Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

FountainSiren · November 7, 2006, 1:29pm

2nd place…

but hey, even as a non-Christian, I salute you in the hour of your triumph! …you were so close (perhaps a recount is in order…
…done,
…nope having re-tabulated my vote you still came in second place to that giant of Christian-bashing, Lealdragon, which is no shame to you–think of it as salutatorian to her valedictorian)
[…much applause! much applause]

…uh oh, just got a call from someone says they represent CGM…claims the vote had to have been rigged and CGM was robbed.

–I’m outta here!

citygirlsmom · November 7, 2006, 1:38pm

but being a Catholic, whom many consider non-christian, I will be in a different place altogether, which is fine by me, any heaven that wouldn’t take my mom - a buddhist, my agnotics spaghetti monster lovng Ds, my neighbor, my mother-in-law, Madame Curry, etc is just noot a place I would want to be

StickerShock · November 7, 2006, 1:41pm

CGM: Why would Madame Curry be left out? No Hindus allowed?

citygirlsmom · November 7, 2006, 1:43pm

Not in Christian Evangelical Heaven…nope indeedy…that heaven sounds kind of dull anyway

lealdragon · November 7, 2006, 1:45pm

"The fact that you see all Christianity that way "

Sorry if I implied that - was not my intention. It is the evangelical brand of ‘born again’ that I had the bad experiences with. I didn’t make that clear. (I guess I’m used to referring to Catholic Christians as Catholics.)

Please separate CHRISTIANITY from CHRISTIANS.

I am speaking of the dogma, not individual people. It is the ‘holier-than-thou’ and “I’m saved you’re not” mentality that I have a problem with.

Of course there are many wonderful things about Christianity. I have some very dear friends who are Christian, in the truest sense of the word. These people will drop everything to pray for someone. They are beautifully loving and caring. Contrast that with some self-righteous ‘New Agers’ I know who will just shrug and say ‘Oh, that’s your karma.’ (But then there are some beautiful loving New Agers, too!)

Of course there are loving Christians, and loving New Agers, and loving Buddhists and loving Pagans, whatever. Both beautiful people and judgmental, hypocritical people are to be found in all religions.

I think most religions have both good and bad qualities. I just happened to be ranting about one of Christianity’s bad qualities.

I was brought up Catholic, btw, and was a born-again Christian for awhile. I was taught as a Catholic only the baptized Catholics go to heaven - other ‘good’ people go to a nebulous place called ‘Limbo’ and can ‘never see the face of God.’

Then as a born-again I was taught that many Catholics are not considered ‘true Christians’ so don’t go to heaven.

That’s when I said, I’m outta here.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I don’t mean to imply that there is no good in Christians. Of course there is. It’s the DOGMA, the HYPOCRISY, the INTOLERANCE, and the JUDGMENT I was referring to.

–

“I am heartily sorry your son has had to suffer from that kind of prejudice.”

Thanks, garland. I find it very sad. What’s ironic was that this experience was in a born-again Christian homeschool co-op, and I enrolled him there because I wanted him to be in a wholesome, loving, safe environment. I ended up pulling him out because the director was so hypocritical (there is more to the stoy that I won’t go into) and I didn’t want my son around him.

Some good came from it, though - he learned that a few people in a certain group do not necessarily represent the entire group.

Allmusic · November 7, 2006, 1:49pm

Thank G-d I was at a meeting, or I would surely have outranked both Leal and Simba, by our resident authority on religious people, FS!

simba · November 7, 2006, 1:58pm

The heaven bound republicans accept money from porn industry.

RNC Accepts Money From Army Porn Movie Distributor.

<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/rnc_accepts_mon.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/rnc_accepts_mon.html</a>

mini · November 7, 2006, 2:01pm

Money made from selling rotten fish doesn’t smell.

Money received from the sale of a rabid dog doesn’t bite.

lealdragon · November 7, 2006, 3:05pm

citygirlsmom: That’s awful what that guy did, calling your daughters whores because of short skirts. That is similar to what my son went thru (but in his case, ‘satanic’ because of long hair and black t-shirts).

To whoever said this: “And you know what, he was just trying to save himself”: Saving himself is fine. No problem with that. It’s when they go around telling other people they AREN’T saved, when they make it their business to analyse who’s ‘saved’ and who’s not, that’s when they cross the line.

Drosselmeier · November 7, 2006, 3:20pm

I don’t think any of us is so aware of “original” Christianity, that we can legitimately stand in actual contempt of anyone, including fundamentalists, for not reflecting it. I think the best we can do is live our beliefs as honestly as we can, and then, when it comes time to enter death, go into it with whatever we are believing in. I have been told I was going to hell, but that certainly hasn’t caused me to hold all fundamentalists in contempt. In fact, it hasn’t even soured me on fundamentalist Christianity, and for four major reasons:

<ol>
<li>I know what it is like to have people condemn you just because they have encountered bad people who are like you in some superficial way. And so I want to be careful not to condemn groups of people based upon my experiences with a relative few of their alleged members. And I do not trust the caricatures we often read of Christians in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I personally do not trust these portrayals because I have visited fundamentalist churches several times and know in my own mind that these people do not look, in context of their worship, as weird as they look in the newspapers. The first time my eyes were opened to this was several years ago when I visited a “Promise Keepers” thing. My neighbor invited me, and so I went. It was wonderful. But when it was over, the Washington Post did a spread on the gathering and just trashed what I had seen. So I do believe these people are being too often falsely maligned. It actually goes on all the time. It goes on against blacks all the doggone time. I am therefore especially sensitive to it, and I’m telling you it is happening here against these Christians.</li>
<li>I don’t believe I am going to hell. So, when I was told I was headed for hell, it didn’t make me angry against “those fundamentalists” in the least. Of course I also knew I didn’t want to have dinner with the guy because he seemed too harsh, but getting angry and condemning “those fundamentalists” is something that just never occurred to me. It didn’t occur to me because I just don’t have any fear that he knew more about my eternal home than I do.</li>
<li>Not all fundamentalists are the same. I have seen this for a fact, at least to my mind. I have neighbors who are fundamentalists, and I really care for these people. I know for a fact they care for me. So when I am condemned by a fundamentalist, I think of the people I know personally and I realize that the guy who condemns me is something altogether different from my neighbors. And I think those who condemn all fundamentalists because of their narrow experience are just condemning and judging others while whining about how we ought not condemn and judge others. I don’t really think they are any different from the fundamentalists, except that they are political liberals. Admittedly, bigotry is tricky, especially when it comes from some raw spot in one’s psyche. It is easy for me with religion, and more difficult in other areas. But I am working it out of myself everywhere.</li>
<li>I believe that oftentimes fundamentalists aren’t even judging people at all, but are just repeating the general tenets of their faith and letting people come to their own conclusions about themselves. For example: a fundamentalist in a discussion on faith and marriage might declare that God condemns divorce (or homosexuality or whatever), and that will get a lot of people upset because a lot of them are divorced. But the fact is, the fundamentalist never judged a soul here. All he did was state generally what his God believes about divorce. Well, what do we expect him to do, say his God approves divorce, though he knows otherwise? Or maybe we wish him to keep his beliefs to himself, though we want freedom to declare our own beliefs? Most of the time in discussions like this, I find that we really are unfair to fundamentalists. We want to give our own opinions about Jesus and how he was all about tolerance and love, but we do not wish to hear the fundamentalist’s opinions about how Jesus was also about exclusivity and condemnation. Well, we need not be pleased to hear stuff we don’t want to hear, but I really can’t say as confidently as so many here that Jesus was really all about so much love. So, I think the fundamentalist has a worthy place in any religious discussion. I mean, I have read the New Testament, and the Jesus in those pages seems to me like he is going to condemn a whole ton of people. How can he be “all” about love and yet send so many people to hell for an eternity? The fundamentalists try to explain this. As far as I can see, they are the only ones trying to explain it. But they aren’t necessarily condemning us personally when they do, even though a lot of us don’t like what we are hearing. When I hear a fundamentalist who I feel condemns me, I try to question whether he is really doing this, or whether maybe I am hearing his beliefs and using them to condemn myself.</li>
</ol>

FountainSiren · November 7, 2006, 4:53pm

It’s just too depressing to contemplate…
…the pain…the pain…the pain they all share and celebrate. Hugs.

…so you posers are crying mad that (wink, wink) you are constantly being accosted by Christians telling you that you will go to hell–very strange.

I am of a different faith, have a different color, family with an accent and I have never been told anything remotely like “you are going to hell” by anyone.

You girls must have some really bad Karma…don’t walk under any ladders, ladies.

<hr>

But here’s the reality:
You don’t believe in hell. Remember?
Your getting all up in high dudgeon over being told you are going to–as far as you are concerned–tooth-fairy land; must be so hard on you, and your terrorized family. Therapy? …my deepest condolences.

As for your beliefs, you claim that not only hell, but heaven (as Christians understand it) does not exist. In other words, you are happy to say that the dream of Christians-- life after death with God and those they love (often parents and children that have died)–will not happen and that Christians are condemned to death in cold silence…without being with those they love–longed for by most Christian families as with many other religions–but rather they and their loved ones will rot in the ground (think of Hamlet, Horatio and the grave diggers).

Now, in real-life, your dogma is far more offensive to Christians than theirs to you. Yet, I don’t hear Christians boo-hooing-hooing over atheists and agnostics denying heaven at every turn.

All about being victims, oy vey!

simba · November 7, 2006, 6:52pm

^ How naive…have you heard Haggard, Dobson, Robertson or Fallwell?

Sam_Lee · November 7, 2006, 7:38pm

There’s really no room for debate.

Evangelicals believe in the Bible as the absolute truth and if the Bible (or if they believe it) condemns homosexuality, they aren’t gonna change their mind no matter what kind of things you throw at them. The only time they would change is when they leave their church or go to some more “liberal” ones that Evangelicals don’t consider as real anyway. Hence, people who are evangelicals and homoseuxals are in very difficult situation. What the church is asking them is to be celibate their whole life! Paul talked (I believe in Romans) about how living celibate life isn’t for everybody and those who couldn’t resist having sexual relationship are better off to get married. This part is often used by Evangelicals to point out why Catholic celibacy is flawed. Indeed, the whole sex scandal at the Catholic church just proves how hard celibacy is! But what about the homosexuals? They can’t be married! They are asked to be celibate before they are even aspired to. I guess they do need tons of strength from God to do this as I can’t imagine myself living that way! So in a way, the Bible leaves a big hole for gays/lesbians.

What annoys me is how evangelicals try to give “secular” reasons why homosexual marriage is bad just to pretend they are interested in engaging in a debate or being so scientific about it. They would cite with a lot of bias how some questionable “studies” show that homosexuality is a “learned” behavior or “choice” even numerous studies find otherwise. Haggard wouldn’t have to be at war with it his whole life if it’s simply some choice and “learned” behavior that can be “corrected”. They would also said some studies (probably by Chrisitan researchers from some non-prestigious schools—the most prestigious schools happen to be quite liberal) found that same-sex parents are damaging to child development when there are also studies showing otherwise. The truth is they are not gonna change their position even if someone out there finds a gay gene to prove homosexuality is innate (note that the lack of a gay gene doesn’t prove the reverse) or if some researchers show that children raised by same-sex parents are as well-off as others. The bottom line is the Bible tells them it’s wrong and they just accept it. No question asked.

The least Evangelical churches can do, I think, is to acknowlege gays/lesbians do exist in their congregation and openly address them. Just talking about how the Bible is against homosexuals and how sinful they are isn’t gonna help those closet ones within the church! As of now, most of them are hiding with low self-esteem and are very afriad to be identified within the church. Many of them live in a lie (which they also struggle against) and “date” people of opposite sex just so they appear to be good Christians and the “demon” or “sinful thought” would somehow go away.

garland · November 7, 2006, 7:56pm

Gee, FS, work on the reading skills. I’m totally happy to be using the word religious. You have, weirdly for you, misread everything I’ve said. I can’t be too Christian-bashing; I belong to a mainstream Christian church, I teach Sunday School, and I’m joined in pretty much everything I have espoused here by the pastor, Christian Ed director, and many other members of my church. Reinvented Christianity in my own image? That’s pretty laughable; I’m much more interested in following Jesus’ image. That probably makes you uncomfortable.

I’m not sure I get your Luddite screed (pro/anti, can’t tell). But I have Luddite tendencies myself, not sure where that fits or why it matters. (and yes, I’m typing on a computer as I say that–I’m sure you can find ways to point that out that sound unbearably cute and clever…go for it!!! :))

simba · November 7, 2006, 8:06pm

Here is pretty good summary of the evangelical pastor Haggard’s interview on ABC.

(Written by Timmy
Trusting God. Treasuring Christ. Triumphing the Gospel. That’s my goal, by God’s grace, driven by His pleasure and intended for His glory).

The much-anticipated ABC special by Barbara Walters called “Heaven–Where Is It? How Do We Get There?” aired December 20, 2005. While there are many angles to address this special and many points to make, I want to simply address the evangelical representation (since I am an evangelical) by Ted Haggard - President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and pastor of New Life Church (Colorado Springs, CO).

(Because I (Timmy) have not been able to retrieve transcripts of the special, I am having to refer to my short-hand notes from that night.)

When Barbara Walters asked Haggard about heaven, he states that heaven is an actual place, that there is a first, second, and third heaven. He adds that heaven is not an abstract idea but a physical place. Kudos to Haggard. However, problems quickly arise as Walters questions Haggard about how one goes to heaven. When asked about how one goes to heaven, Haggard responds by saying that there is only one guarantee for heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. Haggard adds that outside of Christ you don’t have assurance you are going to heaven. Again, Haggard later emphasizes that if you do not believe in Jesus there is no guarantee that you are going to heaven. Haggard finishes by saying that those who do not believe in Jesus will be left to work out their eternal life on their own.

Secondly, Walters asked Haggard on whether those who do not believe in Jesus will go do hell. Haggard replies that “yes” those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell. That’s great, but does not that not contradict his prior statement that there is the possibility of salvation apart from believing in Jesus and that one can work it out on his own? She continues by asking, “But what if the god is not Jesus Christ? What if it’s a different god? Do they go to Hell?” Haggard squirms, saying “I think so.” “You do?” Walter pirks up. Haggard squirms again, “Unfortunately.” Walters, then upset over the answer squeals in criticism, asking “Is it not judgmental to say that ‘your way is the only way?’ Does God mean for you to be judgmental?” Haggard replies, “Well, I – I don’t mean to be judgmental, but there are certain things that are true. If you drink water, you’ll be healthier. If you drink drano, you won’t. And somebody may look at that and say, but I have a conviction that drinking drano will be wonderful for me. Well, and I would be judgmental and probably narrow-minded and say, you know what, you really need to set aside the drinking of drano and drink some water. I don’t want to communicate a bad attitude or anything like that, but the issue is this is a guarantee for eternal life.” (One of the ingredient in meth is a drano)

<a href=“http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2006/01/ted-haggard-squirms-barbara-walters.html[/url]”>http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2006/01/ted-haggard-squirms-barbara-walters.html</a>

lealdragon · November 8, 2006, 1:04am

“hold all fundamentalists in contempt. In fact, it hasn’t even soured me on fundamentalist Christianity”

Can you please read what I wrote instead of twisting my words? I never said I had contempt for ALL fundamentalists - in fact, I clearly (or so I thought) made a point to distinguish between fundamentalist Christians and their fundamentalist DOGMA.

Once again, please understand it is the DOGMA that I abhor, not the people!!!

I would NEVER label an entire group of people a certain way! It is the concept, the idealogy, of judging and condemning, and having such rigid, narrow-minded rules, that I am against, NOT THE PEOPLE!

Am I soured on Christianity? On their dogma, their hypocrisy, yes. On the PEOPLE, no! As I said, I have some very dear friends who are Christian! And I even have some beliefs (regarding prayer) that I retain from my Christian experience.

I was criticizing only behaviors, not a group of people.

lealdragon · November 8, 2006, 1:16am

Drosselmeier, thanks for your well-thought-out comments. I am extremely disconcerted that evidently some people thought I was ‘condemning’ Christians as a group. Even though I mentioned my dear Christian friend, and explained that loving people are to be found in any religion, still people think I am ‘condemning’ all fundamentalist Christians???

I don’t know what else to say to explain my view. I had some bad experiences with fund. Christians. True. Undoubtedly that has colored my view. But, I recognize that it is certain behaviors I had the problem with. Never did I intend to imply that ALL Christians are judgmental and hypocritical.

Again, it is the BEHAVIOR of hypocrisy, the BEHAVIOR of judgmentalism, the BEHAVIOR of elitism, the BEHAVIOR of intolerance…that I find offensive. Drosselmeier, you are right - many very wonderful people engage in these behaviors because they are taught that that is the way Christians are to be, without questioning. They think they are doing the ‘right’ thing.

Who is doing the teaching? It is the pastors, the church leaders, the rulemakers, the INSTITUTION, the ORGANIZATION of the church that I find at fault.

<hr>

interesting interview. The issue is that they are claiming their way as factual truth, when it is merely a belief. They say that only Christians go to ‘heaven’ as if it were a fact, like the fact that drinking water is better for one’s health than drinking drano, but that is a fact and christians going to heaven is only a belief.

lealdragon · November 8, 2006, 1:25am

FS: I understand your point: if we don’t believe in hell, then why should it bother us if people say we’re going to hell?

Right. It really doesn’t, except that it’s rude. I would never dream of going up to someone smoking a cigarette and say ‘You ARE going to die of lung cancer!’ even though there is a good chance it might happen.

It’s just plain rude.

Anyway, I believe that both heaven and hell are states of being. Both already exist on this planet. And, I believe in reincarnation. And karma. And GRACE, which transcends karma. Jesus the Master (along with other great masters) taught us about grace. (Unfortunately, imo his words have been twisted.)

simba · November 8, 2006, 6:23am

lealdragon: You are not alone. I am a Hindu and I do not like the way Hinduism is practiced today. Hope to have you (+CGM+mini+garland + many others) as neighbors in next life, or one of the three levels of Heavens, or we can suffer together in Hell.

“I believe that both heaven and hell are states of being. Both already exist on this planet. And, I believe in reincarnation. And karma. And GRACE, which transcends karma. Jesus the Master (along with other great masters) taught us about grace.”

How true.

Allmusic · November 8, 2006, 7:48am

I have always contended that I much prefer the company of those on the slow bus (or maybe it’s a fast bus) to hell. More interesting conversations to be had, for sure.

Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

CONNECT WITH US