Who cares if Paul was gay or not. He corrupted the teachings of Jesus. He's the true founder of Christianity and he corrupted it.

But on a serious note, Paul telling men not to engage in marriage or women is not a big thing. Buddhist monks also don't engage in sex and they have no contact with women because of their dedication to reach enlightenment.

Paul probably believed that to achieve true knowledge and enlightenment you need to cut off the phyiscal world.

Illuminati that is true but their celibacy is self inflicted and they keep to themselves in the search of enlightenment while the church wants his priest to be celibate but thought them into the masses around children and women. So I see a difference here a big difference.

Unbelievable how the church canonized anybody and make them saint, sorry I am just a not believer of church myths.

I do enjoy the history of religion, once you find the true of many beliefs and how they came to be the more you understand the true agenda of the church.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Who cares if Paul was gay or not. He corrupted the teachings of Jesus. He's the true founder of Christianity and he corrupted it.

The true founder of Christianity? What are you talking about. He was a convert called directly by the intervention of Christ and sent to existing Christians for conversion. There was already a Pope and already Christianity.

Originally posted by Illmatic67

But on a serious note, Paul telling men not to engage in marriage or women is not a big thing.

Paul probably believed that to achieve true knowledge and enlightenment you need to cut off the phyiscal world.

Yes, to take it a step further the purpose of celibacy in the Catholic Church is to consecrate yourself with undivided heart to the Lord. It's really fairly simple. It is the higher calling, but even St. Paul acknowledges that it is not for all.

I cannot believe this. Another thread on ATS about HOMOSEXUALITY.

What are these boards turning into. It's all you see on these boards anymore.

Originally posted by marg6043
Unbelievable how the church canonized anybody and make them saint, sorry I am just a not believer of church myths.

I do enjoy the history of religion, once you find the true of many beliefs and how they came to be the more you understand the true agenda of the church.

Funny, but from my perspective I consider much of what you say to be "church myths". What you consider "church myths" are in fact truths for many of us.

I supposse that is an example of what makes a great debate, though must admit, on a topic like this no one can ultimately put the topic to rest.

There was already a Pope and already Christianity.

actually the term Pope as it is used today did not come into use until the 4 th
or 5th century.

contrary to popular myth Peter was not the leader of the Church after
Jesus " left the Building" that role went to James the brother of Jesus and
may even have been shared with the Magdalene for a time.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

There was already a Pope and already Christianity.

actually the term Pope as it is used today did not come into use until the 4 th
or 5th century.

Regardless of when the term was first coined, it is used to refer to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC calls the list of leaders the list of Popes and it starts with St. Peter.

And once again I would like to point out that the use of the term myth is a matter of opinion. Can we acknowledge/discuss what some people's beliefs/thoughts are without stating it like it is anything more than a point of view whether or not someone thinks it's true?

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Buddhist monks also don't engage in sex and they have no contact with women because of their dedication to reach enlightenment.

Paul probably believed that to achieve true knowledge and enlightenment you need to cut off the phyiscal world.

I was going to say something like this, but .... christianized. I highly doubt Paul was gay, bi, or non-sexual. It seems that he understood the higher order of things and knew that to attain spiritual heights and to do the Will of God, you have to disassociate with the physical here ... fast from food and sex ... just look to the spiritual and cut the earthly baggage.

IMHO

until after Constantine there was no unified christian church. the bishop of rome
had no more authority than did the bishop of alexandria, or any where else until
after constantines councils.

the list of popes would not be the first forged document put out by the RCC,
the "donation of Constantine" comes to mind.

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.

God doesn't hate anyone. And ALL people are subject to religious philosphies. I know gay catholics. I know priests who love them and pray for their souls. You need to lighten up on your hate speak. Now...if you were a baptist...I would understand your using gay and hate in the same sentence. the catholics I know...including the ones I was in school with ..nuns, priests and all would never use the word "hate".

Originally posted by MacKiller
I cannot believe this. Another thread on ATS about HOMOSEXUALITY.

Think of it as "Queer Eye for the Straight Conspiracist".

What are these boards turning into. It's all you see on these boards anymore.

Not true! I've also seen bisexuality, S&M, bondage, voyeurism, extensive fetishism and more than a few examples of bestiality on the boards (don't ask). It's not all about homosexuality.

Losonczy

Now...if you were a baptist...I would understand your using gay and hate in the same sentence

Ouch!!
Not all Baptist hate homosexuals. Though we may not agree with the lifestyle that they choose, and believe it goes against scripture,thier should be NO HATE torwards the person. We(Baptists) need to remember that we were(and are)sinners saved by grace.In Gods eyes there is no difference in homosexuallity or telling a "white lie" or taking God's name in vain. To Him there is none righteous no not one. People of all religion seem to forget that. By grace are ye saved.

Hey Not-So-Sublime-4372

I realise you are a misguided homophobe, but maybe you should ponder a few things about biblical Hebrew writings which you probably cannot even read in the original Hebrew anyway... but here goes.

l. David and Jonathan: I'm sure you've heard of that pair.

Seems like the two of them were "sleeping together" or at any rate exchanging a lot more than underwear and armour.

Read 1 Samuel chapter 20 over a few hundred times.

In English if that's the only language you can read.

Maybe you'll get the drift that King Saul was none to pleased about his little boy and David shall we say doing more than just holding hands ("dont you know that you have CHOSEN TO MARRY the SON OF JESSE to the CONFUSION OF YOUR MOTHER'S NAKEDNESS? How will your DYNASTY be ESTABLISHED by doing this thing?"):

David was married to several females and had children by them, so we can assume some sort of bisexuality was at play here. Jonathan managed to pop out a crippled son, whom David later adopted after Jonathan and King Saul died in battle...

The ancient middle was swarming with bisexual unions, but not a lot of emphasis was placed on this fact in ancient literature: it was probably accepted as long as healthy sons were produced along the way...sort of like in Greece if you read Plato (you'd have to read it in English however since you cannot read ancient Greek either apparently)

FYI There is no exact word for what we would call "homosexuality" in ancient Hebrew: there are a number of CULTIC refereneces to homosexual acts on the altar (sometimes translated as "CONFUSION" in English e.g. a woman wearing a man's clothing or man on man ritual sex which was regarded as ritual "Toqeboth" (ritual abomination, the same word used for such acts as screwing your own Aunt like Moses' father Amram did with Auntie Yoshabed, or wearing cotton and linen together in the same garment, that's a real Toqebah to Yahweh, he hates that to pieces for some reason-- and of course that and planting two different kinds of seeds in the same field...that's another Toqebah ("a ritual abomination to the god Yahweh")

2. As for Jesus' attitude on sodomy or homosexual acts: he is silent on that subject (along with several hundred other subjects!) We read in John's Gospel that Jesus seems to have had someone referred to as "THE DISCIPLE WHOM IESOUS LOVED" as LEANING UPON HIS BREAST" at some kind of last supper meal, sharing whispers.... sounds like the SON OF DAVID was ACTING LIKE DAVID...

But PAUL NEVER MET R. Ywhoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Greek: IESOUS (English "Jesus") in person, only in DREAMS AND VISIONS (like my cook) so ultimately he has no true Apostolic Authority despite his wimpy claims to the contrary to having "seen the Lord" during a lightning storm (light, and Qol or "Thunder" were apparently present during his "vision").

Any pontificating blabbering out of Saul of Tarsus ("Paul") should be seen as harmless meandering pseudo rabinniic commentary, and not as "holy writ" by Christians, most of whom assume he was one of the 12 apostles for some reason, even though Shimeon bar Yonah (ha Kephah "Peter") hated him (Acts 15) as well as the blood brother of "Jeeezuz" (R. Yakkov bar Yosef ha Tsaddiq or James the Just) who also thought him a heretic.

Whether this Saul of Tarsus personage was "homosexual", "bisexual" or "a-sexual" is a matter of debate and ultimately unprovable since we cannot interview the man.

He spoke of "a thorn in his side" ref sex in general which sounds like he suffered from some sort of guilt complex about sexuality ("of the flesh") in general.

We find the same kind of general anti sex anti women talk among the Dead Sea Scroll community who regarded their own core monks (who were celibates) among them (at Qumran, "Damascus") as "angels in heaven without sexual desires" etc.

The Ebionites (alligned with Peter and James the Just as part of the Nazorean, Torah-abiding anti-Pauline Messianic movement in early Christianity centered around the family of Jesus) claimed that Paul tried to get himself engaged to the high Priest's daughter in Jerusalem (so that one day he could be high priest himself) and when this plan went awry, he left mainstream Sadduccean Judaeim and became a Pharisee, later an anti-Torah abiding "Pauline" Gentile Friendly "Christian" who as some have already pointed out, corrupted and twisted and confused the original Nazorean Messianic message which "was intended for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel only" (Matthew chapter 15)...

I suspect that "Paul" was one of those people who believed that having any kind of sexual contact at all was ultimately pointeless since he believed the end of the world was going to happen any minute for most of his preaching career (like Jesus and Peter's and James Nazorean Messianists" who said "in the Last Days and in the Resurrection, there will be no Marriage or Giving in marriage but all will act like the (Unfallen) Angels in Heaven..." i.e. without carnal desire).

"Paul" the Tarsian Jew might also have been shall we say "put off" by all the homosexual activities that he would have witnessed first hand in all those Roman and Greek prisons he was confined in for so many months at a time....to say nothing of the bi-sexuality of the larger Greco-Roman "Hellenistic" world in general outside of prisons (e.g. the man-boy love we see so prominantly among the Greco philosophical elite etc.)