Was John Calvin Gay?

[debrand]

I like to check the Puritan Forum because those guys and gals are sometimes a little crazy. Imagine my surprise when I found this question and not any answers that denied the charge

 

 

Quote

The person who posted this is seems rabidly anti-calvin (judging by other things he wrote) but this was sent to me by a Roman Catholic proving that Calvin was a homosexual.

https://sites.google.com/site/standf...534-conviction

Responses?

 

The respondents don't really give any reason why it isn't true just that it isn't true. One person said that Calvin was convicted at 18 before he was a believer. Is that true? I don't want to have to wade into blogs debating back and forth the truth or falseness of the allegations. Have any of you heard about these accusations and are they true? If it isn't true, the people on the Puritan Board do not do a good job of defending John Calvin.

 

puritanboard.com/f134/john-calvin-homosexual-71341/

[browncoatslytherin]

interesting. i had not heard that particular charge before, but then again, growing up in that world, if anything like that were true i would tend to think it would be swept under the rug. i had never even heard of speculation that david had a sexual or romantic-type of relationship with jonathan in the bible, but once i heard it, it did make some bible passages look rather interesting and possibly fitting in that context.

sorry for the non-answer, just offering a possible explanation as to why nobody is coming forth with any concrete rebuttal.

[Sobeknofret]

I haven't heard about Calvin being gay, but Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the Apostle Paul may have been...

[browncoatslytherin]

I haven't heard about Calvin being gay, but Bishop John Shelby Spong argues that the Apostle Paul may have been...

as i got out of christianity, i also heard that as well. perhaps it was the conservative flavour i was in, but speculation on sexuality of a christian leader was a never-discussed topic. everyone was assumed to be straight and there was no questioning or discussion of anything contrary to that. i think because the brand i was in believed that gay people were evil, so how could anyone be a good christian leader and be gay? :lol:

[debrand]

Maybe I am using the wrong keyword for a search because I don't even know where to begin to find something official that summarizes any charges against Calvin. I just find comments by modern supporters who are determinedly saying that he was NOT gay. I wouldn't even know about any such rumor if it wasn't for a few online references by modern day Calvinists. Maybe John Calvin's sexuality only matters to his followers. :think: Still, I would like to know the source of these rumors

[MamaJunebug]

Found this, which seems a pretty straightforward and imperturbable "no" answer to the question :

/heidelblog.net/2012/11/was-calvin-a-homosexual-convict/

I remember my mom saying that St. Paul's thorn-in-the-flesh might've been homosexuality and then concluding that, see?-- Paul lived without sex and so gays today could, if they wanted to. This was the same mom who years earlier answered my question about where our two men neighbors' wives were with an airy, "oh, they are each other's wives. They take care of each other." Anyhoo, I'm guessing that ole JC was straight. A murderous fellow, but not gay.

[Trynn]

I always was lead to believe the thorn in Paul's flesh was mastirbation.

[browncoatslytherin]

I always was lead to believe the thorn in Paul's flesh was mastirbation.

funny, i was led to believe the thorn in his flesh was another christian leader whom he was having disagreements with. looks like we all got a different version of it. :lol:

[formergothardite]

funny, i was led to believe the thorn in his flesh was another christian leader whom he was having disagreements with. looks like we all got a different version of it. :lol:

I was led to believe it was some sort of physical problem. :lol:

[Firiel]

I was led to believe it was some sort of physical problem. :lol:

Yeah, the assumption 'round these parts was that it was bad eyesight.

To be fair to the people who taught me, though, that was never a given. It was always presented as a theory with the assumption that we couldn't know for sure and it could have been something completely different.

[jerkit]

I can't wait for PP to get his hands on this information. Nothing pisses him off more than teh gayz and Calvinists. Well, maybe except the NIV.

[browncoatslytherin]

I was led to believe it was some sort of physical problem. :lol:

lulzzz, teh funday's can't agree :mrgreen:

[FoxyMoxie]

Not from fundie circles (this may make a difference!) but was taught that it was some kind of physical disability. Masturbation is NEVER mentioned in the Bible as being a sin! Onan's sin was not caring for his brother's wife, not spilling his seed. You'd think if something was a sin, it'd be mentioned more. Interestingly enough, the actual Puritans (who were not nearly as repressed as everyone thinks, much of that was post-Restoration propaganda during Charles II's reign) did not consider masturbation or even mutual masturbation before marriage to be sinful. It wasn't considered to be actual sex. They also fined husbands for not sexually satisfying their wives! I believe American Puritans were somewhat more 'offbeat' and more fundie-like though.

As for Calvin, worth pointing out that most modern Calvinists follow a Calvinism that Calvin himself did not teach. Calvin also believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist and the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, both of which would get him labeled a heathen Papist by fundie Calvinists!

[treehugger]

Gah, Debrand! You are braver than I will ever be - those Puritan/Calvanist boards drive me crazy. But, speaking as someone who was born and raised in a strict Calvanist household - there is no way most Calvanists will ever admit to being able to see anything wrong in Calvin. He was almost perfect in every way - saintlier than any Roman Catholic Saint. And, all those malicious rumours about him being a murderous man were wild speculation by Calvins many enemies. After all, since the beginning of time, the world (and all other Christians) have hated Calvins theology. :lol:

[RachelB]

funny, i was led to believe the thorn in his flesh was another christian leader whom he was having disagreements with. looks like we all got a different version of it. :lol:

I've always thought Paul's thorn was his misogyny, but I doubt he'd have found it a problem.

[FoxyMoxie]

Paul is not misogynistic though, and it's not even like we're sure what letters were written by him. But lots of his 'misogynistic' quotes have been misinterpreted by the church and taught incorrectly. For example, his letter to the Corinthian church where he says for women to be silent is actually talking about individual women at that specific church who were causing trouble and interrupting services - he's telling those women to be quiet, not all women generally. Paul was writing letters to individual churches and was never intending those specific instructions to be applied to everyone.

[RachelB]

Paul is not misogynistic though, and it's not even like we're sure what letters were written by him. But lots of his 'misogynistic' quotes have been misinterpreted by the church and taught incorrectly. For example, his letter to the Corinthian church where he says for women to be silent is actually talking about individual women at that specific church who were causing trouble and interrupting services - he's telling those women to be quiet, not all women generally. Paul was writing letters to individual churches and was never intending those specific instructions to be applied to everyone.

FoxyMoxie, have you ever read / watched the Living the Questions series? There's an excursion into the epistles that talks about why the letters to Timothy and Titus probably were written by someone other than Paul. (Also, a discussion of how the Greek words typically translated as "faith in Christ" should have been translated as "faithfulness of Christ," which started a lovely argument about belief and practice in bible study.)

I know that a person isn't, and can't be, responsible for the use to which later people put their writing.(Though I do assume Paul thought his letters might have some bearing on the doctrine and formation of the Church as a whole, else he wouldn't have gotten into a fight with Peter over food and circumcision.) But I do sometimes think, "Okay, God, there is no reason for you to be bound by the constraints of time, culture, and human expression. Wasn't there maybe a less ambiguous way to get your point across?"

[Firiel]

FJ Confession: I love Paul.*

I always have, and even as I have become way more progressive and liberal, I've never gotten around to hating him. I've always had a soft spot for well-educated, pretentious men-- in fact, I'm currently dating one. Paul comes off as a know-it-all academic, sure, but I kind of love him for it.

*Which is not to say I love everything he ever said.