I can't believe this - qs about St Paul

[RNRobert]

Folks this grew out of speculation bandied about by.
a Bishop who frequently publishes. His name is John
Shelby Spong. I think it first appeared in his book, “Rescuing
The Bible From Fundamentalism”.

PS An Episcopal Bishop

Yeah, out of fundamentalism and into liberalism! :bigyikes:

Isn’t this the same guy who claimed Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and declared the Resurrection a myth?

 

[Riley259]

Folks this grew out of speculation bandied about by.
a Bishop who frequently publishes. His name is John
Shelby Spong. I think it first appeared in his book, “Rescuing
The Bible From Fundamentalism”.

PS An Episcopal Bishop

Oh, ok…that explains it.

 

[sing]

This has been floating around for a number of years and amounts to an extreme attempt to be inclusive by liberals, as well as wishful thinking by gay activists, who commonly ascribe homosexuality to everyone from Shakespeare, to Galileo, to Lincoln, to anyone other notable person that isn’t around to defend themselves.

These allegations have no basis in fact; give them all the consideration they deserve – none.

Not to go off topic, but have you ever studied Shakespeare’s sonnets?

I don’t see why anyone would be offended at the suggestion that Paul might have been gay. He obviously regarded homosexuality as an evil, and if he was gay, would have been a very self-hating gay who followed the Church’s demands to the letter. For Paul to be a homosexual would mean that he was the model that all Catholics who are gay are supposed to follow.

 

[Fidelis]

Not to go off topic, but have you ever studied Shakespeare’s sonnets?

Of course.

I don’t see why anyone would be offended at the suggestion that Paul might have been gay. He obviously regarded homosexuality as an evil, and if he was gay, would have been a very self-hating gay who followed the Church’s demands to the letter. For Paul to be a homosexual would mean that he was the model that all Catholics who are gay are supposed to follow.

Not offended, just in favor of the truth and opposed to drawing inferences based on wishful thinking. I absolutely *loathe *ANY group trying to co-opt a historical figure to bolster their own narrow special interests. Just as you cannot say “Shakespeare was gay because a few of his sonnets sound to us like they may slightly homoerotic,” one cannot in any way infer that based on his writings, St. Paul was gay. *Could *he have been? Anything is possible – he may have been an Eskimo masquarading as a Jew, for all that. But based on the available evidence, to suggest that he might have been gay – let alone to outright state that he was – is irresponsible, to say the least.

Offensiveness is not the issue. Truth is.

 

[steveandersen]

Doesn’t sound like something that a person of that orintation would say.

I don’t know about that
What about that evangelical guy who was caught with a male prostitute this summer? I forget his name…Haggard?

Sometimes those who make the most noise against it are the most worried about it.

Not that this applies to St Paul.
I’ve heard him called many things but never gay (in either sense of the word)

 

[Struggle]

Very well stated! The truth is the issue.