Ham we battle our lives not to sin so would change nothing because we would be sinner
Waysider me too but we not here to judge wienerville sins but our own sins
socks you yourself to think the way you do you were taught by someone - are you the best or just average we were taught are better than others but we have it was the lie the way ministry push on us
Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. If one is gay, one of the biggest burdens for the gay community--or the GLBT community, to be politically correct-- is the "queer" stigma. If homosexuality is finally accepted as normal, non deviant behavior, then their lives will be easier. There are lots of ways to accomplish that. Placing gay characters in TV shows and other pop culture entertainment venues is one. (Soap, Will & Grace, Friends, etc). Teaching "Gay history" is another. Claiming that our most revered spiritual leaders were gay is just another such tactic.
So what difference does it make if Paul were gay? Obviously, it would undercut the Fundamentalists' assertion that homosexuality is morally wrong, while at the same time raising the status of homosexuals in general and weakening the "queer" stigma.
Would it make any difference to me to find out that Paul was gay? No, but it's a moot point because, as WW and Socks have pointed out, Sprong's article is intellectually dishonest and completely without merit.
"Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. "
I agree.
The effort to find a biblical character and make the case they were homosexual is so transparently forced. I don't begrudge the effort nor the interest. The screwy part to me is when a guy like Sporng admits he has created a scenario, one he admits is unlikely, and has overlayed it on the biblical records and then calculated results from it.
He validates it as if he's mapping a trip to Canada from Arkansas as "go north thataway till you see snow" and then when he hits snow in Minnesota says "outta the car kids, we're here". In the Cotton Candy Land of I'm Right If I Think I Am.....he'd be in Canada alight, just not everyone else's Canada.
Put another way it's hard to come back from somewhere you've never been. So goes Spaang.
I agree that as a man of his background and training he knows better, he'd have to be aware he's winging it so I do wonder what his agenda is and what he gains from it.
The other buggy thing about the whole broader discussion of this topic is that if one disagrees, they'll be labelled "haters" by some, and not having the "love of God" of by others. If one disagrees they're "yelling" at others and have "pride". :blink:
Very weird, very weird.
The understanding we have who "Paul" was is likely a composite understanding anyway with a few specific things known from Acts and Galatians. Focusing on "him" as if he were a person to be understood by every word attributed to him in the N. T. .... not a good idea IMO.
Those who want Paul to be gay will make him gay. Fine.
Frankly, respecting other points of view - ? Yes, but I don't respect everything and anything regardless of what it is. I'll listen to it once but if an idea or point of view seems whack to me, I'm not going to respect it, sorry. I'll try to be nice, and be respectful to the person but not ideas that are ill founded, indefensible and hmmmm, rather incoherent to begin with.
I'll listen to it once but if an idea or point of view seems whack to me, I'm not going to respect it, sorry. I'll try to be nice, and be respectful to the person but not ideas that are ill founded, indefensible and hmmmm, rather incoherent to begin with.
What can I say? Just being honest.
fair enough, I think..
in a way that is exactly the opposite of da way nash..
I am the beast of the field, which the LORD God had made!
07-27-2011
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
The woman is the flesh in all of us I am Eve and you are Eve we all have this limited nature as part of us there no hiding from it. We are what we are but with Christ help we can bloom out of it. Christ conceived us by given his life for us this lower creature this beast in us of the world of flesh.
Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
You see the field is this world and the serpent is each other no matter who you are the fight is to more like Christ. The battle is between our fleshly minds and our spiritual minds of truth because all lying come from our fleshly mind but our spiritual mind cannot lie it is impossible for the spirit to lie because I my worse enemy. I am that which hold me back the lesser creature the beast of this word that which God made flesh.
So who is the beast in Genesis and in Revelation my fleshly side of us the nature sides we all must over come in life with God’s help? The lesson is about us we walk fleshly and we walk spiritually we battle with ourselves every day we live in this world. Thank you with God’s love and man’s love and a holy kiss from the love of God in Roy.
the loyster mentioned something of significance, between otherwise incoherent rantings
"homosexuality has nothing to do where one is willing to (assert) one's ***** (sexual parts)" this was a quote from he who would never mix his bread and vegetables, of herr loyster.
how did he come to this conclusion..
maybe it is all in the mind..
the last professor here.
ugly, overweight.
This character.. the professor said before that he would be a very good guide through the wilds of Real Analysis..
Do I love this character? Absolutely. Would I do some kind of horizontal tango? Not in a thousand years..
If Lay said it, consider the alternatives. Like if Lay said "the world is round", check it with a level. Just a thought.
Yes, my own reaction to Spigrong's work is one of a reaction to his shoddy research - which isn't really any kind of research work at all but rather an imaginative narrative-on-a-theme that reads more like the lost 4th book of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that explains exactly what the relationship of the Nazgul were to Sauron's illegitimate Orc spawn and if they survived into the next Generation of Men long enough to make it to the south Pole as has been postulated but which I personally think is PREPOSTEROUS, I mean come on, really?? ??. But also for me the topic of Paul and his various inclinations kinda requires a different way of looking at the available information
(somewhere around here roams an Invisible Dan who is not often seen but sometimes heard who could speak to the relative layers of the man we know from these records as "Paul" , but not sure if ID is on prem).
Some of the N.T. books attributed to him are most likely not written by "him", whoever that person of the books was - but rather are compliations written by later scribes. So who knows, maybe they thought he was gay....
you know, or maybe they were gay. There's no lack of gay possibilities and angles to consider here. Maybe I'm gay, thinking I'm not but really am, because I think I'm not, so oh sure, what better way to hide the secret message of my gayness than not thinking I am when I really am. Who'd've thought?
Really, there's a lot of work to be done in the maybe-coulda-been category, lotta work my friend.
No less inspired is the bible however, having said that, as frankly and IMO - we don't know "Paul" any better than we would know Rabbi Bob Scribe or whoever. I create a character profile and humanity from the information but as much as I feel a closeness to "Paul" and clarity into the humanity of the records I read.......it's really just information. I believe the true characteristics of the truth of the records can still open to us however and the "truth is out there" or in there, as you prefer.
Either way and no matter what, I stand on the veracity of the scriptures and the truth of the accuracy of the original - Paul was NOT a goy. The evidence is clear, the vote is in and the tally is hmmm, tallied and stuff. No way he was a goy.
Paul certainly was not full of "guilt and self-loathing." That's more likely something the author of that article felt of himself and projected it onto Paul to make it seem more normal.
Paul "proudly" (while saying it was due to Christ, not himself) calls himself and believers apostle, saint, chosen, children of promise, adopted, children of God, blameless, forgiven, etc. These are not the words of guilt and self-loathing, but of acceptance and honor.
If he were homosexual, he would avoid the issue, just as VPW avoided teaching about the fact that sex outside marriage is forbidden. Instead, Paul has three very clear statements about the damaging and ungodly nature of homosexual behavior (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10; although translations like the NIV mangle the translation of the Greek, which literally is "one who lays with a man"- "lay" being the euphemism for sex, like the American slang of "getting laid").
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
thanks Ham and waysider and socks and frank123lo
Ham we battle our lives not to sin so would change nothing because we would be sinner
Waysider me too but we not here to judge wienerville sins but our own sins
socks you yourself to think the way you do you were taught by someone - are you the best or just average we were taught are better than others but we have it was the lie the way ministry push on us
frank123lo yes No to it also yes it
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hope my comments did not offend you friend..
but one holds up the garter, brassiere and such to him, and it does not exactly fit.
at least we have the freedom here to consider, and not end up getting possessed or something..
:)
I dunno. What if he was..
would that really diminish his spirituality?
by a literal reading of old testament law, perhaps.
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I dunno. Fred Flintstone had a wife and kid and two obligatory house pets. That didn't stop him from having a gay old time. Yabba Dabba Doooooo!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Hey,We can think any way we want to,we have no bounds,that was only in the way international.
I seen where that got me.You have to respect other points of view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Bravo, WW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. If one is gay, one of the biggest burdens for the gay community--or the GLBT community, to be politically correct-- is the "queer" stigma. If homosexuality is finally accepted as normal, non deviant behavior, then their lives will be easier. There are lots of ways to accomplish that. Placing gay characters in TV shows and other pop culture entertainment venues is one. (Soap, Will & Grace, Friends, etc). Teaching "Gay history" is another. Claiming that our most revered spiritual leaders were gay is just another such tactic.
So what difference does it make if Paul were gay? Obviously, it would undercut the Fundamentalists' assertion that homosexuality is morally wrong, while at the same time raising the status of homosexuals in general and weakening the "queer" stigma.
Would it make any difference to me to find out that Paul was gay? No, but it's a moot point because, as WW and Socks have pointed out, Sprong's article is intellectually dishonest and completely without merit.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. "
I agree.
The effort to find a biblical character and make the case they were homosexual is so transparently forced. I don't begrudge the effort nor the interest. The screwy part to me is when a guy like Sporng admits he has created a scenario, one he admits is unlikely, and has overlayed it on the biblical records and then calculated results from it.
He validates it as if he's mapping a trip to Canada from Arkansas as "go north thataway till you see snow" and then when he hits snow in Minnesota says "outta the car kids, we're here". In the Cotton Candy Land of I'm Right If I Think I Am.....he'd be in Canada alight, just not everyone else's Canada.
Put another way it's hard to come back from somewhere you've never been. So goes Spaang.
I agree that as a man of his background and training he knows better, he'd have to be aware he's winging it so I do wonder what his agenda is and what he gains from it.
The other buggy thing about the whole broader discussion of this topic is that if one disagrees, they'll be labelled "haters" by some, and not having the "love of God" of by others. If one disagrees they're "yelling" at others and have "pride". :blink:
Very weird, very weird.
The understanding we have who "Paul" was is likely a composite understanding anyway with a few specific things known from Acts and Galatians. Focusing on "him" as if he were a person to be understood by every word attributed to him in the N. T. .... not a good idea IMO.
Those who want Paul to be gay will make him gay. Fine.
Frankly, respecting other points of view - ? Yes, but I don't respect everything and anything regardless of what it is. I'll listen to it once but if an idea or point of view seems whack to me, I'm not going to respect it, sorry. I'll try to be nice, and be respectful to the person but not ideas that are ill founded, indefensible and hmmmm, rather incoherent to begin with.
What can I say? Just being honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
fair enough, I think..
in a way that is exactly the opposite of da way nash..
"we owe no one anything" respect included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
I am the beast of the field, which the LORD God had made!
07-27-2011
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
The woman is the flesh in all of us I am Eve and you are Eve we all have this limited nature as part of us there no hiding from it. We are what we are but with Christ help we can bloom out of it. Christ conceived us by given his life for us this lower creature this beast in us of the world of flesh.
Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
You see the field is this world and the serpent is each other no matter who you are the fight is to more like Christ. The battle is between our fleshly minds and our spiritual minds of truth because all lying come from our fleshly mind but our spiritual mind cannot lie it is impossible for the spirit to lie because I my worse enemy. I am that which hold me back the lesser creature the beast of this word that which God made flesh.
So who is the beast in Genesis and in Revelation my fleshly side of us the nature sides we all must over come in life with God’s help? The lesson is about us we walk fleshly and we walk spiritually we battle with ourselves every day we live in this world. Thank you with God’s love and man’s love and a holy kiss from the love of God in Roy.
what is being honest? being truthful to yourself
who should be honest to? yourself
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Shoddy research, whatever..
what if he was, but culturally couldn't be?
I mean..
the loyster mentioned something of significance, between otherwise incoherent rantings
"homosexuality has nothing to do where one is willing to (assert) one's ***** (sexual parts)" this was a quote from he who would never mix his bread and vegetables, of herr loyster.
how did he come to this conclusion..
maybe it is all in the mind..
the last professor here.
ugly, overweight.
This character.. the professor said before that he would be a very good guide through the wilds of Real Analysis..
Do I love this character? Absolutely. Would I do some kind of horizontal tango? Not in a thousand years..
sorry, I'm just trying to digest all of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
thinking more..
maybe I shouldn't think so much..
what has the *official* stigma given here..
a forbiddence, for those of the same sex, to connect, on some intimate level..
I dunno..
just ignore me, I'm just rambling here..
Personally. I think we all ought to just ingest large amounts of lsd, and just get it over with..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
If Lay said it, consider the alternatives. Like if Lay said "the world is round", check it with a level. Just a thought.
Yes, my own reaction to Spigrong's work is one of a reaction to his shoddy research - which isn't really any kind of research work at all but rather an imaginative narrative-on-a-theme that reads more like the lost 4th book of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that explains exactly what the relationship of the Nazgul were to Sauron's illegitimate Orc spawn and if they survived into the next Generation of Men long enough to make it to the south Pole as has been postulated but which I personally think is PREPOSTEROUS, I mean come on, really??
??. But also for me the topic of Paul and his various inclinations kinda requires a different way of looking at the available information
(somewhere around here roams an Invisible Dan who is not often seen but sometimes heard who could speak to the relative layers of the man we know from these records as "Paul" , but not sure if ID is on prem).
Some of the N.T. books attributed to him are most likely not written by "him", whoever that person of the books was - but rather are compliations written by later scribes. So who knows, maybe they thought he was gay....
you know, or maybe they were gay. There's no lack of gay possibilities and angles to consider here. Maybe I'm gay, thinking I'm not but really am, because I think I'm not, so oh sure, what better way to hide the secret message of my gayness than not thinking I am when I really am. Who'd've thought?
Really, there's a lot of work to be done in the maybe-coulda-been category, lotta work my friend.
No less inspired is the bible however, having said that, as frankly and IMO - we don't know "Paul" any better than we would know Rabbi Bob Scribe or whoever. I create a character profile and humanity from the information but as much as I feel a closeness to "Paul" and clarity into the humanity of the records I read.......it's really just information. I believe the true characteristics of the truth of the records can still open to us however and the "truth is out there" or in there, as you prefer.
Either way and no matter what, I stand on the veracity of the scriptures and the truth of the accuracy of the original - Paul was NOT a goy. The evidence is clear, the vote is in and the tally is hmmm, tallied and stuff. No way he was a goy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I can live with that..
God Bless you, Socks friend..
ha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Paul was not a goy. And, Peter was not a gefilte fisherman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I have sex problem sometimes I want it anything will do
But I most control the thought but sometimes I watch on the net
it only once a in about a year I break that break in view it my TV-computer
and about every three years I have have it live
am I wrong to so weak that I can not control my own Body
when I was in my 20's I had less control over it
that being honest about it
about you have do you think about it
because I learn more control over sex than of us
we all deal with it in peace in safely of our own bodies
but not hiding anything is not hiding in anything
what are you hiding in dark
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe the big question is.. how can you love someone, without the act of sex involved..
I have many lovers.
why do some have such.. what is the word. Immaturity, when it comes to defining love..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Ham
yes I have that one learn well because love you all persons here
I grant you its the same has talking voice to voice but an relationship of two males and mixed sexes
maybe the question is not what Paul but how Paul touch mine?
was Paul Immaturity at a point where Paul judge others their sins?
because Paul would have to immaturity to worry one sin over the rest
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
"was Paul gay" is a question that cannot be answered
either answer, yes or no, would not mean anything to me
why put off your own miseries and problems onto Paul with a question like that?
or try to make a name for themselves or a few dollars from writing about it?
without the due care and respect due any man or woman, dead or alive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Paul certainly was not full of "guilt and self-loathing." That's more likely something the author of that article felt of himself and projected it onto Paul to make it seem more normal.
Paul "proudly" (while saying it was due to Christ, not himself) calls himself and believers apostle, saint, chosen, children of promise, adopted, children of God, blameless, forgiven, etc. These are not the words of guilt and self-loathing, but of acceptance and honor.
If he were homosexual, he would avoid the issue, just as VPW avoided teaching about the fact that sex outside marriage is forbidden. Instead, Paul has three very clear statements about the damaging and ungodly nature of homosexual behavior (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10; although translations like the NIV mangle the translation of the Greek, which literally is "one who lays with a man"- "lay" being the euphemism for sex, like the American slang of "getting laid").
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks cman and johnj
cman - it not all questions fare or one more than one can think about
johnj - Paul is not a human being what a theory you purpose on us
with love and a holy kiss Roy
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.