PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Paul struggled with homosexuality?



Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 04:59 AM
Out of curiosity, I was searching different viewpoints on the undisclosed "thorn" in Paul's side and came across this argument. Could the "thorn" in his side been his struggle with being homosexual? The writer makes an interesting and somewhat convincing argument. The person making this case sets the stage with the backdrop that Paul was a pretty emotional guy, perhaps overly emotional. Here are some excerpts. There's much more to this but here is the Reader's Digest version....

In his letter to the Romans he talks about being a prisoner of the law of sin in his body - "…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:23).

In 2 Cor 12:7 he talks about "a thorn in his flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me". Some people think that was vision loss, others think malaria, and some others assume it was epilepsy. How would those physical ailments be messengers of Satan? They don't act as agents of temptation.

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins. In his letter, he says that “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26). Could this be construed as what we call today "homophobia"?

Paul also takes somewhat of a negative view of women and marriage. He writes “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widows: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” (1 Corinthians 1:8). Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 1:9).

Now that we have considered this array of clues from Paul’s writings, it becomes important to finish addressing the passage with which we began our study. We return to the “war” in Paul’s “members.” This war in his members may have even been connected to the “thorn in his flesh” that served as a “messenger of Satan.” Whether or not these concepts are connected, the question still remains… What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind”? Without being crude, the answer is a somewhat obvious one when considering the anatomy of a male. Arms, legs, and the like can be controlled by the mind. But, there remains a member that often is not so easily controlled by the mind. It is to this member that I believe Paul was referring. And considering the other segments we have examined, I also believe that Paul was in fact a repressed gay individual. While this cannot be proven, it does seem one of the few answers that properly fits the questions raised by the evidence. If Paul was a gay man, a drastic rereading of Scripture would be demanded in light of such a discovery.

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 10:24 AM
Paul tells us that the "thorn" was given to him for one reason: to prevent him from becoming prideful from the abundance of divine revelations given to him.:

This boasting will do no good, but I must go on. I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord.
I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows.
Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell. That experience is worth boasting about, but I’m not going to do it. I will boast only about my weaknesses. If I wanted to boast, I would be no fool in doing so, because I would be telling the truth. But I won’t do it, because I don’t want anyone to give me credit beyond what they can see in my life or hear in my message, Even though I have received such wonderful revelations from God. So to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud. (2 Cor 12:7 NLT)

Here's the thing: Satan loves it when people exalt themselves. Pride and arrogance make individuals who are useful to him more predictable and easier to manipulate as he prompts them to do things to his advantage. God however, hates these characteristics, which run contrary to the reverence and worship He requires in His servants. It is those who are without pride and arrogance that God calls to be a part of His kingdom. So then, when we consider that the purpose of the thorn was to prevent pride, it clearly served God's purposes, and worked against satan, demonstrating its divine origin.

Since the thorn came from God, if one purports that it was homosexuality, one is obliged to assert that God Himself imposed that perverse mindset on Paul. Would God instill in the mind of one of His servants a deviant sexuality that He clearly and emphatically condemns? Is he ambivalent about such deviance being an inward part of his servants? Even if the perverse thinking was actually prompted by satan, God would still have had to consent, making him complicit in that which is contrary to His nature.

Furthermore, this idea infers that God put temptation in Paul's path, even though Scripture clearly states that God does not tempt (James 1:13). A person struggling against homosexuality faces temptation 24/7. Such temptation and deviant mindset would obviously be a hindrance to the work of Paul's ministry. It would keep his mind on carnal desires rather than heavenly things, and would be counterproductive to his preaching righteousness and freedom from sin--whether in the body or in the mind. How could Paul preach about freedom from the bondage of sin when he himself was in bondage, and struggling so desperately against sin?

God delivers individuals from spiritual bondage and deviance. Does God shackle us with chains that enslave our minds, or does he break those chains asunder? It has to be one or the other, or else God is conflicted. The idea that Paul would be humbled, and kept focused on the kingdom of God by struggling with a sexual deviation, involves shaping Scripture to custom fit a preconceived idea. However, If Paul did struggle daily against sexual perversion, one can only wonder why he did not follow his own advice:

Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect. (Rom 12:2 NLT)

Walls
Feb 20th 2013, 12:12 PM
One thing is established by scripture. When a man or woman is found in a matter that is offensive, God wants it to stay hidden. When Noah's son saw his nakedness and reported it to his other brothers God's response was swift and devastating. The son of Noah's son, Ham, and his offspring, was to be cursed. And so they were.

In Matthew 18, concerning the Church life, if a brother offends, the first line of the solution is a secret meeting to effect admission of guilt and subsequent forgiveness. If this fails the next move is a semi-secret meeting with only the witnesses privy to the proceedings. Only when there is no admission of guilt is the Assembly to be informed.

In other scriptures in the letters we are advised to follow this same procedure. It is to "restore"a brother. Is it not comforting that the Holy Spirit is true to His own commands and never divulged Paul's "thorn"? So many Christians have "thorns", small and great. These are never removed, but God is graceful to keep them secret, and their dignity intact.

I think that if God wants Paul's "thorn" kept secret, it might be a good idea not to speculate. This is not a judgment on the poster, for all scripture is open to discussion. It is just a viewpoint of scripture that might spare some tears later. In many Churches one will find so-called "Councillors" who actively seek out all the "dirt" among the saints and deem to be "advisors" to them. These "Councillors" are not found in scripture. Rather the contrary.

Remember Ham.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 01:54 PM
To answer the OP, No.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 01:59 PM
Reading Corinthians 7 makes me think he was kinda prudish about sex generally.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 02:01 PM
Reading Corinthians 7 makes me think he was kinda prudish about sex generally.

Actually, Paul is pretty straightforward that if you gotta have it, get married and get it on. Often.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 02:04 PM
Actually, Paul is pretty straightforward that if you gotta have it, get married and get it on. Often.

Right, but he also says "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am..." arguing for a celibate life I guess.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 02:06 PM
Right, but he also says "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am..." arguing for a celibate life I guess.

Agreed. My take on that has always been that he really didn't expect to survive his mission. After all, beaten a gazillion times, etc., etc., Tough gig for a wife to have to endure.

I think Paul's celibacy was a vocational issue, not a sexuality issue.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 02:16 PM
I think Paul's celibacy was a vocational issue, not a sexuality issue.

Then why does he say "I wish that all of you were as I am."

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 02:30 PM
Then why does he say "I wish that all of you were as I am."

I think he was so consumed with the Gospel that he wanted everyone to be as free from earthly burdens as he was , including wives. I believe that Paul thought that Jesus would return bodily very quickly, possibly before the end of his life. I think that's why he told everyone "as far as I am concerned, don't try to change your marital status. Just not enough time."

That is just my opinion, of course.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 03:19 PM
I think he was so consumed with the Gospel that he wanted everyone to be as free from earthly burdens as he was
Ehhh maybe. Not what I thought when I first saw it.

To be without a wife and kids is not considered a good thing in Judaism. "Be fruitful and multiply" and all that. In fact, one could not be a member of the Sanhedrin if they were childless; it was assumed that raising children gave a person more gentleness and humility. So Paul was an unusual character however we look at it.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 03:22 PM
I think he was so consumed with the Gospel that he wanted everyone to be as free from earthly burdens as he was , including wives. I believe that Paul thought that Jesus would return bodily very quickly, possibly before the end of his life. I think that's why he told everyone "as far as I am concerned, don't try to change your marital status. Just not enough time."

That is just my opinion, of course.

In my OP, I should have made it clear that none of the articles I read on this topic, if he did indeed struggle with homosexuality, suggested that he acted on those desires. He was just very outspoken on the topic, which would suggest a struggle he either overcame or continued to deal it with based on their opinion. Paul speaks in the larger context about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts. However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.

divaD
Feb 20th 2013, 03:50 PM
In my OP, I should have made it clear that none of the articles I read on this topic, if he did indeed struggle with homosexuality, suggested that he acted on those desires. He was just very outspoken on the topic, which would suggest a struggle he either overcame or continued to deal it with based on their opinion. Paul speaks in the larger context about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts. However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.

Hopefully you're not taking any of this seriously, but are only pondering. Personally I wouldn't waste any of my time pondering this even. Speaking for myself, the entire notion is nonsense. Not one time since I started reading the Bible have I ever gotten the impression Paul may have been gay, And I'm not about to entertain that impossibility now. Seriously, what does homosexuality have to do with Paul? Absolutely nothing, the fact he was a blessed saint of God, and that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That then falls into the category of the following, homosexuality that is.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It fits this part..and the abominable. That part does not fit Paul, thus Paul never struggled with being gay..ever.


Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

God has not changed His mind about this, nor will He ever. That doesn't mean homosexuals couldn't be saved. But they would have to give up that lifestyle altogether, otherwise they continue to commit an abomination, which then leads back to what Revelation 21:8 says. One can't have it both ways. One can't continue homosexual acts and be saved at the same time, since that contradicts what Leviticus 20:13 and Revelation 21:8 says. Thus Paul was not gay, nor ever struggled with it period. That doesn't mean Paul was perfect or anything. It just means he wasn't struggling with abominable acts, such as homosexuality.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 03:53 PM
In my OP, I should have made it clear that none of the articles I read on this topic, if he did indeed struggle with homosexuality, suggested that he acted on those desires. He was just very outspoken on the topic, which would suggest a struggle he either overcame or continued to deal it with based on their opinion. Paul speaks in the larger context about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts. However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.

Poppycock. Someone with an agenda went and wrote an article. There is nothing in Pauline writing to suggest that he had an issue with homosexuality. He just happened to be living in a world where homosexuality was on every streetcorner and celebrated in pagan temples of worship. It is a primary sexual deviance that he had to warn his Christian friends about. Paul really didn't talk about homosexuality much at all compared to everything else he wrote about.

I can be outspoken against a particular sin, but that has nothing to do with whether I struggle with that same sin. That's just silliness.

BrianW
Feb 20th 2013, 04:28 PM
It could be argued that Paul was a widower who had been given the gift of celibacy ( a genuine gift of freedom from sexual need ) far more easily than that he was a closet gay. The very idea that Paul was a homosexual seems asinine to me.

RabbiKnife and Sojourner hit the nail right on the head in their answers.

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 04:31 PM
Poppycock. Someone with an agenda went and wrote an article. There is nothing in Pauline writing to suggest that he had an issue with homosexuality. He just happened to be living in a world where homosexuality was on every streetcorner and celebrated in pagan temples of worship. It is a primary sexual deviance that he had to warn his Christian friends about. Paul really didn't talk about homosexuality much at all compared to everything else he wrote about.

I can be outspoken against a particular sin, but that has nothing to do with whether I struggle with that same sin. That's just silliness.

With regard to an agenda, which I agree seems apparent, it's telling that even Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is dismissed in the pursuit of evidence to support this tripe. Apparently, Paul was one of these homosexuals in denial, who condemn the disorder even while concealing it within himself. What a miserable, wretched witness to the liberating power of God such a man would be, carrying such a dark secret. And Paul wishes everyone could be like that??? Nonsense.

Diggindeeper
Feb 20th 2013, 04:36 PM
I offer that Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' was most likely his EYES. The fact is, Paul himself had been beaten almost to death several times, which could have damaged his eyes. OR there is a big possibility that when he was literally 'blinded' by the light and was blind until someone prayed for him....that his eyes paid the price. He DID say this to the Galatians:

Galatians 4:13-15

13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. (Paul admits here that he had an 'infirmity of the flesh'!')

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. (Paul told them, "I know that you would have replaced MY EYES with yours, if it had been possible."

No assumptions must be added here, as had been done in the article spoken of in the OP. I'd forget that accusing assumption, Nick! To be considered along with his EYES, Paul said this to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 2:1-3
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

So, I see Paul not as some great, mighty and strong man standing before the people, but I see him preaching to them like this:

It is possible that someone had to walk with him, to where he would be addressing the people because of his eye sight.
Or perhaps he stumbled, or tripped over someone's feet, as the moved forward to preach to the people.
Perhaps he squinted and did not move around much, due to his bad eye sight.
And besides that, there he stood before them, a very weak looking man,
Standing there shaking and 'trembling', due to his fear of God!

To me, this all fits more with scripture than to EVER entertain the thought that he could have been a homosexual. Besides, he is very vocal in Romans chapter one in speaking out against 'men with men' and 'women with women'! He seemed to be shouting against homosexuality!

There is no Biblical proof for the claims made in the OP. Its only scripture taken out of context to make it seem that way by someone who WANTED it to seem that way.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 04:46 PM
Poppycock. Someone with an agenda went and wrote an article. There is nothing in Pauline writing to suggest that he had an issue with homosexuality. He just happened to be living in a world where homosexuality was on every streetcorner and celebrated in pagan temples of worship. It is a primary sexual deviance that he had to warn his Christian friends about. Paul really didn't talk about homosexuality much at all compared to everything else he wrote about.

I can be outspoken against a particular sin, but that has nothing to do with whether I struggle with that same sin. That's just silliness.

Paul aside, human nature is to be outspoken about sins we've overcome. Take for example those in recovery. They are outspoken about their victory over drugs or alcohol. They've been released from an addiction with the power to kill. Sexual addiction is even stronger than alcohol or drugs for some and with that, comes sexual deviance of all sorts. I wouldn't dismiss it. And, as an fyi, the author is a Christian. Ask yourself why Jesus never addressed sexual orientation during his ministry, but Paul felt it necessary to make it a focal point. Did sexual deviance not exist during Jesus's ministry?? And I'm not taking about lust. I'm referring to homosexuality.

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 04:48 PM
Do you think Paul struggled with homosexuality?

No .

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 04:58 PM
With regard to an agenda, which I agree seems apparent, it's telling that even Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is dismissed in the pursuit of evidence to support this tripe. Apparently, Paul was one of these homosexuals in denial, who condemn the disorder even while concealing it within himself. What a miserable, wretched witness to the liberating power of God such a man would be, carrying such a dark secret. And Paul wishes everyone could be like that??? Nonsense.

The reason could possibly be that Paul was an educated Jew, and to commit sexual actions outside of traditional heterosexual married relationships was against Jewish law. That would explain why this particular struggle, if he had it, was kept secret. Think about it logically, why else would the thorn be kept a secret? Paul was pretty open about his persecution of the church and other sins, but not this particular "thorn", whatever it was, and for whatever reason.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 05:09 PM
You have got to be kidding.

divaD
Feb 20th 2013, 05:16 PM
And, as an fyi, the author is a Christian.


I would have to question that, especially if that author really believes he or she may be correct. I'm not saying the person isn't a Christian, I'm just saying I would have to question that. It's one thing to be wrong in one's interpretations of Scriptures. That could be just an honest misunderstanding. But it's an entirely different thing altogether, to unjustly slander folks, even if those folks have been dead for ages. It's still slander. What next? Is one going to begin wondering if Jesus were gay as well? Or has some already began wondering that?

Here's something to ponder. What did Paul used to do before his conversion? Didn't he used to persecute Christians? But no one would say he still struggled with that after his conversion tho. That clearly shows he was a changed man thru and thru.

I'm not going to lie, but threads like this really get under my skin, the fact I see it as slanderous. No believer should even enternain this to begin with.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 05:17 PM
You have got to be kidding.

About what? It's a viewpoint that holds no less merit than any other viewpoint on the "thorn". In fact, there seems to be more support for this viewpoint than any other educated guess on what the thorn was.

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 05:19 PM
And, as an fyi, the author is a Christian.

So is Bill Clinton. But it didn't stop him from sharing cigars with Monica Lewinski.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 05:20 PM
I would have to question that, especially if that author really believes he or she may be correct. I'm not saying the person isn't a Christian, I'm just saying I would have to question that. It's one thing to be wrong in one's interpretations of Scriptures. That could be just an honest misunderstanding. But it's an entirely different thing altogether, to unjustly slander folks, even if those folks have been dead for ages. It's still slander. What next? Is one going to begin wondering if Jesus were gay as well? Or has some already began wondering that?

Here's something to ponder. What did Paul used to do before his conversion? Didn't he used to persecute Christians? But no one would say he still struggled with that after his conversion tho. That clearly shows he was a changed man thru and thru.

I'm not going to lie, but threads like this really get under my skin, the fact I see it as slanderous. No believer should even enternain this to begin with.

Is it really any different than discussing the human failings of other sins committed by the biblical patriarchs like murder, adultery, etc.? It's OK to discuss that but not this?

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 05:22 PM
I'm not going to lie, but threads like this really get under my skin, the fact I see it as slanderous. No believer should even enternain this to begin with.

It does seem quite a bit trollish.

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 05:24 PM
The reason could possibly be that Paul was an educated Jew, and to commit sexual actions outside of traditional heterosexual married relationships was against Jewish law. That would explain why this particular struggle, if he had it, was kept secret.

You're missing the point, and much bigger picture, Nick. Paul is preaching to the masses that the power of God is able to deliver believers from the bondage of any sin, regardless of its nature. And the whole time he's doing this, he's living a lie as a closet homosexual, relying on his own fleshly power to refrain from committing a sin that he decries as unnatural and wicked? You don't see a problem with God using a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, and who is so far removed from the very deliverance he preaches to others? In your willingness to objectively and honestly consider the merits of this reckless speculation, take care that you don't give cause to think you are promoting it. ;)

divaD
Feb 20th 2013, 05:25 PM
Is it really any different than discussing the human failings of other sins committed by the biblical patriarchs like murder, adultery, etc.? It's OK to discuss that but not this?

But when those things are discussed, no one is being unjustly slandered, if they have indeed committed murder, adultery, or anything else like that. So no, it's not wrong to discuss these things. It's not even wrong to discuss homosexuality either, as long as this is not wrongly being applied to someone it doesn't fit, such as Paul.

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 05:26 PM
Nick, I think the "thorn" was his eyes.

I will also say I think Paul suffered from enormous pride. It was something he constantly had to keep in check.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 05:49 PM
But when those things are discussed, no one is being unjustly slandered, if they have indeed committed murder, adultery, or anything else like that. So no, it's not wrong to discuss these things. It's not even wrong to discuss homosexuality either, as long as this is not wrongly being applied to someone it doesn't fit, such as Paul.

Those are all fair points. The discussion is really about whether or not it does apply/fit and if so, why, and if not, why. That's all.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 05:52 PM
It does seem quite a bit trollish.

Are you suggesting I'm a troll? A troll doesn't hang around and participate in the community. Sorry if the topic offends you.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 05:54 PM
The reason could possibly be that Paul was an educated Jew, and to commit sexual actions outside of traditional heterosexual married relationships was against Jewish law. That would explain why this particular struggle, if he had it, was kept secret.
I don't like this "evidence by absence". I mean, maybe he was a cannibal. But he had to keep it secret. You can attribute any vice to him, and the evidence is that there isn't any evidence at all.

Silly.

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 05:58 PM
Are you suggesting I'm a troll? A troll doesn't hang around and participate in the community. Sorry if the topic offends you.

I'm not offended, I'm quite entertained actually.
A trollish thread does not make one necessarily a troll. But this particular thread does feel like one. To me anyways. I could be wrong though. It's happened once before.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 06:02 PM
I don't like this "evidence by absence". I mean, maybe he was a cannibal. But he had to keep it secret. You can attribute any vice to him, and the evidence is that there isn't any evidence at all.

Silly.

Fenris, I know you've held it in for a long time. I know that you have a secret passion, and overwhelming desire for that which is not permitted. I even suspect that you have at least SMELLED of bacon before. I know that you have looked on it lustfully, to commit BACON in your heart.

You can tell us. We won't condemn you. But clearly, your obsession with keeping kosher is quite damning evidence that you are a closet Baconator.

Just tell us. You'll feel better, I know you will.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:03 PM
You're missing the point, and much bigger picture, Nick. Paul is preaching to the masses that the power of God is able to deliver believers from the bondage of any sin, regardless of its nature. And the whole time he's doing this, he's living a lie as a closet homosexual, relying on his own fleshly power to refrain from committing a sin that he decries as unnatural and wicked? You don't see a problem with God using a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, and who is so far removed from the very deliverance he preaches to others? In your willingness to objectively and honestly consider the merits of this reckless speculation, take care that you don't give cause to think you are promoting it. ;)

If he had homosexual tendencies he was practicing what he preached by refraining by acting on those desires. Same sex attraction is not a sin but acting on it is.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:06 PM
Fenris, I know you've held it in for a long time. I know that you have a secret passion, and overwhelming desire for that which is not permitted. I even suspect that you have at least SMELLED of bacon before. I know that you have looked on it lustfully, to commit BACON in your heart.

You can tell us. We won't condemn you. But clearly, your obsession with keeping kosher is quite damning evidence that you are a closet Baconator.

Just tell us. You'll feel better, I know you will.

Damn. I just spit up my coffee on my computer screen when I read that.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:20 PM
I'm not offended, I'm quite entertained actually.
A trollish thread does not make one necessarily a troll. But this particular thread does feel like one. To me anyways. I could be wrong though. It's happened once before.

Thanks for clarifying. As far as the thread being trollish, do a Google search on "what was the thorn in the Apostle Paul's side?" and see what you find. Up until yesterday, I had no idea many Christian writers felt the "thorn" was his personal struggle with homosexuality. If that makes this thread "trollish" then so be it.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 06:20 PM
Damn. I just spit up my coffee on my computer screen when I read that.

Then my work is accomplished here.
Good day, Citizen.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 06:20 PM
Just tell us. You'll feel better, I know you will.

Mmmmm bacon........!

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:24 PM
Mmmmm bacon........!

What about Turkey bacon? You can eat that, right?

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 06:26 PM
What about Turkey bacon? You can eat that, right?

Yeah but Mrs Fenris can't seem to locate any :cry:

Anyway I'm sure it pales in comparison to the real thing.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:30 PM
Yeah but Mrs Fenris can't seem to locate any :cry:

Anyway I'm sure it pales in comparison to the real thing.

It's actually really good. More than happy to send you some if you like. It's 100% turkey but tastes like bacon.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 06:33 PM
It's actually really good. More than happy to send you some if you like. It's 100% turkey but tastes like bacon.

Turkey bacon is the abomination of desolation.

markedward
Feb 20th 2013, 06:35 PM
Think about it logically, why else would the thorn be kept a secret? Paul was pretty open about his persecution of the church and other sins, but not this particular "thorn", whatever it was, and for whatever reason.
He calls the thorn 'a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited'. For one, that doesn't sound anything like 'homosexual desires'. But add to that the fuller context of what Paul is even saying: he's justifying his ministry in the face of the so-called 'super apostles' that he describes immediately before and after he mentions his 'thorn'.

2 Corinthians 11.1-6: 'Super apostles' are contradicting Paul's ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.7-11: Paul humbles himself, boasting only of his ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.12-15: The 'super apostles' are false apostles, boasting in themselves. They are 'servants' of the satan, disguising themselves as righteous.

2 Corinthians 11.16-33: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of his failings and his hardships.

2 Corinthians 12.1-6: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of a vision from God.

2 Corinthians 12.7-10: Paul has received a 'thorn', a 'messenger of the satan', as a reminder that he should not boast of himself.

2 Corinthians 12.11-2: Paul is not inferior to the 'super apostles', but Paul has demonstrated of himself that he is a true apostle.


The 'thorn' is the false witness of the false apostles who have set out to hinder Paul's ministry. He explicitly says they are other Jews in 11.22, and he repeatedly points out how they boast of their own achievements. They are the 'Judaizers' he mentions in his epistle to the Galatians, i.e. the group of Jewish Christians who he sees as justifying themselves before God with their own abilities, as opposed to God justifying them by their faith. Paul was not hiding what his 'thorn' was. He spells it out, plain as day, and the only way his 'thorn' could be interpreted as homosexuality is if the person is making it up without any evidence whatsoever.

LookingUp
Feb 20th 2013, 06:43 PM
Could the "thorn" in his side been his struggle with being homosexual?Very unlikely.


How would those physical ailments be messengers of Satan?Scripture attributes physical ailments with demonic oppression (Mark 6:13; Luke 9:1; Luke 13:16; Luke 13:32; Acts 10:38; 1 John 3:8).


Paul also takes somewhat of a negative view of women and marriage. He writes “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). When Paul writes, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” he’s not talking about married men. Paul even writes, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another…”. Not only is Paul for sex within marriage, he encourages them to get on with it.

Although Paul said it was better to remain single, he still says it is good to marry (1 Cor. 7:38). But Paul says it is better to remain single due to the present distress of the day (1 Cor. 7:26).

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 06:49 PM
Thanks for clarifying. As far as the thread being trollish, do a Google search on "what was the thorn in the Apostle Paul's side?" and see what you find. Up until yesterday, I had no idea many Christian writers felt the "thorn" was his personal struggle with homosexuality. If that makes this thread "trollish" then so be it.

Sadly there's just WAY to much garbage out there. I don't have the time or the interest worry about those things.
Let's say for the sake of the argument Paul was gay. Still doesn't affect my relationship with Jesus. So why waste my time pursuing it.
Honestly the only character flaw I find in Paul was that he was sort of a jerk. At least when dealing with fellow brothers in the ministry. (Specifically John/Mark, Barnabas and Peter) And this is only my opinion.

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 06:49 PM
Damn. I just spit up my coffee on my computer screen when I read that.

The good Rab is pretty well known for that reaction.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 06:53 PM
Sadly there's just WAY to much garbage out there. I don't have the time or the interest worry about those things.
Let's say for the sake of the argument Paul was gay. Still doesn't affect my relationship with Jesus. So why waste my time pursuing it.
Honestly the only character flaw I find in Paul was that he was sort of a jerk. At least when dealing with fellow brothers in the ministry. (Specifically John/Mark, Barnabas and Peter) And this is only my opinion.

How would you feel if you were abandoned on a mission trip? I think Paul was right to question John/Mark, but that's just my opinion.

-SEEKING-
Feb 20th 2013, 06:56 PM
How would you feel if you were abandoned on a mission trip? I think Paul was right to question John/Mark, but that's just my opinion.

Not sure. Perhaps the same as Barnabas who wanted to give John/Mark another chance. He didn't seem to be to upset about being abandoned. Or at least forgiving enough to let it slide.

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 06:56 PM
How would you feel if you were abandoned on a mission trip? I think Paul was right to question John/Mark, but that's just my opinion.

Our God is a God of second chances but Paul was more than willing to write John Mark off after one "failure". Question - sure; refuse to give someone another chance? That's pretty full of yourself.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 06:58 PM
Both Paul and Barnabas were right.

Paul was right that John Mark was a momma's boy that didn't have the... ummm... intestinal fortitude to get the snot beat of of him for the sake of the Gospel.
Barnabas was right that John Mark needed someone to help him grow up.

The result: Years later, John Mark had grown up and was profitable to Paul for the sake of the ministry.

God seems to not be concerned about our view of disputes, sometimes.

TheDivineWatermark
Feb 20th 2013, 07:07 PM
He calls the thorn 'a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited'. For one, that doesn't sound anything like 'homosexual desires'. But add to that the fuller context of what Paul is even saying: he's justifying his ministry in the face of the so-called 'super apostles' that he describes immediately before and after he mentions his 'thorn'.

2 Corinthians 11.1-6: 'Super apostles' are contradicting Paul's ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.7-11: Paul humbles himself, boasting only of his ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.12-15: The 'super apostles' are false apostles, boasting in themselves. They are 'servants' of the satan, disguising themselves as righteous.

2 Corinthians 11.16-33: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of his failings and his hardships.

2 Corinthians 12.1-6: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of a vision from God.

2 Corinthians 12.7-10: Paul has received a 'thorn', a 'messenger of the satan', as a reminder that he should not boast of himself.

2 Corinthians 12.11-2: Paul is not inferior to the 'super apostles', but Paul has demonstrated of himself that he is a true apostle.


The 'thorn' is the false witness of the false apostles who have set out to hinder Paul's ministry. He explicitly says they are other Jews in 11.22, and he repeatedly points out how they boast of their own achievements. They are the 'Judaizers' he mentions in his epistle to the Galatians, i.e. the group of Jewish Christians who he sees as justifying themselves before God with their own abilities, as opposed to God justifying them by their faith. Paul was not hiding what his 'thorn' was. He spells it out, plain as day, and the only way his 'thorn' could be interpreted as homosexuality is if the person is making it up without any evidence whatsoever.

I tend to agree with this perspective.

And I absolutely agree with your last sentence.

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 07:12 PM
If he had homosexual tendencies he was practicing what he preached by refraining by acting on those desires. Same sex attraction is not a sin but acting on it is.

Refraining from desires demonstrates will power, not the power of God. God delivers from the power of satan-- He does not enable and facilitate it. If Paul were plagued by homosexual tendencies, a true demonstration of practicing what he preached would be to avail himself of this wisdom:

Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect. (Rom 12:2 NLT)

Sheth
Feb 20th 2013, 07:32 PM
Suggesting, especially in a topic headline, that any of the Saints might have been a homosexual is offensive and if not for the possibility of the poster being obtuse, I'd have no doubt the poster is trolling.

Paul describes homosexuals as lost. Paul didn't think of himself as lost, therefor his "thorn" wasn't homosexuality. Paul says his "thorn" was given him to humble him. God wouldn't turn a man over to homosexuality, or any corruption, to humble him. Paul also thought positively of his ability to abstain from women, which would exclude that from being his "thorn".

Paul was asexual, probably because of a mind giving over to chasteness. Maybe Paul did have a sexual dysfunction, but it wouldn't have been a perversion. And, it's a disgusting prejudice of people to assume that others who suffer from sexual dysfunction (or social dysfunction concerning women) are homosexuals.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 07:52 PM
Suggesting, especially in a topic headline, that any of the Saints might have been a homosexual is offensive and if not for the possibility of the poster being obtuse, I'd have no doubt the poster is trolling.

Paul describes homosexuals as lost. Paul didn't think of himself as lost, therefor his "thorn" wasn't homosexuality. Paul says his "thorn" was given him to humble him. God wouldn't turn a man over to homosexuality, or any corruption, to humble him. Paul also thought positively of his ability to abstain from women, which would exclude that from being his "thorn".

Paul was asexual, probably because of a mind giving over to chasteness. Maybe Paul did have a sexual dysfunction, but it wouldn't have been a perversion. And, it's a disgusting prejudice of people to assume that others who suffer from sexual dysfunction (or social dysfunction concerning women) are homosexuals.

Tell that to the Vatican. Maybe they'll stop trying to cover up sexual perversion by their priests. It's unnatural for a man to be celibate. Even wonder why we seldom hear of incidents where pastors molest boys? It's because pastors are allowed to marry and have sex.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:01 PM
Tell that to the Vatican. Maybe they'll stop trying to cover up sexual perversion by their priests. It's unnatural for a man to be celibate.

Not if God has called them to be celibate.

Granted, there is nothing in Scripture requiring priests or ministers to be celibate; but to assume the celibacy is "unnatural" is not valid either.

Depends on the man. Or woman.

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 08:03 PM
Suggesting, especially in a topic headline, that any of the Saints might have been a homosexual is offensive and if not for the possibility of the poster being obtuse, I'd have no doubt the poster is trolling.

Paul describes homosexuals as lost. Paul didn't think of himself as lost, therefor his "thorn" wasn't homosexuality. Paul says his "thorn" was given him to humble him. God wouldn't turn a man over to homosexuality, or any corruption, to humble him. Paul also thought positively of his ability to abstain from women, which would exclude that from being his "thorn".

Paul was asexual, probably because of a mind giving over to chasteness. Maybe Paul did have a sexual dysfunction, but it wouldn't have been a perversion. And, it's a disgusting prejudice of people to assume that others who suffer from sexual dysfunction (or social dysfunction concerning women) are homosexuals.

So, in your world, celibate homosexuals are not saved?

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 08:06 PM
Not if God has called them to be celibate.

Granted, there is nothing in Scripture requiring priests or ministers to be celibate; but to assume the celibacy is "unnatural" is not valid either.

Depends on the man. Or woman.

We might want to let Jesus weigh in on this one:

"Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12 NLT)

MyRock
Feb 20th 2013, 08:08 PM
I tend to agree that the "thorn" was something to do with his sight. When reading the scriptures I have not noticed an allusion to Homosexuality.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:10 PM
We might want to let Jesus weigh in on this one:

"Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12 NLT)

Please, BigCat, don't get Jesus involved in our discussion of the Bible...

:)

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 08:12 PM
Please, BigCat, don't get Jesus involved in our discussion of the Bible...

:)

oops, I lost my head for a minute.....:blush:

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 08:14 PM
Not if God has called them to be celibate.

Granted, there is nothing in Scripture requiring priests or ministers to be celibate; but to assume the celibacy is "unnatural" is not valid either.

Depends on the man. Or woman.

Then why would God have ordained marriage? Why give Adam Eve? Jesus was an advocate for marriage too.

divaD
Feb 20th 2013, 08:15 PM
Turkey bacon is the abomination of desolation.


Shhh...don't let this get out. Who knows what kind of threads that might spawn in ETC, if you know what I mean. And I'm certain you do.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:15 PM
Then why would God have ordained marriage? Why give Adam Eve?

Because the hippopotamus was too far off the ground and too heavy, that why.

Your argument regarding celibacy for some is not an argument with me, but with Jesus and Paul.

Diggindeeper
Feb 20th 2013, 08:15 PM
Bump!


Post #17
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/245350-Do-you-think-Paul-struggled-with-homosexuality/page2

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:16 PM
Shhh...don't let this get out. Who knows what kind of threads that might spawn in ETC, if you know what I mean. And I'm certain you do.

Something to do with red heifer ashes and badger skins, I think. yeah, I'll keep it on the low-down.

Watchman
Feb 20th 2013, 08:17 PM
To answer the OP, No.
Yes, I'd have to say no, Paul didn't struggle with homosexuality. Homosexuality is more concerned with one's self...saints are more concerned with Christ and His glory.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 08:20 PM
Because the hippopotamus was too far off the ground and too heavy, that why.

Your argument regarding celibacy for some is not an argument with me, but with Jesus and Paul.

We are commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply", which involves a woman and sex! End of argument. You lose. :lol:

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 08:21 PM
Then why would God have ordained marriage? Why give Adam Eve? Jesus was an advocate for marriage too.

Because marriage is a wonderful thing. It's how we procreate. It's how we come to a better understanding of becoming "one" with God. the physical analogy isn;t the real deal but it helps those of us who are slow.

But some people are better alone just as some of us are male and some of us are female.

divaD
Feb 20th 2013, 08:21 PM
He calls the thorn 'a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited'. For one, that doesn't sound anything like 'homosexual desires'. But add to that the fuller context of what Paul is even saying: he's justifying his ministry in the face of the so-called 'super apostles' that he describes immediately before and after he mentions his 'thorn'.

2 Corinthians 11.1-6: 'Super apostles' are contradicting Paul's ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.7-11: Paul humbles himself, boasting only of his ministry.

2 Corinthians 11.12-15: The 'super apostles' are false apostles, boasting in themselves. They are 'servants' of the satan, disguising themselves as righteous.

2 Corinthians 11.16-33: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of his failings and his hardships.

2 Corinthians 12.1-6: Paul will not boast of his personal glory or upbringing, he 'boasts' of a vision from God.

2 Corinthians 12.7-10: Paul has received a 'thorn', a 'messenger of the satan', as a reminder that he should not boast of himself.

2 Corinthians 12.11-2: Paul is not inferior to the 'super apostles', but Paul has demonstrated of himself that he is a true apostle.


The 'thorn' is the false witness of the false apostles who have set out to hinder Paul's ministry. He explicitly says they are other Jews in 11.22, and he repeatedly points out how they boast of their own achievements. They are the 'Judaizers' he mentions in his epistle to the Galatians, i.e. the group of Jewish Christians who he sees as justifying themselves before God with their own abilities, as opposed to God justifying them by their faith. Paul was not hiding what his 'thorn' was. He spells it out, plain as day, and the only way his 'thorn' could be interpreted as homosexuality is if the person is making it up without any evidence whatsoever.


I like this interpretation. Can't say I've ever thought of it like that before. And thanks to you, I can now think of it like that.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:26 PM
We are commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply", which involves a woman and sex! End of argument. You lose. :lol:

Read again. God brought the animals to Adam first, to look for a "help-meet".

Only after Adam rejected them all did we bet to Adam 2.0. Be fruitful and multiply command didn't come until after Eve is on the scene.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 08:30 PM
Read again. God brought the animals to Adam first, to look for a "help-meet".

Only after Adam rejected them all did we bet to Adam 2.0. Be fruitful and multiply command didn't come until after Eve is on the scene.

Regardless, God wants us to marry and have sex, lots of sex (multiply). Why give man such a gift (sex) and not use it? That's the "unnatural" part. God created sex to be good. Satan is the one who perverted it. God gave Adam Eve because He (not Adam) realized something was missing. My point stands and that's checkmate.

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 08:34 PM
Regardless, God wants us to marry and have sex, lots of sex (multiply). Why give man such a gift (sex) and not use it? That's the "unnatural" part. God created sex to be good. Satan is the one who perverted it. My point stands and that's checkmate.

There are couples who cannot HAVE children. Now what?

There are people who are unable to have sex. Now what?

There are people who are not at all interested in sex. Now what?

God creates different people for differing purposes. Sex is not the only reason people are here.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:36 PM
Regardless, God wants us to marry and have sex, lots of sex (multiply). Why give man such a gift (sex) and not use it? That's the "unnatural" part. God created sex to be good. Satan is the one who perverted it. God gave Adam Eve because He (not Adam) realized something was missing. My point stands and that's checkmate.

Checkmate? Do you think this is a game?

Do you not acknowledge that what Jesus said about celibacy and what Paul said about celibacy are the very word of God? Or do you not care?

Do you believe that man is an animal that is incapable of controlling his sexual urges?

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 08:37 PM
Do you believe that man is an animal that is incapable of controlling his sexual urges?

I think the point is to channel those urges in a productive manner, not deny them entirely.

Scruffy Kid
Feb 20th 2013, 08:37 PM
Then why would God have ordained marriage? Why give Adam Eve? Jesus was an advocate for marriage too.



Then why would God have ordained marriage? Why give Adam Eve? Jesus was an advocate for marriage too.Because the hippopotamus was too far off the ground and too heavy, that why. ...

T. S. Eliot wrote, in 1920, comparing the church to a hippopotamus:

The Hippopotamus


THE BROAD-BACKED hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.

Flesh and blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.

The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.

The ’potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach
Refresh the Church from over sea.

At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.

The hippopotamus’s day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way—
The Church can sleep and feed at once.

I saw the ’potamus take wing
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.

He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr’d virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

Sojourner
Feb 20th 2013, 08:39 PM
Regardless, God wants us to marry and have sex, lots of sex (multiply). Why give man such a gift (sex) and not use it? That's the "unnatural" part. God created sex to be good. Satan is the one who perverted it. My point stands and that's checkmate.

How do you respond to this statement by Jesus:

"Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12 NLT)

Sounds to me like He believes celibacy is not necessarily "unnatural," when putting God first. No offense, but I'm going with Jesus on this one.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 08:47 PM
Because marriage is a wonderful thing. It's how we procreate. It's how we come to a better understanding of becoming "one" with God.
It's also how we get henpecked!

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x41/theospark/Henpecked2.gif

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 08:50 PM
It's also how we get henpecked!

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x41/theospark/Henpecked2.gif

Speak for your own family - I use an iron skillet.









And it STILL hasn't worked :rolleyes:

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 08:55 PM
It's also how we get henpecked!

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x41/theospark/Henpecked2.gif

If you think that's a chicken, Oy! VEY!!!

Vhayes
Feb 20th 2013, 08:57 PM
If you think that's a chicken, Oy! VEY!!!

Would that explain why he complains about tough chicken to his wife?


(Sorry, Fenris - couldn't help myself, it was too easy).

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 09:01 PM
I don't know, but I don't think sea gull is kosher...

Fenris
Feb 20th 2013, 09:01 PM
(Sorry, Fenris - couldn't help myself, it was too easy).
Ha. Do your worst. I'm henpecked!

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 10:52 PM
How do you respond to this statement by Jesus:

"Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12 NLT)

Sounds to me like He believes celibacy is not necessarily "unnatural," when putting God first. No offense, but I'm going with Jesus on this one.

Ok, I'm must admit that one stumped me....

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 10:54 PM
Checkmate? Do you think this is a game?

Do you not acknowledge that what Jesus said about celibacy and what Paul said about celibacy are the very word of God? Or do you not care?

Do you believe that man is an animal that is incapable of controlling his sexual urges?

Relax man. Are you the only one allowed to have a little fun? I'm sure being a lawyer and a pastor can be stressful but no need to get all serious here. It's just a discussion of a hypothetical scenario since there is no proof or evidence either way.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 10:56 PM
Ok, I'm must admit that one stumped me....

It shouldn't stump you. The Bible is not a rule book. It is book about God's revelation of Himself and his character to us.

A general rule is that Man and Woman are sexual beings. A general rule is that, in the vast majority of cases, men and women are not capable of living a life abstaining from sexual intercourse. In order to provide for this reality, and because God likes us, He built us not only to procreate sexually but to also really enjoy the process. He wasted a bunch of interesting nerve endings otherwise.

However, there are exceptions to the general rule. One exception is marriage. That's where God says sex between humans is supposed to be experienced, and nowhere else. An exception within marriage is for the couple to agree to abstain for a short time, but only by consent.

Clearly, another exception is for those that find themselves incapable of sexual intercourse either as a result of birth, surgery or accident, or because they believe that God has called them to a life of celibacy.

It is really that simple.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 11:01 PM
It shouldn't stump you. The Bible is not a rule book. It is book about God's revelation of Himself and his character to us.

A general rule is that Man and Woman are sexual beings. A general rule is that, in the vast majority of cases, men and women are not capable of living a life abstaining from sexual intercourse. In order to provide for this reality, and because God likes us, He built us not only to procreate sexually but to also really enjoy the process. He wasted a bunch of interesting nerve endings otherwise.

However, there are exceptions to the general rule. One exception is marriage. That's where God says sex between humans is supposed to be experienced, and nowhere else. An exception within marriage is for the couple to agree to abstain for a short time, but only by consent.

Clearly, another exception is for those that find themselves incapable of sexual intercourse either as a result of birth, surgery or accident, or because they believe that God has called them to a life of celibacy.

It is really that simple.

I hear you. However, many priests throughout the ages thought they received that calling, or did they?

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 11:07 PM
I hear you. However, many priests throughout the ages thought they received that calling, or did they?

Every priest I know (and that is more than one) believes that they have indeed received the call to a celibate life. An incredible amount of their training and examination for the priesthood -- for a number of years -- deals intensively with that very issue. You would not believe some of the school records and psychological reports of priests that I have read related to this issue.
For some, it is not a burden. For others, it is a daily struggle.

Nick
Feb 20th 2013, 11:18 PM
Every priest I know (and that is more than one) believes that they have indeed received the call to a celibate life. An incredible amount of their training and examination for the priesthood -- for a number of years -- deals intensively with that very issue. You would not believe some of the school records and psychological reports of priests that I have read related to this issue.
For some, it is not a burden. For others, it is a daily struggle.

I don't deny that. This is purely my opinion, but if it's a daily struggle then perhaps those particular priests should reconsider their calling since the potential exists for those repressed urges to manifest in other sexual deviant ways (i.e. molesting boys). I highly doubt any person called to be a priest does so to molest boys, but it happens.

RabbiKnife
Feb 20th 2013, 11:32 PM
I don't deny that. This is purely my opinion, but if it's a daily struggle then perhaps those particular priests should reconsider their calling since the potential exists for those repressed urges to manifest in other sexual deviant ways (i.e. molesting boys). I highly doubt any person called to be a priest does so to molest boys, but it happens.

I know several who have that exact reconsideration a number of times during their vocation, including extensive discussions with psychologies, their bishops, their confessors, and other advisors.

Celibacy does not lead to molestation of boys. It just doesn't. None of the evidence supports that conclusion. Sexual deviance leads to molesting of children, regardless of sexual activity otherwise. The vast majority of people (primarily men) that molest children are sexually deviant in other ways as well. Consider that most molestation is the bio dad with the bio daughter.


It is an unsupported stereotype to assume that "celibate" = "more likely of child molestation."

Sheth
Feb 20th 2013, 11:36 PM
Tell that to the Vatican. Maybe they'll stop trying to cover up sexual perversion by their priests. It's unnatural for a man to be celibate. Even wonder why we seldom hear of incidents where pastors molest boys? It's because pastors are allowed to marry and have sex.

I'm sure the Vatican knows that they're violating Paul's instructions for people to marry to address sexual frustration. But, the RCC considers itself to be equal, if not superior, to the Bible in knowing the will of God.

But, I disagree with you on something. Spiritually/mentally healthy priests do not molest the young. If they can't control their need, they find less damaging ways take care of it. Allowing priests to marry would not have prevented this molestation. The issue is letting the sick become priests. The Vatican thought it proper to let homosexuals be priests and the result is many, many teenage boys have been molested by priests.

Bandit
Feb 20th 2013, 11:41 PM
Do you think Paul struggled with homosexuality?

Where does this line of thinking come from? It certainly doesn't come from scripture. Just when you think you've seen it all...

Sheth
Feb 20th 2013, 11:59 PM
Where does this line of thinking come from? It certainly doesn't come from scripture. Just when you think you've seen it all...

It's popular in the Sodomite community to argue that various righteous biblical figures were homosexuals.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 02:33 AM
Where does this line of thinking come from? It certainly doesn't come from scripture. Just when you think you've seen it all...

Funny. That's what I thought when I read it too. Keep in mind, I came across this point of view just last night.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 02:39 AM
I know several who have that exact reconsideration a number of times during their vocation, including extensive discussions with psychologies, their bishops, their confessors, and other advisors.

Celibacy does not lead to molestation of boys. It just doesn't. None of the evidence supports that conclusion. Sexual deviance leads to molesting of children, regardless of sexual activity otherwise. The vast majority of people (primarily men) that molest children are sexually deviant in other ways as well. Consider that most molestation is the bio dad with the bio daughter.


It is an unsupported stereotype to assume that "celibate" = "more likely of child molestation."

Let's not confuse celibacy with repressed sexual urges because those aren't mutually exclusive. Repressed sexual urges can lead to sexual deviance. Some people have no sexual urges. I know men who haven't slept with their wife in months because they have no libido. Why do you think HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) has become so popular and socially acceptable? Even my pastor suggested to get testosterone shots if you're medically below the range. Low testosterone = low sex drive. Not hard to be celibate when there's no urge or desire.

Theophilus
Feb 21st 2013, 02:42 AM
Regarding the OP, I must say in all my Bible reading and studies, that is one that had never crossed my mind.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 02:47 AM
I don't deny that. This is purely my opinion, but if it's a daily struggle then perhaps those particular priests should reconsider their calling since the potential exists for those repressed urges to manifest in other sexual deviant ways (i.e. molesting boys). I highly doubt any person called to be a priest does so to molest boys, but it happens.

Why would you doubt it? The Boy Scouts, Sports Camps, elementary schools, etc., are like shopping centers to a pedophile. Why should the church (and I mean any church, not just the Roman Catholic Church) be exempt?

Reynolds357
Feb 21st 2013, 02:48 AM
Out of curiosity, I was searching different viewpoints on the undisclosed "thorn" in Paul's side and came across this argument. Could the "thorn" in his side been his struggle with being homosexual? The writer makes an interesting and somewhat convincing argument. The person making this case sets the stage with the backdrop that Paul was a pretty emotional guy, perhaps overly emotional. Here are some excerpts. There's much more to this but here is the Reader's Digest version....

In his letter to the Romans he talks about being a prisoner of the law of sin in his body - "…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:23).

In 2 Cor 12:7 he talks about "a thorn in his flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me". Some people think that was vision loss, others think malaria, and some others assume it was epilepsy. How would those physical ailments be messengers of Satan? They don't act as agents of temptation.

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins. In his letter, he says that “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26). Could this be construed as what we call today "homophobia"?

Paul also takes somewhat of a negative view of women and marriage. He writes “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widows: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” (1 Corinthians 1:8). Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 1:9).

Now that we have considered this array of clues from Paul’s writings, it becomes important to finish addressing the passage with which we began our study. We return to the “war” in Paul’s “members.” This war in his members may have even been connected to the “thorn in his flesh” that served as a “messenger of Satan.” Whether or not these concepts are connected, the question still remains… What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind”? Without being crude, the answer is a somewhat obvious one when considering the anatomy of a male. Arms, legs, and the like can be controlled by the mind. But, there remains a member that often is not so easily controlled by the mind. It is to this member that I believe Paul was referring. And considering the other segments we have examined, I also believe that Paul was in fact a repressed gay individual. While this cannot be proven, it does seem one of the few answers that properly fits the questions raised by the evidence. If Paul was a gay man, a drastic rereading of Scripture would be demanded in light of such a discovery.

No, he did not.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 02:48 AM
Regarding the OP, I must say in all my Bible reading and studies, that is one that had never crossed my mind.

I'm with you on this one, my friend.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 02:49 AM
I'm sure the Vatican knows that they're violating Paul's instructions for people to marry to address sexual frustration. But, the RCC considers itself to be equal, if not superior, to the Bible in knowing the will of God.

But, I disagree with you on something. Spiritually/mentally healthy priests do not molest the young. If they can't control their need, they find less damaging ways take care of it. Allowing priests to marry would not have prevented this molestation. The issue is letting the sick become priests. The Vatican thought it proper to let homosexuals be priests and the result is many, many teenage boys have been molested by priests.

The Vatican also sold "indulgences" when they ran out of money, which started the Protestant Reformation. The Vatican also appointed the Apostles to "Sainthood" and encouraged people to worship and pray to them as if they were equal to God.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 02:52 AM
And Nick, just so you know, I really do think Paul fought hard against pride. He was a Jew of Jews, He was highly educated, He was a man of authority within the Jewish community, And he gave all that up to work as a tentmaker and itinerant evangelist. Was it worth it to him? Oh my, yes - I think there can be no doubt when reading Paul's words but I would also be willing to say Paul spent a bit of energy not slapping the snot right outta some of his audience.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 02:53 AM
Why would you doubt it? The Boy Scouts, Sports Camps, elementary schools, etc., are like shopping centers to a pedophile. Why should the church (and I mean any church, not just the Roman Catholic Church) be exempt?

If the sole objective is to molest boys then there are much easier avenues for a pedophile to pursue than to go through the long process of becoming a Priest. You already cited quite a few of them. I really do not believe their intention (those that become pedophiles) going into Priesthood is to molest boys. I believe that change occurs as a result of repressed sexual urges.

Reynolds357
Feb 21st 2013, 02:55 AM
Why would you doubt it? The Boy Scouts, Sports Camps, elementary schools, etc., are like shopping centers to a pedophile. Why should the church (and I mean any church, not just the Roman Catholic Church) be exempt?
Not defending homosexuals (you know I would never do that) just being fair, I will say this. A few years ago in a sex crimes investigation class we analyzed statistics about molestation. The thing that struck me as odd is that a homosexual male is less likely to molest a boy than a heterosexual male is likely to molest a female. The link between homosexuality and molestation is a myth.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 02:56 AM
If the sole objective is to molest boys then there are much easier avenues for a pedophile to pursue than to go through the long process of becoming a Priest. You already cited quite a few of them.
Agreed. But there are few other places where is (or at least was) shrouded in obfuscation and the perpetrator moved on to greener pastures.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 02:58 AM
Not defending homosexuals (you know I would never do that) just being fair, I will say this. A few years ago in a sex crimes investigation class we analyzed statistics about molestation. The thing that struck me as odd is that a homosexual male is less likely to molest a boy than a heterosexual male is likely to molest a female. The link between homosexuality and molestation is a myth.

Thanks, Reynolds - and yes, I agree with what you have posted. But I don't think pedophiles are sexual creatures, either homo or hetero - it really is about control and creating fear.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 03:04 AM
Agreed. But there are few other places where is (or at least was) shrouded in obfuscation and the perpetrator moved on to greener pastures.

You raise a very good point. These pedophiles have been protected by bishops and the Catholic Church for God knows how long. Only recently was this exposed for what it is. Perhaps these pedophiles became Priests because they knew the church would protect them.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 03:10 AM
You raise a very good point. These pedophiles have been protected by bishops and the Catholic Church for God knows how long. Only recently was this exposed for what it is. Perhaps these pedophiles became Priests because they knew the church would protect them.

Which was my point. Thank you for recognizing it - I appreciate it.

Also - it isn't just the Roman Catholic church with these issues. There are stories out there from a bygone era of ministers of local churches destroying the lives of many young women including children. But no one talked about it much. It was swept under the carpet because it would cause a scandal for the community and most especially for the family of the child or the young woman. For years and years pedophiles and philanderers used the threat of scandal to get away with what they did.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 03:10 AM
Regarding the OP, I must say in all my Bible reading and studies, that is one that had never crossed my mind.

Understand that because I post something (someone else's viewpoint) doesn't necessarily mean I subscribe to it 100%. I thought the author made a good case and wanted to get other people's (members here) view on it. This was new to me too as I've already stated many times. That's it.

TomH
Feb 21st 2013, 03:15 AM
You raise a very good point. These pedophiles have been protected by bishops and the Catholic Church for God knows how long. Only recently was this exposed for what it is. Perhaps these pedophiles became Priests because they knew the church would protect them.

It's no different than any other organization.

You can take the case of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. Same instance, same protection behind the status of the pedophile in an organization known for standing behind their own.

Per capita, the Catholic church has no more pedophiles in it's organization than MicroSoft.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 03:19 AM
It's no different than any other organization.

You can take the case of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State. Same instance, same protection behind the status of the pedophile in an organization known for standing behind their own.

Per capita, the Catholic church has no more pedophiles in it's organization than MicroSoft.

I dunno. I think Priests and the Catholic Church are held to a much higher societal and heavenly standard than an employee of Microsoft or even Jerry.

Theophilus
Feb 21st 2013, 03:22 AM
Understand that because I post something (someone else's viewpoint) doesn't necessarily mean I subscribe to it 100%. I thought the author made a good case and wanted to get other people's (members here) view on it. This was new to me too as I've already stated many times. That's it.

No explanation necessary, Nick...I was just stating the first thing that came to my mind.;)

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 03:22 AM
I highly doubt any person called to be a priest does so to molest boys, but it happens.

I agree. But, once homosexuals are in the priesthood, they're a huge risk to boys.

Reynolds357
Feb 21st 2013, 03:25 AM
I agree. But, once homosexuals are in the priesthood, they're a huge risk to boys.

Any more risk than a heterosexual priest is a risk to girls?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 03:26 AM
I agree. But, once homosexuals are in the priesthood, they're a huge risk to boys.

As someone else already pointed out, there is a weak link between homosexuals and pedophiles, which goes back to my previous point about repressed sexual urges manifesting in deviant ways.

TomH
Feb 21st 2013, 03:28 AM
I dunno. I think Priests and the Catholic Church are held to a much higher societal and heavenly standard than an employee of Microsoft or even Jerry.

That's why publicity is such that we SEE it in the headlines.

When's the last time you saw in the headlines ."MicroSoft saleman under suspicion of child molestation".

The way people hold others up as status symbols.
A priest represents the church.

A salesman isn't identified as a status symbol for the company that employes him.

The Catholic church would have a PR nightmare trying to suggest they're not responsible for what their employees do on their own time.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 03:34 AM
That's why publicity is such that we SEE it in the headlines.

When's the last time you saw in the headlines ."MicroSoft saleman under suspicion of child molestation".

The way people hold others up as status symbols.
A priest represents the church.

A salesman isn't identified as a status symbol for the company that employes him.

The Catholic church would have a PR nightmare trying to suggest they're not responsible for what their employees do on their own time.

That's life. James 3:1 says preachers/teachers/pastors will be held to a much higher standard come Judgement Day. Priests that become child molesters are not going to have a fun time in the Judgement Seat.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:38 AM
Any more risk than a heterosexual priest is a risk to girls?

Most of the victims are teenage boys. But, most of the priests are heterosexual. Do the math. Why does something so obvious need to be pointed out to you?

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 04:46 AM
Most of the victims are teenage boys. But, most of the priests are heterosexual. Do the math. Why does something so obvious need to be pointed out to you?

How do you know they are heterosexual?

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:48 AM
As someone else already pointed out, there is a weak link between homosexuals and pedophiles, which goes back to my previous point about repressed sexual urges manifesting in deviant ways.

The child molestation in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia. The victims are too old for that.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:51 AM
The child molestation in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia. The victims are too old for that.

At what age does pedophilia end and child molesting begin? Just curious.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:53 AM
How do you know they are heterosexual?

1 or 2% of the population is homosexual. Whatever you want to quibble about, you need to make a case that heterosexuals are not the majority of priests.

Mod Note: Post edited by BrianW to remove undignified remarks.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 04:58 AM
At what age does pedophilia end and child molesting begin? Just curious.

Pedophilia ends at puberty.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:00 AM
1 or 2% of the population is homosexual. Whatever you want to quibble about, you need to make a case that heterosexuals are not the majority of priests.
Mod Note: Post edited by BrianW to remove undignified remarks.

In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. It should be pointed out, too, that many Americans (at least one in six) could not give an estimate....seems A LOT higher than your 1-2%, but hey, what do I know?

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 05:05 AM
In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. It should be pointed out, too, that many Americans (at least one in six) could not give an estimate.

The homosexual lobby (thanks to the silence of good people) has been hugely successful in brainwashing the public. When the question no longer is how many people are homosexual, but what how do you yourself behave, the number drops to lower single-digits. However, even taking those numbers above, that's far from the 50 percent to challenge by assertion that most priests are heterosexuals.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 05:06 AM
1 or 2% of the population is homosexual. Whatever you want to quibble about, you need to make a case that heterosexuals are not the majority of priests.
Mod Note: Post edited by BrianW to remove undignified remarks.


I think most priests are not sexual at all. The same with nuns.


Mod Note: Post edited by BrianW.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 05:20 AM
I think most priests are not sexual at all. The same with nuns.

Practically every young priest-to-be consciously makes a decision about giving up women for the priesthood. Everyone who does this is a heterosexual. Putting aside their sexuality is a matter of discipline, not a matter of being inherently asexual.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 05:24 AM
Practically every young priest-to-be consciously makes a decision about giving up women for the priesthood. Everyone who does this is a heterosexual. Putting aside their sexuality is a matter of discipline, not a matter of being inherently asexual.

That I can agree with.

But that doesn't change the possibility that pedophiles are DRAWN to the priesthood.

You have also made the statement that most of the boys are too old for the priests to be considered pedophiles. On what do you base that statement?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:26 AM
The homosexual lobby (thanks to the silence of good people) has been hugely successful in brainwashing the public. When the question no longer is how many people are homosexual, but what how do you yourself behave, the number drops to lower single-digits. However, even taking those numbers above, that's far from the 50 percent to challenge by assertion that most priests are heterosexuals.

Well, unlike Vhayes, I was a former crackhead, but, the real percentage is much higher than 1-2%. Closet homosexuals are becoming much more comfortable stepping out since it is now socially acceptable to be gay. It's more socially acceptable to be gay than smoking a cigarette. My how things have changed. The poll taken in 2002 would probably show a much higher percentage today.

Noeb
Feb 21st 2013, 05:39 AM
Well, unlike Vhayes, I was a former crackhead, but, the real percentage is much higher than 1-2%. Closet homosexuals are becoming much more comfortable stepping out since it is now socially acceptable to be gay. It's more socially acceptable to be gay than smoking a cigarette. My how things have changed. The poll taken in 2002 would probably show a much higher percentage today.Sure, but look at the media and its viewers. I worked for Gallup for 3 years. Open ended to dumbed down americans yields a 10-15% margin of error. I agree 1-2% is low but 25% is high IMO even with those in the closet. From what I've seen recently 4-5% is given, then you have to add on closet cases.

Sheth
Feb 21st 2013, 05:46 AM
But that doesn't change the possibility that pedophiles are DRAWN to the priesthood.

You have also made the statement that most of the boys are too old for the priests to be considered pedophiles. On what do you base that statement?

Aside from the fact that child molestation in the Catholic Church technically is NOT pedophilia, I just don't see anyone entering the priesthood to get access to children.

A lifelong commitment of outwardly righteous living, along with all the training and duties of a priest, and giving up the option of a live-in arrangement, for an opportunity to score on a child? There are so many far easier ways. Become a daycare worker or a teacher. Volunteer with a youth organization. Pass out candy from a van. Date a woman with young children.

Becoming a priest to molest children is like becoming a medical doctor (to write nitro scripts) to blow up mailboxes. It's so much easier and more direct just to buy some big firecrackers.

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 05:52 AM
Well, unlike Vhayes, I was a former crackhead,

Thanks for this, Nick. I know you were serious but that made me smile.

Noeb
Feb 21st 2013, 05:54 AM
forgive me if anything has already been said........

In his letter to the Romans he talks about being a prisoner of the law of sin in his body - "…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:23).members, not member (destroys your theory)



In 2 Cor 12:7 he talks about "a thorn in his flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me". Some people think that was vision loss, others think malaria, and some others assume it was epilepsy. How would those physical ailments be messengers of Satan? They don't act as agents of temptation.and they need to?



In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins.where's this? Punishment for sins?



Could this be construed as what we call today "homophobia"?Not at all. I think you are confused of the meaning.



Paul also takes somewhat of a negative view of women and marriage.Where?



He writes “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1).Isn't it? I mean, unless you are married?



Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widows: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” (1 Corinthians 1:8).in the present distress!



Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 1:9).where'd you get this idea?



Now that we have considered this array of cluesWhere?



We return to the “war” in Paul’s “members.” This war in his members may have even beenyou base this on what, exactly?



What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind”?which part do you need to accomplish something?



If Paul was a gay man, a drastic rereading of Scripture would be demanded in light of such a discovery.Why? All sin is answered by "I am crucified with Christ".

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 02:14 PM
You raise a very good point. These pedophiles have been protected by bishops and the Catholic Church for God knows how long. Only recently was this exposed for what it is. Perhaps these pedophiles became Priests because they knew the church would protect them.

It was be almost impossible to pass through the rigors of catholic education and formation as a priest if one's primary or even secondary purpose was child molestation.

That's just nuts.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:04 PM
It was be almost impossible to pass through the rigors of catholic education and formation as a priest if one's primary or even secondary purpose was child molestation.

That's just nuts.

Seems pretty crazy, huh? Where there's a will there's a way. I still don't think the majority of the Priests that end up molesting boys go into Priesthood with that a purpose, but again, I'll restate my case that it was/is repressed sexual urges that manifest in this deviant behavior. You disagreed with that. Give me another plausible explanation for this phenomena if that wasn't their primary or secondary purpose (I agree with this, btw) and it's not repressed sexual urges. What else does that leave?

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 04:10 PM
Seems pretty crazy, huh? Where there's a will there's a way. I still don't think the majority of the Priests that end up molesting boys go into Priesthood with that a purpose, but again, I'll restate my case that it was/is repressed sexual urges that manifest in this deviant behavior. You disagreed with that. Give me another plausible explanation for this phenomena if that wasn't their primary or secondary purpose (I agree with this, btw) and it's not repressed sexual urges. What else does that leave?

It's called sin. I could care less about the psychobabble of "what caused the sin." It is sin, period. Opportunity + temptation = sin.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:27 PM
It's called sin. I could care less about the psychobabble of "what caused the sin." It is sin, period. Opportunity + temptation = sin.

Hmm. I teach a bible class for 5 graders every week (all boys too). I'm presented with the same "opportunity", but strangely enough, there is NO temptation or sin. Could the fact that I have sex almost everyday with my wife have anything to do with the lack of temptation?? You were so quick to dismiss my explanation yet you provided no alternative theory other than Opportunity + Temptation = sin. Really? For someone that could care less about the "psychobabble" it makes me wonder why the "psychobabble" was so quickly shot down as a plausible explanation.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 04:36 PM
I could care less about theories that little green men are on Mars. (For your information, the Green Men of Barsoom are HUGEEEEEEEEEEEE with 2 legs and 4 arms.)

The fact that you are tempted to sexually assault a fifth grade boy is meaningless as to whether some other person is. For you, there is no temptation. For others, there is great temptation.

The "why" of sin is a meaningless journey to an unreachable destination.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:40 PM
I could care less about theories that little green men are on Mars. (For your information, the Green Men of Barsoom are HUGEEEEEEEEEEEE with 2 legs and 4 arms.)

The fact that you are tempted to sexually assault a fifth grade boy is meaningless as to whether some other person is. For you, there is no temptation. For others, there is great temptation.

The "why" of sin is a meaningless journey to an unreachable destination.

I'm sorry, but that's total hogwash. There is a root cause for every sin.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 04:44 PM
I'm sorry, but that's total hogwash. There is root cause for every sin.

No there isn't. It is called "sin." Man is evil. "The heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it." "I know that in my heart is no good thing."

Flesh looks for a "reason," because if there is a "reason," then man can claim "excuse."

Pedophiles and child molesters are evil. Period. Just like liars, or people that cheat on their income taxes, or preachers that shear the sheep.

There is no root cause for every sin. We sin because we like it, we like the way it makes us feel, it feeds our rebellion against God.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:52 PM
No there isn't. It is called "sin." Man is evil. "The heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it." "I know that in my heart is no good thing."

Flesh looks for a "reason," because if there is a "reason," then man can claim "excuse."

Pedophiles and child molesters are evil. Period. Just like liars, or people that cheat on their income taxes, or preachers that shear the sheep.

There is no root cause for every sin. We sin because we like it, we like the way it makes us feel, it feeds our rebellion against God.

Interesting. So in your mind, there's no delineation between temptation and sin. The natural sequence of events is....Opportunity + Temptation = Sin. Do you preach that? We might as well eliminate counseling, therapy, medication, etc., because it makes no difference to look at the causes and conditions, right?

divaD
Feb 21st 2013, 04:53 PM
Could the fact that I have sex almost everyday with my wife have anything to do with the lack of temptation??

Absolutely not.

I don't have sex everyday with my wife, mainly because we don't like each other much anymore. It's been years actually. We don't even sleep in the same room anymore. So if I were in your situation, where I too taught 5th graders, and they were all boys, no way would I feel tempted in a gay way, the fact I'm no longer having a sex life with my wife. That has nothing to do with anything. A lack of sex with a partner does not equate to someone being attracted to the same sex then. It could tho, equate to being attracted to someone else tho, of the opposite sex, which then could lead to adultery. But that doesn't have to always be the case. It's not true in my case, not as of yet anyway.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 04:55 PM
Interesting. So in your mind, there's no delineation between temptation and sin. The natural sequence of events is....Opportunity + Temptation = Sin. Do you preach that?

That isn't even close to what I said. Of course there is a difference between temptation as sin. As Luther quipped, "you can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can keep it from building a nest in your hair."

You are reading "sequence" into a non-sequential equation. Temptation alone does not lead to sin, if there is no opportunity to act on the temptation. Opportunity alone does not lead to sin, unless there is temptation. When temptation exists, and opportunity exists simultaneously, the only thing that stops sin from occurring is an act of the will.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 04:59 PM
Absolutely not.

I don't have sex everyday with my wife, mainly because we don't like each other much anymore. It's been years actually. We don't even sleep in the same room anymore. So if I were in your situation, where I too taught 5th graders, and they were all boys, no way would I feel tempted in a gay way, the fact I'm no longer having a sex life with my wife. That has nothing to do with anything. A lack of sex with a partner does not equate to someone being attracted to the same sex then. It could tho, equate to being attracted to someone else tho, of the opposite sex, which then could lead to adultery. But that doesn't have to always be the case. It's not true in my case, not as of yet anyway.

Edit: Three questions: 1) how old are you? and 2) do you have a strong sex drive? 3) are you a male?

Age, gender and sex drive make a difference in everything you stated above. Hormones play a major part in this.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:01 PM
That isn't even close to what I said. Of course there is a difference between temptation as sin. As Luther quipped, "you can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can keep it from building a nest in your hair."

You are reading "sequence" into a non-sequential equation. Temptation alone does not lead to sin, if there is no opportunity to act on the temptation. Opportunity alone does not lead to sin, unless there is temptation. When temptation exists, and opportunity exists simultaneously, the only thing that stops sin from occurring is an act of the will.

Ah yes, will power. One of my favorites. Will power is useless, unless the person deals with the "why".

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:01 PM
Two questions: 1) how old are you? and 2) do you have a strong sex drive?

Age and sexual drive make a difference in everything you stated above. Hormones play a major part in this.

Age and sexual drive make no difference in what he stated. Unless you believe that men are animals controlled by their hormonal levels.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:02 PM
Ah yes, will power. One of my favorites. Will power is useless, unless the person deals with the "why".

The "why" is because God forbade an action. Who needs another reason?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:07 PM
The "why" is because God forbade an action. Who needs another reason?

What I'm talking about is the process of cleaning house, taking a moral inventory, getting down to the causes and conditions of deviant behavior, the "why"...Would your suggestion to an alcoholic be to move to Alaska and live in an igloo? Even then an Eskimo might show up with a bottle of jack Daniels. Then what?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:11 PM
Age and sexual drive make no difference in what he stated. Unless you believe that men are animals controlled by their hormonal levels.

Men are animals and hormones play a big role in that. It makes a big difference. If I have no sex drive would it be hard for me to be celibate? If there's no desire, there's no issue. What part of that is so hard for you (an educated guy) to understand?

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:16 PM
Men are animals and hormones play a big role in that. It makes a big difference. If I have no sex drive would it be hard for me to be celibate? If there's no desire, there's no issue. What part of that is so hard for you (an educated guy) to understand?

You may be an animal, but I am not. I am not controlled either by hormones or my gonads. You may be. You'll have to take care of that yourself.

Let's talk about Jesus. You think he was homosexual, or asexual? You think he never had an erection? You think he suffered from the latest rage, "Low T"? You think he never struggled with a thought about a woman passing through his head?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:21 PM
You may be an animal, but I am not. I am not controlled either by hormones or my gonads. You may be. You'll have to take care of that yourself.

Let's talk about Jesus. You think he was homosexual, or asexual? You think he never had an erection? You think he suffered from the latest rage, "Low T"? You think he never struggled with a thought about a woman passing through his head?

You're comparing Jesus (God) to normal men? Could you last 40 days in the desert without food?

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:29 PM
You're comparing Jesus (God) to normal men? Could you last 40 days in the desert without food?

Yes, I am comparing Jesus to normal men. Absolulely. When he ate beans, he farted. When he ate asparagus and peed, it smelled like asparagus.

Yes, I could last 40 days in the desert without food, if God lead me there by the Holy Spirit. I have had a number of friends over the years that were lead to engage in 40 day fast for a specific purpose, and yes, they dropped weight like a freight train, but they survived the fast in good health and spirit.

BrianW
Feb 21st 2013, 05:31 PM
Could someone rep RabbiKnife for me please?

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:35 PM
Yes, I am comparing Jesus to normal men. Absolulely. When he ate beans, he farted. When he ate asparagus and peed, it smelled like asparagus.

Yes, I could last 40 days in the desert without food, if God lead me there by the Holy Spirit. I have had a number of friends over the years that were lead to engage in 40 day fast for a specific purpose, and yes, they dropped weight like a freight train, but they survived the fast in good health and spirit.

Are you sure he farted?

Vhayes
Feb 21st 2013, 05:36 PM
Could someone rep RabbiKnife for me please?

Done. For both of us.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:36 PM
Are you sure he farted?

You ever eaten a handful of garbonzo beans and squash with onions?

Like a freight train chugging up a hill...

TomH
Feb 21st 2013, 05:38 PM
You're comparing Jesus (God) to normal men? Could you last 40 days in the desert without food?

You're comparing abnormal men to yourself.
And I gotta tell you Nick, your not doing yourself any favors.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:38 PM
You ever eaten a handful of garbonzo beans and squash with onions?

Like a freight train chugging up a hill...

My stomach hurts from laughing. That was good.

RabbiKnife
Feb 21st 2013, 05:39 PM
My stomach hurts from laughing. That was good.

I hope you kept your sphincter clenched...

:)

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:40 PM
You're comparing abnormal men to yourself.
And I gotta tell you Nick, your not doing yourself any favors.

Actually, I try to compare me to me, not anyone else. When I compare myself to others (abnormal or not) that's when I run into problems.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:45 PM
I hope you kept your sphincter clenched...

:)

I needed that this morning. Laughing is definitely good for the soul.

TomH
Feb 21st 2013, 05:45 PM
Actually, I try to compare me to me, not anyone else. When I compare myself to others (abnormal or not) that's when I run into problems.


Then you're either quite perfect and have never struggled with temptation, or have a very shallow view of sin.

Compassion usually comes from experience. Or a good imagination.

Nick
Feb 21st 2013, 05:49 PM
Then you're either quite perfect and have never struggled with temptation, or have a very shallow view of sin.

Compassion usually comes from experience. Or a good imagination.

Quite the contrary. I struggle with temptation all the time. The trick (for me) is to rat myself out when tempted to do something completely contrary to God's will. I did that here with one of the members via PM. I was about to do something that would have had severe consequences (it had to do with sexual sin too), but I ratted myself out here, which empowered me to speak to someone in person about the temptation, and it was completely diffused as a result.