Was The Apostle Paul Gay?

[Guest Wayne Buchanan]

I don't know that Paul was gay, but he sure didn't think highly of women.

 

Ok, you cannot throw a statement like that up without some sort of evidence and expect it to be accepted by readers. I know that many believe Paul to be chauvinistic by citing incomplete Scripture passages that say women should be silent in church and submit to their husbands, but that comes from an incomplete understanding of what he writes.

 

One has to remember the culture and time in which Paul was writing. The culture of the time, both Hebrew and Greco-Roman, considered women little more than property. It was very male dominated and chauvinistic. Today's culture, in America and Western Europe at least, refuses to hold any distinction between the sexes. So, there are two very different viewpoints, which could cause a little confusion as Paul addresses one while we read from another.

 

Paul does hold a high regard for women. In Galatians 3:28, he tells all Christians, regardless of gender, race, or social rank to submit themselves to one another. This is radical in the first century world. Paul is writing of treating women as people who have value as opposed to the dominating ideology of the time, and he did not pull any punches for those crotchety old chauvinists. He does not let up when he writes to the Ephesians either. He says, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." As Christ gave Himself up for her? He died for her benefit. A husband is supposed to love his wife even to the point of his own death for her benefit. This is Christian doctrine from God through Paul. This is how husbands submit to their wives. Wives also submit to their husbands. They both submit to each other just like Paul wrote in Galatians.

 

 

Also, in reference to my previous post, I fully admitted that Paul could have been writing about homosexual sin as an abomination because he was struggling with it himself, though I guess I was not clear enough in my wording. I do think that is a weak argument, though. There is no basis to say whether this was true or not. It remains mere speculation.

[Neon Genesis]

I do not believe that Paul had homosexual struggles. He did speak about his "uncontrollable members", and I fulling agree that this could be (and I believe is) referring to his sexual organ. However, the commandment not to commit adultery is I think what is foremost on Paul's mind. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is considered adultery, and Jesus added that adultery is committed when one even looks on a person of the opposite sex with lust. This is what I believe Paul is struggling with. Paul was never married. He said he wished that all men could be single like he is in order to devote themselves more fully to God.

 

You also have to consider that Paul calls homosexuality an abomination, and he contends that no one who practices it will have a place in heaven. Of course, this does not mean that he condemns those that struggle with those thoughts, so I suppose that argument could be made that he is struggling with them, so he would not be condemning himself. I think that is a weak argument, though.

Spong's response to the claim that Paul was dealing with some other sexual sin other than homosexuality was why didn't Paul just get married then if it was some other sexual sin other than homosexuality? Spong also pointed out that Paul said you should marry if you can't control your sex drive, so if Paul was heterosexual but couldn't control his sex drive, why not get married like he told his followers to do? Spong also didn't argue that Paul ever engaged in any gay sex. He thinks Paul remained celibate all his life but he was arguing that Paul was a gay celibate. Spong also says that his belief Paul was a gay celibate is just a hypothesis and not fact, so Spong is fully aware he's just speculating. He just think his speculation of what Paul's thorn in the flesh was makes the most sense to him.

[thefriendlyghost]

I think John Shelby Spong mentioned this issue in one of his books. Of course, he's an apostate, because he has INDEPENDENT THOUGHTS.

[thefriendlyghost]

Whoops, remind me not to read posts while I'm on the phone.

[thefriendlyghost]

Is there a way to delete a post? I somehow went directly to page 2, got distracted by a phonecall, and failed to read the last post. I kept looking for Spong's name because I though of him immediatly when I saw the thread's subject matter, and I probably should have been paying more attention when I posted. Now I look like a jackass, but I'd wanted to ask, anyway- what are the various opinions about Spong on this site? I'm a big fan of his.

[Neon Genesis]

Now I look like a jackass, but I'd wanted to ask, anyway- what are the various opinions about Spong on this site? I'm a big fan of his.

I love Spong's books. He's my favorite Christian author. I love how he explains the bible in a way that makes rational sense but is still inspiring. I'm still not convinced there's good enough reasons to join a religion or anything, but I'm a little less angry at all of Christianity and Jesus now thanks to reading Spong.

[Antlerman]

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is considered adultery, and Jesus added that adultery is committed when one even looks on a person of the opposite sex with lust. This is what I believe Paul is struggling with.

OMG! The horror of being.... HUMAN! He desired sex! Sinner!! Holy God shall send you to HELL!!!!

 

BTW, Paul did not have access to any of these so-called teachings of Jesus. They were written long after he was dead. Do you honestly believe in your heart that God condemns humans for doing what is responsible for the survival of the species??? Wait... maybe that is God's plan, the extinction of humanity though religious celebacy!

 

How can you be spiritually fulfilled when you deny life?

[Guest Wayne Buchanan]

Spong's response to the claim that Paul was dealing with some other sexual sin other than homosexuality was why didn't Paul just get married then if it was some other sexual sin other than homosexuality? Spong also pointed out that Paul said you should marry if you can't control your sex drive, so if Paul was heterosexual but couldn't control his sex drive, why not get married like he told his followers to do? Spong also didn't argue that Paul ever engaged in any gay sex. He thinks Paul remained celibate all his life but he was arguing that Paul was a gay celibate. Spong also says that his belief Paul was a gay celibate is just a hypothesis and not fact, so Spong is fully aware he's just speculating. He just think his speculation of what Paul's thorn in the flesh was makes the most sense to him.

 

Paul may not have gotten married knowing that what God called him to do was not conducive to having a wife and family. He was on the move quite a bit.

[Guest Wayne Buchanan]

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is considered adultery, and Jesus added that adultery is committed when one even looks on a person of the opposite sex with lust. This is what I believe Paul is struggling with.

OMG! The horror of being.... HUMAN! He desired sex! Sinner!! Holy God shall send you to HELL!!!!

 

BTW, Paul did not have access to any of these so-called teachings of Jesus. They were written long after he was dead. Do you honestly believe in your heart that God condemns humans for doing what is responsible for the survival of the species??? Wait... maybe that is God's plan, the extinction of humanity though religious celebacy!

 

How can you be spiritually fulfilled when you deny life?

 

I never said sex was wrong. The desire for sex is not wrong either. Read what you are responding to before you start ranting. It is wrong outside of marriage, not within it, and it is hardly logical to say that God condemns all sex when He said to go forth and multiply.

 

In addition, how do you know Paul did not have access to these teachings? You say that were written long after he was dead. However, many have looked at the history and come to the conclusion it was written well before his death. It does not mention the fall of Jerusalem, which it seems would be mentioned since it is an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. So it was probably written before A.D. 70, and many scholars date it as early as A.D. 50 (some as early as A.D. 40). Paul's death is commonly dated between A.D. 60-65. Even if they were written down after his death, it does no mean that he was not aware of them. Oral tradition dominated the Middle East at this time, and many of the teachings of Jesus were pasted by word of mouth. Paul was also in contact with the disciples of Jesus who confirmed his faith and understanding of the teachings of Jesus before accepting him (since he persecuted them before) and sending him out as a missionary to other nations.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Paul may not have gotten married knowing that what God called him to do was not conducive to having a wife and family. He was on the move quite a bit.

But there were Christian missionary couples even in Paul's time like Prisca and Aquila who were married but were frequently spreading the gospel.

[Guest Wayne Buchanan]

 

Paul may not have gotten married knowing that what God called him to do was not conducive to having a wife and family. He was on the move quite a bit.

But there were Christian missionary couples even in Paul's time like Prisca and Aquila who were married but were frequently spreading the gospel.

 

That is true. Though some missionaries, even today, choose not to get married because they know they may be going to places that are very dangerous. Paul was definitely in some of those places, and he spoke very openly in them. Prisca and Aquila did not move as much, and they did not go to all the dangerous places Paul did. I don't know for sure of course. It is not a rule or anything that a missionary going to a dangerous place should not marry, but it seems like a responsible thing to do not to put your spouse or children in danger like that.

[dagnarus]

In addition, how do you know Paul did not have access to these teachings? You say that were written long after he was dead. However, many have looked at the history and come to the conclusion it was written well before his death. It does not mention the fall of Jerusalem, which it seems would be mentioned since it is an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. So it was probably written before A.D. 70, and many scholars date it as early as A.D. 50 (some as early as A.D. 40). Paul's death is commonly dated between A.D. 60-65. Even if they were written down after his death, it does no mean that he was not aware of them. Oral tradition dominated the Middle East at this time, and many of the teachings of Jesus were pasted by word of mouth. Paul was also in contact with the disciples of Jesus who confirmed his faith and understanding of the teachings of Jesus before accepting him (since he persecuted them before) and sending him out as a missionary to other nations.

 

Can you point out the many places in Paul's letters where Paul quotes Jesus life and his teachings. I'll be waiting.

[Antlerman]

Can you point out the many places in Paul's letters where Paul quotes Jesus life and his teachings. I'll be waiting.

Me too.

 

BTW, that teaching attributed to Jesus being written down is in Matthew and Luke, and I don't think there's a scholar alive that places either of those as early as 50 C.E. Both of those were written long after Paul's death, as I said. Mark was the first narrative Gospel and that's generally dated in the range of 65-80 C.E. As far as Paul having had access to that specific teaching, I would like to see a demonstration of that in his writings. Assuming he did using a progression of logic that he knew the disciples, who told him, who sent him off into the Diaspora as a missionary, etc is just that, a series of assumptions based on a series of assumptions, any of which at any point can be shown to be flawed. Show me a quote in Paul's writings, then I'll happily stand corrected.

 

As far as the rest of my teasing about the whole 'desiring sex' thing, it was just that. Teasing, not 'ranting' as was so eloquently crafted in wording. I can't remember any time that word has been used in connection with me. I was playing around, hence the multiple uses of the silly emoticons to convey the lightheartedness of it. Of course I understand it was about lust, and not desire. But alas, literalism rears its face, and I am interpreted as ranting. (Wouldn't it be interesting if the Bible included smiley faces to help its readers try to not be so serious about it too? ).

 

On a more serious note about that verse in Matthew and Luke however is that it isn't really about the subject of sex, but lust itself. Saying its adultery, is not really literal, that is in the sense of how the record-keeping God registers it on the books. Jesus' referral to it is as a point of illustration by the use of contrast. It would be the sin of lust, and little to do with the sexual nature of it. My whole point of laughing at it above was to illustrate the whole obsession about sex that comes out of Victorian times handed on down to us via your Protestant heritage. It's silly.

 

Here's a nice moderate read on that subject I just searched out: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sex_jesu.htm

[Neon Genesis]

Oral tradition dominated the Middle East at this time, and many of the teachings of Jesus were pasted by word of mouth.

Haven't you ever played the game Telephone/Chinese Whisperers when you were a kid?

[Antlerman]

Oral tradition dominated the Middle East at this time, and many of the teachings of Jesus were pasted by word of mouth.

Haven't you ever played the game Telephone/Chinese Whisperers when you were a kid?

What I'm picking up on is that oral traditions dominated the Middle East at this time. This would tend to make me think that Paul himself may have been experienced within these oral traditions as well. I'm just not clear whether these traditions were performed publicly or exclusively in private? And if there were fees involved. In other words, did Paul ever receive an oral tradition in pubic? I think I'll need to 'bone up' on ancient history...

 

 

Seriously though, in all fairness, you can't compare the practice of oral traditions with the game of Telephone. There were studied disciplines in those who carried them on. That said however, they themselves included the personality of the tellers and, and were not considered historical record keeping, by anything we would consider as such. That's the first fatal flaw of the modern literalist.

[Vigile]

You also have to consider that Paul calls homosexuality an abomination, and he contends that no one who practices it will have a place in heaven. Of course, this does not mean that he condemns those that struggle with those thoughts, so I suppose that argument could be made that he is struggling with them, so he would not be condemning himself. I think that is a weak argument, though.

 

What? You haven't read Hamlet? "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much" is pretty common amongst closeted ministers and politicians, why not Paul too?

 

I agree with you there is no evidence to support he was gay but this isn't a good reason to say he wasn't.

[Neon Genesis]

(Wouldn't it be interesting if the Bible included smiley faces to help its readers try to not be so serious about it too? ).

That's what the Lolcats bible is for:

 

 

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

 

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

 

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

 

In other words, did Paul ever receive an oral tradition in pubic?

If Paul was gay, he may have wanted to recieve a different kind of oral tradition.

[belladonna]

Yeah, I've gotten that one, too. When someone uses the bible to make some bullshit argument, and I counter with text from that very book, then I'm anti-Christian.

 

 

Well technically you are. Anti-Christian I mean. Cause if you look at it, aren't you countering their Christian argument. The fact that your using the bible just makes it more insidious.

 

The fact that the bible contradicts itself, or doesn't bear out their version of Christianity is neither here nor there. In fact theyed prefer you not bring it up.

 

Absolutely; they like sheeples; unfortunately for them, sheep are not only stupid, but they smell.

[belladonna]

One has to remember the culture and time in which Paul was writing. The culture of the time, both Hebrew and Greco-Roman, considered women little more than property. It was very male dominated and chauvinistic. Today's culture, in America and Western Europe at least, refuses to hold any distinction between the sexes. So, there are two very different viewpoints, which could cause a little confusion as Paul addresses one while we read from another.

 

What planet are you living on? There is still a terrific distinction between the sexes in the United States; there are wage discrepancies and glass ceilings, and religions such as the LDS, Catholic and Quiverfull Movements that teach patriarchal hierarchy and feminine submission, and a lot of this is pulled directly from Paul's teachings.

[dagnarus]

One has to remember the culture and time in which Paul was writing. The culture of the time, both Hebrew and Greco-Roman, considered women little more than property. It was very male dominated and chauvinistic. Today's culture, in America and Western Europe at least, refuses to hold any distinction between the sexes. So, there are two very different viewpoints, which could cause a little confusion as Paul addresses one while we read from another.

 

1 Corinthians 14

 

34The women are to (BF)keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but (BG)are to subject themselves, just as (BH)the Law also says.

 

35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

 

Do you agree that women should not be aloud to speak in church, even to learn. If not, as the passage does nothing to suggest that it was trying to fit into the specific culture of that time, why should it be considered to be specificly speaking to that culture. After all if we were to take that route why not throw out the prohibitions against premarital sex as culturally irrelevant.

[Non-Redneck]

He said he wished that all men could be single like he is in order to devote themselves more fully to God.

 

Spong's response to the claim that Paul was dealing with some other sexual sin other than homosexuality was why didn't Paul just get married then if it was some other sexual sin other than homosexuality? Spong also pointed out that Paul said you should marry if you can't control your sex drive, so if Paul was heterosexual but couldn't control his sex drive, why not get married like he told his followers to do?

 

I have to agree that Paul claimed he wanted to devote himself to Jesus is a reason he never married. Additionally, Paul also wrongly believed that Jesus would return in his lifetime (guess Jesus forgot to tell him that detail). So he seemed more concerned with evangelizing that marrying.

 

Paul says his thorn is a "Messenger of Satan" that strikes him. There are many ways to interpret this statement. Who the hell knows what it means. Sickness, hardship, blindness, demons, sexual urges (whether homo or hetro), pride, lack of oratory skills.

[Non-Redneck]

 

Do you agree that women should not be aloud to speak in church, even to learn. If not, as the passage does nothing to suggest that it was trying to fit into the specific culture of that time, why should it be considered to be specifically speaking to that culture. After all if we were to take that route why not throw out the prohibitions against premarital sex as culturally irrelevant.

 

If I remember right, I Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation. Romans 16 seems to indicate the opposite, in which Paul commands the Xtians to assist and submit to a woman named Phebe. Additionally, I remember some passages in Acts that indicate there was a female Apostle. Possibly Romans 16:7 (Junia or Junias, male/female name) provides support. There's a book on this subject, Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon J. Epp. Though I've never read it.

 

I think Paul got a bad rap in this matter because some later Xtian assholes modified his letters. At least that's the conclusion I left Xtianity with.

[Neon Genesis]

Additionally, I remember some passages in Acts that indicate there was a female Apostle. Possibly Romans 16:7 (Junia or Junias, male/female name) provides support. There's a book on this subject, Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon J. Epp. Though I've never read it.

 

Junia was a woman apostle who was later censored when scribes tried to change her into a man in later manuscripts. This is also covered in the book The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan.

[dagnarus]

 

Do you agree that women should not be aloud to speak in church, even to learn. If not, as the passage does nothing to suggest that it was trying to fit into the specific culture of that time, why should it be considered to be specifically speaking to that culture. After all if we were to take that route why not throw out the prohibitions against premarital sex as culturally irrelevant.

 

If I remember right, I Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation. Romans 16 seems to indicate the opposite, in which Paul commands the Xtians to assist and submit to a woman named Phebe. Additionally, I remember some passages in Acts that indicate there was a female Apostle. Possibly Romans 16:7 (Junia or Junias, male/female name) provides support. There's a book on this subject, Junia: The First Woman Apostle by Eldon J. Epp. Though I've never read it.

 

I think Paul got a bad rap in this matter because some later Xtian assholes modified his letters. At least that's the conclusion I left Xtianity with.

 

I was fully aware of this. It's just that in some senses I think that this is irrelevant. All the modern bibles include these verses. Therefore in all likelihood Wayne also takes these verses as being from Paul. These verses may not be from Paul but your average innerantist believes it is, and therefore it is an aspect of there Paul.

 

My argument wasn't so much that Paul was a misogynist, he might have been, he might not have been, I don't really care. Is was more against the idea that we only think the Bible is sexist because we're reading in terms of our current culture. When the fact of the matter is that the Bible, as written, is simply sexist.