Paul - Homosexual?

Originally posted by Unnamed
Here are a couple of examples:

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (Corinthians I, 7:1)

"I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. (Corinthians I, 7:8-9)

I think the congregation in Corinth was having a problem with"sins of the flesh", he was exhorting them to more secular practices.

Unnamed
You quoted 1 cor 7:1 but go on to vrs2
Nevertheless,to advoid fornication,let every man have his own wife, and let everywoman have her own husband.
I dont see how that could imply he was or even considered homosexuality an option.

you also qouted another verse about about unmarried or widowed men being like Paul. If you read down a little further,verses32 and 33

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

He is clearly stating that by being married you would need to be with your wife more than out preaching the Gospel.

If paul though homosexuality was right, then why would he say men have your own wives and wives have your own husbands. He is clearly talking about a marrried man and woman. Homosexual sex would be sex out side of being married.Thats fornication strait or gay.

1corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

The bible is very funny it contradict itself many times over, In the old testament it encourage men to have more than one wife and then it comes around and sex is evil dirty and sinful amazing.

My point wasn't to say that Paul in any way condoned homosexuality, quite the opposite. That's also the reason why I thought he could have been wrestling with is own feelings if he in fact were sexually attracted to men. Which could also explain him advising other christians to stay away from sex all together. It may also have been that even if Paul were attracted to men, he never engaged in any sexual relations with them, being that this would have gone against his own belief.

Paul was a student of the Law. If homosexuality was his condition, he knew well that by that Law he stood condemned. His body was a body in which death reigned. He lived under that death sentence. What Paul knew himself to be, the people to whom he belonged and the Law to which he adhered called abominable, and Paul felt it to be beyond redemption.

This link have a very nice view of this problems with homosexuality.


www.beliefnet.com...

Thanks Marg that was more like I was talking about when I asked about statements reguarding him being homosexual, even if that in its self hardly is "proof".

You are very welcome, this thread has opened my eyes to a side of the Apostle Paul that I didn't even knew was an issue.

Originally posted by sublime4372
also please show me something that says love the sinner, hate the sin in the bible. god holds you accountable for your actions. would love to see these people in the after life trying to explain it away.......

catholics have rules...no matter how "unfair" it is to someone..i dont want my kids having anything to do with homosexuals..period..

I must address your posts first because you asked, and second because I feel you are presenting your opinions at the expense of other Catholics (spreading a false sense of what a Catholic believes and is taught) when in fact your view is..... I shall call it incomplete.

If you are a Catholic your guide to interpreting the Bible and the Catholic Church is "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Here is part of what that has to say about homosexuality (after first making clear that homosexual ACTS are not acceptable, - and for that matter no sexual activity outside of the sacrament of marriage is).

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homesexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

The paragraph before this addresses the view as stated of homosexual acts. The paragraph after discusses how a Christian homosexual is called to chastity and that they should strive in this life to approach Christian perfection. But the above quoted paragraph IS the instruction for all Catholics towards homosexuals themselves. No where does the Catholic Church instruct the faithful to condem the man/woman. In fact, it IS the Catholic Church that says love the sinner, hate the sin.

As for the possibility that St. Paul was homosexual, I will state my opinion that there is no way that it even matters unless he was engaging in illicit sexual activity. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, if this were in any way a question with the Catholic Church (illicit sexual activity) he would not be a Saint.

Originally posted by sublime4372
why should i respect it? its an attack against my church. homosexuality has infected everything. you try to watch tv lately? now marriage? now saying apostles may be gay? omg please....take it somewhere else. relgion will never accept homosexuals, also please show me something that says love the sinner, hate the sin in the bible. god holds you accountable for your actions. would love to see these people in the after life trying to explain it away.......

catholics have rules...no matter how "unfair" it is to someone..i dont want my kids having anything to do with homosexuals..period..

In that case and in light of not so distant events relating to the US Catholic Church, it may be best to keep them as far from that noble entity as possible. BTW: Why would a loving god allow people who claim to represent him an almost unlimited supply of children to bugger?

My understanding is that Paul was unattractive in the extreme. Imaging being someone who everyone's first reaction is negative (maybe revulsion) from childhood on. That could create a personality that had a LOT of anxiety and resentment towards other people. Maybe even more so towards women if he is a heterosexual that is rejected and ridiculed for his homliness.

Yeah, Marg, thanks for that beliefnet link. That site does come in handy from time to time.

As for my thoughts, Paul may have been covertly gay, but mostly he was probably trying to gain power in the Church along with the other male disciples. (Mary Magdalene was not the only woman disciple during his ministry.) The men went along with Jesus belief in the equality of all persons, grudgingly. I tend to think that after Jesus' death, the disciples went back to their old, mysognist ways.

What followed was centuries of manipulations by the Church in an effort to subjugate women.

I am gay, and sure I will stay away from 'your' religion. So please tell all the priests and married Catholic men that offer me money for sex that you said to stay away. Maybe they will listen to you.

kisses
M

Originally posted by sublime4372
listen up homosexuals.....stay out of religion...your not welcome here...get over it. not everyone in the whole world agrees with you. go away. better yet, go start a "gay" church, write your own bible and interprit it anyway you choose. when you get into catholicism your treading on thin ice. paul wasnt gay. god hates homosexuals. period. end of story.

The words of one who is clearly unhappy with having God do the judging.

You may wish to study the ways of The Accuser, how they mirror yours, and thus whom you truly serve with such words.

If you claim the path of righteousness while walking the path of darkness, to darkness you will nonetheless go.

Actually I am now after researching into the subject of the Apostle Paul that he was the one than actually started the Christian believes because he wanted something more to his liking.

But what I don't understand is why the Catholic Church wants his priest to be celibate? Perhaps because Paul hates women so much that he wanted a religion for men alone?

John Shelby Spong actually addresses this very subject in his book
" Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:"

If you are interested in this subject I would suggest you grab a copy and give it a read. He's a very interesting author and a good read.

Originally posted by marg6043
But what I don't understand is why the Catholic Church wants his priest to be celibate? Perhaps because Paul hates women so much that he wanted a religion for men alone?

Maybe this will help. It's not as simple as the Catholic Church wants it's priests to be celibate. Everyone who has taken religious vows is celibate, male & female. It is part of thier higher calling to embrace chastity.

Neither is it a religion for men alone. The women (in some instances, not all) may have different roles, but they are equally important. As for places in the Church, the Blessed Mother is first in line behind the Holy Trinity and no man, not St. Paul or anyone else is above her. So when you look at it that way, in the Catholic Church the first in line behind God himself (as Father/Son/Holy Spirit being one Being) is a woman.

One additional point, St. Paul did not hate woman or make the rules of the Catholic Church. He taught. The Popes make the rules, and correct me if I am wrong but I do not think the Church had embraced celibacy as a requirement for priests till long after his time.


Hope that helps.

Mulberryblueshimmer,

Thanks for the reference I am good about reading books. I will check that one.

Relentless

It make sense that the latter leaders of the church made have done changes to fit their agendas.

I could care less if people are gay, just as Ii could care less what your religious beliefs are as long as you don't try and force them on me. People can do as they wish and it's none of anyones business to try and stop them.

I think little blue smurfs are really gay though.

Quoting from the article previously posted regarding the possible homosexuality of St. Paul:

www.beliefnet.com...

"Is it not possible, even probable, that this was the inner source of his deep self-negativity, his inner turmoil, his self-rejection, his superhuman zeal for a perfection he could never achieve? "

I find the views of this article a flawed theory. If you study any of the lives of the great Saints, these are feelings you find almost universal during a spiritual journey toward greater perfection and a closer relationship with God, (for those called to a particularly intimate relationship with God). They were not struggling with underlying issues of an illicit sexual nature by the time they experienced these types of feelings.

This part of Catholic mysticism is greatly misunderstood and must be taken in context (the spiritual journey of the Saints of the Church). It probably has to be studied to be fully understood. Granted, the person who authored this article/book is not a Catholic and therefore may be unaware of such things, as are even most Catholics today.

Actualy Paul did not become a saint do to his some what different views of the church.

Revisionists believe that Paul developed a spiritual Christology by borrowing from pagan mythologies.

Religions such as Mythraism had themes of a virgin being impregnated by some divine being, Plumer says. �There were stories of some godly person being killed on a tree or cross with the promise that he would return. . . . There�s no way to prove that Christianity is historically deficient, but it seems likely.�

As a Christian missionary and theologian, Paul knew little and cared less about the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

The claim is made that Paul simply may not have known the teachings of Jesus because he tells no stories about Jesus.

Second, Paul was intensely apocalyptic and believed that Christ�s Second Coming was imminent.

Consequently, he did not intend his sometimes stern judgment on doctrinal matters and on issues of gender and sexuality to become church dogma applied, as it has been, for nearly 2,000 years.

www.gospelgazette.com...


It is a lot of theories about the true nature of Paul or his agendas, but something is for sure not religious historian will say that he was in any way a homosexual or that he indeed have tendencies.

[edit on 25-7-2004 by marg6043]