God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality

[Thief]

No. Probably because it's so stupid.

.

I was quoting the Carpenter of Nazareth

no doubt He will get the memo

 

[columbus]

I was quoting the Carpenter of Nazareth

no doubt He will get the memo

No you weren't.
You were quoting someone claiming to speak for Him. That isn't the same.
Tom

 

[Thief]

No you weren't.
You were quoting someone claiming to speak for Him. That isn't the same.
Tom

let's go with that.....

and the quote is less true.....because of the lack of Source?

 

[columbus]

let's go with that.....

and the quote is less true.....because of the lack of Source?

The quote is obviously untrue.
Having an idea pop into your head, but not ever doing it, is not the same as actually doing it. Whether a good idea or a bad one.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naw. He was straight. And an Apostle.

If Paul can claim to be an apostle anyone can claim to be an apostle. And he was almost certainly a latent homosexual. Latent homosexuals very often have a hatred of their own kind.

 

[Skwim]

I was quoting the Carpenter of Nazareth

no doubt He will get the memo

And never too late to learn.

.

 

[Prestor John]

If Paul can claim to be an apostle anyone can claim to be an apostle. And he was almost certainly a latent homosexual. Latent homosexuals very often have a hatred of their own kind.

Paul was not just anyone.

He had a personal visitation from the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ who later changed his name from Saul to Paul.

The name-changing thing doesn't happen to just anyone.

This visitation was witnessed by others and the blindness caused by the light of that visitation was later healed by a servant of Christ.

So, you might be able to make the claim that anyone who has a personal visitation from the Son of God could claim to be an Apostle, but not just anybody.

What do you use to support your claim that Paul was a latent homosexual?

 

[Skwim]

If Paul can claim to be an apostle anyone can claim to be an apostle. And he was almost certainly a latent homosexual. Latent homosexuals very often have a hatred of their own kind.

Hmm, one Christianity's biggies a homosexual. Interesting turn of events to be sure.

"Struggle against homosexual desire may have inspired Paul the Apostle to write sublime Biblical teachings on unconditional love and inclusivity

Paul and a close "friend"
​

Both Paul’s sense of unworthiness and his appreciation for God’s grace may have the same unexpected cause: Some scholars believe that Paul was a celibate homosexual man trying to reconcile faith and same-sex attraction. This may have been the “thorn in the flesh” that God refused to remove despite his prayers.

[Evidence Paul was a homosexual]

* Paul never married, which was unusual for a first-century Jew, but had a series of younger men as companions.

* He sometimes expressed negativity toward women and homosexual exploitation.

* Tormented by self-reproach, he pleaded with God three times in vain to remove an unspecified “thorn in my flesh” that troubled him. Some believe that “thorn” was attraction to other men. God’s answer, according to Paul, was to deny his request with the explanation, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

* Homosexuality might even help explain Paul’s cataclysmic conversion experience. He went from intensely persecuting Christians to becoming the most articulate leader of the very movement that he had tried to destroy. His vision of Christ left him stunned by the revelation that nothing could separate him from God’s love."
source
​

Boy, this sure paints a picture of a homosexual, doesn't it. Suppose he ever engaged in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . well, of course he did.

.

​

 

[Prestor John]

Hmm, one Christianity's biggies a homosexual. Interesting turn of events to be sure.

"Struggle against homosexual desire may have inspired Paul the Apostle to write sublime Biblical teachings on unconditional love and inclusivity

Paul and a close "friend"
​

Both Paul’s sense of unworthiness and his appreciation for God’s grace may have the same unexpected cause: Some scholars believe that Paul was a celibate homosexual man trying to reconcile faith and same-sex attraction. This may have been the “thorn in the flesh” that God refused to remove despite his prayers.

[Evidence Paul was a homosexual]

* Paul never married, which was unusual for a first-century Jew, but had a series of younger men as companions.

* He sometimes expressed negativity toward women and homosexual exploitation.

* Tormented by self-reproach, he pleaded with God three times in vain to remove an unspecified “thorn in my flesh” that troubled him. Some believe that “thorn” was attraction to other men. God’s answer, according to Paul, was to deny his request with the explanation, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

* Homosexuality might even help explain Paul’s cataclysmic conversion experience. He went from intensely persecuting Christians to becoming the most articulate leader of the very movement that he had tried to destroy. His vision of Christ left him stunned by the revelation that nothing could separate him from God’s love."
source
​

Boy, this sure paints a picture of a homosexual, doesn't it. Suppose he ever engaged in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . well, of course he did.

.

​

None of these these are supported by the Biblical record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul was not just anyone.

He had a personal visitation from the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ who later changed his name from Saul to Paul.

The name-changing thing doesn't happen to just anyone.

This visitation was witnessed by others and the blindness caused by the light of that visitation was later healed by a servant of Christ.

So, you might be able to make the claim that anyone who has a personal visitation from the Son of God could claim to be an Apostle, but not just anybody.

What do you use to support your claim that Paul was a latent homosexual?

You buy into the Christian myths far too easily. First he never changed his name. For people that dealt with Romans he had both his regular name and a Latin version of the same name. Even your feloow Christians know this:

No, ‘Saul the Persecutor’ Did Not Become ‘Paul the Apostle’

And no, he had a hallucination at best. If I claimed to have a hallucination I could just as well call myself an Apostle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of these these are supported by the Biblical record.

You mean by your interpretation of the Biblical record. Where do you think that he got those from? There is no an outside source that writes about Paul.

 

[Prestor John]

You mean by your interpretation of the Biblical record. Where do you think that he got those from? There is no an outside source that writes about Paul.

Where in the Bible does it say that Paul was never married?

Where in the Bible is the "thorn" Paul mentioned explained?

 

[Prestor John]

You buy into the Christian myths far too easily. First he never changed his name. For people that dealt with Romans he had both his regular name and a Latin version of the same name.

You are correct about this and it is what the LDS Church teaches.

I've been corrected on this before and I don't know why I keep swinging back to it.

And no, he had a hallucination at best.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't use the Bible as if it were a correct record in one sentence and then claim it is full of lies the next.

If I claimed to have a hallucination I could just as well call myself an Apostle.

Exempting the facts that there were witnesses to this supposed "hallucination" (an actual visitation), a servant of Christ later healed Paul's blindness and the other Apostles in Jerusalem eventually accepted Paul as an Apostle.

It's either true or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where in the Bible does it say that Paul was never married?

Where in the Bible is the "thorn" Paul mentioned explained?

Where in the Bible does it say that Paul was never married?

Where in the Bible is the "thorn" Paul mentioned explained?

Have you not read the Bible? He advocated against marriage. He thought it was only acceptable for those that could not control themselves And you missed the point, the thorn is explained by his being a latent homosexual. You do realize that there is a strong tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality, don't you? I could link you sources if you need them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are correct about this and it is what the LDS Church teaches.

I've been corrected on this before and I don't know why I keep swinging back to it.

It is hard to break with what we grew up with.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't use the Bible as if it were a correct record in one sentence and then claim it is full of lies the next.

Actually I can. I don't believe it. The point is that Paul has a hallucination. That does not make him an apostle. I can glean out the parts that are correct and correct the parts that are not.

Exempting the facts that there were witnesses to this supposed "hallucination" (an actual visitation), a servant of Christ later healed Paul's blindness and the other Apostles in Jerusalem eventually accepted Paul as an Apostle.

It's either true or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

No, Paul wrote that there were witnesses. No on really knows what they thought of the event. And his writing of those events was years after they happened. They may not even have been with Paul. Of course there are problems with the whole "Road to Damascus" story. He may have simply made it up after the fact and used it as a conversation tale for other would be believers. The problem with the New Testament is that much of it could not be checked and the parts that could be often contradicted other parts.

 

[loganonekenobi]

This is assuming that they do not already have equal treatment.

Which they do and then some.

no they dont. in 28 out of the 22 states a man can get married to his husband on saturday, post his wedding pictures on sunday in facebook, then be fired on monday just for being openly gay. Please do not pretend that the LGBT community have equal rights.

 

[Thief]

The quote is obviously untrue.
Having an idea pop into your head, but not ever doing it, is not the same as actually doing it. Whether a good idea or a bad one.
Tom

I think it's aimed at your manner of thought and feeling
your hand will follow if you dwell upon it long enough

 

[Prestor John]

Have you not read the Bible? He advocated against marriage. He thought it was only acceptable for those that could not control themselves

Actually, the exact opposite is true.

I think you are referring to his comments in 1 Corinthians 7, but you need to know that that chapter was dedicated to answering questions had about those called to the ministry.

Basically, Paul discouraged those who were serving a call to ministry (becoming a travelling missionary) from marrying, because it would distract from the proselyting work.

However, he did concede that if there were those who found this to be too difficult, they should marry.

At that point it is better to marry than to burn (with lust) while trying to teach others about Christ.

And you missed the point, the thorn is explained by his being a latent homosexual.

Also his being a human being could explain this "thorn" he mentioned.

All of the human family of Adam are filled with weaknesses (or thorns) in their flesh that cause them to fall victim to sin.

No one is exempt.

You do realize that there is a strong tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality, don't you? I could link you sources if you need them.

Anyone who speaks out against homosexuality is a closeted homosexual?

Really?

That's like saying people are racist for not emphasizing someone's race.

With logic like this, you could potentially win every argument.

"You're only against violence against women because you secretly want to beat women!"

"You only fight for freedom of speech because you secretly want to silence others!"

Paul, being a life-long Pharisee, had a wife and kept the Law of Moses, which forbade homosexual behavior.

You are making quite the stretch here sir.

 

[Prestor John]

It is hard to break with what we grew up with.



Actually I can. I don't believe it. The point is that Paul has a hallucination. That does not make him an apostle. I can glean out the parts that are correct and correct the parts that are not.



No, Paul wrote that there were witnesses. No on really knows what they thought of the event. And his writing of those events was years after they happened. They may not even have been with Paul. Of course there are problems with the whole "Road to Damascus" story. He may have simply made it up after the fact and used it as a conversation tale for other would be believers. The problem with the New Testament is that much of it could not be checked and the parts that could be often contradicted other parts.

You can make these arguments against many of the things taught in our history books.

Are you honestly advocating that unless we can see it happen for yourselves first-hand, we can claim that anything at all happened in the past?

 

[Prestor John]

no they dont. in 28 out of the 22 states a man can get married to his husband on saturday, post his wedding pictures on sunday in facebook, then be fired on monday just for being openly gay. Please do not pretend that the LGBT community have equal rights.

A lot of people have been sharing similar vague examples.

Can you give me a specific example?