[classyT]

I don't see how it would diminish anything.

I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?

I'm also unclear what this "half the picture" is that Wondergirl is supposedly omitting.

Well, the apostle Paul wrote against homosexual behavior.. he said it was sin. That is kind of important before I fill you in. He said he died daily, ( psst. When you do that, you don't fulfill the lust of the flesh), he also said he was MORE than a conqueror, therefore he wasn't living in a active sin lifestyle. And that would include lusting after women as well. He said he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. He said he was in a race and he was running for the prize set before him which was Christ ( gosh, that doesn't sound like a guy boggled down with thoughts of another man) He said for him to LIVE was Christ and to die was to gain.. this wasn't a man struggling with some sin cycle. That wondergirl thinks he felt shame about. The man understood how to REALLY live and that was dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus. He DID in romans 7 give a picture of the man that struggled with sin the struggle EVERY Christian goes through in order to get victory and he gives the outline for victory in romans 8. This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh and it IS in fact demeaning to say otherwise.

[classyT]

Be careful with apostrophes too. Plural nouns don't get one.

Guys... my grammar and punctuation sucks rocks. Sorry, if that is all you got though.. I understand.

[Akoue]

Okay, so he wasn't engaging in homosexual sex--neither was he engaging in heterosexual sex. He wasn't "boggled down with thoughts of another man", nor of any woman. How does his sexual orientation change anything? He didn't lust after men or women, so what's the diff? Except that some people don't like the thought that he might have been gay. I just don't see what hangs on his sexual orientation. In dying to the flesh he would have died to whatever lusts--heterosexual or homosexual--that he had had.

[Wondergirl]

he wasn't living in a active sin lifestyle

I didn't say he was. BEING a homosexual isn't the same as BEHAVING in a homosexual manner.

dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus

Exactly!! Homosexuals can do that too.

This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh

Again, exactly! Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him. And none of what you say would knock out his being a homosexual. In fact, your arguments make it even more plausible!

[classyT]

Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him. And none of what you say would knock out his being a homosexual. In fact, your arguments make it even more plausible!

More plausible? LOL okie dokie care to expand?

[classyT]

Okay, so he wasn't engaging in homosexual sex--neither was he engaging in heterosexual sex. He wasn't "boggled down with thoughts of another man", nor of any woman. How does his sexual orientation change anything? He didn't lust after men or women, so what's the diff? Except that some people don't like the thought that he might have been gay. I just don't see what hangs on his sexual orientation. In dying to the flesh he would have died to whatever lusts--heterosexual or homosexual--that he had had.

Well, akoue, I do believe that he was in fact married at least at one time. He was a pharisee and in order to be one, you had to be married. He admitted he was a murderer, in fact he killed Christians before becoming saved. There is just no indication whatsoever that he was homosexual and correct me wondergirl if I am wrong here but I THINK she is implying he was STRUGGLING with this behavior.

[classyT]

Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him.

HOW? Everything I said about him came right out of his epistles. I didn't quote the bible word for word but I didn't exaggerate. HE SAID IT.

[Akoue]

So he had to be married in order to be a Pharisee. And he really wanted to be a Pharisee... See where I'm going with this? If you have to do B in order to do A (and you really want to do A), then the rational thing to do is... B.

I just honestly couldn't care less whether he was gay or not. It wouldn't diminish him one bit in my eyes.

But maybe that's why he never once used the standard term for homosexuality in his epistles. Maybe that's why he used as unusual a term as "arsenokoitai", in preference to a term that would have been completely unambigious in his condemnation of homosexuality of any kind. Perhaps he was WAy ahead of his times.

[Tj3]

And that proves what, if he was a homosexual?

I am still waiting for you to come forward with something of substance. That IF is one massive "IF".

[Tj3]

That's what my list does, takes his words right out of the epistles.

Except that some of your claims are not Biblical (words added, subtracted or altered) and NONE of them even suggests that he was a homosexual.

[Wondergirl]

Well, akoue, I do believe that he was in fact married at least at one time. He was a pharisee and in order to be one, you had to be married. He admitted he was a murderer, in fact he killed Christians before becoming saved. There is just no indication whatsoever that he was homosexual and correct me wondergirl if i am wrong here but I THINK she is implying he was STRUGGLING with this behavior.

He couldn't be a married homosexual?
He couldn't be a homosexual and murder Christians?
No one struggles with their sexual feelings? (not behavior -- homosexuals can be that without the behavior)

[Tj3]

except it makes NO sense how he could suddenly be given a THORN and the THORN was to lust after men..LOL it is so silly.

Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.

Since when does God tempt us with sin?

James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
NKJV

[Tj3]

He couldn't be a married homosexual?
He couldn't be a homosexual and murder Christians?
No one struggles with their sexual feelings? (not behavior -- homosexuals can be that without the behavior)

So far your strongest argument appears to be innuendo against Paul.

[Tj3]

I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?

You may want to ask Wondergirl why she keeps pushing this unBiblical idea.

[Wondergirl]

Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.

You're the only one saying it was sinful. God didn't say that.

[Akoue]

I don't really see how it is any more or less "Biblical" than the idea that Paul was straight. But, then again, I rarely know what you mean when you throw around the words "Biblical" and "unBiblical". It sometimes looks like "Biblical" just means "Tom likes it" and "unBiblical" means "Tom doesn't like it". But that's just me. I'm not interested in making a thing out of it. But it also means that I don't think that Wondergirl is out of line to raise the issue. Seems perfectly fine to me.

[Wondergirl]

You may want to ask Wondergirl why she keeps pushing this unBiblical idea.

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

[Tj3]

You're the only one saying it was sinful. God didn't say that.

But He did - not just in the NT but also in the OT. We have already shown you some passages.

[Tj3]

There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.

So are you telling us that you deny that the Bible is right when it says that homosexuality is sinful?

[Tj3]

I don't really see how it is any more or less "Biblical" than the idea that Paul was straight.

It is unBiblical because her claim is not found in the Bible.