think about it. She throws out these conspiracy theories, which don't help her cause. I just want to know what her son really thought of the war...I mean, he signed up of his own free will and was possibly very proud that he might be doing something to be proud of. Talk about demeaning her sons sacrifice. She would find much more peace of mind if she opened her mind a bit to see the good that her son might have helped to accomplish in Iraq(Women's rights, free elections..ect).
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Who are you to judge if she's demeaning her son's sacrifice or not. One can argue that she's his mother and probably has a better insight to what his experience was than someone who's at it from a completely partisan manner. Unless you've talked to him and knew where he stood on this war I'd leave it up to those who knew him. So maybe if you opened you mind a little.
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl
Who am I to judge? Maybe she (the mother) doesn't know jack shit about what her son felt about the war and about the things the U.S. is trying to accomplish in Iraq? No offense, but mothers aren't generally the best for "insight to what his experience was." Mothers, as I know from experience, judge from an emotional standpoint. I served in Iraq for a year (got back in June) and my mother really didn't know what I was doing there...she just knew she wanted me home and well.
"So maybe if you opened you mind a little"....well, maybe open your mind to the fact that maybe this mother is using her sons death in a way her son might not approve of. Like I said before: if she wasn't using conspiracy theories and partisan B.S. to try to make her point, I might take it a bit more seriously. Is there PROOF her son disapproved of the war and felt that if he died he would have died for nothing????
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You have no idea what conversations went on between mother and son. Believe it on not there are soldiers fighting in Iraq who don't believe in this war. So it sounds like you're the emotional and partisan one. We know where you stand, but you don't know where the son stood, so until you know for sure don't speak or judge on his behalf because it's just sickening.
And then of course, there was this:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The reason I discuss this issue often is to get a different perspective. I believe very strongly that you don't know your own views until you hear everyone else's. I'm not trying to shove an agenda down anyone's throat, I'm trying to ask realistic, valid questions.
Originally posted by BonoVoxSuperstar
You speak one way yet you act the other. You've avoided almost all questions asked of you. People have shown you facts and you accuse them of being charged only of their feelings, and you simply haven't shown any reason why homosexuals should be changed except for your interpretations of the Bible, which you admit may or may not be human doctrine. You can understand why people are upset with you. You say you have no agenda and speak very innocently about wanting the other perspective but you have dismissed almost everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Even when they have facts and life experience that you don't pocess. So instead of preaching to everyone to open their minds maybe you should step back read everything everyone has said, and try to use your own advice to form your own educated opinion.
Probably not everyone is going to say you were giving ImOuttaControl a personal attack, but he did have a firsthand experience in Iraq, which I appreciate his service regardless of who's running the show in DC. I would say he has a valid reason to get tired of the people who claim we're out there dying in vain. Sure, some troops might not like the war - or the president - one bit, but I can't thank them enough for having the balls to serve their country.
No, I've never heard you call anyone names, I respect that, but it seems that any debate can be emotional and partisan, especially the one I just posted. Also, please explain exactly what my "agenda" is. Is my opinion my agenda? People get upset with me because they don't agree with me, and then when I ask them for a factual opinion, they don't always have one. Therefore, I don't add much value to a factless opinion. Why shouldn't I consider it a jump to conclusions? Again, I apologize if I singled you out, but I didn't know how else to tell you. Your style is pretty hot-tempered at times, I just want to inform you of that, and that I'm not necessarily used to that type of style.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
I stand by everything I said in those posts. You may see that as harsh but when people speak for people they don't know(no matter what their experience), or they completely ignore all the very thoughtout factual evidence given then I call them out on it.
Your agenda? You often ignore and avoid questions, I'm not the only one that sees this. You avoid so that the other side doesn't get explored, yet you say you want to be exposed to all sides.
Look I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. You've made this too personal. I'm not the only one that sees this, but I may be the only one that calls you out on it. So be it. Like I said yes I will get what you called "hot tempered" but not because they don't have the same view as me, but because they won't truly debate the topic.
Look I appreciate what you bring to this forum when you don't play your games. So please stick with it, just don't ignore the questions and don't make it too personal.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
After 17 pages of debate, I still come up with the same feeling I did when I first saw the thread title...that's it entirely possible that he was. No person can state unequivocally whether Paul was gay or not, simply because no person will ever know.
It's a fascinating discussion however, in part because it got me thinking about how each person interprets literature, including religious texts. I think, just as a good song has as many meanings as individuals who hear it, good books (even THE "Good Book") has as many meanings as readers. Each person sees everything through a different filter, and so something such as the Bible has as many different meaning as readers.
....well...I thought it was interesting anyway.
Now that my brain has exploded, I'm going to bed.
It's a fascinating discussion however, in part because it got me thinking about how each person interprets literature, including religious texts. I think, just as a good song has as many meanings as individuals who hear it, good books (even THE "Good Book") has as many meanings as readers. Each person sees everything through a different filter, and so something such as the Bible has as many different meaning as readers.
....well...I thought it was interesting anyway.
Now that my brain has exploded, I'm going to bed.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
why is there so many pages on what can only be speculation, yet no one can answer my questions?
im feeling neglected.
woe.
im feeling neglected.
woe.
blueyedpoet
Refugee
wow....i for so long avoided this thread because it seemed like something i didn't want to deal with..."who cares if paul was gay?" was my dreaded question. dread, i've noticed you are asking a lot of interesting questions lately...keep it up.
this thread has been fascinating to sift through. i felt a lot of geniune love for your neighbor in this, and tempers have been pretty cool.
anyways, can i through a loop out there? most scholars believe that most of the writings attributed to Paul did not actually come from Paul. I can get the list from my best friend of which are believed to have been penned by Paul and which are not likely paul's. (Along same lines, Peter probably did not write all three "essays." One is in formal greek, another in sloppy and another in an entirely different language that i cannot think of right now...or something like that)
I find it fascinating that many american christians think that their stance is liberal. My grandpa was a chaplain with the southern baptist church in california but retired because they would not allow women to be chaplains if they had to preach. he thinks that he is progressive. some christians i have met belive they're more liberal because they believe in the love the sinner, hate the sin attitude in regards to homosexuality. and of course i think i'm liberal because i'm a PK who doesn't attend church, doesn't call himself a christian, believes homosexuality is genetic to a large degree, voted against Bush, believes in socialism etc.
One last thought, i was watching a program and someone said something that felt like a slap in the face. i realized how ignorant i am. this guy was talking about his friends responding to his "coming-out." they kept asking, "so when did you know?" and he said something like, "it was so strange, i kept asking them, so when did you know you were straight?"
Ooh, i thought of something else to add.
If you look over the course of history you notice that whenever a population has struggled, stringent sexual laws are put into effect. this kind of thing happens with animal populations when they are barely surviving. but once a population becomes successful, same-sex relationships become more prevalent. it seems that it is instinctual for animals to derprive themselves of their normal sexual desires for the benefit of society or the population when needed.
May i also add that homosexuality isn't just about sex, no more than my heterosexuality is just about sex. I find that I can only intimately and romantically love a woman.
this thread has been fascinating to sift through. i felt a lot of geniune love for your neighbor in this, and tempers have been pretty cool.
anyways, can i through a loop out there? most scholars believe that most of the writings attributed to Paul did not actually come from Paul. I can get the list from my best friend of which are believed to have been penned by Paul and which are not likely paul's. (Along same lines, Peter probably did not write all three "essays." One is in formal greek, another in sloppy and another in an entirely different language that i cannot think of right now...or something like that)
I find it fascinating that many american christians think that their stance is liberal. My grandpa was a chaplain with the southern baptist church in california but retired because they would not allow women to be chaplains if they had to preach. he thinks that he is progressive. some christians i have met belive they're more liberal because they believe in the love the sinner, hate the sin attitude in regards to homosexuality. and of course i think i'm liberal because i'm a PK who doesn't attend church, doesn't call himself a christian, believes homosexuality is genetic to a large degree, voted against Bush, believes in socialism etc.
One last thought, i was watching a program and someone said something that felt like a slap in the face. i realized how ignorant i am. this guy was talking about his friends responding to his "coming-out." they kept asking, "so when did you know?" and he said something like, "it was so strange, i kept asking them, so when did you know you were straight?"
Ooh, i thought of something else to add.
If you look over the course of history you notice that whenever a population has struggled, stringent sexual laws are put into effect. this kind of thing happens with animal populations when they are barely surviving. but once a population becomes successful, same-sex relationships become more prevalent. it seems that it is instinctual for animals to derprive themselves of their normal sexual desires for the benefit of society or the population when needed.
May i also add that homosexuality isn't just about sex, no more than my heterosexuality is just about sex. I find that I can only intimately and romantically love a woman.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
blueyedpoet said:
bra-VO!
this is what i've been saying for so long, and is so fundamental to why homosexuality cannot be a sin. it's not an act, its an inextricable part of one's identity. of course, if you must "hate the sin and love the sinner," or you simply want to justify your own prejudices, it's much easier to reduce people to the definition of that single, defining characteristic that makes them different from you. i feel fully confident that, were Jesus alive today, he'd bless gay marriages and unions as much as he would bless straight ones, provided both unions share the same blueprints of love, intimacy, trust, and companionship.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
blueyedpoet said:
It's a good question. It's not like there was ever a day, a moment, a eureka...well, I guess there could be a eureka...but for most of us, straight and gay, I think it just always was/is.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
Exactly. Back in the early 80's I remember that whenever one of my gay friends was seeing someone, everyone would refer to that person as their 'lover.' It really irritated me because it reduced the relationship to sex. Occasionally I hear someone refer to their hetero partner as their lover, but it used to be a term used almost exclusively to refer to someone's gay or lesbian partner. Not that I am crazy about the word 'partner' either since it sounds like business relationship.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Dreadsox said:
Sorry Dread dear. It is in the 'Is it starting' thread.
I'm not going to give up until someone finally gives dimension to their beliefs.
Similar threads
