PaulS

What I mean is that we cannot say that what we read in the earliest available manuscripts (dated circa 300) is identical to what was written, when it was written. I think we can, from a historical context, put things together and determine that such books existed, but are they carbon copies of the original writings? Were paragraphs added or subtracted in between whenever they were written and what we cite today as a genuine copy of the original? For instance, your bible may have a Mark 16:9-20 in it, but now we have older mansucripts, older 'copies' of the original, that don't have that ending. So which 'copy' is correct?

I'd like to think that wasn't Burl's own thoughts but rather as he says, him reporting on what he sees as a "steady move" in the US towards endorsing paedophilia and bestiality. I don't know myself just how 'steady' such movements are, but I don't live there. Personally, I doubt there are is any genuine progress towards such sick behaviour, but I'm sure the media can always dig up somebody for some sensational headlines. From an Australian context, as you would know Paul, this is a disgusting connection made by anti gay marriage people which has no basis for reality other than perhaps there is some lunatic fringe that does want to abuse children or animals. Thankfully in Australia there is no genuine progression towards ridiculous views like that.

Possibly, but I think unlikely (for an asexual person he does seem to have a bit to say about sex and sexual relations). But it's not absurd and obviously you make some assumptions to get to that point. All power to you, Burl.

My response is in light of you calling it 'absurd' that Paul was a repressed gay male. You can't have it both ways - sit on the fence when it suits but belittle another point of view. You obviously are making some assumptions about Paul to say it is absurd that he could have been gay, otherwise it can't be absurd. And Paul may well have been a choir director for all I know. I don't consider that absurd, but I don't read anything that might indicate that, which is a lot less than what I read that indicates his homosexuality. Does it matter - no, but I think it makes for an interesting discussion. I don't need to prove it either way.

Oops, forgot to address this bit. It's a bit of a sliding scale but I think Paul probably wrote Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galations, Collossians, Philppians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians. I'd speculate that he may or may not have written Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, and I lean more heavily towards Paul not having written 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. But i reserve the right to change my views depending on which biblical scholarship I am subjected to at the time I also generally think Paul had issues with women but do acknowledge there are contradictions and he isn't always spiteful towards them. I wouldn't bet my house on it that he was a committed misogynist, but I'd probably have a smaller side bet.

You already do speculate about Paul's sexuality - by assuming he's heterosexual when there is no evidence to prove such. It's just that you seem happy to accept that particular speculation. Each to their own. I think many a productive conversation has been had speculating about the factuality of biblical texts, but I think I understand how you see it differently. No problem.

Actual hard copies of any books attributed to the NT date no older than about the year 300. Scholars date the general content of those documents to the dates you mention, but with a gap of 200-250 years who knows how true to the originals such documents may be. I think we can say they may generally be similar but who really knows what's been added, removed, or incorrectly transcribed during the years.

No Burl, you well and truly miss the point if you think I think the writings of Paul, as we have them reported some hundreds of years after Paul's reported existence, are in fact factual. However, I note for the sake of discussion, that we don't actually have much else to work with, so kay sera sera. But let's pretend that it is you who is looking at Paul incorrectly (after all, I did offer several coherent reasons for suggesting Paul's repressed homosexuality). Do you care to provide any evidence that Paul was in fact a committed heterosexual? "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." William Shakespeare.

I have started a new thread Thormas to appropriately capture discussion on this issue, so i would like to read what critical biblical scholars have to say concerning Paul not being a repressed gay male.

Please refer to new appropriately initiated thread.

In another thread I said that the Apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual. I was challenged by Burl in that thread to provide evidence (as he thought it was an 'absurd' proposition) but as I didn't think we should hijack that thread (which concerned a separate, although somewhat related matter - gay marriage in Australia) so I suggested a new thread be started if he wanted to discuss the matter. That wasn't taken up by Burl and was misinterpreted as me not 'having' any 'evidence' and so not wanting to discuss the matter. Of course, I am always very happy to share my thoughts and opinions, although I have no need to 'prove' any of them.. So I have started a new thread myself for anyone who cares to have a discussion about this. I respect if you have a different opinion and wish you all the best in any event. A footnote for me - I couldn't care less if Paul was gay or not, and when it comes to 'evidence' from the New Testament, I acknowledge that the closest we have to the 'real thing' concerning the NT books and letters dates some 300 years after Jesus, so really, calling anything from the NT as hard evidence is dubious in my opinion. I also acknowledge that much of what goes for 'evidence' from the NT is often open to interpretation and speculation. Each to their own i say (unless it hurts others). A well known progressive christian, Bishop John Shelby Spong, made an excellent case for Paul's repressed homosexuality in his widely acclaimed book 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism'. Spong's basic tenet was that in re-reading works attributed to Paul, but reading them again as though Paul was a reprerssed gay man, made so much more sense of Paul's issues with self loathing/wretchedness, lack of self-control, his 'thorn in his side', and misogyny (admittedly Paul was living in a highly patriarchal society that often treated women like property, however he is a sole voice in the NT when it comes to putting women 'in their place'). To me, reading Paul in this way makes so much more sense. It's like listening to some politician or priest preaching immorality condemnation of homosexuality, only to be caught out a few years later with a computer full of kiddie porn or busted hooking up with men at a public toilet. It reads like repression of the highest order to me. Now is that 'evidence' that would hold in a modern court of law? Of course not. However, does the bible disprove of Paul being gay? If the burden of proof was reversed, how could one demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that Paul was not a repressed gay man? In fact, even measuring against the lower scale of 'balance of probabilities', I would say that Paul was most likely a repressed homosexual. It's okay to refute my view and say it's absurd because I can't prove it. Each to their own. But by that token wouldn't it be 'absurd' to say Paul was straight because there is no 'hard evidence' to support that notion either? Do our lenses affect our vision? Cheers Paul

No Burl, just asking that the matter be correctly redirected. I'm happy to do so if you're not though. In anticipation for the new thread though, I'd like you to think about what 'evidence' you can present to prove that Paul was heterosexual.

I think it's far from absurd and in fact very logical, but this thread wasn't started to debate Paul's sexual orientation, so perhaps you could consider starting a new thread if you would like to discuss further. One can certainly speculate with a high degree of probability that Paul was a repressed homosexual. Not that it matters if he was or wasn't in my opinion.

Yeah, Paul being a repressed gay man.

To the contrary Burl, I would be absolutely stunned if bestiality was at all pushed in Australia in any way, shape or form and I see no evidence of any movement here whatsoever toward progressing that. Maybe under your current outrageous leadership in the US people feel emboldened to do whatever the heck they want? Of course that doesn't stop the religious right here fear mongering that gay marriage will automatically lead to sex with animals and children. What they deliberately overlook is that gay marriage concerns mature consent, equality and human rights, whereas bestiality and paedophilia is non-consensual, abuses human rights and requires a power imbalance. Perhaps if they better understood the apostle Paul's homosexuality they might be more relaxed about the issue. Here, the US has a reputation for the whacky and insane (the saying 'only in America' comes to mind) but surely even there you don't have anybody seriously proposing bestiality and/or paedophilia (apart from some freaks and nut jobs)! Really?

Yes, non-binding but the Prime Minister has said legislation will be passed by Christmas, Plus the Opposition have said they would legalise SSM if they were to be elected next year. So technically not enacted yet but I'm confident it will be this year - the people have spoken.

When you say 'led the way' I guess you mean that the US was ahead of Australia in legalising gay marriage, because you do realise the US was as late as the 17th country in the world to legalise same sex marriage, some 15 or more years after other countries 'led the way'? Embarrassingly, it took Australia 2 more years than the US to get its stuff organised, but I'm so proud we got there and with inarguable support from the majority of the population.

We have been undergoing a postal plebiscite here in Australia for the past 6 or so weeks, concerning gay marriage. Australians were asked to vote either Yes or No to the question - "Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?" I'm proud to say that Australians overwhelming voted in favour of accepting gay marriage - 62% voted yes and only 38% votes against. Voting was optional but 80% of eligible voters took the opportunity to have their say. Every State & Territory across Australia recorded a majority 'yes' vote above 60%. The last hurdle is for legislation to now be passed which supports the changes, but our prime Minister says that will be in place by Christmas.

An excerpt from a Marcus Borg article on the interpretation of this verse, and full link to article at the bottom: The same point is made in a story I heard about a sermon preached by a Hindu professor in a Christian seminary several decades ago. The text for the day included the "one way" passage, and about it he said, "This verse is absolutely true--Jesus is the only way." Then, he continued, "And that way--of dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being--is known in all of the religions of the world." The "way" of Jesus is a universal way, known even to millions who have never heard of Jesus. The way of Jesus is thus not a set of beliefs about Jesus. That people ever thought it was is strange, when we think about it--as if one entered new life by believing certain things to be true, or as if the only people who can be saved are those who know the word "Jesus." Thinking that way virtually amounts to salvation by syllables. Rather, the way of Jesus is the way of death and resurrection--the path of transition and transformation from an old way of being to a new way of being. To use the language of incarnation that is so central to John, Jesus incarnates the way. Incarnation means embodiment. Jesus is what the way embodied in a human life looks like. http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2000/08/jesus-the-way-the-truth-the-life.aspx

Welcome to the forum 'possibility'. Spong's 12 points are brilliant and clearly very much a challenge to 'traditional' Christianity. They spoke to me also when I first read them. I joined here 6 or 7 years ago and was stunned to find people who looked at Christianity a different way to how I had been raised and indoctrinated. But I found the people here and the resources available immensely beneficial and even integral to me having some faith in Christianity again. I think the world will be a better place to see the back of that old time Christianity. Cheers Paul

Yes, he writes very well and makes excellent points. I can certainly relate to his opening paragraph concerning rebelling against Christianity (the tradition I was raised in) only to find that as I grow older I have begun in a strange way to recover my past, albeit a far, far cry from the Christianity I was indoctrinated with. I take some things from Christianity which I think are useful and ignore or reject much of it. But in doing so, I must say I am left with a very Buddhist Christianity! What I take away from his article is that all these 'tools' we have to cope with life are just that - tools. They're not answers to an afterlife, they're not Golden Rules where failure to adhere means tragedy, and they don't all work the same for everybody. Of course, whilst Huxley may have coined the term, agnostic thought has been around since before Moses' day. I like how he recognises agnosticism for what it is rather than how many portray it to be (laziness about not 'seeking' etc). Such people already have all the answers so they don't seem to be able to entertain that they're thinking doesn't work for everybody. Each to their own. Whereas Buddhism says "this is the way, unless you find another". Naturally humans get in their own way and start creating rules and dogma and beliefs which either must be adhered to or accepted. I am sure neither Buddha or Jesus expected things to turn out the way they have concerning both traditions.

I read the reference you provided Rom and agree that most of the time we are perhaps not self-conscious. Nonetheless, at times we are, and that is what I was questioning about an insect - do they have such moments too? The article wasn't promoting the non-existence of self consciousness from what I read/understood of it, but rather was simply saying that we aren't using it a lot of the time.

No, I understand you were mucking around off the back of Burl's comment, but was just bringing the conversation back gently to serious consideration of insectoid consciousness. How do we know more goes on in our minds throughout life than in an insects? Because they don't do they things 'we' attribute that a self-conscious or self-aware entity should? Indeed, we have/do believe things to be a certain way. Much of our thinking has been challenged in recent decades by science and new discoveries are being made all the time. Perhaps one day science may indeed be able to drill down into this issue further. As for now, of course conclusive evidence seems unavailable.

I would suggest that if you were hit by a fast moving bus unwittingly, your mind might not be that much more active than the spider's. But would the spider think of more in-depth and self conscious things if he had warning? Perhaps. Increasingly, science is determining animals have self awareness (primates, dolphins, elephants, even magpies). We humans do have a tendency to judge things by our understanding of how we think things should be. I find it interesting that we dismiss insectoid intelligence/self awareness because it doesn't meet the parameters that we have determined are required to meet the definition we have created. I wonder if insects might hold a different opinion.

From what I can tell with my empirical Google research, insects seem to retain some of their brain and remodel other parts of it (sensory and motor neurons) during these transitions. So perhaps they retain their 'identity' and consciousness over the various stages but have the self awareness to understand they have new abilities and new purpose with their new body? Maybe insects consider themselves 'born-again'!