Was the Apostle Paul Gay????? - Page 12 - 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 12-11-2004, 07:16 PM   #166
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 .
Modern gay life was in reference to Irvine commenting on differences of people in homosexual relationship in Paul's day versus those in modern society. He is the one that brought it up, I am the one that agreed.

Things are differnt now than 2000 years ago. Things are different now than they are 50 years ago. That is to do with the social acceptance of homosexuality. In truth I could care less if people want to do whatever they want to do. It is NONE of my business. The only reason I am even discussing this is because this thread pertains to it. It is really something of little consequence in my daily life.

BUT.... I still have the freedom to BELIEVE what is in the BIBLE. And the Bible I read states that it is wrong. And what are you on about now anyway with the "authority of scripture bit". I mean this is just too much. Do you mean how I view what is written?

So lemme get this straight, I have a view of scripture and debate it which means that I am saying I have authrotiy. You have a view of Scripture that conflicts with mine and you are doing what? You are saying what? You are saying that the way I view things is WRONG. With what AUTHORITY are you doing that?
__________________

__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 08:07 PM   #167
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic


BUT.... I still have the freedom to BELIEVE what is in the BIBLE. And the Bible I read states that it is wrong. And what are you on about now anyway with the "authority of scripture bit". I mean this is just too much. Do you mean how I view what is written?

So lemme get this straight, I have a view of scripture and debate it which means that I am saying I have authrotiy. You have a view of Scripture that conflicts with mine and you are doing what? You are saying what? You are saying that the way I view things is WRONG. With what AUTHORITY are you doing that?
You have every right to that view. I just don't appreciate you keep saying "if you don't want believe in what the Bible says..." I along with many others don't view that as God's doctrine rather it is a human doctrine that made it into the Bible. You say it as if there is no question as to the authority of these scriptures. In fact these are some of the most questionable scriptures in the Bible and have been for many many years by many theologians and interpreters.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 08:17 PM   #168
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.
Hello Irvine,

Are you reading what I say in my posts? Are you reading what you say in your posts?? I stated that sexuality and sensuality are entirely two different things. What is so difficult about understanding that? I reduced it to simplistic terms by saying, sexuality is who you get it on with and sensuality is the manner in which you do it. How can you argue that? It is true. This isn't picking apart scripture here and debating on who wrote it, and whether or not it is it relevant. These are every day words possessing clear cut meanings and you are finding a way to argue it?

Sex is not always a sensual experience, I have to say. People that are raped, would not consider it sensual. And what about the cliche of " I just wished they would get it over with". That denotes sexual experiences that are not at all sensual.

I am not the one that is reducing people to acts. I have already said that in addressing your question to me on my heterosexuality. In case you missed it, which evidentally you did, I do not identify myself or others by sexuality. That is a part of who I am but there is much much more to me than that. I will say that who I am defines my sensuality, that is for ceratin.

Furthermore, I do not classify people by what they do in their bedrooms. I don't classify people full stop. I deal with people that I encounter in my life on a one to one basis. When I meet a black woman, I do not see a group I see a person. When I meet a gay man, again, I see a person. That is just how I live my life and relate to people on a daily basis.

People have understood what homosexuality is for well over 100 years. People have viewed it as wrong, people have viewed it as right, people have viewed it as though they could care less, for hundreds of years, and this includes homosexuals in long term relationship, that is not some new "modern" thing.

But to address your question of why does it say it is wrong? I honestly don't know why other than to say, it is displeasing to God. Why is it displeasing to God? That is where one, if they are not careful, could get into stating personal opinions. All I can offer is what the Bible says Irvine. If you don't like it, I can't force you to nor would I try.

Like I said earlier, if you do not want to accept what the Bible says in regards to it, then don't. God doesn't even force people to listen to Him so who am I to try to do it? Also, who is trying to force you to love a woman if you feel you can't? Are you concerned about it being wrong because you love a man? I mean is it something that weighs heavy on your heart? Are you feeling guilty or something? If any of that is the case then I would suggest you stop arguing with people that can only provide a human understanding of it and ask God directly.

If it boils down to your just being angry about the way people view what you do then there is not much that can be done about that. I am sure there are people out there that may disapprove of what my husband and I do in our bedroom (or bathroom, or kitchen or on the washing machine....hehehehe) but it doesn't phase me in the least.

If I weren't a Christian and I lived my life in a manner that Christians saw unfit I would just say bugger off and leave it at that. But if something they said struck a chord in me and I couldn't shake it then I would address that and see where it led me.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 08:30 PM   #169
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You have every right to that view. I just don't appreciate you keep saying "if you don't want believe in what the Bible says..." I along with many others don't view that as God's doctrine rather it is a human doctrine that made it into the Bible. You say it as if there is no question as to the authority of these scriptures. In fact these are some of the most questionable scriptures in the Bible and have been for many many years by many theologians and interpreters.

Of course I say it as there is no question to the authority of these Scriptures because that is how I view it and the amount of people that do not view it as such is of no consequence to me. I mean is it supposed to change my view of it because you are on the other side of my argument saying "It's not God's word its man's"? Does my saying it is change your view? No.

So I will continue to embrace my right to view the Bible as God word and furtherstill my right to freely state my view that it is.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 09:14 PM   #170
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic



Of course I say it as there is no question to the authority of these Scriptures because that is how I view it and the amount of people that do not view it as such is of no consequence to me. I mean is it supposed to change my view of it because you are on the other side of my argument saying "It's not God's word its man's"? Does my saying it is change your view? No.

So I will continue to embrace my right to view the Bible as God word and furtherstill my right to freely state my view that it is.
Yes state it all you want. Just don't get holier than thou and tell me or anyone else they aren't following what's written in the Bible.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 09:20 PM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:27 AM
The difference between homosexual monogamy now and homosexual monogamy 100 years ago is as plain as day.

Today it is acceptable to talk about it.
Today it is possible for homosexuals to marry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boys relax now if only we could get this thread deemed a church.....

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:33b-36 NIV).

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 09:28 PM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Or maybe women should wear veils, there is biblical reference in the old testament and new that women should where veils. It is backed between the olf and new testament.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 09:34 PM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic
Are you reading what I say in my posts? Are you reading what you say in your posts?? I stated that sexuality and sensuality are entirely two different things. What is so difficult about understanding that? I reduced it to simplistic terms by saying, sexuality is who you get it on with and sensuality is the manner in which you do it. How can you argue that? It is true. This isn't picking apart scripture here and debating on who wrote it, and whether or not it is it relevant. These are every day words possessing clear cut meanings and you are finding a way to argue it? Sex is not always a sensual experience, I have to say. People that are raped, would not consider it sensual. And what about the cliche of " I just wished they would get it over with". That denotes sexual experiences that are not at all sensual. I am not the one that is reducing people to acts. I have already said that in addressing your question to me on my heterosexuality. In case you missed it, which evidentally you did, I do not identify myself or others by sexuality. That is a part of who I am but there is much much more to me than that. I will say that who I am defines my sensuality, that is for ceratin.

Furthermore, I do not classify people by what they do in their bedrooms. I don't classify people full stop. I deal with people that I encounter in my life on a one to one basis. When I meet a black woman, I do not see a group I see a person. When I meet a gay man, again, I see a person. That is just how I live my life and relate to people on a daily basis.

People have understood what homosexuality is for well over 100 years. People have viewed it as wrong, people have viewed it as right, people have viewed it as though they could care less, for hundreds of years, and this includes homosexuals in long term relationship, that is not some new "modern" thing.

But to address your question of why does it say it is wrong? I honestly don't know why other than to say, it is displeasing to God. Why is it displeasing to God? That is where one, if they are not careful, could get into stating personal opinions. All I can offer is what the Bible says Irvine. If you don't like it, I can't force you to nor would I try.

Like I said earlier, if you do not want to accept what the Bible says in regards to it, then don't. God doesn't even force people to listen to Him so who am I to try to do it? Also, who is trying to force you to love a woman if you feel you can't? Are you concerned about it being wrong because you love a man? I mean is it something that weighs heavy on your heart? Are you feeling guilty or something? If any of that is the case then I would suggest you stop arguing with people that can only provide a human understanding of it and ask God directly.

If it boils down to your just being angry about the way people view what you do then there is not much that can be done about that. I am sure there are people out there that may disapprove of what my husband and I do in our bedroom (or bathroom, or kitchen or on the washing machine....hehehehe) but it doesn't phase me in the least.

If I weren't a Christian and I lived my life in a manner that Christians saw unfit I would just say bugger off and leave it at that. But if something they said struck a chord in me and I couldn't shake it then I would address that and see where it led me.
i'll repeat: your distinction between the two is wrong. sex is by definition sensual. do you not relate to men differently than you do to women? are there not gender differences that you respond to in different ways? your rather crazy references to "rape" as a non-sensual experience, well, rape isn't sex, last time i checked, rape is a crime. it doesn't qualify as sex because it's about violence and power and control. all non-sexy things. it denotes them experiences independent of sex.

what's this "i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i" language? the rest of it is devoid of any logic. and, it doesn't matter whether or not you relate to someone as a homosexual, Indian, or handicapped person. the fact is, they are much more aware of their "difference" than you, as the member of a majority, ever would be. have you any idea the privilege you have to talk about the whole "colorblind" "people are people" attitude? that's because you dont have to live with difference, those who are different are living in a very different reality.

you only think you don't judge. those you're judging know better.
men sleeping with men has been around since there were men; men living with, buildling relationships with, and professing to be the partner of one another is a very, very new thing, and has only enjoyed social notice and, sometimes, approval in the last 10 years. it's not the length of the relationship, but the public recongition of it as worthy is something very, very new.

how do you know what God says displeases him? does he phone you regularly? and notice how you refer to me as somethiing of a petulant child who better one day understand that "father [the bible/god] knows best." but, hey, you're onto something!

again, that direct line. tell me, do you have God's cell? and, oh, you're so humble. and righteous. and that smug sanctimony that drives anyone who doesn't ascribe to your convenient sense of propriety that drives anyon who's a little bit different nuts.

you and your husband can do things 10x more deviant than anything i did last night, and you'll still get 1049 tax breaks more than i will.

yes, you do know best. come, teach me. be God's conduit.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:05 PM   #174
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Dread you rock!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:42 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:27 AM
But lets go back a bit shall we?

I Cor. 6:9-10
"... Neither the "porniea"nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor "malakoi" nor "arsenokoitai" nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I Tim. 1:9-10
"We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for male prostitutes and "arsenokoitai", for slave traders and liars and perjurers."
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:44 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Paul's views on women in the church could have been a societal thing. With that said, I don't see how he was any less of a missionary than James, unless you really think he was insane.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:49 PM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:27 AM
No way, it can't be a societal thing, it is the Word. Mans personal biases could not be a part of the Word.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 10:52 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
No way, it can't be a societal thing, it is the Word. Mans personal biases could not be a part of the Word.
You do have to decide that yourself sometimes. I doubt he was gay, I'm not convinced at all.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-11-2004, 11:04 PM   #179
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I doubt he was gay, I'm not convinced at all.
Why? Do we assume he's straight until proven otherwise? Or does God not work through gay people? I'm just asking. The theory is nothing but that, a theory. I admit there's not enough there to say he is, but there is enough there to ask.

But there's a lot there to say the shit about homosexuality being an abomination may be wrong. Dread has done a great job showing us the true facts.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-11-2004, 11:08 PM   #180
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:27 AM
Acts of John

[Q]You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment [/Q]


or the Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10

[Q](Never accept in your hand a gift which derives from unjust deeds.)
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.
Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)
Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.[/Q]

Curious that these equally old texts use the same word as Paul, but in a list of economic "sins" if I may call them that.

I wonder if it means having sex with male prostitutes.....hmmm....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

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 08:27 AM.


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