Was Paul gay?

[Ooberman]

In researching some of the claims made by anti-gay people, I kept coming across references to studies that show the most vehement against gay people usually have gay thoughts or feelings they either don't understand or don't like.

This seemed to much of a joke, but, lo, the studies have shown this.

Quote:
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u ... _et_al.pdf


Also, here is an interesting study:

Quote:


Personality and Emotional Correlates of Self-Reported Antigay Behaviors


Abstract

This study examined the relationship between the emotional response of homophobia and selected personality and self-report behavioral variables. Scales 4, 5, and 9 of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory were related to the affective components of homophobia as measured by the Index of Attitudes Towards Homosexuals (IAH; formerly Index of Homophobia-Modified) and self-report of past aggressive behavior toward homosexuals as measured by a Self-Report of Behavior Scale (SBS), specifically developed for this study. Data from 80 male subjects were subjected to a canonical correlation analysis. The first cannonical correlation showed that high SBS and high IAH are correlated with adherence to traditional masculine values, not faking good, impulsivity, and social maladjustment. The second canonical correlation indicates that a combination of high scores on Scales 9 and 5 is associated with elevated SBS scores, but decreased IAH scores. These data suggest that among young men certain personality characteristics (Scales 9 and 5) compound homonegative affect and behavior.


http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/10/3/354.abstract

The MMPI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... _Inventory

The SBS:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?i ... A3L0IGH_bh...

The IAH:
http://www.walmyr.com/IHPSAMPL.pdf

A study testing to see if the IAH was valid:


Quote:
Testing the reliability and validity of the Index of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals (IAH) in Australia.

Pain MD, Disney ME.

Department of Psychology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract

Previous researchers have used a modified version of the Index of Attitudes toward Homosexuals (IAH; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980) and have reported their own reliability coefficients but relied on the authors' original validity data (Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Whitley, 1987; Ernulf, Innala, & Whitam, 1989; Rudolph, 1989, 1990). In order to determine if the IAH was a reliable and valid instrument in Australia, the psychometrics of this test were examined using a student population of comparable size to Hudson and Ricketts's sample. It was expected that the 150 students (92 males and 58 females) would respond in much the same way as their US counterparts. This research found the IAH to be reliable (r = .94) and valid for Australian populations and is a recommended instrument for measuring attitudes toward homosexual people.




What is interesting about the Personality and Emotional Correlates of Self-Reported Antigay Behaviors study is that antigay behavior is corrolated to "adherence to traditional masculine values, not faking good, impulsivity, and social maladjustment."

That is,

1. Manly-men who feel there are strict roles for the genders (I am reminded of Euphrates claim that only men can mow the lawn).

2. People who are less able to fake good behavior. So, even though society may tell them being kind to gay people is nice, they can't control themselves.

3. Impulsivity: speaks for itself.

4. Social maladjustment. Also speaks for itself.


All in all, here is the question: are homophobes bad for society? Should homophobes be arrested, locked up or perhaps changed via medical experimentation?

As the studies show, antigay behavior is associated with a number of negative attributes that endanger society.

For example, should they not be allowed to marry? Have children? Sign up for military service? should they have to wear big red X's?

What is societies role in limiting the negative affects of homophobic people?

What other studies can help us understand the science behind homophobia?

Is there a cure?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]


Honestly, when you say Adonai, I have no idea who you are talking about. And, perhaps to my shame, I really don't care.

I generally talk about the OT and NT with respect to the more common interpretations of those books, not fringe groups.

For all I know, your off-shoot of Judaism or Christianity translates every other word as "pumpkin".

I suspect you are some kind of Jesus follower, but from your posts you seem to have very different interpretations of the Bible.

[Ooberman]

BTW, my question about Paul's sexuality isn't only wondered by me.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christi ... l-Gay.aspx

There are also people who think Jesus was probably gay:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... y-probably


I think it's an interesting question, since it would certainly change most Christian theology fairly drastically.

It would mean the Church was overrun by anti-gay people, and would have had a history of hiding truths about Jesus.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]


Honestly, when you say Adonai, I have no idea who you are talking about. And, perhaps to my shame, I really don't care.

I generally talk about the OT and NT with respect to the more common interpretations of those books, not fringe groups.

For all I know, your off-shoot of Judaism or Christianity translates every other word as "pumpkin".

I suspect you are some kind of Jesus follower, but from your posts you seem to have very different interpretations of the Bible.

Well, if one is going to make such a statement about an individual that is primarily known by what is written about him in the bible, it might be good to look at biblical passages and focus on what is being posted, not what one expects to be posted. By the way, Adonai means lord and is used instead of the name of the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov.

The two articles you posted are pure speculation and agenda driven, one explicitly so, as an exegetical tool and the other to support a personal concern for how homosexuals are treated today. The first uses pop psychology to diagnose the views of Paul that he disagrees with as adverse projection. The second plays on the old interpretation of brotherly love as sexual affection, based on the fact that in current secular society, where fraternal sexual affection is permitted, any lack of sexual affection must be made clear.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]


Honestly, when you say Adonai, I have no idea who you are talking about. And, perhaps to my shame, I really don't care.

I generally talk about the OT and NT with respect to the more common interpretations of those books, not fringe groups.

For all I know, your off-shoot of Judaism or Christianity translates every other word as "pumpkin".

I suspect you are some kind of Jesus follower, but from your posts you seem to have very different interpretations of the Bible.

Well, if one is going to make such a statement about an individual that is primarily known by what is written about him in the bible, it might be good to look at biblical passages and focus on what is being posted, not what one expects to be posted. By the way, Adonai means lord and is used instead of the name of the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov.

The two articles you posted are pure speculation and agenda driven, one explicitly so, as an exegetical tool and the other to support a personal concern for how homosexuals are treated today. The first uses pop psychology to diagnose the views of Paul that he disagrees with as adverse projection. The second plays on the old interpretation of brotherly love as sexual affection, based on the fact that in current secular society, where fraternal sexual affection is permitted, any lack of sexual affection must be made clear.

1. The studies aren't "pop psychology". They are based on normal psychology. Saying "pop psychology" is an attempt to poison the well. We are more sophisticated debaters than that, aren't we?

If you want to undermine the studies, tell us why they are wrong, not claim they are wrong because they are popular.

2. Is there any problem with Paul being gay, for your position?

If so, then aren't you an extremely biased source, as would be all the documents you would offer?

[Haven]

Honestly, when you say Adonai, I have no idea who you are talking about. And, perhaps to my shame, I really don't care.

Adonai is a Hebrew term meaning "lord," and it is often used by Jews to refer to the Abrahamic god.

[Wootah]

All in all, here is the question: are homophobes bad for society?

No, it's natural.

Should homophobes be arrested, locked up or perhaps changed via medical experimentation?

No it's natural.

As the studies show, antigay behavior is associated with a number of negative attributes that endanger society.

For example, should they not be allowed to marry? Have children? Sign up for military service? should they have to wear big red X's?

No it's natural.

What is societies role in limiting the negative affects of homophobic people?

Nothing.

What other studies can help us understand the science behind homophobia?

I am not well researched on the matter to help with that.

Is there a cure?

Everything is natural and there is no need to cure anything.


What I can say is that I know a person who has a dog phobia. I have never witnessed anyone that you consider a homophobe react like my friend does to a dog. I think phobia is a totally inappropriate word to be used as it belittles those people who do have phobias and demeans their conditions.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]


Honestly, when you say Adonai, I have no idea who you are talking about. And, perhaps to my shame, I really don't care.

I generally talk about the OT and NT with respect to the more common interpretations of those books, not fringe groups.

For all I know, your off-shoot of Judaism or Christianity translates every other word as "pumpkin".

I suspect you are some kind of Jesus follower, but from your posts you seem to have very different interpretations of the Bible.

Well, if one is going to make such a statement about an individual that is primarily known by what is written about him in the bible, it might be good to look at biblical passages and focus on what is being posted, not what one expects to be posted. By the way, Adonai means lord and is used instead of the name of the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov.

The two articles you posted are pure speculation and agenda driven, one explicitly so, as an exegetical tool and the other to support a personal concern for how homosexuals are treated today. The first uses pop psychology to diagnose the views of Paul that he disagrees with as adverse projection. The second plays on the old interpretation of brotherly love as sexual affection, based on the fact that in current secular society, where fraternal sexual affection is permitted, any lack of sexual affection must be made clear.

1. The studies aren't "pop psychology". They are based on normal psychology. Saying "pop psychology" is an attempt to poison the well. We are more sophisticated debaters than that, aren't we?

If you want to undermine the studies, tell us why they are wrong, not claim they are wrong because they are popular.

2. Is there any problem with Paul being gay, for your position?

If so, then aren't you an extremely biased source, as would be all the documents you would offer?

Oh, terms like "fringe groups" don't poison the well? Also, dismissing my statements by confessing ignorance by saying that my "off-shoot" may translate every other word as "pumpkin" is not serious dialogue. One might also enquire regarding what one believes rather than just make presumptions. As I said about Paul, one might want to address what is written by and about a person before drawing conclusions.

[Mugview]

It has been discussed whether Paul or Jesus could be gay.

The evidence from their own sayings may reject that hypothesis.

Both Jesus and Paul claimed to be strict followers of Torah, and Leviticus 18 in the Torah clearly states the prohibition of physical homosexual relationship. Pharisees were very sensitive to this issue and Paul was a Pharisee. Jesus told his disciples to be more righteous than the Pharisees. With all their enemies circling to find the slightest mistake, it would have been easy to find out if that really happened.

It's better not to follow any speculations regarding this matter.