Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

[csmovieman]

Check out my article and let me know what you guys think. Thanks!

http://www.relijournal.com/Christian...aul-Gay.135422

[pnggrad79]

I find that this idea may have validity, but given the conjecture I just don't know. Paul may have been gay, but who the hell knows? Nobody except maybe his closest friends, who are all as dead as he is. Does it really matter?

So much of the Bible has been misconstrued and misused over the centuries that it is hard to say if any of it is authentic. That is my struggle. 2008 years after Christ, how much of the Bible is real and true and authentic or merely the imaginations and prejudices and morality of the generations? Pardon my questions, but why can't we just rely on the Holy Spirit to give us discernment about what is true and what doesn't matter?

[Gennee]

I have read that Paul may have been married at one time but perhaps his spouse died. In others writings, I see Paul as being a single man. If you read and study Corinthians, it was quite a messed up church because people were coming in and integrating Christianity with all other religions.

Whether Paul was gay or not I really don't know.I've never gotten that impression about Paul. Paul did change his thoughts about some things in his later epistles. He was singleminded and had strong opinions about a number of things. Perhaps God corrected him on some of them.

Gennee

[BishopIoan]

True, Gennee, but it's his messed-up opinions that have made many people's lives a living hell over the centuries. I honestly do not know if Pauk was gay or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a self-hating closet case. I've seen so many of that sort over the years that I think it's at least a possibility in Paul's case.

[Pablo Rafael]

It could be as mentioned that the "thorn in the flesh" Paul suffered from was his being gay. I have heard this suggested before. There is endless speculation about what the "thorn in the flesh" was. On this side of eternity we can only guess.

I have to come to Paul's defense a little. The Jewish culture made heterosexual marriage mandatory. There was no option. Marriages were arranged and no other option existed. Paul challenges this concept (as he does many cultural and religious regulations). He (under the inspiraiton of God, I believe) gives the option for people not to marry. Heterosexual marriage no longer is madatory.

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

[Daniel]

Read the article, and the first thing that stood out was the suggestion that gay men are dramatic, which, somehow came across to this reader as something of a stereotype. Are gay people more emotional as intimated? I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that straight me have their own drag- so to speak. They are just playing the silent heavy a lot of the time. And that has it's own drama!

The other things the writer suggests are ripe for discussion though. The verses brought to light are interesting to contemplate, that's for sure. Can one see them through the lense of a man who has desires that he can't quite control in the way that they thinks he should?

Well Paul. Join the human race!

Christianity isn't the first (or last!) religion suggesting and even demanding the elimination of sexual desire, and, for men, celibacy and semen retention. Isn't that what we're really talking about here?

Yep. I went there! It's all about sex!

All the major religions and even present day teachers touch on this aspect of male sexuality in one way or another. In short, the idea is for men to sublimate their seed (a little alliteration there!) and use that 'energy' for enlightenment, union with the divine etc etc.

Interesting how women are left out of the picture. It's always about how MEN need to control themselves to make it to heaven. Interesting that, don't ya think?

Of course, the headline of the article, I feel, needs a better context. It's a great line to ask if Paul was Gay, but the word 'gay' is only a little over 100 years old. I think it would be better it think of the matter in terms of actions, nor orientation. In others words, is Paul's thorn in the flesh his desire to masturbate? That's something I've heard over the years too.

But we're not supposed to talk about sex, are we? Gotta make it 'spiritual' at all time. No reality allowed!

What's the saying? If one of out ten men say he has never masturbated, he's lying?

[Gennee]

Originally Posted by BishopIoan

True, Gennee, but it's his messed-up opinions that have made many people's lives a living hell over the centuries. I honestly do not know if Pauk was gay or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a self-hating closet case. I've seen so many of that sort over the years that I think it's at least a possibility in Paul's case.

One thing I have done is really study each epistle for its own value. The Corinthian church was a mess and Paul needed to lay down some ground rules. Contrast that with the church at Ephesus or Galatia and we have different scenarioes. I believe over the centuries some denominations have made some of Paul's thoughts and opinions a hard and fast rule and they were not meant to be so. Paul had very few hard and fast rules. One was to abstain from eating food sacrufied to idols. That thread runs thorugh many of the epistles.

Some day I'll have to review the epistles and perhaps discuss them on Soulforce. Could make for some interesting conversation.

Gennee

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

I have to agree with this. I believe that Paul would not have considered homosexuality to be a thorn in the flesh. I just don't get that from his writings. I guess, I don't see the early church as this large anti-gay group. I see it far more liberal than the modern church in many ways. I guess I just read too much Boswell.

[tdogg]

Whatever Paul's thorn was, it was something he felt sensitive enough over to keep it private. Maybe he was gay, maybe not, but it's obvious he felt the need to keep it private, between himself and God. We can speculate all we want, but will never really know.

I'm not sure whether or not I feel that Paul would have accepted gay people openly, but there are definitely portions of Paul's writings that put women down below men. I get that out of it. Perhaps because I'm female? However, I do feel with all of the Bible, one must pray and meditate on the scriptures to get a feel for what they mean to them on a personal level. I do not feel that Paul's writings, or any other verses of the Bible can be applied literally in our lives today.

[jewelsangel]

I agree with many of you that we can not assume that Paul was gay or had gay feelings or gay tendencies. Though somewhere in the Bible (sorry I am not a scholar) I think it says that we all suffer the same "temptations". So maybe he thought about it. Who knows? The important thing to remember is that he was a representative of God/Jesus, imperfect as we all are, but he strived to share the gospel.

[Gennee]

Originally Posted by Gregory_de_Bois

I have to agree with this. I believe that Paul would not have considered homosexuality to be a thorn in the flesh. I just don't get that from his writings. I guess, I don't see the early church as this large anti-gay group. I see it far more liberal than the modern church in many ways. I guess I just read too much Boswell.

That's why I find the early Christian church so appealing. IThe pagans of that time found the the fledgling church was inclusive, compared with the exculusiveness and secrecy of many religions. This was a refreshing change. Women, poor people, the lame, prostitutes, and others were welcome. I do believe that there were LGBT people there too.

Gennee

[Daniel]

No one on this thread will even discuss in polite company matters of sexuality, which was, in part my point. Hello! Why should we think that Paul was any different? And can't his reticence be like our own?

We, like him, want to do away- at times- with that which sits uneasy for us, or are embarrassed to discuss.

I find this very interesting. Fascinating even. Makes me think that human behavior really hasn't changed that much over the centuries- only the cultural context.

I bet we can all remember the first time we said the word gay. Remember that? Or lesbian. And thought....well....that's me. It was radical then and it is radical now. And talking about sexuality, I suppose, will always be radical for many.

Ok. Let's just ignore what may have been meant by 'thorn in the flesh'. Let's just ignore out own thorns in the flesh while we're at it too. Seems down right- how did they say it in the 80's?

Sex negative.

I can only posit that how we deal with such things and lust and love determines- to a great extent- our relationship with ourself and with our Beloved.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

But we're not supposed to talk about sex, are we? Gotta make it 'spiritual' at all time. No reality allowed!

What's the saying? If one of out ten men say he has never masturbated, he's lying?

I have never jacked off while looking at pictures of muscular hispanic or blond men who have little body hair and well defined eyebrows. And a couple well placed tattoos.

And big dicks.

AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY IT!!!

[requisite ]

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

I have never jacked off while looking at pictures of muscular hispanic or blond men who have little body hair and well defined eyebrows. And a couple well placed tattoos.

And big dicks.

AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY IT!!!

[requisite ]

Alert the Vatican immeditately!

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Alert the Vatican immeditately!

As long as they don't look in my nightstand.

...

I mean, not that there's anything in there, it's just, um, a mess in there. Yeah, it's a mess!

Ah ha ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.












I've said too much.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

As long as they don't look in my nightstand.

...

I mean, not that there's anything in there, it's just, um, a mess in there. Yeah, it's a mess!

Ah ha ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.












I've said too much.

The Vatican is noted for hiding it's messes, no? You'll be in GREAT company!

I hear the the top guy is the red shoes (and vestments) is a HO-MO-SEX-UAL- hiding in plain sight- for all the world to see. A very clever and deft move.

Perhaps we should retitle this thread:

Is the Pope Gay?

[Eugene]

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

I would have to disagree with this. There is a definite bias against homosexuals and against women in Paul's writings. I recognize the necessity to discount it, if the traditional view of infallibility is to be maintained. But it seems to me that it really can't be discounted. And recognizing it requires throwing out the traditional view of infallibilty or accepting that God condemns homosexuality. I have opted for the former (without throwing out my faith in Christ).

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Eugene

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)

Consider, for instance, what the church founded on the writings of Peter and Paul has became. But then, if we consider the work of Boswell, as Gregory has pointed out, the church didn't become really overtly homophobic until the 11th -12th century. So it may not be appropriate to project our own observation of what the church has become to that which is was. Hard to know certianly.

Could Paul have been self-loathing? That thorn in the flesh matter could be an indicator. Which is why I posited the matter of auto-eroticism. That might explain it. But then, men, straight and gay engage in it. Doesn't make one gay. He could be loathing his own propensity for lust and projecting that outward, which may result in the whole matter of Romans.

Very armchair pyschologist of me!

One thing that has always struck me about Paul. He didn't know Jesus in the flesh. His big experience came after the C and R. What does that tell me? That like all converts, they often have something to prove, that they can be more Christian than anyone else. I think that's one of the hidden factors in the whole matter.

In sum: Paul is not without his own ego, saint though he may have been.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by tdogg

I'm not sure whether or not I feel that Paul would have accepted gay people openly, but there are definitely portions of Paul's writings that put women down below men. I get that out of it. Perhaps because I'm female? However, I do feel with all of the Bible, one must pray and meditate on the scriptures to get a feel for what they mean to them on a personal level. I do not feel that Paul's writings, or any other verses of the Bible can be applied literally in our lives today.

I agree with the last part of this paragraph, Tdogg, but I must insist that one cannot charge Paul with "putting down women" without making a distinction between the real Paul and writings included in the New Testament that bear Paul's name, but are not from Paul.

I've had some exposure to biblical scholarship and reading the Bible in the original languages--I can no longer read the New Testament without being conscious of the fact that not all that is presented as from Paul really is.

When it comes to the two genders, it appears that the genuine Paul was very much egalitarian, as was Jesus.

Unfortunately, a couple of the key passages that get interpreted as "anti-gay" (from Romans and Corinthians) seem to be from the portions of the New Testament that were most likely actually penned by Paul--so we can't make the same argument (i.e. that such passages are not from the real Paul). But there are other good reasons, most of which we've already discussed somewhere in these forums, not to accept an anti-LGBT interpretation of the Bible.

As to the topic of this thread, I don't think there is much point to speculating about Paul's sexual orientation. The ex-gay people would most likely make the claim that Paul was an "ex-gay" and use him to justify their rather sick (in my view) approach to life.

Paul, by the way, qualifies his views on marriage by pointing out that he does not claim the authority of Jesus' teachings for his own opinions on the matter. (And who knows, by the way, how much else that Paul wrote was "just Paul's opinion" and not the "Word of God") Also, he presents celibacy as a "gift" which he has, but which others may not, and so he does not counsel all Christians to be celibate, but encourages marriage for those who do not have the "gift" of celibacy. The very same argument can and has been made to allow for same-gender marriage. Better to be happily married to one same-gender partner, than to be an "ex-gay" who continually "falls" into one casual sexual encounter after another (e.g. John Paulk).

I think Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was some kind of chronic pain that hampered him in his day to day work. But who knows?

Steven Webster

[Eugene]

I agree with the last part of this paragraph, Tdogg, but I must insist that one cannot charge Paul with "putting down women" without making a distinction between the real Paul and writings included in the New Testament that bear Paul's name, but are not from Paul.

This argument has always struck me as a way of shoving dirt under the carpet. The "real" Paul is inaccessible.

After reading Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol, I might just as reliably decide that the real Charles Dickens didn't write Tale of Two Cities.