Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????

[Dreadsox]

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

Playing the Devil's advocate here my friend. Your statement leads me to believe that you might say find Old Testament Law applicable in this case?

If Old Testament Law is what you are referring to, then again, I would ask you why aren't we applying it, but choosing bits and pieces?

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

Slavery is essentially gone. But the idea of multiple sex partners of our leaders is not out of the question. Rape of "captives" happens in our prisons.

I think we would be hard pressed to suggest that we are morally superior to Rome 2000 years ago.

 

[diamond]

i don't think Abe Lincoln had sex w/another man.
i dont think Abe was Gay by any stretch of the imagination.

db9

 

[Dreadsox]

Slavery is essentially gone. But the idea of multiple sex partners of our leaders is not out of the question. Rape of "captives" happens in our prisons.

I think we would be hard pressed to suggest that we are morally superior to Rome 2000 years ago.

There is in my mind a tremendously different comparison here. You are comparing prisons in 2000 to accepted behavior from the leaders of the society?

There is a difference between Calgula have the captives "rape" him, forcing them too, and what is going on in our prisons.

We are culturally superior.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

a few distinctions to be made.

diagnosis is different from infection. more people are diagnosed because testing is better, and more widespread, and more available. this doesn't mean that more people have been infected, just that more people are aware of infections.

secondly, you're conflating homosexual activity with irresponsible activity. irresponsible homosexual activity is one way to contract HIV, but so is irresponsible heterosexual activity as is irresponsible drug use (though we could say that drug use is, by definition, irresponsible). it's from these inferences you made that i extrapolted your diagnosis of HIV as a gay disease, and you alluded to again in your last paragraph.

finally, many African-American men who are infected with HIV got it from time spent in prison, and aren't homosexual. they were raped, presumably, and this is why it is spreading so rapidly amongst African-American women. i must asterix that statement by saying that it is a single theory of what's going on, and many, many articles are being written about Af-Am women and rising HIV, and it's exceedingly complex.

finally, no amount of irresponsible behavior warrents AIDS. yes, people know the risks (we think ... abstinence-only education certainly reduces knoweldge about protection ... but that was in another thread) but people are human, and stupid, and in the end it's a tragedy whenever anyone is infected no matter what the behavior was.

i am also very, very sorry for your friend and for your loss.

 

[Irvine511]

i don't think Abe Lincoln had sex w/another man.
i dont think Abe was Gay by any stretch of the imagination.

db9

While he may not have been gay, Lincoln did share a double bed with an attractive younger man, Joshua Fry Speed, for four years.

this is also the root of the name "Log Cabin Republicans" -- the very public gay Republican interest group.

and, as we've been saying, "homosexual" is a new word with a contemporary definition. it wasn't in the vernacular in 1860, nor was it in Biblical times.

 

[nbcrusader]

Playing the Devil's advocate here my friend. Your statement leads me to believe that you might say find Old Testament Law applicable in this case?

If Old Testament Law is what you are referring to, then again, I would ask you why aren't we applying it, but choosing bits and pieces?

I am suggesting that if a position is supported by both OT and NT passages, to me it carries more weight that the lone passage from either testament.

Now, I realize that there are counter arguments for all these passages, but each counter argument uses a different basis. I would give counter arguments more weight if they were consistently applied across all passages.

 

[nathan1977]

you're conflating homosexual activity with irresponsible activity. irresponsible homosexual activity is one way to contract HIV, but so is irresponsible heterosexual activity as is irresponsible drug use (though we could say that drug use is, by definition, irresponsible).

NPR recently had a story discussing the fact that public perception in America is that we've got AIDS beaten, what with drugs and medicines; hence, the spike in infections amongst gay men is also a result of a decrease in practicing safer sex. This is incredibly dangerous, especially in light of the article I posted -- in this day and age, unprotected sex is irresponsible, and it seems to be rising again amongst gay men...the "condom fatigue" you mentioned.

finally, no amount of irresponsible behavior warrants AIDS. yes, people know the risks ... but people are human, and stupid, and in the end it's a tragedy whenever anyone is infected no matter what the behavior was.

On this we can certainly both agree. Grace, in the end, makes beauty out of ugly things -- and we are called to be agents of grace, no matter the irresponsible behavior. (But it still breaks my heart to see it.)

i am also very, very sorry for your friend and for your loss.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. In the end, this is a human tragedy, and that is what matters most.

 

[Irvine511]

NPR recently had a story discussing the fact that public perception in America is that we've got AIDS beaten, what with drugs and medicines; hence, the spike in infections amongst gay men is also a result of a decrease in practicing safer sex. This is incredibly dangerous, especially in light of the article I posted -- in this day and age, unprotected sex is irresponsible, and it seems to be rising again amongst gay men...the "condom fatigue" you mentioned.

this i totally agree with, though i think it's a perception a bit more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals, as most gay men know at least one HIV+ person (although, strangely, or maybe because i'm young, i am not aware of anyone i know being infected). though i think you'd be hard pressed to find any facts to support your assertion that condom use is declining faster among gay men than straight men (though i'd imagine a higher percentage of gay men use condoms than straight men do, since the most common hetero concern is pregnancy, and there's more ways to prevent that than just condoms).

but, yes, i can offer anecdotal evidence of gay men who are into "barebacking," as it is called, and i find it impossibly stupid. and tragic. but i also resist letting the activities of a few taint the social group that has done more to raise awareness of HIV and HIV prevention than any other.

 

[BVS]

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

Do not speak for me. The issue is not clearly stated and if you'd like you can search the many threads in here where people debate that this is human doctrine that made it's way into the Bible like so many others. But I repeat, DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

 

[Dreadsox]

I would give counter arguments more weight if they were consistently applied across all passages.

But, there are examples of things from the Old and the New Testament that people have decided does not apply.

I would agains say that women in both the Old and New Testament were not allowed positions of authority with in the religious communities. I think there is enough evidence of this to support the conclusion that we are in a state of sin as a Christian Community by not recognising this as sin.

I am curious....if we took the slavery argument....there is no evidence that slavery is opposite of the Old or the New Testament.


Are there other things that can be found in both that we as Christians do not believe today.

 

[BVS]

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.

It also says lying in the same bed with your wife who's menstrating is abomination and eating shellfish is abomination. So if you're going to take it literally and not do the research to figure out this is human law then condemn everyone around you not just the homosexuals. You're going to have to add a lot more than just one ammendment...

 

[U2@NYC]

Paul is not gay.

 

[BVS]

Paul is not gay.

Cool it's cleared up now, we can close the thread.

 

[Irvine511]

Paul is not gay.

acutally, Paul, my landlord, is gay.

or were you referring to another Paul? hard to tell.

 

[pwmartin]

So are we to read everything at face value? I'm asking seriously because your post wasn't really clear.

We must try to read the texts (preferrably in their original language) and discern from the vocab, understanding of social structure at the time, theology, etc. what the text is saying. We lead the meaning out of the text, instead of saying, (for example), "I struggle with my sexual identity, here in 2004. It often feels like (fill in the blank). Oh! Look! Paul was struggling with something, too. And he seems to use the same language that describes my feeling! Therefore, Paul must have been dealing with the exact same thing as I am."

I just don't think that's honest to what Paul might be trying to say.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It also says lying in the same bed with your wife who's menstrating is abomination and eating shellfish is abomination. So if you're going to take it literally and not do the research to figure out this is human law then condemn everyone around you not just the homosexuals. You're going to have to add a lot more than just one ammendment...

The shellfish thing is purely ceremonial. It's no absolution that two men having sexual relations is not a sin.

 

[Irvine511]

The shellfish thing is purely ceremonial. It's no absolution that two men having sexual relations is not a sin.

sounds like we're picking and choosing what we want to believe.

 

[BVS]

We must try to read the texts (preferrably in their original language) and discern from the vocab, understanding of social structure at the time, theology, etc. what the text is saying. We lead the meaning out of the text, instead of saying, (for example), "I struggle with my sexual identity, here in 2004. It often feels like (fill in the blank). Oh! Look! Paul was struggling with something, too. And he seems to use the same language that describes my feeling! Therefore, Paul must have been dealing with the exact same thing as I am."

I just don't think that's honest to what Paul might be trying to say.

But that's only your opinion. The fact is we'll never know. Everyone projects their own beliefs and emotions into the scripture it's a sad fact. Those that don't understand homosexuality will use the scripture to denounce it while they glance over the facts of their own divorce. Some will take everything literally and honestly believe Noah somehow got 2 of every animal in a boat and the world was made in 168 hours. Some will pick and choose what they want to believe. Some will discect every word.

Even though the text is black and white the message as a whole won't be. Churches, scholars, interpreters have been debating interpretation since the dawn of written history. No human holds the absolute truth and anyone who claims they do are lying to themselves.

 

[BVS]

The shellfish thing is purely ceremonial. It's no absolution that two men having sexual relations is not a sin.

Please read it all in context and you'll understand what I'm saying, because right now you are still picking and choosing.

 

[thacraic]

thacraic,

Ok what Dread said, plus he did mention Paul's view on homosexuality.

But you failed to mention Paul's view of women in accordance with his views of marriage.

Hiya BVS.

Ok, where? If it is the larger body of work the theory was pulled from, I don't have access to that. I did not see, however, in this theory of his, any references made to Paul's views on homsoexuality (primarily those found in Romans). Something I feel he would have given more time on considering the nature of the theory to begin with.

Why would I mention Paul's view of women and their role in marriage? What does wives submitting themselves to their husbands and husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the church have to do with whether or not Paul was gay? Had I addressed that it would have been slightly off topic and to spite my excessive use of parentheses every farts end I do try to stick to the subject and steer clear of non sequiturs.

And to quote something you put in another post "I know there are some theologians that almost dismiss Paul altogether. 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"

What theologians? I mean what theologian would even question Paul's lack of detail regarding Jesus' life. Considering Paul met Him on the road to Damascus in the form of a blinding (literally) light and never physically hung out with Jesus on a daily basis as the other new testament authors did, why would he even be in a position to have details on Jesus' life? Now, he had details of what God did in his OWN life. How God used him in spite of what he had done. But if there are actually theologians out there that genuinely don't know why Paul didn't know as much about Jesus personally as say, Peter, then they need to reconsider their career choice.

Paul did not speak in parables either. Paul wrote epitstles to the early church not parables. His epilstles are pretty much cut in dry, they are filled with messages of encouragement, hope, joy, love and chastisement for some early chirsitans who were getting out of hand in one way or another.

Also, how do his writings not line up with most of the others? If anything, the books of, say James, and the Peters and the Johns, do nothing but concur with everything Paul has to say.

Back to the theologians... I don't need to be a theologian to understand the simple message that scripture conveys, no one does. I certainly don't listen to what most theologians have to say for that matter. Man's word vs. God's word. I chose the former.

Take Care,

Carrie

 

[Irvine511]

Back to the theologians... I don't need to be a theologian to understand the simple message that scripture conveys, no one does. I certainly don't listen to what most theologians have to say for that matter. Man's word vs. God's word. I chose the former.

simple messages? i mean, people pull "God hates fags" from scripture. if it were so simple to understand, why do people spend their lives at it?

 

[thacraic]

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.

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

Carrie

 

[thacraic]

simple messages? i mean, people pull "God hates fags" from scripture. if it were so simple to understand, why do people spend their lives at it?

Well God hates fags isn't in scripture, and I don't think you need a theologian to figure that one out. It is very clear and easy to understand and I don't know why people spend their lives at it with it being so simple. And the one's that I pointed out in terms of those who question Paul's knowledge of Jesus' life, probably should spend less time with it and reconsider a new profession. I mean just say they have spent 8 years of studying the Bible and can't figure out why Paul didn't write a lot about the life of Christ, then...well... it speaks for itself.

Carrie

 

[thacraic]

nbcrusader,

I have a question for you. If you could email at thacraic@yahoo.com I would appreciate it. If not that is ok as well.

Thanks,

Carrie

 

[coemgen]

I've been out and there's so much I want to respond to To go back a bit, BonoVoxSupastar — If you don't want me to speak for you, that's fine. I'm sorry. I respect your personal stance and wouldn't want to speak for you. I have to say though, there is NO way anyone can say the Bible isn't clear about its stance on homosexuality. Again, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 spell it out plain as day. To say either verse is NOT talking about homosexuality takes more faith than I have. I'm sorry. I didn't write it. And you're right the OT talks about weird stuff about not lying in your bed with your wife who's menstrating and eating shellfish – but that's the OT! Yes, the OT law was meant for pre-Christ times, however, parts of it that are expressed in the NT, such as its stance on homosexuality, aren't nullified.

Irvine511, I totally respect your views on the Bible and how you interpret it. I also don't believe parts of it should be taken literal. I know Christ wouldn't want us jabbing out our eyes to help us stop sinning — we'd all be blind! ; ( I respect your educational background (I myself am a writer, a journalist) and out of all due respect, I challenge you to think of this though: You're interpreting the Bible based on your personal belief that it shouldn't be taken as literal based on majoring in literature and your experience in creative writing. That's a good basis for your stance, but is it good enough? As I said, I respect where you're at, I do, but if you're interpreting something from where you're at and through your beliefs, are you really getting the original intent of the manuscript? I know we all bring in some form of our personal views when reading something — a large part of that is impossible to get around. With the Bible, a collection of books written by many authors with different writing styles and covering centuries of history, it's critical that we understand context and the author. (I'm sure you already know this, I'm just writing it out anyway. Sorry if it offends you in any way.) I've read the entire NT and much of the OT and I've read numerous books and papers on the Bible. And yes I speak with confidence in these posts, but I'm always open to coming to a better understanding. We all have to read the Bible with a humble heart. God wants it that way. He wants us to have a relationship

In saying the Bible has never been proven wrong, I meant basically that historically, nobody has proven any of it to be false. This is a good thing, because if it is God's holy word, it has to be perfect. If there were any falsehoods in it, the whole thing would be crap. So if it's proven to be correct historically, why would God have false stances in there on certain issues that pertain to today. You know? Also, to say the Bible has been used to justify horrible behavior doesn't mean it's been proven wrong, it just means it's been interpreted wrong. (Way wrong.)

Dreadsox, again, the Bible doesn't specifically say, "Gay Marriage" in it, you're right, but it does say that homosexuality is wrong and we see that marriage is an institution created by God involving a man and a woman (Did I just hear Bono singing) : ) So why would God allow gays to marry? You know? That's just a common sense issue (And I don't mean that to sound as a personal attack). The Bible doesn't talk about abortion either, but it does talk about how God knew us before he knit us together in our mother's womb. A common Christian view on this, including mine, is that God created us all for a purpose, life is sacred because of that, so why end it on our terms and not his? (I'm just using this as an example on how the Bible speaks to us today on current matters, I'm NOT trying to start a debate on abortion.) You see what I mean though?

I want you guys to know I respect you as people and your points of view and I'm glad I've had the opportunity to discuss all of this with you. There I'm done.

 

[BVS]

Why would I mention Paul's view of women and their role in marriage? What does wives submitting themselves to their husbands and husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the church have to do with whether or not Paul was gay? Had I addressed that it would have been slightly off topic and to spite my excessive use of parentheses every farts end I do try to stick to the subject and steer clear of non sequiturs.

No his overall view of women shutting up in church. Many see his view of women and his not wanting to marry as indications that there is something else going on and that he hid behind the it gets in the way of doing God's work thing.

What theologians? I mean what theologian would even question Paul's lack of detail regarding Jesus' life. Considering Paul met Him on the road to Damascus in the form of a blinding (literally) light and never physically hung out with Jesus on a daily basis as the other new testament authors did, why would he even be in a position to have details on Jesus' life? Now, he had details of what God did in his OWN life. How God used him in spite of what he had done. But if there are actually theologians out there that genuinely don't know why Paul didn't know as much about Jesus personally as say, Peter, then they need to reconsider their career choice.

That's exactly their point. Paul didn't hang out with Jesus like most of the others and he happens to be the only one that screams about homosexuality. So there is question as to how much is really God's word and how much is his own.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine511, I totally respect your views on the Bible and how you interpret it. I also don't believe parts of it should be taken literal. I know Christ wouldn't want us jabbing out our eyes to help us stop sinning — we'd all be blind! ; ( I respect your educational background (I myself am a writer, a journalist) and out of all due respect, I challenge you to think of this though: You're interpreting the Bible based on your personal belief that it shouldn't be taken as literal based on majoring in literature and your experience in creative writing. That's a good basis for your stance, but is it good enough? As I said, I respect where you're at, I do, but if you're interpreting something from where you're at and through your beliefs, are you really getting the original intent of the manuscript? I know we all bring in some form of our personal views when reading something — a large part of that is impossible to get around. With the Bible, a collection of books written by many authors with different writing styles and covering centuries of history, it's critical that we understand context and the author. (I'm sure you already know this, I'm just writing it out anyway. Sorry if it offends you in any way.) I've read the entire NT and much of the OT and I've read numerous books and papers on the Bible. And yes I speak with confidence in these posts, but I'm always open to coming to a better understanding. We all have to read the Bible with a humble heart. God wants it that way. He wants us to have a relationship

In saying the Bible has never been proven wrong, I meant basically that historically, nobody has proven any of it to be false. This is a good thing, because if it is God's holy word, it has to be perfect. If there were any falsehoods in it, the whole thing would be crap. So if it's proven to be correct historically, why would God have false stances in there on certain issues that pertain to today. You know? Also, to say the Bible has been used to justify horrible behavior doesn't mean it's been proven wrong, it just means it's been interpreted wrong. (Way wrong.)

first, i wish to extend back the courtesy and respect you extended to all of us. this is why i post to FYM -- i live in a liberal, fully secular world (though i do believe in God, he doesn't figure into any decisions i make), we rely on ethics not morals, and i don't often come into contact with people who keep the bible at the very center of how they interpret the world. it's good for me to hear this perspective.

i still find inconsistencies in your arguments. how can you take some parts of the bible literally and other parts figuratively? what parts do you know to take literally, and those not to? this, to me, seems ripe for exploitation and interpretation to justify one's own prejudices, particularly when you take into account -- as has been noted -- that modern definitions of "gay" and homosexuality are barely 100 years old. there is no way of knowing what Paul, or Jesus or whoever, would have thought of a contemporary gay couple who live a rather boring life in the suburbs and wish to get married. would they even recognize what we now call gay? i find someone, like nbcrusader, who is very rigorous in his interpretations -- or rigid -- because he's at least consistent. wrong, in my opinion, but i admire the rigor.

i'm not totally clear on how you think my stance -- that the bible is largely metaphoric, is most likely crawling with 2,000 years of agendas written in, and should be taken in spirit rather than letter, and *cannot* be used to legislate in a modern democracy -- is inconsistent with your statement: "With the Bible, a collection of books written by many authors with different writing styles and covering centuries of history, it's critical that we understand context and the author."

(i'm also not offended at all)

and, for me, calling homosexuality an "abomination" is a complete falsehood. i cannot subjugate my personal experience -- and the experience of millions of others across time and space -- to a single sentence written in a book. i'll stand before God and argue my point, argue what i know in my heart of hearts to be true. at the end of the day i -- and millions others -- simply want to love and be loved in return. i cannot love a woman in the way that i can love a man. i did not choose this. i was not raised wrong. i was never abused. i have had a mostly happy (if complex) life and experience. this is who i am. there is nothing i can (or should) do about it. if God truly views any individual's search for love as abomination due to factors they cannot control, then i want no part of that God.

i apologize for getting personal -- getting emotional is not a good way to win arguments, but when we're talking about love and sex and relationships, it is often helpful to use a personal example, so i chose myself.

i do agree with your last point, very much: "Also, to say the Bible has been used to justify horrible behavior doesn't mean it's been proven wrong, it just means it's been interpreted wrong. (Way wrong.)"

strikes me as exactly what the Fred Phelps of the world do each and every day.

 

[BVS]

To go back a bit, BonoVoxSupastar — If you don't want me to speak for you, that's fine. I'm sorry. I respect your personal stance and wouldn't want to speak for you. I have to say though, there is NO way anyone can say the Bible isn't clear about its stance on homosexuality. Again, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 spell it out plain as day. To say either verse is NOT talking about homosexuality takes more faith than I have.

Ok please re-read what I said and do a little research. I did not say that homosexuality isn't expressly talked about in the NT although some translations less than others. But what I'm saying is how much is human doctrine and how much is God's(and if you don't believe human doctine is in the Bible then maybe you should reconsider). How often do you actually hear Christ or see anywhere in the Ten Commandments where it says homosexuality is a sin?

I do not define sin by what humans tell me. I define them by what God tells me and so far no where have I seen it come out of God's mouth.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine511, thank you for your reply and for opening your heart. It means a lot to me and it's very humbling that you would be willing to do that with me. I could keep debating with you over issues, but that's secondary right now to the fact that I just want to affirm you as a person and let you know that I love you as a person. (that's no bullsh!t either). You don't have to apologize for getting personal or emotional. And, I'm sure you know this too, but it's not about winning arguments really, you know? It's just about 1. developing understanding and 2. getting to the truth. Like I've said in previous posts, I may disagree with homosexuality, but I WON'T let that overshadow my feelings of love for people who are homosexuals. The same goes for you! We have more in common than we do otherwise – we're human. Being a human is a struggle for us all. (I don't mean to say your feelings are a struggle or whatever) I could also keep debating the topic, but that's obviously not part of the overal point of the Bible, which is GOD LOVES US! I'm so thrilled that you said you believe in God. (As I am with anyone) My hope and prayer is that you KNOW he loves YOU! The Bible wasn't written to be a list of rules to make life complicated or boring. It's God's way of telling us how to live so we can get the most out of life. He should know, he created us!! All I can say is my heart pours out to you and if you need anything or anyone to talk to, without judging you, I'm here for you. Please feel free to e-mail me at coemgen17@hotmail.com. I'm not out to convert you or any crap like that. I just offer that as a friend. By the way, Fred Phelps a true enemy of true Christianity. I live in the same state he is based out of and I've seen his work in many places. I've even written about it for our paper. My sister and I have always wanted to protest his protests because he's totally false in his views. (FYI).