Is St. Paul Gay?

Seraphim

Originally posted by greekgod at 3-2-2005 09:16 PM:


Why should I prove Spong as gay?

Perlu ker? since our topic lingering around St. Paul as Gay.

There are many facts... Googling is just the method, not the source. Many websites, including ...

What is there to prove..if you dont even prove that St Paul is gay???You're asking to prove St Paul is gay and yet you havent even started...You pasted some phrases from the Epistle of Paul..And i've shown that you only used partial materials to do your devious action of undermining Christianity..And then you just paste a URL about Bishop Spong..

I explained that Bishop Spong has a really different and deviated way of understanding faith and religion which even looked sacrilege for Islam..Yet you based from Bishop Spong and you claimed St Paul is gay..When i pointed out that Bishop Spong overall had a demented beilef, you go on saying in the web there's lots of sites saying St Paul is a gay..

Hard enough to understand??

Let me rephrase it for you and others of your ilk to make it easier to understand..

Please post the facts instead of saying VERY general presumption that St Paul is a gay...You'll just going round and round without even explaining that St Paul is a gay...In first page you mentioned Greeks are gays and all those Julius Caesar crap...And then you come out with mumbo jumbo theory that St Paul is gay just because the Greeks and Romans practised homosexuality in their culture..I dont see what is necessary to discuss anymore or furthering this topic since you'll end up just evading whatever i post..[size]

[ Last edited by Seraphim on 4-2-2005 at 12:42 AM ]

nightlord

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

babybueno

Originally posted by Truth.8 at 3-2-2005 06:03 PM:



does ur mo married that christian women?
he does sex with her

so what kind example this men brought?

yes Muhammad married her eventhough she remained christian. Does it surprise you to find out that a muslim man can marry a christian woman? you know that Arafat's wife is still a christian, dont you? a muslim man can have an orthodox christian wife who believe in old testament. With the bible being corrupted i doubt it still can be applied anymore;)

[ Last edited by babybueno on 4-2-2005 at 08:46 AM ]

babybueno

sounds like you people are shameful to admit that paul is a gay, even if it is only a speculation you try to cover him up & making him holier than the prophets. You dont put so much respect on the earlier prophets the way you ppl show to st. patrick & st paul, do you?

sonny~~

Originally posted by Seraphim at 2005-2-4 12:39 AM:


What is there to prove..if you dont even prove that St Paul is gay???You're asking to prove St Paul is gay and yet you havent even started...You pasted some phrases from the Epistle of Paul..An ...

me incline to think st. paul is gay
how come?
simple

st. paul prepared to twist the bible to spread blasphemy that ONE N ONLY ONE GOD is 3 gods in 1 god

yet 10 commandments clearly said theres ONLY ONE GOD not 3 gods in 1 trinity god or 2 gods in 1 twoness god

n st. paul prepared to twist the bible to say jesus is god when jesus clearly said he came from father.  jesus never said he is father n therefore god

since st. paul preapred to blaspheme, me incline to think hes prepared to be gay too

c?  

peace

babybueno

The link greekgod provided to proof Paul is gay is not belong to anti christian website. it belongs to christian website, why you have doubt about it? what propaganda Bishop Spong is playing to condemn Paul?

Maybe it wouldnt hurt you much If that website belongs to muslim website & you ppl can simply say that muslim taking revenge on how you ppl potraying Muhammad as a rapist and paedophile;)

Debmey

Its amazing how low muslims can stoop by taking materials from a gay site for inspiration.
Thats GG alright. Ahahhahahahahahaha........................

cheers

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-2-4 09:36 AM:
Its amazing how low muslims can stoop by taking materials from a gay site for inspiration.
Thats GG alright. Ahahhahahahahahaha........................

cheers

What Greekgod presented has not been  inspired from a gay site at all. In fact they are all from Christian sites.

Here's a very realistic view from the same retired bishop that Greekgod was talking about.

Paul was epileptic as many people already know (which explains his sudden demonic 'vision' on the road to Damascus), but this 'gay' thing is something which affected his behaviour, feelings & attitude towards sex.




The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, D.D., is the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. As the author of 14 books, he is the most published member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline. He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him.

What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they? Searching once again through the writings of Paul, some conclusions begin to emerge that startle and surprise the reader. Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8). A primary purpose of sexual activity in marriage, according to Paul, was to keep Satan from tempting people "through lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:5). Why, when Paul seemed to be so consumed with a passion he could not control, would he not take his own advice and alleviate that passion in marriage?  He did write that marriage was an acceptable, if not ideal, way of life. Still, however, marriage never seemed to loom for him as a possibility.

Paul has been perceived as basically negative toward women.  He did write that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1). The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul, anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Paul's sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does?

Obviously there is no way to know for certain the cause of Paul's anxiety prior to that moment of final revelation in the Kingdom of Heaven. But that does not stop speculation. The value of speculation in this case comes when a theory is tested by assuming for a moment that it is correct and then reading Paul in the light of that theory. Sometimes one finds in this way the key that unlocks the hidden messages that are present in the text. Once unlocked, these messages not only cease to be hidden but they become obvious, glaring at the reader, who wonders why such obvious meanings had not been seen before.

Some have suggested that that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears. This is not a new idea, and yet until recent years, when homosexuality began to shed some of its negative connotations, it was an idea so repulsive to Christian people that it could not be breathed in official circles. This is not to say that our cultural homophobia has disappeared. It is still lethal and dwells in high places in the life of the Christian church, and it is a subject about which ecclesiastical figures are deeply dishonest, saying one thing publicly and acting another way privately. The prejudice, however, is fading slowly but surely. With the softening of that homophobic stance we might consider the hypothesis that Paul may have been a gay male. We might test that theory by assuming it for a moment as we read Paul. When I did this for the first time, I was startled to see how much of Paul was unlocked and how deeply I could understand the power of the gospel that literally saved Paul's life.

When I suggest the possibility that Paul was a homosexual person, I do not mean to be salacious or titillating or even to suggest something that many would consider scandalous. I see no evidence to suggest that Paul ever acted out his sexual desires and passions. He lived in an age and among a people that cloaked the way he would have viewed this reality with layer after layer of condemnation. But for a moment assume the possibility that this theory is correct and look with me again at the writings of Paul and, more important, at the meaning of Christ, resurrection, and grace in the life of this foundational Christian.

Paul felt tremendous guilt and shame, which produced in him self-loathing. The presence of homosexuality would have created this response among Jewish people in that period of history. Nothing else, in my opinion, could account for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body, and his sense of being controlled by something he had no power to change. The war that went on between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body, his drivenness to a legalistic religion of control, his fear when that system was threatened, his attitude toward women, his refusal to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion-nothing else accounts for this data as well as the possibility that Paul was a gay male.

Paul's religious tradition would clearly regard gay males as aberrant, distorted, evil, and depraved. When discovered, gay males were quite often executed. The Law stated: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22). Do not defile yourself by these things, the Torah continued, for God will cast out those who defile themselves. God will punish, promised the Law, and the land will vomit out those who are thus defiled (Lev. 18:24ff). To do these things is to be cut off from the people of Israel (Lev. 18:29). Later in the Torah death is called for as the penalty for homosexuality. "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:13).

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. 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? Could this also be his thorn in the flesh, about which he wrote so plaintively? With this possibility in mind, listen once more to Paul's words: "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

On another and perhaps earlier occasion, Paul had written, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13). The word angel can also be translated messenger. Paul is the possessor of a condition that he believes to be incurable. It is a condition for which people might scorn or despise him. I have heard and read of commentators who suggested that this physical condition was some kind of chronic eye problem. This is based, I suspect, on Paul's words to the Galatians that they would have "plucked out their eyes and given them" to Paul (Gal. 4:15). But chronic eye problems do not normally bring scorn or the activity of despairing, and through the eye, which Paul called "the window of the body," life and beauty as well as death and pain enter the human experience. Paul, in these words to the Galatians, told them that he had now "become as they are," one in whom "Christ has been formed," and assured them that they "did him no wrong" (Gal. 4:12, 19). That refers to an inner healing not an external healing.

Others have suggested that epilepsy was the condition from which he was not free. Epilepsy was thought of as demon possession, but it was a periodic sense of being possessed by an alien spirit, not a constant malady. Also, in the biblical narrative the epileptic elicited a sense of pity, or at times fear, but seldom did it elicit despising or loathing. Epilepsy does not appear to me to account for the intensity of the feelings that Paul expressed. The realization that he was a homosexual male does.  It is a hypothesis that makes sense of the data and accounts for the tone, the fear, the passion, and the behavior.


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 4-2-2005 at 10:49 AM ]

Seraphim

Originally posted by KENNKID at 4-2-2005 10:22 AM:


What Greekgod presented has not been  inspired from a gay site at all. In fact they are all from Christian sites.

Here's a very realistic view from the same ret ...

And the fact or proof that St paul is a gay???Try reading the whole text you've just "paste" and please show me where it mentioned with complete certainity that St Paul is gay...

Again and again,i need to say this...Most of you people with this wierd bizarre assumption that St Paul is gay, just use this Bishop Spong's gay theory and completely ignore his other beliefs just to fuel your blind hatred for Chirstianity..I sincerely hope that you go and take his book and read it YOURSELF and find out what other abominations he's talkin about...

Seraphim

Originally posted by Debmey at 4-2-2005 09:36 AM:
Its amazing how low muslims can stoop by taking materials from a gay site for inspiration.
Thats GG alright. Ahahhahahahahahaha........................

cheers

The problem is..They only take the part of St Paul is gay and agree with it..Hence it means they agree with Bishop Spong's mentality as well..But the other problem they have no clue what Bishop Spong's other beliefs are all about...Been trying to point it to them but they still insist and continuing debating with the same dumb issue...It's getting hopeless to continue this:mll:

Truth.8

Originally posted by babybueno at  08:07 AM:


yes Muhammad married her eventhough she remained christian. Does it surprise you to find out that a muslim man can marry a christian woman? you know that Arafat's wife is still a christian, don ...

so, in this case I can married a christian women since i  am muslim?

wow, what a break.

i will started looking for christian wife.
if the  authority ask my future wife to convert to islam, i just bring point on muhammad and arafat;)

Originally posted by Seraphim at 2005-2-4 10:50 AM:


And the fact or proof that St paul is a gay???Try reading the whole text you've just "paste" and please show me where it mentioned with complete certainity that St Paul is gay...

A ...

Well, the proof of the apple  is in the pudding, as the saying goes:;)


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/129/07/world05.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week613/cover.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/03june02/kurtz060302.asp

Debmey

Originally posted by Seraphim at 2005-2-4 10:52 AM:


The problem is..They only take the part of St Paul is gay and agree with it..Hence it means they agree with Bishop Spong's mentality as well..But the other problem they have no clue what Bishop ...

They will readily accept any conspiarcy theorire sabt non Muslims w/o question, no matter how silly. Butw hen confornted with clear evdience that Mo raped, cross dressed, paedophilied, they run inot denail. This is the sick state of mind of Muslims.

BTW, I still don't see any logic in their presentation abt Paul being a gay.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-2-4 11:29 AM:



They will readily accept any conspiarcy theorire sabt non Muslims w/o question, no matter how silly. Butw hen confornted with clear evdience that Mo raped, cross dressed, paedophilied ...

Of course we deny something which is blatantly untrue.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-2-4 11:29 AM:


BTW, I still don't see any logic in their presentation abt Paul being a gay

The churches which approve gay ministers, priests and gay marriages sure do find it logical (even if at the moment they are a minority but growing in popularity), otherwise they wouldn't approve and go against  paul, their mentor. I'm sure like you,  they're all for paul.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 4-2-2005 at 11:38 AM ]

Debmey

But there is hard evdience that Mo was a paedophile and rapist. He even ordained mass rapes of captive women and sex slavery.

Yes, churches who ordained gay ministers are clearly illogical, thats why they are ex-communicated by mainstream churches.

Debmey

We didn't make all this up, its alll found within islamic sources and msulims today ate still taking those records and using Mo as an exmaple for behavior in rapes and paedophilia.

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-2-4 11:39 AM:
But there is hard evdience that Mo was a paedophile and rapist. He even ordained mass rapes of captive women and sex slavery.

Hard evidence my foot. The holy Prophet was never a self-claimed prophet as paul was a self claimed 'apostle'. The hard evidence is in our love and confidence in him.

Yes, churches who ordained gay ministers are clearly illogical, that ...

There is nothing not illogical in christianity as it is anyway. Its only a matter of you people adding another set of  illogicals (to other people's standards)  to make it ' logical' (to your standards). No evidence can be harder than that.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 4-2-2005 at 11:47 AM ]

Debmey

Your foot you said?
You mean hadiths are your foot? Its Bukhari you know? The most sahih of all hadiths.


From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:

            "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.  Hisham said:  "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""




Bukhari vol. 7, #88:

            "Narrated Urwa:  "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).""





Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says:

            "Narrated Aisha:  The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six.  We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj.  Then I got ill and my hair fell down.  Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends.  She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.  She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house.  I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it.  Then she took me into the house.  There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck."  Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).  Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

babybueno

Originally posted by Truth.8 at 4-2-2005 11:04 AM:



so, in this case I can married a christian women since i  am muslim?

wow, what a break.

i will started looking for christian wife.
if the  authority ask my future wife to conve ...

ko jgn nak tipu aku konon2 ko ni muslim...boleh :blah: aku bukan bongok macam ko:no:

even if it is true...i suggest you to marry sonny's sister or female relative then you can have inter-religion marriage but if  that christian girl is from twoness or trinity believer, either one of you have to convert!

greekgod

Originally posted by Debmey at 4-2-2005 05:39 AM:
But there is hard evdience that Mo was a paedophile and rapist. He even ordained mass rapes of captive women and sex slavery.

Yes, churches who ordained gay ministers are clearly illogical, that ...

this is hard evidence too...

you see.. every christian here seems anger about the topic... but have they think about their post?

they tend to think, oh we are christian, therefore you guys have to shut-up and listen to what we want to say.

unfortunately, im kinda a rebellious person... what i got here, not 2 or 3 persons, that had been believe in this, but so many, through out the world, thank to the electronic world we have today.

debmey... has crazily attack muhammad as paedophile, and say that he has strong evidence, and he uses aishah as his example. yet, he tend to excerpt from hadith, to which most if not all of hadith were made sources from aishah. if you want to use aishah as an example, then you cannot you hadith at all... debmey.. wrong method!

and secondly, you want prove.. i had gave you prove... how many? more than one.. including those by kennkid.. thanks kennkid...

if you remember in a thread, you say that you dont even know Bishop Spong, it clearly shows your ignorant... because you have forgotten to use your daily-religion-info-finder tool, google, to look for spong, and you must be ashame, when i had returned to you some information about spong.

and, the above person, who claim that he is islam, and wanted to marry non-christian.. i would strongly believe, his name is islam, but he is not islam at all, and he's not living as islam at all... go on la what you want to do...