Was the Apostle Paul Gay????? - Page 4 - 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 12-08-2004, 09:06 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:00 AM
Well, you did defend what you believe, but I don't think you discredited the theory that Paul was gay as well as you think you did. I, for instance, still think it's quite credible.

And just so you know, sometimes the most extremely negative views on homosexuality came from closeted homosexuals themselves.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:14 PM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:00 AM
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. I've only recently read a few of the articles but they are very interesting. Just do a search on the internet. I'm not saying to dismiss Paul but there are some major holes...this bishop isn't the only one.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:18 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:00 AM
I would say this about Paul. Even after his conversion he seems preoccupied with making laws and rules, some of them reflecting the clear bias of the day towards women.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:23 PM   #49
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 01:00 AM
One of my issues with Paul is that he apparently had very little contact with Jesus' surviving followers, and in many cases, may have gone against what James and Peter were teaching. Possibly what Jesus might have taught, as well.

His views were extreme for the Judaism of the time, and for the early Christians. Neither side really seem to have embraced him.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:27 PM   #50
The Fly
 
pwmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: western Pennsylvania
Posts: 107
Local Time: 03:00 AM
I think this is a classic case of eisegesis: reading a meaning into a text, rather than taking the texts and letting them speak (exegesis).

It is hard to avoid the situation where you take issues and constructs of our time and read them back into the texts. Some would say it's impossible to read the texts without bringing some sort of modern assumption to them; no one is a completely blank slate.
__________________
pwmartin is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:44 PM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pwmartin
I think this is a classic case of eisegesis: reading a meaning into a text, rather than taking the texts and letting them speak (exegesis).
So are we to read everything at face value? I'm asking seriously because your post wasn't really clear.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 10:17 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:00 AM
I've heard people on the AOL Message Boards claim that Jesus was gay. I don't buy it.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 11:01 PM   #53
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,148
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Edited...
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 06:32 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
"There are those who claim that the 'clear teaching of Scripture' prohibits homosexual practice," he said. "But exactly the same verbiage was used to oppose women's ordination 20 years ago and 100 years ago to oppose the integration of black people into an all-white church."
He lost me with this statement. It is complete BS.

Instead of showing a methodology for interpretation that he may feel is flawed, he takes the cheap and easy route of lumping the groups together, in an attempt to demonize those who will include homosexual activity as sin.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 07:08 AM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu



So gay republicans are actually closet homosexuals/ homophobes?

yes, many are. there have been several high profile outings of anti-gay members of Congress this year alone -- people who run on highly contrived definitions of "family" and "values" or who base national strategy on anti-gay marriage platforms and then turn out to be gay themselves.

outing has a long and contraversial history. it started in response to the AIDS crisis, and was much more understandable then when you had a segment of the population facing mass death and a Republican administration who couldn't care less -- (as Jon Stewart said about the contraversy over The Reagans mini-series, "the contraversy was that CBS made someone utterly indifferent to the AIDS crisis look totally callous) -- outing was seen as a last means effort to get government to pay attention to a "gay disease."

it's much different now, the stakes have changed. but when you're gay and in DC, you're well up on these things.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 07:11 AM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


He lost me with this statement. It is complete BS.

Instead of showing a methodology for interpretation that he may feel is flawed, he takes the cheap and easy route of lumping the groups together, in an attempt to demonize those who will include homosexual activity as sin.
You deny that people used scripture for these causes at one time?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 07:17 AM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


He lost me with this statement. It is complete BS.

Instead of showing a methodology for interpretation that he may feel is flawed, he takes the cheap and easy route of lumping the groups together, in an attempt to demonize those who will include homosexual activity as sin.

i think it's entirely fair to demonize those who interpret homosexual activity (i've noted your distinction between "activity" and "homosexual" the noun) as a sin based upon a text that not everyone holds as sacred and then to turn around and use such beliefs as the basis for discriminatory legislation and an opportunity to further deny an already discriminated-against and often beseiged minority their civil rights.

i'm fully comfortable with that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 08:41 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You deny that people used scripture for these causes at one time?
The statement was:

Quote:
But exactly the same verbiage was used
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 is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 08:52 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 08:00 AM
> Homophobia/ against homosexuality = you're a closet case homosexual. Right. I mean this is a fact.

Homophobia - fear of homosexuality.

Isn't it possible to disagree with something without being afraid of it?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 08:55 AM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
> Homophobia/ against homosexuality = you're a closet case homosexual. Right. I mean this is a fact.

Homophobia - fear of homosexuality.

Isn't it possible to disagree with something without being afraid of it?

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.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 03:00 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