Freethought & Rationalism Archive

john_v_h · 09-23-2009, 09:49 PM

Was Paul gay?

Why else did he have so much time on his hands?

bacht · 09-24-2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_v_h

Was Paul gay?

Why else did he have so much time on his hands?

Well, he mentions a physical infirmity, maybe he was sexually dysfuntional (?)

DrZoidberg · 09-24-2009, 06:41 AM

This thing that there has to be a correlation between what people say and do is an extremely modern phenomena. It was only appearances that mattered back then. This is how it was up until the second half of the 20'th century. It's only the in the world of free press and mass communication that public figures have ever had to be held to their words. So in other words... who cares what he said? For all we know, he might have condemned gays openly and still been a flaming queen. And there's science to back up that the more somebody openly and aggressively hate gays the more likely they are closet queens. So the best evidence for him not being gay is if we find something gay friendly in his texts.

Either way, I doubt there's much, if anything, of his original texts that has survived... so this is all speculation to the extreme.

DrZoidberg · 09-24-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In any case, syphilis does not seem to have existed in the first or second centuries, and there is no record of any concern over it among ancient writers - unless you think that leprosy was actually syhilis misdiagnosed. But this view has been investigated and rejected.

Syphilis originated in America (the Americas?). It only came to Europe once the European seamen came home after raping Indians. So Paul had obviously had never heard of syphilis (unless God told him, snicker)

PhilosopherJay · 09-24-2009, 07:22 AM

Hi bacht,

John Shelby Spong suggests the infirmity might have been "homosexuality".
from Was the Apostle Paul Gay
[Thanks Toto for the great link. Extremely helpful, as usual]

Quote:

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).

from Tekton we get this:

Quote:

in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (386-397). Jucher-Berger notes:

* The word used by Paul, skolops, has the meaning both of "thorn" and "stake"....
Aristotle's Rhetoric used the metaphor of an orator "carrying a stake", "with a stake" as one who "makes his speech stiffly, 'as if he had swallowed a ruler.'"

So, Paul is referring to the problem of having a stiff stake in his flesh. The writer could very well be referring to his penis. The question is, did he have this stiff stake/thorn in his flesh due to Thecla or Timothy?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_v_h

Was Paul gay?

Why else did he have so much time on his hands?

Well, he mentions a physical infirmity, maybe he was sexually dysfuntional (?)

bacht · 09-24-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

So, Paul is referring to the problem of having a stiff stake in his flesh. The writer could very well be referring to his penis. The question is, did he have this stiff stake/thorn in his flesh due to Thecla or Timothy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Well, he mentions a physical infirmity, maybe he was sexually dysfunctional (?)

Heh, the challenge with this topic is staying away from obvious punchlines

Should we imagine that homosexual Jews would have incentive to join with gentiles socially to avoid the Torah penalties? I would if it was me (kind of like modern gay Christians leaving churches to live in San Francisco or wherever)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2009, 09:49 PM	#51
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	Was Paul gay? Why else did he have so much time on his hands?

09-24-2009, 06:41 AM	#53
DrZoidberg Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 5,746	This thing that there has to be a correlation between what people say and do is an extremely modern phenomena. It was only appearances that mattered back then. This is how it was up until the second half of the 20'th century. It's only the in the world of free press and mass communication that public figures have ever had to be held to their words. So in other words... who cares what he said? For all we know, he might have condemned gays openly and still been a flaming queen. And there's science to back up that the more somebody openly and aggressively hate gays the more likely they are closet queens. So the best evidence for him not being gay is if we find something gay friendly in his texts. Either way, I doubt there's much, if anything, of his original texts that has survived... so this is all speculation to the extreme.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.