Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????

[nathan1977]

I know there are some theologians that almost dismiss Paul all together. His lack of detail about Jesus' life like most of the other books, his miracles, his parables, etc. His writings don't line up with most of the others and there are major details missing that many don't find Paul to be a reliable source whatsoever.

But was Paul's job to provide a biography of Jesus, or was Paul's calling to interpret Jesus' significance in history? The one is not like the other. If I'm writing a missive on Bill Clinton's foreign policies, I'm not going to waste time talking about Bill's childhood.

 

[Dreadsox]

According to St. Paul women should not be allowed to speak in the church.

How is this a distortion of scripture being used to keep woman from being ordained?

I will concede the segregation issue.

But clearly Spong is in the excerpt, making the point that Paul's words set a tradition for women in the church, yet we have come through as believers willing to look at that scripture and decide it not to be valid. Women are preachers, and priests.

If we are to look at Paul and say, he was writing a a different time and his views of women are outdated, why then is it BS for Bishop Spong to examine homosexuality, where two people LOVE each other and are not promisuously running around like tramps, as outdated?

 

[nathan1977]

the idea of "disagreeing" with homosexuality is intellectually undefensible. it's like "disagreeing" with being left handed. homosexuals are, they always have been, and always will be. and, i would argue, the basis of "disagreement" come from a history of discrimination and willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation based upon an arbitrary -- i.e., religious -- basis.

Okay, but as queer/transgendered students at college used to remind me, homosexuality cannot be divorced from its activity, for the very definition of a homosexual person is someone who engages in homosexual activity. So if I believe homosexual activity is harmful and self-destructive, I must also be then said to disagree with homosexuality, mustn't I?

The question remains the same. If I disagree with homosexual activity, can I do so without fearing it?

This is all a bit off-topic. It is, however, related to a different thread rumbling around here somewhere...the fellow who wrote the article in Christianity Today, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[jer2911]

The statement was:



That is misleading at best. The verses cited regarding homosexuality used to maintain segregation? Spong's statement, without support, is reckless.


But, yes, people misuse Scripture. And issues like segregation run contrary to Scripture

Nbcrusader.......I really enjoy your posts. Very insightful (and I'm not being sarcastic). Go Trojans !!!

 

[Irvine511]

Okay, but as queer/transgendered students at college used to remind me, homosexuality cannot be divorced from its activity, for the very definition of a homosexual person is someone who engages in homosexual activity. So if I believe homosexual activity is harmful and self-destructive, I must also be then said to disagree with homosexuality, mustn't I?

The question remains the same. If I disagree with homosexual activity, can I do so without fearing it?

This is all a bit off-topic. It is, however, related to a different thread rumbling around here somewhere...the fellow who wrote the article in Christianity Today, if I'm not mistaken.

what is the basis of your stated belief that homosexual activity is harmful and self-destructive?

i'm going to leave aside the fact that you've reduced what homosexuals do down to a single sexual act, and let you respond.

while your friends are right, part of being homosexual is engaging in homosexual "acts," that's a very flat, almost dehumanizing standard upon which to base membership in a particular group. is your (i assume) heterosexuality predicated only upon sex? or are you attracted to the opposite sex for a variety of interpersonal reasons that enable you to create a relationship different from your platonic, same-sex friends?

 

[Dreadsox]

I would recommend When Harry Met Sally. It sums up platonic relationships nicely.

If we look at the Roman Culture that Paul was living in, at the time, the behavior of the Romans was scary. Look at what the emporers were doing. My goodness I would expect Paul to be writing what he wrote. The Emporers as my target example here, Nero and Caligula, were not exactly engaging in the act of sex in what I would call a healty way. Certainly not the kind of loving relationship that grows with intimacy. Wouldn't you expect Paul to react that way towards the act of homosexual sex.

My point, Paul was not confronted with where we are today, people who love each other and want to engage in the marriage contract of a commited relationship. As many have pointed out, there was not a word that meant homosexual in the language at the time. Do you think the concept of gay marriage was even thought of? There is absolutely no frame of reference for the writings to even come close to facing this concept.

Finally, if the homosexual population has been fighting to escape the stigma of the culture of promiscuity shouldn't we as a society embrace a way from them to do this. By recognizing gay marriage. For me what is the bigger problem, people having multiple partners, or people in commited relationships. Not that marriage stops someone from being promiscuous, but where in history have there been homosexual role models on healthy relationships.

How can we take Paul's words, written at a completely different cultural time, and use them to make this judgement?

 

[coemgen]

Irvine511, you're right — people are more than their sexual identity and this is something some Christians have a problem understanding. Those of us who are Christians are coming from the perspective of the Bible, which clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Even Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It's in Romans too — 1:18-32. Even the old testament says it's wrong. Now, I've read a lot of your statements and I see where you're coming from. And this whole issue is a mystery and all of this debate is healthy. Those of us who are Christians are simply using the Bible as our foundation for this. I'm more willing to go with what the Bible says (of course, always humbly seeking its truth, and not a crappy interpretation of it) than anything else. I know that sounds dangerous to you, but if it is God's word, inspired by our creator himself, I'm willing to trust what he says on certain issues. Nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong! It's that simple. To get back to the original point of the thread. I doubt Paul was gay, I think that's someone reading into it too much. Having said that, if it were true, it would just add to the power of the Gospel and add to the point that homosexuality is a sin. Paul himself said this! The thing to always remember is that God loves homosexuals as much as the rest of us and he wants them to stop sinning like he wants us all to — so we can live the life he intended us to live.

 

[nathan1977]

what is the basis of your stated belief that homosexual activity is harmful and self-destructive?

Holding the hand of a friend who is dying of AIDS who knows that he got it from living a wild life that he loved when he was in it, but regretted later. Statistically speaking, gay men are still the dominant "at-risk" group in America for AIDS -- and after years in the 90s when the number decreased due to medications, that number is on the rise again. This I am sure you know.

while your friends are right, part of being homosexual is engaging in homosexual "acts," that's a very flat, almost dehumanizing standard upon which to base membership in a particular group.

That may be, but it's the standard they identify, and they are not alone amongst queer culture. Granted, while the sample of a radical queer campus group on one of the country's most radical colleges is not a representative sample, there is at least a minority in queer thinking that identifies sexual activity as the driving force of identity.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Those of us who are Christians are coming from the perspective of the Bible, which clearly states homosexuality is a sin.[/Q]

By this statement can it be inferred that because I believe homosexuals can be in a monogomous loving healthy relationship that I am not a Christian?

 

[Dreadsox]

Please tell me we do not still believe that AIDS is a GAY disease?

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong! It's that simple. [/Q]

Depends, if you take it literally, absulutely things can be proven wrong.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Those of us who are Christians are coming from the perspective of the Bible, which clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Even Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It's in Romans too — 1:18-32. [/Q]

It most certainly did not use the words you use...it was in Greek,

 

[coemgen]

Dreadsox, i respect you tremendously, but to say the Bible is out of touch, therefore we should allow gay marriage is kind of a weak argument. Maybe a single word for homosexuality didn't exist at the time, but so what! It's obvious a concept or phrase or something did becuase it's in the Bible mutliple times, said differently. The phrase "A man should not lie with another man, it is an abomination." Is pretty freaking clear to me. To say that means something other than homosexuality is a sin is ridiculous. And of course gay marriage wasn't though of, any form of sexual sin completely goes against the concept of marriage. The Bible's clear about this too!

 

[Dreadsox]

SO women should not be allowed to speak in church?

Because clearly, as a Christian who believes in the in the Bible, Paul makes reference to this. Since all Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and everything in it must be followed.

 

[coemgen]

You're right it was in Greek. And your point is?

 

[Dreadsox]

It all depends on the translation doesn't it. Is there a greek word for homosexuality at Paul's time?

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine511, you're right — people are more than their sexual identity and this is something some Christians have a problem understanding. Those of us who are Christians are coming from the perspective of the Bible, which clearly states homosexuality is a sin. Even Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It's in Romans too — 1:18-32. Even the old testament says it's wrong. Now, I've read a lot of your statements and I see where you're coming from. And this whole issue is a mystery and all of this debate is healthy. Those of us who are Christians are simply using the Bible as our foundation for this. I'm more willing to go with what the Bible says (of course, always humbly seeking its truth, and not a crappy interpretation of it) than anything else. I know that sounds dangerous to you, but if it is God's word, inspired by our creator himself, I'm willing to trust what he says on certain issues. Nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong! It's that simple.

i fully understand that there are Christians who don't hate and often feel conflicted between what they know to be true -- homosexuals are people, too -- and what they both read in the bible and are told by their clergy and other Christians. i can understand that's sometimes difficult to navigate. you are also very respectful, and i appreicate that, and hope you feel i extend the same respect back to you.

my response would be twofold:

1. a religious conviction is one thing, but to use that as the basis to deny anyone civil rights is a whole other matter -- not at all implying that you do this or support politicans that do, but this is a very real issue in contemporary America.

2. i cannot accept any literal interpreations of the bible, and think it's intellectually bogus for anyone to do so -- this is my personal belief, and it's based on majoring in literature and doing a fair bit of creative writing and understanding both the importance of the cultural/historical context of writing, as well as viewing first-hand what can be read into writing above and beyond the author's intent. to say that the Bible, written by men, is the only piece of writing, ever, to be immune from these influences doesn't hold water either. to say the bible has never been proven wrong ... i don't know how to respond to that. that statement doesn't mean anything to me -- could you explain further? maybe the Bible hasn't been proven "wrong," but it has been used as the justification for a host of horrible behavior. i do know, however, that if your eyes and ears and thoughts show you things that directly contradict what is in the bible -- i.e., knowing gay people, watching gay relationships, and seeing that the basis of any long-term gay relationship is the same at the base of a heterosexual relationship, which is to say love, trust, and respect -- how could you then use the Bible as your guide, and not what you see living and breathing in front of you?

 

[coemgen]

It wasn't considered a sin for a woman to speak in church! The woman not speaking in church is more of a cultural thing at the time. You have to understand the context of Paul's letter. He was writing to the church at Corinth, which had a lot of problems. You could say he was speaking to the church. Some of the Bible pertained to events of the time, others, are relevant to today. On the same hand, to say the Bible's view on homosexulaity are "outdated" or "irrelevant" to today is wrong as well. It's clearly listed as a sin. There's no way around that, I'm sorry. There's no way to misinterpret that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox, i respect you tremendously, but to say the Bible is out of touch, therefore we should allow gay marriage is kind of a weak argument. Maybe a single word for homosexuality didn't exist at the time, but so what! It's obvious a concept or phrase or something did becuase it's in the Bible mutliple times, said differently. The phrase "A man should not lie with another man, it is an abomination." Is pretty freaking clear to me. To say that means something other than homosexuality is a sin is ridiculous. And of course gay marriage wasn't though of, any form of sexual sin completely goes against the concept of marriage. The Bible's clear about this too!

No I am saying that Paul was a man of the law living in a society DRASTICALLY different from hours. A society in which the powers in authority thought nothing of having sex with multiple partners. A society in which rape of male slaves was prominenet. A society in which I would expect every Christian to be opposed to.


Gay marriage goes against YOUR concept of marriage. Please, show where Gay marriage is mentioned in your Bible, since clearly it is not clear to me.

 

[Dreadsox]

It wasn't considered a sin for a woman to speak in church! The woman not speaking in church is more of a cultural thing at the time. You have to understand the context of Paul's letter. He was writing to the church at Corinth, which had a lot of problems. You could say he was speaking to the church. Some of the Bible pertained to events of the time, others, are relevant to today. On the same hand, to say the Bible's view on homosexulaity are "outdated" or "irrelevant" to today is wrong as well. It's clearly listed as a sin. There's no way around that, I'm sorry. There's no way to misinterpret that.

So? Why is it acceptable for you to consider the cultural problems at the church, but not for a homosexual to consider the culture in which Paul was writing?

You have proved my point, you are subjectively allowing for cultural bias in this case but not the other case.

 

[Irvine511]

Holding the hand of a friend who is dying of AIDS who knows that he got it from living a wild life that he loved when he was in it, but regretted later. Statistically speaking, gay men are still the dominant "at-risk" group in America for AIDS -- and after years in the 90s when the number decreased due to medications, that number is on the rise again. This I am sure you know.

That may be, but it's the standard they identify, and they are not alone amongst queer culture. Granted, while the sample of a radical queer campus group on one of the country's most radical colleges is not a representative sample, there is at least a minority in queer thinking that identifies sexual activity as the driving force of identity.

wow. let's get one thing clear: AIDS is no longer a gay disease.

in Africa, India, and Russia, it is a predominantly heteroseuxal disease, and in Russia especially it has more to do with needle-sharing than with sex. in the US, the predominant risk group are African-Americans, particularly African-American femals. the easiest way to contract the disease is through unprotected heterosexual intercourse with the male passing it to the female. to say that gay sex causes AIDS is breathtaking in it's ignorance. unprotected gay sex, and straight sex, causes infection with the HIV virus.

the number is not on the rise again. there are anecdotal rumors of "condom fatigue" and the re-emergence of syphilus amongst gay men in West Coast cities, but i am not aware that HIV infections are on the rise.

lastly, why do many gay men lead lives like your friend did? was he rejected by his family? his friends? society as a whole? sadly, i have seen much self-destructive behavior in the gay community. i would argue this comes from the fact that men -- gay and straight -- tend to be bigger risk takers than women, and what calms men down, so to speak, is having a wife and family to take care of. gay men are not really given this option. secondly, social ostricism and discriminatory legislation do much to erode one's sense of self-worth and value to society.

finally, the racial groups with the highest risk of HIV -- African American and Latino -- are also cultures that are (generally speaking) the most homophobic. there's been a phenomenon recently discussed called "the Down-Low."

make no mistake: homophobia kills.

 

[Irvine511]

So? Why is it acceptable for you to consider the cultural problems at the church, but not for a homosexual to consider the culture in which Paul was writing?

You have proved my point, you are subjectively allowing for cultural bias in this case but not the other case.

well said.

 

[nbcrusader]

So? Why is it acceptable for you to consider the cultural problems at the church, but not for a homosexual to consider the culture in which Paul was writing?

You have proved my point, you are subjectively allowing for cultural bias in this case but not the other case.

This might hold more weight if Paul's writing was the only reference on the subject.


In general, we need to be careful how we limit application of Scripture due to the practices of a culture 2000 years ago. For sake of argument, we could claim that Jesus taught us to take care of the poor because there were no government programs doing so at the time - thus it doesn't apply today.

 

[Irvine511]

This might hold more weight if Paul's writing was the only reference on the subject.


In general, we need to be careful how we limit application of Scripture due to the practices of a culture 2000 years ago. For sake of argument, we could claim that Jesus taught us to take care of the poor because there were no government programs doing so at the time - thus it doesn't apply today.

but certainly the spirit of the message still applies today?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

As far as the comment about taking care of the poor, nbc is correct. Their culture felt as if the wealthy were more favored by God until Jesus insisted that the poor are blessed.

 

[nathan1977]

wow. let's get one thing clear: AIDS is no longer a gay disease. ... the number is not on the rise again. there are anecdotal rumors of "condom fatigue" and the re-emergence of syphilus amongst gay men in West Coast cities, but i am not aware that HIV infections are on the rise.

This from AEGIS -- AIDS Education Global Information System, for those not in the know. From November 23, 2003 -- just a year ago.

A separate report finds an epidemic resurgence may be under way in the United States. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of 29 states that require the reporting of HIV diagnosis found an overall 5.1 percent increase in new diagnoses between 1999 and 2002.

More than half the new infections were among African Americans, who by 2002 had 10 times the rate of infection as whites. AIDS was listed as the third-leading cause of death for African-Americans 25 to 44 years old. And though new HIV diagnoses in African American women fell by 19 percent during the time frame, the rate in men soared.

Overall, new HIV diagnosis rates jumped 26 percent among Latinos, 8 percent among whites and 17 percent among gay men of any race.

"We have to raise the possibility that this could be indicating a regurgence of HIV in that [gay male] population," Dr. Ronald Valdeserri, the CDC's deputy director of HIV prevention, said in an interview Tuesday. The HIV findings come on the heels of a CDC report last week that syphilis climbed in 2002, for the second year in a row, with nearly half the new cases seen among gay men.

The CDC data cover 29 states, but do not include New York, California, Illinois and Washington, D.C., which have recently switched from monitoring only full-blown AIDS cases to include data on HIV infection. The four contain a large segment of the nation's gay and Latino population, so infection rates in gay men and Latinos might be steeper if data from the states were available, Valdiserri said.

==

Nowhere did I say that this is a gay disease. (Talk about a classic example of creating a rhetorical straw man.) However, I don't think it's homophobic to look at the facts and try to figure out what to do. Statistics don't lie. People engaging in homosexual activity (again, IN AMERICA, as I pointed out originally) are at a much higher health risk than the general population. To say that it's homophobic to look at the stats, is to stick ones' head in the sand.

If it is homophobic, then God help us all.

 

[nbcrusader]

No I am saying that Paul was a man of the law living in a society DRASTICALLY different from hours. A society in which the powers in authority thought nothing of having sex with multiple partners. A society in which rape of male slaves was prominenet. A society in which I would expect every Christian to be opposed to.

Really? How is this different from today?

 

[nbcrusader]

but certainly the spirit of the message still applies today?

Which message? The one to be followed or the one to disregarded?

 

[Dreadsox]

Really? How is this different from today?

President Bush is taking male or female slaves and raping them? President Bush is making captives from Iraq have sex with him?

You truly feel that the society of Rome 2000 years ago is the moral equivalent of todays society here?

I am not trying to be flippant, I just figured that there was a major difference between the culture we live in and the culture of Rome at the time Paul was writing.

 

[Dreadsox]

If it is homophobic, then God help us all.

The way you phrased it without the statistics left that door open.