From: rdb147t@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Joel Hynoski)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Thorn in the flesh
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:43:07 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Caulfield Campus

In article <Apr.14.03.34.22.1992.14159@dumas.rutgers.edu> rlwinter@taco.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein) writes:
>
>  I would like to hear what people think about the hypothesis that Paul may
>have been homosexual.  Please, refrain from responding unless you have an
>informed opinion on this as I do not wish to see another round of gay-bashing.
>
>Rick
>
>[I'm only willing to engage in discussion on this subject if someone
>is interested in supporting the idea.  I don't see any point in
>a zillion messages opposing an idea that no one is proposing.  --clh]


I've discussed this proposition at great length with a friend who was
once my Pastor and is now a missionary in Thailand who ministered and
evangelised among the gay community here in Melbourne.  It is a
distinct possibility that Paul, PRIOR to his experience in meeting
with Christ on the road to Damascus, may have at least experienced
homosexual urgings if not been practising homosexuality.

You have to remember, Paul was a fairly high profile figure in the
Hebrew community in Jerusalem at the time of his conversion - he was
well known around the Synagogue and had helped the High Priest and his
lackeys do the dirty work on Christians and others before. How else
would he have secured the 'blessing' of the synagogue to go to
Damascus to purge the city of the renegade Christians?  In Jewish
religion - the Old Testament Laws and especially the Pentateuch are
strictly followed.  This includes the numerous references in
Deuteronomy, Leviticus about 'You must not lie with a man as with a
woman - that is detestable'. The Jews took these things seriously,
didn't they?  Surmising from this, I find it very difficult to believe
that Paul was a PRACTISING homosexual, or he would surely have been
stoned many years previous and never rose to such prominence in the
Jerusalem synagogue.

However, I believe a lot of the evidence in Scripture points to the
distinct possibility that Paul may have been a homosexual. His 'thorn
in the flesh' was one with which he battled daily, and had to
'wrestle' with. It is also interesting that God did not take this
thorn away when Paul requested it of him - any theories on why such a
thorn would not be taken away from a powerful man of God?  To have
Paul give in EVEN ONCE to his homosexual yearnings (or thorn...his
love for God and his fervency for the things of the Spirit probably
make yearn too strong a word...) would have spelt disaster for the
early Church. This is all digression...Paul frequently professed his
'love' for the young men he took under his wing - viz Timothy, Silas
etc etc. He says ( and I don't have my Bible right here at the moment
sorry ) he was like a FATHER to these guys. It is possible that God
transformed his want for the company of other men sexually to a
fatherly love for young men for the purposes of discipling and
nurturing. If we take the 'thorn' into account, we shudder to even
imagine the struggles Paul may have felt - especially going to places
in Greece and Macedonia where homosexual practises were quite open and
accepted in that day.

Another scripture is that about marriage - Paul seems to point to
celibacy as the 'best' view.  Marriage is obviously 'not for him', and
we can surmise that he had no desire for women (maybe I'm reading a
bit more into it than I should.) But it stands to reason that Paul HAD
to choose celibacy because he could never express his sexual urges
constructively and could never 'marry' another man.

Discussing this with several gay friends I have, it seems that the
belief among "Gay Churches" is that where the standard translations
render 'homosexual' or 'male shrine prostitute' it is only condemning
the act of free, random sexual relations. I have my doubts on this
matter, however it raises an interesting point, in relation to the
Paul bit. Paul was quite possibly tormented by consuming homosexual
toughts and persuasions, but there is no record of him ever giving in
to them.  I think this is the major thought - because of the way of
the world and that we are steeped in sin from birth due to Adams's
sell-out to satan, men and women are going to be born/made/developed
(depending on your view of the acquisition of homosexuality) gay. Paul
may have been one of these - it is not specifically noted in the
Bible, but there are many now who consider this the major theory. God,
in His infinite Love, Mercy, Grace and understanding ACCEPTED and
CALLED Paul to serve Him, to do great and miraculous things for the
Almighty God.

We mustn't quibble on the fact of whether or not Paul was homosexual,
just upon the fact that God, regardless of Paul's background LOVED and
USED him for good.
-- 
*************************************************************
*  "What happened to Harry?" "I let him go."                *
*             Joel Hynoski                                  *
*************************************************************

[Well, I guess this qualifies as someone who asserts the claim Richard
was asking about.  But I'm at a loss as to how any discussion would
proceed on this though, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence
cited.  Paul does indicate his reasons for thinking celibacy is
better, so I don't think we have to assume it's because he didn't
understand the attraction of women.  --clh]