Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

[Eugene]

I'm not trying embarrass or prove you wrong, Eugene

There is no need to worry about that. After years of posting on discussion forums, I hardly care about being embarrassed or being proven wrong.

The fact that these Soulforce forums are interfaith and not merely Christian make me especially concerned not to allow anything to pass which may be either intentionally or unintentionally anti-semitic. I think that unqualified denunciations of the Pharisees can be seen as intentional or unintentional anti-semitism. I'm sure no one here is intentionally anti-semitic.

That was unnecessary. I'm not into political correctness, and if Soulforce has any problems with my posts, then I expect a moderator will notify me or ban me. I can do without the threat of being labeled "antisemitic", thank you very much. And I won't waste my time trying to prove that I'm not antisemitic, as I've said nothing that would justify such a suspicion.

I once shared your view of the Pharisees--I now consider my former views as uninformed.

Am I supposed to care about that? Likewise, I hold a dim view of "progressive" Christian theology. I tried accepting it after coming out, and just wasn't able to do so. So what?

I'm just suggesting that you not over-generalize about a whole group of persons like the Pharisees, most of whom we know very little about, other than that their living descendants, modern day Jews, include some very fine folks, some of whom are our fellow Soulforce supporters.

There's that political correctness again. You know that you can so dilute honest discussion with these concerns that no worthwhile or contrary views ever get aired. And that's rather boring. Perhaps there is a more polite way to say it, but I am both old enough and confident enough to dismiss your suggestion. If anyone is offended by my traditional view of a religious group that existed 2 millennia ago, then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.

[wmanion]

Honestly, does it really matter if the Apostle Paul was gay or not. He was just a man who knew that we were looking through a mirror darkly...that we did not have all the answers. He was struggling just as many of us still do today to really know what the will of God is in our lives. We have more knowledge today than Paul had to work with, especially if the field of Science, yet still we struggle. We may never know for sure until we meet him in person. I agree that fundamentalists existed then as they do today, but you cannot lump all fundamentalists into the same pot. I have fundamentalists friends, yet they believe being gay is not a choice. I also have had dealings with fundamentalists that take the Bible so literally that I have been doomed to hell since birth, not because I am gay, but because I am a bastard and will not be allowed into the congregation of the Lord. The Bereans were told to search the scriptures daily to find whatsoever was true. This tells me that the scriptures needed to be searched because the ideology of man was also a big input into the scripture. God may have chose man as his vessel to deliver his message, but we have to remember man is not God and not perfect. God meets us at our own level of understanding and he meets us their with the ultimate gift of love, and to me that is all that really matters.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

There's that political correctness again.

Eugene,

I object! Is caring about people, especially our fellow Soulforce members, "political correctness"? I wouldn't call it "political correctness," I'd call it good manners.

I don't think you really addressed my arguments, you just pulled out a rather cliched put-down--i.e. "political correctness." Rather than address my arguments you labeled and/or ridiculed me, it seems to me.

I'm honestly trying not to offend you. Can I get the same consideration in return?

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Eugene

If anyone is offended by my traditional view of a religious group that existed 2 millennia ago, then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.

Does a view being "traditional" exempt it from question? There are alot of "traditional" views of Jews (and that is who the Pharisees were) that would be very problematic in my view.

Surely you don't think bigoted views against LGBT people are o.k. just because they also are "traditional."

Defending a view merely because it is "traditional" is no way to further the "honest discussion" you accuse me of "diluting."

So, to get back to what I think we were really discussing before we were diverted by the "political correctness" red-herring, my assertion at it's simplest is that you are overgeneralizing about the ancient Pharisees based on precious little information (i.e. a "traditional" reading of the New Testament), and I don't think that's a just way to treat any group of people ancient or modern. This is exactly the kind of problem we are faced with when "traditionalist" interpreters of the Bible condemn all modern LGBT people based on the precious little information there is in the Bible about ancient LGBT persons. Or would it be too "politically correct" to challenge "traditionalist" views of LGBT persons?

Again, I want to apologize, if I am being too harsh--you seem to hold some grievance against "progressive Christians" in general, and I feel this has colored your attitude towards me because I am "one of them". Maybe I am mistaken?

Is there some way we can move this discussion toward some common ground? Can we at least agree that we should avoid over-generalizing about people? I know for a fact that not everything about traditionalists is bad, neither is everything about progressive Christians bad.

If I've put anything here unfairly, or unjustly or too personally, I'll gladly amend it. (I sometimes take things too personally, and I'm lousy at appreciating irony.) I've read some of your other postings and believe you are a good person who is seeking the truth like we all are.

Steven Webster

[paul]

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.

Steven,

I was thinking about this passage as well. It's hard to imagine that Paul's "thorn" was sex, be it gay or masturbation or a thorn fetish, if one believes Paul was being genuine when he wrote this. As you note, Paul claims to have the "gift" of celibacy (which is kind of like getting coal in your stocking at Christmas if you ask me), so I don't see him struggling with sex.

I have always thought it funny how he says it's better to marry than to burn. Some endorsement, eh?

Anyway, assuming Paul was being honest about having such a rare gift, it wouldn't logically follow that he struggled with sex.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by paul

Steven,

I was thinking about this passage as well. It's hard to imagine that Paul's "thorn" was sex, be it gay or masturbation or a thorn fetish, if one believes Paul was being genuine when he wrote this. As you note, Paul claims to have the "gift" of celibacy (which is kind of like getting coal in your stocking at Christmas if you ask me), so I don't see him struggling with sex.

I have always thought it funny how he says it's better to marry than to burn. Some endorsement, eh?

Anyway, assuming Paul was being honest about having such a rare gift, it wouldn't logically follow that he struggled with sex.

Thanks, Paul,
I think we should also notice that Paul (your namesake) actually speaks of his "thorn in the flesh" as a positive thing, another "gift". Even though he says that this thorn is from "Satan," he sees it as part of God's purpose to further his spiritual progress, and that God chooses not to remove the thorn. (see 2 Corinthians 12)

It might also be helpful to note that "Satan" in the Bible isn't quite what modern Christians make him out to be--a principle of absolute evil dualistically opposed to God.

Whatever the "thorn" is--it does not seem to be connected with any "self-loathing" on Paul's part as I read it.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Thanks, Paul,
I think we should also notice that Paul (your namesake) actually speaks of his "thorn in the flesh" as a positive thing, another "gift". Even though he says that this thorn is from "Satan," he sees it as part of God's purpose to further his spiritual progress, and that God chooses not to remove the thorn. (see 2 Corinthians 12)

It might also be helpful to note that "Satan" in the Bible isn't quite what modern Christians make him out to be--a principle of absolute evil dualistically opposed to God.

Whatever the "thorn" is--it does not seem to be connected with any "self-loathing" on Paul's part as I read it.

Steven Webster

And it is important to note that no matter what the thorn in the flesh was, Paul knew that God still loved him no matter what. I think a lot of times we feel like God doesn't love us because of our own personal thorns. Unconditional love, indeed!

Bill