Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????

[Dreadsox]

You do have to decide that yourself sometimes. I doubt he was gay, I'm not convinced at all.

Just not when the text refers to homosexuals?

 

[Dreadsox]

Why didn't Paul use words that someone who spoke Greek at the time, would have used in reference to homosexuality?

Words like:

"erastes," "eromenos," "paedika," "paederastes"

Why did he use a word that appeared in other texts in reference to an economic transaction?

 

[Dreadsox]

Interesting that this passage is supposedly written in 46 AD.

The Latin Vulgate written in 405 uses the word "molles" and "masculorum concubitores" in place of Pauls original words.

But it was not until Wyclif's verions of the Bible in 1508 where the words "lecchouris" and "synne of Sodom" are used.

That's an awful long time from 46 AD to come even remotely close to homosexuality. And the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality it was the desire to rape men who were guests to Soddom.

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh, by the way....homosexual first appeared in this verse in 1958.

Dang that is a long time from 46.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

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.

I don't see that as many first century men/men, women/women were attracted to each other as much as they are now. Just my opinion, though. I'm sure God works through gay people in a unique way, only God knows how for sure though. Don't get me wrong, I don't see men having some unintentional attraction towards another man as a sin, but the act of sodomy is mentioned and denounced numerous times throughout the Bible. Many like myself feel safe assuming that it's still a sin. I think it would be doggone sinful of me, a heterosexual, to experiment with another guy just because it's accepted.

 

[BVS]

I don't see that as many first century men/men, women/women were attracted to each other as much as they are now.

The closet, it's a scary place. Fearing your life will do that to you. Trust me there were homosexuals then.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see men having some unintentional attraction towards another man as a sin, but the act of sodomy is mentioned and denounced numerous times throughout the Bible. Many like myself feel safe assuming that it's still a sin. I think it would be doggone sinful of me, a heterosexual, to experiment with another guy just because it's accepted.

Feel safe? Let me ask you this why the focus on men? In your post, and most others who see homosexuality as a sin, you focus on just men. Why is that? Is lesbianism less of a sin in your minds? This is what I don't get?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The closet, it's a scary place. Fearing your life will do that to you. Trust me there were homosexuals then.

I bet there were a few then too, I just don't know that there were as many.

Feel safe? Let me ask you this why the focus on men? In your post, and most others who see homosexuality as a sin, you focus on just men. Why is that? Is lesbianism less of a sin in your minds? This is what I don't get?

No, lesbianism isn't less of a sin. If people have some kind of attraction beyond their control, I don't see it as a sin. If they act on it in ways that the Bible denounces, I think it's a sin.

Do you, as a heterosexual, think it's unsinful to experiment with the same sex, even if you're only attracted to the opposite sex?

 

[BVS]

Do you, as a heterosexual, think it's unsinful to experiment with the same sex, even if you're only attracted to the opposite sex?

If your attraction doesn't hurt anyone and is consentual, I don't think it's sinful. I've never had any attraction to the same sex. But that's me. The term "experimenting" is an interesting one. Without getting technical I personally couldn't "experiment" without an attraction. Hopefully you know what I mean.

 

[BVS]

I bet there were a few then too, I just don't know that there were as many.


No, lesbianism isn't less of a sin. If people have some kind of attraction beyond their control, I don't see it as a sin. If they act on it in ways that the Bible denounces, I think it's a sin.

Ok then according to this definiton. As you say "if people act on it in a way the Bible denounces" (which I'm assuming that's sodomy) then gay men who don't have intercourse are fine. Lesbians are in the clear and should be allowed to marry. But straight couples who engage in sodomy are an abomination as well? Am I right?

 

[verte76]

Oh, absolutely, there were gays before the word "homosexuality" was coined in the nineteenth century. They showed up in many of the royal families of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and I've always thought this was because of the tight regimentation of sexual activities among this class of people. They couldn't marry for love, only for politics, and had their future spouses chosen for them while they were still in the nursery. On down the social scale, there were more options for people in marriage, even though marriages were arranged by the parents, at least in Europe. One of Catherine de Medici's sons, who was crowned King of France, was gay. They absolutely did not know how to handle this. Reading about him I get the idea that he did not choose his sexuality, it's something he had no control over. If he had it would have made life easier for him.

 

[thacraic]

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.

Well evidentally if you are just going to repeat your philosiphies around actual meaning of words, then this will NEVER end. Please go and look up the meaning of sex, and furthermore those of sensual or senusality and then get back to me.

As far as how I respond to people or relate to people, why would my sexuality factor into that? And even further still with your definition of sexuality being that of sensuality, why on earth would I need to relate to someone in a sensual manner?

The reference I made to rape was not "crazy". Rape is called a SEX crime, a viloent crime yes that has nothing to do with lust, eroticism or emotionial bonds. You said it yourself (almost) in this statement "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 it does is denote something non-SENSUAL. Rape would would not qualitfy as sensual but it is by definition sex. That is why I was saying that it IS possible to have sex and it not be a sensual experience showing how sex is merely a function not a mindset. It's the lack of sensuality that makes something purly sex. Sorry you can't see that, maybe it is too simplistic and literal for your liking.

I don't get the I know you are but what I am thingy. All I said was I do not view people as groups. If you do that is entiely up to you. Whatever differences people are made aware of because of others judging doesn't apply to how I personally live my life. Maybe that is why I have such a diverse group of friends because I just love them for who they are not what they are.

Everyone has to live with differences. Are you kidding me? I live in an affluent area of Georgia and we are NOT affluent. We are quite the opposite, putting us in a different income bracket, at the bottom of some peoples social list. Do I care? No, it isn't even something I think about routinely but it just occurred to me because of this discussion it would apply. Another thing, my husband is from Northern Ireland and he is considered a 'forrrrn nerrr" by certain groups of people who can not being to reason why I, an American, would be married to a "fornnn nerr". I guess maybe the problem here is, I do not have the "right" differences or the "cool" differences in your opinion, that would enable me to understand what it is like to be different in terms of modern American society.

Tell me please, who do I judge? Do you know me? You know how I live my daily life? Have you been to my house when my friends are over? You know who I am as a wife, a mother, and a woman? What you know is my text on an internet forum devoted to an Irish rock band. Because of the nature of discussion on this forum and my views on it, you make the leap from knowing what I think on certain things to knowing who I am in my day to day life? Accussing me of judging people? Look, stating what the Bible says on things (Yes BVS) is not judging. It all comes down to how you use Scripture in your daily life. And, that Irvine, is something you are in NO position to even begin to know about me.

Finally, the direct line to God? Yeh I do have one. I talk to Him daily but it is not to seek His counsel on how to handle the problems of "these evil homosexuals inviding our society ready to turn my children gay". I don't even think about how gay people live their life or what they do or don't do. That is NONE of my business! But as a result of the nature of this thread, the question initally posed as to whether or not Paul was gay, and the questions that led us here, I have had to think about it and furtherstill comment on it. I DO NOT CAREEEEEEEEEE what you do or with whom you do it. Sorry to disappoint you Irvine, but what pops your cork is up to you and between you and whoever you do it with.

I have already said to you, if you don't want to believe don't. That is not up to me. Why then are you still so pissed off about it? Are you pissed off because I have an opinion? Are you pissed of that it is in regards to how I view the Bible? Are you pissed off that the way I view things is contrary to your view? I mean what?? What else can I say?

I don't care what you do or who you do it with and I hate that government won't let you get tax breaks that pertain to an issue whichh should not be political or governmental in the first place. If you want me to change my view on the Bible, I can't do that. But again, as I said before, why do you even care?? If you want to live your life as you wish then do it! Who is stopping you?

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry you can't see that, maybe it is too simplistic and literal for your liking.

lMaybe that is why I have such a diverse group of friends because I just love them for who they are not what they are.

I don't care what you do or who you do it with and I hate that government won't let you get tax breaks that pertain to an issue whichh should not be political or governmental in the first place. If you want me to change my view on the Bible, I can't do that. But again, as I said before, why do you even care?? If you want to live your life as you wish then do it! Who is stopping you?

one last time: a sensual experience isn't necessarily sex or sexy, but any sexual experience is sensual. end.

yes, most of your argumetns are too simplistic and literal for my liking. sanctimonious too, as you reference your "diverse" group of friends as some sort of positive commentary on yourself. it's the whole "my best friends are black" argument/excuse that anyone who isn't a christian white person is so sick of hearing. being able to say something like, "it doesn't matter to me that you're Muslim" is nice for you, but that Muslim person is always aware of the fact that they are different and they have to think about it in every social interaction. being unaware of your social "label" is something only white heterosexual christians are able to do. must be nice. so, with that, i'm pretty much going to cease discussion with you on this thread with this post.

at the end of the day, my problem is with your interpretation of the bible and the how that popular (mis)interpretation of the bible manifests itself in the political life of the nation in the form of discriminatory legislation. your posts are emblematic of the rigid, simplistic thinking that's like a cancer on this country, and you point to a text of debatable authority to justify your prejudices.

i know you don't have to live with the consequences of such circular thinking, but some of us do, and there is legislation pending that is preventing me from living my life as i want to.

you've clearly no idea the privilege from which you operate.

 

[thacraic]

so, with that, i'm pretty much going to cease discussion with you on this thread with this post.

Thank you.

 

[thacraic]

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.

Im sorry BVS but I am not following this...

To me it seems like what you are driving at is this. I have a right to believe that the Bible is God's word. I have a right to think that people are wrong if they say they are following the Bible while they in turn make exceptions about it left and right and then justify these exceptions by saying it is also written by man. I do not however have a right to point any of this out that, and evidentally that is what I am doing when I say, "If you don't believe what the Bible says".

If you don't agree that's one thing but don't try to censor me for saying what I see. I haven't said to you that because you don't view the Bible as wholy written by God and as inerrant that you don't have a right to mention what it says.

As for speaking for all Christians, I will say again, I do not do that. I speak only for myself. I will make that clear now so that there will be no misunderstanding in the future. So here goes....Anything I say should be viewed as my personal thoughts as a Christian not as the collective thoughts of ALL Christians. I hope this helps.

See ya,

Carrie

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Ok then according to this definiton. As you say "if people act on it in a way the Bible denounces" (which I'm assuming that's sodomy) then gay men who don't have intercourse are fine. Lesbians are in the clear and should be allowed to marry. But straight couples who engage in sodomy are an abomination as well? Am I right?

I honestly don't know to which degree gays can go. I think society should let them open up, just as anyone else who deals with a personal issue, so they can discuss their feelings. If they take the male/female relationship route, I know this sounds awfully weird, but they should definately open up to their partner about who they find attractive and who they don't. I don't see lesbian sex as any less of a sin than sodomy, I would still consider it to be in that category. Straight couples, yes it's a sin to practice sodomy. For the record I'm not posting this to change anyone's mind, viewpoint, whatever you call it. I'm just defining my biblical interpretation on a controversial issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

Accussing me of judging people? Look, stating what the Bible says on things (Yes BVS) is not judging.

I did a pretty decent job documenting the Greek words in its original form. Paul shose a word that is associated with male prostitution. Something that was commonplace in the temples of the day was prostitution in the temple.

SO if the words chosen by Paul to be used in Timothy and Corinthians demonstrate that this was not a condemnation of homosexuality, but a condemnation of selling sex with boys exactly what the next earliest translation of the passage implies.

How can it be claimed that the text of Corinthians and Timothy show clearly a link between the old and New Testament that there is a condemnation of homosexuality?

If the translation is not even 50 years old that uses the word homosexual how can we believe that that was the intent of the author, when there were OTHER WORDS that clearly would have defined that it was about homosexuality, rather than an economic transaction?

If you want to stand up and say you are basing your ideas on the Bible, great! I am all for it. Blind faith that the translation you are reading in English actually means what the authors intended in another language would open the door to mistaken interpretation.

 

[Dreadsox]

To me it seems like what you are driving at is this. I have a right to believe that the Bible is God's word. I have a right to think that people are wrong if they say they are following the Bible while they in turn make exceptions about it left and right and then justify these exceptions by saying it is also written by man.

Funny, do you feel this way about the passages written about women wearing veils and speaking in church?

I have the right to believe that the New Testament passages that have been translated have been translated with a modern taint to them.

If you believe it is clear that homosexuality is what Paul is condemning in the NT, then how can you justify divorce, a topic that Jesus VERY clearly spoke out about?

Well, todays society holds divorce as acceptable. Is this wrong? Should we be protesting in the streets, in ralleys that were led by the Churches of Boston against Divorce as they did over gay marriage?

It is ALL about picking and chosing. It is what led to the splits in the church and the fractioned denominations that represent Christianity.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Nothing personal Dreadsox, but is anyone really pro-divorce?

 

[Dreadsox]

Nothing personal Dreadsox, but is anyone really pro-divorce?

Nothing personal, but, if the Word is the WORD why do we apply it inconsistently?

The churches were willing to ralley against homosexual marriage.

Why aren't they out protesting against divorce law?

We pick and choose. Jesus CLEARLY spoke about divorce, yet not so clearly on homosexuality.

The church is so willing to fight the fight against homosexuals on texts from the new testament that honestly appear to have been mistranslated.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Nothing personal, but, if the Word is the WORD why do we apply it inconsistently?

The churches were willing to ralley against homosexual marriage.

Why aren't they out protesting against divorce law?

We pick and choose. Jesus CLEARLY spoke about divorce, yet not so clearly on homosexuality.

The church is so willing to fight the fight against homosexuals on texts from the new testament that honestly appear to have been mistranslated.

While I will admit that many people take their stance too far on the gay issues, we can tell that many divorces are caused by unfaithfulness, which Jesus described as an exception. There's plenty of talk in the Christian community about all these Hollywood bozos who divorce over "irreconcilable differences", and people who take their chances of getting married not because their relationship is strong, but because they consider divorce a practical option. This leads into all the sex before marriage talk, and I'm sure you've heard it all. You have to stand on your foundation - a strong relationship - before you take that to the next level.

There is very little public pushing and shoving, and I haven't heard of a single "get married and get divorced because it's fun" special interest group. There are tons of special interest groups who approve/oppose the gay marriage issue, and both sides have jumped to stupid conclusions that are unfounded. We don't know that Jesus would approve of it or not, nor do we know whether men are attracted to men (and vice versa) by some "gay gene." In my opinion, a belief unproven is either a jump to conclusions, or a leap of faith.

It's all about who's going to stand against your beliefs, and who's going to stand for you. Nobody is protesting against divorce law, probably because nobody is protesting for it. Probably vice versa. I bet that if a "divorce for fun group" arised and got political power, there would be tons of Christians and churches that march against them. I know it probably doesn't sound right, but that's how society seems to work.

 

[Dreadsox]

You are missing my point I guess.....

Maybe I need to rethink how I am explaining it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

About Word for the Word being applied inconsistently, I could tell you one thing I know for sure: nobody is perfect, we're all bad examples of what Jesus was really about.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thoughtfully here I sit.....

The two passages from the New Testament no longer condemn homosexual, but male prostitution, possible in the temple itself.

The Four Gospels, which chronical the teachers of Jesus are blank on the topic.

Sodom and Gommorah is not about homosexuality buyt about the customs involved in the treatment of a guest.

This leaves Leviticus.....with two references on calling for DEATH if one is a homosexual.

Hmmmm.....what else have we disreguarded from Leviticus that is Part of the Torah Law?

 

[BVS]

While I will admit that many people take their stance too far on the gay issues, we can tell that many divorces are caused by unfaithfulness, which Jesus described as an exception. There's plenty of talk in the Christian community about all these Hollywood bozos who divorce over "irreconcilable differences", and people who take their chances of getting married not because their relationship is strong, but because they consider divorce a practical option. This leads into all the sex before marriage talk, and I'm sure you've heard it all. You have to stand on your foundation - a strong relationship - before you take that to the next level.

There is very little public pushing and shoving, and I haven't heard of a single "get married and get divorced because it's fun" special interest group. There are tons of special interest groups who approve/oppose the gay marriage issue, and both sides have jumped to stupid conclusions that are unfounded. We don't know that Jesus would approve of it or not, nor do we know whether men are attracted to men (and vice versa) by some "gay gene." In my opinion, a belief unproven is either a jump to conclusions, or a leap of faith.

It's all about who's going to stand against your beliefs, and who's going to stand for you. Nobody is protesting against divorce law, probably because nobody is protesting for it. Probably vice versa. I bet that if a "divorce for fun group" arised and got political power, there would be tons of Christians and churches that march against them. I know it probably doesn't sound right, but that's how society seems to work.

Do you realize how high the divorce rate is? This has nothing to do with Hollywood or "divorce for fun". It's people picking and choosing for their own needs. People aren't asking for a ban on divorce because that would effect 50% of the church.

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you realize how high the divorce rate is? This has nothing to do with Hollywood or "divorce for fun". It's people picking and choosing for their own needs. People aren't asking for a ban on divorce because that would effect 50% of the church.

 

[Dreadsox]

I just ran across this:

[Q]The Bible says many things, Jerry, but above all it has introduced me to the Jesus that you and I both call "Lord." The Jesus that I meet in scripture, however, never blessed the status quo or sought to suppress change. He rather called his disciples to step beyond their security systems into a barrier-free humanity. He reached out to all of those who were made outcasts by the prevailing religious norms of his day. Those of us who seek to be his disciples must do no less in our day.

My study has convinced me that homosexuality is a given part of the broad spectrum of humanity, so I, as a Christian, could never equate it with sin as you so glibly do.

Before you go on the offensive to cite the destructive behavior that you attribute to homosexual people, Jerry, let me say that there is certainly some homosexual behavior that is sinful. But maybe you haven't noticed that there is also some heterosexual behavior that is sinful. Pimping and prostitution are primarily heterosexual activities. I regard any sexual activity that is promiscuous or predatory, forced or uninvited to be evil or sinful to use your words. It matters not to me whether it is the behavior of heterosexuals or homosexuals. It is still destructive behavior and Christians must be clear about that.

But I also regard that sexual activity which expresses love, which is lived out in a monogamous commitment, which is part of a relationship of trust and dedication, which does not violate one's word given to another person and which issues in life, to be blessed by its own fruits and thus to be ultimately holy. I believe that the benefits and sanctity of marriage must be extended by both church and society to faithful homosexual partnerships and the sooner the better. Not to do so is to continue the pattern of a killing prejudice based upon uninformed ignorance.

[/Q]

Bishop Spong Speaks my belief.

 

[BVS]

Thoughtfully here I sit.....

The two passages from the New Testament no longer condemn homosexual, but male prostitution, possible in the temple itself.

The Four Gospels, which chronical the teachers of Jesus are blank on the topic.

Sodom and Gommorah is not about homosexuality buyt about the customs involved in the treatment of a guest.

This leaves Leviticus.....with two references on calling for DEATH if one is a homosexual.

Hmmmm.....what else have we disreguarded from Leviticus that is Part of the Torah Law?

Great job Dread, but people aren't going to be able to let go of their prejudices that easily.

 

[verte76]

Thanks for posting that stuff Dread. I love it; it speaks for me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Do you realize how high the divorce rate is? This has nothing to do with Hollywood or "divorce for fun". It's people picking and choosing for their own needs. People aren't asking for a ban on divorce because that would effect 50% of the church.

Of course I do, and it's ridiculously high. I've heard divorce being preached in church so much more than homosexuality. I was citing examples about how people get divorces for the wrong reasons. Banning divorce is not the answer, I'm not enforcing that in any way. I'm not sure what I said that made you think that I think divorce is rare.

 

[Irvine511]

Great job Dread, but people aren't going to be able to let go of their prejudices that easily.

indeed. we always need someone to feel superior to.

this is where the root of where much homophobia -- take Eminem -- comes from. when you're a disenfranchised white male in Detroit, and you haven't yet made it, you need someone to feel superior to.