once a member(really? or just a way myth) of the Sanhedrin. Which included being the husband of one wife. What happened to the wife and child? If there was one? Did he fulfill his commitment, in raising a family, if there really was offspring?
and considering.. the "faults" of the Roman Catholic priesthood.
why couldn't he have been subjected to the same fault in the early days..
fair question, I think.
Homosexual contact either wanted or unwanted.. does have an effect on an individual..
I dunno. I will wait for some intelligent response here before saying more..
Interesting stuff, Roy....Hope ya got your flame-proof undies on.
Roy is always ready..
God bless you, brother..
same as me.
I've come up with some pretty wild crap at times. Some that I still believe.. like we've had a kazillion reincarnations of Squirrels.. I don't really (but deep down I do) give a damn what people think..
weird, huh.
Cantor was a very interesting individual..
Now they call him the Father of set theory..
"back then" his main contemporary called him nuts, a corrupter of youth..
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.
I have at least a thousand hidden messages as well..
so does the professor in my last math class here..
Graduate level mathematics is so very interesting.
The current problem.. this guy probably will never give the answer to the problem. Even though even he can barely compute it..
It's a problem dealing with convexity of functions. Does he know the answer? My class mate says no. What do you really want to bet here..
Christ.. it's a graduate level class..
one day, I will figure it out, God willing..
I've taken a couple of hints..
homework solutions.
Ha.
so I am one inch from being able to prove this theorem, or whatever it is..
That is the way it will be for the rest of this existence.. for everything..
This may well go the way of wierwille's insistence that Jesus had his Bar Mitzva at the age of 12 instead of 13, despite the fact that Bar Mitzva ceremonies didn't exist in Biblical times.
Though I haven't looked at this in any depth, it would initially appear that Wierwille's Sanhedrin "requirements" are along the lines of what we, today, might call an urban legend.
Even if he was a member of the Sanhedren,though, it's no secret that, even today, homosexual people enter into heterosexual marriages for a variety of reasons. (Meaning he could have been married AND gay.) But, he does state that at the time of his writings he was not married. And don't forget, during that period of time, homosexuality could be punishable by death. That in itself would be good reason for Paul to live a life of conflicted allegiances.
[First of all, this should be in DOCTRINAL, because this is about DOCTRINE,
and is clearly not "ABOUT THE WAY."
So, I'll ask the mods to move this thread.
Second, this person said a lot of things. I will reply in boldface and brackets,
as is my style.
And so I don't trip the "too many quotes" error in the software.]
Was the Apostle Paul... Gay...?by Pope Reverend I, BV (no login)
[No, he was not.
And this was quoted from someone arrogant enough to stack titles in front of his name,
and yet timid enough to "post a drive-by." (He didn't LOG IN to the forum he posted this to,
thus admitting he was the same person who posted this.]
What accounts for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body?
An Episcopal bishop mulls the issues.
BY: John Shelby Spong
Comments (36)
Excerpted from "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"
with permission of HarperSanFrancisco.
[Actually, HarperSanFrancisco gave no permission for THIS POST in any form,
so the original poster was deceitful in this. He was quoting someone who had permission
to print the excerpt. Supposing even that is true.
As for Paul's "rhetoric" being "Self-judging", we can already see a HECK of a slant
in this article. If an "Episcopal bishop" can read Paul's struggles with life and
imperfection on top of the external suffering he dealt with, and call it
"self-judging", "rhetoric", and say the issue was Paul having issues with his body,
then this "bishop" is not worthy of his office.]
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.
[Paul had a thirst to do what he believed to be RIGHT.
He began as "a Hebrew of the Hebrews", a by-the-book example of a member of the Pharisees,
and one in a family line of Pharisees, which meant he had a lot to live up to.
He prepared to put these "rebels" in prison and didn't mind death to "heretics"
like Stephen. When he received a personal visit from Jesus, Paul changed his mind, and
after several days to adjust, became just as obsessed a Christian as he had been
a Pharisee.
He was educated, disciplined, passionate in his beliefs, and rueful that his own body
could not be reasoned with the same way the mind is reasoned with. Others could injure
him, he suffered the usual aches as age advanced. Those are perfectly understandable
frustrations to any intellectual who is over 30. If he cares to think it over.
To take all of that and to say he had "enormous feelings of self-negativity" or that he
overcompensated against imperfection by retreating into religious extremism is to leap to
amazing distances for no reason.
Look- Jesus appeared to him PERSONALLY, knocked him off his horse with a beam of light,
and chatted with him- when Paul didn't believe Jesus was anything but a dead man
(or possibly a dead prophet or a dead insurrectionist.) Paul was fully convinced by this
that Jesus was the Messiah. If this is hard to imagine, one is not trying very hard...
possibly because one wants to discard the truth and push an agenda even if lies are needed
to advance that agenda.]
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?
[What is provided to support the bald assertion that Paul had sexual issues?
Oh, it's obvious to this man's mind. Period. That's it.
It's equally obvious to someone else that Jesus Christ will appear in glory
holding an orange pfal book in his hand.
Why should I believe EITHER of them just on their say-so?
And on this only, the guy keeps going.
Having ASSUMED Paul had sex problems (was this projection? Does the writer
have sex problems?), he then begins to SPECULATE on top of his ASSUMPTION
about the TYPE of sex problems he IMAGINES Paul had.
This is hardly off to a rousing start...]
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 burned to see Jesus Christ return to Earth during his lifetime. How do you relieve that
passion without Jesus returning bodily at that time?
Paul wanted to "be present with the Lord."
This is not difficult to see.
Look-
if a dearly loved one dies, you ache to spend time with them again.
Until you do so (for those who believe there is any way to do so ever),
there's no way to truly relieve that ache.
Oh, you do other things and focus on other things, and possibly have other loved ones,
but that doesn't RELIEVE it, it exists alongside it.
It's the same reason a minority can't get past their twi days.
They miss the honeymoon phase so much they can't have another "relationship"
with other Christians.]
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.
[Except, of course, that members of the Sanhedrin were expected to be married, over 30,
and in good standing in the Jewish community. What we DON'T know is what happened to Paul's
marital status between that point and the point where he's obviously single and remaining so.]
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).
[And he's correct. People who are in a working marriage relationship channel their base passions
into the "one flesh" God declared at the beginning of the Book of Genesis.
By contrast, the Corinthians he addressed this to were sex maniacs who were likely to have casual sex
whenever they felt like it and had time. The Corinthians were distinctly LACKING in self-control
and moderation- so he urged them to both- and not because he was "obsessed" with self-control.
He controlled himself just fine and had no need to obsess over it-nor did he have TIME.
Why does an Episcopalian BISHOP not understand that ONE of the purposes of marriage is to channel
base impulses into a beautiful union, and that God set it so, and said so all over the Bible?
Has he not READ the Old Testament?]
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.
[Again, ASSuming Paul was obsessed with sexual passions based on nothing except the man having
zeal and drive, and the writer projecting those as sublimated sex urges.]
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).
[He told the CORINTHIANS that the guys shouldn't just go up and feel up women.
That's "BASICALLY NEGATIVE" towards them?
Ok, try it tomorrow. Walk up to a woman on the street, a total stranger, cop a feel off her,
then explain how that's basically POSITIVE towards her.
Then get back to us and tell us how the food tastes in jail.
(I just checked with a woman offline. She would be offended by this, and I suspect
she's typical in that respect.)]
The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman.
[Why does an Episcopalian BISHOP not understand the zeal that can overcome a person who has an
encounter with God, an angel, Jesus Christ, etc.? Why did he even seek the PRIESTHOOD?]
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?
[Paul never said he had sexual passions-and he was not a young man when we even pick up his story.
Surely any man who's over 40 can understand that it's possible for a man to master his lusts more
effectively when he's no longer a youngster.
If that man WANTS to understand.]
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.
[Oh, nothing even slowed down the most WILD speculation, as we can all clearly see...]
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.
[Actually, looking at the evidence the speculation may be incorrect often saves a lot of time
wasted on wild speculation. There's plenty of evidence this silly dissertation contradicts the
Paul of the Epistles, let alone the Paul of Acts. However, he's ASSuming this is correct and
then looking around to see if anything MIGHT agree with him, maybe.
That has often led to some wild doctrines.
twi has had a history of this, and ex-twi groups have as well.
This is what led to "God wants you to have sex with the leader" and
"God wants you to have an abortion" and
"I saw a vision of spiders coming out of your nose."]
Some have suggested that that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears.
[some have suggested just about everything. Without anything more than suggestion,
the whole subject of each suggestion is of no more value than speculating on whether
Harry Potter would be better off marrying Ginny Weasley or Hermione Granger.]
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.
[The repulsiveness of an idea is no guarantee it won't be heard. I've seen speculation that
just about every man in the Bible was homosexual- speculated by people eager to try to twist
the text to approve of something it calls a SIN.
Except for twi, I didn't see adulterers pulling the same thing....]
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.
[The phrasing of this makes this plainly obvious. The writer is eager to advance a pro-homosexuality agenda
and will not hesitate to make up "supporting evidence" out of whole cloth, and bash any more direct reading
of what the Bible says on a subject he's obsessed with promoting.]
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.
If this hypothesis is correct, it also illumines in powerful ways Paul's experience of conversion, his understanding of Jesus, his view of resurrection, and his move toward universalism. Furthermore, it provides us with a means to step into Christ as Paul did and to see the Christ experience outside the context of limited words and in the context of a universal human experience. It thus becomes for us a point of entry into a universal spirituality inaugurated by Christ that may endure into the unlimited future in a way that the narrow and brittle religious forms from our Christian past no longer seem capable of doing.
[Obsession bred speculation, which bred speculation, which bred wild stories,
and any evidence he might be completely off-track lies discarded on the road-side.
That's disgraceful for any Episcopalian Bishop, moreso than someone like myself who
claims no leadership capacity. This was disgraceful when twi leadership did it
to push a "sex with me" agenda, and it is disgraceful when this sex maniac does it
to push a "sex with him" agenda. I'm mildly curious what's in it for him.
Paul was obsessed with Jesus because what was in it for him was Salvation and
following The Truth. Why is this bishop obsessed?
And how did he get to BE a bishop with such shoddy research skills?]
"Except, of course, that members of the Sanhedrin were expected to be married, over 30,
and in good standing in the Jewish community."
How do we know that to be factually accurate?
Also, I think , though it definitely has doctrinal elements, it also belongs in About The Way because this basic premise regarding Sanhedren admittance was taught in PFAL to stress a point that Wierwille was making.
Gay? Doubtful. I believe this piece is also on the 'net HERE.
Homosexuality isn't new to this century. You'd have to assume that if there's some social and moral regulations in the Bible that address it that there was something to address. I don't think we have to dig too deep to assume that it's present in the history of the Bible, after all the bible's basically a historical perspective, from "in the beginning" to events yet to occur.
These are suppositions, based on an extremely idealized characterization of a man - "Saul/Paul" - that's drawn from very little information. He can be seen as being a lot of things by the reader yet IMO we really only know one thing very clearly about him and that can be drawn from the account of his "conversion" - and that is that he went through an extremely powerful and direct confrontation with himself that caused him to change deeply internally. People go through lots of things that affect them and cause them to change and it can be seen from the epistles that his change was one that governed and dominated his thinking and actions for the rest of his life. That one clear point is the most powerful for me.
Assuming he was a closet gay male living in condemnation of himself is a stretch from the little information given about himself. People torture to death some of this stuff to get meaning from it that isn't really there.
Paul could have been gay. He could have been an opium addict. He could have been at odds with his family, wife and friends. He could have been bald, blind, 7 feet tall and had 6 toes on one foot and 3 on the other. He might have liked lamb. He might have hated fish. He might have had extremely bad body odor due to personal hygiene habits that would shame a maggot. He could have been a thief on the lamb, speaking of lamb. Any number of things might have gotten his goat to the point that he may have sworn like a near sighted carpenter with a bent hammer and hated himself for his lack of not only good tools but self control.
Is that the real message of what I read in the epistles? No, not for me.
"Except, of course, that members of the Sanhedrin were expected to be married, over 30,
and in good standing in the Jewish community."
How do we know that to be factually accurate?
Also, I think , though it definitely has doctrinal elements, it also belongs in About The Way because this basic premise regarding Sanhedren admittance was taught in PFAL to stress a point that Wierwille was making.
(ie: Perhaps another Actual Error in PFAL?)
From what I'm seeing, it seems to hold up on the more erudite websites.
I've found this more or less the same on several less flaky sites, at least...
"Similarly, the members of the Sanhedrin must command respect as mature individuals. Therefore, it is preferable that each member be at least 40 years old, unless he is incomparable in wisdom and universally respected. Similarly, it is preferable that the head of the Sanhedrin be at least 50 years old. Under no condition should a person under 18 be appointed to the Sanhedrin."
"A person who is very old may not sit on the Sanhedrin, since he is apt to be too severe. The same is true of a man who is sterile, or even childless. A Sanhedrin containing any such member is not validly constituted."
Technically, they did not state outright that he not be MARRIED-
just that he not be CHILDLESS.
In this particular context, however, I think the meaning was that they expected any
such candidate to be married with at least one child.
The idea of a divorced man with a child seeking membership in the Sanhedrin probably
struck them as too far-fetched to even entertain-so they didn't bother to write it down.
"Every member of the Sanhedrin must be of unblemished family, as was the first Sanhedrin under Moses. Therefore a bastard (mamzer, i.e., the son of an adulterous or incestuous union) is ineligible for membership and renders a Sanhedrin invalid..."
The most obvious meaning is that a candidate for the Sanhedrin was ineligible if he was
seen as either physically or morally blemished in any way, and was expected to have the
respect of his local community. So, unmarried men with children would have been
right out.
(I'm getting that from the WHOLE page, not just what I quoted.
"1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense."
"5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way."
So, he denies the fall of man, Theism, miracles in the Bible, the sacrificial substitution of The Cross,
Jesus' resurrection AND ascension, the Bible as any type of authoritative book,
and the efficacy of prayer.
I had more in common with Christianity when I was young and stupid, and rejected all of Christianity
and the Bible. I still believed there WAS one God, but didn't think I knew anything about Him other than
that He was The Creator. I was still, technically, a theist.
"The probable fate of the crucified Jesus was to be thrown with other victims into a common, unmarked grave. The general consensus of New Testament scholars is that whatever the Easter experience was, it dawned first in the minds of the disciples who had fled to Galilee for safety, driving us to the conclusion that the burial story in the gospels is … legendary … "
Reply:
"...unquestionably, by the pattern of your argument, you want us to accept that the consensus of New Testament scholars think that Jesus was not buried in a tomb. That is certainly not true and you know it, Bishop John Shelby Spong."
(Several quotes follow, refuting Spong's claims- including quotes from Jesus Seminar writers
who otherwise would agree with Spong that the Bible is outdated and archaic.)
thanks waysider and cara and Ham and cman and WordWolf and socks
waysider yes i have them on my friend
cara enjoy the stories my friend
Ham God bless you too my friend
cman yes some do my friend
WordWolf did the way talk about homosexual because you pointed it out and no ones does it there because why it should not matter my friend
socks yes homosexual is not new my friend
with love and a holy kiss Roy
God first
Who is the fool in Psalms 53:1?
07-13-2011
Psalms 53:1 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Who is the fool here every person under the sun just like the next person we had the thought that there is no God. Jesus Christ taught thinking is doing it because we all had that thought we all humans. Just like the homosexual thought we all had it while most of us do not take action on this thought but we had it one time or another.
That what Paul was getting at when he said Romans 7:15 “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I” otherwise the thought that he had and allow in his heart he hates. The thought was the sin that of the heart because that where all sin begins in the heart. You have an ideal in your inner self of anything even homosexual because had one time or another but some of us are honest about it.
That is removing everything from yourself has you clean up your thoughts of everything only then you are honest to yourself and God. Otherwise to empty yourself is to empty every thought you ever had to Christ because you’re not honest with yourself how can be to God or how God be honest with you. That why I call myself a fool because next to God I am a fool because every thought is nothing to God.
That why God looks at the desires of us and not our hearts because every person is a sinner in their heart but our desires are to not sin. That why Paul said that which I hate I do and allow the very thought Paul did and allow to happen was a sin. Paul was a man like the rest of us with human emotions in us or thoughts of sin but greatest desire was of love.
Otherwise Paul desirer was to do what right in God eyes not Paul’s eyes what he saw others doing in their life but Paul being honest to God Paul known he was not without sin only Christ was without sin. I getting tired now thank you with love and a holy kiss from Roy.
Hmmm...frankly I've looked at the gospel verses that have been interpreted as homosexual references and honestly, from what I see and the basic language of the verses themselves, plus the overall context, there's no reference to homosexuality at all. That interpretation is extreeeeeemely contrived, and while there's no lack of that in biblical interpretation it doesn't go to the simplest, most direct understanding of what those verses say, on face value. It's kind of amazing to me that they're being understood in that way. It's like saying that if the bible records two men walked together down a road alone, they're homosexual because they're men and walking together alone implies companionship and companionship implies relationship and relationships between men includes homosexuality and that infers they were. It just doesn't make sense in light of the entire gospels.
Not everyone has had homosexual "thoughts" or inclinations, that's incorrect Roy. It's easy to say everyone "has" at one time or another but that isn't true if that means having a sexual attraction to another of the same sex and as you're saying having that "thought" (whatever that really is) but not "acting" on it (which covers a lot of ground). Not everyone has or does or will, in fact I'd say that most probably haven't. That's my opinion of course and I have no data to support it other than myself - I can honestly say I've never had that kind of thought or interest or desire. I know others who I think would say the same thing.
This topic is more complex than simply "men like women and women like men", although at it's simplest that about sums it up. But the range of emotional relationships we have with each other is wide to say the least. The nature of our relationships with each other can be very diverse without being "homosexual", where homosexuality is defined to mean a sexual attraction to the same sex.
As for Spong...? He's a dweeb, sorry, he's just not on my radar.
His write includes this:
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.
Hidden messages? Why do there have to be hidden messages that need to be unlocked? What if I were to read the epistles speculating that Paul is not gay? What hidden messages reveal themselves then and what theoretical conclusions can be made?
Spong struggles with the language of the epistles and the profile he takes from them about Paul as if that Paul is unusually conflicted in such a way and to an extreme that he needs to be understood in ways that will explain them. I don't know why to be honest.
I don't know what's driving Spong, it may be good it may be bad - it might just be his own internal battles and conflicts with the general state of humanity which can yield some pretty horrible results. It can also yield some very good things too. Whatever's driving him I dunno but when I read about people looking for and finding hidden messages in the bible - dunno.
Lets break verse Psalms 53:1 down and see what insight we can gain from it.
Psalms 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
It is easy to direct this verse at the unbeliever but 1Tim3:16 state to us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. So in that light lets see what we can glean from it.
The fool hath said in his heart
Lets focus on where the problem is here and it is easy to see it is the heart. There are two things that FORM our soul: the motives of the heart and the activities of the mind. God associates the heart with 'heaven' and the mind with 'earth'. God dwells in the heart and this is where he can direct our will. God is in Christ (2Cor 5:19) which is the power to change us into Gods image.
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
The heart is the temple that Christ wants sit in but when we experience the visitation there is someone else there, the man of sin who is antichrist in nature. The KINGdom of God is WITHIN.
and have done abominable iniquity:
The heart of all men is considered a desolate abomination to him and this is where the war in heaven takes place it is the battle for who controls the heart. This is the first part of our tribulation in the unveiling (apocalypse) of the law of God, his salvation and his power in our lives (hence the name LORD-YESHUA-CHRISTOS).
there is none that doeth good.
The MAN who is formed into the image of God knows how to distinguish good (functional things) from evil (dysfunctional things). He no longer misses the mark (sin) because the Spirit of God is free to live within him and guide him.
1Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Psalms 53:1 connects the themes of God, heart and abominable iniquity. If people could only see that the answers for the inner man are all in the scriptures. Sadly they want to see these spiritual things in the light of speculation about natural end-time scenarios. JB
When God visit us we go through two major events:
(1) The conquest for the HEART, which is the first half of the tribulation, and
(2) The conquest for the MIND, which is the second half of our tribulation.
This tribulation is spoken of in John.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you,
that in me you might have peace
In the world you shall have tribulation:
but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
On the road to Damascus, Paul was knocked off his horse (a symbol of will power). And his will would fall to earth (mind) as the power and principalities where purged from his heart. The Lord did this part, but he let Paul deal with where they fell. They fell to earth (mind) and persecuted him. Pauls epistles focus on working out our salvation so that we become co-heirs in God. He said put on the MIND of CHRIST. JB
Here are some great scripture concerning the renewing of the mind by James A Fowler. See how they link together to give is a picture of this second work.
RENEWING THE MIND
I. Representative Biblical references
A. Attitudes of mind that need to be renewed
Rom. 1:28 - "a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper"
Rom. 8:5,7 - "mind set on the flesh"
Rom. 12:16 - "haughty in mind"
II Cor. 4:4 - "blinded the minds of unbelieving"
II Cor. 11:3 - "minds led astray from simplicity and purity to Christ"
Eph. 2:3 - "the desires of the flesh and of the mind"
Eph. 4:17 - "the futility of their mind"
Phil. 3:19 - "set their minds on earthly things"
Col. 1:21 - "alienated and hostile in mind"
Col. 2:18 - "inflated without cause by a fleshly mind"
Titus 1:15 - "their mind and their conscience are defiled"
B. Calls for renewal
Rom. 12:2 - "be transformed by the renewing of your mind"
II Cor. 4:16 - "our inner man is being renewed day by day"
Eph. 4:23 - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
Col. 3:10 - "the new man is being renewed to a true knowledge..."
Titus 3:5 - "renewing by the Holy Spirit"
C. Attitudes of a renewed mind
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord who seest the mind and the heart"
Matt. 22:37 - "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
I Cor. 2:16 - "we have the mind of Christ"
Phil. 2:5 - "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws into their minds"
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
II. Why does the mind need to be renewed?
A. The mind has been programmed with natural "established attitudes"
1. These are the beliefs, thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions, prejudices that we have concerning ourselves, others, objects, activities, God, etc.
2. How were these formed?
a. recommendation
(1) of parents
(2) of educational system
(3) of society (books, television, movies, etc.)
(4) of religious training
b. reflection
(1) personal observation
(2) personal experience
(3) personal compromise
3. These "established attitudes" permeated with fleshly "personal interest" of selfishness and sinfulness.
a. Act: personal aspiration, gratification, reputation
b. React: fight, fright, flight
B. If there was a mental-video device that could record all the thoughts that go through your mind, would you want to play it back for everyone?
1. God knows our every thought
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart; I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord seest the mind and the heart"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
2. Does this not reveal the necessity of renewing the mind?
C. The mind needs to be renewed with Godly "established attitudes"
1. Initial and continual renewal of the mind
a. Initial renewal - regenerative renewal
Titus 3:5 - "regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"
I Cor. 2:16 - "you have the mind of Christ"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws in their hearts"
b. Continual renewal - sanctifying renewal
Phil. 2:5 - "Have this mind in you which was in Christ"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let minds dwell
Col. 3:2 - "set your minds on things above"
2. The thoughts and attitudes of the mind serve as the conduits which allow for the mobilization of Godly behavior by divine energizing.
Prov. 23:7 - "As a man thinks in his soul, so is he (in behavior)
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
D. The combination of our "established attitudes" develop into a "mind-set"
1. Mind-set about ourselves
a. false sense of identity
b. external orientation - "how do I look?"
c. guilt - attitudes of worthlessness, inferiority
2. Mind-set about other people
a. people pleasing - self-conscious
b. vain imaginations - fears, phobias
c. attitudes of anger, impatience, hate, bitterness, resentment, revenge, suspicion, criticism, jealousy, unforgiveness, blame, depression, co-dependency
3. Mind-set about things
a. materialism - "what am I going to buy next?"
b. love things - use people
c. addictions to substances, objects, etc.
4. Mind-set about ideas
a. quest for knowledge
b. desire to be correct, accurate, right
5. Mind-set about situations
a. what might happen; the hypothetical - worry
b. panic about inability to cope
6. Mind-set about God
a. irrelevant, archaic, out-moded, unnecessary
b. external, peripheral safety net; mystical, magical
III. How can the mind be renewed to develop Godly "established attitudes"?
A. Established attitudes re-formed to coincide with God's attitudes
1. Consistent with His character - purity, righteousness, love, joy
2. "Made new again"
a. Greek anakainoo: ana=again; kainos=new
b. Greek ananeoo: ana=again; neos=new
3. In accord with the
a. newness of life in Jesus Christ - Rom. 6:4
b. newness of the Spirit - Rom. 7:6
c. new covenant - Heb. 8:8,13
d. new and living way - Heb. 10:20
e. new creature - II Cor. 5:17
f. new man - Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
B. Basis of Godly "established attitudes" is God's revelation of Himself
1. Natural revelation
Ps. 19:1,2 - "the heavens declare the glory of God..."
Rom. 1:20 - "His attributes have been seen...through what he made"
2. Incarnational revelation
Lk. 10:22 - "the Son will reveal Him"
Jn. 1:18 - "He has explained Him"
3. Biblical revelation
II Tim. 3:16 - "all Scripture is inspired by God"
Not just Bible knowledge of Bible data or trivia
4. Personal revelation
Phil. 3:15 - "God will reveal it to you"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
C. Requires personal discipline to renew Godly established attitudes.
I Tim. 4:7 - "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness"
1. Undisciplined minds and thinking retain natural attitudes
2. This is not the self-discipline of self-effort
3. We must discipline (exercise) our minds and thoughts to allow for Godly action mobilized through Godly established attitudes
D. A "mind-set" settled on God and His activity.
1. A "steadfast mind" set on the things of God
Prov. 16:3 - "your thoughts shall be established"
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
a. Not an idle mind - daydreaming, procrastinating, wasting time, fantasizing
b. Mind set on God's character and His ways
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above...
2. A "mind-set" that spontaneously thinks of God and His activity
a. "Yes, Lord"
(1) temptation
(2) worship
b. Joy - Phil. 4:4; I Thess. 5:16
c. Laughter - Prov. 15:13; 17:22
d. Song in your heart - Eph. 5:19
e. Love for others - Rom. 5:5; Jn. 13:34
E. Practical necessity of "renewing of mind" for Godly behavior
1. Change in form of thinking and behavior (transformation) comes as an indirect result of renewal of mind - Rom. 12:2
2. Cannot reverse: External nonconformity does not lead to behavioral transformation -
Col. 2:20-23
3. Based on spiritual regeneration and becoming a "new man" in Christ, the Christian has the indwelling spiritual sufficiency to engage in the renewing of the mind that allows for divinely empowered Christian behavior - Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10
Lets break verse Psalms 53:1 down and see what insight we can gain from it.
Psalms 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
It is easy to direct this verse at the unbeliever but 1Tim3:16 state to us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. So in that light lets see what we can glean from it.
The fool hath said in his heart
Lets focus on where the problem is here and it is easy to see it is the heart. There are two things that FORM our soul: the motives of the heart and the activities of the mind. God associates the heart with 'heaven' and the mind with 'earth'. God dwells in the heart and this is where he can direct our will. God is in Christ (2Cor 5:19) which is the power to change us into Gods image.
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
The heart is the temple that Christ wants sit in but when we experience the visitation there is someone else there, the man of sin who is antichrist in nature. The KINGdom of God is WITHIN.
and have done abominable iniquity:
The heart of all men is considered a desolate abomination to him and this is where the war in heaven takes place it is the battle for who controls the heart. This is the first part of our tribulation in the unveiling (apocalypse) of the law of God, his salvation and his power in our lives (hence the name LORD-YESHUA-CHRISTOS).
there is none that doeth good.
The MAN who is formed into the image of God knows how to distinguish good (functional things) from evil (dysfunctional things). He no longer misses the mark (sin) because the Spirit of God is free to live within him and guide him.
1Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Psalms 53:1 connects the themes of God, heart and abominable iniquity. If people could only see that the answers for the inner man are all in the scriptures. Sadly they want to see these spiritual things in the light of speculation about natural end-time scenarios. JB
When God visit us we go through two major events:
(1) The conquest for the HEART, which is the first half of the tribulation, and
(2) The conquest for the MIND, which is the second half of our tribulation.
This tribulation is spoken of in John.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you,
that in me you might have peace
In the world you shall have tribulation:
but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
On the road to Damascus, Paul was knocked off his horse (a symbol of will power). And his will would fall to earth (mind) as the power and principalities where purged from his heart. The Lord did this part, but he let Paul deal with where they fell. They fell to earth (mind) and persecuted him. Pauls epistles focus on working out our salvation so that we become co-heirs in God. He said put on the MIND of CHRIST. JB
Here are some great scripture concerning the renewing of the mind by James A Fowler. See how they link together to give is a picture of this second work.
RENEWING THE MIND
I. Representative Biblical references
A. Attitudes of mind that need to be renewed
Rom. 1:28 - "a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper"
Rom. 8:5,7 - "mind set on the flesh"
Rom. 12:16 - "haughty in mind"
II Cor. 4:4 - "blinded the minds of unbelieving"
II Cor. 11:3 - "minds led astray from simplicity and purity to Christ"
Eph. 2:3 - "the desires of the flesh and of the mind"
Eph. 4:17 - "the futility of their mind"
Phil. 3:19 - "set their minds on earthly things"
Col. 1:21 - "alienated and hostile in mind"
Col. 2:18 - "inflated without cause by a fleshly mind"
Titus 1:15 - "their mind and their conscience are defiled"
B. Calls for renewal
Rom. 12:2 - "be transformed by the renewing of your mind"
II Cor. 4:16 - "our inner man is being renewed day by day"
Eph. 4:23 - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
Col. 3:10 - "the new man is being renewed to a true knowledge..."
Titus 3:5 - "renewing by the Holy Spirit"
C. Attitudes of a renewed mind
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord who seest the mind and the heart"
Matt. 22:37 - "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
I Cor. 2:16 - "we have the mind of Christ"
Phil. 2:5 - "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws into their minds"
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
II. Why does the mind need to be renewed?
A. The mind has been programmed with natural "established attitudes"
1. These are the beliefs, thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions, prejudices that we have concerning ourselves, others, objects, activities, God, etc.
2. How were these formed?
a. recommendation
(1) of parents
(2) of educational system
(3) of society (books, television, movies, etc.)
(4) of religious training
b. reflection
(1) personal observation
(2) personal experience
(3) personal compromise
3. These "established attitudes" permeated with fleshly "personal interest" of selfishness and sinfulness.
a. Act: personal aspiration, gratification, reputation
b. React: fight, fright, flight
B. If there was a mental-video device that could record all the thoughts that go through your mind, would you want to play it back for everyone?
1. God knows our every thought
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart; I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord seest the mind and the heart"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
2. Does this not reveal the necessity of renewing the mind?
C. The mind needs to be renewed with Godly "established attitudes"
1. Initial and continual renewal of the mind
a. Initial renewal - regenerative renewal
Titus 3:5 - "regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"
I Cor. 2:16 - "you have the mind of Christ"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws in their hearts"
b. Continual renewal - sanctifying renewal
Phil. 2:5 - "Have this mind in you which was in Christ"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let minds dwell
Col. 3:2 - "set your minds on things above"
2. The thoughts and attitudes of the mind serve as the conduits which allow for the mobilization of Godly behavior by divine energizing.
Prov. 23:7 - "As a man thinks in his soul, so is he (in behavior)
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
D. The combination of our "established attitudes" develop into a "mind-set"
1. Mind-set about ourselves
a. false sense of identity
b. external orientation - "how do I look?"
c. guilt - attitudes of worthlessness, inferiority
2. Mind-set about other people
a. people pleasing - self-conscious
b. vain imaginations - fears, phobias
c. attitudes of anger, impatience, hate, bitterness, resentment, revenge, suspicion, criticism, jealousy, unforgiveness, blame, depression, co-dependency
3. Mind-set about things
a. materialism - "what am I going to buy next?"
b. love things - use people
c. addictions to substances, objects, etc.
4. Mind-set about ideas
a. quest for knowledge
b. desire to be correct, accurate, right
5. Mind-set about situations
a. what might happen; the hypothetical - worry
b. panic about inability to cope
6. Mind-set about God
a. irrelevant, archaic, out-moded, unnecessary
b. external, peripheral safety net; mystical, magical
III. How can the mind be renewed to develop Godly "established attitudes"?
A. Established attitudes re-formed to coincide with God's attitudes
1. Consistent with His character - purity, righteousness, love, joy
2. "Made new again"
a. Greek anakainoo: ana=again; kainos=new
b. Greek ananeoo: ana=again; neos=new
3. In accord with the
a. newness of life in Jesus Christ - Rom. 6:4
b. newness of the Spirit - Rom. 7:6
c. new covenant - Heb. 8:8,13
d. new and living way - Heb. 10:20
e. new creature - II Cor. 5:17
f. new man - Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
B. Basis of Godly "established attitudes" is God's revelation of Himself
1. Natural revelation
Ps. 19:1,2 - "the heavens declare the glory of God..."
Rom. 1:20 - "His attributes have been seen...through what he made"
2. Incarnational revelation
Lk. 10:22 - "the Son will reveal Him"
Jn. 1:18 - "He has explained Him"
3. Biblical revelation
II Tim. 3:16 - "all Scripture is inspired by God"
Not just Bible knowledge of Bible data or trivia
4. Personal revelation
Phil. 3:15 - "God will reveal it to you"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
C. Requires personal discipline to renew Godly established attitudes.
I Tim. 4:7 - "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness"
1. Undisciplined minds and thinking retain natural attitudes
2. This is not the self-discipline of self-effort
3. We must discipline (exercise) our minds and thoughts to allow for Godly action mobilized through Godly established attitudes
D. A "mind-set" settled on God and His activity.
1. A "steadfast mind" set on the things of God
Prov. 16:3 - "your thoughts shall be established"
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
a. Not an idle mind - daydreaming, procrastinating, wasting time, fantasizing
b. Mind set on God's character and His ways
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above...
2. A "mind-set" that spontaneously thinks of God and His activity
a. "Yes, Lord"
(1) temptation
(2) worship
b. Joy - Phil. 4:4; I Thess. 5:16
c. Laughter - Prov. 15:13; 17:22
d. Song in your heart - Eph. 5:19
e. Love for others - Rom. 5:5; Jn. 13:34
E. Practical necessity of "renewing of mind" for Godly behavior
1. Change in form of thinking and behavior (transformation) comes as an indirect result of renewal of mind - Rom. 12:2
2. Cannot reverse: External nonconformity does not lead to behavioral transformation -
Col. 2:20-23
3. Based on spiritual regeneration and becoming a "new man" in Christ, the Christian has the indwelling spiritual sufficiency to engage in the renewing of the mind that allows for divinely empowered Christian behavior - Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10
I dunno. How would that effect one's theology, if he really was?
Significantly..
largely..
some..
slightly..
or none at all?
I don't think it would change my theology in a broad sense, but I'm sure it would change the way I interpret some of the specifics of what he wrote..... like when you first discovered there were hidden (dark) meanings in some of the things Wierwille said.
For the record....That does not mean I am comparing Wierwille to Paul. Just saying that sometimes you discover another layer of information in something that you thought you knew.
I have not known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of same gender in their life at least once
because I am talking an ideal of homosexual not the act
to not do we have to think about it even for half second
how other one known the different from being homosexual than not
you had the thought any your pride will not let you be honest with it
:blink:
If you mean that thinking about it and what it is and realizing that I'm not - has something to do with anything, sorry, I don't get it. But not to worry, I have no pride preventing me from discussing the topic and what I have thought of it which is to realize that I'm not homosexual. I make no excuses or explanations, other than that.
In fact, and I'm not the only one like this - I often have to check in with my wife to ask if another person is considered "good looking" and why. It will be obvious from what I see on TV or read here and there that so and so is now being considered the latest heart throb. I look at them and don't see that aspect of who they are or see them in that way. I don't know, maybe it's me - but when I look at another man I don't get the same emotional/physical triggers as I would with a woman. Men, males, don't register with me that way.
I look at my son for instance who is considered "good looking" and I would say that although he's a very modest young man he's been told that all his life by women of all ages. Apparently it's a combination of how how he looks and his "eyes" together with a very caring and kind heart. Chicks dig him. But when I look at him I think yes, he's a fine fit male sample and I love him dearly as my son but I simply don't register it the same way as women do. It is obvious seeing how most women react to him that there's an attraction that occurs that's different from what men have, but probably not all men. I won't attempt to speak for everyone, everywhere, that would be facetious on my part. Perhaps there are variances in the natural build of a person, social and cultural considerations.
I don't look at all women and have the same emotional and physical reactions to every single woman, the same way. I see my wife one way, others other ways.
For that matter and from what I've read and been told - all men who are attracted to other men physically - "homosexual" - aren't attracted to all men the same way all the time. It's not as if - if you're "gay" all men "look good". Some there's an attraction, others not so.
Also - "lust" would be defined differently than "natural attraction". An inherent physical attraction to another isn't "lust", or finding another person attractive isn't "lust" where there's sexual arousal.
The fact that you haven't known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of the same gender "at least once" might just mean you need to meet more people. I'd have to ask the question how you've validated that - did you ask everyone you've known in your life and they told you or has everyone you've ever know told you? I normally don't talk with others about what we do or don't "lust" after. Do you? I'm just curious how you're so sure of that statement.
To be blunt, I can't see any requirements that "everyone" would for that matter. Why would everyone need to or have to, what standards are governing that?
I think overt assumptions and a lack of honesty and clarity around this topic fuels a lot of hmmm, B S, to be blunt. Not that you're slinging it here and now.
I have no agenda either way, so I'm just making observations.
And yeah, I don't see that it makes much difference either way whether Paul was gay or downright depressed. How that person in the N.T. dealt with his own personal limitations and conflicts has served to offer a unique and powerful view into human transformation and transcendence.
And 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't why I study the Word of God but that's another topic.
Recommended Posts
waysider
Interesting stuff, Roy....Hope ya got your flame-proof undies on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
Ha, ha. I've just been reading the WOW stories and now this - is everyone obsessed with their bits and pieces, and other people's?
Edited to say that by "everyone," I don't mean everyone.
Edited by caraLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Fair question I think..
self-loathing.. interesting..
once a member(really? or just a way myth) of the Sanhedrin. Which included being the husband of one wife. What happened to the wife and child? If there was one? Did he fulfill his commitment, in raising a family, if there really was offspring?
and considering.. the "faults" of the Roman Catholic priesthood.
why couldn't he have been subjected to the same fault in the early days..
fair question, I think.
Homosexual contact either wanted or unwanted.. does have an effect on an individual..
I dunno. I will wait for some intelligent response here before saying more..
but it is a very good topic Roy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Roy is always ready..
God bless you, brother..
same as me.
I've come up with some pretty wild crap at times. Some that I still believe.. like we've had a kazillion reincarnations of Squirrels.. I don't really (but deep down I do) give a damn what people think..
weird, huh.
Cantor was a very interesting individual..
Now they call him the Father of set theory..
"back then" his main contemporary called him nuts, a corrupter of youth..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I have at least a thousand hidden messages as well..
so does the professor in my last math class here..
Graduate level mathematics is so very interesting.
The current problem.. this guy probably will never give the answer to the problem. Even though even he can barely compute it..
It's a problem dealing with convexity of functions. Does he know the answer? My class mate says no. What do you really want to bet here..
Christ.. it's a graduate level class..
one day, I will figure it out, God willing..
I've taken a couple of hints..
homework solutions.
Ha.
so I am one inch from being able to prove this theorem, or whatever it is..
That is the way it will be for the rest of this existence.. for everything..
I hope you are comfortable here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
some people can't conceive of a sensual loving affectionate relationship without trying to rip it apart with their own musings about sex
for Paul I might know a little, more of myself and attempted escapes
and dealing with why, how, who and where the hell I am
seems just plain honest with himself in many a set of the riddles of the mind and spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This may well go the way of wierwille's insistence that Jesus had his Bar Mitzva at the age of 12 instead of 13, despite the fact that Bar Mitzva ceremonies didn't exist in Biblical times.
Though I haven't looked at this in any depth, it would initially appear that Wierwille's Sanhedrin "requirements" are along the lines of what we, today, might call an urban legend.
Even if he was a member of the Sanhedren,though, it's no secret that, even today, homosexual people enter into heterosexual marriages for a variety of reasons. (Meaning he could have been married AND gay.) But, he does state that at the time of his writings he was not married. And don't forget, during that period of time, homosexuality could be punishable by death. That in itself would be good reason for Paul to live a life of conflicted allegiances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[First of all, this should be in DOCTRINAL, because this is about DOCTRINE,
and is clearly not "ABOUT THE WAY."
So, I'll ask the mods to move this thread.
Second, this person said a lot of things. I will reply in boldface and brackets,
as is my style.
And so I don't trip the "too many quotes" error in the software.]
Was the Apostle Paul... Gay...?by Pope Reverend I, BV (no login)
[No, he was not.
And this was quoted from someone arrogant enough to stack titles in front of his name,
and yet timid enough to "post a drive-by." (He didn't LOG IN to the forum he posted this to,
thus admitting he was the same person who posted this.]
What accounts for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body?
An Episcopal bishop mulls the issues.
BY: John Shelby Spong
Comments (36)
Excerpted from "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"
with permission of HarperSanFrancisco.
[Actually, HarperSanFrancisco gave no permission for THIS POST in any form,
so the original poster was deceitful in this. He was quoting someone who had permission
to print the excerpt. Supposing even that is true.
As for Paul's "rhetoric" being "Self-judging", we can already see a HECK of a slant
in this article. If an "Episcopal bishop" can read Paul's struggles with life and
imperfection on top of the external suffering he dealt with, and call it
"self-judging", "rhetoric", and say the issue was Paul having issues with his body,
then this "bishop" is not worthy of his office.]
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.
[Paul had a thirst to do what he believed to be RIGHT.
He began as "a Hebrew of the Hebrews", a by-the-book example of a member of the Pharisees,
and one in a family line of Pharisees, which meant he had a lot to live up to.
He prepared to put these "rebels" in prison and didn't mind death to "heretics"
like Stephen. When he received a personal visit from Jesus, Paul changed his mind, and
after several days to adjust, became just as obsessed a Christian as he had been
a Pharisee.
He was educated, disciplined, passionate in his beliefs, and rueful that his own body
could not be reasoned with the same way the mind is reasoned with. Others could injure
him, he suffered the usual aches as age advanced. Those are perfectly understandable
frustrations to any intellectual who is over 30. If he cares to think it over.
To take all of that and to say he had "enormous feelings of self-negativity" or that he
overcompensated against imperfection by retreating into religious extremism is to leap to
amazing distances for no reason.
Look- Jesus appeared to him PERSONALLY, knocked him off his horse with a beam of light,
and chatted with him- when Paul didn't believe Jesus was anything but a dead man
(or possibly a dead prophet or a dead insurrectionist.) Paul was fully convinced by this
that Jesus was the Messiah. If this is hard to imagine, one is not trying very hard...
possibly because one wants to discard the truth and push an agenda even if lies are needed
to advance that agenda.]
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?
[What is provided to support the bald assertion that Paul had sexual issues?
Oh, it's obvious to this man's mind. Period. That's it.
It's equally obvious to someone else that Jesus Christ will appear in glory
holding an orange pfal book in his hand.
Why should I believe EITHER of them just on their say-so?
And on this only, the guy keeps going.
Having ASSUMED Paul had sex problems (was this projection? Does the writer
have sex problems?), he then begins to SPECULATE on top of his ASSUMPTION
about the TYPE of sex problems he IMAGINES Paul had.
This is hardly off to a rousing start...]
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 burned to see Jesus Christ return to Earth during his lifetime. How do you relieve that
passion without Jesus returning bodily at that time?
Paul wanted to "be present with the Lord."
This is not difficult to see.
Look-
if a dearly loved one dies, you ache to spend time with them again.
Until you do so (for those who believe there is any way to do so ever),
there's no way to truly relieve that ache.
Oh, you do other things and focus on other things, and possibly have other loved ones,
but that doesn't RELIEVE it, it exists alongside it.
It's the same reason a minority can't get past their twi days.
They miss the honeymoon phase so much they can't have another "relationship"
with other Christians.]
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.
[Except, of course, that members of the Sanhedrin were expected to be married, over 30,
and in good standing in the Jewish community. What we DON'T know is what happened to Paul's
marital status between that point and the point where he's obviously single and remaining so.]
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).
[And he's correct. People who are in a working marriage relationship channel their base passions
into the "one flesh" God declared at the beginning of the Book of Genesis.
By contrast, the Corinthians he addressed this to were sex maniacs who were likely to have casual sex
whenever they felt like it and had time. The Corinthians were distinctly LACKING in self-control
and moderation- so he urged them to both- and not because he was "obsessed" with self-control.
He controlled himself just fine and had no need to obsess over it-nor did he have TIME.
Why does an Episcopalian BISHOP not understand that ONE of the purposes of marriage is to channel
base impulses into a beautiful union, and that God set it so, and said so all over the Bible?
Has he not READ the Old Testament?]
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.
[Again, ASSuming Paul was obsessed with sexual passions based on nothing except the man having
zeal and drive, and the writer projecting those as sublimated sex urges.]
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).
[He told the CORINTHIANS that the guys shouldn't just go up and feel up women.
That's "BASICALLY NEGATIVE" towards them?
Ok, try it tomorrow. Walk up to a woman on the street, a total stranger, cop a feel off her,
then explain how that's basically POSITIVE towards her.
Then get back to us and tell us how the food tastes in jail.
(I just checked with a woman offline. She would be offended by this, and I suspect
she's typical in that respect.)]
The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman.
[Why does an Episcopalian BISHOP not understand the zeal that can overcome a person who has an
encounter with God, an angel, Jesus Christ, etc.? Why did he even seek the PRIESTHOOD?]
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?
[Paul never said he had sexual passions-and he was not a young man when we even pick up his story.
Surely any man who's over 40 can understand that it's possible for a man to master his lusts more
effectively when he's no longer a youngster.
If that man WANTS to understand.]
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.
[Oh, nothing even slowed down the most WILD speculation, as we can all clearly see...]
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.
[Actually, looking at the evidence the speculation may be incorrect often saves a lot of time
wasted on wild speculation. There's plenty of evidence this silly dissertation contradicts the
Paul of the Epistles, let alone the Paul of Acts. However, he's ASSuming this is correct and
then looking around to see if anything MIGHT agree with him, maybe.
That has often led to some wild doctrines.
twi has had a history of this, and ex-twi groups have as well.
This is what led to "God wants you to have sex with the leader" and
"God wants you to have an abortion" and
"I saw a vision of spiders coming out of your nose."]
Some have suggested that that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears.
[some have suggested just about everything. Without anything more than suggestion,
the whole subject of each suggestion is of no more value than speculating on whether
Harry Potter would be better off marrying Ginny Weasley or Hermione Granger.]
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.
[The repulsiveness of an idea is no guarantee it won't be heard. I've seen speculation that
just about every man in the Bible was homosexual- speculated by people eager to try to twist
the text to approve of something it calls a SIN.
Except for twi, I didn't see adulterers pulling the same thing....]
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.
[The phrasing of this makes this plainly obvious. The writer is eager to advance a pro-homosexuality agenda
and will not hesitate to make up "supporting evidence" out of whole cloth, and bash any more direct reading
of what the Bible says on a subject he's obsessed with promoting.]
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.
If this hypothesis is correct, it also illumines in powerful ways Paul's experience of conversion, his understanding of Jesus, his view of resurrection, and his move toward universalism. Furthermore, it provides us with a means to step into Christ as Paul did and to see the Christ experience outside the context of limited words and in the context of a universal human experience. It thus becomes for us a point of entry into a universal spirituality inaugurated by Christ that may endure into the unlimited future in a way that the narrow and brittle religious forms from our Christian past no longer seem capable of doing.
[Obsession bred speculation, which bred speculation, which bred wild stories,
and any evidence he might be completely off-track lies discarded on the road-side.
That's disgraceful for any Episcopalian Bishop, moreso than someone like myself who
claims no leadership capacity. This was disgraceful when twi leadership did it
to push a "sex with me" agenda, and it is disgraceful when this sex maniac does it
to push a "sex with him" agenda. I'm mildly curious what's in it for him.
Paul was obsessed with Jesus because what was in it for him was Salvation and
following The Truth. Why is this bishop obsessed?
And how did he get to BE a bishop with such shoddy research skills?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Testing Fire-Proof Undies
"Except, of course, that members of the Sanhedrin were expected to be married, over 30,
and in good standing in the Jewish community."
How do we know that to be factually accurate?
Also, I think , though it definitely has doctrinal elements, it also belongs in About The Way because this basic premise regarding Sanhedren admittance was taught in PFAL to stress a point that Wierwille was making.
(ie: Perhaps another Actual Error in PFAL?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanhedrin
more to the Sanhedrin story then one 'way' we were taught... hahaha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Gay? Doubtful. I believe this piece is also on the 'net HERE.
Homosexuality isn't new to this century. You'd have to assume that if there's some social and moral regulations in the Bible that address it that there was something to address. I don't think we have to dig too deep to assume that it's present in the history of the Bible, after all the bible's basically a historical perspective, from "in the beginning" to events yet to occur.
These are suppositions, based on an extremely idealized characterization of a man - "Saul/Paul" - that's drawn from very little information. He can be seen as being a lot of things by the reader yet IMO we really only know one thing very clearly about him and that can be drawn from the account of his "conversion" - and that is that he went through an extremely powerful and direct confrontation with himself that caused him to change deeply internally. People go through lots of things that affect them and cause them to change and it can be seen from the epistles that his change was one that governed and dominated his thinking and actions for the rest of his life. That one clear point is the most powerful for me.
Assuming he was a closet gay male living in condemnation of himself is a stretch from the little information given about himself. People torture to death some of this stuff to get meaning from it that isn't really there.
Paul could have been gay. He could have been an opium addict. He could have been at odds with his family, wife and friends. He could have been bald, blind, 7 feet tall and had 6 toes on one foot and 3 on the other. He might have liked lamb. He might have hated fish. He might have had extremely bad body odor due to personal hygiene habits that would shame a maggot. He could have been a thief on the lamb, speaking of lamb. Any number of things might have gotten his goat to the point that he may have sworn like a near sighted carpenter with a bent hammer and hated himself for his lack of not only good tools but self control.
Is that the real message of what I read in the epistles? No, not for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
From what I'm seeing, it seems to hold up on the more erudite websites.
I've found this more or less the same on several less flaky sites, at least...
http://www.truthonthenet.com/sanhedrin_reference.htm
"Similarly, the members of the Sanhedrin must command respect as mature individuals. Therefore, it is preferable that each member be at least 40 years old, unless he is incomparable in wisdom and universally respected. Similarly, it is preferable that the head of the Sanhedrin be at least 50 years old. Under no condition should a person under 18 be appointed to the Sanhedrin."
"A person who is very old may not sit on the Sanhedrin, since he is apt to be too severe. The same is true of a man who is sterile, or even childless. A Sanhedrin containing any such member is not validly constituted."
Technically, they did not state outright that he not be MARRIED-
just that he not be CHILDLESS.
In this particular context, however, I think the meaning was that they expected any
such candidate to be married with at least one child.
The idea of a divorced man with a child seeking membership in the Sanhedrin probably
struck them as too far-fetched to even entertain-so they didn't bother to write it down.
"Every member of the Sanhedrin must be of unblemished family, as was the first Sanhedrin under Moses. Therefore a bastard (mamzer, i.e., the son of an adulterous or incestuous union) is ineligible for membership and renders a Sanhedrin invalid..."
The most obvious meaning is that a candidate for the Sanhedrin was ineligible if he was
seen as either physically or morally blemished in any way, and was expected to have the
respect of his local community. So, unmarried men with children would have been
right out.
(I'm getting that from the WHOLE page, not just what I quoted.
It's the "tl;dr" version of the page. ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
==============================
As for Spong himself, I'd have more respect if he just came right out and said he
wasn't a Christian- or even a THEIST, as he denies anything that gives either term meaning.
Here's some of his beliefs:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#Twelve_points_for_reform
"1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense."
"5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way."
So, he denies the fall of man, Theism, miracles in the Bible, the sacrificial substitution of The Cross,
Jesus' resurrection AND ascension, the Bible as any type of authoritative book,
and the efficacy of prayer.
I had more in common with Christianity when I was young and stupid, and rejected all of Christianity
and the Bible. I still believed there WAS one God, but didn't think I knew anything about Him other than
that He was The Creator. I was still, technically, a theist.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Theism
"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
=================
In other news, Spong's been unconscionably sloppy in his theology in all sorts of subjects.
In a quick search of his name, I found someone providing evidence against a different flat claim
of his- that the Biblical account of Jesus' burial was historically unlikely.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-spong-on-burial.htm
"The probable fate of the crucified Jesus was to be thrown with other victims into a common, unmarked grave. The general consensus of New Testament scholars is that whatever the Easter experience was, it dawned first in the minds of the disciples who had fled to Galilee for safety, driving us to the conclusion that the burial story in the gospels is … legendary … "
Reply:
"...unquestionably, by the pattern of your argument, you want us to accept that the consensus of New Testament scholars think that Jesus was not buried in a tomb. That is certainly not true and you know it, Bishop John Shelby Spong."
(Several quotes follow, refuting Spong's claims- including quotes from Jesus Seminar writers
who otherwise would agree with Spong that the Bible is outdated and archaic.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks waysider and cara and Ham and cman and WordWolf and socks
waysider yes i have them on my friend
cara enjoy the stories my friend
Ham God bless you too my friend
cman yes some do my friend
WordWolf did the way talk about homosexual because you pointed it out and no ones does it there because why it should not matter my friend
socks yes homosexual is not new my friend
with love and a holy kiss Roy
God first
Who is the fool in Psalms 53:1?
07-13-2011
Psalms 53:1 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Who is the fool here every person under the sun just like the next person we had the thought that there is no God. Jesus Christ taught thinking is doing it because we all had that thought we all humans. Just like the homosexual thought we all had it while most of us do not take action on this thought but we had it one time or another.
That what Paul was getting at when he said Romans 7:15 “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I” otherwise the thought that he had and allow in his heart he hates. The thought was the sin that of the heart because that where all sin begins in the heart. You have an ideal in your inner self of anything even homosexual because had one time or another but some of us are honest about it.
That is removing everything from yourself has you clean up your thoughts of everything only then you are honest to yourself and God. Otherwise to empty yourself is to empty every thought you ever had to Christ because you’re not honest with yourself how can be to God or how God be honest with you. That why I call myself a fool because next to God I am a fool because every thought is nothing to God.
That why God looks at the desires of us and not our hearts because every person is a sinner in their heart but our desires are to not sin. That why Paul said that which I hate I do and allow the very thought Paul did and allow to happen was a sin. Paul was a man like the rest of us with human emotions in us or thoughts of sin but greatest desire was of love.
Otherwise Paul desirer was to do what right in God eyes not Paul’s eyes what he saw others doing in their life but Paul being honest to God Paul known he was not without sin only Christ was without sin. I getting tired now thank you with love and a holy kiss from Roy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm...frankly I've looked at the gospel verses that have been interpreted as homosexual references and honestly, from what I see and the basic language of the verses themselves, plus the overall context, there's no reference to homosexuality at all. That interpretation is extreeeeeemely contrived, and while there's no lack of that in biblical interpretation it doesn't go to the simplest, most direct understanding of what those verses say, on face value. It's kind of amazing to me that they're being understood in that way. It's like saying that if the bible records two men walked together down a road alone, they're homosexual because they're men and walking together alone implies companionship and companionship implies relationship and relationships between men includes homosexuality and that infers they were. It just doesn't make sense in light of the entire gospels.
Not everyone has had homosexual "thoughts" or inclinations, that's incorrect Roy. It's easy to say everyone "has" at one time or another but that isn't true if that means having a sexual attraction to another of the same sex and as you're saying having that "thought" (whatever that really is) but not "acting" on it (which covers a lot of ground). Not everyone has or does or will, in fact I'd say that most probably haven't. That's my opinion of course and I have no data to support it other than myself - I can honestly say I've never had that kind of thought or interest or desire. I know others who I think would say the same thing.
This topic is more complex than simply "men like women and women like men", although at it's simplest that about sums it up. But the range of emotional relationships we have with each other is wide to say the least. The nature of our relationships with each other can be very diverse without being "homosexual", where homosexuality is defined to mean a sexual attraction to the same sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
As for Spong...? He's a dweeb, sorry, he's just not on my radar.
His write includes this:
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.
Hidden messages? Why do there have to be hidden messages that need to be unlocked? What if I were to read the epistles speculating that Paul is not gay? What hidden messages reveal themselves then and what theoretical conclusions can be made?
Spong struggles with the language of the epistles and the profile he takes from them about Paul as if that Paul is unusually conflicted in such a way and to an extreme that he needs to be understood in ways that will explain them. I don't know why to be honest.
I don't know what's driving Spong, it may be good it may be bad - it might just be his own internal battles and conflicts with the general state of humanity which can yield some pretty horrible results. It can also yield some very good things too. Whatever's driving him I dunno but when I read about people looking for and finding hidden messages in the bible - dunno.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Socks
Hiding message are why we study God word
2 Tim 2:15 is why study God's word
to give meaning to ourself or our-lives
I have not known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of same gender in their life at least once
because I am talking an ideal of homosexual not the act
to not do we have to think about it even for half second
how other one known the different from being homosexual than not
you had the thought any your pride will not let you be honest with it
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
a friend wrote this
Lets break verse Psalms 53:1 down and see what insight we can gain from it.
Psalms 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
It is easy to direct this verse at the unbeliever but 1Tim3:16 state to us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. So in that light lets see what we can glean from it.
The fool hath said in his heart
Lets focus on where the problem is here and it is easy to see it is the heart. There are two things that FORM our soul: the motives of the heart and the activities of the mind. God associates the heart with 'heaven' and the mind with 'earth'. God dwells in the heart and this is where he can direct our will. God is in Christ (2Cor 5:19) which is the power to change us into Gods image.
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
The heart is the temple that Christ wants sit in but when we experience the visitation there is someone else there, the man of sin who is antichrist in nature. The KINGdom of God is WITHIN.
and have done abominable iniquity:
The heart of all men is considered a desolate abomination to him and this is where the war in heaven takes place it is the battle for who controls the heart. This is the first part of our tribulation in the unveiling (apocalypse) of the law of God, his salvation and his power in our lives (hence the name LORD-YESHUA-CHRISTOS).
there is none that doeth good.
The MAN who is formed into the image of God knows how to distinguish good (functional things) from evil (dysfunctional things). He no longer misses the mark (sin) because the Spirit of God is free to live within him and guide him.
1Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Psalms 53:1 connects the themes of God, heart and abominable iniquity. If people could only see that the answers for the inner man are all in the scriptures. Sadly they want to see these spiritual things in the light of speculation about natural end-time scenarios. JB
When God visit us we go through two major events:
(1) The conquest for the HEART, which is the first half of the tribulation, and
(2) The conquest for the MIND, which is the second half of our tribulation.
This tribulation is spoken of in John.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you,
that in me you might have peace
In the world you shall have tribulation:
but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
On the road to Damascus, Paul was knocked off his horse (a symbol of will power). And his will would fall to earth (mind) as the power and principalities where purged from his heart. The Lord did this part, but he let Paul deal with where they fell. They fell to earth (mind) and persecuted him. Pauls epistles focus on working out our salvation so that we become co-heirs in God. He said put on the MIND of CHRIST. JB
Here are some great scripture concerning the renewing of the mind by James A Fowler. See how they link together to give is a picture of this second work.
RENEWING THE MIND
I. Representative Biblical references
A. Attitudes of mind that need to be renewed
Rom. 1:28 - "a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper"
Rom. 8:5,7 - "mind set on the flesh"
Rom. 12:16 - "haughty in mind"
II Cor. 4:4 - "blinded the minds of unbelieving"
II Cor. 11:3 - "minds led astray from simplicity and purity to Christ"
Eph. 2:3 - "the desires of the flesh and of the mind"
Eph. 4:17 - "the futility of their mind"
Phil. 3:19 - "set their minds on earthly things"
Col. 1:21 - "alienated and hostile in mind"
Col. 2:18 - "inflated without cause by a fleshly mind"
Titus 1:15 - "their mind and their conscience are defiled"
B. Calls for renewal
Rom. 12:2 - "be transformed by the renewing of your mind"
II Cor. 4:16 - "our inner man is being renewed day by day"
Eph. 4:23 - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
Col. 3:10 - "the new man is being renewed to a true knowledge..."
Titus 3:5 - "renewing by the Holy Spirit"
C. Attitudes of a renewed mind
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord who seest the mind and the heart"
Matt. 22:37 - "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
I Cor. 2:16 - "we have the mind of Christ"
Phil. 2:5 - "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws into their minds"
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
II. Why does the mind need to be renewed?
A. The mind has been programmed with natural "established attitudes"
1. These are the beliefs, thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions, prejudices that we have concerning ourselves, others, objects, activities, God, etc.
2. How were these formed?
a. recommendation
(1) of parents
(2) of educational system
(3) of society (books, television, movies, etc.)
(4) of religious training
b. reflection
(1) personal observation
(2) personal experience
(3) personal compromise
3. These "established attitudes" permeated with fleshly "personal interest" of selfishness and sinfulness.
a. Act: personal aspiration, gratification, reputation
b. React: fight, fright, flight
B. If there was a mental-video device that could record all the thoughts that go through your mind, would you want to play it back for everyone?
1. God knows our every thought
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart; I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord seest the mind and the heart"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
2. Does this not reveal the necessity of renewing the mind?
C. The mind needs to be renewed with Godly "established attitudes"
1. Initial and continual renewal of the mind
a. Initial renewal - regenerative renewal
Titus 3:5 - "regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"
I Cor. 2:16 - "you have the mind of Christ"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws in their hearts"
b. Continual renewal - sanctifying renewal
Phil. 2:5 - "Have this mind in you which was in Christ"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let minds dwell
Col. 3:2 - "set your minds on things above"
2. The thoughts and attitudes of the mind serve as the conduits which allow for the mobilization of Godly behavior by divine energizing.
Prov. 23:7 - "As a man thinks in his soul, so is he (in behavior)
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
D. The combination of our "established attitudes" develop into a "mind-set"
1. Mind-set about ourselves
a. false sense of identity
b. external orientation - "how do I look?"
c. guilt - attitudes of worthlessness, inferiority
2. Mind-set about other people
a. people pleasing - self-conscious
b. vain imaginations - fears, phobias
c. attitudes of anger, impatience, hate, bitterness, resentment, revenge, suspicion, criticism, jealousy, unforgiveness, blame, depression, co-dependency
3. Mind-set about things
a. materialism - "what am I going to buy next?"
b. love things - use people
c. addictions to substances, objects, etc.
4. Mind-set about ideas
a. quest for knowledge
b. desire to be correct, accurate, right
5. Mind-set about situations
a. what might happen; the hypothetical - worry
b. panic about inability to cope
6. Mind-set about God
a. irrelevant, archaic, out-moded, unnecessary
b. external, peripheral safety net; mystical, magical
III. How can the mind be renewed to develop Godly "established attitudes"?
A. Established attitudes re-formed to coincide with God's attitudes
1. Consistent with His character - purity, righteousness, love, joy
2. "Made new again"
a. Greek anakainoo: ana=again; kainos=new
b. Greek ananeoo: ana=again; neos=new
3. In accord with the
a. newness of life in Jesus Christ - Rom. 6:4
b. newness of the Spirit - Rom. 7:6
c. new covenant - Heb. 8:8,13
d. new and living way - Heb. 10:20
e. new creature - II Cor. 5:17
f. new man - Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
B. Basis of Godly "established attitudes" is God's revelation of Himself
1. Natural revelation
Ps. 19:1,2 - "the heavens declare the glory of God..."
Rom. 1:20 - "His attributes have been seen...through what he made"
2. Incarnational revelation
Lk. 10:22 - "the Son will reveal Him"
Jn. 1:18 - "He has explained Him"
3. Biblical revelation
II Tim. 3:16 - "all Scripture is inspired by God"
Not just Bible knowledge of Bible data or trivia
4. Personal revelation
Phil. 3:15 - "God will reveal it to you"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
C. Requires personal discipline to renew Godly established attitudes.
I Tim. 4:7 - "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness"
1. Undisciplined minds and thinking retain natural attitudes
2. This is not the self-discipline of self-effort
3. We must discipline (exercise) our minds and thoughts to allow for Godly action mobilized through Godly established attitudes
D. A "mind-set" settled on God and His activity.
1. A "steadfast mind" set on the things of God
Prov. 16:3 - "your thoughts shall be established"
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
a. Not an idle mind - daydreaming, procrastinating, wasting time, fantasizing
b. Mind set on God's character and His ways
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above...
2. A "mind-set" that spontaneously thinks of God and His activity
a. "Yes, Lord"
(1) temptation
(2) worship
b. Joy - Phil. 4:4; I Thess. 5:16
c. Laughter - Prov. 15:13; 17:22
d. Song in your heart - Eph. 5:19
e. Love for others - Rom. 5:5; Jn. 13:34
E. Practical necessity of "renewing of mind" for Godly behavior
1. Change in form of thinking and behavior (transformation) comes as an indirect result of renewal of mind - Rom. 12:2
2. Cannot reverse: External nonconformity does not lead to behavioral transformation -
Col. 2:20-23
3. Based on spiritual regeneration and becoming a "new man" in Christ, the Christian has the indwelling spiritual sufficiency to engage in the renewing of the mind that allows for divinely empowered Christian behavior - Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/renewmind.html
(Reproduced in accordance with the author wishes)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
a friend wrote this
Lets break verse Psalms 53:1 down and see what insight we can gain from it.
Psalms 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
It is easy to direct this verse at the unbeliever but 1Tim3:16 state to us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. So in that light lets see what we can glean from it.
The fool hath said in his heart
Lets focus on where the problem is here and it is easy to see it is the heart. There are two things that FORM our soul: the motives of the heart and the activities of the mind. God associates the heart with 'heaven' and the mind with 'earth'. God dwells in the heart and this is where he can direct our will. God is in Christ (2Cor 5:19) which is the power to change us into Gods image.
There is no God. Corrupt are they,
The heart is the temple that Christ wants sit in but when we experience the visitation there is someone else there, the man of sin who is antichrist in nature. The KINGdom of God is WITHIN.
and have done abominable iniquity:
The heart of all men is considered a desolate abomination to him and this is where the war in heaven takes place it is the battle for who controls the heart. This is the first part of our tribulation in the unveiling (apocalypse) of the law of God, his salvation and his power in our lives (hence the name LORD-YESHUA-CHRISTOS).
there is none that doeth good.
The MAN who is formed into the image of God knows how to distinguish good (functional things) from evil (dysfunctional things). He no longer misses the mark (sin) because the Spirit of God is free to live within him and guide him.
1Tim3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Psalms 53:1 connects the themes of God, heart and abominable iniquity. If people could only see that the answers for the inner man are all in the scriptures. Sadly they want to see these spiritual things in the light of speculation about natural end-time scenarios. JB
When God visit us we go through two major events:
(1) The conquest for the HEART, which is the first half of the tribulation, and
(2) The conquest for the MIND, which is the second half of our tribulation.
This tribulation is spoken of in John.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you,
that in me you might have peace
In the world you shall have tribulation:
but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
On the road to Damascus, Paul was knocked off his horse (a symbol of will power). And his will would fall to earth (mind) as the power and principalities where purged from his heart. The Lord did this part, but he let Paul deal with where they fell. They fell to earth (mind) and persecuted him. Pauls epistles focus on working out our salvation so that we become co-heirs in God. He said put on the MIND of CHRIST. JB
Here are some great scripture concerning the renewing of the mind by James A Fowler. See how they link together to give is a picture of this second work.
RENEWING THE MIND
I. Representative Biblical references
A. Attitudes of mind that need to be renewed
Rom. 1:28 - "a depraved mind, to do things which are not proper"
Rom. 8:5,7 - "mind set on the flesh"
Rom. 12:16 - "haughty in mind"
II Cor. 4:4 - "blinded the minds of unbelieving"
II Cor. 11:3 - "minds led astray from simplicity and purity to Christ"
Eph. 2:3 - "the desires of the flesh and of the mind"
Eph. 4:17 - "the futility of their mind"
Phil. 3:19 - "set their minds on earthly things"
Col. 1:21 - "alienated and hostile in mind"
Col. 2:18 - "inflated without cause by a fleshly mind"
Titus 1:15 - "their mind and their conscience are defiled"
B. Calls for renewal
Rom. 12:2 - "be transformed by the renewing of your mind"
II Cor. 4:16 - "our inner man is being renewed day by day"
Eph. 4:23 - "be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
Col. 3:10 - "the new man is being renewed to a true knowledge..."
Titus 3:5 - "renewing by the Holy Spirit"
C. Attitudes of a renewed mind
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord who seest the mind and the heart"
Matt. 22:37 - "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
I Cor. 2:16 - "we have the mind of Christ"
Phil. 2:5 - "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws into their minds"
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
II. Why does the mind need to be renewed?
A. The mind has been programmed with natural "established attitudes"
1. These are the beliefs, thoughts, ideas, opinions, convictions, prejudices that we have concerning ourselves, others, objects, activities, God, etc.
2. How were these formed?
a. recommendation
(1) of parents
(2) of educational system
(3) of society (books, television, movies, etc.)
(4) of religious training
b. reflection
(1) personal observation
(2) personal experience
(3) personal compromise
3. These "established attitudes" permeated with fleshly "personal interest" of selfishness and sinfulness.
a. Act: personal aspiration, gratification, reputation
b. React: fight, fright, flight
B. If there was a mental-video device that could record all the thoughts that go through your mind, would you want to play it back for everyone?
1. God knows our every thought
Jere. 17:10 - "I, the Lord, search the heart; I test the mind"
Jere. 20:12 - "The Lord seest the mind and the heart"
Rev. 2:23 - "I am He who searches the minds and hearts"
2. Does this not reveal the necessity of renewing the mind?
C. The mind needs to be renewed with Godly "established attitudes"
1. Initial and continual renewal of the mind
a. Initial renewal - regenerative renewal
Titus 3:5 - "regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"
I Cor. 2:16 - "you have the mind of Christ"
Heb. 8:10; 10:16 - "I will put my laws in their hearts"
b. Continual renewal - sanctifying renewal
Phil. 2:5 - "Have this mind in you which was in Christ"
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let minds dwell
Col. 3:2 - "set your minds on things above"
2. The thoughts and attitudes of the mind serve as the conduits which allow for the mobilization of Godly behavior by divine energizing.
Prov. 23:7 - "As a man thinks in his soul, so is he (in behavior)
I Pet. 1:13 - "gird your minds for action"
D. The combination of our "established attitudes" develop into a "mind-set"
1. Mind-set about ourselves
a. false sense of identity
b. external orientation - "how do I look?"
c. guilt - attitudes of worthlessness, inferiority
2. Mind-set about other people
a. people pleasing - self-conscious
b. vain imaginations - fears, phobias
c. attitudes of anger, impatience, hate, bitterness, resentment, revenge, suspicion, criticism, jealousy, unforgiveness, blame, depression, co-dependency
3. Mind-set about things
a. materialism - "what am I going to buy next?"
b. love things - use people
c. addictions to substances, objects, etc.
4. Mind-set about ideas
a. quest for knowledge
b. desire to be correct, accurate, right
5. Mind-set about situations
a. what might happen; the hypothetical - worry
b. panic about inability to cope
6. Mind-set about God
a. irrelevant, archaic, out-moded, unnecessary
b. external, peripheral safety net; mystical, magical
III. How can the mind be renewed to develop Godly "established attitudes"?
A. Established attitudes re-formed to coincide with God's attitudes
1. Consistent with His character - purity, righteousness, love, joy
2. "Made new again"
a. Greek anakainoo: ana=again; kainos=new
b. Greek ananeoo: ana=again; neos=new
3. In accord with the
a. newness of life in Jesus Christ - Rom. 6:4
b. newness of the Spirit - Rom. 7:6
c. new covenant - Heb. 8:8,13
d. new and living way - Heb. 10:20
e. new creature - II Cor. 5:17
f. new man - Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
B. Basis of Godly "established attitudes" is God's revelation of Himself
1. Natural revelation
Ps. 19:1,2 - "the heavens declare the glory of God..."
Rom. 1:20 - "His attributes have been seen...through what he made"
2. Incarnational revelation
Lk. 10:22 - "the Son will reveal Him"
Jn. 1:18 - "He has explained Him"
3. Biblical revelation
II Tim. 3:16 - "all Scripture is inspired by God"
Not just Bible knowledge of Bible data or trivia
4. Personal revelation
Phil. 3:15 - "God will reveal it to you"
Rom. 14:5 - "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind"
C. Requires personal discipline to renew Godly established attitudes.
I Tim. 4:7 - "discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness"
1. Undisciplined minds and thinking retain natural attitudes
2. This is not the self-discipline of self-effort
3. We must discipline (exercise) our minds and thoughts to allow for Godly action mobilized through Godly established attitudes
D. A "mind-set" settled on God and His activity.
1. A "steadfast mind" set on the things of God
Prov. 16:3 - "your thoughts shall be established"
Isa. 26:3 - "the steadfast of mind Thou wilt keep in perfect peace"
a. Not an idle mind - daydreaming, procrastinating, wasting time, fantasizing
b. Mind set on God's character and His ways
Phil. 4:8 - "whatever is true, right, pure...let your mind dwell on these..."
Col. 3:2 - "set your mind on things above...
2. A "mind-set" that spontaneously thinks of God and His activity
a. "Yes, Lord"
(1) temptation
(2) worship
b. Joy - Phil. 4:4; I Thess. 5:16
c. Laughter - Prov. 15:13; 17:22
d. Song in your heart - Eph. 5:19
e. Love for others - Rom. 5:5; Jn. 13:34
E. Practical necessity of "renewing of mind" for Godly behavior
1. Change in form of thinking and behavior (transformation) comes as an indirect result of renewal of mind - Rom. 12:2
2. Cannot reverse: External nonconformity does not lead to behavioral transformation -
Col. 2:20-23
3. Based on spiritual regeneration and becoming a "new man" in Christ, the Christian has the indwelling spiritual sufficiency to engage in the renewing of the mind that allows for divinely empowered Christian behavior - Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/renewmind.html
(Reproduced in accordance with the author wishes)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. How would that effect one's theology, if he really was?
Significantly..
largely..
some..
slightly..
or none at all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think it would change my theology in a broad sense, but I'm sure it would change the way I interpret some of the specifics of what he wrote..... like when you first discovered there were hidden (dark) meanings in some of the things Wierwille said.
For the record....That does not mean I am comparing Wierwille to Paul. Just saying that sometimes you discover another layer of information in something that you thought you knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It wouldn't surprise me if wienerville was really homosexual, and spent the majority of his life trying to prove that he was not..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That thought has crossed my mind, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hiding message are why we study God word
2 Tim 2:15 is why study God's word
to give meaning to ourself or our-lives
I have not known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of same gender in their life at least once
because I am talking an ideal of homosexual not the act
to not do we have to think about it even for half second
how other one known the different from being homosexual than not
you had the thought any your pride will not let you be honest with it
:blink:
If you mean that thinking about it and what it is and realizing that I'm not - has something to do with anything, sorry, I don't get it. But not to worry, I have no pride preventing me from discussing the topic and what I have thought of it which is to realize that I'm not homosexual. I make no excuses or explanations, other than that.
In fact, and I'm not the only one like this - I often have to check in with my wife to ask if another person is considered "good looking" and why. It will be obvious from what I see on TV or read here and there that so and so is now being considered the latest heart throb. I look at them and don't see that aspect of who they are or see them in that way. I don't know, maybe it's me - but when I look at another man I don't get the same emotional/physical triggers as I would with a woman. Men, males, don't register with me that way.
I look at my son for instance who is considered "good looking" and I would say that although he's a very modest young man he's been told that all his life by women of all ages. Apparently it's a combination of how how he looks and his "eyes" together with a very caring and kind heart. Chicks dig him. But when I look at him I think yes, he's a fine fit male sample and I love him dearly as my son but I simply don't register it the same way as women do. It is obvious seeing how most women react to him that there's an attraction that occurs that's different from what men have, but probably not all men. I won't attempt to speak for everyone, everywhere, that would be facetious on my part. Perhaps there are variances in the natural build of a person, social and cultural considerations.
I don't look at all women and have the same emotional and physical reactions to every single woman, the same way. I see my wife one way, others other ways.
For that matter and from what I've read and been told - all men who are attracted to other men physically - "homosexual" - aren't attracted to all men the same way all the time. It's not as if - if you're "gay" all men "look good". Some there's an attraction, others not so.
Also - "lust" would be defined differently than "natural attraction". An inherent physical attraction to another isn't "lust", or finding another person attractive isn't "lust" where there's sexual arousal.
The fact that you haven't known any person that has not had to handle the thought of lust of one of the same gender "at least once" might just mean you need to meet more people. I'd have to ask the question how you've validated that - did you ask everyone you've known in your life and they told you or has everyone you've ever know told you? I normally don't talk with others about what we do or don't "lust" after. Do you? I'm just curious how you're so sure of that statement.
To be blunt, I can't see any requirements that "everyone" would for that matter. Why would everyone need to or have to, what standards are governing that?
I think overt assumptions and a lack of honesty and clarity around this topic fuels a lot of hmmm, B S, to be blunt. Not that you're slinging it here and now.
I have no agenda either way, so I'm just making observations.
And yeah, I don't see that it makes much difference either way whether Paul was gay or downright depressed. How that person in the N.T. dealt with his own personal limitations and conflicts has served to offer a unique and powerful view into human transformation and transcendence.
And 2 Tim. 2:15 isn't why I study the Word of God but that's another topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.