paul was very conflicted. and his haterd for women is apparent. i wonder why? Was the Apostle Paul Gay? What accounts for Paul's self-judging rhetoric, his negative feeling toward his own body? An Episcopal bishop mulls the issues. BY: Bishop John Shelby Spong Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline. He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him. What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they? Searching once again through the writings of Paul, some conclusions begin to emerge that startle and surprise the reader. Paul's passions seemed to be incapable of being relieved. Why was that? Paul himself had written that if one "could not exercise self-control" that person should marry. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7:9). But we have no evidence from any source that Paul ever married. Indeed, he exhorts widows and the unmarried to "remain single as I do" (1 Cor. 7:8). A primary purpose of sexual activity in marriage, according to Paul, was to keep Satan from tempting people "through lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:5). Why, when Paul seemed to be so consumed with a passion he could not control, would he not take his own advice and alleviate that passion in marriage? He did write that marriage was an acceptable, if not ideal, way of life. Still, however, marriage never seemed to loom for him as a possibility. Paul has been perceived as basically negative toward women. He did write that "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1). The passion that burned so deeply in Paul did not seem to be related to the desire for union with a woman. Why would that desire create such negativity in Paul, anyway? Marriage, married love, and married sexual desire were not thought to be evil or loathsome. Paul's sexual passions do not fit comfortably into this explanatory pattern. But what does? Obviously there is no way to know for certain the cause of Paul's anxiety prior to that moment of final revelation in the Kingdom of Heaven. But that does not stop speculation. The value of speculation in this case comes when a theory is tested by assuming for a moment that it is correct and then reading Paul in the light of that theory. Sometimes one finds in this way the key that unlocks the hidden messages that are present in the text. Once unlocked, these messages not only cease to be hidden but they become obvious, glaring at the reader, who wonders why such obvious meanings had not been seen before. Some have suggested that that Paul was plagued by homosexual fears. 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? Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx?p=3#ixzz23HdJQFAe Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx?p=2#ixzz23HcnKMMj Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx#ixzz23Hcclugi
Spong is a fricken nut, his view of Christianity is well like saying brown snow is as good as gourmet chocolate ice cream.
Christianity is a gutter religion. It should be consigned to the dustbin of history with all its followers. Don't you agree?
There is no "Christianity", there are many Christianities, with contradictory world views, completely different understandings of god, and even with a different number of gods - 3, 2, or 1.
A church was found by the state Judge to have violated state law by offering without preconditions, religious or otherwise, a public pavilion area for weddings, and then illegally discriminated against people. They got let off without penalty. Playing the christian persecution card when christians have broken the law is what's perverse.
" Ocean Grove, who is associated with the United Methodist Church, " "associated" being the key word here. They probably also get public funding. So they can't practice their ignorant, Bronze-Age, dogmatic bigotry this time. Cool. Old Testament, New Testament, they're both ridiculous.
Any church performing a wedding does so as agent of the state in as much as they are conducting both a formal civil legal duty in the signing of the register as recognized in law, and a superstitious religious performance to satisfy, shall I say, a less practical component. The legal element does not belong to any religious group, christian or otherwise, or to any church. As agents they are bound to follow and apply the law as it is stated. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesarâs. It means not discriminating against anyone illegally under the law. Especially so when you have been given a specific role to act as its representative.
And the moral decay continues. Christian churches now have to perform weddings of abomination according to the courts. How nice.