Spirituality
21 Dec 08
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by jaywillSo you believe homosexuality is a "phase" and a normal part of adolescence then?
Yes, I believe that Paul was very often gay, as well as happy and rejoicing in the Lord. And this in spite of the various trials and tribulations he underwent.
Oh, you mean homosexual? No I don't think he made an idol out of sex and don't think he had arrested adolescent devolopment psychologically.
Straight ? Is that how it is described? He was str ...[text shortened]... mantic love because of his heavy burden to serve the Christian church.
Well, You asked me.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
22 Dec 08
I consulted the document that tells us the most about the man Paul, the New Testament.
Quite foolish of you to consult a 'document' that is nothing of the sort - one that does not have much to say about Paul, and says nothing at all about his sexual orientation.
What's wrong with homophobic?
Mr Spong says it all: All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
Jesus would in no way support homophobia, but I'm pretty certain that his radical message of love and acceptance of all, and that all are entitled to covenant with God, eludes you.
22 Dec 08
We cannot judge Paul from our culture in our time and our place. If we want any opinion of Paul's life, then we have to take his culture into account. We cannot treat his behaviour from our standard.
So, if Paul indeed was homosexual, and this was a part of the culture, then we can have opinions about it. If we don't know how his time saw upon homosexuality, then we're are just guessing.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
Then read Paul's letter to Philemon.
Combine theese two and see if you get find Paul being homosexual or not.
22 Dec 08
5 edits
Originally posted by Badwater==================================
[b]I consulted the document that tells us the most about the man Paul, the New Testament.
Quite foolish of you to consult a 'document' that is nothing of the sort - one that does not have much to say about Paul, and says nothing at all about his sexual orientation.
What's wrong with homophobic?
Mr Spong says it all: [i]All human beings b of love and acceptance of all, and that all are entitled to covenant with God, eludes you.[/b]
Quite foolish of you to consult a 'document' that is nothing of the sort - one that does not have much to say about Paul, and says nothing at all about his sexual orientation.
==================================== [/i]
Second Corinthians is as close as a autobiography of the man Paul as we could have. And Luke traces the conversion and ministry of the man.
Aside from Luke and Second Corithians there are the other 11 or so letters which tell me about Paul, how he thought, how he workd, but most importantly how he experienced Jesus Christ.
My interest is chiefly concerning this. It is possible that Paul could have been many things we do not know about before his most mature experience of Jesus Christ was developed. I personally don't care about that.
I am interested in the man as he was spiritually growing and being transformed to be a model Christian disciple. If someone were to uncover some artifacts showing that Paul was a witch doctor, or gay, or a circus clown, or a gladiator, or whatever before his Chrisian experience, I would not put any significance to it.
There is one matter of Paul's pre-Christian experience that does interest me. He was a strict Pharisee and a student of a renown Jewish rabbi and a quite theologically knowledgeable persecutor of the Christian church.
=======================
me:
What's wrong with homophobic?
you:
Mr Spong says it all: All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is.
===========================
I agree. What does that have to do with so called "homophobia"?
Maybe the term needs some definition to me.
=====================================
Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
=======================================
We can still love a person and excercise some amount of discrimination concerning him. That is as long as that discrimination is not illegal.
The handicap ramp at the store shows that there has been some amount of discrimination between people in wheel chairs and people without.
I do not reject a person as not being made in God's image because he homosexual. Nor do I discrimimate upon them that they are not loved by God and were not died for by Jesus Christ.
I do not discriminate against a homosexual as not having a right to be loved as a human or listened to as to his need for that lifestyle.
As for a "phobia" ... yes, I have a fear that a certain philosophy of life could spread like wild fire and be destructive to some society. But that could apply to many things including adultery, pre-marital recreational sex, child molestation, incest, bestiality, divorce, wife beating, husband beating, pornography,polygamy, even celebicy.
If a concern that any societies with these practices could become rampant in them is discribed as a "phobia" then I don't see what is wrong with that.
===============================
Jesus would in no way support homophobia, but I'm pretty certain that his radical message of love and acceptance of all, and that all are entitled to covenant with God, eludes you.
===================================
I guess I would need more of a definition of "homophobia".
I already told you that God loves the homosexual and that Jesus also loved and accomplished redemption for the homosexual.
I have had members of my family who were in the gay community. One died of HIV complications. I loved him. And I still love the other family member.
22 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillRampant celibacy. Horrors.
[b]As for a "phobia" ... yes, I have a fear that a certain philosophy of life could spread like wild fire and be destructive to some society. But that could apply to many things including adultery, pre-marital recreational sex, child molestation, incest, bestiality, divorce, wife beating, husband beating, pornography,polygamy, even celebicy. [/i]
Se ...[text shortened]... d have. And Luk d of HIV complications. I loved him. And I still love the other family member.[/b]
22 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillGoing to jump in here and ask a few questions.
As for a "phobia" ... yes, I have a fear that a certain philosophy of life could spread like wild fire and be destructive to some society. But that could apply to many things including adultery, pre-marital recreational sex, child molestation, incest, bestiality, divorce, wife beating, husband beating, pornography,polygamy, even celibacy.
If a concern th ...[text shortened]... come rampant in them is described as a "phobia" then I don't see what is wrong with that.
Your calling homosexuality a "philosophy" implying a choice which isn't necessarily true. So'
1. How is sex between to consenting adults even vaguely comparable to "wife beating, husband beating child molestation" etc. I know you didn't make a direct comparison but the implication was certainly there.
2. Why how is homosexuality destructive to society as a whole. For that matter how is, pre-marital recreational sex destructive either. Except from your view of how society should be.
3. Why should society live as a whole under and interpretation of what people think god may have said?
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am not a psychologist. And that field does change.
So you believe homosexuality is a "phase" and a normal part of adolescence then?
However, at this time I lean toward that view. I think that infatuation with someone of the same sex is a stage that people go through. Perhaps in puberty or adolescence.
I think that homosexuality could be an arrested state of development.
I could be wrong. Or maybe that attitude is no longer in vogue. There was a time when homosexuality was enumerated in the books on mental illnesses. The tide of popular opinion is very strong. And no one wants to be thought as old fashion.
22 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by pawnhandlerRampant celibacy. Horrors.
Rampant celibacy. Horrors.
The Apostle Paul mentioned forbidding to marry as a doctrine of demons.
The RCC made a law concerning celibicy which went far beyond valuntary abstenence.
Paul called that a demonic doctrine. And we have seen some of the damage upon young Catholics that it has effected, who were victims of the lust of celibite priests.
22 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mexico=================================
Going to jump in here and ask a few questions.
Your calling homosexuality a "philosophy" implying a choice which isn't necessarily true. So'
1. How is sex between to consenting adults even vaguely comparable to "wife beating, husband beating child molestation" etc. I know you didn't make a direct comparison but the implication was certainly there.
2. ...[text shortened]... society live as a whole under and interpretation of what people think god may have said?
Your calling homosexuality a "philosophy" implying a choice which isn't necessarily true. So'
==================================
That's true. But for some to reinforce their attitude they must develop a philosophy. That would be a strong world view, I think.
That is a strong rationalization, an ideology.
=================================
1. How is sex between to consenting adults even vaguely comparable to "wife beating, husband beating child molestation" etc. I know you didn't make a direct comparison but the implication was certainly there.
=================================
In fact some women do gravitate toward men who are abusive. It can be a generational attituded passed down. They feel it is normal to be punched and bruised by a man.
Would you think that the rampant custom of two consenting adults, one sibling and another the parent, who decide the "love" each other and want to have sex, is good for society?
======================================
2. Why how is homosexuality destructive to society as a whole. For that matter how is, pre-marital recreational sex destructive either. Except from your view of how society should be.
======================================
I grew up in the Woodstock generation. I am liberal politically and tend to vote Democratic.
However, there was a lot of talk about "free love" in the sixties. The question is now "How free was it?"
How free are so many abortions, so many children out of wedlock? How free is all the social ills we struggle with because of that promise of "free love", ie. recreational sex acts?
How free are a million children made miserable and bitter because they did not have a proper family upbringing?
How free is that dude?
=================================
3. Why should society live as a whole under and interpretation of what people think god may have said?
================================
I also believe in democracy. If the majority voted in something that I just could no longer live with, I'd seek another country to live.
The majority can determine what kind of society we will have.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by Mexico1. it is comparable not in degree, but in that it breaks the moral code regardless of whether they are consenting, adult, of the same sex or anything else, as is sex outwith marriage. Christ states that he who is righteous in least is righteous in much also, the antithesis also being true.
Going to jump in here and ask a few questions.
Your calling homosexuality a "philosophy" implying a choice which isn't necessarily true. So'
1. How is sex between to consenting adults even vaguely comparable to "wife beating, husband beating child molestation" etc. I know you didn't make a direct comparison but the implication was certainly there.
2. ...[text shortened]... society live as a whole under and interpretation of what people think god may have said?
2. one must ask the question, was has been the results of the new morality on society in general. have divorce rates not increased, 1 in 3 in the UK, perhaps one in five in the states, i do not have the exact figures but it must be something similar (compare this with a society like India which places emphasis on family unit rather than on individual gratification) have sexually transmitted diseases not also increased, as have abortions and the terrible effects of it psychologically, plus the break up of the family unit and the increase in delinquency, here i surmise but its plausible. that these things are quite hard to measure is conceded, but that the trend has taken a detrimental course i do not think that one can deny although one may try!
3,society as a whole should live under the theocratic established biblical principles, because the alternatives are clearly not working. the new morality envisioned by Marx and others, the age of so called reason, has produced nothing but untold misery, comparable to the worst religious atrocities, atheism as a general mass movement has failed!
i hope you have recovered from your hangover, if i could send some Barrs Irn Bru to you online i would, great for a fluffy mouth, made in Scotland from real iron girders, best served in the original glass bottle, straight from the fridge.
😵
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhatta scrooge, offerin jus it Irn Bru to it man ye numptie robbie; if so, everythin 's gang aft agley, sure thing; go giv im a Johnnie Walker Frozen Gold if ye insist to giv im somethin cool ye leggedy beastie
1. it is comparable not in degree, but in that it breaks the moral code regardless of whether they are consenting, adult, of the same sex or anything else, as is sex outwith marriage. Christ states that he who is righteous in least is righteous in much also, the antithesis also being true.
2. one must ask the question, was has been the results o ...[text shortened]... from real iron girders, best served in the original glass bottle, straight from the fridge.
😵
😵
26 Dec 08
Originally posted by rwingettWas Paul gay? Why is this imporntant?? Being gay is no more a sin than being a liar, a murderer, or a tax cheat. And this is just what many of the so called "great men of the Bible" were. Yet God spoke many of his most imporntant words, and did many of his most imporntant deeds through them. You are stressing a very minor subject here! 😏
Bishop Spong seems to think so. If you've got seven and a half minutes to spare, he'll tell you why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=563jJbf9DKY&feature=related