Did he have gay urges?




In the Book of Acts it says that Paul had Timothy circumcised:

1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:3 American Standard Version)



Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more troubles Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy's father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not - so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant - that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham's penis when, at God's insistence, he circumcised himself - heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant...even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised....

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision....Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to 'become Jews' without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship 'impeded the arrival of the Messiah'. While 'semi-converts' were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts....
(A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. 128)

So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? This is explained in detail by A. N. Wilson who writes:

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the glans, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. 12 We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually 'cut you . . . off from Christ'. But could any greater contrast be imagined between this belief and the traditional Jewish view that those who did not weild that knife delayed the coming of the Messiah?
(Ibid., p. 131)

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:

2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.
(Gal 5:2-6 American Standard Version)

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him further. Since we are aware of Paul's intense opposition to circumcision no matter what, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates his hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his life time. That he had deep and intense desires to take a penis in his mouth, so when an oppurtunity came along, he decided to avail it.

AAF I am convinced he was gay are you?

WoW!

Originally posted by skywalker
Did he have gay urges?

In the Book of Acts it says that Paul had Timothy circumcised:

1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:3 American Standard Version)

Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more troubles Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy's father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not - so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant - that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham's penis when, at God's insistence, he circumcised himself - heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant...even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised....

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision....Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to 'become Jews' without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship 'impeded the arrival of the Messiah'. While 'semi-converts' were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts....
(A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. 128)

So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? This is explained in detail by A. N. Wilson who writes:

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the glans, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. 12 We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually 'cut you . . . off from Christ'. But could any greater contrast be imagined between this belief and the traditional Jewish view that those who did not weild that knife delayed the coming of the Messiah?
(Ibid., p. 131)

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:

2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.
(Gal 5:2-6 American Standard Version)

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him further. Since we are aware of Paul's intense opposition to circumcision no matter what, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates his hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his life time. That he had deep and intense desires to take a penis in his mouth, so when an oppurtunity came along, he decided to avail it.

AAF I am convinced he was gay are you?
----------
M*W: Well it sure sounds like it! I started to buy that book. Does the book imply Paul as being gay or is this an surmation? Like I said before on the ritual sexual practices of the Essenes drinking each other's semen, there's a whole lot more about these characters than is known. You probably already know how I feel about Paul. Nothing surprises me about him and the religion he created.

I have a theory about circumcision. Before the times of the patriarchy a matriarchal civilization existed. I think that drawing blood from from the penis may have been vagina-envy. The patriarchy wanted to have the kind of power the matriarchal society had! Only women bleed, so the patriarchy decided that cutting their penis and drinking the blood gave them the power they desired. It's been around for several thousand years, but their system didn't work or our world wouldn't be the way it is.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I have a theory about circumcision
As per your theory, men too should have monthly circumcision if they have to compete with women in a matriarchial society.

I don't have any theory but have an idea why circumcision came : To discourage mastarbation.!!

As for the other theory of Paul being Gay, i have serious doubt whether any Gay (closet or open or whatever) would suck a bloody penis.?? what for ?? Gay friends here might be able to clear the doubt.?!!

Originally posted by everneo
As per your theory, men too should have monthly circumcision if they have to compete with women in a matriarchial society.

I don't have any theory but have an idea why circumcision came : To discourage mastarbation.!!

As for the other theory of Paul being Gay, i have serious doubt whether any Gay (closet or open or whatever) would suck a bloody penis.?? what for ?? Gay friends here might be able to clear the doubt.?!!
----------
M*W: You know, I got to thinking (and that can be dangerous!). When I read your reply, I had a lightbulb go off in my head, and I visualized the Catholic Mass--"Jesus said, take this all of you and eat it, for it is my body which I gave up for you." "Take this all of you and drink it, for it is my blood that I shed for you." (or something to that effect). I don't think this was about his crucifixion at all! It was about his bloody circumcision! I can just see the orgy that must have gone on at the Last Supper! They were sucking each other's penises! Jesus gave up his foreskin not his life! WOW! This changes everything!

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

Jesus gave up his foreskin not his life! WOW! This changes everything!
Another theory.? Changes everything.? Is there any end for your fantasy.? :eek:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by everneo
[B]Another theory.? Changes everything.? Is there any end for your fantasy.? :eek
----------
Every reality started out a fantasy.

Originally posted by skywalker
Did he have gay urges?



hey Slytalker, did you copy this site without attribution?

http://bismikaallahuma.org/Hadith/Exegesis/nursing.htm

to read most of the info, you have to go far down to the bottom of this site

Originally posted by Randolfo
hey Slytalker, did you copy this site without attribution?

http://bismikaallahuma.org/Hadith/Exegesis/nursing.htm

to read most of the info, you have to go far down to the bottom of this site


well i got it in e mail but now since u mentioned it i see it on the web and now it will be is all over ther web, should be pubslished in libraries and christian schools and should be part of every sunday church, he was a damn gay. Admit it buddy. you don't mind do you?:D

Read this book and you will know more about what god told you about gays and how *your* god is related to gays.


Karen Armstrong's A History of God.

...[in circumcision it used to be] necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. Is this really true??? I find it quite hard to beleive, and I don't see how it would be relevant!

Originally posted by Mucker
Is this really true??? I find it quite hard to beleive, and I don't see how it would be relevant! I don't know, but I have asked several rabbi's about that & expect an answer. I plan on senting that question to a mohel association & to BAR (Biblical Archeology Review). Let's see?

Originally posted by skywalker
should be pubslished in libraries and christian schools and should be part of every sunday church, he was a damn gay. Admit it buddy. you don't mind do you?:D your buddies maybe, as to Sunday schools & churches, well, I would like to find out if its true first, sounds very fishy, do you believe things without checking first?

Originally posted by Randolfo
your buddies maybe, as to Sunday schools & churches, well, I would like to find out if its true first, sounds very fishy, do you believe things without checking first?

well kido, you sure do believe things without checking. Like you believed every thing PAUL said and now you all made a fake religion out of it. Do you see how easy it is to fool you ............ paul said it and you believe it. Pretty simple eh?:D

Hey, fellas/comrades this is the most astonishing thought-line I have seen in a long time.

Firstly you correctly quoted from the scriptures about Paul having Timothy circumcised so as not to alinate him from the Jews.
The young guy Timothy was a messenger who mostly ministered to Jews and Paul knew the jews won't pay attention to the message unless Timothy underwent the ritual cutting. This scenario is same to descendants of abraham: the arabs and jews. By circumcising Timothy, Paul did not break any biblical law although Paul later contended that circumcision nor
un-ircumcision profits nothing ; as long as ones heart is right with God.

We are not told that Paul personally cut Timothy. It says he had timothy circumcised which implies he most probably had someone(a proffesiona cutter) do it. In the ancient society not just anybody coul circumcise anyone.The societies had guyz to perform the ritual.

In jewish culture it is sinful to drink blood.. Even the blood of animals was not to be drank; what about human blood?

I strongly feel comrade you are trying to justify homosexul acts.The same book you quoted declares "It is an abomination for a man to sleep with another man as a man does with a woman".
Even Islam in the Holy Quran has many verses warning of homosexual conduct.( I could refer you to the verses in the english version of the koran) Islam talks of everlasting damnation in the lake of fire for homosexuals.

Do not be deceived, the ungodly shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven; neither the sexually immoral.
Deliverance from homosexuality is available through the blood of Jesus when you repent in the name of Jesus.
Paul had a great presence of the holy spirit; the demons of homosexuality could not even come near him.


There is no other name given to mankind for salvation but the name of Jesus. I know former homosexuals who found deliverance in the Lord Jesus(He is real!)

One day you will appear on the judgemnt seat of Jesus christ and you will beg but it will be too late!!
Hating and fighting Jesus is choosing satan and the lake of fire.
Now you don't believe; but when people get there they do.

Medicine woman Jesus is the only one who can deliver you from your sins e.g anger/fits of rage.

No matter how hard you fight him Jesus will never give up on you as long as you are still living.
As a catholic you were never saved thus you could not personally know Jesus. He is Love and true peace.

Paul fought Jesus more than you medicine woman. he killed christians and had them arrested all over the world. But on the road to Damascus, The Great Light shown on him and Paul became a christian.
One day before it is late may Jesus have mercy to deliver you, medicine woman. I will keep praying for you.

Jesus saves, hallelujah!!

We are not told that Paul personally cut Timothy. It says he had timothy circumcised which implies he most probably had someone(a proffesiona cutter) do it. In the ancient society not just anybody coul circumcise anyone.The societies had guyz to perform the ritual.

Thank you and you should be applauded. That is the first bright idea I read in the whole thread.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tomasito
[B]One day you will appear on the judgemnt seat of Jesus christ and you will beg but it will be too late!! Hating and fighting Jesus is choosing satan and the lake of fire. Now you don't believe; but when people get there they do.
----------
M*W: I suggest you go back to school and learn to read my posts. Your reading comprehension is poor. I do not hate Jesus, and I have never stated such nor do I hate Tom Sawyer or Hester Prynne. You are a fanatic, so your perception of anyone who does not believe as you, you accuse of choosing satan! With you fanatics, its either black or white. You are not able to see the One Spirit of God because you are BLINDED by Paul's myth of Jesus! YOU are the one who has rejected God for an ancient made-up story of yet another demigod-savior. If Jesus was/is a real person, and let's just hypothetically say he could be the Messiah, he would be very disappointed in you and your blind faith.
----------
Medicine woman Jesus is the only one who can deliver you from your sins e.g anger/fits of rage.
----------
M*W: And what about you trying to cram your religion down my throat? You had better NOT send me anymore PMs!
----------
No matter how hard you fight him Jesus will never give up on you as long as you are still living. As a catholic you were never saved thus you could not personally know Jesus. He is Love and true peace.
----------
M*W: I don't waste my time "fighting Jesus." Neither do I waste my time fighting Hercules or Zeus. Who are YOU to say a Catholic is not saved. You don't know what is in the heart of another person. You're a typical judgmental Christian. I probably know more about Jesus than you do. I spent many years teaching catechism to adults and teenagers. I believed the myth for a long time. Like many others are doing today, I realized it was just a myth. Take a look at the statistics worldwide of Christianity in its decline. You don't know Jesus. All you know is the myth. Grow up.
----------
Paul fought Jesus more than you medicine woman. he killed christians and had them arrested all over the world. But on the road to Damascus, The Great Light shown on him and Paul became a christian.
----------
M*W: Nowhere have you read that I was "fighting Jesus!" You made this up in your own sick brainwashed mind. It is the whole personality of Paul I find despicable. What you believe was created by Paul, not Jesus! What happened to Paul on the perverbial road was he had an epilepsy attack, fell off his horse, hit his head on a rock, and voila... he got the idea of creating a mythic demigod-savior to cash in on. There had only been about 15 earlier demigod-saviors that Paul plagarized.
----------
One day before it is late may Jesus have mercy to deliver you, medicine woman. I will keep praying for you.

Jesus saves, hallelujah!!
----------
M*W: I don't want any prayers on my behalf to your mythological demigod-savior. You are the one who is lost, not me.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
[B It is the whole personality of Paul I find despicable. What you believe was created by Paul, not Jesus! What happened to Paul on the perverbial road was he had an epilepsy attack, fell off his horse, hit his head on a rock, and voila... he got the idea of creating a mythic demigod-savior to cash in on. [/B] Hmmm? you believe this about Paul, what about your hero Mohammad? Did he create a new religion from his epilesy? or does only Paul qualify for your wrath & scorn?

Originally posted by Quigly
Thank you and you should be applauded. That is the first bright idea I read in the whole thread.


***** Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:3 American Standard Version)*****


yes very bright . Hey rando I don' think Mohammad (saw) is MW's hero but he is Michael A Hart's hero indeed.

In his book "The 100 Most Influential Persons In History", Michael H. Hart surprised his readers by choosing Mohammed (PBUH) to lead the list. He said, "He was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels." Hart's testimony tells us about the tremendous effect of Mohammed on the world we live in. Such a testimony must stir our efforts not only to discover the characteristic standard of the Prophet, but also to take that great man and his legacy into the main stream of our life in its totality to enhance and grace our life. Such a legacy does guarantee a real restoration for the collapsing world of today. I was very encouraged by the testimony of Mr. Hart to take a journey through my books to try to compile as much as I could of the sayings of those who had found Islam and the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as the ideal and the most effective and improved way of life.


or the following two people??


George Bernard Shaw:
"If a man like Mohammed were to assume the leadership of the modern world, He would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it much needed peace and happiness."

Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Mohammed was the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities."


So Rando why do you all southern baptist hates Catholics? W

What did they do to you?

Originally posted by Randolfo
Hmmm? you believe this about Paul, what about your hero Mohammad? Did he create a new religion from his epilesy? or does only Paul qualify for your wrath & scorn?


Why do you Believe in Paul? Why not believe in old testaments??

Did jesus came to replace the old laws?

Did Jesus told you that Paul will come and Change every law ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randolfo
[B]Hmmm? you believe this about Paul, what about your hero Mohammad? Did he create a new religion from his epilesy? or does only Paul qualify for your wrath & scorn?
----------
M*W: Since I've never been a Muslim, I cannot comment about Mohammad or Islam other than to say I know people who share this belief, and I admire them for the quiet, peaceful way in which they practice their faith. They are truly an enriching example to the rest of the world.

OTOH, I have been a Christian, a devout one at that. I believed in it, I taught it, I lived it. Then I found out the truth about the lies of Paul, and he, personally, destroyed my faith in Christianity. It was something I truly believed in, worshipped, and gave it my very Soul. Then the evil acts of Paul became quite clear to me. Paul and his Christian mythology raped me of my faith. Once the veil of myth was gone, I began to experience the efficacy the power of God in my life for the first time. My faith wasn't gone after all. It was just redirected to the source of all creation. I acquired a new understanding of Jesus the Rabbi and his mission as a teacher and not a savior. Christianity doesn't exist for me nor does it exist for you. Why believe a lie when the truth will set you free? Salvation is not needed. We're already here. There's nothing lost about us. The One Spirit of God dwells within. When you find the Spirit where it lives, you will understand the meaning of everlasting life. Those who follow Paul and HIS Jesus myth are lost. Paul perverted everything about Jesus. Paul is the Antichrist.

Since we are talking about creater of Christianity, the man who created a greatest Hoax in the history of mankind, that is Christianty and let me present our beloved PAUL.

Why not see his character and see how Dishonest he was,



DISHONEST PAUL (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_character.htm)


Paul’s Confession of Ignorance (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_confessions.htm)


More!!


Paul’s Mystery: One Lie After Another (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_mystery.htm)



Paul’s Schism (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_schism.htm)



Paul's Mythology (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_mythology.htm)


Paul’s Sin: Dulism (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_sin.htm)

Please read. Randolfo it is not fabricated information, these are the facts, you can't deny. Admit it please, that you have been fooled by Paul and Infact Paul was the Anti Christ. :(

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Markx
[B]Since we are talking about creater of Christianity, the man who created a greatest Hoax in the history of mankind, that is Christianty and let me present our beloved PAUL.

Why not see his character and see how Dishonest he was,



DISHONEST PAUL (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_character.htm)


Paul’s Confession of Ignorance (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_confessions.htm)


More!!


Paul’s Mystery: One Lie After Another (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_mystery.htm)



Paul’s Schism (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_schism.htm)



Paul's Mythology (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_mythology.htm)


Paul’s Sin: Dulism (http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_sin.htm)

Please read. Randolfo it is not fabricated information, these are the facts, you can't deny. Admit it please, that you have been fooled by Paul and Infact Paul was the Anti Christ. :(
----------
M*W: Markx, these are excellent sites. We know these facts are true, but I'm afraid Christians will continue to make excuses for their co-dependency on their false demigod. Let's look at it this way: Their numbers are decreasing by the day. 75% of the planet doesn't believe Christianity doctrine. Those measly 25% are on their last leg. We've come a long way, baby!

I don't think Paul was gay. However I do think that the one that invented the technique to put the penis into the mouth after circumsition was gay...did they really do that??

If it was a common practise then there is no reason to assume that Paul was gay, if that must be true according to the premises then everyone that is circumsised must be gay also.

Originally posted by Cyperium
I don't think Paul was gay. .

But he might had gay urges? like many priests these days? do you think it is possible?

Ok I have to ask, does it matter IF he were gay? I'm sure homosexuality existed back then so what's the big deal?

IF he was gay, does it prove the hypocrisy of the Christian churches in their treatment of gays? I'd have thought that the hypocrisy was well established within Christian entities. So what's the big deal if he was gay? Does it make him any less of a man or person?




:eek:

Originally posted by Bells
Ok I have to ask, does it matter IF he were gay? I'm sure homosexuality existed back then so what's the big deal?

IF he was gay, does it prove the hypocrisy of the Christian churches in their treatment of gays? I'd have thought that the hypocrisy was well established within Christian entities. So what's the big deal if he was gay? Does it make him any less of a man or person?:eek:


Did any one imply in all of the above posts tha he was less of a person?




:confused:

Originally posted by Markx
Did any one imply in all of the above posts tha he was less of a person?


:confused:

That's what I'm asking though. Why the horror at the thought he might be gay? Why the ridicule at the thought of it? All I'm saying that if he were in fact gay, it would only go to show the hypocrisy of the Christian based religions in their treatment of homosexuals.

It could also be that he was straight. And that the interpretation of the bible was incorrect, after all we have all seen the different meanings and interpretations of the bible by society through the ages.


:eek:

Originally posted by Bells
That's what I'm asking though. Why the horror at the thought he might be gay? Why the ridicule at the thought of it? All I'm saying that if he were in fact gay, it would only go to show the hypocrisy of the Christian based religions in their treatment of homosexuals.

It could also be that he was straight. And that the interpretation of the bible was incorrect, after all we have all seen the different meanings and interpretations of the bible by society through the ages.


:eek:


But it would be horrible for devout christians to accept that he was a gay or he had gay urges etc etc. Don't you think?

Originally posted by Markx
But it would be horrible for devout christians to accept that he was a gay or he had gay urges etc etc. Don't you think?

You're asking the wrong person. I'm not a homophobe and even though my parents brought me up in a Christian household, what they taught me more was NOT to be a bigot against people, regardless of sex, colour, race, religion or sexuality. I asked my motherthis morning and she's a devout christian and her reply was "so what if he was gay". So I guess I asked the wrong person again since as she's not a homophobe either.



:eek:

That isn't true!

1. Just because one asks a question with a serious face does not mean one beleives it! I have warned of his errors but he is ignorant to his ways. He can say things that are perfectly reasonable, and not in the slightest bit ludicrous, so one might as well assume everything he says is a lie, like the boy who cried wolf. I am not unaware of these things, and girls are the biggest culprits, so I take the approach that if they have told me something I will hold them to it. I constantly refer to such things, and ask them questions, and some people get the message, but he takes it that his 'folly' has been successful.

2. I didn't create the religion, I am merely a follower.

3. I beleive one thing that defines religion from other things is faith, and so far I can't see anything fake about it!

But it would be horrible for devout christians to accept that he was a gay or he had gay urges etc etc. Don't you think?

Saint Augustine writes somewhat about this.

I don't see any evidence, however, for Paul being gay. Considering that Paul was celebrate it wouldn't have mattered much. The Paul presented in the bible appears to be quite old because he is losing his eyesight.

But he might had gay urges? like many priests these days? do you think it is possible?

Pedophila is different from homosexuality.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Markx
[B]But it would be horrible for devout christians to accept that he was a gay or he had gay urges etc etc. Don't you think?
----------
M*W: Devout Christians believe in the DEATH and RESURRECTION of their demigod. What's more, they believe this martyrism SAVED THEM from their OWN DEATH! So, there is NO WAY they would accept the belief that their great Apostle and Saint Paul (who never even new Jesus) was gay, regardless of the number of penises he sucked. He was a woman-hater. What does that say? Women were somehow "inferior" to Paul. They don't have a PENIS! Let's face it, Paul liked penises. We haven't even touched upon the subject of Paul being a transvestite or a pedophile. He was a pervert, no doubt. That's what I've been saying all along. Christianity was created by a pedophile pervert who liked to suck penises whether they were 8 day-old babies or 37 year-old grown men. "The body and the blood of Christ." "Take this all of you and eat it, it is my penis which shall be given up for you." "Take this all of you and drink from it, it is my bloody penis which I have given up for you." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Grant us Peace." "Amen."

M*W, the extend of your blasphemy is far too great. You are one sick individual and any fair minded person would accept that your ramblings is of the devil.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]M*W, the extend of your blasphemy is far too great. You are one sick individual and any fair minded person would accept that your ramblings is of the devil.
----------
M*W: okinrus, only YOU know of the devil. How many penises have YOU sucked? Take some advise, young man. LEARN TO SPELL!!! You try to defend your false religion, but your ignorance does it for you!

M*W my spelling is of no concern to you. So what? I spelled extent wrong. It is better to spell a few words wrong spoken in truth than your blasphemy and slander. You've quite lost your mind with your blasphemy and slander. Take note of that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]M*W my spelling is of no concern to you. So what? I spelled extent wrong. It is better to spell a few words wrong spoken in truth than your blasphemy and slander. You've quite lost your mind with your blasphemy and slander. Take note of that.
----------
M*W: Your continuing spelling errors are offensive, and NO, it is NOT better to spell a few words incorrectly no matter whether they are truth OR lies. What one considers blasphemy and slander to be is relative. If you cannot handle opposing views to what you believe to be true, then you shouldn't be on the religion forum. You have a closed mind. I'm not afraid to speak my mind about what I believe to be true, because there is no dying demigod savior out there who gives a rat's ass about YOU and the rest of your false dying man-made religion.

Your continuing spelling errors are offensive, and NO, it is NOT better to spell a few words incorrectly no matter whether they are truth OR lies

And you don't think I can find a few threads where you spelled words wrong?


What one considers blasphemy and slander to be is relative. If you cannot handle opposing views to what you believe to be true, then you shouldn't be on the religion forum. You have a closed mind. I'm not afraid to speak my mind about what I believe to be true, because there is no dying demigod savior out there who gives a rat's ass about YOU and the rest of your false dying man-made religion.

Of course it appears relative to you. One who is in darkness cannot see the light thus needing a savior. The one in insanity cannot see his own insanity. But no, it's not a matter of me not being able to handle opposing views. You are losing your touch with reality and are repeating religious mantras. It's you presenting your filthy gutter talk on a public forum without the shred of proof. Either present your proof of what you say or shutup. My mind appears closed because I have looked at all alternatives and once searched closed my doors to them. Your mind, however, is open with worm holes. You time and again tell out right lies such as Christians believing in a demigod.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]And you don't think I can find a few threads where you spelled words wrong?
----------
M*W: Sure, maybe I had one or two but not an excessive number like you consistently do. Sometimes its difficult to understand what you are really trying to say. I know you are young, but I give you good advice when I tell you to take more care in your spelling whether here on sciforums or elsewhere. If you can't type, then hunt-and-peck more slowly, or learn to type. Don't get ahead of your thoughts when you're writing. That's where mistakes occur. Just type one letter at a time, (spell out the word as you type), and don't type whole words at a time, and your accuracy should improve. Otherwise, your posts as a Christian make your religion look equally as sloppy.
----------
Of course it appears relative to you. One who is in darkness cannot see the light thus needing a savior. The one in insanity cannot see his own insanity.
----------
M*W: What makes you think I am the one in the darkness? That's where I see you! One who is in a false religion cannot see that he's in a false religion, because he chooses NOT to believe its a false religion--and THAT IS darkness. He who chooses to believe that everyone who doesn't believe what he believes are the ones who live in darkness and are insane. These people look for their "God" somewhere "out there" when all they need do is look within. Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is within." That is where the "Light" is.
----------
But no, it's not a matter of me not being able to handle opposing views. You are losing your touch with reality and are repeating religious mantras. It's you presenting your filthy gutter talk on a public forum without the shred of proof. Either present your proof of what you say or shutup. My mind appears closed because I have looked at all alternatives and once searched closed my doors to them. Your mind, however, is open with worm holes. You time and again tell out right lies such as Christians believing in a demigod.
----------
M*W: okinrus, admit it, you CANNOT handle opposition for fear of the truth! You are the one who has lost touch with reality, not the other 75% of all humanity! You're in the minority, and you're afraid.

Whatever "religious" mantras I may be repeating are at least my own. I copy no one. I may share the same views with others, but I don't seek them out to influence what I envision.

If you have sincerely looked at "all the alternatives," you would not still be Christian. You must have looked at "all the alternatives" with blinded eyes. Just because you choose not to believe what I believe doesn't mean that what I believe is a lie, and it doesn't mean what you believe is the truth! It's all in our perception of what we choose to believe the truth to be. I believed what you believe for a long time until I found out the truth, and my blind eyes were opened wide enough to see that there is no dying demigod savior and no reason for the false man-made religion of Christianity. Christianity in itself is the antichrist, and you are part of that evil. Fortunately, we are in the last days of Christianity. The past 2000 years has been a tribulation considering everyone who died in the name of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church (Paul's mythological religion).

As for me, I want to learn more about Jesus, the Rabbi, to learn his TRUE prophetic message to the world without being blinded by those who didn't even know him.

What are YOU going to do when your false declining man-made religion disappears from the face of the Earth? What will you believe when your dying demigod savior is no more?

Whatever "religious" mantras I may be repeating are at least my own. I copy no one. I may share the same views with others, but I don't seek them out to influence what I envision.

I not sure if you are copying them or not but they all have been said before.


What makes you think I am the one in the darkness? That's where I see you! One who is in a false religion cannot see that he's in a false religion, because he chooses NOT to believe its a false religion--and THAT IS darkness.

Did I say that you were in darkness?


Christianity in itself is the antichrist, and you are part of that evil. Fortunately, we are in the last days of Christianity. The past 2000 years has been a tribulation considering everyone who died in the name of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church (Paul's mythological religion).

Even your "last" days predictions are copied from saint Malachi.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]I not sure if you are copying them or not but they all have been said before.

Did I say that you were in darkness?
----------
M*W: Go back and read your previous post. If you weren't directing your statement about darkness to me, then to whom were you addressing it?
----------
Even your "last" days predictions are copied from saint Malachi.
----------
M*W: That's interesting. I haven't read anything by Saint Malachi. There may be generations of others who have said what I've stated. Unless I read it and become aware of it, I do not consciously seek these people out. That also means that I may not be the first person whom ever stated the concepts I believe to be true, I just haven't researched these people. Basically, I don't know who they are. I've learned more about my own beliefs from the folks right here on sciforums who've cited URLs, etc. I'm glad to know that there have been those who came before me to express what I believe, and I'm glad to hear from those whom I've met through sciforums who agree with what I believe. I've gotten PMs and personal emails from all over the world encouraging me to write more about my beliefs, so I know there are others out there in spirit with me. There is no way I could go back to the "darkness" that is Christianity. If Christianity works for you, I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me or 75% of the planet. How many Christians out there in the remaining 25% really believe with all their hearts that Jesus died for them? For most of them I would suspect it is an afterthought at best. How many of the remaining Christians in the world really BELIEVE, and how many of the are just going through the motions because that's what they've always done? I believe this number would be greatly less than 25%. And why are there so many pedophile priests? Celibacy isn't really to blame, although they are sexually repressed, no doubt. Who knows what the true and original meaning of circumcision was. I wasn't the one who started that thread, but I did find it interesting and could see the probabilities of Paul being gay. I've always had a problem understanding why circumcision was necessary. Why didn't they just cut off the tip of their pinky finger or toe, or simply cut their hair (like the tonsured monks do). Why didn't they just sew up their belly buttons to seal the covenant? There were so many other body parts they could have used, why would God order them to cut off their foreskins? Because God is a female spirit, that's why. God wanted men to be more like women. That started the process (the covenant) for the human race to evolve toward androgyny. We're on our way toward human evolutionary perfection, savior or no savior, God or no God, religion or no religion. None of that matters. The only thing that does matter is the propagation of humanity toward Homo spiritus. And, please, if you know of other references that are similar to what I believe, please let me know so I can check them out.

M*W: Go back and read your previous post. If you weren't directing your statement about darkness to me, then to whom were you addressing it?

No one says such things in the light. As to whether this is a temporal thing or not I do not know. In the spirit of what I said before, you did not say such things from the light but from darkness. I did not say that you were always in darkness.


That's interesting. I haven't read anything by Saint Malachi. There may be generations of others who have said what I've stated

It's uncertain whether Malachi made the prediction or not. But from what I've heard from another prophet, there may be a split in Church.



I wasn't the one who started that thread, but I did find it interesting and could see the probabilities of Paul being gay. I've always had a problem understanding why circumcision was necessary.

Well M*W you don't see me insulting your faith on this forum. I hope that you see the difference between insulting and debating. You cannot really attack Paul's character. His portrayal in the bible and of the church father's is all we have.


I've always had a problem understanding why circumcision was necessary.

Most likely because the Isrealites were supposed to be set apart.
In particular, the Isrealites were not supposed to interbreed with the tribes surrounding that area.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]No one says such things in the light. As to whether this is a temporal thing or not I do not know. In the spirit of what I said before, you did not say such things from the light but from darkness. I did not say that you were always in darkness.
----------
M*W: okinrus, from day one you have insulted my faith. Admit it. Anyone who is not a Christian, you tear down. What I say IS FROM THE LIGHT. I don't believe in Satan or darkness. I reject such philosophy! I'm a positive person who sees God as a positive force of energy. I don't dwell on the darkside.
----------
It's uncertain whether Malachi made the prediction or not. But from what I've heard from another prophet, there may be a split in Church.
----------
M*W: I will research Saint Malachi to see what he believed. You're not referring to Malachi Martin, are you? I've seen his books, but I haven't actually read them. I've had good Catholic friends that have read his books and believe in them.
----------
Well M*W you don't see me insulting your faith on this forum. I hope that you see the difference between insulting and debating. You cannot really attack Paul's character. His portrayal in the bible and of the church father's is all we have.
----------
M*W: okinrus, I don't find it necessary to insult your faith. I believed as you for many years, and it came to me that the faith lied. It was a terrible loss I felt. I fought it, but it was ever present in my life. Sometimes I wish I could be as blind as you and go back to simpler times. This just is not possible anymore. The truth has been shown. I don't need it anymore. I've reconciled myself to the truth, and it doesn't matter anymore. I see beyond what the Church teaches, and I know there is eternal life that doesn't require a savior. You can believe whatever you want to believe, because I believe it is an individual experience when the truth is revealed. Maybe you're not ready just yet. I was young like you when I believed. I was 22 when Jesus was my savior. Now I can look back and see the blindness where I wanted to believe I could see the truth. In the long run, it really doesn't matter what you believe. If you feel you need a savior, you have that belief. If you feel you don't need a savior, you tend to see the truth. Humanity goes on toward perfection regardless of what you believe today. Tomorrow is another day. Tomorrow you may see the light or maybe you won't.
----------
Most likely because the Isrealites were supposed to be set apart.
In particular, the Isrealites were not supposed to interbreed with the tribes surrounding that area.
----------
M*W: What does that have to do with the Spirit? Before we reach Homo spiritus, there will be total interbreeding among the nations. (I'm not saying I'm in favor of this--far be it, but I know this is the plan--what can I do about it? Nothing.) It's God's plan, not mine. I tend to be more Aryan in thought--not that I'm opposed to other cultures, it's just my upbringing that influences me. It's not my choice. Life will go on, evolution will continue, and our descendants will be Homo spiritus. That's the plan whether I agree with it or not!

Originally posted by Markx
But it would be horrible for devout christians to accept that he was a gay Not so, if you read the Bible, you would see that even if Paul was gay, he felt that it was wrong. Read the First Letter to the Corinthians 6:18 to 20, were he says, "Flee from sexual immorality."


or he had gay urges etc etc. Don't you think? your problem is that the only thing you think about, is that you hate Christianity so much it blinds you to the truth. Read the Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7 to 10, were he says, "there was given to me a thorn in my flesh". So Paul had temptations, & admitted it.

Of course your prophet didn't, because he made all his weaknesses virtues; he liked little girls, then it's a hadith; liked plunder, then it's a hadith, liked slaves, then it's a hadith, liked world domination, then it's a hadith

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randolfo
[B][COLOR=orangered] Not so, if you read the Bible, you would see that even if Paul was gay, he felt that it was wrong. Read the First Letter to the Corinthians 6:18 to 20, were he says, "Flee from sexual immorality."

your problem is that the only thing you think about, is that you hate Christianity so much it blinds you to the truth. Read the Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7 to 10, were he says, "there was given to me a thorn in my flesh". So Paul had temptations, & admitted it.

Of course your prophet didn't, because he made all his weaknesses virtues; he liked little girls, then it's a hadith; liked plunder, then it's a hadith, liked slaves, then it's a hadith, liked world domination, then it's a hadith
----------
M*W: "Even if Paul was gay, he felt that it was wrong." Sadly, that's what a lot of homosexuals feel. It doesn't matter if Paul was gay. That's the direction evolution is going. Paul must have anguished over his homosexuality. Maybe he was ahead of his time. I'll give him credit for that! Christianity is based on homosexuality. Circumcision, sucking the blood out of a foreskin, worshipping the "body" and "blood" of Christ. Jesus gave up his foreskin for all humanity. Paul made this up, I didn't. The Essenes had semen-drinking rituals. Anyone who professes Christianity must be homosexual.

So everyone who circumsized someone else back then was gay?

That's an interesting theory. But actually it just sounds more like a typical argument from ignorance. You don't understand the customs of the time so you apply your own culture to theirs and end up with a very twisted view.

As per the objection to circumcision it was the same reason he didn't do baptisms for some people. They were seeking to be baptized and circumcized out of ignorance.

Ben

you apply your own culture to theirs and end up with a very twisted view. I agree with you KalvinB, in terms of methodology. The sociological impacts of history are very rarely noticed unless one is taught how to notice them. What I mean is things you have mentioned (such as applying ones culture to another) are so implicit to each society that they are rarely noticed. Historians notice things that are taken for granted, such as social responsibility, ethics, and customs (that you mentioned), and to be honest that is only because they look for them, but that doesn't mean they are wrong, or even misguided. In fact they surely must be even more guided to even search for the answers to their questions, not to mention the guidance they receive at the conclusion. So it is those who seek that find.[some people]...baptized and circumcized out of ignorance. Exactly! It is not a custom (any custom) that benefits the world, it is an understanding of it, even if the custom itself is rejected.

your problem is that the only thing you think about, is that you hate Christianity so much it blinds you to the truth. Read the Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7 to 10, were he says, "there was given to me a thorn in my flesh". So Paul had temptations, & admitted it.
I do not think that the thorn in his flesh was the temptatation of homosexuality. Read this verse:

Galations 4:13-15

13.Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

If you read verse 15, he is saying that the church liked him so much that they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. This would indicate from verse 14 that the temptation in his flesh was his poor eyesight.
From the context in 2 Corinthians, Most likely the Thorn was a physical ailment to keep him humble.
It could also be the fact that every time he turned around he was getting arrested and persecuted. This could be a thorn.
It could also be that he had a terrible past that continued to haunt him. He may have faced persecution from both the church and state at the time because of his past. Because of the limited writing regarding this "Thorn" no one is quite sure what he was referring to, but the text does not imply nor does it relate at all to homosexuality.

M*W: Devout Christians believe in the DEATH and RESURRECTION of their demigod. What's more, they believe this martyrism SAVED THEM from their OWN DEATH! So, there is NO WAY they would accept the belief that their great Apostle and Saint Paul (who never even new Jesus) was gay, regardless of the number of penises he sucked. He was a woman-hater. What does that say? Women were somehow "inferior" to Paul. They don't have a PENIS! Let's face it, Paul liked penises. We haven't even touched upon the subject of Paul being a transvestite or a pedophile. He was a pervert, no doubt. That's what I've been saying all along. Christianity was created by a pedophile pervert who liked to suck penises whether they were 8 day-old babies or 37 year-old grown men. "The body and the blood of Christ." "Take this all of you and eat it, it is my penis which shall be given up for you." "Take this all of you and drink from it, it is my bloody penis which I have given up for you." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us." "Penis of God, you take away the sins of the world. Grant us Peace." "Amen."

Med. Women : Your vile words were both obscene and ignorant. It appears to be vantings of a perverted and vulgar individual. It is funny to me that you speak as if you are a believer of Peace and Love in one thread and than you turn into a bitter preacher of prejudice and hate in the next one. Which is it. Your claims above are both unbased and a portrayal of how pervert an imagination can be.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quigly
Med. Women: Your vile words were both obscene and ignorant. It appears to be vantings of a perverted and vulgar individual. It is funny to me that you speak as if you are a believer of Peace and Love in one thread and than you turn into a bitter preacher of prejudice and hate in the next one. Which is it. Your claims above are both unbased and a portrayal of how pervert an imagination can be.
----------
M*W: Perversion would exist in the mind of the one who recognizes it. Otherwise, would not be a perversion. Judge not!

M*W: Perversion would exist in the mind of the one who recognizes it. Otherwise, would not be a perversion. Judge not!

Actually the definition means to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right. Perversion is recognized by judging against what is right and good and causes progression of morality. By your definition, you couldn't recognize a murder unless you had murder in your mind. This is hog wash....

Just curious about these ideas, so I sent an email to find out about these allegations to "Biblical Archaeology Review" , as follows:

”the reason I am sending this question is because several muslims have referenced two practices that imply various unfounded allegations against ancient Judaism. Their allegations are graphic, so forgive the adult content.
One is that during circumcision, centuries before sanitary practices, the mohel would suck the penis of the young child to staunch the bleeding. The other was that the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, practiced some ritual were they drank semen.
These allegations are meant to besmirch Judaism, and by association Christianity, by implying homosexual tendencies by early practitioners.
If you have access to any sources that would shed light on these questions, I would appreciate it. Thank you.”

Here is an article about Jesus & the Essenes from that magazine:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3001f2.html

”What Jesus Learned from the Essenes”

Just curious about these ideas, so I sent an email to find out about these allegations to "Biblical Archaeology Review" , as follows:

”the reason I am sending this question is because several muslims have referenced two practices that imply various unfounded allegations against ancient Judaism. Their allegations are graphic, so forgive the adult content.
One is that during circumcision, centuries before sanitary practices, the mohel would suck the penis of the young child to staunch the bleeding. The other was that the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, practiced some ritual were they drank semen.
These allegations are meant to besmirch Judaism, and by association Christianity, by implying homosexual tendencies by early practitioners.
If you have access to any sources that would shed light on these questions, I would appreciate it. Thank you.”

Here is an article about Jesus & the Essenes from that magazine:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3001f2.html

”What Jesus Learned from the Essenes”


Excuses, excuses...*sigh*.

Excuses, excuses...*sigh*.
you want it to be true, huh? anyway, how come the original idea was spread only by muslims? was this the use of 'al-taqiyya'? how come jewish sources never mention it? why didn't gay groups extol this as a hypocritical act by homophobic jews & christians?


use this to google & voila, you get muslim sites:

"A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. 128"

why? because it must be lies, hi 'al-taqiyya'!! as you rear your ugly head :p

is this guy a Biblical scholar? an unbiased researcher? here's a little about A.N. Wilson
from:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/wilbrweb.htm
Wilson is a prolific novelist, biographer and journalist, and the literary editor of the Evening Standard in London. His biographies include the best-selling Jesus, which created something of a stir when it was first published several years ago. It is clear that Wilson has brought to both books (Jesus and Paul) considerable research and reflection, as a competent and conscientious biographer or historical novelist would do. He draws on a wide array of scholarly and historical sources, and demonstrates a mix of viewpoints and conclusions, from the radical to the conservative (such as the now outdated view that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome). The total product is clearly a personal one. From New Testament scholars he has drawn mixed reactions, and some of them have called his reconstructions "fanciful". This from a discipline which itself has never been a stranger to 'fancy'.

from:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anthony.campbell1/bookreviews/r/wilson-an-1.html
Wilson's own view emerges only obliquely from this lengthy book. He agrees with the Victorians that increase in our knowledge of scientific facts has rendered certain older religious attitudes untenable by anyone who is intellectually honest. For example, it is impossible to regard the Earth as at the centre of the universe, or to believe that it is only about 6000 years old. A more serious problem is that, since Darwin, it is difficult to believe in the benevolence of the universe or to maintain that it exists for the benefit of human beings. Nor could it be claimed that the New Testament is a biography of Jesus or can be relied on to have reproduced his actual words.

a "novelist, biographer and journalist, and the literary editor", that's not the kind of so-called 'researcher' I would quote, in a profound change in the view of early Christianity, my question then: is A.N. Wilson gay?

a "novelist, biographer and journalist, and the literary editor", that's not the kind of so-called 'researcher' I would quote, in a profound change in the view of early Christianity, my question then: is A.N. Wilson gay?

I think I found the answer, why do you think this guy wants Paul to be soo gay? could be bias or wishful thinking? :)

from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/17/do1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/06/17/ixopinion.html
My life had been supposedly a success. I had written books, and newspaper articles. I had made, by the standards of an Anglican clergyman, lots of money. As I had grown older, my bisexuality had disappeared and I had become wholly heterosexual and agnostic.

Maybe my friend Colin Haycraft was right to say that religion is for women and for queers. When I look back on my years as a Staggers Bag (a student at St Stephen's) with Bobo, Plum Tart, Tawdry Audrey and the rest, I think of a time that was, first, hilariously funny and second, deeply serious. Apart from the handful of psychopaths, saddoes who kept being arrested in public lavatories, and so on, they were in fact an extraordinarily dedicated group of men.

I have lost my religion - their religion - but I do not feel that this is a good thing.