I think if a non-Christian brings up this theory it would be more appropriate to say "We don't know either way, but even if he did have same-sex attractions he would not have acted on them," rather than crying out that it's slander and heresy. That just reinforces the idea that Christians hate people merely for who they are rather than condemning what they do.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
T
TexasSky
Guest
I did some research.
Paul is a Zealot Pharisee.
The Pharisees believe there are 613 Commandments that must be followed.
Among the Commandments the Pharisses followed rigidly were the following:
Do not have homosexual sexual relations
Lev. 18:22
Do not have homosexual sexual relations with your father
Lev. 18:7
Do not have homosexual sexual relations with your father's brother
Lev. 18:14
Impure people must not enter the Temple Num. 5:3
An impure person must not eat from sacrifices Lev. 7:20
To repent and confess wrongdoings Num. 5:7
Men must not wear women's clothing Deut. 22:5
If your theory is right, Paul was a liar and a hypocrite for he did not obey the laws of his own temple if he concealed homosexual lust.
OR - Paul is exactly what he has always appeared to be since man first wrote down Paul's testimony - a man who tried to follow the teachings of God zealously, and who loved God enough to admit when he was wrong.
Paul is a Zealot Pharisee.
The Pharisees believe there are 613 Commandments that must be followed.
Among the Commandments the Pharisses followed rigidly were the following:
Do not have homosexual sexual relations
Lev. 18:22
Do not have homosexual sexual relations with your father
Lev. 18:7
Do not have homosexual sexual relations with your father's brother
Lev. 18:14
Impure people must not enter the Temple Num. 5:3
An impure person must not eat from sacrifices Lev. 7:20
To repent and confess wrongdoings Num. 5:7
Men must not wear women's clothing Deut. 22:5
If your theory is right, Paul was a liar and a hypocrite for he did not obey the laws of his own temple if he concealed homosexual lust.
OR - Paul is exactly what he has always appeared to be since man first wrote down Paul's testimony - a man who tried to follow the teachings of God zealously, and who loved God enough to admit when he was wrong.
Martin,
I am going to agree with you that we need to be able to deal with theories from the stand point of apologetics. But, that does not mean we give them credibility. I deal with Mormons and their mulitple gods teachings all the time, but I do not ever speak of it as a credible doctrine. Nor should Christians lend any credibility to statements concerning Paul and his so called hidden homosexual tendencies.
Bro Tony
I am going to agree with you that we need to be able to deal with theories from the stand point of apologetics. But, that does not mean we give them credibility. I deal with Mormons and their mulitple gods teachings all the time, but I do not ever speak of it as a credible doctrine. Nor should Christians lend any credibility to statements concerning Paul and his so called hidden homosexual tendencies.
Bro Tony
No, we need to say that is a ridiculous statement against a man with no facts to back it up. It is slanderous, the same way it would be slanderous if someone accused you of being something you are not. Are you willing to say that some of the Apostles could have been involved in beastiality because we dont know and some groups that approve that kind of behavior teach that they were. This is ridiculous, I cant believe that we would rather slander a man of God rather than stand up for him and his character. Dont forget the Bible is clear of its characters weaknesses, we dont need to add unfounded claims.
Bro Tony
==I don't think anyone here has said that the theories are true. I think the position here has been that we must be aware of the these theories and learn how to respond to them. We can't pretend these theories don't exist. If you approach a Mormon you must know what he/she believes and how to deal with their beliefs. The same is true here. Just saying it is false (etc) is not enough. Sure the theory about Paul is false, but how do we respond in an educated manner that proves it is false? That is the issue.
Martin.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Petrel,
How exactly do you define "tempation to be homosexual" if you don't define it as lust?
And - what purpose / good/ glory to God do you serve by painting an image of Paul as a closet homosexual?
Haven't you ADMITTED that you think we should "pretend it is possible" so that homosexuals will feel more at ease?
How is that "right" in the eyes of God?
How exactly do you define "tempation to be homosexual" if you don't define it as lust?
And - what purpose / good/ glory to God do you serve by painting an image of Paul as a closet homosexual?
Haven't you ADMITTED that you think we should "pretend it is possible" so that homosexuals will feel more at ease?
How is that "right" in the eyes of God?
I will agree with the fact that we may be talking past each other.
Hypothetical question: Would it be slanderous to suggest that others of the apostles might have to deal with feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex?
My question is why---to what purpose? It is not an issue that has any validity. It is slanderous in nature as someone tarnishes the name of other christians needlessly.
Bro Tony
Hypothetical question: Would it be slanderous to suggest that others of the apostles might have to deal with feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex?
My question is why---to what purpose? It is not an issue that has any validity. It is slanderous in nature as someone tarnishes the name of other christians needlessly.
Bro Tony
Is every instance of noticing a member of the opposite sex lust? One notices and then sometimes feels the temptation to lust and suppresses it. It's the same with homosexuals.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals both need to master their feelings of sexual attraction. Heterosexuals are fortunate in having the institute of marriage, and inside that context sexual activity is permitted. Homosexuals don't have this outlet, and must remain celibate.
For the second time, I don't think that this theory is serving any purpose, and again for the second time, it's not my theory and I don't think that it's true.
Why should we "pretend" it's possible? It is possible that Paul had to deal with same-sex attraction. Freaking out over this suggestion reinforces the idea that merely experiencing same-sex attraction is a sin even if one does not act on it. This is FALSE. If our actions support this FALSEHOOD then we are responsible for driving people away from God! The attitude that merely experiencing temptation is sin puts Christians who suffer from these temptations in an insolvable bind. Their feelings will not go away, and even if they do not act, they get the idea from you and from Brother Tony that they are evil no matter how hard they resist and how much they pray.
My POINT was that acknowledging that a person can experience same-sex attraction and still be a good Christian (providing one resists temptation, as I've said a million times) can help uphold Christians who are suffering in this situation. Not only that, but it leaves the way open for non-Christian homosexuals to come to Christ if we report the TRUTH that God just wants us to behave in a godly way, not never feel tempted.
Heterosexuals and homosexuals both need to master their feelings of sexual attraction. Heterosexuals are fortunate in having the institute of marriage, and inside that context sexual activity is permitted. Homosexuals don't have this outlet, and must remain celibate.
For the second time, I don't think that this theory is serving any purpose, and again for the second time, it's not my theory and I don't think that it's true.
Why should we "pretend" it's possible? It is possible that Paul had to deal with same-sex attraction. Freaking out over this suggestion reinforces the idea that merely experiencing same-sex attraction is a sin even if one does not act on it. This is FALSE. If our actions support this FALSEHOOD then we are responsible for driving people away from God! The attitude that merely experiencing temptation is sin puts Christians who suffer from these temptations in an insolvable bind. Their feelings will not go away, and even if they do not act, they get the idea from you and from Brother Tony that they are evil no matter how hard they resist and how much they pray.
My POINT was that acknowledging that a person can experience same-sex attraction and still be a good Christian (providing one resists temptation, as I've said a million times) can help uphold Christians who are suffering in this situation. Not only that, but it leaves the way open for non-Christian homosexuals to come to Christ if we report the TRUTH that God just wants us to behave in a godly way, not never feel tempted.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Petrel,
To answer your hypothetical, let me turn your question around on you.
Would it be wrong to state your theory using Christ's name instead of Paul's?
After all, Christ was tempted in the desert, so obviously He could be tempted.
Would you feel right spreading the rumor that Christ was a closet homosexual?
That is really what is being said here. It is not the "sweet sounding," "Gee, Paul might have looked at someone and thought, he's cute," it is, 'Paul was a closet homosexual, so the man that most people view as the greatest minister of Christ to live, was secretly gay. That must mean its normal."
THAT is what is being discussed here.
To answer your hypothetical, let me turn your question around on you.
Would it be wrong to state your theory using Christ's name instead of Paul's?
After all, Christ was tempted in the desert, so obviously He could be tempted.
Would you feel right spreading the rumor that Christ was a closet homosexual?
That is really what is being said here. It is not the "sweet sounding," "Gee, Paul might have looked at someone and thought, he's cute," it is, 'Paul was a closet homosexual, so the man that most people view as the greatest minister of Christ to live, was secretly gay. That must mean its normal."
THAT is what is being discussed here.
I have never said anything to lead you to make this statement. I have not even dealt with feelings, inclinations or temptations. All I have dealt with is your attitude that it seems to be alright to attribute something to the Apostle Paul because some lunatic comes up with a ridiculous theory. Pauls shortcomings are well documented in the Scripture, and you are not at liberty to add other things just to make a certain group of people feel comfortable. We can deal with them in love and understanding without adding to the Scripture or adding supposed latent tendencies that the Apostles did or did not have.
Bro Tony
Petrel said:
Hypothetical question: Would it be slanderous to suggest that others of the apostles might have to deal with feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex?
==It would be unhistorical and unBiblical. I think it would certainly borderline slander (at the very least) since we have no reason to believe that it is true. If they were alive today I imagine they could sue you in court for saying those type of things about them with no evidence.
I really don't see a reason to go down that path. We have no Biblical or historical reason to do so. It seems totally unproductive and may border on attempting to justify a behavior or temptation (temptation is not wrong but we should flee from it).
In Christ,
Martin.
Hypothetical question: Would it be slanderous to suggest that others of the apostles might have to deal with feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex?
==It would be unhistorical and unBiblical. I think it would certainly borderline slander (at the very least) since we have no reason to believe that it is true. If they were alive today I imagine they could sue you in court for saying those type of things about them with no evidence.
I really don't see a reason to go down that path. We have no Biblical or historical reason to do so. It seems totally unproductive and may border on attempting to justify a behavior or temptation (temptation is not wrong but we should flee from it).
In Christ,
Martin.
Marcia
Active Member
I'm with Bro. Tony on this.
I would never say "It's possible that Paul had homosexual leanings" or "it's possible he was attracted to men." I would not say that because 1) There is no evidence for it, and 2)just to say it gives it credibility.
I think that given today's cultural climate, this could become a tool in an agenda against Paul.
If we say this is possible, then why not say
1. It's possible Matthew was homosexual or attracted to men
2. It's possible Moses was " "
3. It's possible Abraham was " "
4. It's possible Thomas was " "
....and on and on and on. Why not go ahead and say it's possible that all men of God in the Bible struggled with same sex attraction (and we can throw in the women, too)? It becomes absurd.
And no one can call me a homophobe - I used to do astrology readings for lesbian witches and I even picked handfasting dates for them (handfasting is the more or less marriage rite in Wicca). I also did charts for gay men with AIDS and was even at the bedside of the partner of one gay friend who was dying from AIDS.
I would never say "It's possible that Paul had homosexual leanings" or "it's possible he was attracted to men." I would not say that because 1) There is no evidence for it, and 2)just to say it gives it credibility.
I think that given today's cultural climate, this could become a tool in an agenda against Paul.
If we say this is possible, then why not say
1. It's possible Matthew was homosexual or attracted to men
2. It's possible Moses was " "
3. It's possible Abraham was " "
4. It's possible Thomas was " "
....and on and on and on. Why not go ahead and say it's possible that all men of God in the Bible struggled with same sex attraction (and we can throw in the women, too)? It becomes absurd.
And no one can call me a homophobe - I used to do astrology readings for lesbian witches and I even picked handfasting dates for them (handfasting is the more or less marriage rite in Wicca). I also did charts for gay men with AIDS and was even at the bedside of the partner of one gay friend who was dying from AIDS.
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Illinois State Tourism Bureau Director Jan Kostner says she is reviewing a grant application to use thousands of tax dollars for a campaign to promote the "Gay Games," scheduled to be held in Chicago in 2006. The application, if granted, would be spent to encourage homosexual activists from around the world to come to Chicago for the Gay Games.
Kostner will review the application in the next few weeks. She says the application will be judged using economic criteria only. When asked whether the views of those with concerns about using taxpayer dollars to promote the "Gay Games" would be taken into account in the review process, she said no.
LINK
I really wish Chicago was a state in it's own right and not part of Illinois!
Kostner will review the application in the next few weeks. She says the application will be judged using economic criteria only. When asked whether the views of those with concerns about using taxpayer dollars to promote the "Gay Games" would be taken into account in the review process, she said no.
LINK
I really wish Chicago was a state in it's own right and not part of Illinois!
ccrobinson
Active Member
*hijacking the thread*Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
I really wish Chicago was a state in it's own right and not part of Illinois!
And they can take their governor with 'em. The current governor of Illinois, er Chicago, has got to be one of the worst ones we've ever had. I'd rather see George Ryan back in office, and he's as crooked a politician as there is.
I love it that the Republican candidates are all lining up to take their shots at him in 06. I almost can't wait to see that campaign. NPR reported the other day that even Jim Edgar is considering running for governor again.
For those of you not in Illinois, consider yourself blessed that Rod Blagojevich is not your governor.
*unhijacking the thread*