Ex-Gay Watch

If you notice, most of the people quoted in the Globe article are running gigs–also known as “ministries.” I have yet to see any of the anti-gay personnel quoted who had an honest job.

I know the Park Street church mentioned in the article. It’s a cute little church. I don’t know what its denomination is.

Ain’t that the truth, raj!

What is it with these people that they do turn what they are doing into a ‘ministry’ with the need to promote what they do all over the media and everything?

They must not think much of the ability of God and Christ to reach people without them.
How come none of them are working as chefs in restaurants, or as car dealers or in retail that isn’t about selling their own CD’s?
They seem to be invalidating their own belief in the omnipotence of God, by not letting god speak to everyone in her own way.

God don’t need no double faced profiteers speaking in her name…and bad mouthing her gay kids.

Especially that…somewhere deep in these folks with the ex gay ministries and the raging need to disqualify the other gay folks god made…are people who say they have water and food for the hungry homosexual…but themselves are never sated or quenched.

I sometimes get the impression that the exgay movement has more leaders than followers. It looks like there is a permanent bunch that run everything, and have done so for years. While the ordinary members pass in and out of the programs with rapidity. Most of them out of exgayland, and many out of Conservative Christianity.

They also pass out with a less money in their pockets as well Delea. We need a gay Robin Hood to steal their money and give it to the LGBT folks who are poor.

Park Street Church is a historic Congregational Church (picture soaring Christopher Wren-designed steeple and sprawling brick structure on the Boston Common) that has been a leader in New England evangelicalism. I’m not surprised they house or sponsor an ex-gay ministry. No matter how small, it is symbolic of their commitment to the position that being Christian and ‘actively gay’ are incompatible.

Park Street is a church that refused to be part of the union that resulted in the (liberal) United Church of Christ in 1957. It is now affiliated with the ’4 C’s’ – The Conservative Congregational Christian Churches.

So… even though Park Street is ‘Congregational’ – it is not among the majority with that name that are UCC. On a personal note… … this afternoon I will be installed as pastor of a UCC in Buffalo – the first openly gay man called to a church in Western NY. I have a (former?) friend from Park Street Church in Boston who has reacted unkindly to that news.

Park Street Church sits almost at the foot of Beacon Hill–the state Capitol is at the top of Beacon Hill, about a hundred yards uphill. The religious center of Boston long ago moved to the Back Bay and South End (cite: Trinity Church in Copley Square, but also others).

Epiphany #5:
I swear that was a moment…years ago.
It was on a bus, going home from work. Me and my friend Nikki. She’s wondered sometimes at how I know stuff. She says I”m spooky. Especially after what happened on the Number 217.
There was a family of three. Mom, Dad and a little girl of about six years old. Reading out of a children’s book.
They had clean, but worn and frayed clothes. They had the look of people whose meals were not plentiful, but their eyes were gentle.
What was so special about the situation?

The little one.
She had the absolutely most blackest skin, I’d ever seen. Deep dark, inky. And with a slightly blue iridescent sheen. Pretty little thing, delicate and her voice sounded like taps on crystal.
She was darker than Nikki, whose flawless skin tone is like a dark choclate Hershey bar.
My first thought was ‘pearl’. A beautiful, rare…pearl.
I voiced that word to her parents.
They said ‘how did you know her name was Pearl?’.
Well, because I would have hated to put them off with any other revelations, I just said…oh, she’s pretty as one.’
They got off at the next stop. Nikki was like, you are SPOOKY! How did you know?!
I didn’t. I think I was supposed to tell that little girl what a beauty she was. Her parents were too, just by patiently helping their little one read that book. That poor family probably doesn’t hear that very often.
Nikki was like…’oh, yeah…that makes sense. Wonder why you’d think of that?’

Why indeed.
We’re not here or get any spirits whispering for any special reason. But if you love enough and the unloved, or not loved enough…it’s not to tell them they aren’t good enough or are required to come to god or Jesus for that to be so.
It’s always so, gonna be so and all you need is to look on that person and your eyes will tell you if the love in YOU is enough.

I read that article all over again.
The things that strike me the most is how sensitive to criticism LWO is againt THEM, while at the same time, in denial about their work and what it does to deserve criticism.

Obviously, the people that would come to them, has had some sort of crisis in their lives…that occurs in heterosexual people as well.

These are people going through an especially vulnerable time and in gay people, might occur more often and with less support elsewhere.
It still all points to creating aversion to homosexuality, whether it be turning to the opposite sex or celibacy.

The other side of their coin, is maintaining PUBLIC aversion to homosexuality, while working on it in gay individuals.
These troubles they encountered could STILL happen in a heterosexual life.

So what then and what to blame it on and resolve it without a convenient scape goat?

To take advantage of gay people this way is especially nasty.
Again, mostly because it’s wrong to demand anyone abdicate their identity, however much you object to it.
There is no kind way to do it, and no kindness that would expect that of someone.
The other is how expensive (the cost in life long, or years disciplining onesself to that purpose) it is.

Most of all, as I’ve mentioned before.
The ex gay conversion expectation is OLD. It’s had it’s time on the floor for a long, long, time… and now SHOULD be silenced, if only to let GAY people speak their mind and reason.

Regan, Love Won Out is a classic case of “can dish it out, but can’t take it” scenerio. This is very typical of organizations and persons who rely on the tactics of fear and hate mongering and bullying in order to fulfill an agenda. Whenever critisism is thrown in their direction, they deflect it by shifting blame to the phantom gay agenda or those with liberal political leanings. Vulnerable people fall for their BS because they brainwash their victims into believing that they are out for their best interests and attempt to convince them that their identity is false and doesn’t exist at all so they seek to modify sexual and gender specific behaviours. This premise is completely wrong and ignores the fact that a physiological response to a sexual attraction is not going to go away and cannot and ought not to be dealt with using religion.
I certainly agree that the ex gay conversion expectation is OLD and has long past its expiration date. I hope others on this blog are working at debunking the whole ex-gay farce and not just monitoring it. I think that gay people are the ones in charge of their own destinies here and only we can stop this crap. We need a few hundred thousand Wayne Besens working at countering this at every turn and not allowing it to continue.

Tim, I do believe that you are being too kind. As far as i can tell LWO is nothing more than a marketing operation for Focus On The “Family” and Exodus. They make their pitch to anti-gay people. I have never seen them make a pitch to gay people.

Raj, pretty much everything that is done in terms of gay rights by religion and even government, is done without consultation of the people most affected: gays and lesbians. Here in Canada during the same sex marriage debate, most media coverage centered on the churches and political points of view, gays and lesbians were not consulted and rarely interviewed by the media. I still think there is a perception that we are like children, to be felt sorry for. Believe me Raj, I’m not kind when it comes to organizations like LWO or any other of those brainwashing outfits. Tim.

Does anyone here remember Jim Jones and the People’s Temple?

When I was a teenager, several of their members came to our door.
My family was living in the LA area, at the time the PT was based in San Francisco.
They had glossy brochures, information about helping the poor and were especially concerned about my step mom. She had been widowed less than a year. Had no higher education or profession and us three kids to feed.

She was very tempted by their promises and their ambition to move to a tropical island and farm.
My mom loved to garden and liked the idea of an inclusive communal environment that wasn’t so religious, but more political in their aims.
A good many of the members were black people.

Well, now we know what happened don’t we?
My mom just happened to be very vulnerable and going through a terrible insecure time in her life.
Imagine how she felt after what happened to all those people down in Guyana.
It was HER native American mother who had been subjected to missionary zeal against Native folks.

To this day in my family…there is a serious suspicion of missionaries. Especially those of one purpose, like LWO and all the others.
She’s always wondered…why are they honing in so hard on GAY people?
And pretty much ONLY gay people.
My question too.
It’s similar to the way child molesters hone in on children with specific needs.

When we weigh the life and death, or economic concerns of the day…there are things that ONLY gay people do, and there are things that are done that murder and hurt all people universally.
And gay people simply don’t hurt the world and never did.
But are however, easy to hurt.
And in our Chicasaw philosophy…it’s the LWO people who need to go.

Rick, “I will be installed as pastor of a UCC in Buffalo”

CONGRATULATIONS !!! I am so happy for you

A thought…

Perhaps when reading LWO’s response to any questioning it would help to remember that they are firmly convinced that they are right and that God is on their side. They can’t understand ANY criticism because “surely good people agree with us. Why can’t everyone see it?”

It’s a strange combination of faith and arrogance.

Actually Timothy, I would tend to go more with arrogance dashed with falsely elevated sense of power and control, a’la James Dobson. To listen to his speeches one would think that the future of the supreme court rests on his shoulders.

Timothy, I would go along with ‘strongly delusional’ mixed in with some sort of mental illness. Am I the only one here who feels that belief in Biblical inerrancy or inspritation is a mental illness?

Dale, I don’t know if you’re the only one, but I know I don’t agree with you. Sorry.

I think since it’s not been too long ago that gays were considered “mentally ill” just by virtue of having same-sex attractions (something others didn’t understand) I’d be hesitant to start slapping that label on others for their beliefs.

Being attracted to the same sex is not a ‘belief’, it is a central statement about being. Which is rather different from asserting that some book whose contents were settled less than 500 years ago is the ‘God Breathed Infallible’ word. The first can be settled by reasonable people using evidence. The latter despends on an altered state of being. Is there anyone else here who agrees with me?

Regan DuCasse at October 31, 2005 11:59 AM

Does anyone here remember Jim Jones and the People’s Temple?

I remember Jim Jones but I didn’t remember what his cult was named. If memory serves, one day they drank a magic potion and all died. Sounds somewhat ineffective, since there would be nobody left to spread “the word.”

Although that was also true of the Shakers, who eschewed having sex–no next generation to spread the word. Decent furniture design, though.

/tic

Christine at November 1, 2005 12:05 AM

…I think since it’s not been too long ago that gays were considered “mentally ill” just by virtue of having same-sex attractions …

Just to let you know, it was not a particularly long time during which homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It was a diagnosis made-up in the 1950s by a group of charlatans posing as psychiatrists that had no scientific basis–it was just their personal prejudices. http://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm has a fairly complete discussion of the issue, although I could cite you to others.

If you are willing to sit through an hour of PRI’s This American Life, you might also consider the program 81 Words, from several years ago: the attempt to discredit the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is available through http://www.thislife.org/ (do a search on “81 words”). Although http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html would probably take you directly to the relevant page, and you can pick up the audio links from there.

Just to let you know, the reason that I call the psychiatrists at the time (largely the 1950s) “charlatans” is that psychiatry was dominated by “psycho-analyists” and there was no evidence that psycho-analysis had anything to do with reality.

Actually, the Shakers are still going. They have always been aware that their path would have few travelers. And accepted that the group would be small. The big question here would seem to be: do they own the rights to Shaker designs and inventions? Let alone the wealth of furniture in their villages. Lots of money in simple living.

With Jim Jones, the beverage was kool-aid laced with cyanide. Thus the phrase applied to dubious ventures: drink the kool-aid.

DaleA: “Am I the only one here who feels that belief in Biblical inerrancy or inspritation is a mental illness?”

I hope you are.

It is a very narrow view of the world to assume that ideas that do not meet one’s definition of observable are a sign of mental illness.

However, the assumption that you are sane and that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy ACTUALLY IS a form of mental illness.

FYI, (and God this makes me feel old) the People’s Temple cult didn’t drink the Kool-Aid because it was magical or mystical. They committed mass suicide.

As best I recall:

Congressman Ryan had been to Guyana on an investagatory trip to find out what Jones was up to. They killed him at the airport. Knowing that he would be brought to justice for that (killing congressmen tends to have consequences), Jones had his people drink grape Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Not everyone wanted to … but everyone did.

Timothy said:

“DaleA: “Am I the only one here who feels that belief in Biblical inerrancy or inspritation is a mental illness?”

I hope you are.

It is a very narrow view of the world to assume that ideas that do not meet one’s definition of observable are a sign of mental illness.

However, the assumption that you are sane and that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy ACTUALLY IS a form of mental illness.”

I agree with Dalea. Anyone who thinks that the Bible is the literal, inerrant and inspired word of God is, by definition, suffering from a mental illness. This is because the Bible is far from inerrant, and if it is errant, then it certainly can’t be the inspired word of a perfect God.

I don’t think it is at all a narrow view of the world to hold Christians to the same standard of reason as we do anyone else. If I were to assert that Santa Claus were literally real, no one would doubt that I suffered, if not from a mental illness, at least an episode of unreason. There is just no evidence for Santa Claus and too much evidence against Santa’s existence (not the least of which being the scientific impossibility of the features that describe Santa Claus). Just the same, there is no evidence for the literal existence of the Christian God, and far too much evidence against the existence for the Christian God (not the least, again, being the scientific impossibility of the features that describe the Christian God).

Why do we give believers of the Christian God a pass but not the believers of Santa Claus? To assert that it is wrong to consider Christians to be mentally ill or at the very least lacking reason is not at all consistent with the way we make sense of the world in general.

People of any given religion should not be given a free pass to be irrational or illogical — and it is dangerous to society when individuals seeking to inflict their irrationality upon others are given access to government power. This is one reason why libertarians favor as small a government as possible — to prevent the seizure of power by irrational, corrupt or sadistic individuals or special-interest groups such as the “religious right.”

But the choice to be irrational is (usually) just that: A choice, not a biological “illness.”

What drug or medical therapy would cure someone of their inerrant belief that the Earth is flat and orbited by the Sun; that the world was created in two or three conflicting ways; that events proven not to have happened did happen, and vice versa; that God committed forgery with billions of years’ worth of fossils that form an evolutionary patchwork; that anyone whose sins are different from one’s own favored sins must be suppressed by legislation and various forms of harassment? How are those choices of misbelief or unbelief in obvious truths either organic or medically treatable?

Dale/Robis, are you suggesting that inerrantism qualifies as an addiction or compulsion? If so, you’ll need to explain.

I’m always amused when people dismiss others’ experiences simply because they do not fit their own world view.

To take it outside religion for a second: I’ve never seen a UFO. Many (but certainly not all) of those that claim to have, also seem to be on the border of downright nutty. But yet, I’m not willing to dismiss their beliefs outright. I just don’t know.

And I’m certainly not willing to say that anyone that believes in UFO’s is mentally impaired.

I find that when anyone takes a firm and absolute position on either the nature or the impossibility of God, that is an indication that they have a closed mind and an intractible view of the world. Basically, a fool. They’ve established and championed a position about which they have inadequate information. Many of the fundamentalist and many of the athiests fit this description.

I believe in God. This is not based on scientific experimentation but rather based on personal experience. But I certainly don’t fault you (though I pity you) if you believe in nothing beyond the parameters of your five senses.

However, if you take my belief as evidence of my mental difficiency, I would say that your position suggests you possess a mind that is lacking in nuance and hardened into rigidity.

Your biases have locked you into a mindset which requires not only that others agree with you but that they are insane if they don’t. Thus you don’t have to ever challenge your own positions; there’s (by your own definition) no credible proof or argument, ever.

You see this type of thinking in much of the conservative religious press. Since they know the answer, the facts must fit or they are just lies. It’s the same thing: an improperly functioning mind.

So, I guess, if we are both calling the other mentally impaired I’m fine with that.

I don’t believe that all mental illnesses are neccessarily biological in origin (in fact, the causes of mental illness can be from “social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors” according to the American Heritage Dictionary), nor do I think that there is a drug or a medical therapy for all mental illnesses. So I’m not sure why that criteria would be important to determining whether literalism or inerrantism is a mental illness or not.

I also do not believe that everyone–or even the majority of people–who subscribe to inerrantism chooses to do so. Most people, IMHO, are socialized into it from birth, through their exposure to the dogma, and cannot in any way concieve of the world in which inerrantism is not real. You could show them all the evidence in the world that it is not so; you could list for them the ways in which the Bible is far from inerrant; you could go step by step through the logical arguments that show that the Christian God cannot literally exist with the features attributed to him and it would make no difference at all. The majority of people do not choose to be irrational or illogical in such situations, they just do not have the capacity to recognize that they are being irrational or illogical; they’ve had that ability conditioned out of them.

Again, if I as an adult claimed that Santa Claus were literally real in direct contradiction to the evidence, I would be considered mentally ill. Since the evidence for a literal, God and an inerrant Bible is equal to that of Santa Claus, why would we give Christians who believe in such things a pass? What elevates a literal God above that of a literal Santa Claus that justifies such a pass?

Timothy said: “I’m always amused when people dismiss others’ experiences simply because they do not fit their own world view.”

I think you’ve misunderstood what I am saying, Timothy. I am in no way dismissing religious belief as a whole, nor am I suggesting in any way that there is no god. What I am doing is pointing out that what we often use to determine mental illness in others is set aside when those same behavioral patterns crop up in Christianity. I am not discounting the power of faith, nor am I stating that there is no god (Christian or otherwise). There is, however, a difference between faith in a personal god (again, Christian or otherwise) and the insistence in the existence of a literal God based upon a literal and inerrant Bible. Faith in a personal God speaks to the experiential while the insistence on the aforementioned dogma flies in the face of rationality.

Re: “You see this type of thinking in much of the conservative religious press. Since they know the answer, the facts must fit or they are just lies. It’s the same thing: an improperly functioning mind.”

I’d like to add further to this. Whether we’re talking about UFO’s, Jesus, Magic, Druidism, communism (Remember when the Soviets used to locked dissidents in psychiatric hospitals? They claimed that anyone who was against the state was obviously crazy.) or no organized belief system at all, saying that you either agree with me or you’re deficient smacks of fundamentalism. And yes, there really are fundamentalist Buhdists, Druids, and Socialists (even fundamentalist liberals!) because we’ve all seen them.

Hmmmmm, how to respond. OK, if someone tells me s/he is a Christian and believes the Bible is a work written by men who had experiences they could not really fully comprehend. That the authors put them as best they could into the laguage and conceptual framework of their own lives. That these were an effort to explain wonderous events in their life expressed in the limitations of a specific time and place. And that the task of the Christian today is to try and apply these insights to lives in radically different situations and understandings. Hey, I feel this is wholly rational and intelligient. I have no problem with this approach.

But when I hear that the Bible is ‘God Breathed’, without contradictions, infallible, without error, then I begin to wonder. It certainly looks to me to be filled with such things. And most of it seems very much culture bound. My own experience in trying to talk with literalists has been not very helpful. They seem to be in a delusional state, one where contrary evidence does not exist. Or is simply not recognized. Which I feel is correctly dubbed ‘mental illness’. Which can refer to an organic problem or a problem in thought.

I am a religious person. I do not really believe in a God ‘out there’. Instead I find Deity in the Apparent World. Animist or Pagan, Wiccan subset. And I am prone to mystical experiences. No idea why this happens, but it does. Deity finds me. So, I find myself trying to comprehend a Great Mystery. I use the tools that those who have gone before have bequethed to me. And suspect my answers will be no better, no less time specific than theirs were.

Does this answer your question MikeA and Timothy? I feel that the Bible inspirationists are presenting something as a magical apportment, a Bible that was brought down from heaven by doves. Which can clearly be shown not to have happened.

Re: …if I as an adult claimed that Santa Claus were literally real in direct contradiction to the evidence, I would be considered mentally ill.

Not really. Let me try this. I will claim that Santa Clause is literally real. I don’t really need to prove it; I just have to believe. I’ve been bad, so he’s never visited my house. Nor the homes of my friends, family or neighbors. In fact, we’re all so bad that parents often resort to faking it for their kids. But that doesn’t disprove anything, just because I haven’t seen him or spoken with him. On the contrary, when it comes to matters of faith, I cannot prove anything.

But you have stated that there is “direct contradiction to the evidence.” Where is it? How do you propose to prove a negative? Let’s see you prove me wrong.

Matters of faith cannot be proven nor disproven. They just are.

And when it comes to defining rationality, it truly is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, it has been the core of an ever-present debate in psychological circles: What constitutes irrational thought and behavior? Who says it’s irrational?

Psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysist all thought we were crazy for being gay. Many of them still do, and can point to perfectly rational reasons to support their claim — although it is rational only as long as you buy into their viewpoint.

I had one very nice Wiccan lady in Dallas tell me that she thought Christians were idiots because Christianity made no sense. I didn’t tell her that I thought Wicca, as she explained it to me, made no sense. So let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion: at least one of us was correct: Wicca makes no sense, Christianity makes no sense, or both. Now then, who gets to decide and on what basis?

Let me re-iterate before I offend anybody. I do not believe that Wicca is an irrational belief set. I plead guilty on being wrong on my reaction to that lady in Dallas.

But I think the example is valid.

Concerning UFO’s. Do I regard these people as actually having had an experience? Yes, I do. Do I think it is an actual flying saucer? Not a clue. What I do suspect, though I can not prove it, this is just a random thought, is that seeing a flying saucer, the Virgin Mary, ghosts, Lord Krishna, Mother Demeter, Mother Isis, are all very much the same sort of experience. Which for lack of a better word I would call ‘mystery’.

My further idea is that much of Evangelical Christianity is a system of operant magic. A way of manipulating God. Sort of like a rain dance. Which I feel is different from religion.

Uh, Jim, actually Wicca is not about belief. It is a religion that requires no beliefes in anything. You can belief things if it makes you happy, but is not required. Rather it is a religion that relies on experience. The main point of most, if not all Wiccan texts, is to point out rituals and practices. It has the idea that here is what I did, and here is what I experienced. Try it yourself and see what happens. One of the early Wiccan books is entitled ‘Religion Without Belief’, by Lammond.

I also understand that Buddhists do not make belief part of their system.

Dale A

One tool to use when one is afraid to hear what another has to say, is to come up with an external reason. “You’re just crazy so I don’t have to listen to you.” I don’t know if this is your motivation.

However, your reasoning for declaring certain beliefs a sign of insanity seem inconsistent. You allow for YOUR mystical beleifs, but THEIR mystical beliefs prove they’re mentally impaired.

I have to confess that I know very little about Wicca. That lady in Dallas may very well have been completely wrong in how she explained Wicca to me. She was very adamant in saying that Wiccans believe this, they don’t believe that, etc., with a heavy reliance on what she called “magic” (I can’t provide a definition, hence the quotes), mysticism and rituals. I didn’t take her explanations as authoritative, and I don’t want to intimate that she represents all Wiccans, or even very many.

Please rest assured, I may be ignorant on the better understanding of Wicca, but I mean no disrespect whatsoever. My ignorance reflects my own shortcomings, not necessarily those of Wicca.

Perhaps she didn’t represent Wicca very well, and if that’s the case, I suppose it’s all the better for this discussion because now we can set up yet another example of your understanding and practice of Wicca against hers. I’ll root for yours, but who has the authority to say that she’s wrong? And if she’s wrong, does that same someone have the authority to declare her insane? And if someone has that authority, where does it come from?

I believe you are correct about most forms of Buddhism not making belief part of their system — that is, if you define “belief” as being equivalent to dogma. Yet I have met Buddhists who insist that particular practices and mythologies are essential, which I would say defines “belief”.

(Please note: I use the word “mythology” the way Joseph Campbell used it, and not to mean anything “false”.)

And through all of this, who gets to decide what’s rational and what’s not? Is anyone ready to convince me that my firm faith in Santaology is any more insane than any others? Or even that it is any more insane than no belief at all?

Jim B said: “Not really. Let me try this. I will claim that Santa Clause is literally real. I don’t really need to prove it; I just have to believe. I’ve been bad, so he’s never visited my house. Nor the homes of my friends, family or neighbors. In fact, we’re all so bad that parents often resort to faking it for their kids. But that doesn’t disprove anything, just because I haven’t seen him or spoken with him. On the contrary, when it comes to matters of faith, I cannot prove anything.”

But we’re not talking about people who view the existence of God as if it were a matter of faith but as a matter of fact–that is, when faced with choosing either a God that is impossible or ration that is well-spelled out, they choose the God that is impossible—and the literal God described in the literal, inerrant Bible is impossible.

“But you have stated that there is “direct contradiction to the evidence.” Where is it? How do you propose to prove a negative? Let’s see you prove me wrong.”

Do you want the evidence that shows a literal Santa Claus as he has been described is impossible or the literal God as described in an inerrant Bible is impossible? Because it does not require proving a negative to do so. For Santa, one only has to show that it is physically impossible to deliver toys to every deserving child around the world (which it is). For God, one only has to show that it is impossible for a being to be ominpotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (which it is). That is not to say that no Christian God is possible, only that a literal God as described in a literal and inerrant Bible is impossible. This is not being narrow-minded, nor is it being “as fundamental as the fundamentalists”. Certainly if you can show that either one is possible, I would be amenable to changing my opinion.

“Matters of faith cannot be proven nor disproven. They just are.”

Well, proofs are for alcohol and math, not for arguments of what is or isn’t. But still, my argument is not against those who believe in God as matter of faith. I see nothing wrong with a personal God.

Sorry, that last one was me. I hit the submit button too soon–yikes!!

Timothy, fundagelicals do not claim their belief in the inerratn, literal etc Bible is a ‘mystical’ belief. Rather if you look at what they say, the words ‘objective’, ‘historically accurate’, ‘narrative of actual events’ pop up all the time. Josh MacDowell (sp?)appears to be the current leader of apologetics on this topic. There were many before him. And there are others now. MikeA provides many examples of this sort of presentation in his post above.

And if you read my responses, perhaps you would see that I made this distinction between struggling to comprehend one’s own mystical experiences using the Bible as an assistance and guide and saying the Bible is inerrent infallible etc. I do not claim that my experiences are a guide for anyone else. The fundegelicals claim that theirs are universally applicable. This is a perfectly valid distinction.

I would suggest that before going off on people, their comments should be read.

On Wicca there is Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the Moon’ which is a very helpful guide to the growth and practice of this religion. It is a beautifully written work, one with an understanding of the intellectual currents involved. Otherwise, check out Witchesvoice.com to see the wide array of Wiccan practice.

Jim,

“Is anyone ready to convince me that my firm faith in Santaology is any more insane than any others?”

Well that depends. If you believe in Santa in a rational way (for example if you believe that his suit is a deep burgundy red) then I can accept you. However if your belief in Santa is not rational (for exaple if you believe his suit is candy-apple red) then you are insane.

Because his suit is NOT candy-apple red. And can be proven to not be candy-apple red (because it’s impossible).

I’m making a careful distinction between what is rational (burgundy red) and what is irrational (candy-apple red) because being candy-apple red is impossible (in the same way that diety is possible but omnicient diety is impossible).

And please note that your sanity is linked to whether you use the term “mystical” or “inerrant”.

In other words, as long as you believe what I think is acceptable to believe (preferable if you don’t call it a belief) and you believe it the WAY I find acceptable, then you are fine.

Otherwise, you are insane.

Sorry.

(and yes this is different than fundamentalism because I say so)

Is it impossible to deliver toys to every deserving child around the world? Santaology has found that it is virtually impossible to be deserving — much as Christianity does, but without the saving grace that wipes away the issues of “merit”. It turns out that delivering toys to deserving children is quite a snap because there are so few. I already pointed out that parents end up faking it for their kids. And besides, didn’t Einstein have something to say about the relativity of time and space? None of this makes Santa any less of a “fact”. (But I am suddenly reminded of the brilliant ending of a David Sederas story. “… but the Easter Bunny, that’s just f**ked up!”)

And so, too, the Bible says that with God, all things are possible (I’m too poor of a student to point to the exact quote), and that would necessarily include the literal God of an inerrant Bible. Of course, for one who doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of the bible, that doesn’t hold much water. Fair enough. I don’t believe in its literal inerrancy either. But some do, and for them all things are possible, including what you (and I) perceive as contradictions. I don’t buy it, but that doesn’t make God any less of a “fact” as far as I’m concerned, not even for me. Nor does it make anyone, including fundamentalists, crazy.

I think we can at least agree on one point. I don’t have the right to impose my beliefs on you, even if you’re going to hell (Just kidding!) I think that is your real objection, if I may be so bold to rephrase it. Even if I think that God is as solid a “fact” as my right arm, I still don’t have the right to impose my beliefs on you and insist that you behave according to my beliefs. But yes, there are far, far too many evangelicals and fundamentalists who say otherwise.

And by the same token, you don’t have the right to impose your beliefs on me, which I don’t think you’re trying to do. At least not directly. After all, threatening us Santaologists with a declaration of insanity can certainly be coercive in some cases, or at the very least, ostracizing.

Oy, ma! Look at me. I’m defending fundamentalists!

Timothy, you’re not insane, but you are a bit touched! LOL!

LOL

too true.

I suppose I should set the record straight. I believe the Bible to be a collection of writings of men seeking to know God and to share their revelations with others with limited means, within the context of their society, and to the best of their ability. Sometimes the wisdom in it amazes me.

Take for example the creation story. Is it a narrative of actual events? Well, yes.

It is a VERY good description of the evolution of the planet and the species. In fact, I can’t imagine a better way to explain evolution to a bedoin tribe 4000 years ago than with the Genesis story.

There’s something almost chilling about the description of pre-terra outer space: “…and the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep…”.

I just don’t get caught up in the number of hours v. millions of years.

Going WAY off on a tangent,

I’ve been reading some of the gospels, acts, epistles, and apocrypha that didn’t make it into the canonized Scripture. It’s amazing to see the warring religious beliefs that didn’t make the final cut. Yet for hundreds of years the early Christians held these in as high an honor as they did the 27 books that made it.

Timothy, I think your views and mine are very similar.

Please forgive my strong words here, but I find it truly appalling that you, Jim and Timothy, have chosen to ridicule this discussion rather than try to understand what Dalea and I are saying. I have taken the time to read and understand your postings, and I have taken the time to try and explain where I am coming from in such a way that it should be easy to understand. I have further made sure to make a distinction between god-belief and inerrantism. I have made sure that I have not cast aspersions on anyone’s personal faith, and have made a point of discussing only those facets of god-belief that pass over the boundaries from faith to something more.

Rather than try to carry on a dialogue about this matter, you both have chosen instead to be offended, and to use those offended feelings as a justification to ridicule arguments that you don’t like, rather than actually address the arguments provided. That is simply appalling, and far beneath either of you.

Now, I’ve made my case, and if you want to address what I’ve provided in a mature manner, please do so. If your only response is to ridicule and villify what you have no intention of understanding, I’m sure you’ll find a much better reception from ex-gay folk who engage in the same behavior.

Thank you Robis, I agree totally. This more and more resembles Bridges Across, where Christians are allowed to run roughshod over others. You have expressed my sentiments exactly.

Robis,

I did not take any personal offense by anything you or Dale have said, and I’m sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.

I believe I understand exactly what you are saying, including the distinctions you are trying to draw between “god-belief” and inerrancy. I would like to re-iterate that I am not a fundamentalist, and don’t hold to their views. I thought I made that clear. However, I don’t believe your distinction is relevant because I contend it to be a false one when it comes to belief. I think that this is exactly what I was trying to get at. And as for Timothy’s response, (If I may be so bold to speak for him) I read a very lighthearted attempt to illustrate this very problem, using my example of “Santaology”.

I think on this topic, we disagree, and we do so strongly. I don’t believe you understand the double-bind that your and Dale’s arguments present. And I fully understand your argument that with your particular distinction, there is no double-bind to begin with, at least as far as how you see it.

I just think you are dead wrong. And you obviously think I am dead wrong. But really now, what’s so terrible about that? Disagreement doesn’t equal disapproval or disrespect. It’s just disagreement on this point.

I know that saying “he started it first” is a very poor defense. But who is tossing around accusations of insanity? Is that not both offensive and dismissive? And isn’t that, too, reflective of ex-gay folk’s behavior?

Truth be told, it is exactly that parallel that gets me going so strongly on this. I’ve seen this so often among gay activists, it makes my head spin. Mischaracterizing opponents’ views and dismissing them personally as deficient constitutes an ad hominen attack, which, despite the term, is actually very dehumanizing. And if your opponent is not fully human, then it is all the easier to dismiss them.

I hate it so badly when they do it to us that the very injustice of this tactic stirs my anger regardless of who is doing it and who the victim is.

Yes, they do it to us. But it is not any more credible when we do it to them. And because of all of it, our nation’s political discourse is all the poorer for it.

I feel very strongly about this, and I will confess that I am not very good at restraining myself when I see it going on among our own. If I offend, I’m sorry.