PDA

View Full Version : With Friends like the S. Baptists, Gays Need No Enemies


Pages : [1] 2

Eve
06-18-2003, 08:50 AM
PHOENIX (AP) -- The Southern Baptist Convention has started an initiative to "liberate" gays from their homosexuality by befriending them and convincing them they should accept Jesus as their savior. At the denomination's annual meeting, which ends Wednesday night, leaders asked their 42,000 churches to reach out compassionately to gays, focusing on how Christianity can save them. "Homosexuals can find freedom from this sinful, destructive lifestyle," said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' public policy arm. "They can be redeemed. They can be liberated."

But the denomination took pains this year to draw a distinction between themselves and activists like anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., who travels the country picketing religious meetings and other public events, carrying signs that read, "God Hates Fags." Land insisted Southern Baptists wanted to help gays, and encouraged them to come forward to seek support. "We want you to know that we love you, and more importantly Jesus loves you, and there is a way out," Land said. President Bush addressed the meeting by videotape, calling the Southern Baptists "faithful servants" and asking God to bless them.

Typo Negative
06-18-2003, 08:56 AM
Yes, God loves you. But he will burn you forever if you actually make love to the person you attracted to.

Aries28
06-18-2003, 08:58 AM
WTF? I hate when people act like this.

"Faithful Servants" ....More like "Radical Fanatics"

I just don't get the notion that people seem to have that they should force their religion or religious beliefs onto anyone else.

At the risk of being jumped on....I am a Baptist and I live in the South, but I absolutely don't hold to most of the SBC's doctrine especially in the last few years....they are getting WAY out there IMO. Of course I dance and drink so that right there is a problem.... ;)

A person's life is THAT person's life. I might not agree with it but I don't consider it my holy mission to liberate them.

Geez!!!!! :rolleyes:

Eve
06-18-2003, 09:02 AM
I say we start an initiative to lure Southern Baptists into homosexuality. "You can be cured of the evil of Southern Baptistity—just gimme a big ol' kiss, you hunka burnin' love!"

Hell, I'm not even gay, but I'll do some Southern Baptist dame just out of sheer orneryness.

BoBettie
06-18-2003, 09:07 AM
I saw a sticker that said "I have nothing against God, it's his fan club I can't stand" and that's how I feel about Southern Baptists that are taking this stance. The ignorance is astounding.

Aries28
06-18-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Eve
Hell, I'm not even gay, but I'll do some Southern Baptist dame just out of sheer orneryness.

Note to self: Stay away from Eve when she's ornery....

:D

Eve
06-18-2003, 09:14 AM
. . . Now I've got "Oi'm Ornery the Eighth, Oi Am" running through my head . . .

Ethilrist
06-18-2003, 09:16 AM
... and here I thought the Southron Babtists were a fun crowd, what with all the pool parties and all...





what?

gobear
06-18-2003, 10:07 AM
"Homosexuals can find freedom from this sinful, destructive lifestyle," said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' public policy arm. "They can be redeemed. They can be liberated."

Like Bush liberated Iraq? So we can expect Southern Baptist "Shock and Awe"? Yikes!

And what the frell do they mean by "a sinful, destructive lifestyle"? "Sinful"? <shrugs> "Destructive"? I would very much like to know how my partner and I are destructive to anyone. We work (well, he does; I'm on the dole right now), we pay taxes, we buy groceries, we watch DVDs; how is that destructive?

Look, I don't tell Souther Baptists to pick up the beer cans around their trailers, get library cards, or stop wearing polyester, so why do they feel they have the right to tell me how to live? Haven't those shitstains ever heard of "live and let live"?

How odd is it that Bush denounces rule by mullahs in Iran when he endorses it in the US?

RTFirefly
06-18-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Zette
I saw a sticker that said "I have nothing against God, it's his fan club I can't stand" and that's how I feel about Southern Baptists that are taking this stance. The ignorance is astounding. Boy howdy, I'd love to get my hands on one of those stickers.

What's really twisted about this SBC initiative is the way it completely perverts the meaning of friendship. When you "befriend" someone for the purpose of using them to accomplish some agenda of your own, that isn't friendship.

One doesn't use friends. With rare exceptions, one doesn't assume one is better situated to tell them how to run their life than they are themselves. And one certainly doesn't make friends with an eye towards changing them.

If they have such a screwed-up idea of what friendship is, how can they possibly have a clue about love?

carrot
06-18-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by gobear
And what the frell do they mean by "a sinful, destructive lifestyle"? Isn't it obvious? Just by existing, you destroy "moral fiber". Just like drugs, drinking, dancing, living in sin, profanity, skirts that are more than one inch above the knee, and anything invented after 1926.

However, since we have all these things which seem to destroy "moral fiber", prehaps we could make it a bit easier, and come up with a "moral fiber" substitute. Y'know, like nylon, except in an ethical sense.

Neurotik
06-18-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by spooje
Yes, God loves you. But he will burn you forever if you actually make love to the person you attracted to.
Sometimes a little tough love is needed to straighten a person out.






Straighten. Get it? Get it? That's a joke, son.

Aries28
06-18-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Look, I don't tell Souther Baptists to pick up the beer cans around their trailers, get library cards, or stop wearing polyester,

FTR....I drink my beer from a bottle. I don't live in a trailer. I have a library card. Wearing polyester? Yuck! I cuss like a sailor sometimes. And as my dear husband can attest to, my skirts are more than an inch above my knee. Hmmpph. I even DARE to wear 2 piece bathing suits!!! :eek:

Hey...maybe I'm not a Baptist after all???


But seriously, I'm with you guys on this one....I don't think the SBC needs to befriend anyone to try and "win them over" or whatever.....

Let people live the way they want to. If they are wrong, then so be it. If you are....so be it. But stay out of everybody's business and don't mount some campaign to convert everybody!

Eve
06-18-2003, 11:04 AM
That's why I always differentiate between "Baptist" and "Southern Baptist." it's the "Southern" that seems to send them over the edge, somehow.

But you can always rely on the Southern Baptists, Al Sharpton, PETA, Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, Michael Moore, etc., to periodically come out with the same hilarious routines they've been pulling since Hector was a pup, to brighten up our day.

jkusters
06-18-2003, 11:06 AM
If you want to know how destructive the "lifestyle" is, all you have to do is look up Paul Cameron's work. As I understand it, we (gay men) all die by age 35 (eeeks, I'm two years overdue!), our community is the only thing keeping the "adult diaper" companies in business, and the simple act of affection between members of the same sex causes AIDS (never mind those pesky virus thingies). So, I can see why they're so concerned!

Having been the victim of several attempts at conversion, warding them off is usually fairly easy. See, you get them to agree with you that it is impossible for God to make a mistake, then you show them the first two chapters of Genesis, where God makes the earth twice in different orders. Usually blows their minds and they wander off shaking their heads. (Well, usually...)

JOhn.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 11:07 AM
Devil's advocate here...

Isn't it better that they aren't advocating, say, kicking your gay son out of the house? They certainly mean better than Fred Phelps.

Isn't it a majorly Christian thing to welcome your neighbors in, no matter their sin? Aren't they being told to be, well, singularly Christian?

Now I know I sure as hell don't want to be preached to, converted, told "Your life is sinful, darlin', and we don't approve, but we just pray that God will show you the light." I get that crap for not being Christian.

But it's a damn sight better than getting the crap beaten out of you, in my opinion.

Just my $0.02. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice? :)

Eve
06-18-2003, 11:09 AM
That's true, I guess a good poke in the nose is better than a knee in the balls . . .

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Look, I don't tell Southern Baptists to pick up the beer cans around their trailers, get library cards, or stop wearing polyester, so why do they feel they have the right to tell me how to live?

Perhaps they make similar generalizations about you.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by jkusters
the simple act of affection between members of the same sex causes AIDS (never mind those pesky virus thingies). So, I can see why they're so concerned!


Aw, fuck! You mean that girl I kissed in college gave me AIDS?

Shit! I knew I wasn't feeling well!

I felt good at the time, though. She was mighty cute.

Affection? Does that include, like, hugging your best friend? Wrestling with your sister? Shit.

And it's pretty amazing that this is all happening NOW, considering how many times men have shown great affection to one another, and ditto women.

Must be delayed reaction.

gobear
06-18-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Perhaps they make similar generalizations about you.

Hey, asshole, they DO! Didn't you read the fucking OP? I'm sinful and destructive! What, I don't get to retaliate?

Mockingbird
06-18-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Hey, asshole, they DO! Didn't you read the fucking OP? I'm sinful and destructive! What, I don't get to retaliate?

You are such a paradox.

You can snarl at someone over this, and yet when it comes to posters of bannings past such as JoeCool, who have levelled homophobic bile, you've almost bent backwards to defend them.

So, if it's a group that does this, it's bad. When it is the individual spewing hate, you have to stand up for them?

Either you find it intolerable to be an object of derision that needs to be redeemed*, or you find it acceptable.


* Homosexual Redemption Rate in Oregon: 15 cents

Elza B
06-18-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Like Bush liberated Iraq? So we can expect Southern Baptist "Shock and Awe"? Yikes!

And what the frell do they mean by "a sinful, destructive lifestyle"? "Sinful"? <shrugs> "Destructive"? I would very much like to know how my partner and I are destructive to anyone. We work (well, he does; I'm on the dole right now), we pay taxes, we buy groceries, we watch DVDs; how is that destructive?


Because you know, gobear, you might accidentally breathe in their airspace and infect their children or something. And maybe one of *their* kids will be gay and they can blame it on the fact that you breathed in the wrong place. By 'liberating you from your sins', they don't have to keep such close tabs on the air of the world.

:rolleyes:

And Bush scares me. He really does. I'm not talking in a funny kind of way, I'm talking in a "there's a real fear for loss of female civil rights and human rights if he stays in office" kind of scary. And I am *not* exaggerating. The fact that he endorses something like this makes me even more worried. Hell, why don't we start tossing people in water to see if they sink or float? If they float, they're obviously guilty and should be killed. It worked for the Puritans!

Ava

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Hey, asshole, they DO! Didn't you read the fucking OP? I'm sinful and destructive! What, I don't get to retaliate?

You may retaliate as much as you wish. I just don't see how it does any good.

Typically, I think if someone attacks someone for something, then turns around and does the same thing, it might look a bit hypocritical.

Just sayin'.

Mockingbird
06-18-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
You may retaliate as much as you wish. I just don't see how it does any good.

Typically, I think if someone attacks someone for something, then turns around and does the same thing, it might look a bit hypocritical.

Just sayin'.

Yup.

Acting like the Southern Baptists are trailer park living, cousin fucking, Jerry Springer rejects is as bad as them feeling we need to be redeemed for the good of our souls.

MsRobyn
06-18-2003, 11:42 AM
I know I'm gonna get slapped for this, but I'm grateful they're not going after the Jews again this year.

Seriously, though, having been a lone Jew in a town full of Shiite Babdists, I know what it's like to be singled out, told I'm worthless because of my religion, and that I'm gonna go to hell 'cuz I don't believe in Jesus.

Eh, screw 'em. If I go to hell, I know I'll be seeing a lot of these people there, too.

Robin

gobear
06-18-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Mockingbird
You are such a paradox.

You can snarl at someone over this, and yet when it comes to posters of bannings past such as JoeCool, who have levelled homophobic bile, you've almost bent backwards to defend them.

So, if it's a group that does this, it's bad. When it is the individual spewing hate, you have to stand up for them?

I don't think I ever defended Joe_Cool for spewing homophobic bile, and if you go back and read relevant threads, you'll find that he and I got into some extremely nasty arguments. I did defend him from being misquoted or from having attitutudes attributed to him that he never espoused.

Either you find it intolerable to be an object of derision that needs to be redeemed*, or you find it acceptable.

I have a more nunaced view that allows for more than two options. I have no quarrel with people who disapprove of homosexuality but who do not let that color their treatment of me. One has to support freedom of conscience for everyone, not just those you agree with. As long as they are fair and just with me, then I don't care what they believe in their hearts.

My quarrel with the idiot fundies rises when they try to evangelize me, or when they try to write their barbaric religious views into legislation.

Acting like the Southern Baptists are trailer park living, cousin fucking, Jerry Springer rejects is as bad as them feeling we need to be redeemed for the good of our souls.

Bullshit. I am so tired of the fundies getting their way unopposed, but if gay people respond in kind, then WE are the bad guys.

I refuse to be a victim. I refuse to be quiet. I refuse to submit to religious tyranny.

Here's a metaphor. I view the American polity as a house where everyone has their own room. We all pay equal shares of rent and share equal responsiblity for household chores. Despite this, the fundamentalist tenant says that I, the gay tenant, have no business in the living room. I'm not allowed on the sofa or on any of the chairs. I can sit in the corner, but only if I don't say anything. Not only that, but he says I'm not allowed to have my own room, and he constantly comes into my room to put up posters of Jesus and replaces my original cast albums with recordings of gospel singers (white ones, so it's not even good listenable gospel, but that awful country droning).

Do I have a right to feel aggrieved?

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 12:14 PM
gobear, I agree with you that your rights should be equal to mine. You should be allowed in the living room, as you put it.

What I was objecting to before (and perhaps you weren't even responding to me) was an apparent appearance of hypocritical behavior. You say that it is not okay for Southern Baptists to portray all homosexuals as promiscuous, disease-carrying, evil people who need to be saved. But in the same breath you stereotype all Southern Baptists as people who need to

...pick up the beer cans around their trailers, get library cards, or stop wearing polyester...

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 12:24 PM
Sure, gobear.

But, first -- fundamentalists are emphatically not the same thing as Southern Baptists, unless I'm severely mistaken. There's lots of fundamentalist Baptists, but not all Baptists are fundie.

Second -- My grandmother considers my former living situation (live-in boyfriend) immoral. She doesn't approve of the fact that I never got Confirmed, I don't go to church, and I'm far more liberal than she is. I tell her that I love her very much and I will respect her opinion...but I won't change my actions because of it. She's resigned to this, because she's a mostly reasonable person.

Let me put it clearly. You. Don't. Have. To. Care. What. They. Say. They are going to believe that your lifestyle is immoral. They can even say so. That's their right. You have the right to say whatever you want as well, but many people won't take you seriously if you demonize them as much as they demonize you.

I find it worrying that their beliefs are becoming widespread and acceptable among lawmakers, but I also think that this is a separate issue.

gobear
06-18-2003, 12:25 PM
i get your point, but you don't get mine. THEY started this, so I am doing unto them what they have done unto me. Jes' following the Golden Rule. As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

If they don't like it, then they shouldn't have started the fight.

Tanaqui
06-18-2003, 12:28 PM
President Bush addressed the meeting by videotape, calling the Southern Baptists "faithful servants" and asking God to bless them.This was by far the most disturbing part of the article, in my opinion. I expect the religious fanatics to behave in ways like this--I don't expect the leader of my country to endorse this kind of hateful bullshit. I'm honestly disgusted by Bush. I never liked him much, but his attempts to get his war on in Iraq couldn't prompt the kind of loathing I'm feeling right now--that seems far away, and less black and white. But this? This is an open and unashamed endorsement of bigotry, pure and simple, and I'm incredibly disappointed in my country.

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 12:30 PM
There is no difference between these southern Batizts and fred phelps. Just because they say they hate gays in a nice way does not give them any moral leverage above Fred Phelps.

AvaBeth I agree, having Bush endorse this BS and watching him always name dropping Jesus like they are college buddies is scary shit. Now I know Bush probably has trouble reading long books or, say, constitutions. But I remember this thing called seperation of church and state. Oh well, who reads the the constitution anymore.

I simply cannot fathom the mindset of people who interpret the bible to fit thier own agenda. I mean, anyone who can correct me, please do so, but doesn't the bible just say something like, "the people of Sodom were all nasty and they all needed to die." Or something vague and retarded like that. How can you conduct a lifelong vendetta to cure homosexuality based on something so weak.

oh well, let me give a nice warm fuck you to the southern babtizts

(I Think Babtizts sounds better and describes thier beliefs better.)

TroubleAgain
06-18-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Aries28
FTR....I drink my beer from a bottle. I don't live in a trailer. I have a library card. Wearing polyester? Yuck! I cuss like a sailor sometimes. And as my dear husband can attest to, my skirts are more than an inch above my knee. Hmmpph. I even DARE to wear 2 piece bathing suits!!! :eek:



Ditto. Just because the Southern Baptist Convention issues a statement like that doesn't mean we all fall right in line with it. I mean, jeez, do all Catholics toe the line to the church? Give us a break!

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 12:38 PM
You may want to read up on the text involved, macabresoul. It's always good to know what the opposition really believes. Educate thyself, and then howl about it. I will say that most of the lines in the Bible used to disparage homosexuality are either A) vague, C) of uncertain origin and translation, or C) in Leviticus, which modern Christians really don't pay much attention to. If they did, they'd refrain from eating pork and cheeseburgers, for one thing.


And I think they do have a moral high ground. They're not saying "We hate you, but in a nice way," they're saying "We love you, but we're disturbed by what you do." They're wrong and they're overgeneralizing, but I honestly don't think that this is hate speech, and I think it's more morally sound than picketing funerals, bombing abortion clinics, and advocating violence against innocent people.

tdn
06-18-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by gobear
i get your point, but you don't get mine. THEY started this, so I am doing unto them what they have done unto me. Jes' following the Golden Rule. As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

If they don't like it, then they shouldn't have started the fight.

Perhaps, but by painting them all with the same brush, it's your own credibility that suffers. Already I am prepared to take you far less seriously because of the comments you made.

But do what you will.

gobear
06-18-2003, 12:44 PM
Let me put it clearly. You. Don't. Have. To. Care. What. They. Say. They are going to believe that your lifestyle is immoral. They can even say so. That's their right. You have the right to say whatever you want as well,

Then where's the pint of your post? They're saying what they want and I'm reesponding. Or do you think they have a right to speak unopposed?

but many people won't take you seriously if you demonize them as much as they demonize you.


Really? IMO, the Southern Baptists are evil people, as bad in their way as Nazis or the Taliban. Overkill? Despite their ingenuous disclaimers, they are the driving force behind the GOP's determination to maintain antigay discrimination laws. They have attempted to force comapnies that support gay people to reverse their stands. They harrass us every chance they get. Did you not read the OP?

And I. Do. Have. To Care. What. They. Say because of your next point

I find it worrying that their beliefs are becoming widespread and acceptable among lawmakers,


Have you ever seen the movie Bent? It's about a gay man sent to Dachau by the Nazis. Lots of gay men went to the concentration camps where they were beaten, tortured, gassed, and cremated. This wasn't very long ago. My mother was born when this was happening. Adn it all happened in a modern, industrialized nation just like ours.

And I am sure that in 1934, right when the persecution began, people like you said, "Don't demonize them or people won't take you seriously."

Aries28
06-18-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by gobear
As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

Ease up there, chief.

A stereotype is a stereotype no matter what side of the fence you are spewing it from.....IMHO.

Tanaqui
06-18-2003, 12:53 PM
Perhaps, but by painting them all with the same brush, it's your own credibility that suffers. Already I am prepared to take you far less seriously because of the comments you made.

But do what you will.How nice it must be--to not be required to take opposition to bigotry seriously.

It is unfortunate that if gay men and women want to continue retaining the basic civil rights of heterosexuals, they don't have that option.

gobear
06-18-2003, 12:57 PM
So Aries28, tdn, and Lord Ashtar are saying that the Southern Baptists can spew their poison and I have no right to respond in kind. They can use any tactics they please, but I am limited to the high road or polite response. They can enclourage an atmosphere of hate, but I have to smile and turn the other cheek.


In other words, you want the bullies to win because that is the practical upshot of the tactics you advocate.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Then where's the pint of your post? They're saying what they want and I'm reesponding. Or do you think they have a right to speak unopposed?

No. You have the right to say whatever you want. But when you say that all Southern Baptists are

evil people

then you're being just as bad as them. Really.

Really? IMO, the Southern Baptists are evil people, as bad in their way as Nazis or the Taliban. Overkill? Despite their ingenuous disclaimers, they are the driving force behind the GOP's determination to maintain antigay discrimination laws. They have attempted to force comapnies that support gay people to reverse their stands. They harrass us every chance they get. Did you not read the OP?

I read it. And no, I don't agree with the President. I think his advocation of their position isn't unusual, and it's the nicest thing I can expect from him, but where does it say that he's advocating discrimination against gays? The OP doesn't say that.

Now if you want to talk about sodomy laws, adoption bans, etc., that's another subject entirely. Saying "We should be nice to these people even if we think they're wrong" is a start in the right direction.

Have you ever seen the movie Bent? It's about a gay man sent to Dachau by the Nazis. Lots of gay men went to the concentration camps where they were beaten, tortured, gassed, and cremated. This wasn't very long ago. My mother was born when this was happening. Adn it all happened in a modern, industrialized nation just like ours.

And I am sure that in 1934, right when the persecution began, people like you said, "Don't demonize them or people won't take you seriously."

And just as soon as the government starts shipping homosexuals into their own "special communities", I'll be all over that like white on rice. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying it isn't.

Bush is not going up there and saying "Gay people are the reason America has problems. It is because of gay people that America's economy is down the tubes, it is because of them we are no longer taken seriously by anyone else." That's the 700 Club talking, and they are not, thankfully, in charge.

Oho, you say, but Bush probably agrees with them! Or he's giving them tacit approval by not condemning them and belonging to the same religion.

And yes, gobear, I find that appallingly disturbing. I don't like the fact that the President believes so strongly in the beliefs he grew up with that he wants to force them on other people. But I don't think that's what this thread is about, is it?

We can start another one about that, if you like, and I'll agree with you. :D

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
06-18-2003, 01:03 PM
Isn't Bill Clinton at least nominally a Southern Baptist?

And can someone please explain to me why?

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 01:05 PM
You are not LIMITED to ANYTHING. You are ALLOWED to say whatever you want. No one's going to stop you. No one here is going to come to your door and knock your teeth out.

They are ALLOWED to say that gay people are bad. You are ALLOWED to say that Southern Baptists are bad.

I am ALLOWED to say that Baptists are full of shit, they all screw dogs, they're all white trash, they're all ignorant and stupid, they all have very small penises.

I'd be wrong, but I'm allowed to be wrong.

No one is stopping you from saying whatever you want. We're just saying we disagree and we don't think you should say that. But we're not STOPPING you.

vanilla
06-18-2003, 01:06 PM
Where did the SB's get this?
Why do they diverge so much from mianstream christian denominations?
Who started this idea?

Aries28
06-18-2003, 01:08 PM
Not at all. If you will reread I said early on that I think this little campaign of the SBC is stupid, ridiculous....

My point is that to lump Baptists or Southern Baptists or whatever into a stereotype of being beer drinking, trailer living, illiterates and "white trash" isn't right either.

You said earlier that you could handle someone who in their heart didn't approve of someone being gay as long as they treated them the same as everybody else, right?

I'm all for you being in the living room (your analogy). I think befriending someone solely to try and convince them that their life is wrong and to sway them over to the "right" side is the antithesis of friendship. I think treating someone differently because of their race, sex, beliefs, who they love, etc. is wrong.

But I think hatred or stereotypes on the whole is just as wrong.

Jaade
06-18-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by gobear
i get your point, but you don't get mine. THEY started this, so I am doing unto them what they have done unto me. Jes' following the Golden Rule. As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

If they don't like it, then they shouldn't have started the fight.

Err...just saying.

The "Golden Rule" actually says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Which means treat them the way you want them to treat you, not the way they have treated you.

~J

Monty
06-18-2003, 01:13 PM
Who was that comic who said, "It's just silly to be afraid of a Gay propositioning you? All you have to do is say 'no.' It's not like you have to stop, drop trou and say, 'Damn, now my whole night's ruined--gotta have some sex with a guy before I go home."

I really see the SBC as the very folks that comic was lambasting. It's not that they don't think about what they're doing or saying. It's just that they don't think.

Lamia
06-18-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Eve

Hell, I'm not even gay, but I'll do some Southern Baptist dame just out of sheer orneryness.

Hell, I'm not a Southern Baptist, but my mama was raised as one...is that close enough? I suppose I could always convert... ;)

MrVisible
06-18-2003, 01:16 PM
If someone is piss-ignorant enough to believe the whole "Jaysus don't like it when the wrong people love each other" bullshit spiel, then calling them Springer-bound alcoholic trailer-dwellers is giving them more credit than they deserve. I've known alcoholic trailer dwellers who were actually nice people, after all.

The straight supremacists are moral morons, unable to understand the most basic principles of civilized human behavior, who subjugate an entire class of people just to be able to feel superior to somebody. They don't deserve my respect or my courtesy, but they're welcome to a heapin' helpin' of my contempt. And insulting them doesn't make me as bad as they are; I'm not trying to limit their freedoms, I'm not trying to push them to the margins of society and get them to shut the hell up. I'm just calling them mouth-breathing, amoral hypocrites, to whom the term 'primate' only loosely applies. I'm saying that their moral stance would revolt any self-respecting two-year-old, and that their idea of a deity is so twisted and evilly incoherent that even chimpanzees would recoil in horror, were they unlucky enough to have it explained to them.

The difference between my condemnation of these people and their condemnation of me is that I am outraged by the actions that they've taken to make sure that millions of people don't have the same human rights accorded to everyone else. They, however, are outraged by my very existence.

vanilla
06-18-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Monty
It's not that they don't think about what they're doing or saying. It's just that they don't think.

All the fundies I know are just like the Southern Baptists.
I dunno why homosexuality is such abig deal to them.
Why not go to prisons and try to tell the gospel to murderers?

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 01:19 PM
My comments:

Keep on fighting.

Stop the infighting.

FWIW, I disagreed strongly with a lot of what Joe Cool had to say, and the perspective from which he said it. But he and Jersey have always regarded me as a friend, and I them, because we're interested in one thing: the truth. And I believe that this is precisely the same attitude that gobear is talking about -- and that they'd back him in standing for it.

FWIW, the course Jesus taught as proper, and which is encompassed in the Golden Rule, is not to give back what you get, but rather to treat them as you wish to be treated, to return good for evil, kindness for hostility.

That's all kinds of tough to employ in this situation. Believe me, I know -- I've been getting a lot of the same excrement smeared on me, for standing firmly on the idea that gay people and others {run out your own acronym string here} deserve fair and equal treatment.

One thing that colors my awareness, which will be little help to any of the rest of you, is that the assholes who preach judgmentalism and hatred, and bear false witness, against you, will get their just reward. I don't throw the Parable of the Sheep and Goats into every religious debate in order to score points -- it's to warn the likes of Reactor and His4Ever that they're sowing the wind, and can expect to reap the whirlwind -- because I care about them too.

But, guys, always remember the "Lurker Effect" -- the real "silent majority" (as opposed to Jerry Falwell's creation) who knows that Liz Lesbian who works in the office is not the evil person that the fundies would make her out to be, and that Joe Gayman who sells furniture goes home to his partner and the kids they adopted, whose daughter has a gay friend -- and the more they demonize you, the more the mud they sling will come back to paint them as the hatemongers they are.

Slacker
06-18-2003, 01:20 PM
Sorry I'm late to the party, but why exactly does this deserve a pitting? Were the Southern Baptists pro-gay before? Do we need to go through all of the Christian denominations with hard-line stances on homosexuality and pit 'em on occasion?

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by gobear
i get your point, but you don't get mine. THEY started this, so I am doing unto them what they have done unto me. Jes' following the Golden Rule. As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

If they don't like it, then they shouldn't have started the fight.

How utterly immature of you. You may think you're giving as good as you got, all I hear is, "But Mom, they started it!"

So Aries28, tdn, and Lord Ashtar are saying that the Southern Baptists can spew their poison and I have no right to respond in kind. They can use any tactics they please, but I am limited to the high road or polite response. They can enclourage an atmosphere of hate, but I have to smile and turn the other cheek.

In other words, you want the bullies to win because that is the practical upshot of the tactics you advocate.

That is not at all what I've been saying. In fact, if you read my second response in this thread, you will see that what I actually said was:

You may retaliate as much as you wish. I just don't see how it does any good.

Typically, I think if someone attacks someone for something, then turns around and does the same thing, it might look a bit hypocritical.

Now you have not only stereotyped an entire group of people, which is what you are mad at the SBC for, but you have categorically misrepresented what I have said.

You have every right to be angry at what the people in the OP are doing. I am as well. IMHO it is absolutely wrong, and a misrepresentation of everything I believe Christ stood for. However, you must understand that while these people are obviously fundamentalists and Southern Baptists, not all Southern Baptists are fundamentalist. Your calling them "evil people" and making snide remarks about thier intelligence (or lack thereof) is just as bad as them calling you a sinner and disease-carrier.

Please consider the words you type before you hit "Submit Reply".

Eve
06-18-2003, 02:00 PM
"I disagreed strongly with a lot of what Joe Cool had to say, and the perspective from which he said it. But he and Jersey have always regarded me as a friend, and I them, because we're interested in one thing: the truth."

—Well. I won't say what I think of Joe and Jersey (can't even bring myself to boldface their names), because they're not here (thank goodness!) to defend themselves.

In Gobear's defense, one really can't blame him for snapping, and losing his temper. You can only take so much of this sort of thing.

tdn
06-18-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by gobear
So Aries28, tdn, and Lord Ashtar are saying that the Southern Baptists can spew their poison and I have no right to respond in kind. They can use any tactics they please, but I am limited to the high road or polite response. They can enclourage an atmosphere of hate, but I have to smile and turn the other cheek.

In other words, you want the bullies to win because that is the practical upshot of the tactics you advocate.

No. That is not what I am saying. In the words of another poster, "Learn to read."

What I am saying is that responding to mindless stereotyping with more mindless stereotyping may not be the most effective tactic at your disposal. You have every right to call SBs "trailer park trash", but by doing so you do more harm to yourself than to your intended targets.

I do not want the bullies to win. Let me type that again for emphasis. I do not want the bullies to win. Matter of fact, I'd much rather see them lose. Big time. When you make broad generalizations, you are not making the bullies look bad. You are making yourself -- and by extension, me, and everyone else that wants a more gay-tolerant world -- look like a bunch of ignorant whiners.

Flies, vinegar, honey, and all that.

Esprix
06-18-2003, 02:03 PM
Frankly, I'd like a Baptist to befriend me. Especially that cute young Baptist fellow around the corner. We'd hang out, watch movies on the couch together, go on picnics, maybe wrestle when we're feeling playful - you know, healthy, normal, guy stuff. ;)

Esprix

tdn
06-18-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Tanaqui
How nice it must be--to not be required to take opposition to bigotry seriously.

In what bizarre and twisted form of illogic did you get that from my post? :confused:

Homebrew
06-18-2003, 02:11 PM
Have none of you gobear detractors ever heard of exaggeration? I doubt gobear really believes all SBs are trailer trash; yet the organization believes the lies it spreads about gay people.

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja
You may want to read up on the text involved, macabresoul. It's always good to know what the opposition really believes. Educate thyself, and then howl about it. I will say that most of the lines in the Bible used to disparage homosexuality are either A) vague, C) of uncertain origin and translation, or C) in Leviticus, which modern Christians really don't pay much attention to. If they did, they'd refrain from eating pork and cheeseburgers, for one thing.


And I think they do have a moral high ground. They're not saying "We hate you, but in a nice way," they're saying "We love you, but we're disturbed by what you do." They're wrong and they're overgeneralizing, but I honestly don't think that this is hate speech, and I think it's more morally sound than picketing funerals, bombing abortion clinics, and advocating violence against innocent people.

I asked someone to correct me if they knew what the real text is, which you obviously don't. And it's pretty clear already what the opposition believes, they hate gays, they want to get rid of them. It's all nice and good that they are saying they want to help gays now, but it doesn't change the fact that they have, do, and will continue to persecute homosexuals and anyone not fitting in to thier clique. Notice my bolding text, you just repeated what I said, wtf are you trying to prove?

Using the word 'disturbed' is giving them way too much benefit of the doubt here. it's more like, "we love everybody, except if you are gay, so change your ways and we will love you again." Does that give them any moral highground? IT IS hate speech, they are preaching to have 42,000 churches try to end this 'gay epidemic' pleague. I call it passive agressive hate speech.

Oho, you say, but Bush probably agrees with them! Or he's giving them tacit approval by not condemning them and belonging to the same religion.

He DID agree with them. He DID fucking approve of thier bullshit. If a friend of mine went around saying things like, "hey everyone, I love jewish people, but they need to be set strait and converted. Lets all go on a crusade to convert jews!" Then I make a speech saying, "My friend John sure is a faithful servent of the lord!" I would be blatantly agreeing with his statement. I ask you to prove me wrong.




Now as for you, Get off your fucking highhorse. Do not flame me when you don't have a shitstain of a clue as to what you are talking about. All I see you doing in this thread is sticking up for free speech and telling people they are terrible people for saying southern baptists are shiteating assclowns. Me calling them shiteating assclowns does not make me as horrible as them... Stop trying to blur the lines of right and wrong with the eraser of free speech.

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Homebrew
Have none of you gobear detractors ever heard of exaggeration? I doubt gobear really believes all SBs are trailer trash; yet the organization believes the lies it spreads about gay people.

Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant. His words are all we have to go by here. When he continues to repeat something like that, it damages his credibility. That's all I'm trying to say.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 02:27 PM
Allow me to further amplify what posters such as tdn are saying.

I belong to a Southern Baptist church. I disagree strongly with many of the policies enacted by the Southern Baptists at the annual conventions, as do many (if not most) of my friends in the church. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention called for a boycott of Disney several years ago, due to Disney's recognition of same-sex marriages and partners. (Disney made same-sex partners of Disney employees eligible for benefits.) From my limited observations, this had absolutely no effect on the number of my Baptist friends who went to DisneyWorld on vacation, bought Disney merchandise, went to Disney movies, etc.

In other words, the Southern Baptists I knew decided that the SBC was being idiotic with their "boycott," and summarily ignored the argument. It was easy to dismiss the SBC's viewpoint, because it sounded shrill and stupid.

One might disagree with the SBC's current "befriending" campaign. However, by attempting to stereotype all Southern Baptists as "no-'count white trash" and implying they are poor, beer-swilling ignoramuses seriously undermines one's argument. All that does is piss off potential allies you might have within the Southern Baptist camp (and I assure you, there are more potential allies than you might think) and allow others to pigeonhole you and your message/fight.

The SBC attempts to portray these issues as an "us vs. them" fight. If you respond in kind, you've allowed them to draw the line where they want it. Why on earth would you want to do that? Fight on your own terms. Keep pressure on elected officials, corporations (it flummoxed the SBC no end when the Disney boycott fizzled out) and other areas. That will yeild better results than stereotyping your opponent. (For example, see macabresoul's most recent post. He just called me, a Southern Baptist, a "shiteating assclown," despite the fact that I'm on his side in this argument. How idiotic is that?)

And the final benefit: I won't have to get medieval on your ass.

gobear
06-18-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
How utterly immature of you. You may think you're giving as good as you got, all I hear is, "But Mom, they started it!"

Bullshit. I'm using the same tactics as they are. That's parity, not immaturity.


You have every right to be angry at what the people in the OP are doing. I am as well. IMHO it is absolutely wrong, and a misrepresentation of everything I believe Christ stood for. However, you must understand that while these people are obviously fundamentalists and Southern Baptists, not all Southern Baptists are fundamentalist.

Yes, Southern Baptists are fundamentalists. Read their official statement on the SBC Faith and Message, which contains the Five Fundamentals (http://www.x-tremefundamentalism.com/):
Literal inerrancy of the autographs;
The virgin birth and deity of Christ;
The substitutionary view of the atonement;
the bodily resurrection of Christ;
The imminent return of Christ.


Your calling them "evil people" and making snide remarks about thier intelligence (or lack thereof) is just as bad as them calling you a sinner and disease-carrier.

Again, you are wrong. As MrVisible observed, I'm objecting to their tactics; they are objecting to my existence. Nothing I say about them can possibly be bad enough.

You are fooled by their use of the word "love," which they wield in the same manner as an abusive boyfriend, "I love you *SMACK* " Their form of love is indistinguishable from the blackest hate.

Frankly, I've had enough of you gutless cowards who stand on the sidelines and do nothing as we have to struggle for the same rights you take for granted. You don't have to put up with getting picketed, having to fear losing you're jobs or apartments because we're gay, being beaten and murdered because you're gay.


Big time. When you make broad generalizations, you are not making the bullies look bad. You are making yourself -- and by extension, me, and everyone else that wants a more gay-tolerant world -- look like a bunch of ignorant whiners.

And in Berlin 1934, you were saying the same thing.

I can't believe that you people are more concerned with the literal truth of my attacks on the SBC than you are with the SBC's tactics.

Fine, The SBC don't live in trailers (not all of them anyway). Now that takes care of one guys complaints on a message board. Now ehn fdo you plasn to object to the SBC picketing gay bars, harrassing gay people , and encouraging the repeal of equal rights legislation. My comments harm them not at all, but their tactics do harm me and mine.'

Where's the outrage?

And the next time I get hit by a chain (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=135183&highlight=gaybashing) coming out of a gay bar because someone was told by a minister that gays deserve what they get for being sinners, I'll be sure to think of all you.

tdn
06-18-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Homebrew
Have none of you gobear detractors ever heard of exaggeration? I doubt gobear really believes all SBs are trailer trash;

One would hope that if this is how he felt, he would have said something to that effect by now. He's had plenty of chances.

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 02:31 PM
Frankly, I'd like a Baptist to befriend me. Especially that cute young Baptist fellow around the corner. We'd hang out, watch movies on the couch together, go on picnics, maybe wrestle when we're feeling playful - you know, healthy, normal, guy stuff.

Esprix
:p

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Now you have not only stereotyped an entire group of people, which is what you are mad at the SBC for, but you have categorically misrepresented what I have said.[/B]

Originally posted by tdn
What I am saying is that responding to mindless stereotyping with more mindless stereotyping may not be the most effective tactic at your disposal. You have every right to call SBs "trailer park trash", but by doing so you do more harm to yourself than to your intended targets.

Umm, bullshit alert. The Southern baptists are not stereotyping dumbasses. They are saying a whole group of people are bad because they are different. Stereotyping is saying something like, "well if Johnny is a dumbass than all people named Johnny and dumbasses." What the SBC is doing is calling out a whole group of people to be cleansed, is a sense.

You morons are comparing the SBC's hate speech to gobears stereotyping. Although I am against any type of stereotyping, these sexist fucks are LIVING UP to thier whitetrash stereotype by spouting this bullshit.

Stop wasting your time ripping on gobear and spend some time shutting the fuck up. Stop being ignorant fuckwads and look at what side you are really fighting for.

:rolleyes:

gobear
06-18-2003, 02:31 PM
Gah, I'm so angry, my typing is worse than usual.

The SBC don't live in trailers (not all of them anyway). Now that takes care of one guy's complaints on a message board. Now when do you plan to object to the SBC picketing gay bars, harrassing gay people, and encouraging the repeal of equal rights legislation? My comments harm them not at all, but their tactics do harm me and mine.

And the final benefit: I won't have to get medieval on your ass.

Too late, which is why I'm angry in the first place.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 02:39 PM
gobear: We basically simulposted, so neither of us saw the other's remarks. That's probably a good thing.

Please think about what I said.

gobear
06-18-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Homebrew
Have none of you Gobear detractors ever heard of exaggeration? I doubt Gobear really believes all SBs are trailer trash

Originally posted by tdn

One would hope that if this is how he felt, he would have said something to that effect by now. He's had plenty of chances.


The Religious Right as exemplified by the SBC wants to limit or eliminate my civil rights, harass and persecute me and mine, but it is my angry response that gets you riled.

Amazing.

Esprix
06-18-2003, 02:42 PM
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a fallacy.

Esprix

Aries28
06-18-2003, 02:46 PM
I don't see how we went from "Hey...I agree with you guys that the SBC is wrong and everybody should be treated the same" to me being a "trailer trash, sexist fuck, and ignorant fuckwad who needs to shut up?"

I DO object to picketing gay bars. I DO object to harrassing gay people. I DO object to their not being equal rights legislation. I think it's absolutley godawful that someone would hit someone with a chain because they were at a gay bar or becaue they were gay.

But it's disagreements like this has turned into that make me not want to like you....not in the least because you are gay...but because you are being a jerk and more interested in climbing on a moral highground than listening to what people are saying.

Color me confused. :confused:

Aries28
06-18-2003, 02:48 PM
Let's try "there" instead of "their"....wouldn't want to live up to that ignorant fuckwad label....

carrot
06-18-2003, 02:56 PM
gobear, do you not understand that basically everyone here agrees with you? tdn, Lord Ashtar, Aries28, and Sauron are all angered by the actions of the SBC, but they are also angered by yours. They have repeatedly been calm and reasonable in the face of your divisive "with me or against me" invective, and now you're insulting people based on the actions of others who share one characteristic--their church. This is not the same as their beliefs. Make the distinction, and calm down. Please.

I realize that you have suffered for something that is not your fault. I realize that there are idiots who believe in the things that the SBC is doing, but they are not here. Save the anger for those that deserve it, and not for the people who are just trying to be your friends.

tdn
06-18-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by gobear
And in Berlin 1934, you were saying the same thing.

For the record, that was the year my father was born. It's unlikely that I was saying anything. But if I were to say anything, it would be something like "Hitler is a genocidal maniac and must be stopped at all costs", not "Them Germans is nothin' but a bunch o' sauerkraut-eating pedophile commie Martian lovers." A subtle distinction, I agree, but an important one nonetheless.

And for the flip-side of the record, I am outraged at the SBC. I find their attitude to be abhorrant. I want to slap them until they bleed. But by resorting to a first-grade level of name calling, that doesn't do anyone any good.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
Stop being ignorant fuckwads and look at what side you are really fighting for.


Good advice. Why don't you stop being an ignorant fuckwad and look who you're arguing with: People who agree with your viewpoint. And why? So you can employ a stereotype. Is that worth losing the support of people who belong (albeit tenuously) to the very group you're fighting against?

Lord Ashtar
06-18-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
Umm, bullshit alert. The Southern baptists are not stereotyping dumbasses. They are saying a whole group of people are bad because they are different. Stereotyping is saying something like, "well if Johnny is a dumbass than all people named Johnny and dumbasses." What the SBC is doing is calling out a whole group of people to be cleansed, is a sense.

You morons are comparing the SBC's hate speech to gobears stereotyping. Although I am against any type of stereotyping, these sexist fucks are LIVING UP to thier whitetrash stereotype by spouting this bullshit.

Stop wasting your time ripping on gobear and spend some time shutting the fuck up. Stop being ignorant fuckwads and look at what side you are really fighting for.

Perhaps I am not being clear. I am not "fighting for" the SBC here. I think they are wrong. All I did was offer a bit of advice to gobear that I thought would help strengthen his cause. He doesn't agree with me. Fine. No harm done.

gobear, you probably either don't care or are tired of hearing this, but I am truly sorry for the crap you've had to deal with during your life. Obviously, there is no excuse for the chain incident, or the fact that your rights are not equal to mine, simply because you are attracted to men and I to women. Not fair, not right. But, I ask that you do not lump me in with a group of loonies like the SBC. They do not represent me, my beliefs, or my God.

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 03:02 PM
Not to turn this into a Joe/Jersey debate but -- they believe (as conservative Christians) that gay sex is sinful -- fine, that's their prerogative -- and that people have the right to live the way they choose -- and that gay-bashing is flat-out wrong. This does not, in my mind, make them evil.

I disagree strongly with a lot of their opinions, and think that they've been rude to more than one person here on several occasions (and been the targets of equal rudeness for expressing their own opinions). But I can see the people behind the words on a message board. And the people I see are not the demons that some other folks are; they're people with opinions, sometimes vehemently expressed, who are not interested in forcing others to kowtow to their idea of good moral standards, and in fact will stand up for people they disagree with.

Now, back to the basic argument:

First, the SBC, as a national-church entity, has gone out of its way to attack gay people and particularly gay rights organizations. This is not true for most other denominations.

Second, Eve is right on target here:
In Gobear's defense, one really can't blame him for snapping, and losing his temper. You can only take so much of this sort of thing.

As a lighter aside, I had flashbacks from The Best Little Boy in the World reading Esprix's:
Frankly, I'd like a Baptist to befriend me. Especially that cute young Baptist fellow around the corner. We'd hang out, watch movies on the couch together, go on picnics, maybe wrestle when we're feeling playful - you know, healthy, normal, guy stuff.


Third, Gobear is right on this:
Yes, Southern Baptists are fundamentalists. Read their official statement on the SBC Faith and Message, which contains the Five Fundamentals:
Literal inerrancy of the autographs;
The virgin birth and deity of Christ;
The substitutionary view of the atonement;
the bodily resurrection of Christ;
The imminent return of Christ.
And there's some history involved in that the moderates (like Sauron) who belonged to the SBC were forced out, slowly but surely, by the conservative evangelicals. Sauron, bud, sooner or later there's going to be a demand on your local church or you to agree with some statement or action that you feel you cannot in good conscience agree with -- and you'll be shown the door, or your local church will. (BTW, given anything to your church, Sauron? Some of your money is being used to support the campaign to defame and denounce gobear and the other gay men an women here. )

Fourth, I don't agree with gobear's broadbrush characterization of SBCs as totally beer-swilling trailer-trash with more appliances on their front porch than in their kitchens. However, he was only giving as good as he got -- obviously a libertarian in a committed relationship is a promiscuous HIV+ hedonist trying to force an immoral lifestyle on the schoolkids of America -- he's gay; how could he possibly be something other than the stereotype? And I don't see him calling for outlawing Christianity, or the SBC, or making it a felony to have an adult baptism (20 years to life) -- which is what they're doing to him.

I asked someone to correct me if they knew what the real text is, which you obviously don't. And it's pretty clear already what the opposition believes, they hate gays, they want to get rid of them. It's all nice and good that they are saying they want to help gays now, but it doesn't change the fact that they have, do, and will continue to persecute homosexuals and anyone not fitting in to thier clique. Notice my bolding text, you just repeated what I said, wtf are you trying to prove?

Using the word 'disturbed' is giving them way too much benefit of the doubt here. it's more like, "we love everybody, except if you are gay, so change your ways and we will love you again." Does that give them any moral highground? IT IS hate speech, they are preaching to have 42,000 churches try to end this 'gay epidemic' pleague. I call it passive agressive hate speech.

I do too, and I denounce it as against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Finally, and most importantly:
And in Berlin 1934, you were saying the same thing.

Okay, I've said it, Priam's said it, and gobear's said it. And sixty years ago Robert A. Heinlein said it. The only thing between us and a Christian dictatorship is the defense of our rights and those of our fellow man -- even when you may not approve of what your fellow man is doing. GWB is pandering to a constituency that supported him -- no question about that. But in doing that, he's slamming about 10% of the country that he took an oath to support and defend. And he's going against nearly 50% of the country that does not approve of the SBC-style demonization of gays, liberals, women's lib., etc.

I'd type out the relevant line from Martin Heidegger. But I'm too damn tired and depressed.

If I have one message in this thread, it's that a lot of people realize what sort of people you all really are, and are on your side. Stop shooting at your friends, and at each other, and concentrate your ammo on the real enemy.

Priam
06-18-2003, 03:06 PM
To the OP: Oh good Christ on a crutch. So I get to look forward to this when college starts again this fall? The Baptist Student Union (to my knowledge, Southern Baptist) will probably be out there forming a Queers for Christ chapter. Good thing I live off-campus, I suppose.

Eve
06-18-2003, 03:07 PM
"I belong to a Southern Baptist church. I disagree strongly with many of the policies enacted by the Southern Baptists at the annual conventions . . ."

—I'm curious: why do you still belong to the church if you disagree with so many of their policies?

"'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is a fallacy."

—[Pee Wee Herman] "Mmmm—phallus-y!" [/Pee Wee Herman]

Mockingbird
06-18-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Bullshit. I'm using the same tactics as they are. That's parity, not immaturity.


To behave as they do shows nothing but that you can hate just like they do.

It is childish, petulant, and does nothing more than increase animosity.


Yes, Southern Baptists are fundamentalists. Read their official statement on the SBC Faith and Message, which contains the Five Fundamentals (http://www.x-tremefundamentalism.com/):
Literal inerrancy of the autographs;
The virgin birth and deity of Christ;
The substitutionary view of the atonement;
the bodily resurrection of Christ;
The imminent return of Christ.


Again, you are wrong. As MrVisible observed, I'm objecting to their tactics; they are objecting to my existence. Nothing I say about them can possibly be bad enough.

You are fooled by their use of the word "love," which they wield in the same manner as an abusive boyfriend, "I love you *SMACK* " Their form of love is indistinguishable from the blackest hate.

Frankly, I've had enough of you gutless cowards who stand on the sidelines and do nothing as we have to struggle for the same rights you take for granted. You don't have to put up with getting picketed, having to fear losing you're jobs or apartments because we're gay, being beaten and murdered because you're gay.


And in Berlin 1934, you were saying the same thing.

I can't believe that you people are more concerned with the literal truth of my attacks on the SBC than you are with the SBC's tactics.

Fine, The SBC don't live in trailers (not all of them anyway). Now that takes care of one guys complaints on a message board. Now ehn fdo you plasn to object to the SBC picketing gay bars, harrassing gay people , and encouraging the repeal of equal rights legislation. My comments harm them not at all, but their tactics do harm me and mine.'

Where's the outrage?

And the next time I get hit by a chain (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=135183&highlight=gaybashing) coming out of a gay bar because someone was told by a minister that gays deserve what they get for being sinners, I'll be sure to think of all you.

The rest I agree with completely.

There is a big difference between disagreeing with how they worship and them disagreeing with our very existence.

What is more chilling to me is that the Shrub sent a video telling them they are doing a good job.

With Dubya not signing the proclimation for gay pride and his codification of the Southern Baptists, it leaves me to wonder what our glorious Commandant in Chief would do where gays are concerned if he had carte blanche sans repercussions.

Super Gnat
06-18-2003, 03:10 PM
A libertarian?

Super Gnat
06-18-2003, 03:12 PM
The above directed to Polycarp.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 03:23 PM
Silly hamsters.

Okay. I had a big long statement. I'm cutting it down.

Everyone, get a grip. I'm not insulting any of you.

macabresoul, try this link on for size:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/stories/2003/02/18/iHaveNoTitleForThis.html

Everyone else:

You will never convince a single person that hate is wrong if you yourself hate them.

That there, that bit right there, that's all I'm trying to say here. That's all.

tdn
06-18-2003, 03:23 PM
Yes, Southern Baptists are fundamentalists. Read their official statement on the SBC Faith and Message, which contains the Five Fundamentals:

I want to make sure I have something clear -- is the SBC an official, sovereign, independant entity with its own TIN and line of T-shirts? If so, is it possible that there are some Baptists who happen to live south of the Mason-Dixon line who are not part of that organization?

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 03:33 PM
SBC = fundamentalists. :smack:

I'm wrong, y'all are right. :o

Carry on. :D

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Aries28
I don't see how we went from "Hey...I agree with you guys that the SBC is wrong and everybody should be treated the same" to me being a "trailer trash, sexist fuck, and ignorant fuckwad who needs to shut up?"

Weren't you responding to the OP saying you were a baptist and but did't believe in what they stood for.

Now i know your motivation but detaching yourself from them when they attack others and then reattaching to them when they are attacked is a bit too convinient eh? Why are you still a baptist if you disagree with them so much.


[/quote] Posted by Sauron
Good advice. Why don't you stop being an ignorant fuckwad and look who you're arguing with: People who agree with your viewpoint. And why? So you can employ a stereotype. Is that worth losing the support of people who belong (albeit tenuously) to the very group you're fighting against?[/quote]

Oh yup sorry, I forgot I'm not supose to argue with people who disagree with me.
:rolleyes:

All I see you doing is attacking gobear harder than you have denouced the churches actions. Now I am not saying you NEED to hate the church, but i'm saying you are confused as to which kind of ignorance you are really fighting here. Now me saying the SBC is whitetrash IS a stereotype, but because they are living up to the very things that create that stereotype, does it make it false?

Ok that was just to prove my point.

I will now heed polycarps advice, we ARE on the same side, even though we take a different approach.

gobear
06-18-2003, 03:34 PM
I don't see how we went from "Hey...I agree with you guys that the SBC is wrong and everybody should be treated the same" to me being a "trailer trash, sexist fuck, and ignorant fuckwad who needs to shut up?"

Care to show me where I addressed any such comment to you? A simple cut and paste will do.


They have repeatedly been calm and reasonable in the face of your divisive "with me or against me" invective, and now you're insulting people based on the actions of others who share one characteristic--their church. This is not the same as their beliefs. Make the distinction, and calm down. Please.


Gosh, you're right. The Pit is not the place to vent when one is angry. I forgot that nobody ever raises their voice in this forum.

I don't lead anti-BC marches. I don't demand revocation of their civil rights. Hell, I've stuck up for Christians who were being unfairly treated, as Mockingbird pointed out.

Yet who sticks up for me? Who understands why I'm angry? Who has any sympathy at all for what I'm saying? Nobody. You're more outraged that I insulted the fine members of an organization that is opposed to my existence and wishes to legislate away my civil rights.


To behave as they do shows nothing but that you can hate just like they do.

It is childish, petulant, and does nothing more than increase animosity

I've tried the Gandhi approach, to return kindness for hate, and you what that made me?

A chump.

What, do you expect me to love them? To whine and beg them to be my friends? To submit quietly?

I've had enough. I've had enough of. . . everything.

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by tdn
I want to make sure I have something clear -- is the SBC an official, sovereign, independant entity with its own TIN and line of T-shirts? If so, is it possible that there are some Baptists who happen to live south of the Mason-Dixon line who are not part of that organization?

Factual interjection: Baptists are set up on a congregational polity, which means that every single Baptist church is the supreme authority over its own affairs -- as opposed to other denominations where the national or worldwide church has an enormous say over what the local church can and cannot do.

Most Baptist churches belong to "conventions" which are supposedly-voluntary organizations of local churches to achieve missionary and policy-setting goals. The National Baptist Convention, to which most Baptist churches belonged in the early 19th Century, split into two before the Civil War -- on the issue of slavery, as it happens, though that's long since gone by the boards. In the North, the American Baptist Convention, which is fairly liberal, is the one that most Baptist churches belong to. In the South, the Southern Baptist Convention, which is (as of late) strongly fundamentalist and doctrinaire in their stances, is the big gun -- and the largest single denomination in the U.S.A. (Black Baptists have their own groups, by and large -- and I had a job interview last year with the North Carolina Council of Churches, which takes a strong liberal stance and which the state's black Baptist group and the UFMCC both belong to.) The moderate former SBC churches which withdrew when the fundies staged their takeover belong to another group now, but they're a very small faction compared to the SBC.

So there are a lot of independent Baptist churches that don't belong to the SBC, but either to another group or to no group whatsoever -- but most (white) Baptist churches in the South do belong to it.

The problem is worsened by the fact that the SBC is planting new churches supported by the contributions of the established member churches -- and they, being indebted to the SBC, have no choice but to go along with the denominational stance.


And yes, Super Gnat, our friend gobear has several times described himself as a libertarian. I see no reason to doubt his word about his political beliefs.

Diogenes the Cynic
06-18-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Super Gnat
A libertarian?
Small 'l'

Eve
06-18-2003, 03:43 PM
"Yet who sticks up for me? Who understands why I'm angry? Who has any sympathy at all for what I'm saying? Nobody."

—Oh, now, Gobear, dear, don't go all Bert Williams on us; Poly and Esprix and I are certainly behind you.

gobear
06-18-2003, 03:46 PM
For the record, that was the year my father was born. It's unlikely that I was saying anything. But if I were to say anything, it would be something like "Hitler is a genocidal maniac and must be stopped at all costs", not "Them Germans is nothin' but a bunch o' sauerkraut-eating pedophile commie Martian lovers." A subtle distinction, I agree, but an important one nonetheless.

Actually, it's "Them NAZIS is nothin' but a bunch o' sauerkraut-eating pedophile commie Martian lovers."

The Germans were a disparate group of different religions, dialects, and backgrounds that only had their homeland in common. The Nazis were a political organization with a unified system of beliefs, including their own superiority to other groups.

Do you have a problem with insulting Nazis? Which is a better description of the SBC, a disparate group of differing backgrounds, or a group with unified system of beliefs?

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by gobear

Yet who sticks up for me? Who understands why I'm angry? Who has any sympathy at all for what I'm saying? Nobody. You're more outraged that I insulted the fine members of an organization that is opposed to my existence and wishes to legislate away my civil rights.



You're wrong, I'm afraid, gobear.

I am a hundred times happier with you than I am with the people who want to take away your civil rights.

I understand. I really, really do. You have every right to be angry, and I'm on your side, man.

But I think hate's a poison, and it doesn't discriminate.

I've tried the Gandhi approach, to return kindness for hate, and you what that made me?

Admirable.

A better man than those who hated you.

Better than your instincts led you.

Don't submit quietly. Don't just let things happen.

But don't hate them, either. I would say love them, but that's because love's the basis of my beliefs in this world.

It's damn hard to love them, and they don't deserve it.

That's why I try, regardless.

jsgoddess
06-18-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Eve
"I belong to a Southern Baptist church. I disagree strongly with many of the policies enacted by the Southern Baptists at the annual conventions . . ."

—I'm curious: why do you still belong to the church if you disagree with so many of their policies?

Count me in as someone else who'd be interested in this explanation.

Originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja I am ALLOWED to say that Baptists are full of shit, they all screw dogs, they're all white trash, they're all ignorant and stupid, they all have very small penises.

Good god! They drive SUVs, too!

Someone stop the madness!

Julie

Sauron
06-18-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
And there's some history involved in that the moderates (like Sauron) who belonged to the SBC were forced out, slowly but surely, by the conservative evangelicals. Sauron, bud, sooner or later there's going to be a demand on your local church or you to agree with some statement or action that you feel you cannot in good conscience agree with -- and you'll be shown the door, or your local church will. (BTW, given anything to your church, Sauron? Some of your money is being used to support the campaign to defame and denounce gobear and the other gay men an women here. )

Couple of points:

The SBC is a lot more tolerant now (or less aggressive in their approach, depending on your viewpoint) of churches who don't completely toe the company line. Contrary to what many here apparently believe, there's not some SBC secret police who travel around and report on the activities of church members. The SBC is more likely to get eye-rolled than agreed with in my Sunday School class.

My memory is faulty, but I seem to recall a huge Texas church (in Dallas, maybe?), with somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 members, who refused to agree with the Disney boycott back in 1997. As a result, they left the SBC. (They weren't kicked out -- they left. Rumor has it the honchos of the SBC were trying everything they could to get them to stay in, because a church that size gives beaucoup bucks to the SBC in a year's time.)

The kicker? In 1998, Disney posted some of its largest profits ever. So the big boycott, which cost the SBC one of its biggest donors, didn't hurt Disney a whit. (Granted, Disney's profits have dipped a bit since then, but I tend to believe that's more a function of the overall economy rather than a six-year-old boycott.)

So, in essence, the SBC has already asked for my support of a position I disagree with. The result? I ignored it. And from what I can tell, the SBC's position made absolutely no difference in the lives of me or my other Southern Baptist friends.

I do give to my church. I'm commanded by the texts that guide my faith to do so. What my church does with that money is out of my control, beyond my voice in business meetings. I believe the SBC will ultimately answer for their stewardship of the money they receive.

Fourth, I don't agree with gobear's broadbrush characterization of SBCs as totally beer-swilling trailer-trash with more appliances on their front porch than in their kitchens. However, he was only giving as good as he got ...

See, this is where my personal philosophy differs from his. I'm commanded by the cornerstone of my faith NOT to "give as good as I get." Rather, I'm told to forgive "seventy times seven" the iniquities heaped upon me.

I'm reminded of a story told by a visiting pastor once (and I may get some particulars wrong): A poor woman was accosted, robbed and beaten by two men as she walked home one evening. Rather than fight back, the woman kept saying things like "God forgives you, and I forgive you" and "Jesus loves you." This served to enrage the men, who continued to beat her until she almost died. (The woman was a member of the pastor's church; he got the story directly from her.)

Several months later, the woman was visited by one of the men. He'd kept her address, which he found in her purse. He told her he couldn't stop hearing her voice in his head, telling him he was forgiven for what he did. That made a huge impression on him. As a result, he accepted Christ as his savior, repaid the woman the money that was taken from her, and confessed his crime to the police. Once he was released from jail, he started an inner-city ministry.

Could I do the same in the woman's situation? I doubt it. But her response, although seemingly ridiculous on the surface, had more of an effect than active fighting would have.

I'm just sayin'.

Originally posted by gobear
Yet who sticks up for me? Who understands why I'm angry? Who has any sympathy at all for what I'm saying? Nobody.

If you honestly believe this, there's no point in continuing to post to this thread.

BrightNShiny
06-18-2003, 03:50 PM
I wish I was rich. Then I would hire private investigators to follow around all these so-called moral people and dig up dirt on them. Drinking? Why let me snap a picture and mail it to everyone in your congregation. Having an affair? Here's another picture to boot. Heck, I'd put out a weekly newsletter. While I'm sure there are some people who actually practice what they preach, I'm sure I could find enough scoundrels to turn the SBC on its head.

Super Gnat
06-18-2003, 03:50 PM
That makes sense. I didn't know you were referring to gobear, and then tried to figure out whether you meant libertarians were opposed to marriage or that all libertarians are gay :).

gobear
06-18-2003, 03:50 PM
Aw, Eve, leave it to you to allude to one of Flo Ziegfield's headliners. . . and thank you for the support.

Actually, ol' Bert very much sums up my mood at the moment.

I ain't don't nothin'
to nobody
I ain't never got nothin'
from from nobody
no time
And until I get me somethin'
yes, from somebody sometime,
well, I don't intend to do nothin'
for nobody
no time

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 03:52 PM
Little Plastic Ninja That is a good link but i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

And gobear, I stuck up for you, I am as pissed as you.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 03:52 PM
Good god! They drive SUVs, too!

Someone stop the madness!

Julie

Waaait a minute. They drive SUVs?

Fuck that noise. I hates 'em too.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
Little Plastic Ninja That is a good link but i'm not sure what you are trying to say.

And gobear, I stuck up for you, I am as pissed as you.

Ehh, I dunno, mac.

I just don't think there needs to be a shitstorm over this.

Aries28
06-18-2003, 04:01 PM
I think Sauron and my church is slowly but surely breaking away from the SBC....they have scratched their heads one too many times saying "Huh?" to things that come down from the SBC.

Then again, we are a little more liberal than most Baptists I suppose.

I'm not mad at anyone. I, from the beginning supported the OP in saying that the SBC were behaving as nutjobs on this.

And I would post more...and probably will tomorrow but alas, I have to go into a crappy conference call.....

tdn
06-18-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Actually, it's "Them NAZIS is nothin' but a bunch o' sauerkraut-eating pedophile commie Martian lovers."

Ah, but you see, this is at the crux of the matter. Are we talking about Germans or about Nazis? Are we talking about Baptists who live in the South, or about the SBC? Similar names, but often quite seperate groups. (Thanks for the info, Polycarp.) When you attacked the SBC, I imagine that you really meant the latter, as an organization. And in that I agree with you. But when you say "Southern Baptists", you specified a more inclusive group, some of which may be Baptists, but are not part of the SBC. Probably inadvertantly, you went from Nazis to Germans.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Would you say this is a fair assessment?

Originally posted by gobear
Yet who sticks up for me? Who understands why I'm angry? Who has any sympathy at all for what I'm saying? Nobody.

Actually, I would say just about everyone on this board. Me included. If you could stop playing the martyr for a minute, you'd see that.

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 04:06 PM
Well, if we're doing Broadway show tunes...

When you walk through a storm
Hold your head up high
And don't be afraid of the dark
Walk on through the wind

Walk on through the rain
Tho' your dreams be tossed and blown

You'll never walk alone (http://www.boscarol.com/nina/html/where/youllneverwalkal.html)

We care, brother. And we're standing by you, and fighting alongside you.

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Small 'l'

"I dream of a world where a man will be judged by what is in his heart, not by the size of his 'L'" :D

Sauron
06-18-2003, 04:09 PM
"I don't see how we went from "Hey...I agree with you guys that the SBC is wrong and everybody should be treated the same" to me being a "trailer trash, sexist fuck, and ignorant fuckwad who needs to shut up?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Care to show me where I addressed any such comment to you? A simple cut and paste will do.

She doesn't have to show that. She is taking a compilation of opinions posted by those who appear to be your supporters and applying them to you. By your logic, she is perfectly free to do that. Actually, to use your standards, she's perfectly free -- nay, obligated -- to insult you in a variety of ways, too, but that's another matter.

gobear
06-18-2003, 04:13 PM
Ah, but you see, this is at the crux of the matter. Are we talking about Germans or about Nazis? Are we talking about Baptists who live in the South, or about the SBC? Similar names, but often quite seperate groups. (Thanks for the info, Polycarp.) When you attacked the SBC, I imagine that you really meant the latter, as an organization. And in that I agree with you. But when you say "Southern Baptists", you specified a more inclusive group, some of which may be Baptists, but are not part of the SBC. Probably inadvertantly, you went from Nazis to Germans

You'll note if you bother to scroll back that I have consistently addressed my comments to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), a specific confraternity of Baptist churches that share a similar doctrinal outlook, as shown by the Faith and Message document I cited earlier. I was not addressing Baptists who lived in the South, but Southern Baptists.

I did NOT go from Nazis to Germans; you misread.

Guinastasia
06-18-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by gobear
i get your point, but you don't get mine. THEY started this, so I am doing unto them what they have done unto me. Jes' following the Golden Rule. As long as they call me sinful and destructive, I shall call them no'count white trash.

If they don't like it, then they shouldn't have started the fight.

Wait a minute-um, the Golden Rule is do unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you. Not as they HAVE DONE unto you. Jesus Christ, weren't you an altar boy? Which implies that you at LEAST have some knowledge of the Bible?

And btw, what the fuck is up with you? Are you channeling kirkland? Should I judge most gays by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or ACT UP? Of course not.

Holy shit, did something crawl up your ass and die or something?

BTW, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter are SB, or at least they were.

gobear
06-18-2003, 04:16 PM
Actually, I would say just about everyone on this board. Me included. If you could stop playing the martyr for a minute, you'd see that.

Playing the martyr? I've been repeatedly attacked and vilified for venting my anger at the SBC's antics. Remember when you said I looked like an ignorant whiner? That's not exactly solid support, is it?

tdn
06-18-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by gobear
I did NOT go from Nazis to Germans; you misread.

Ah. Cool.

Although it's not so much that I misread as that we all (you included) got caught in a bit of a language fluke. Sucks when that happens.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 04:22 PM
You did start attacking people, gobear. You were the first one to call someone an asshole.

You know we agree with you. Have a drink and read over the thread again.

tdn
06-18-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Playing the martyr? I've been repeatedly attacked and vilified for venting my anger at the SBC's antics. Remember when you said I looked like an ignorant whiner? That's not exactly solid support, is it?

It is possible for me to support you as a gay person but not support your debating style. It's not a game of all or nothing.

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 04:30 PM
See, this is where my personal philosophy differs from his. I'm commanded by the cornerstone of my faith NOT to "give as good as I get." Rather, I'm told to forgive "seventy times seven" the iniquities heaped upon me.

Likewise, and I said so in my first post to this thread, back on page 1. In view of the anger expressed by gobear, though, I downplayed the idea of "returning good for evil" in subsequent posts. But I believe the truth will out, and will win -- and I think God is on the side of gobear and Mr Visible and andygirl and the other good gay men and women around here, not on the side of a group that insists on painting them as evil and then "believing its own rumors of a gold strike in Hell" (you may know the story). :)

Any ideas on how to implement the idea of "return good for evil" that can be worked out in practice?

Guinastasia
06-18-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Homebrew
Have none of you gobear detractors ever heard of exaggeration? I doubt gobear really believes all SBs are trailer trash; yet the organization believes the lies it spreads about gay people.

Well, then perhaps he should have said so. And quite frankly, I don't see any difference between what gobear just said and those who go around and say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Homebrew
06-18-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Sauron
The SBC is a lot more tolerant now (or less aggressive in their approach, depending on your viewpoint) of churches who don't completely toe the company line. Bullshit.

Tell that to the missionaries recently fired (http://www.baptiststoday.org/news2003/pierce_missionary0603.htm) for refusing to sign a Creed.

Or Second Baptist Church of Liberty, Mo. (http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsid=1551&srch=1)

Lynn Williams (http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/7_30/pages/florida.html) and her congregations might disagree.

Oakhurst Baptist in Decatur and Virginia Highland Baptist in Atlanta, Ga. (http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/111799/new_1117990011.shtml) might feel they were treated intolerantly.

Islamic people might consider SBC President Jack Graham (http://middleeastinfo.org/article1011.html) to be intolerant.

The entire DC Convention (http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/7_15/pages/dc.html) might have a different perspective, too.

Guin, Jimmy Carter and his wife disassocated themselves from the SBC over their increasingly strident behavior, as have many congregations.

gobear
06-18-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Sauron
She doesn't have to show that. She is taking a compilation of opinions posted by those who appear to be your supporters and applying them to you. By your logic, she is perfectly free to do that. Actually, to use your standards, she's perfectly free -- nay, obligated -- to insult you in a variety of ways, too, but that's another matter.

If posters in this thread belonged to an organization that had a codified system of beliefs to which we all subscribed, then your point would have merit. But we're all individuals, not members of a church, so your analogy doesn't apply.

I did not insult Aries28 with the words she attributed to me.

Originally posted by Guinistasia
Wait a minute-um, the Golden Rule is do unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you. Not as they HAVE DONE unto you. Jesus Christ, weren't you an altar boy? Which implies that you at LEAST have some knowledge of the Bible?

Hey, if the SBC can bend the Bible to make it read as they wish, why can't I?

Originally posted by Guinistasia
And btw, what the fuck is up with you? Are you channeling kirkland? Should I judge most gays by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or ACT UP? Of course not.

Holy shit, did something crawl up your ass and die or something?

Yes, something did. Thread after thread after thread after thread of people judging me and my life by their antiquated belief system. I've had enough.

And I have said NOTHING as nasty as Kirkland did. Go back to old threads and read his comments and then look at mine.

originally posted by Little Plastic Ninja
You did start attacking people, gobear. You were the first one to call someone an asshole.

You're right, and I'm sorry.
originally posted by tdn
It is possible for me to support you as a gay person but not support your debating style. It's not a game of all or nothing.

So when I'm filled with rage, I am not allowed to vent in the Pit? I've been so nice in GD my teeth hurt, plus I have some unpleasant stuff going on right now which is making me incredibly angry and sad at the same time.


Well, then perhaps he should have said so. And quite frankly, I don't see any difference between what gobear just said and those who go around and say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

That's not even remotely analogous. Now if you changed that to " I don't see any difference between what gobear just said and those who go around and say that all NAMBLA memebers are pedophiles," you'd be in the ballpark.

Just as NAMBLA officially endorses pedophilia (it is. after all, their raison d'etre), so too does the SBC officially endorse a program of antigay activity.

Read the OP.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
Any ideas on how to implement the idea of "return good for evil" that can be worked out in practice?

Well, as I said earlier, the "fighting fire with fire" approach isn't going to win friends within the Southern Baptist ranks.

As I have tried repeatedly to explain in this thread, what the SBC proclaims and does matters very little to many of its member churches. I have no problem attacking the decisions of the SBC. However, I object vehemently to the portrayal of Southern Baptists -- even those who belong to member churches of the SBC -- as "ignorant fuckwads" and the like.

It's similar to someone objecting to a policy of the American government (or any government, for that matter), and then saying all Americans are ignorant fuckwads. Many Americans might actually object to the policy in question, and agree with the person voicing an objection to the policy. When the person expands their argument to say that all Americans are therefore stupid, ignorant, beer-swilling, ill-dressed, etc., I have a problem with that.

I believe that people such as gobear are on the side of the angels in this matter, and that the SBC is wrong. But because I belong to a church that is a member of the SBC, I have been branded with a variety of epithets in this thread. My point is (and has been) that there are a number of Southern Baptists who feel as I do, but attacking them is not the way to get them to rally in support of the cause.

You know what, though? On preview, I see I'm talking to a brick wall. I'm not an individual, I'm a member of the SBC. So forget it. It's not worth it.

Otto
06-18-2003, 04:54 PM
I belong to a Southern Baptist church. I disagree strongly with many of the policies enacted by the Southern Baptists at the annual conventions, as do many (if not most) of my friends in the church. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention called for a boycott of Disney several years ago, due to Disney's recognition of same-sex marriages and partners. (Disney made same-sex partners of Disney employees eligible for benefits.) From my limited observations, this had absolutely no effect on the number of my Baptist friends who went to DisneyWorld on vacation, bought Disney merchandise, went to Disney movies, etc.

In other words, the Southern Baptists I knew decided that the SBC was being idiotic with their "boycott," and summarily ignored the argument. It was easy to dismiss the SBC's viewpoint, because it sounded shrill and stupid. If so many SBs defy the leadership when they make these pronouncements, would it be too much to ask that you, oh I don't know, rise up and oust the nutjobs from the positions of power and influence?

Guinastasia
06-18-2003, 04:56 PM
Maybe if you didn't come in here, guns a'blazin', ready to tar everyone with the same brush-"Oh, but I'm TIRED of it...I'm sick of it...I'll just be an asshole then."

Well guess what? They won. Honestly-yes, I agree with you-but there is NO NEED to scream at everyone here at the SDMB, when we AGREE with you.

And quite frankly, "Well, they started it, so I'll do the same" IS immature. I left that behind in fourth grade-apparently you did not.

Yeah, the SBC sucks. Individual SBs, however, do not. If you had clarified this, then, hey-no problem.

Homebrew-I thought so, but I wasn't sure. I'm not surprised-although it did throw me for a loop when I saw Jimmy Carter on Pat Robertson's show a couple of years ago-endorsing his new book. Weird.

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Sauron
She doesn't have to show that. She is taking a compilation of opinions posted by those who appear to be your supporters and applying them to you. By your logic, she is perfectly free to do that. Actually, to use your standards, she's perfectly free -- nay, obligated -- to insult you in a variety of ways, too, but that's another matter.

Oh for fucks sake. How fucking hypocritical and shallow of you.

For those of you who actually cared to read this thread, it was ME who said all those things, not gobear. She has no basis to attribute them to gobear.

And if she (or you for that matter) used gobears logic instead of her own maybe you two could understand how foolish you sound. You keep attacking his personal character and then blaming your attacks based on "well he attacked us."

then I see this

posted by Guinastasia
Wait a minute-um, the Golden Rule is do unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you. Not as they HAVE DONE unto you.

Well thats all great and good, but unfortunately NOBODY attacking gobear or even YOU Guinastasia have followed it.

That is gobears point, why should he follow a rule to which he doesn't even have a spiritual belief in, when NON OF YOU DO!

He is not attacking everyone who happens to be baptists, but all the fools in the SBC who perscibe to this belief. Why non of you can understand that is beyond me.

jlzania
06-18-2003, 05:07 PM
You know, if a large group of my fellow citizens purported that my love for my husband was a sin, that I would burn in hell forever for loving him and that we should be denied all benefits under the law as a couple because they disapproved of our union, I would most likely be even more hostile than gobear.

It's easy to preach tolerence when one's sexual orientation precludes being the victim of small minded bigotry.
I imagine it's hard to be generous of spirit when one's life style is constantly under siege.
It's rather like a white person advising southern blacks to go easy on civil rights action in the 1950's and 1960's because marches and protests just alienate the moderate whites.

gobear
06-18-2003, 05:15 PM
It's similar to someone objecting to a policy of the American government (or any government, for that matter), and then saying all Americans are ignorant fuckwads. Many Americans might actually object to the policy in question, and agree with the person voicing an objection to the policy. When the person expands their argument to say that all Americans are therefore stupid, ignorant, beer-swilling, ill-dressed, etc., I have a problem with that.

And well you should be cause it's far too large and disparate a group. But you are making a false comparison. A fairer one would be "It's similar to someone objecting to a policy of the Bush administration, and then saying all Bush administration members are ignorant fuckwads."

So you are a member of the SBC and you disagree with their stance on gay folks. I'm thankful, but does that mean that one must never name the SBC when the SBC leadership is making these decisions?

"Homosexuals can find freedom from this sinful, destructive lifestyle," said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' public policy arm. "They can be redeemed. They can be liberated."

Is Land speaking only as a private individual, or is he speaking on behalf of the SBC as a whole?

gobear
06-18-2003, 05:37 PM
In this thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?daysprune=&forumid=5) Equipoise is complaining about the Chicago Board of Education making her move. Did all of the people bitching at me pop into that thread and upbraid the OP for condemning the entire Chicago school system?

tdn
06-18-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
He is not attacking everyone who happens to be baptists, but all the fools in the SBC who perscibe to this belief. Why non of you can understand that is beyond me.

I for one have been trying to clear that up. Can we all agree that gobear is specifically targetting only the decision-making body of the SBC? Gobear, can you understand that the way your attack was phrased made it seem like you were attacking all Baptists, and not just that particular body? Can we all agree that there was a misunderstanding in communication?

BTW, gobear, I'm sorry you're having a bad day. I hope it gets better.

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 05:59 PM
Pardon me -- if I feel that the Roman Catholic bishops (who constitute the leadership of the RCC in this country) have been remiss, sometimes to the point of criminal neglect, in dealing with the priests-molesting-youths issue, I don't feel that I'm condemning Guinastasia or all the other sincere and well-meaning Roman Catholics I know (including one lesbian lady whom I love like a daughter who is a staunch RC) by saying that "the Roman Catholic Church is at fault for not acting more strongly and more rapidly to combat this problem" -- I'm clearly speaking of the hierarchy that run the institution, not the decent people who belong to it.

And by the same token, when spokespersons for the SBC state publicly a stance which condemns gay people and which attempts to "convert" gay people away from their sexuality, if I condemn "the SBC," I'm not calling Sauron or the three sincere and compassionate Southern Baptists that I work closely with over at the Pizza Parlor by those names -- I'm speaking of the leadership who have taken that abhorrent stance. (BTW, "Southern Baptist" used pronominally or adjectivally is nearly always taken to mean "member/leader of the SBC" rather than "person who is Baptist and who lives in the South, regardless of what convention his church is affiliated with. The black deacon who lives about a mile from here in North Carolina and is a staunch Baptist would quickly correct me if I called him a "Southern Baptist" -- he's a member of Pilot Missionary Baptist, which is affiliated with the National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc. and the North Carolina Missionary Baptist Convention -- if I've gotten my convention names straight, and for him, "Southern Baptist" means "belonging to the SBC" which he emphatically does not.

And just for the record, what jlzania said strikes a nerve, with me at least. Anybody remember Uncle Toby? He was the first time I ever Pitted anyone out of anger -- but then, he claimed that my marriage was not a proper one, because we didn't have (biological) children. And, as I've reported elsewhere, I know a little bit about what gobear has been through in his life -- it happened to me once. So if he's sufficiently enraged at the latest attempt to call him an abomination, his life partnership a means to justify gratifying lust, his love for his partner as nothing more than a one-night stand, and himself as no better than a predatory pedophile or a practitioner of bestiality, then yeah, I think he's got every right to vent his spleen here, and everybody who isn't directly impacted by it that is taking offense at the words he used had damn well better take a good look at everything they've ever said on this board, and see if they ever exaggerated, stereotyped, or otherwise misrepresented facts when they were angry. For some of you, it'll take all night -- and I guarantee that anyone with over 100 posts will find some generalization that isn't quite the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And when you've done that, and been honest with yourself about what you said, you might just want to think about coming back here and giving gobear an apology.

Esprix
06-18-2003, 06:00 PM
The Southern Baptist denomination is, as defined by its own statements of purpose, pretty squarely anti-gay. Some of its individual members, however, are not. Could those that are not help change things, please? 'Cause, really, it is difficult to talk about the denomination's bigotry, arrogance and pathetic attempts at platitudes without implicating those that call themselves part of that denomination.

Esprix

buttonjockey308
06-18-2003, 06:15 PM
You know, it is quite a thing, these people. How dare they claim to be 'people of god' when they spew as much vitriol and hatred as they do? Of course, it is likely only to get press for the SBC, which was probably their only goal in the first place.

These people (not all baptists mind you) are no better or different than those who subscribe to the ideas of collossal minds like Matthew Hale and the world church of the creator, or the KKK.
They hate without regard and disguise it as love. They lie without remorse, and choose to discriminate, even though the God they claim to serve, by all accounts, does not.

They are truly human waste, their ideals, a cancer on the face of humanity.

That having been said, I agree with their right to speak, and support them in the freedom of speech, though I utterly detest what they say. I do not, however support the attacking of innocent people while they live their daily lives. I think swift and violent opposition to this kind of thing is not only called for, but necessary.

Indeed, this is religious tyrrany, and needs to be combatted, yet the same opposition i spoke of is possible by merely ignoring the rantings of these hateful zealots, and allowing their numbers to dwindle as their views narrow.

FTR...

1. FUCK, FUCK, FUCK the Southern Baptist Convention, with a giant corn cob in their worthless asses.

2. Bumpersticker wisdom "The only problem with baptists, is that they don't hold them under long enough."

Here's a link to a story about it, if anyone's interested.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0306180319jun18,1,7938972.story

macabresoul
06-18-2003, 07:07 PM
Damn PolyCarp

A-fuckin'-Men

Sauron
06-18-2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
Oh for fucks sake. How fucking hypocritical and shallow of you.

For those of you who actually cared to read this thread, it was ME who said all those things, not gobear. She has no basis to attribute them to gobear.

Thank you for making my point for me. By the way, show me where she attributed them to gobear.

And if she (or you for that matter) used gobears logic instead of her own maybe you two could understand how foolish you sound. You keep attacking his personal character and then blaming your attacks based on "well he attacked us."

Tell you what -- show me where I've attacked gobear.

Originally posted by gobear
And well you should be cause it's far too large and disparate a group. But you are making a false comparison. A fairer one would be "It's similar to someone objecting to a policy of the Bush administration, and then saying all Bush administration members are ignorant fuckwads."

So you are a member of the SBC and you disagree with their stance on gay folks. I'm thankful, but does that mean that one must never name the SBC when the SBC leadership is making these decisions?

"Far too large and disparate a group"? Self-professed Southern Baptists number around 16.5 million in the U.S. as of 1990. (I'm still looking for more recent figures.) They are the single largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. And yet my comparison is invalid? Right.

I see you now trying to draw a distinction between the SBC and Southern Baptists as a whole, but you haven't done that consistently in this thread. You've said things like "Southern Baptists are fundamentalists" and "I'm not addressing Baptists who live in the South, but Southern Baptists" when it's patently obvious that some Southern Baptists (such as myself) are not fundamentalists, and are actually on his side. I have spent the vast majority of my time on this board trying to fight stereotypes of any sort, and I hope I've been consistent. If I have not, Polycarp, I will cheerfully apologize for any stereotypes I've fostered.

I have made it plain I do not agree with the SBC on this issue. In response, macabresoul (for example) has called me and others like me "ignorant fuckwads." He seems unable to understand that he is acting exactly as the SBC is in this instance -- lumping a disparate group of people into one homogenous mass.

Guinastasia
06-18-2003, 08:15 PM
Poly, I know you're not-I have some serious beefs with the Vatican myself, which is why I'm no longer practicing.

gobear, I appologize if I misunderstood. If you're condeming the SBC and the people in charge, yes, you're absolutely right. If you're talking about ALL SBs, then you're wrong.

However, I still think acting like they do defeats the purpose.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 08:16 PM
You're right, and I'm sorry.

Ain't no thang, darlin'. :)

If I let myself get personally insulted over what people say online, I'd be in big trouble.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-18-2003, 08:24 PM
Funny story, incidentally.

Y'all know the SBC has an annual meeting in Dallas, right?

Nice lesbian I know was dating a stripper. The stripper mentioned that whenever the SBC is in town, the strip clubs are filled to capacity and more -- double their usual clientele, in some places -- and the men tip *so* well...

:D

And I'm not even going to get in to the Vatican. I'm still sick about that Phoenix bishop. Really, really, physically ill.

I wish I had an answer for this, too...problem is, love won't fix it, and anger won't fix it, and reason won't fix it, and playing by their rules sure as hell won't fix it...

I'm stumped, for sure.

gobear
06-18-2003, 08:47 PM
I see you now trying to draw a distinction between the SBC and Southern Baptists as a whole, but you haven't done that consistently in this thread. You've said things like "Southern Baptists are fundamentalists" and "I'm not addressing Baptists who live in the South, but Southern Baptists" when it's patently obvious that some Southern Baptists (such as myself) are not fundamentalists, and are actually on his side.

Southern Baptists has been used interchangeably with the SBC, as I have already explained. sorry, but it takes too much time to write "the Southern Baptist Convention*"


* Excluding Sauron and any other individual Southern Baptists who do not wish to be associated with the anti-gay views.

Ditto for fundamentalism. You, personally, may not be a fundamentalist, but your denomination's governing body
has adopted the Five Fundamentals as official doctrine, including Biblical inerrancy, so don't say the SBC is not fundamentalist becauser their own Faith and Message statement says they are.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 08:59 PM
Hi....this is Aries....not Sauron. For the life of me I can't figure out on our home computer how to change this to my user name....

Few things....

1) For macabresoul...I never attributed those things being said by gobear. If it came across that way then I do apologize.

2) I will agree that the usage of the terms Southern Baptist and Southern Baptist Convention were the root of all the controversy. I got the mistaken opinion that everybody was being lumped in together. I don't agree with the majority of the SBC FTR. I am not quite intelligent enough to debate their doctrine like some of you guys but basically, anytime they treat people poorly because of their sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. I take offense and I DO try to do things to change it!

3) gobear....I really do agree with you on this. I think it is a terrible thing. I am sorry you have junk going on right now and I honestly do hope it gets better. Don't be sad! ::hugs::

If you are ever in Alabama then let us know and Sauron and I will personally show you that we aren't all ignorant, backwoods, trailer trash, gay bashing fuckwads. Deal? ;)

ARIES

Polycarp
06-18-2003, 09:14 PM
Minor board-use hijack: Aries, the Skulldigger and I have the same problem, though she almost never posts. Here's the way to handle it:
Go to the main message board menu (click on the underscored Straight Dope Message Board at the top of every forum and thread.
At the bottom right of the page will be three underscored things, the first reading Log out. Click on that.
You'll get a forums menu back, probably with forums shown as locked. Look down in the lower right again.
There will be two boxes there saying something like User name [_______] Password [_______]. Type in Aries and whatever your password is.
After this cycles, you'll be logged on under your own name.

gobear
06-18-2003, 09:16 PM
Thank you for your kind words, Aries, I'm sorry I was so intemperate, and I apologize for the lack of clarity that caused the confusion.

Today, I was teary when my partner got home from work. He knew I was upset so he ordered Chinese food so I wouldn't have to cook, then he put his arms around me and held me while I cried. He's loving and supportive, and he's always there when I need him. He even went with me to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC for 3 hours (he hates museums). That's love.

If the SBC could see how we live, maybe they would reconsider their attitudes.

Peace.

Sauron
06-18-2003, 09:17 PM
poly Yeah....i got that far and when I yelled out, "Honey...what's your password?" I got nothing....he can't remember what his password is.

I should just stick to posting at work on company time anyway. ;)

ARIES

Sauron
06-18-2003, 09:28 PM
Okay, mods....I promise this is the last time I will post under Sauron to avoid confusion....

Gobear Isn't it great when they cook for you or handle ordering dinnerwhen you have had a bad day or are sad or things are too hectic? That is the best....when I walk in from work or a crappy day and Sauron has dinner started (even if it's something yucky) ;)

I'm glad I logged on tonight and that you responded. I would hate to think that this posting made you feel so sad and upset.

Have a good rest of the evening....both little Saurons are FINALLY asleep so we are turning in.

Race Bannon
06-18-2003, 09:28 PM
Allow me to butt into this thread. You see, I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm a straight male, with no gay friends (that I know of) and I am not a Christian. The only reason I pay attention to this topic is that I live in a deep section of the Bible belt (albeit, in an island city that looks somewhat progressive). Like it or not, I get more than a fair share of exposure to Christian bigotry.

A year or so ago, our Alabama Supreme court chief justice was making rulings that justified stripping away parental rights on the basis of homosexuality, and wrote a draconian opinion. Coincidentally, I received a "junk mail" invitation to join PFLAG (http://www.pflag.org/) . I almost thought it was a joke - I mean, friends of gays in Alabama? That's gotta be a small club. But, in the spirit of the joke, I went ahead and sent in a donation. After my year's "membership" ran out, I began discarding their requests for renewal.

Now, this story comes out. Today I got another PFLAG renewal notice. I'm gonna have to renew now.

presidebt
06-18-2003, 09:34 PM
I have to say, I agree with gobear and others who have agreed with him. To my way of thinking, we are human and we do tend to make assumptions about people based on our sensory input. For instance, a lot of people think of lawyers as being snake-like and few people would think to correct them on their stereotype. These are both examples of behavior-based stereotyping, which is often acceptable. Granted, not always, but generally more so than say gender or race stereotyping.

That said, I think that people who have a problem with what he says because they are SB (and don’t want to be thought of that way) should address their Convention before addressing gobear. If what he’s saying is wrong, what they are saying is infinitely more wrong, so why do so many SB remain silent with them? And dissing them here doesn’t count—you have to tell them to their face. Everyone should. I do, anytime a fundie spews such nonsense. You have to tell them when they’re talking that smack at work, or anywhere else you happen to hear it. Go to your church and stand up and say I will not support this—this is WRONG. Take back your church, take back your faith for cryin’ out loud. Isn’t it worth standing up for?

I was raised Southern Baptist and have lived in the South all my life. I’m a straight female atheist with an extreme loathing of the culture of religiosity in this country these days. I don’t personally care what anyone believes just as long as they stay on their side of the legal line—they will not take my rights, nor anyone else’s. Anecdotally speaking, I see a kernel of truth in gobears stereotype. I think as an FOB (Friend of Bubba) I can say that. ;)

CrazyCatLady
06-18-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Southern Baptists has been used interchangeably with the SBC, as I have already explained. sorry, but it takes too much time to write "the Southern Baptist Convention*"



Umm, wouldn't it be a lot faster and easier to type SBC than Southern Baptists? You'd save time and energy and save yourself from looking like an ignorant, knee-jerking jackass, not to mention not getting overone all het up over the misunderstanding. Plus you'd save yourself having to apologize.

FTR, I'm not Baptist, but sizable portions of my and Dr.J's families are. I'm not sure if their individual churches are part of the SBC or not. What I am sure of is this: the Southern Baptists I have known throughout my life are NOT actuated by hate, nor do they spew vitriol against gays or other people whose lives they consider to be immoral. They disagree with homosexuality, to be sure, and many of them disagree with things that are a pretty fundamental core of my being.

Some of my Baptist acquaintances have tried to convert me, trying to get me to come to church with them and share the love they genuinely believe God has for each and every soul in creation. They're genuinely distressed that I will die "unsaved" because they truly love their neighbors as their brothers. They're not acting out of condemnation, but love and compassion and generosity.

If that makes them evil, I wish the world was a more evil place.

gobear
06-18-2003, 09:40 PM
[quote]
I'm glad I logged on tonight and that you responded. I would hate to think that this posting made you feel so sad and upset.
[/quote
No, it wan't the thread that was upsetting ( or not as much), but my sister's situation. My mom called last night and told me she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

gobear
06-18-2003, 09:48 PM
Some of my Baptist acquaintances have tried to convert me, trying to get me to come to church with them and share the love they genuinely believe God has for each and every soul in creation. They're genuinely distressed that I will die "unsaved" because they truly love their neighbors as their brothers. They're not acting out of condemnation, but love and compassion and generosity

Did you read the OP? The SBC called gay people "sinful and destructive" and I resent that. It is NOT love, but the desire to impose their brand of thinking on my life and I will not tolerate that for one damn second.

Read this (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm)and then tell me that the SBC loves me.

tdn
06-18-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by gobear
No, it wan't the thread that was upsetting ( or not as much), but my sister's situation. My mom called last night and told me she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Oh, Jesus Christ. Man, I am so sorry.

I don't know much about that -- is it always fatal? Is there something that can be done for her?

Keep us informed, oomKay?

Homebrew
06-18-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Sauron
My point is (and has been) that there are a number of Southern Baptists who feel as I do, but attacking them is not the way to get them to rally in support of the cause. Heaven forfend that you support the cause because it's the right thing to do, regardless of how a few people on an internet message board vent their anger at the bigotry they endure.

gobear
06-18-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by tdn
Oh, Jesus Christ. Man, I am so sorry.

I don't know much about that -- is it always fatal? Is there something that can be done for her?

Keep us informed, oomKay?

It's a small tumor in the space betwen the hemispheres of the brain. Right now, the doctors have said they are going to watch it to see if it grows or if it is just a benign body. She told me she's going to get a second opinion from another neurologist. I'm glad because I don't like the idea of "wait and see" when it comes to this crap.

Thank you for your good thoughts.

CrazyCatLady
06-18-2003, 10:00 PM
Here we go again with the SBC/Southern Baptist thing. The terms are NOT interchangeable. Did I say the fucking convention loves you? No. I said that the Southern Baptists I have known throughout my life love you even though they've never met you. I understand you have a stressful situation going on at home, but do try to pay attention.

For most Southern Baptists (the people, not the organization, in case it's not clear), it's not gay people they consider sinful and destructive, it's gay sex. A behavior, not a person. They considered my behavior prior to getting married (drinking and premarital sex, anyone?) sinful and destructive too, and some of the people I love most were quite vocal on that score. Unlike some people on and off this board, they were able to seperate the person from the behavior and love the sinner while hoping for her to be turned from her sin.

And no, they weren't trying to impose their brand of thinking on my life. They were upset that I was going to Hell. You see, they consider it an act of love to try to keep someone from spending eternity in misery and torment. I disagree with their take on what's a Hell-worthy trespass, but I accept their efforts in the spirit they were intended.

Homebrew
06-18-2003, 10:05 PM
Why the fuck are you trying to stir the pot some more CrazyCatLady?

tdn
06-18-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Thank you for your good thoughts.

Of course. Nothing but.

Bad news is, tonight I just found out that an ex-girlfriend recently died due to a "serious, but not that serious" condition.

Good news is, my current girlfriend recently underwent scares from a number of tumers, spots, and strange looking tissues on her skin and all of her various naughty bits. One major surgery and today she's right as rain.

I sincerely hope that your sister is signed up for the Good News plan.

gobear
06-18-2003, 10:12 PM
Sorry, CrazyCatLady. They are trying to impose their way of thinking by denouncing my sexuality as sinful and inferior to their own, and telling me to change my ways.

It is NONE of their damn business who or how I fuck, period. Got it? Telling me to change a part of my life that gives me joy and love is NOT love. Hell, it ain't even friendship.


I am a devoted fan of the musicals of Stephen Sondheim. Shall I start handing out librettos of Into the Woods outside SBC churches? Shall I tell people that if they don't embrace the gospel of Sondheim and Lapine that they will spend an eternity in the clammy embrace of the second-rate Marvin Hamlisch? Shall I organize a boycott of Baptist-friendly businesses that don't give out free recordings of A Sunday Afternoon in the Park with George? Shall I tell every SBC member I meet that they must convert to the the Church of Sondheim or face damnation because I looove them?

There is no god but Sondheim and Mandy Patinkin is His prophet (and Barbara Cook!)

tdn
06-18-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
(drinking and premarital sex, anyone?)

OK, but afterwards you're driving me home. I have to work tomorrow.

gobear
06-18-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by tdn
Of course. Nothing but.

Bad news is, tonight I just found out that an ex-girlfriend recently died due to a "serious, but not that serious" condition.

Good news is, my current girlfriend recently underwent scares from a number of tumers, spots, and strange looking tissues on her skin and all of her various naughty bits. One major surgery and today she's right as rain.

I sincerely hope that your sister is signed up for the Good News plan.

Well, she's only 38, so she is certainly young enough to beat this, but she's been a lifelong smoker, despite years of nagging her to stop, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss, but I'm heartened by your girlfriend's good fortune.

presidebt
06-18-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Sauron

"Far too large and disparate a group"? Self-professed Southern Baptists number around 16.5 million in the U.S. as of 1990. (I'm still looking for more recent figures.) They are the single largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. And yet my comparison is invalid? Right.



I think your comparison is invalid because you have no choice of nationality, but you do for religion. You're born an American, you're merely baptized a SB. Just sayin'.

tdn
06-18-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by gobear
Well, she's only 38, so she is certainly young enough to beat this, but she's been a lifelong smoker, despite years of nagging her to stop, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Me too. But please do her a big favor -- don't continue to nag her about her smoking. It's the last thing she needs right now. (If you've stopped nagging, then good on you.)

gobear
06-18-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by tdn
Me too. But please do her a big favor -- don't continue to nag her about her smoking. It's the last thing she needs right now. (If you've stopped nagging, then good on you.)
C'mon. No way am I doing that. All she's getting from me is love and support.

amarone
06-18-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Slacker
Do we need to go through all of the Christian denominations with hard-line stances on homosexuality and pit 'em on occasion? Sounds like a plan.

spectrum
06-18-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Sauron
I belong to a Southern Baptist church. I disagree strongly with many of the policies enacted by the Southern Baptists.

Then leave. If you are a moral person, you cannot possibly remain in an utterly dispicable and evil organization like the Southern Baptist Convention. If you stand by it, you are supporting everything it does, regardless of how you really feel.

The only moral thing for a person to do when they find themselves in one of the most evil organizations of modern times is to get up, spit on the pastor and leave. Staying only lends numbers and power to their cause of evil.

Therefore, there can be no moral Southern Baptists, because they support an evil entity, and generally do so gleefully.

spectrum
06-18-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Esprix
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a fallacy.

Esprix

It's not just a fallacy, it's utter bullshit. It's the theological equivelent to patriotism -- the last refuge of a disreputable, evil scoundrel.

tdn
06-18-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by gobear
C'mon. No way am I doing that. All she's getting from me is love and support.

Glad to hear it. I know the coming months and years will be a real trial for all of you. I'm not a religious guy, but I wish you all of the miracles the universe has to offer.

mhendo
06-18-2003, 11:13 PM
This thread reminds me of a funny line i read once (i think it might have been Molly Ivins):

"The problem with Southern Baptists is that they don't hold them under water long enough."

:D

Lamia
06-18-2003, 11:15 PM
I know this is a bit of a hijack, but I wanted to send my best wishes to gobear, gosis, and the entire gofamily.

Originally posted by gobear
It's a small tumor in the space betwen the hemispheres of the brain. Right now, the doctors have said they are going to watch it to see if it grows or if it is just a benign body. She told me she's going to get a second opinion from another neurologist. I'm glad because I don't like the idea of "wait and see" when it comes to this crap.


It is good to get a second opinion, but her neurologist may have good reason to want to "wait and see". Since neurosurgery is complicated and dangerous, they don't like to go in unless they have to. If the tumor is non-cancerous and is not causing her troubling sypmtoms, leaving it alone may be the best option. Of course, there could also be non-surgical treatments available to her; it's possible to shrink some tumors with medication or radiation.

If it does come to surgery, rest assured that they can do amazing things these days. Trust me, I've had brain surgery twice in the past four years. I was out of bed and walking around the morning after my craniotomy. If your sister is in otherwise decent health she'll probably come through the operation well.

macabresoul
06-19-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
They disagree with homosexuality, to be sure, and many of them disagree with things that are a pretty fundamental core of my being.

If that makes them evil, I wish the world was a more evil place.

:rolleyes:


Umm best wishes to you then...

I actually wish the world was a more tolerant place. With more understanding and acceptance then evil and hate. I know you were just saying that as an analogy or whatever, but either way you are wrong.

I think Spectrum nailed it on the nose in a not so subtle way. I won't write up an analogy here for sake of overduing analogies in one thread. But why be a part of some church where you don't believe much of what is being taught. It does not make sense, how can you just pick and choose where to put your faith. How can you rationalize listening to sermons and getting advice on how to live your life during sunday mass when these same people preach hate the other 6 days of the week.

Pixiesnix
06-19-2003, 12:35 AM
<raises hand timidly and speaks in a small voice>

Um, I'm a Southern Baptist. And yes, I do consider myself *Southern* Baptist and not just Baptist. And I don't agree with many of the SBC's ideas and rulings, especially this one. This is an abbhorent idea, full of ignorance and hate.

But we're not all bad. One of my good friends is bisexual, and I would never EVER think of "converting" anyone who was gay. heck, I'm even a writer of slash fiction! I just hate to see all Southern Baptists painted with such a broad brush. I like to think of myself as a warm, loving person, open to all lifestyles. We're not all Fred Phelps or Jack Chick. I don't want to anger anyone, but I just wanted to say that.

Pixiesnix
06-19-2003, 12:39 AM
I'm sorry I forgot to mention this in my previous post. The reason I don't leave the Church is the same reason many Catholics haven't left their Church even though they may disagree with the Church's stance on birth control or premarital sex. I like my faith, I think it's beautiful. The leaders need to be changed, but that's not enough to make me abandon my faith.

Esprix
06-19-2003, 01:12 AM
My thoughts are with you and your family, gobear.

Esprix

andros
06-19-2003, 01:44 AM
Same here. Nil desperandum, gobear, and non carborundum.

matt_mcl
06-19-2003, 01:55 AM
Should I judge most gays by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or ACT UP?

And what the fuck is wrong with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

iampunha
06-19-2003, 04:22 AM
Okay, a question for those people who are Southern Baptists:

Just what are you doing, apart from posting here, to save face on behalf of those of your faith who are attempting to "save" gay people from ... themselves?

irishgirl
06-19-2003, 06:35 AM
Where's the MCC when you need them?
To demonstrate that being a good christian has nothing to do with who you're attracted to and everything to do with being a decent human being who acts out of love and not fear, hatred and anger.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by spectrum
Then leave. If you are a moral person, you cannot possibly remain in an utterly dispicable and evil organization like the Southern Baptist Convention. If you stand by it, you are supporting everything it does, regardless of how you really feel.

The only moral thing for a person to do when they find themselves in one of the most evil organizations of modern times is to get up, spit on the pastor and leave. Staying only lends numbers and power to their cause of evil.

Therefore, there can be no moral Southern Baptists, because they support an evil entity, and generally do so gleefully.

Did you miss the part where we said our church doesn't support the majority of the SBC's beliefs?

And I don't believe that because I might disagree with something that the answer is to just leave. Why not stay and try to argue your point and make changes within? Why just up and leave something because I might disagree with some of it?

Sauron and I actually discussed this late into the night last night. We DO disagree with some of our own church's policies and we are vocal about that. Trust me. However, we enjoy the small Sunday School class we attend (mostly very liberal members). We have made some good friends there. Our children enjoy their classes and have made some good friends. The church as a whole has been very supportive of us during some really rough times. We both teach a class of 4th and 5th students every Sunday morning and I think we have a great influence on them and I try to preach to them constantly about loving everyone REGARDLESS of if they appear different, or believe different, or think differently than you.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by mhendo
This thread reminds me of a funny line i read once (i think it might have been Molly Ivins):

"The problem with Southern Baptists is that they don't hold them under water long enough."

:D

And it's that type of generalization that upset some of us to begin with.

Baptism is a big part of our faith and to me the above statement, even in jest, is offensive.

Just as I would find a joke bashing gay people or black people or any other group offensive.

Since the question of whether or not I try to make changes or sit back and just let things slide without saying anything came up....I can assure you I do take active stands ANYWHERE I see bigotry.

I'm in the South and there are still many racial stereotypes here. I work one day a week at an inner city school where I am the only white person in the entire school. I have bought uniforms for these kids because theirs were so threadbear you could see through them. I love them like I love my own children. Each week I talk to them about tolerance and loving someone for WHO they are and nothing else.

I've worked in missions with homeless people, people dying from AIDS, people who society forgot and I have exposed my children also so they understand how fortunate they are.

Senior issues are important to me. I've worked in an adult day care where these poor people couldn't function and their family just wanted to get rid of them for the day. I've danced with them, talked to them, taken them to the restroom when they couldn't make it by themselves, and listened to their stories about when they were young.

Okay....I'm rambling...but my point is....I'm not somebody who is going to SAY I believe something then sit back and do nothing about it. I am a very compassionate person.

Yes....I am a Southern Baptist. Yes....I disagree with the majority of the SBC. And I am doing things (even if they seem small) to make sure my voice is heard.

And Gobear...I am so sorry to hear that your sister and your family are having to go through this. I hope everything works out for the very best and you will be in my prayers.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by gobear
It's a small tumor in the space betwen the hemispheres of the brain. Right now, the doctors have said they are going to watch it to see if it grows or if it is just a benign body. She told me she's going to get a second opinion from another neurologist. I'm glad because I don't like the idea of "wait and see" when it comes to this crap.

Thank you for your good thoughts.

gobear, I already posted in your other thread, but I really am sending good thoughts your way.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by matt_mcl
And what the fuck is wrong with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

If they're the ones I'm thinking of-and correct me if I'm wrong-weren't they going outside convents and Catholic schools, throwing around condoms, dressing up like nuns and priests and making out? I can support their cause, without supporting their methods.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-19-2003, 08:16 AM
My heart's out to you, gobear, and to your sister. Best wishes!

As for the rest of y'all, I'm in too good a mood this morning to complain. I get to move into my new apartment, yay...

Eve
06-19-2003, 08:32 AM
To all the good, caring, non-homophobic Southern Baptists: leave the church and find one you agree with, or work very very hard to change your church from within.

No one said it's always "easy" to do the right thing. You may lose some friends and some convenient church-related services—but you will gain the satisfaction of helping to overthrow evil, and you will be teaching your children good morals.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 08:42 AM
Eve To begin...thank you for posting this originally. It has definitely sparked a lot of thought and that is always a good thing IMO. I know, I for one have given this much thought and continue to do so.

I strongly think one should try to change that they don't agree with rather than just abandon it.

I hate racism but I'm not going to move from the South just because it is here. I love the South and I think there are good things about it.

Same deal....I disagree completely with homophobic ideas in the Baptist church but I love my church and I think there are also good things about it.

Now..... ::hugs:: for everybody.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 08:49 AM
I swear by all that is good and holy, some of you people have the most closed minds I have ever seen.

For the umpteenth frickin' time: What the SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION decides in their annual meeting rarely has any impact on what MY CHURCH does. As has been noted earlier, the SBC is seeing something of an exodus from its ranks by churches who don't agree with some of its hard-line stances. (And regardless of what Homebrew and others might think, the SBC has attempted to ameliorate some of its policies, but in a very haphazard and ineffective way.)

presidebt, I think you might be confusing nationality with ethnicity. I'm born an American, so I'm always an American? It IS possible to become a citizen of another country, you know. Or are you about to deny civil rights to a whole host of immigrants because they weren't "born American"?

macabresoul (and others): You seem to have a distorted view of the type of worship we enjoy. Contrary to what you seem to believe, our worship services don't consist of bonfires and pitchforks, during which we're exhorted to "kill the gay monsters" until we're worked into a frenzy and sally forth into the unsuspecting populace. I honestly can't tell you the last time a homosexual issue was part of any discussion or sermon I've heard at our church. Isn't that what gobear and others want? The freedom to live their lives without interference from others? Well, I and members of my church haven't done anything to interfere with him. And yet we're slammed, even while we're saying we agree with his position.

Originally posted by Homebrew
Heaven forfend that you support the cause because it's the right thing to do, regardless of how a few people on an internet message board vent their anger at the bigotry they endure.

Show me where I've said I don't support the cause espoused by gobear. And you want to talk bigotry and/or prejudice? Take a look at some of these gems, posted in this very thread:

"Look, I don't tell Souther Baptists to pick up the beer cans around their trailers, get library cards, or stop wearing polyester, so why do they feel they have the right to tell me how to live? Haven't those shitstains ever heard of "live and let live"?"

"There is no difference between these southern Batizts and fred phelps."

"oh well, let me give a nice warm fuck you to the southern babtizts (I Think Babtizts sounds better and describes thier beliefs better.)"

"IMO, the Southern Baptists are evil people, as bad in their way as Nazis or the Taliban."

"The problem with Southern Baptists is that they don't hold them under water long enough."

Now, take a good long look at those quotes. All of these were made in this thread, and the vast majority were made AFTER various posters started calling folks on the blatant stereotyping that is entailed in these quotes. Tell me why I should support anyone who says stuff like that, if I self-identify as a Southern Baptist. Try this: Pick any group you self-identify with. Now replace "Southern Baptist" in those quotes with the name of your group.

(gobear, my apologies on including one or more of your quotes in here -- you've already apologized for that. I'm trying to give examples of what angered me in the first place, not rake you over the coals again.)

One last time: The SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION may make an announcement about a policy or a campaign, but it rarely, if ever has any effect on ME or MY CHURCH. My church does a ton of good work in my community -- we run a food closet, we volunteer at soup kitchens, we operate a low-cost after-school care program, we have a Meals on Wheels ministry for shut-ins, we run a ministry for Spanish-speaking people, and a host of other things that make a huge difference in the lives of people in this community. For people on a message board to arbitrarily decide I and the members of my church are evil shitstains, equal to Fred Phelps, Nazis or the Taliban, and worthy of drowning ... well, that's asinine to the extreme.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 08:52 AM
And I got so concerned over my own little cause that I completely forgot that which was vastly more important. gobear, I am truly sorry to hear about your sister. If you do not object, I would like to add her to the prayer list in our Sunday School class.

Eve
06-19-2003, 08:55 AM
"I honestly can't tell you the last time a homosexual issue was part of any discussion or sermon I've heard at our church."

—Well, it's about bloody well time it was, then. Why doesn't someone stand up and say, "Does this church agree with the hateful anti-gay proclamations passed by the SBC? If not, why don't we do something about it? If so, good-bye!"

Sauron
06-19-2003, 09:15 AM
You're right, Eve. Because my church has made no official pronouncements on its stance regarding the SBC's initiatives regarding gays, my wife and I should stop volunteering our time and money to support all the good things the church does. We should stop teaching fourth- and fifth-grade children a message of tolerance and understanding in our Sunday School class. We should stop helping the poor, the hungry, and the homeless in our community.

Because, after all, that's what Jesus taught, right?

I agree with gobear's ire, but I refuse to make a church's stance on homosexuality my only criteria for joining.

Eve
06-19-2003, 09:18 AM
Sooooo, there are no other churches anywhere in Birmingham?

Sauron
06-19-2003, 09:26 AM
There are tons of churches in Birmingham (or in the suburbs, which is where I live). As I said, I see no reason to switch from the one I belong to now.

presidebt
06-19-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Sauron

presidebt I think you might be confusing nationality with ethnicity. I'm born an American, so I'm always an American? It IS possible to become a citizen of another country, you know. Or are you about to deny civil rights to a whole host of immigrants because they weren't "born American"?

I'm not saying any such thing, though it's telling to me that you would twist what I say to fit with your anger. You are right about one thing, you can change your citizenship, but that entails a little more than walking down the street to a better, more liberating church. And my comment stands. You have no choice where you are born, but you have every choice in where you worship.

Judging by your wife's post, it seems that your family might challenge your religious leaders, and good on ya for it. Now if you guys could organize a group of churches to go to the Conventions and shout down your evil, phobic leaders, I for one would appreciate it.

For people on a message board to arbitrarily decide I and the members of my church are evil shitstains, equal to Fred Phelps, Nazis or the Taliban, and worthy of drowning ... well, that's asinine to the extreme.

And you think there were no good Nazis? No person in the Taliban hated what they were doing? I would bet there was a small group in each of these larger groups who hated what the larger group was doing. There are countless stories of individual Nazis going against the leadership and helping people to get out, to get away, gave them food, etc. But we still refer to "Nazis" as evil. You do so yourself. Why is it so hard for you to make the jump here? Because you're personally offended? Now that's asinine--not seeing what should be patently obvious.

Anyway, I don't want to dump on you, I'm just saying you're getting the hair on the back of your neck raised at the wrong people. Good luck in your endeavor to change your Convention.

Captain Amazing
06-19-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Eve
was[/i], then. Why doesn't someone stand up and say, "Does this church agree with the hateful anti-gay proclamations passed by the SBC? If not, why don't we do something about it? If so, good-bye!"

Because I don't think the issue of gay rights is really that important to most people. So, they're not going to do something drastic like that over something they really don't care about.

presidebt
06-19-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Sauron
I agree with gobear's ire, but I refuse to make a church's stance on homosexuality my only criteria for joining.

Boy, I hope you have problems with more than just the homosexuality issue within the SBC. They don't just dump on homosexuals, you know.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Eve
Why doesn't someone stand up and say, "Does this church agree with the hateful anti-gay proclamations passed by the SBC? If not, why don't we do something about it? If so, good-bye!"

I agree. I intend to bring up the topic of the OP this Sunday to hear the response. I want to know if my church thinks it is logical or right to befriend someone solely for the purpose of "liberating" them.

If my church says they support such a thing then I can assure you I won't be a member there any longer.

As I said, I have thought a lot since this post started yesterday. I need to educate myself further about EXACTLY what MY church stands by in regards to the SBC. I need to educate myself about how much of the money I give to my church goes to the SBC. These are all things I need to do and will.

There have been many questions raised in my mind over the last 24 hours regarding why I believe what I believe and I will try to seek out answers to those questions from various resources.

BUT (and this is for everybody) if the posting had continued as it was late yesterday I might not have been so receptive to challenging my belief system. I might have closed out some of your valid arguements because the tone of the posting took on one of those "me against you" in a battle of personal insults things that I HATE about the pit.

I can take being told you don't agree with me. I want to know WHY....not for you to insult me, my family, my dog, my mother, etc.

In fact, Exprix has a thread going on right now related to this very topic.

Polycarp
06-19-2003, 09:51 AM
I think I see what Sauron is saying, from the Baptist perspective -- "St. Swithin's Baptist Church, Birmingham" (since he hasn't named it, let's use that) is the final word on what its own policies are. It's chosen to remain part of the Alabama Baptist Convention (or whatever the state group's name is) and the SBC, for the duration, to continue "working from within" to combat the attitude of the hardliners. Take it from a couple who had done likewise for 20 years in an Episcopal Church parish with a less-than-accepting attitude -- that's a tough row to hoe, and I for one am proud of Sauron and Aries28 for fighting that battle. A suggestion: urge your pastor to preach a sermon on the truth about gay people and what Scripture calls us to do for them.

And to support their contention that the SBC, for all its homophobic attitudes, does good: Back in 1999, Hurricane Floyd laid waste the eastern third of North Carolina. Aside from a couple of seaside cities that knew how to deal with such storms, there was flooding almost everywhere, destroying or trashing homes and businesses, leaving people homeless and unemployed. Our church sent what help we could, the business I was working for had special drives and a fund administered by the comptroller (whose family was deeply involved in the rescue-and-recovery work) where our contributions were matched from company funds. And the evil old SBC sent in massive amounts of money, goods, and volunteers -- more than anyone else except FEMA of the first two, and more volunteers than anybody else.

Does this excuse their homophobic attitude? No. Does it say they're human, with both good and bad in them? IMHO, absolutely.

I want to close this post with a line from Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend."

Peace.

Eve
06-19-2003, 09:56 AM
Good for you, Aries28! You are joining Polycarp in my My Favorite Christians pantheon!

Sauron
06-19-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by presidebt
[B]I'm not saying any such thing, though it's telling to me that you would twist what I say to fit with your anger. You are right about one thing, you can change your citizenship, but that entails a little more than walking down the street to a better, more liberating church. And my comment stands. You have no choice where you are born, but you have every choice in where you worship.

Why is where you were born relevant at all? As you noted, you can change your citizenship. Just because it isn't as easy to change as a church membership doesn't mean it can't be done.

FTR, you said: I think your comparison is invalid because you have no choice of nationality, but you do for religion. You're born an American, you're merely baptized a SB. Just sayin'.

Tell me how my example earlier is different from what you're saying. A whole host of civil rights are only available to American citizens. However, by your statement above, one has no choice of nationality. If I am born an American, someone else would be born, say, Mexican. Following your example to its logical conclusion, said Mexican could never become an American citizen.

And you think there were no good Nazis? No person in the Taliban hated what they were doing? I would bet there was a small group in each of these larger groups who hated what the larger group was doing. There are countless stories of individual Nazis going against the leadership and helping people to get out, to get away, gave them food, etc. But we still refer to "Nazis" as evil. You do so yourself. Why is it so hard for you to make the jump here? Because you're personally offended? Now that's asinine--not seeing what should be patently obvious.

So it's okay to make blanket statements about an entire group of people based on your perception of the majority? Congratulations. You just justified stereotyping.

jlzania
06-19-2003, 10:03 AM
Sauron, I'm certainly not contesting your right to belong to church of your choice.
However, when all's said and done, I'm curious as to how you reconcile the SBC stance that homosexuality is an abomination with your more liberal and compassionate views.
I'm not being snarky but do you just get to pick and chose which church doctrine you want to follow?

presidebt
06-19-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Sauron
Why is where you were born relevant at all? As you noted, you can change your citizenship. Just because it isn't as easy to change as a church membership doesn't mean it can't be done.

FTR, you said:

Tell me how my example earlier is different from what you're saying. A whole host of civil rights are only available to American citizens. However, by your statement above, one has no choice of nationality. If I am born an American, someone else would be born, say, Mexican. Following your example to its logical conclusion, said Mexican could never become an American citizen.



So it's okay to make blanket statements about an entire group of people based on your perception of the majority? Congratulations. You just justified stereotyping.

Okay, it's clear to me that you would rather hang onto your personal feelings of being offended instead of trying to see it from an objective point of view, so I'm done. Thank you for the discussion and have a good day.

Otto
06-19-2003, 10:08 AM
Sauron and Aries28, I'm assuming that your church is affiliated with the SBC. If your church disagrees with the SBC on this and the majority of its other issues, and if the actions of the SBC have little or no effect on the day-to-day operations of your church, then your church should end its affiliation with the SBC. Period. The SBC is a cancer on the body of Christ and your willing acquiescence to its rules, no matter how perfunctory it may be, and the silence of your church on the issues with which you gravely differ from the SBC, is doing nothing to stop that cancer from spreading.

Imagine if all the churches like yours who think the SBC is full of it and ignore its declarations actually spoke up. Imagine the shockwaves that would send through the community of the church and the power of positive change that would be unleashed by that act.

Now imagine that churches who disagree with the SBC do nothing to express that disagreement. Oh wait, no need to imagine it, we see the result of your silence now.

You have a duty as Christians to speak against injustice, even, and especially, when it is perpetrated in the name of your loving Saviour.

Even if you don't believe that your Christian duty compels you to speak and act against the SBC, doesn't it disgust you that the lunatic fringe controls your denomination? Aren't you tired of dealing with the kind of shitstorms that their nastiness kicks up, this thread for example?

Speak up. Act up. Take the power away from the evil men who pervert your faith to promote their hateful ways. Otherwise, shut the fuck up when people attack your church for the actions of your SBC leaders because you're not doing fuck-all to stop them.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by presidebt
Okay, it's clear to me that you would rather hang onto your personal feelings of being offended instead of trying to see it from an objective point of view, so I'm done. Thank you for the discussion and have a good day.

No, I'm trying to see where you're coming from, and I honestly don't see it. If you have a valid point, I don't think you're explaining it very well.

jlzania, as I said before, the topic of homosexuality rarely, if ever, comes up in my church. I know that my Sunday School teacher and his wife are friends with a couple of gay people, but when they're mentioned, we don't talk about them as gays, we talk about them as people.

As I also said, numerous times, our church tends to focus more on the forgiveness and serving aspect of the Baptist faith, rather than the condemnation and hellfire aspect. In fact, every church I've ever belonged to (all Southern Baptist) followed that doctrine. It's what Jesus taught, after all.

I seriously doubt I'd ever find a church that matched my personal philosophy exactly. For that reason, I'm willing to overlook some aspects of a church's teachings if the main ones fall in line with what I believe. For example, one of the things our pastor does believe is that Jesus didn't drink wine, he drank grape juice. Well, I firmly believe Jesus drank wine. That doesn't mean I'm gonna change churches, though.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Otto
Speak up. Act up. Take the power away from the evil men who pervert your faith to promote their hateful ways. Otherwise, shut the fuck up when people attack your church for the actions of your SBC leaders because you're not doing fuck-all to stop them.

Umm...Hi? Have you read my earlier posts where we DO speak up and will continue to speak up?

Kind of example....what if I had a bad experience in dealing with a gay person....ONE single gay person....then I came into the pit and just insulted the entire community based on the actions of that one person? I would be piled on and probably banned.

And yes, I understand we are talking about governing authority and the like and not individuals but that was the best example I had for the time being.... ;)

Yes...the SBC has some fucked up ideas and attitudes. Doesn't mean all Southern Baptists or people affiliated with the SBC are thinking the same fucked up things and it doesn't mean we aren't trying to change the leadership.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Otto
Speak up. Act up. Take the power away from the evil men who pervert your faith to promote their hateful ways. Otherwise, shut the fuck up when people attack your church for the actions of your SBC leaders because you're not doing fuck-all to stop them.

Once again, my illustration of an American citizen being reviled for the policies of the American government addresses this. I might disagree with a policy the government enacts, yet by your standards someone from Canada, say, is perfectly free to lambast me over that policy, and I'm not allowed to say anything in my own defense.

Folks, you seem to be forgetting that Aries28 and I are on your side. There are approximately 4,200 churches that belong to the Southern Baptist Convention, representing somewhere in the neighborhood of 16.5 million people. It will take some time to enact major policy changes ... although, I repeat, that is beginning to happen. (If you honestly see no difference between Fred Phelps' message, which would probably have been acceptable to the SBC 40 years ago, and what they announced this week, then we have absolutely no common ground for communication.)

gobear
06-19-2003, 10:40 AM
Well, I want to commend Sauron and Aries28 for thinking about what's been said here and for reviewing the attitudes of their church. They are on our side, after all.

Little Plastic Ninja
06-19-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Sauron
For example, one of the things our pastor does believe is that Jesus didn't drink wine, he drank grape juice. Well, I firmly believe Jesus drank wine. That doesn't mean I'm gonna change churches, though.



That assertion always makes me giggle. My ex had this conversation with some people who were trying to convert him to the SBC from his happy blend of Episcopal Discordianism:

"Alcohol is Satan's evil."

"But didn't Christ turn water into wine?"

"Oh, wine was non-alcoholic then."

"So...Christ turned it into..."

"Grape juice."

"You're telling me that Christ's first miracle was to turn water into Kool-Aid?"

:D

Aries28
06-19-2003, 10:44 AM
Agreed. The whole "It wasn't alcoholic back then" line cracks me up.

But I'm a bad Baptist anyway....I dance and drink. :eek:

Sauron
06-19-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Well, I want to commend Sauron and Aries28 for thinking about what's been said here and for reviewing the attitudes of their church. They are on our side, after all.

And I want to let you know that despite what you might think or feel, you are by no means alone in your beliefs. Hell, if two inbred Southern Baptist white-trash rednecks from Alabammy can defend your right to love whoever you want, there's gotta be some hope somewhere, right? ;)

Aries28
06-19-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by gobear
Well, I want to commend Sauron and Aries28 for thinking about what's been said here and for reviewing the attitudes of their church. They are on our side, after all.

Thank you Gobear and we really do wish you the best.

And might I add.... Sauron is a tough cookie sometimes but he really is a compassionate person and stands up for things that are unjust.

He is pretty steadfast in his arguements and he won't be swayed until you CONVINCE him rather than just spout off. He wants valid reasons to sway his opinion on things not "just because"

jlzania
06-19-2003, 10:49 AM
Sauron
I seriously doubt I'd ever find a church that matched my personal philosophy exactly. For that reason, I'm willing to overlook some aspects of a church's teachings if the main ones fall in line with what I believe.
I suppose that's where we differ.
To me, the concept that loving some one of the same sex was a mortal sin would preclude my participation in any church that espoused that belief.
It would be too large a philosophical gap for me to be able to ignore it. Period. Not negotiable.
The "we just don't discuss the issue" wouldn't be acceptable.
However, I can also fully appreciate the fact that you and Aries28 are trying to change the SBC from within.
Doesn't mean all Southern Baptists or people affiliated with the SBC are thinking the same fucked up things and it doesn't mean we aren't trying to change the leadership.

I hope that you don't think that I'm trying to browbeat either of you as you seem to be lovely, compassionate people.
However, may I raise a hypothetical question?
What if SBC leadership continues to revile homosexuality as a sin?
What you will you do then?
See, I just don't see the boys at the top ever changing their stance on this issue.

Esprix
06-19-2003, 11:03 AM
Isn't the Southern Baptist Convention supposed to represent the religious views of Southern Baptists? Isn't that the point? And isn't it therefore valid to take them to task for those views, especially in this case?

And only an individual can decide for themselves if they are committing a sin of complicity by giving their silent assent to something they know is wrong.

Esprix

Aries28
06-19-2003, 11:03 AM
Okay...fair enough jltzania I'll post MY own personal beliefs and probably be ripped to shreds but I'm a big girl...I can take it. And this probably isn't related to the OP but I did want to respond....

I think treating someone poorly because they are gay is wrong. I think beating someone up or keying their car or yelling things at them or God forbid killing them because they are gay is wrong.

I think not giving a gay couple insurance and the same benefits I am entitled to is wrong.

I think standing outside of any establishment with signs spouting hate and saying gay people are going to hell is wrong.

I don't think it is my place to tell anyone on this earth who they have the right to love or not love. I am not their judge and jury.

Now here is where I am confused lately....and please understand...it is because I was raised in a SB church my entire life and I have never thought to question it....but I am starting to....

I have always been taught that homosexuality itself is wrong. A sin. Period.

My parents would have absolutely gone nuts if they ever thought I treated someone different than the way I want to be treated because of their race, beliefs, sex, who they loved, etc. I was always taught tolerance. Period.

But I was always taught that being homosexual was wrong.

I am evaluating this belief and I haven't decided one way or another yet what I think now. But I'm rethinking why I have always believed it. Does that count for anything?

I STILL think the statement of the SBC that started this original post was riduculous and wrong. I don't agree with it.

As I stated above I don't agree with hatred towards ANY group. Period.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by jlzania
However, may I raise a hypothetical question?
What if SBC leadership continues to revile homosexuality as a sin?
What you will you do then?
See, I just don't see the boys at the top ever changing their stance on this issue.

Some famous guy once said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." God knows I've done more than enough stuff in my lifetime to lose any credibility I might have ever had regarding moral superiority. There ain't a beam in my eye -- there's an entire Amish barn. And a new one is being raised most every day.

Is homosexuality a sin? I dunno. It ain't my call. But I see no reason to condemn people for it. There's precious little love in the world as it is; we don't need to exempt and demonize perfectly valid avenues for its expression (in my opinion). Regardless, my faith believes sin is sin, and comes between me and God. There aren't levels of sin -- for example, if I murdered someone, I would experience the same separation from God as if I'd told my wife a white lie about the way she looks in tight pants. (Not that I did! You look great, honey! I swear! Smokin'!)

We believe that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We also believe that faith, not works, is the way to Heaven. In other words, even if homosexual behavior is a sin, so what? It's no worse than anything else I have ever done, or will continue to do. Kinda ridiculous for me to point and cry "Sinner!" when God is looking at me and saying "Oh, really? Let's look over what you've been up to in the last couple of days ..."

I would like to see my church and my faith move more toward what I believe Jesus taught -- love, compassion, forgiveness, service. I think He is often frustrated by the way his message has been perverted.

Esprix: Think of the SBC as a club, if you will. Churches belong to it. But that doesn't mean that every church in the club agrees completely with the club rules. So no, it's not right to say that 16.5 million people agree completely with everything the SBC says.

Homebrew
06-19-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Aries28
I am evaluating this belief and I haven't decided one way or another yet what I think now. But I'm rethinking why I have always believed it. Does that count for anything. Certainly it does.

Might I suggest a few resources for you?

Here's a well-researched essay (http://www.glsengreensboro.org/jonathan_walker.htm)

The Cathedral of Hope (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.htm), a predominately gay congregation of the UMCC, has some words to say about it.

Need more?

Homebrew
06-19-2003, 11:17 AM
Also let me say that this thread is changing my perception of you Sauron. You might not be so bad afterall.

presidebt
06-19-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Sauron
No, I'm trying to see where you're coming from, and I honestly don't see it. If you have a valid point, I don't think you're explaining it very well.



Okay, fair enough, I will try one more time.

I have two points, the first addresses your comment here:

Originally posted by Sauron
It's similar to someone objecting to a policy of the American government (or any government, for that matter), and then saying all Americans are ignorant fuckwads. Many Americans might actually object to the policy in question, and agree with the person voicing an objection to the policy. When the person expands their argument to say that all Americans are therefore stupid, ignorant, beer-swilling, ill-dressed, etc., I have a problem with that.


What I'm saying is that American and Southern Baptist are not analogous. The reason they are not analogous is that one is a choice and the other is not (generally speaking, obviously immigrants excluded--but that DOES NOT mean I object to immigration and shame on you for suggesting it). Even if you change your citizenship, you are still an American. Ask someone who has expatriated. The citizens of (insert adopted country here) will give you status as a citzen (if you meet their criteria), but they will generally always consider you an American. If you leave the SBC, that's it, you are no longer Southern Baptist. BTW- the converse holds true here: There is a store owned and operated by a Palestinian fellow in my neighborhood. Not only do the members of the community think of and refer to him as Palestinian, he does too, even though he is a fully pledged citizen of America. Or do you deny that a lot of people who immigrate still claim their nationality as a self-identifier, and that a lot of American citizens born here also consider them thusly?

The second point I was trying to make is that it is disingenuous for you to express outrage over being stereotyped since you do it too. Most of us do, especially with groups like the Nazis and the Taliban. If you say "Nazi's are evil, jackbooted thugs" you are doing just the same thing--stereotyping. Unless you have always added the qualifiers of some Nazis or most Taliban, then you haven't a bitch in this really. It is reasonable for someone to refer (in words) to the group when discussing the wrongness or immorality of the group's doctrine, even as they draw distinctions in their own mind*. Have you always used the qualifier of some or most when discussing certain groups?

*This is catagorically different than stereotyping a group based on physical characteristics or other inate characteristics. Doctrine can be changed, the other cannot.

Does that clear things up?

I just saw this:

Originally posted by Sauron
Once again, my illustration of an American citizen being reviled for the policies of the American government addresses this. I might disagree with a policy the government enacts, yet by your standards someone from Canada, say, is perfectly free to lambast me over that policy, and I'm not allowed to say anything in my own defense.

This still doesn't work because there is a large, vocal group of Americans who take their leadership to task when they do idiotic things. I have seen no such movement within the Southern Baptist community, though if I am wrong about that, please correct me. However, disagreeing with the leadership and ignoring their directives are not that same as publicly, vocally taking the leadership to task.

Finally, you are allowed to say anything you want in your own defense--this thread proves that. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and I am free to tell you that.

mhendo
06-19-2003, 11:26 AM
To those of you who are calling on Southern Baptists who disagree with the church's position on homosexuality to simply leave the church, let me ask you this:

If you are a member of the Democratic or the Republican party, or of any other political party for that matter, do you leave the party as soon as it takes a position on one issue that you disagree with? I'll bet the answer is generally "no."

For example: Many of the Democrats who have spent the last two and half years abusing Ralph Nader voters for "losing" the presidential election have been constantly harping on the point that, while the Democratic party may not be perfect, it is worth fighting to save it. I'd be willing to bet that many members and affiliates of the SBC feel the same way.

Personally, i could not support any political party or church (i'm not religious anyway) who felt the way that the SBC does about homosexuality. But i think that simply calling on Baptists to leave their church tends to ignore the fact that we all make certain compromises and live with certain hypocrisies in our lives. We are always happy to point out and ridicule the compromises and hypocrisies of others, but just as happy to ignore our own.Originally posted by Aries 28
And it's that type of generalization that upset some of us to begin with.

Baptism is a big part of our faith and to me the above statement, even in jest, is offensive.

Just as I would find a joke bashing gay people or black people or any other group offensive.You know, i thought about this very closely. It was certainly rather gratuitous of me to put that quotation in this thread, and i would never put a similar joke about blacks or gays in such a discussion.

I suppose all that i will say in my defense, and in Ivins', is that the comment came, in each case, in direct response to particular actions or policy decisions by the SBC. Ivins, in making the comment, was actually quoting another man. In her column of April 23, 2003, she was talking about the intention of the SBC and other Christian groups to go to Iraq and convert people to Christianity. She said:The Southern Baptists are poised to deploy en masse, reminding us of Texas newspaperman William Brann's famous comment, "The trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough."Well, while i sort of understand that the SBC might feel that part of its religious charge is to convert Muslims and homosexuals to Christianity, i reserve the right to ridicule this proselytizing attitude. I realize that such an attitude may not apply to all southern Baptists, but if you are affiliated with the SBC then you have to take part of the responsibilty for their policies and actions. Just like members of political parties must take responsibility for the policies and actions of their parties, even if they happen to disagree with some of them.

carrot
06-19-2003, 11:28 AM
If I may, I'd just like to step in here a moment and apologize to gobear; it was the 'Southern Baptists in the trailers and all the beer bottles and such' comment that got me, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now, I guess we can get back to the homosexual love fest.

Er, wait. That didn't come out quite right.

Um...It didn't sound quite right.

Eve
06-19-2003, 11:43 AM
You bet if the Democratic Party came out with an official anti-gay platform I'd leave it!

Esprix
06-19-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Sauron

Esprix: Think of the SBC as a club, if you will. Churches belong to it. But that doesn't mean that every church in the club agrees completely with the club rules. So no, it's not right to say that 16.5 million people agree completely with everything the SBC says.

I agree; however, it is perfectly valid to lambast the Southern Baptist Convention for its stance, and if that Convention is the representative body for the entire denomination, you and your church - as parts of that denomination - are going to feel some of the backlash.

And FTR, there is no representative body for the gay community, so you can't logically point to one group within that community and say they represent the whole, whereas with Southern Baptists, you've got the Convention, which specifically does represent that community. Again, that makes things difficult for those of that denomination who don't entirely agree with what the SBC says.

Esprix

jlzania
06-19-2003, 11:50 AM
Thank you so much for your caring and thoughtful replies, Aries28 and Sauron.
I think that all any of us can ask of each other is compassion and a non-judgemental attitude.

My best friend died of AIDS in 1987. He came from a large RC family.
His biggest fear was not dying but the pain that his homosexuality would cause his very devout parents.
He had never been able to tell them.

My husband's family are very devout Lutherans.
When my niece discovered that she was a lesbian, her biggest fear was that her parents would reject her out of hand because of her sexual orientation.

It hurts my heart that these children of Christians questioned their own parent's love and acceptance because the leaders of their churches espoused the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin.

mhendo
06-19-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Eve
You bet if the Democratic Party came out with an official anti-gay platform I'd leave it! I'm sure you would.

But did you leave it when Clinton and Democratic members of congress began to support a whole bunch of legislation that abrogated the party's long-standing commitment to the poor? Or did you continue to stick by it because you felt it was still better than the alternative?

Did you leave the Democrats when they meekly rolled over on issues such as civil liberties and granting the President excessive powers after 9/11? Did you leave when a whole bunch of Democrats did nothing to oppose the Patriot Act? Or did you continue to stick by them because you felt that they were better than the alternative?

The point i'm making here is that each person has his or her "deal breaking" issues. And what those issues are differ for different people.

Polycarp
06-19-2003, 12:10 PM
FWIW, I had to go through much of what you two are undertaking, Sauron and Aries, and my conclusions, based on a bunch of reading and applying reason to what I'd been taught about the Bible, are as follows:

1. "We are free from the Law" -- not free to sin, but free to live out the Law of love as expressed in Jesus's Summary of the Law. That in itself takes care of any obligation from Leviticus.

2. Paul's stuff in Romans 1 is clearly not talking about people who "were born gay" -- IMHO, he's talking about the First Century equivalent of "gay chic" where hedonistic pleasures are beginning to cloy and the ennui-laden folks with that focus turn to gay sex as a new way to get kicks. If you read the Scripture in context, you see that he's condemning folks who have turned from God for the gratification available in this world -- and pointing out to the Roman Christians in 2:1, which follows immediately on the anti-homosex passage, that some of them used to be that sort of people.

3. All the condemnations of homosexuality, from Leviticus to Jude, are focused on using it to gratify one's lusts, and occur in a bunch of similar strictures about getting your rocks off at the expense of someone else. They don't address committed loving relationships but rather selfish pleasure. (This ties in with the discussion over in GD about people before the 20th Century not identifying as being gay but in merely doing gay sex.) The condemnation is not of loving relationships, whether straight or gay, but of self-gratification by treating another person as merely a sex toy.

4. My job is not to judge somebody else's sins or sex life, but to live my own life in the way God calls me to, keeping the promises I've made, and trying to work for His glory. For me, that includes standing firm against the abuse of gay people, particularly by my co-religionists.

Dunno if that helps any -- but that's where I've gotten to.

macabresoul
06-19-2003, 12:11 PM
To Aries28 and Sauron, I was too harsh before, let me apoligize.

First off, I now realize you guys do care about stopping the injustice from within and I commend you for it. I harbor have harbored resentment towards certain religions because of things I have heard in the past. such as, "No I love gay people, they can come to church and pray just like me, just because they are gay doesn't mean they have to have gay sex." Which is basically saying they can be gay just not have sex with someone of the same sex because it's a sin. It ticked me off hearing this because the statement is masked as loving, but deep down it is still a persecution of every gay person.

Too many personal feelings thrown into this debate, but I am willing to cast them away to say that I respect you Aries28 for sticking up for what you believe, and trying to make a change.

Sauron, you have great conviction and i do truely believe you are against what the SBC preaches in terms of intolerance. But if you could only kick your shoes off and walk in someone elses for a while, you would see both sides a lot better.

Keep up the good work

Esprix
06-19-2003, 12:45 PM
I'm awful glad I got to meet you at the San Diego dopefest last week, macabresoul. :D

Esprix

Sauron
06-19-2003, 12:50 PM
presidebt: I wasn't attempting to say you were against immigration. I was trying to show you what I perceived to be a fallacy in your argument.

Originally posted by presidebt
BTW- the converse holds true here: There is a store owned and operated by a Palestinian fellow in my neighborhood. Not only do the members of the community think of and refer to him as Palestinian, he does too, even though he is a fully pledged citizen of America. Or do you deny that a lot of people who immigrate still claim their nationality as a self-identifier, and that a lot of American citizens born here also consider them thusly?

Okay, let me ask you this: If you went to the Palestinian fellow in your neighborhood and said, "What on earth is the PLO thinking with their recent actions? I swear, all Palestinians must be ignorant fuckwad shitstains, no better than the Taliban or the Nazis."

Do you think your self-identifying Palestinian friend might be offended by that generalization? What you've done is take the actions and pronouncements of the PLO and applied them to every Palestinian. Similarly, some of those who object to the initiative announced by the SBC have directed their vitriol at all Southern Baptists. As I've tried to explain, that's wrong.

The second point I was trying to make is that it is disingenuous for you to express outrage over being stereotyped since you do it too. Most of us do, especially with groups like the Nazis and the Taliban. If you say "Nazi's are evil, jackbooted thugs" you are doing just the same thing--stereotyping. Unless you have always added the qualifiers of some Nazis or most Taliban, then you haven't a bitch in this really. It is reasonable for someone to refer (in words) to the group when discussing the wrongness or immorality of the group's doctrine, even as they draw distinctions in their own mind*. Have you always used the qualifier of some or most when discussing certain groups?

To my knowledge, I've never made blanket statements about any group. You seem to feel that I've done that -- point it out to me. Stereotyping (of any type) is one of my hot buttons, and I try not to do it. Do I always succeed? No. But I try to recognize it when it happens, and speak out.

This still doesn't work because there is a large, vocal group of Americans who take their leadership to task when they do idiotic things. I have seen no such movement within the Southern Baptist community, though if I am wrong about that, please correct me. However, disagreeing with the leadership and ignoring their directives are not that same as publicly, vocally taking the leadership to task.

Assuming there is no such movement because you haven't seen proof of it is one thing; berating someone because of that assumption, without getting the facts first, is something else entirely. Actually, many churches are voting with their feet, so to speak, or with their money -- they're leaving the SBC, or not giving as much to it. I have no voice at the SBC, but I do have a voice at my church.

jlzania: My condolences on the loss of your friend.

macabresoul: Thank you for the apology. I agree that my worldview is sometimes limited. By the same token, I get extremely frustrated when I feel that my view is actually wider than others', and my attempts to explain my position aren't understood. That's likely more my failing than anyone else's.

Esprix: You're exactly right when you say that Southern Baptists will feel backlash from the SBC's position. My point all along has been that once it's been proven that not all Southern Baptists feel the way the SBC apparently does, one should not continue to say "Southern Baptists" when one means the SBC. Does that make sense?

Aries28
06-19-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by macabresoul
To Aries28 and Sauron, I was too harsh before, let me apoligize.

Too many personal feelings thrown into this debate, but I am willing to cast them away to say that I respect you Aries28 for sticking up for what you believe, and trying to make a change.

Keep up the good work

Thank you.

And Homebrew thank you for the links. I have scanned over them but I will print it out tonight and read it at home.

So I'm guessing Sunday is going to get REAL interesting in our class. ;)

Otto
06-19-2003, 01:53 PM
Aries 28 Umm...Hi? Have you read my earlier posts where we DO speak up and will continue to speak up? Honestly, no. I was more focusing on Sauron's posts although I did read several of your earlier posts which I took to be, frankly, reflecting a certain apathy on the issue. I apologize if I did not read your posts closely enough to glean your actual stance and actions.

Sauron Once again, my illustration of an American citizen being reviled for the policies of the American government addresses this. I might disagree with a policy the government enacts, yet by your standards someone from Canada, say, is perfectly free to lambast me over that policy, and I'm not allowed to say anything in my own defense. First, nothing I wrote can properly be construed as claiming that you're "not allowed to say anything in (your) own defense." Feel free to defend yourself all you want. I for one am not attacking you for what the SBC says or does. I am lambasting you for any failure to directly confront the SBC on their shit and the "la la la, well my church runs a food pantry and a Sunday School so it's not my fault what the leaders do" attitude I get from your posts.

(If you honestly see no difference between Fred Phelps' message, which would probably have been acceptable to the SBC 40 years ago, and what they announced this week, then we have absolutely no common ground for communication.) I see a difference in language but not in intent. Phelps believes being gay is a sin. The SBC believes that being gay is a sin. Phelps believes "repent or perish and burn." SBC believes "repent or perish and burn." Just because SBC wants to be our "friends" and Phelps doesn't does not mean that both are not equally reprehensible and equally worthy of condemnation.

Sauron
06-19-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Otto
I am lambasting you for any failure to directly confront the SBC on their shit and the "la la la, well my church runs a food pantry and a Sunday School so it's not my fault what the leaders do" attitude I get from your posts.

I see. So because my church actually does some small amount of good in the world, you're allowed to ignore it and trivialize it because it's not on fire for your issue.

The next time I'm named as a delegate to the Southern Baptist Convention, I'll be sure to raise the objections you want me to. Until that happens, though, all I can do is work through my local church. One may object to George Bush being president, but that doesn't mean one can automatically remove him from office.

I see a difference in language but not in intent. Phelps believes being gay is a sin. The SBC believes that being gay is a sin. Phelps believes "repent or perish and burn." SBC believes "repent or perish and burn." Just because SBC wants to be our "friends" and Phelps doesn't does not mean that both are not equally reprehensible and equally worthy of condemnation.

Phelps and his followers make signs that say "God hates fags." You may think that's also the SBC's opinion; from what I'm seeing of their current statements, you're wrong. I can certainly tell you it's not MY opinion, nor the opinion (I believe) of any of the Southern Baptist friends I have.

Incidentally, "repent or perish and burn" is the essential philosophy of most Christian denominations when you boil it down.

Aries28
06-19-2003, 02:16 PM
Otto

I hope I have not come across as sounding apathetic. I'm not. I have many thought, concerns, questions on much of what we have all discussed here. As I posted earlier in response to jlzania I completely think hatred and persecution of ANY group is wrong.

Can I ask you a completely unrelated question? Can I not disagree with an issue as a whole but still think the people who believe in that issue deserve every right I am entitled to even if I disagree with them? (Boy I hope that isn't as confusing as it sounds when I read it again...)

For instance, can I disagree with abortion in the majority of cases but still think it is horrible for clinics to be bombed and doctors killed over their involvement in them?

Can I disagree with homosexuality as a whole but still think it is absolutely awful for homosexuals to be treated the way they are in many cases? And again, if you will read my earlier response to jlzania I am questioning what I have always been taught.

As Sauron said....it's not my call if something is a sin or not. I'm just trying to do my best to educate myself and to love everyone as I was commanded to do by Jesus.

Not love them as in try to convert them over to my way of thinking but love them unconditionally...no matter what they believe.

Fair enough?

iampunha
06-19-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
2. Paul's stuff in Romans 1 is clearly not talking about people who "were born gay" -- IMHO, he's talking about the First Century equivalent of "gay chic" where hedonistic pleasures are beginning to cloy and the ennui-laden folks with that focus turn to gay sex as a new way to get kicks. If you read the Scripture in context, you see that he's condemning folks who have turned from God for the gratification available in this world -- and pointing out to the Roman Christians in 2:1, which follows immediately on the anti-homosex passage, that some of them used to be that sort of people.

Poly, my reading of Paul, combined with some stuff I've been told (and saw in books and such) of the polytheistic and hedonistic practices of some of the captors of the Jewish people (Romans and Greeks), as well as persecutors of the first Christians, has suggested to me that he may have been trying to say "hey, those people who beat all y'all up are icky people because they do all these things like they lie and steal and they're polytheistic and have open relationships and things like that. So God likes you, even if it doesn't seem like that when those evil Romans kill your friends for daring to proclaim the word of God. Rock on!" IE he wasn't speaking out against homosexuality or specific sexual acts per se so much as he was saying "hey, these guys are icky because they do things we think are icky."

Does this strike in contrast to what you have learned? It's not something I've seen supported in many places, but I also don't exactly go hunting down people to ask them;)

Pixiesnix
06-19-2003, 03:52 PM
I forgot to add my good wishes to gobear. I'm sorry.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 04:23 PM
Oh matt--I was wrong-it was ACT UP I was thinking of. It doesn't seem like the Sisters throw things at nuns and school kids. Sorry 'bout that-I got the two of them confused.

Polycarp
06-19-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by iampunha
Poly, my reading of Paul, combined with some stuff I've been told (and saw in books and such) of the polytheistic and hedonistic practices of some of the captors of the Jewish people (Romans and Greeks), as well as persecutors of the first Christians, has suggested to me that he may have been trying to say "hey, those people who beat all y'all up are icky people because they do all these things like they lie and steal and they're polytheistic and have open relationships and things like that. So God likes you, even if it doesn't seem like that when those evil Romans kill your friends for daring to proclaim the word of God. Rock on!" IE he wasn't speaking out against homosexuality or specific sexual acts per se so much as he was saying "hey, these guys are icky because they do things we think are icky."

Does this strike in contrast to what you have learned? It's not something I've seen supported in many places, but I also don't exactly go hunting down people to ask them;)

There's more than a little truth in that, although you'll find that there was a very strict morality -- not the one our forefathers would consider proper, but a strict one nonetheless -- connected with the Roman and Greek faith systems. It was the folks who no longer held to these beliefs and were hedonistic, so far as they can be said to have a philosophy at all, that Paul seems to have been speaking of in that first chapter. But you're right in that the target of Paul's ire was not First Century homosexuality but rather the Roman equivalent of the jet set and establishment Rome of the day. But His4Ever's exegesis of the Sodom story should demonstrate to you that accuracy in exegesis is not one of evangelicalism's strong points -- she went against the precise words of Scripture (in Isaiah and Ezekiel) in re the sin of Sodom to prove that it was homosexuality "according to the Bible." (Needless to say, this too is a stereotype -- I know of several decent evangelicals who would never stoop to such a thing, but read the Bible and learn from it.)

Esprix
06-19-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Sauron

Esprix: You're exactly right when you say that Southern Baptists will feel backlash from the SBC's position. My point all along has been that once it's been proven that not all Southern Baptists feel the way the SBC apparently does, one should not continue to say "Southern Baptists" when one means the SBC. Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying - don't assume the individual believes everything as the the organization does - but when someone says "Southern Baptists believe X," it's the truth, if the SBC has said, "Southern Baptists believe X." It's their job to define Southern Baptism. I applaud your work, and I appreciate you standing up for your own personal beliefs, but it is not inappropriate to talk about what southern Baptists believe.

Now, there are limits to this; for example, you would be hard pressed to say "Christianity believes X" because there is no one defining, governing body of all of Christianity, as there are a hundred different denominations of the same "parent religion" - the Baptists do not believe what the Methodists believe, as they interpret the Bible differently (and the Bible is about the only thing that could be considered a "defining authority," if it weren't for the fact that everyone interprets it differently, which in and of itself sounds like a Great Debate). Similarly, as there is no "defining organization" for the gay community, you can't say "The GLBT community believes X;" you can say "many members believe X" or "the NGLTF believes X," but we don't have a tribal council to decide these things.

I acknowledge you're in a sticky wicket as the SBC speaks for all of Southern Baptism and you do not agree that it speaks for all individual Southern Baptists, but you have to accept the fact that people can - and will - talk about "what Southern Baptism believes" and it will be completely within the bounds of debate.

IMHO, that is.

Esprix

Captain Amazing
06-19-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
. But you're right in that the target of Paul's ire was not First Century homosexuality but rather the Roman equivalent of the jet set and establishment Rome of the day.

I think I'd answer that as "Yes, but..." Paul is using homosexuality in Romans as an example of decadence and sinfulness, but as part of that, I do think he finds homosexuality to be decadent and sinful. You see that attitude in a lot of Roman philosophy at the time, especially in the Stoic and Epicurean schools, which were two of the biggest. (As far as I know, you don't see it in Platonism at the time. Given Plato's writings and his own leanings, it would surprise me if you did, but philosophies can change.)

So for Paul, raised a Jew with a Hellenistic philsophical education, writing to a Roman audience, condemnation of homosexuality is a pretty safe course to take.

In fact, the section in Romans sounds an awful lot like the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, who's most famous as the teacher of Epicetus and wrote about about the same time Paul did. Here's Rufus, from his "Diatribe XII-On Sexual Indulgence"

Not the least significant part of the life of luxury and self-indugence lies also in sexual excess; for example, those who lead such a life crave a variety of loves not only lawful but unlawful ones as well, not women alone but also men; sometimes they pursue one love and sometimes another, and not being satisified with those which are available, pursue tohse which are rare and inaccessible, and invent shameful intimaciesm, all of which constitute a grave indictment of manhood. [He then says that sexual intercourse is only justifiable when trying to beget children, then briefly touches on homosexuality again]. . .But of all sexual relations, those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature. [He then finishes the essay by condemning sex outside of marriage and having sex with one's slaves]

Captain Amazing
06-19-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Esprix
I acknowledge you're in a sticky wicket as the SBC speaks for all of Southern Baptism and you do not agree that it speaks for all individual Southern Baptists, but you have to accept the fact that people can - and will - talk about "what Southern Baptism believes" and it will be completely within the bounds of debate.

But part of the problem is that Baptists also believe, as a fundimental of their faith, that every individual is responsible for their own beliefs, and that no organization can prevent them from following their own concience. Even though they're not as non-creedal as the Unitarians, the decisions of the Conventions aren't binding on their member churches, and the decisions of the member churches aren't binding on their members, even though these decisions higher up have weight. So, the SBC doesn't speak for all Southern Baptism, just for itself as an organization.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 06:29 PM
You could probably substitute the Vatican or the Pope for SBC. While the Vatican has much more control over it's dioceses than does the SBC, that is not to say that ALL Catholics are in agreement with the Pope-and nor should they necessarily feel like they have to leave the church to do so.

Esprix
06-19-2003, 08:35 PM
But it's fair to say "The Catholic Church believe" or even "Catholics believe." I mean, really, if not, what's the point of having these governing bodies? They sound useless if you can just go off and believe whatever you want. What's the point of "belonging to a religion" if that's the case? I mean, you all almost sound Unitarian for cryin' out loud!

Esprix

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 08:52 PM
Well, I am probably a Unitarian. ;)

My parents, however, are still staunchly Catholic. They don't believe, however, that homosexuality is a sin, nor is birth control, or sex, or whatever. BUT...
...they believe in the spiritual beliefs-in every single word of the Nicene Creed-which is the basis of the Christian faith. BUT...they might not believe in certain social traditions, pertaining to sex and things like that. The Creed says nothing about sex or birth control or whatever. It just states their spiritual beliefs. There's a LOT more to Catholicism than just their beliefs on sex. I am still attached to it in many ways-liberation theology and a Catholic education are the biggest perks. You're talking about the most scholarly denomination in Christianity!

Asking them to give up their beliefs in GOD-well, they feel that the Catholic church best suits it. And people are trying-honestly, they're trying. What MORE do you want?

Polycarp
06-19-2003, 09:07 PM
Guin, I'd like your comments on the following:

The Baptismal Covenant


Q: Do you Believe in God the Father?
A: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

Q: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
A: I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He decended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Q: Do you Believe in God the Holy Spirit?
A: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Q: Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
A: I will, with God’s help.

Q: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
A: I will, with God’s help.

Q: Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
A: I will, with God’s help.

Q: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
A: I will with God’s help.

Q: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
A: I will, with God’s help.

As you may have surmised, it's part of a liturgy. Do feel free to argue with it, point out the parts you find wrong, etc.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 09:18 PM
Pretty much, yeah. I just mean, I believe in truth in ALL religions, well, except for $cientology.

Linty Fresh
06-19-2003, 09:32 PM
Nothing much to add to the topic, but I felt I should point out one thing.

Fred Phelps is not a member of the Southern Baptists. He routinely prints fliers accusing the Southern Baptist Convention of going too easily on homosexuals (!!!) and calling them hellbound. I'm certainly no fan of the SBC myself, but to lump them into Fred's brand of happy horseshit is inaccurate.

matt_mcl
06-19-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Guinastasia
If they're the ones I'm thinking of-and correct me if I'm wrong-weren't they going outside convents and Catholic schools, throwing around condoms, dressing up like nuns and priests and making out? I can support their cause, without supporting their methods.

Dunno, what you've mentioned seems pretty cool. Does it bother you that Montreal's pride parade's route takes it in front of Mary Queen of the World Cathedral?

lel
06-19-2003, 09:56 PM
gobear, wishing many good thoughts for your sister, you, and your family.

I gave many good portions of my life to the S. Baptists, and supported them for years. I may not have agreed with every action they have taken, but in the past I've gladly supported the SBC with my time, money and skills and see absolutely no need to apologize for doing so. To see it compared with horribly vile organizations (such as the Nazi party or the Taliban) in this thread absolutely disgusts me.

Yes, many S. Baptists have an agenda -- to get everyone saved. This is quite transparent. I know when many S. Baptists are being nice, they are doing it because they want me to accept Jesus. This frustrates me quite often, but still, many S. Baptists have done many kindly things in my life and I cannot completely forget this. So they often want to convert homosexuals. They certainly aren't forcing anyone to convert.

Besides, they could be right about the whole homosexuality thing; maybe God (if such exists) desires that people cease homosexual sex acts. I hope not, but maybe God really does want gay people to be rescued from their lifestyle or something -- I cannot know with absolute certainty what God thinks or wants. Assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, I'd also much rather try to conform my desires to His will than try to conform God's will to my own desires. If God does not approve of homosexuality, it is my duty to conform to God's will, rather than try to make God's will reflect my own desire to accept homosexuals just as they are. (A few notes: I also firmly hope and truly believe that God desires that we love each other, no matter if we believe that they are committing "active" sins or not. However, I'm going to hedge my bets on "God doesn't exist.")

It's times like these when I wish the SBC were more accepting of agnostics, because despite the fact that I personally don't agree with their stance on rescuing homosexuals from a sinful lifestyle, many recent events have reminded me that S. Baptists and the SBC have a lot to offer Christianity and the world.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by matt_mcl
Dunno, what you've mentioned seems pretty cool. Does it bother you that Montreal's pride parade's route takes it in front of Mary Queen of the World Cathedral?

So you honestly have no problem with harassing little old ladies and school children by throwing contraceptives at them?
That was my point-it's NOT cool. Those little kids and those nuns have fuck all to do with the Vatican's position on homosexuality.

Polycarp
06-19-2003, 10:40 PM
1. The "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" are a group of gay men in San Francisco who dress up as nuns during Pride parades and such, in an over-the-top bit of humor. They do not harass nuns or little kids.

2. ACT-UP was a group formed by Larry Kramer to draw attention to the AIDS problem, back when President Reagan was playing ostrich about it. Some ACT-UP groups are responsible for the condom-throwing and harassment; some have adopted a variant on the Duesberg hypothesis; and some do neither, but attempt to draw public attention to the AIDS pandemic.

AFAIK, there is no overlap between the two groups.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 10:44 PM
Well, as I said-I checked and I was wrong. HOWEVER, matt said if that happened it would be "pretty cool." I don't think that it would be cool at all.

I already appologized for my mistake.

ACT UP is notorious, I believe, for going in and harassing people while having Mass, are they not?

I can support the cause, if not the method, no? Remember-I'm on your side in this!

:)

Homebrew
06-19-2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Captain Amazing
But part of the problem is that Baptists also believe, as a fundimental of their faith, that every individual is responsible for their own beliefs, and that no organization can prevent them from following their own concience. Even though they're not as non-creedal as the Unitarians, the decisions of the Conventions aren't binding on their member churches, and the decisions of the member churches aren't binding on their members, even though these decisions higher up have weight. So, the SBC doesn't speak for all Southern Baptism, just for itself as an organization. Traditionally that is so. However, as I listed examples before, the SBC has begun to force it's will on member churches and missionaries. Many of the missionaries would not sign the statement of faith because they considered it a creed. They were fired. The SBC seems to have dropped the "non-creedal" aspect of Baptist beliefs.

matt_mcl
06-19-2003, 10:55 PM
Um, Guin, those weren't among the things you mentioned. You mentioned:

- being outside convents and Catholic schools,
- throwing around condoms,
- dressing up like nuns and priests, and
- making out.

I have no objections to any of these things, together or singly. Targeted harassment of individuals is OTT, as is breaking in on someone's mass, but the fact is the Catholic church is highly retrograde on these issues and is a valid target for peaceful protest.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 10:56 PM
See, and that's why I can't consider myself a Catholic anymore-because there's just too much that the Vatican has stated that I don't believe-mainly their position on birth control and sex.

However, it took me years to realize this.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by matt_mcl
Um, Guin, those weren't among the things you mentioned. You mentioned:

- being outside convents and Catholic schools,
- throwing around condoms,
- dressing up like nuns and priests, and
- making out.

I have no objections to any of these things, together or singly. Targeted harassment of individuals is OTT, as is breaking in on someone's mass, but the fact is the Catholic church is highly retrograde on these issues and is a valid target for peaceful protest.

If you are outside the convent and school-and you start throwing condoms at the school-and there are nuns and school kids there, would that not constitute harassment?

Look, you KNOW I'm on your side, and you KNOW I agree that the Vatican needs to leave the 13th century.

I really have no problem with protests, dressing up like priests and nuns, etc. It's all in fun.

HOWEVER, if you choose to do this in front of a school, while classes are going on, while tossing things at the school, don't you think that's a bit much? I think, if anything, it would make people LESS likely to change their minds.

matt_mcl
06-19-2003, 11:18 PM
there are nuns and school kids there, would that not constitute harassment?

I'd say the school kids need it more than anyone, especially if there are nuns involved, but I see your point too.

Guinastasia
06-19-2003, 11:23 PM
Yeah, exactly. Look, FWIW, I realize I was wrong in assuming that they were the group that did this-if indeed I was remembering the story right at all-and I do appologize.

(Actually, we knew all about that stuff when I went to Catholic school. Our reaction would've been to giggle like fiends.)

presidebt
06-20-2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Esprix
I see what you're saying - don't assume the individual believes everything as the the organization does - but when someone says "Southern Baptists believe X," it's the truth, if the SBC has said, "Southern Baptists believe X." It's their job to define Southern Baptism. I applaud your work, and I appreciate you standing up for your own personal beliefs, but it is not inappropriate to talk about what southern Baptists believe.

Now, there are limits to this; for example, you would be hard pressed to say "Christianity believes X" because there is no one defining, governing body of all of Christianity, as there are a hundred different denominations of the same "parent religion" - the Baptists do not believe what the Methodists believe, as they interpret the Bible differently (and the Bible is about the only thing that could be considered a "defining authority," if it weren't for the fact that everyone interprets it differently, which in and of itself sounds like a Great Debate). Similarly, as there is no "defining organization" for the gay community, you can't say "The GLBT community believes X;" you can say "many members believe X" or "the NGLTF believes X," but we don't have a tribal council to decide these things.

I acknowledge you're in a sticky wicket as the SBC speaks for all of Southern Baptism and you do not agree that it speaks for all individual Southern Baptists, but you have to accept the fact that people can - and will - talk about "what Southern Baptism believes" and it will be completely within the bounds of debate.

IMHO, that is.

Esprix

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I refrained from trying again. Thank you.

Polycarp
06-20-2003, 06:56 AM
Except that the standards aren't quite equal. The Pope can, with some degree of reason, claim to be speaking that which all good Catholics must believe, in that by the laws of Catholicism, they have consented to his adopting that role, and if they remain good Catholics, they will agree to what it is that he teaches. Similar statements with appropriate variations and a bit less force can be asserted of a Methodist General Conference, a Presbyterian General Assembly, Gordon Hinckley for the Mormons (I forget his exact title, but he's considered to have a prophetic voice for our days by good LDS), and so on.

Note that the Baptist Faith and Message places the onus for belief squarely on the individual believer, and the congregational polity places the formulation of doctrine in the hands of the local church. The SBC and its parallels are not denominations in any real sense; they're like a Council of Churches for Baptist churches.

Or that was the theory before about 1985. Under Paige Patterson and his successors, the SBC abnegated its role as a common voice and conduit for missions money for its members, and amended the BF&M to teach a strict fundamentalism. As Sauron and others have noted, the resulting exodus of moderate people and local churches from the SBC was partially by compulsion and partly by "voting with their feet." (I'd note the church a few miles west of Charlotte NC which was expelled from the state Baptist Convention (and presumably from the SBC in consequence) for baptizing two gay men, a couple, who attended there and presented themselves for baptism.)

So it is to some extent correct but to a greater extent incorrect to presume that the SBC leadership speaks for its 16,500,000 alleged members; it speaks for itself, and presumes to speak for them, but without any authority or consent to do so. Sauron or other Southern Baptists, please correct this if there is any error in it.

Aries28
06-20-2003, 07:13 AM
Polycarp that is exactly right.

There are also MANY Southern Baptists who do not agree with the missionaries and others who have lost their jobs and benefits all because they would not sign the BF & M. And some of these people who think this way are long time SB that are extremely conservative. One specific example that comes to my mind is my 78 year old mother-in-law. She told us last weekend that she thought it was just awful that these people dedicated their lives to serving and now as they approach the time when they should be able to retire they have nothing monetary to support them.

The SBC take on it is that every organization has a creed that members should uphold. The individual churches argument on it is that we have never been asked to do this and don't understand why it is an all or nothing type thing now.

Very interesting that we got our Alabama Baptist newsletter in the mail yesterday. (Guilty admission---I usually toss it in the trash after I just scan the headlines) But after all of this discussion I actually opened it up and read it and was rather surprised at one particular statement I read. Basically it was saying that churches or members that did not agree to uphold ALL of the BF &M didn't need to call themselves Southern Baptists.

Definitely made me think.

Sauron
06-20-2003, 07:49 AM
Esprix, presidebt and others:

To further expand on what Polycarp said earlier, see the following excerpt from a news story on the CNN Web site regarding SBC's meeting. Bolding represents my emphasis:

"The denomination made a special plea to its more than 42,000 churches to befriend gays and help "liberate" them from homosexuality ...

Their other resolutions denounced anti-Semitism and affirmed support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq. The resolutions are not binding on churches but are meant to express the denomination's views."

The SBC can pass a resolution saying the moon is made of green cheese if it wants. That doesn't mean that all Southern Baptists will automatically believe such.

As noted earlier, more than anything the SBC has become a political force, rather than a religious one. (That's my personal opinion, but I think enough proof is there to avoid any argument.) As such, what the SBC does matters not one whit to my personal religious views.

The SBC wants to speak for all of Southern Baptism. I seriously doubt many Southern Baptists believe it actually does. I hope what Aries28 and I have been saying in this thread makes folks realize that.

Organizations like the SBC are helping to foster the backwoods stereotype of the Deep South, in my opinion.

Otto
06-20-2003, 08:45 AM
I see. So because my church actually does some small amount of good in the world, you're allowed to ignore it and trivialize it because it's not on fire for your issue. Wow. Maybe you should skip Sunday School this week and hie thee to a remedial reading class instead because I didn't say anything remotely like this. What I said was that the attitude I've perceived from your previous posts in this thread is one of a complete lack of responsibility on your part for addressing the shitty policies of the SBC because the particular church of which you're a member does other unrelated good works. That attitude is complete bullshit.

The next time I'm named as a delegate to the Southern Baptist Convention, I'll be sure to raise the objections you want me to. Until that happens, though, all I can do is work through my local church. Good on ya for working through your local church, if you're in fact doing so. I certainly didn't get that impression from your posts. Quite the opposite in fact.

Phelps and his followers make signs that say "God hates fags." You may think that's also the SBC's opinion; from what I'm seeing of their current statements, you're wrong. I can certainly tell you it's not MY opinion, nor the opinion (I believe) of any of the Southern Baptist friends I have. I believe I said that the language was different while the attitude was the same. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" differes from "God hates fags" only in intensity of sentiment.

As noted earlier, more than anything the SBC has become a political force, rather than a religious one. (That's my personal opinion, but I think enough proof is there to avoid any argument.) As such, what the SBC does matters not one whit to my personal religious views. And they have become a political force largely through numbers. Imagine how much less political power if every church which disagreed with SBC withdrew from it.

RTFirefly
06-20-2003, 08:46 AM
Aries, I think that newsletter piece is indicative of what Homebrew is talking about: the SBC has effectively ceased, IMHO, to be the non-credal organization that it was when my Southern Baptist wife was growing up; the fundies that are now in charge are increasingly able to say, "my way or the highway," to the churches and their members.

I would disagree with Polycarp on the question of authority and consent. The lack of substantive opposition to the change in the character of the SBC effectively amounts to the consent of the majority. And that effectively translates into authority.

This makes me think back to 1990 when the then-president of the SBC, a fellow named Morris Chapman, said that as far as they were concerned, to disbelieve in inerrancy was to disbelieve in God. No creed? That was saying the entire Bible was the SBC creed. This isn't a sneak attack that happened just last month. This has been happening for a long time now, and at this point it's effectively a done deal.

Otto
06-20-2003, 08:52 AM
[quote]Can I not disagree with an issue as a whole but still think the people who believe in that issue deserve every right I am entitled to even if I disagree with them?[quote]Of course. That's not even a question.

Sauron
06-20-2003, 08:58 AM
Otto,

I give up. You win. I do nothing good. I am singlehandedly responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person, because I have not gone as an uninvited delegate to the SBC and denounced their policies. I have intentionally trampled on the rights of any and all GLBT individuals because I have not trumpeted to the heavens my efforts on their behalf each and every single time I did something for them.

It's a wonder I'm able to show my face in public.

Homebrew
06-20-2003, 09:00 AM
And they say gay men are histronic Drama Queens. :rolleyes:

Aries28
06-20-2003, 09:13 AM
I don't know what it is that you want us to do?

We said we think the OP about liberating gays was ridiculous.

We denouce the majority of the SBC policies. We try to explain that one can be a Southern Baptist and still HATE their policies and how they are trying to control members of our faith with the our way or the highway mentality.

We say that we feel gays should have every right that we are entitled to and that we support you loving whoever you want to love.

We say that we DO discuss things at our church we disagree with and are very vocal. I make a committment that I intend to bring up the OP issue at church this Sunday to find out what their take on it is and if they tell me they support it that I can't be a member there.

We both put our personal beliefs out on the line for you to rip to shreds in an effort to understand you and where you are coming from.

I spend the last 2 days evaluating everything I've ever been taught about religion for the last 28 years as a result of things brought up in this thread and yet it still doesn't seem to appease you.

Polycarp
06-20-2003, 09:15 AM
I can only support Aries and Sauron doing what they feel right, which is, evidently, to remain a part of a church which in turn remains part of the SBC, and working for change from within. I'm not prepared to argue with RTF -- especially as I regularly get exposed to arguments based on roughly the SBC stance, as to why it's "showing Christian love" to oppose gay rights and to place legal and verbal demands on them to stop having gay sex.

FWIW, since it was brought up earlier, here is a story (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_Carter.html) dating from Jimmy and Roslyn Carter's withdrawal from the SBC. Here's the website (http://www.cbfonline.org/indext.cfm) for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the moderate group formed as an alternative for ex-SBC members and churches. According to this page (http://www.cbfonline.org/about/quickfacts.cfm) on that site, they have about 1,700 member churches and a budget of $19.3 million, with about 60% going to missions.