Back from dinner with the pastor...wanna know what happened?...

[drewcaine]

I am on a roll! I printed out the forum discussion that we had a few days ago and went over it, reviewed it, etc., and it seems that the pastor couldn't really beat me with that "spiritual baseball bat" this time, yark:D
I explained to him about how the Bible doesn't exactly condone homosexuality, but it doesn't condemn the loving, truthful relationships (wish is what I really desire, by the way...I sincerely hope I find someone soon). Yeah, this was a real discussion on homosexuality, with me involved;)
Now, however, he directed me to Ephesians. I don't know much about it, but I'll go ahead and get into the Bible and review it on wikipedia.org...in the meantime, however, could you guys help me out with this one? I've never really studied Ephesians, but please, don't misconstrue the Bible in your reply, I really can't afford that right now:(

Addition:
He used Ephesians 5:31, about the husband leaving his wife thing and like that. I did a CT question on that and after mulling it over decided that:
"Well, this sorta goes hand-in-hand with the above questions (What would you do if you didn't create another generation? and There's nothing too hard for God...you can be delivered from homosexuality!)-what if you don't get married? You're not ging for a wife, are you? I believe that the Bible focuses on the heterosexual side of things, which is why it doesn't make mention of two men getting together. I don't mean to misconstrue the Bible, but isn't this the truth? Adam and Eve, Abram (or Abraham) and Sarah, etc....it's like a drama, focusing on only the important things; not saying homosexual relationships aren't important, though."
Thanks for reading and responding,
drewcaine

[andrewlittle]

Help us out. What specifically in Ephesians did he talk about?

[keltic63]

Ephesians???

Timothy or Corinthians, but Ephesians??? I don't get it.

[keltic63]

Help us out. What specifically in Ephesians did he talk about?


Ephesians 5? vs 3-5, sexual immorality?

or maybe Ephesians 5:22-33, instructions about marriage? which are in reality, instructions about heterosexual marriages, not homosexual relationships, although this is certainly a loving example. "Submit to each other" but not a condemnation of homosexuality.

[drewcaine]

Ephesians 5:31
Also check out the addition to my above topic.
drewcaine

[drewcaine]

5:31
drewcaine

[keltic63]

Ephesians 5:31
Also check out the addition to my above topic.
drewcaine


You got it! excellent. those are some good instructions about marriage, important for procreation, but not at all relevant to the "sin" of homosexuality. let's face it, there are plenty of heterosexuals out there who are gonna keep the generations coming, populate the earth, even overpopulate it according to some people. However, there is nothing there that condemns loving comitted, homosexual relationships. I dare say that the example given in Ephesians is also a fine goal for homosexual couples: love and submit to each other in love!

[u-dog]

Do you think that perhaps the Pastor is going to go for an "orders of creation" arguement? There is a sense in which Ephesians 5 sets up a model for authority in the creation. God is at the top, then man, then women, then children, slaves, animals and inanimate objects.

He may be going to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it distorts this perceived "orderliness" of the cosmos.

On the other hand he may simply be going for something simple like Ephesians 5:3-5 "but fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this that no fornicator or impure person or one who is greedy (that is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kindom of Christ and of God."
OR

He might be going to warn you about listening to US by quoting 5:6-8

"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be associated with them. For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light. for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light."

both quotes are from the New Revised Standard version.

[Pablo Rafael]

Drew,

It's the old one man, one woman argument. I heard this one a lot. The argument goes that God planned for people to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children. Not to do so goes against God's plan.

The very author of these words, Saint Paul, was a single man who said that it was better if men didn't marry at all. Men should marry only if they couldn't contain their sexual desires. Therefore I don't think he is saying that people must marry members of the opposite sex.

Since the vast majority of people are heterosexual and do desire sexual contact with someone else, it is only natural that the Bible adresses this. But just bringing up the topic of heterosexual marriage doesn't imply that homosexual relationships are wrong. To use that passage to speak against gay relationships is using the erroneous argument that since the Bible doesn't say anything about loving gay relationships, they must be wrong. The, "It's wrong unless proven right argument" isn't Biblical nor does it make sense. Using that argument, people can insert any legalism they wish into the Bible. It is making up our own laws and passing them off as God's law.

The old procreation argument doesn't hold water either. The populating of the earth that Adam and Eve were supposed to do has long since been accomplished. The argument goes that only marriages capable of procreation are valid. Hogwash. What about marriages where couples choose not to have kids? What about older couples getting married past childbearing age? What about people who are unable to bear children? On both sides of my family the people in my generation have almost uniformly chosen not to have children. To the 11 people in my generation on both sides of the family, only three children have been born. And as far as I know I am the only gay person in the group. So the heterosexuals are not necessarily procreating either.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[drewcaine]

I honestly don't believe that Soulforce.org is the darkness, because it has become visible in the time of darkness, and therefore must be light. I don't see why people don't understand Mel White (or anyone else that suffered like him), he is definately not a fraud; only doing what God wants him to do.
Thanks guys, I think this should be enough information to prove another point. Time to go study!^_^
drewcaine

[u-dog]

OR For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light."

both quotes are from the New Revised Standard version.

And this is a total joke! What most of US do in the dark isn't even interesting much less shameful !! :lol::lol::lol:

[u-dog]

Thing One:

... could you guys help me out with this one? I've never really studied Ephesians, but please, don't misconstrue the Bible in your reply, I really can't afford that right now:(

Drew, what does it mean exactly to "misconstrue" the Bible? If its some kind of purposefully dishonest thing? None of us here is in to that. if it means the same as "interpret" well... everyone interprets scripture. some people admit they do and some don't , but everybody does it! Could we intrepret wrongly? sure. on purpose? never.

[/QUOTE]

Thing Two:

You did not give us NEARLY enough of the juicy details of your supper with the pastor!!! :mad: We want a verbatim! He said then YOU said then he said and then YOU said! You have to understand that very few of us here have real lives! We thrive on the "icor" of other peoples real experiences. so COUGH IT UP BUDDY!! ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I looked at Ephesians 5:31 and it's context. One piece of what is going on int this text is that the author (either Paul or a disciple of Paul according to scholars) wants to make an analogy between Christ and the Church and Husbands and Wives. In our traditional wedding services this analogy becomes very important because it provides a theological underpinning for Christian marriage.

I'm from a United Methodist tradition. Our current wedding ritual has been updated so that the notion of wives submitting to husbands no longer comes through. We believe in the equality of men and women in marriage.

When my husband and I got marriend in Toronto, we used the United Methodist ritual and I made only slight modifications. It was actually very easy, because the ritual aready treat husbands and wives, men and women as equals in the ceremony and it's underlying theology.

So the relationship between me and my husband is also like the loving community which God created between Christ and the Church.

If your pastor continues to insist that heterosexism and patriarchalism is essential to Christianity, I'm not sure you can argue him out of it. But I would stand on the conviction that heterosexism and patriarchalism are human cultural forms that are not meant to be eternal.

Fundamentalists love to fall back on the man and woman "one flesh" argument from Genesis (that's what Ephesians 5:31 is quoting). However becoming "one flesh" really only means forming a family. Scripture refers in various places to all sorts of family members being of "one flesh" or of the same "flesh and bone." It means being in the same family.

Well LGBT people form families too. The experience of being "one flesh" is not exclusive to heterosexual intercourse. Trouble is, alot of Fundamentalists seem to think that "one flesh" refers only to heterosexual intercourse. Kind of weird.

Steven Webster

[drewcaine]

I can't remember much but here's one of the things we talked about...
He: so eventually this "affectionate relationship" is going to lead into sexual things, right?
Me: for some people yes, it does.
He: so then what will you do when you have sex with a man?
Me: who said there has to be sex involved?
He: well, eventually your hormones have to kick in and-
Me: my hormones have already kicked in. (I mean, come on, you're talking to a young man here, of course I've already dealt with hormones!)
Me: I've almost had sex before.
He: oh?
Me: luckily I didn't.

And another...

He: what kind of females do you like?
Me: er, I don't like females...but I do think Asian women are something^_^
He: oh-ho-ho! You like the Chinese, huh?
Me: yep.
eventually...I explained my critical thinking answer to him. It seems to me like he managed to shoot it down:(
He: you see, we are suppose to be fruitful and reproduce. Two females or two men can't reproduce, it just doesn't fit correctly (me: it's not all about being physical, you know). The reason we marry is to quench that extreme passion, like you said [I brought up the marraige thing about only marrying if you can't contain extreme passion or whatever]. You have to meet a female, get to know her, get a promise ring, marry, go on the honeymoon, then create another generation of Relefords. Then you raise and train your family and have them become responsible young men...[he went one and repeated the whole thing about one or two more times>_>]

And another......

He: if you were to get into a relationship with one of the opposite sex, what roles would you and him play?
Me: (WTH?!) Roles?
He: yeah...[repeats the opening line]
Me: it's not could the opposite sex-
He: then this agenda, this agenda that you plan on-would you be the man?
Me: dude, just call it the "same-sex relationship", k?o_O
He: same sex then.
Me: now do you mean as in I wear the jeans or what?
He: um-hum.
Me: how would I know?!

If I recall anything else then I'll let you know.
drewcaine

[u-dog]

Well... seems like Steven nailed this guy with his first shot! (me too but not as accurately as Steven)

The pastor is VERY concerned with a relationship that is hierarchical .. where there are "roles" that must be fulfilled. It seems as if he can't even imagine a relationship in which these "roles" don't exist. or in which people change roles. Somebody has to be "the man" and somebody has to be "the woman" Someone has to be the "poker" and someone has to be the "pokee" Thats how it is in his marriage no doubt. Push him on this. Is this the ONLY way that it can be? Can two people be in bed togehter and enjoy each other's bodies without sticking something inside something else? and if the sexual relationship between two people DOES include inserting tab "a" into slot "b" does it always have to be that way? can tab "b" be inserted into slot "a" alternately? Is it all and only about penises and anuses? Or Is it also about tongues and nipples? fingers and elbows. noses brushing along necks? One heart intertwining with another? one spirit infusing the other?

I can't remember much but here's one of the things we talked about...
He: so eventually this "affectionate relationship" is going to lead into sexual things, right?
Me: for some people yes, it does.
He: so then what will you do when you have sex with a man?
Me: who said there has to be sex involved?
He: well, eventually your hormones have to kick in and-
Me: my hormones have already kicked in. (I mean, come on, you're talking to a young man here, of course I've already dealt with hormones!)
Me: I've almost had sex before.
He: oh?
Me: luckily I didn't.

You say "Luckily" why? I'm not encouraging you to have a sexual relationship before you feel ready -- believe me I'm not !! but Would it have been a Bad thing if you had had sex that time when you almost did... but then didn't? I remember a time in College when a guy I liked was giving me all the signals I could have wanted... and I chose to play dumb. 30 years later and... I still regret going home alone that night. sigh! BUT thats about me and not about you! :rolleyes:


And another...

He: what kind of females do you like?
Me: er, I don't like females...but I do think Asian women are something^_^
He: oh-ho-ho! You like the Chinese, huh?
Me: yep.
eventually...I explained my critical thinking answer to him. It seems to me like he managed to shoot it down:(
He: you see, we are suppose to be fruitful and reproduce. Two females or two men can't reproduce, it just doesn't fit correctly (me: it's not all about being physical, you know). The reason we marry is to quench that extreme passion, like you said [I brought up the marraige thing about only marrying if you can't contain extreme passion or whatever]. You have to meet a female, get to know her, get a promise ring, marry, go on the honeymoon, then create another generation of Relefords. Then you raise and train your family and have them become responsible young men...[he went one and repeated the whole thing about one or two more times>_>]

In the Genesis story, Adam and Eve are not JUST individuals. They are prototypes... symbols of all humanity. Even Paul realizes this when he says that "since by man came death so also by man came resurrection from the dead" Adam and Eve stand in for all of us. as does Christ. It is humanity, not every individual, that God calls to be fruitful and multiply. As Steven pointed out. we've pretty well taken care of the fruitful and multiply thing as well as "dominion over the creation" thing. BUT having said that... are babies the ONLY fruit that a marriage can bear? Seems to me that my marriage has born LOTS of fruit other than the three boys we raised together. We have served 4 churches together, we have created hospitality for guests and strangers, we have been a good example to other of how to build a life together, we have saved each others lives on more than one occasion, we have strengthened and supported and cared for each others aging parents. to name but a few. Fruitfullness takes MANY forms! In addition, many GLBT couples adopt children that no one else wants and raise them with love and respect. other GLBT couples arrange to become pregnant or have children born to them in some form of surrogacy. These children grow to be happy productive members of society at EXACTLY the same rate as the children of straight people.

And another......

He: if you were to get into a relationship with one of the opposite sex, what roles would you and him play?
Me: (WTH?!) Roles?
He: yeah...[repeats the opening line]
Me: it's not could the opposite sex-
He: then this agenda, this agenda that you plan on-would you be the man?
Me: dude, just call it the "same-sex relationship", k?o_O
He: same sex then.
Me: now do you mean as in I wear the jeans or what?
He: um-hum.
Me: how would I know?!

If I recall anything else then I'll let you know.
drewcaine

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I think the pastor we are discussing in this thread is an example of how difficult it is to discuss the "issue of homosexuality" rationally. The homophobic or heterosexist point of view of this pastor is rooted in a worldview consisting of many assumptions about sex and gender that we don't agree on, but he takes for granted.

I'm not saying having a rational discussion with this pastor is a lost cause, but it would not be a simple matter to "convert" this fellow from the worldview that he holds.

I think it will be easier for this pastor to come around if he were really to get to know LGBT Christians as human beings. See their families. Get to know them well enough to empathize with where they come from. Otherwise, he's just going to take his heterosexist worldview for granted, like it's the only way to see and understand the world and everyone else is nuts.

Why do you think we've been having this struggle against homophobia for all these nearly 40 years since Stonewall (and before) and still we have so far to go? We aren't dealing with issues that can be settled with one rational conversation over dinner. We are dealing with really deep cultural and social issues that take a long time to change.

Steven Webster

[BrentRichards]

[Yosemite Sam voice:] "OOOOOO, that burns my onion!"

Are you the man? This is one of the stupidist things people can say. "So, which one of you is the woman?" Um, I'm no expert, but if one of us was the woman, we'd be straight, wouldn't we?

This guy is completely in the dark, even on his own theology. His arguments and views on the purpose of marriage are purely Thomist ... and, if he's the staunch fundamentalist he sounds like, he'd be really ticked if you told him he's talking like a Catholic ... in reality, the Catholic Church doesn't accept a purely Thomist view of marriage any more either!

I think you're talking to a wall here. Wouldn't waste too much energy on him.