« Christianity’s Terrorist Dogma In Paul’s Own Words | Home | O Christ-Worshippers! »
Did Paul Had Homosexual Urges?
By paulus | April 23, 2007
The Christian missionaries have accused the Prophet Muhammad (P) of being a sexual pervert, let us now turn the tables upon them and apply their own perverted thoughts upon the Christian religious personalities in order to see its outcome. In the book of Acts we are informed that Paul had Timothy circumcised:
1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:3, American Standard Version)
Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more trouble Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy’s father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?
To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not - so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant - that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham’s penis when, at God’s insistence, he circumcised himself - heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant…even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised….
Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision….Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to ‘become Jews’ without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship ‘impeded the arrival of the Messiah’. While ’semi-converts’ were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts…. (A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, (Pimlico, 1998), p. 128)
So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? A. N. Wilson further explains that:
By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator — the mohel, the professional circumciser — with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul’s Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually ‘cut you…off from Christ’. (Ibid., p. 131)
In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:
2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. (Gal 5:2-6, American Standard Version)
However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him any further. Since we are aware of Paul’s intense opposition to circumcision no matter what the reasons are, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates the hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, so when an opportunity comes along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now has a good excuse to take a penis into his mouth and no one could object to that.
One cannot claim that someone other than Paul had circumcised Timothy, because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who had circumcised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to circumcise Timothy if indeed he was taunchly opposed to the practise, as related in the account in Galatians. But that he did went ahead and conducted the circumcision gives us a reason to pause, as it suggests that he had homosexual urges.
Now it is our turn to say:
Whatever interpretation Christians may have given to Paul’s action later on (whether correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and disgusting to say the least.
Please note that if such a tradition was located within any Islamic literature or in the Qur’an, and if it is required to take the private organ with one’s mouth, the above is precisely the type of argument the Christian missionaries would have vigorously launched in their papers in order to demonise Muslims and their religion. Hence the above paragraph is in reality the outcome if one happens to think like a pervert like the Christian missionaries.
Topics: Article |
April 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I am just wondering who sucked the blood out of Abrahma”s penis when he was circumcised. Besides, is it necessary to do this for adults? The blood just come our naturally, unlike infants which are 8 days old…
May 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
So essentially you think Paul was gay because he circumcised Timothy ? Sorry but why does that mean he is gay, does this mean all Jews gay then as well ?
Paul didn’t want to do this either, he was relucant. His relationship to Timothy he frequently refers to that of Father to Son. You would not want to commit homosexuality against your own son would you ?
Gay because he circumcised someone, the rest of your narrative “a desire to put his penis in his mouth” is your invention.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
LOL!!! This just proves how desperate you truly are. I am sure it is every gay man’s dream to get a mouth full of blood. LOL!!! I guess all Muslims, then, are gay because they believe in being circumcised, too, don’t they? They even circumcise women. YIKES!
June 5th, 2007 at 8:03 am
may god forgive you for everything you say…..may he grant such that your eyes may be opened
June 12th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
“Gay because he circumcised someone, the rest of your narrative “a desire to put his penis in his mouth†is your invention.”
can’t u read that A. N. Wilson wrote that? Not this blog writer.
No Muslim will ever do that..
June 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Wow! what depths you go to deceive yourself. You won’t become a better Muslim by hating Christians just stick to propogating Islam. Islam means peace not hate and kill.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:49 am
In the name of Allah, Most gracious and most merciful
Assalamualaikum and peace to my non muslim friends.
Just as i do not subcribe to Pauline’s teaching yet I find this article is nonesense.
As a muslimah, I apologized that such thing is invention & sad to see such arcticles
May our Christian friends come to study our holy Koran and be benefited from it. Come and let us reason out together.
Insha Allah.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
[...] Come to think of it, I really shouldn’t be. After all, we know where the fruits of such teachings come from. Where Islam is concerned, it is very clear on the status of homosexuality in Islam, no ifs and [...]
November 6th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Keep on telling the truth to these demonic christians!That’s the one thing they hate is the truth!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Asalmau alikum,
We can see the clear cut contradictions of the so called bibles.
How can human beings believe in such corrupted books made by people to be the words of God Almighty?
Yes, there are Deaf, Dumb and Blinds.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from God,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)”
July 21st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the writer is trying to prove how pathetic these Christian missionaries are. We should know that this article was in response to the Christian accusations. If a Christian find this article laughable, the whole missionary website is full of this, and no wonder Muslims just can’t help but laugh..as the writer says: “let us now turn the tables upon them and apply their own perverted thoughts upon the Christian religious personalities in order to see its outcome.”