Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????

[Dreadsox]

 

[Irvine511]

coemgen: please know that i take everything you've written in the most positive light possible, and i do appreciate all the kind words you've extended. please know that i feel the same, and i have grown just a little every time i read something from a new perspective. (and it is wonderful to hear about Christians protesting Fred Phelps and his hate-mongering ... i know, of course, that he nor Falwell nor Robertson speak for most Christians)

i know this could go back and forth forever, and we both have the best intentions possible, but i still have one question:

how do you *disagree* with homosexuality? i'm not sure what that statement means because it seems like disagreeing with hair color, or left-handedness, or a dislike of lima beans.

much thanks. for your whole post.

 

[coemgen]

BonoVox, I see where you're coming from, but the truth is the whole Bible is inspired by God himself. None of it is human doctrine, it's all God's doctrine. God didn't pick up a pen and write any part of the Bible — he chose to use people and work through them with his Holy Spirit to get his word across. (If you want more on how the Bible is God-inspired, e-mail me. My address is above.) The Gospels themselves weren't written by Christ, they were written by four other people! You know? I find it more comforting that God would chose to work through people, who were all sinners, to get his message of love across to us! Don't you? I leave you with this: Paul wrote that he thanked God continually "because when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." 1Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[nbcrusader]

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

I should research a more complete list of God commands from both Old and New Testament. There are clearly some OT commands that are nullified in the NT (Christ is our sacrifice, once for all). There are some OT commands that are not mentioned in the NT. Are they without value? No as they were designed to reveal sin to us.

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 don't see any OT authority that would describe women in positions of authority as sin.

Paul's statements are the only ones to my knowledge that say women should not teach men - and even there he does not call it sin. Still, we have to deal with that specific text in some fashion.

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

Actually, slave trading is specifically called a sin in 1 Timothy.

 

[BVS]

BonoVox, I see where you're coming from, but the truth is the whole Bible is inspired by God himself. None of it is human doctrine, it's all God's doctrine. God didn't pick up a pen and write any part of the Bible — he chose to use people and work through them with his Holy Spirit to get his word across. (If you want more on how the Bible is God-inspired, e-mail me. My address is above.) The Gospels themselves weren't written by Christ, they were written by four other people! You know? I find it more comforting that God would chose to work through people, who were all sinners, to get his message of love across to us! Don't you? I leave you with this: Paul wrote that he thanked God continually "because when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." 1Thessalonians 2:13.

Well I appreciate all of this.

I've been involved in church since 4th grade, I've been a youth minister while in college, I've taken several Bible classes, and have had many discussions with an expert(a good friend) who's recieved many degrees in theology. Yes you're right it's inspired by God, but yes human doctrine has "sneaked" into the Bible. Most theologians will agree.

 

[nbcrusader]

I've been involved in church since 4th grade, I've been a youth minister while in college, I've taken several Bible classes, and have had many discussions with an expert(a good friend) who's recieved many degrees in theology. Yes you're right it's inspired by God, but yes human doctrine has "sneaked" into the Bible. Most theologians will agree.

I'd same some thologians will agree.

It is a dangerous principle to begin separating God's doctrine from "human doctrine". For someone could simply dismiss any command by calling it "human".

 

[thacraic]

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.




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.

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.




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.

Hiya BVS,

Well whomever that "many" is that believe why Paul felt as he did, I disagree with them. Paul's view on marriage was, it is better not to marry. He had such a vigor for God and was so passionate about this that he felt marrying would interfer with his ministry. In fact, I believe Paul said, you can not all be like me in relation to that. That is off the top of my head though, and I could be wrong in saying he was referring to marriage, but I am like 80ish% certain that is what he was on about.

What way did Paul view women honestly? As far as women's role in the church, I agree. I don't believe that women should pastor a church or be a deacon etc, so I don't have a problem with what Paul said in regards to that. In my opinion, he showed nothing but great respect for women. I really don't see anything that offers a contrary view, in terms of scripture that is. And I certainly don't see how his stating these things means he had issuses with women because he was a gay man.

What exactly is the point trying to be made here with the "issues with women" and a man (in this case Paul) being gay? I really don't get it. I thought the prevailing argument was that men that are gay just are just because. Are people trying to say that it is because of issues with women that they are gay? Or are they saying because they are gay they have issues with women as a result of their own sexuality? I don't get why being a gay man would predispose one to having problems with women. None of this is being made clear in this theory the bishop put forth nor in any of the responses to it here on the thread.

Ok, Paul "screaming", as you put it, about homosexuality had more to do with the people that his letters were written to and nothing at all to do with his not being enlightened as much as the others because he never got to hang around Jesus to eat bread and drink wine. See there again, this would be an example of these people not knowing much for theologians. Who are these people anyway? Do you have a book to recommend or a link I could follow? I would really like to read these perspectives you are using at points of reference. At any rate, one would think, that a theologian would realize, the following....

The other books of the New Testament, 1st 2nd Peter, James, Jude, 1st, 2nd, 3rd John were all written to Jews that had converted to the Christian faith, people that had FULL knowledge of Jewish law and I would venture to say very little problem with homosexuality. If you notice that those books deal a lot with love and grace, because they were written to people that were having a hard time comprehending how all these things they used to be required to do were no longer needed because Jesus had finally fullfilled the law. Also, these books address a problem with piosity in these new believers.

Paul wrote to people in Corinth, and Ephesus and Galatia etc. People that he had met when he went out on his journeys to spread the Gospel. Consider the societies these people lived in. These people were coming out of a life that included all kinds of flesh driven, hedonistic indulgences (homosexuality only being one). They were heavily influenced by Greek philosiphies and culture and all Paul did was address these things. He pointed out to them, that they needed to get rid of all that was behind them, because real freedom was finally their's by way of Jesus Christ. They no longer had to live in the flesh because they now had the Spirit.

Furthermore, these people had no knowledge of Levitican law. In fact, it think it was the Galatians, yeh it was, that were getting circumsized because they thought they had to do it, because of their new found knowledge of Jewish law. That is when Paul set them straight on not being entanlged in the yoke of bondage but standing fast in the freedom in which Christ had set them free. Again, addressing not being ruled by the flesh but yet being led by the Spirit. The law governs the law, the Spirit etc....

I really think it would help people reading the New Testament (or everything after the four Gospels) to read them as they were originally written - as letters. Look at who they are written to and why. It makes a lot more sense if you do it that way.

Oh, I must add, that having said, certain books were written to Jewish converts and certain books were written to people living in pagan societies, that all these books were written to believers then, and of course, now.

See ya soon....

Carrie

 

[coemgen]

Thanks for the kind e-mail Irvine. I was just trying to say although I may see homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle, it's not going to keep me from reaching out to those who are gay and loving and supporting them. (as opposed to some people who say their Christians) Sorry if it sounded weird. Does that make sense?

 

[coemgen]

BonoVox, I hope my last post to you didn't come across as talking down to you or anything — I was just trying to write out where I stood. I agree wtih nbcrusader said and would add that the main thing to consider is why are certain things in the Bible at all? Why did Paul, James or whoever write that. And then are we sure it's human doctrine? You know? By the way, I need a nightlight when I sleep now thanks to your avatar. (I also need to write my stories and stop posting for a whlie.)

 

[BVS]

thacraic,

I appreciate the refresher course on history. You're still not understanding the point being made with Paul's view on women but that's neither here nor there anymore. But if you're ever interested there are articles all over the internet about Paul's "issues". We're not going to agree. Your views on women in the church do shine a much brighter light on the God's gender debate though. That's your opinion and I'm not going to fault you for that, but it saddens me to hear that. Some of my favorite ministers, speakers, teachers have been women.

 

[BVS]

I'd same some thologians will agree.

It is a dangerous principle to begin separating God's doctrine from "human doctrine". For someone could simply dismiss any command by calling it "human".

If it never came out of God or Jesus' mouth I'm reluctant to take it as command. I think sometimes we take what Paul, James, etc directly as God's word and I think that's dangerous. They weren't perfect and Jesus even corrected them publicly many times, so how can we take something one of them says, something that's not backed up by anyone else(especially Jesus) as God's doctrine.

 

[thacraic]

thacraic,

I appreciate the refresher course on history. You're still not understanding the point being made with Paul's view on women but that's neither here nor there anymore. But if you're ever interested there are articles all over the internet about Paul's "issues". We're not going to agree. Your views on women in the church do shine a much brighter light on the God's gender debate though. That's your opinion and I'm not going to fault you for that, but it saddens me to hear that. Some of my favorite ministers, speakers, teachers have been women.

Hiya BVS,

You are welcome, but it is more a course in logic than history. No that is why I am asking for clarity. What is the point of Paul's view on women? Tell me please....

OMGGGGG as I was replying to this, UPS knocked at my door!!

I entered a Clash contest on MammothPress a while back and was informed about a month ago that I would win a prize. After corresponding via email with a guy at MammothPress, I was told I would know what prize I got when I got it lol. Well...

The prize isssssssssss The Essential Clash... a two cd set... the London Calling 25th Anniversary Legacy Edition, The Essential Clash DVD, a rarrrrrrrre 7" vinyl promo of London Calling and a poster! I got Mick Jones' autograph back in October!! My friend in England who is a sound guy, did sound for Mick Jones and Tony James new band CarbonSilicon and was kind enough to ask for an autograph. When my friend came to the states he visited me and my family and gave me the autograph. OMGGGG I am going to be Clashing out for dayyyyys. This so beyond off topic but I reallllly don't care!!! I am just amazed.

Take care and speak soon,

Carrie

 

[nbcrusader]

If it never came out of God or Jesus' mouth I'm reluctant to take it as command. I think sometimes we take what Paul, James, etc directly as God's word and I think that's dangerous. They weren't perfect and Jesus even corrected them publicly many times, so how can we take something one of them says, something that's not backed up by anyone else(especially Jesus) as God's doctrine.

Considering that some will say that none of the Bible comes directly from God or Jesus, then one could argue that there are no commands.

 

[BVS]

You know we should really be fair and make a list of constitutional ammendments that Bush should introduce along with his ban on gay marriage. I mean it would only be fair.

-We shouldn't allow divorced people to remarry(unless they divorced because their spouse was cheating on them).

-Since we're going in people's bedrooms we might as well make it against the law for you to sleep in the same bed as your wife when she's mensturating. So maybe that pill that only makes you have four a year will become more popular.

-Ban all work on Sundays.

-Imprison kids who don't listen to their parents.

-Adultery should have jail time.

I mean there's a lot more, but can't think of them right now, if some of you can help, I'd appreciate it.

 

[BVS]

Considering that some will say that none of the Bible comes directly from God or Jesus, then one could argue that there are no commands.

Well I'm saying if it's not actually the 10 commandments or quoted directly from Jesus.

 

[BVS]

The prize isssssssssss The Essential Clash... a two cd set... the London Calling 25th Anniversary Legacy Edition, The Essential Clash DVD, a rarrrrrrrre 7" vinyl promo of London Calling and a poster! I got Mick Jones' autograph back in October!! My friend in England who is a sound guy, did sound for Mick Jones and Tony James new band CarbonSilicon and was kind enough to ask for an autograph. When my friend came to the states he visited me and my family and gave me the autograph. OMGGGG I am going to be Clashing out for dayyyyys. This so beyond off topic but I reallllly don't care!!! I am just amazed.

Congrats.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well I'm saying if it's not actually the 10 commandments or quoted directly from Jesus.

Well, we are still at the "mercy" of a human author. The reliability of the quote and the reliability of the non-quote are identical. Either they are both inspired and inerrant, or they both are not.

 

[BVS]

Well, we are still at the "mercy" of a human author. The reliability of the quote and the reliability of the non-quote are identical. Either they are both inspired and inerrant, or they both are not.

But we have some that is quoted by Jesus and backed by man, some handed down by God and backed by Jesus and man, and then we have some that's stated by man and backed by...oh nothing else.

 

[pwmartin]

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."

We are dealing with a conflict of narratives here, and I don't know how it can be rectified. Other than conversion.

Inconsistencies are bound to linger in each person's viewpoint and take on reality.

Irvine511 has assumed truths about reality (including God and humans) that are different than nbcrusader's and others' here. To you, Irvine511, their views are probably always going to seem inconsistent, and vice versa, because you are not dealing with the same set of data and assumptions. You are arguing from entirely different narratives.

Irvine511: what do you really mean by "the Bible is largely metaphoric"? Spell that out a little bit more. Have you ever seriously studied the Bible? How can you make such a broad-sweeping statement about something which you never really seem to have taken very seriously. I mean, people devote their entire lives to understanding Scripture, interpreting its metaphor and never feel that they begin to see the bottom of its well.

My hunch is that ncbrusader (and others) don't see what you've termed as "inconsistencies" precisely because they're arguing from within a narrative context that causes them to see those inconsistencies as something consistent, coherent. They could lob the same criticism of inconsistency at some other part of your belief system (and you do have one...don't fool yourself). It may not be sexuality, but it may be something else.

You hold logical consistency and the primacy of your own personal narrative in high regard (some in another narrative might even say you "worship," "idolize" those things). There may be nothing wrong with that. But I think this debate might just boil down to belief that the Bible has a story to tell that gives a different account of reality that we, apart from it, can't think up on our own.

That made no sense at all. But I meant to mean something

 

[nbcrusader]

But we have some that is quoted by Jesus and backed by man, some handed down by God and backed by Jesus and man, and then we have some that's stated by man and backed by...oh nothing else.

So, if Paul added a "God said" at the beginning of his letters, we would have a different doctrine?

 

[BVS]

So, if Paul added a "God said" at the beginning of his letters, we would have a different doctrine?

No we're not that naive. If we had other scripture to back it up things would be different. Please don't trivialize it. We've had enough of that.

 

[Dreadsox]

There are many biblical scolars who agree with both points of view presented here in this thread. Lets not be so righteous that we do not see the other side has made valid points.

And this statement is for both sides in the debate.

I would have to say that overall, this past week in FYM has been my most enjoyable. I think we have had some REALLY good threads that expressed different points of view equally well. Thank you to all who have been here making me think.

Peace

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Same here

 

[BostonAnne]

I also agree Dreadsox.

 

[nbcrusader]

 

[diamond]

i don't think paul was Gay and i don't like green eggs and ham

thank u
db9

 

[Macfistowannabe]

i don't think paul was Gay and i don't like green eggs and ham

thank u
db9

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine511 has assumed truths about reality (including God and humans) that are different than nbcrusader's and others' here. To you, Irvine511, their views are probably always going to seem inconsistent, and vice versa, because you are not dealing with the same set of data and assumptions. You are arguing from entirely different narratives.

Irvine511: what do you really mean by "the Bible is largely metaphoric"? Spell that out a little bit more. Have you ever seriously studied the Bible? How can you make such a broad-sweeping statement about something which you never really seem to have taken very seriously. I mean, people devote their entire lives to understanding Scripture, interpreting its metaphor and never feel that they begin to see the bottom of its well.

My hunch is that ncbrusader (and others) don't see what you've termed as "inconsistencies" precisely because they're arguing from within a narrative context that causes them to see those inconsistencies as something consistent, coherent. They could lob the same criticism of inconsistency at some other part of your belief system (and you do have one...don't fool yourself). It may not be sexuality, but it may be something else.

You hold logical consistency and the primacy of your own personal narrative in high regard (some in another narrative might even say you "worship," "idolize" those things). There may be nothing wrong with that. But I think this debate might just boil down to belief that the Bible has a story to tell that gives a different account of reality that we, apart from it, can't think up on our own.

it makes sense, and i've been thinking about it all day. we are, in some ways, talking past one another, because we are not starting at the same point. i do not accept the bible as Truth. others on this list do. so the argument must necessarily be not the specifics of the bible, since those cannot be trusted, but why and how one chooses to regard the bible as Truth.

you're right: i do worship and idolize the human capacity for thought and rationality. i don't worship my own, cause i always wish i were smarter, but i do trust it because, at the end of the day, i know it's all i have. i don't believe i'm always right, in fact i believe pretty much the opposite -- that our conclusions are always incomplete, there's always more to be discovered, and no one can ever *know*, we can only learn.

that's the attitude -- and, i would argue, a rather humble one, where you are aware of your limits but you seek to push them when you can -- that i take towards life.

when i say the bible is largely metaphoric, i think it's akin to Jesus' parables: stories meant to explain larger truths. i don't think the world was created in 7 days, i don't think eve was made from adam's rib. these things are utterly illogical and run contrary to science. since i am human, and science is a human language, i choose to use that as currency to understand the world rather than a book that was written a long time ago by many different people that much of the world doesn't know about (or care to know about). i also see the Bible as a self-referential, closed system with no need to prove itself other than by referencing itself. i've made the comparison before that it seems almost North Korean in it's circularity (at least from what i can tell): as in, "He Leads Because He is Great, and He is Great Because He Leads."

therefore, it's unimportant to me to spend years studying the specifics of the bible. i would enjoy a bible study class very much, but i'd seek to gain from that what i would in any literature or history or anthropology class. i am agnostic about the bible, but i am aware of it's importance, what i remember being taught about the new testament is, at moments, stirringly beautiful. this doesn't mean, however, that it is literally true, and i think the facts are incidental to the truth. as in, the literal sentences of the bible are a means to get at larger issues and to hopefully illuminate, in whatever way, that scary thing we call "the human condition."

in that sense, i'm not sure the Bible has any more weight than the great tomes of Western literature. is there more wisdom and knoweldge in The Bible than in, say, _Hamlet_? _Ulysses_? _Gravity's Rainbow_?

i can't say, nor would i pretend to say. but i do know that quite a lot of people take the Bible very seriously, and a lot of people view it as Truth. i cannot say, absolutely, they're wrong, nor do i think that's even important.

this is the essence of agnosticism -- humility, and the awareness of the limits to human knowledge and the awareness that we all make choices to put our faith in different places. i may put mine in rationality, you may put yours in the Bible, but the one trump card i feel entitled to pull is that i make no claims on the Truth, i profess only to know that i cannot ever know, and this strikes me as more humble and honest.


no idea if the above makes any sense.

and i agree with Dread: great discussions all around.

 

[thacraic]

There are many biblical scolars who agree with both points of view presented here in this thread. Lets not be so righteous that we do not see the other side has made valid points.

And this statement is for both sides in the debate.

I would have to say that overall, this past week in FYM has been my most enjoyable. I think we have had some REALLY good threads that expressed different points of view equally well. Thank you to all who have been here making me think.

Peace

Eh not me... I think EVERYONE is wrong except for me hehehehehe... i kill me...


Seriously though, I totally enjoy discussing things of this nature. Online forums really give me the oppurtunity to do so. I stay at home with my kids (9, 7 and 3), so I don't really get the chance to discuss things like this very often. And when my kids start arguing about the validity of scripture or saying that they are really starting to lean towards a more Zen Buddhist approach to life, I just send them to their rooms, so that puts me at an unfair advantage. ha! I'm on a roll today.

Take care Dread and everyone else, and thanks for starting this post! Much fun....

Carrie

 

[joyfulgirl]

i don't think the world was created in 7 days

It wasn't until I started studying other religions and esoteric spiritual paths that I began to understand the Bible better. One interpretation is that the 7 days of Genesis has its roots in what Hindus call Yugas, or vast cycles of time. In their cycles of time 1 day is 4,320,000 years, so 7 days would be 30,024,000,000 years. This would make the 7 days make more sense in terms of evolution.