226 thoughts on “Fundy Tweet of the Week: Credibility”

      1. As the non-Alabama-fan kids there grew up chanting:

        Roll Tide Roll,
        To the toilet bowl!
        Around the bowl
        And down the hole,
        Roll Tide Roll!

        1. @ Big Gary, crimson and red are the same color as in 14k gold and yellow are the same color. 🙂

        2. The Texas Aggie colors are maroon and white.
          Don’t ever call it “red and white” in front of an A&M graduate.

        3. I grew up in circles that regarded A&M as our mortal enemy.
          But my best friend went to A&M, both as an undergradate and through veterinary school.

      2. Hey Norm, not everyone can be a Bama fan. Others must be left to envy us…ROLL TIDE!!

        1. Ha! Just to be clear, I will list in alphabetical order the college football teams I pull for… Alabama Crimson Tide… that is all.

          (That’s not entirely true. I do pull for the SEC when playing those outside the SEC) and to be brutally honest, I will pull for the “other” college in the state if a win does not adversely effect the crimson and white. 🙂

        1. @Grace4me. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, please don’t add rude comments. 🙂

          (this should have gone up here)

        2. My favorite SEC joke ever was from Spurrier back in the 90s trash talking the Vols: You can’t spell “Outback Bowl” without UT.

      1. And roll tide too! I’m just a yankee that loves SEC culture as far as football dedication/passion.

        1. If we could only be as passionate about Christ as we are about our football… am I right, am I right? HAYMEN!!!

        2. That’s how I picked where I was going to attend worship, the pastor is a Roll Tide fan…. JUST KIDDING (but he is an Alabama fan).

        3. @recovering. I definitely didn’t mean it in a sacreligous way or anything. Just heard my whole life if we could be as passionate about Christ as we are our sports we could turn the world upside down for God. I never got up the nerve at a “conservative holiness” church to act like I do during a football game. I’m certain it wouldn’t have turned out well.

      2. @Grace4me. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, please don’t add rude comments. 🙂

        1. Norm – You have to admit that the ending to the Iron Bowl last year was the most amazing ending to a college football game of all time. Note I did not say “greatest”.

          And this is coming from a Notre Dame fan and college football fan in general. I jumped off my couch during the runback.

        2. @Scorpio… I have a hard time remembering exactly how the Iron Bowl ended. I vaguely remember those crimson shirts lining up for an impossibly long field goal attempt, the snap, the hold, the kick, the ball falling short of the goal posts, then it starts getting fuzzy and blackness starts closing in…. Charlie, get out of there!!!!… whoa, what happened?

        3. Well, Admiral, I’m not “from” here, but I call this home. I’ve lived here since I was 18.

        4. Gotta disagree with you, Scorpio. The greatest ending of a football game was the Cal/Stanford game where Cal had to run through Stanford’s band to get the game-winning touchdown. That was pure lunacy.

        5. I’m a little disappointed on the Bulldawgs, Vols, and Gamecocks lack of representation. I’m rather pleased at the missing Gators fans .

        6. I have a friend who is a Gator fan. Poor guy became a believer as a late teen or adult, wound up in a very fundy church, saw the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is an elder in a Presbyterian church and one of the truest Christian examples I know.

          I still hate he’s a Gator fan. I blame his dad for rearing him in Florida. At least he overcame legalism and only has the one serious flaw left.

    1. I’m sorry, but team colors shall only be the following:

      Carolina blue
      Panthers turquoise, black and white
      Braves red, white, and blue

      1. There will be no shunning if God’s favorite team colors (Cubs Blue, Illini Orange) when it come to Butt Cusion options! 😉

      2. Your color combinations are wrong. Possible combinations would be:
        Maize and Blue
        Honolulu Blue and Silver
        Red and White
        White, Navy, and Orange

      3. My graduate school had one of the ugliest color combinations ever devised: Forest green and burnt orange. Just thinking about it makes my eyes hurt.

      4. I gotta agree with Norm on this one, Natalie.
        Best colors are red and black with the occasional “silver britches” outing.

      5. You had me at Carolina Blue. Well, not me, exactly–my college had a pathetic football team, but we once beat Harvard in a chess tournament–but my daughter and son-in-law.

    1. I spy with my little eye 1/2 of the beatles, Jeff Lynn of ELO, and was that possibly Mark Knopfler of the Dire Straits on Slide guitar backing Tom Petty? What’s the matter, Tom? Couldn’t find a band?

  1. As a quote from David Hyles on marriage, I would say that it would be like getting money making advise from Bernie Madoff.
    Maybe the expectations he is referring to is how a husband should act.

    1. Actually, Madoff was a financial wizard. He made lots of money–for himself.

      I read somewhere that he sometimes gives financial advise to other prisoners. But he tells them not to do what he did.

  2. Maybe he and Jack Schaap could co-auther a book about marital bliss:)

        1. Hey, thanks to portable technology I can comment while I’m in the kitchen.

          Of course, I’m not in the kitchen now, nor was I when I wrote it, but I’m watching a cooking show on tv in the parlor. That will have to do, Scorp.

          Isn’t there a stewardess available to make your sammich?

        2. Meatloaf, just like hubby’s dear mother made.
          All those cans of Alpo in the trash and we don’t have a dog? It’s nothing need concern you, dear.

  3. the advice isn’t too bad which shows how depraved Mr. Hyles was/is….he knew how to have a good marriage and still failed. It always amazes me how much grace there is for fallen idols at times in fundamentalism but how little grace there is for anyone outside the holy circle.

    1. I agree that expectations for a spouse is something that can ruin a marriage. But to say all we need is “more love” seems trite and shallow to me. I’d say we need more sacrifice for the other – truly loving more than we love ourselves. Not just “love each other harder.”

      1. I do not believe to say we need more love is trite. Love according to Scripture is sacrificial–that is the love of Christ. To say we need love–the type Christ showed–is the hardest thing to do. So I agree with you that we need more sacrificial love. I doubt that Mr. Hyles would define the way he needs to love others as sacrificial though.

    2. Re: the “he knew how to have a good marriage and still failed” part of your comment: Yes, this. Fundies know how to be good. They know how they should act, they know what they should do, they know what to believe. All while having a corrupt heart and thought process – it’s extremely easy to fake it. That was me, and it’s a huge part of why I’m no longer a fundy. I don’t want my daughter growing up with that mindset.

      1. The knowing how to be good but not putting it into practice is, in large part, human nature. Most of us are guilty of that at times (though not all to the same extent.) Not just fundies.

        The issue with fundies, maybe, is that sometimes the followers seem especially willing to overlook these obvious flaws in actions, if the leader plays the part well and spouts all the right words. (Right-wing Authoritarian Followers, in Bob Altemeyer’s formulation.) Too eager to see a leader who says all the right things “restored.”

        1. Yes to you and Meg, BUT. With Dave Hyles we are not talking about normal human failings. We are talking about serial adultery. Statistically speaking, that is not normal, and morally speaking, well it speaks for itself.

    3. To understand the advice, you have to translate it from Hylesspeak:
      “The secret to a great marriage is unquestioning love for me, with no preconceived expectations that I won’t be a philandering, priapic, sometimes homicidal sociopath.”

  4. Yes, serious credibility issues there.

    To think that anyone would quote Dave Hyles about faithfulness… rather like quoting John Wilkes Booth about respecting the office of the President.

    Even if (and that’s a big if) he has utterly repented and made everything in his past right, he still has the reputation to live with and should not be a speaker about marriage, nor be quoted. There are plenty of people to quote that don’t have his sordid past.

    1. I believe it was C. H. Spurgeon who said a minister who sins should stay out of the pulpit until his repentance was as well-known as his sin. Oh, wait, we are talking about fundies. Never mind.

  5. Taking marriage advice from David Hyles would be like taking flying lessons from Lester Rolloff.

  6. The worst part of David Hyles’s response (in the last link), to me, is the whole part about how “those he has hurt” just need to get over it, shut up about it, and focus on God. Because apparently trying to get justice in this world makes you “bitter.”

    How dare he try to dictate to his victims what they should do? And isn’t it convenient that what he says is the best spiritual course is also the course that lets him never have to face accountability to his victims? How smarmy and self-righteous, to pronounce that it’s really best for his victims to just stop focusing on what he did to them.

    Ugh. It makes me nauseous.

    1. To correct Big Gary (as usual)….ALL males are priapic, It has nothing to do with whether one if a fundamentalist or not.

      And the comment by Carrie shows how immature and limp-wristed your movement is: Someone is a “victim” because they had an affair with a married man? Pullease…..get over yourselves! Ever heard the phrase that it takes 2 to tango?

      1. Before you jump all over me. I do realize that there is a difference between child abuse and having an affair. The problem is that you people in this whole “victim” movement don’t know how to separate the two and you automatically lump any woman who had an affair with a married man as a “victim.”

        1. From what I have seen, the “affairs” most IFB men have are with YOUNG girls. Rarely is it grown women. That is why they are called victims. Upon the research I have done and all I have learned, I can’t think of one person who had an affair with a grown woman. That would be why all affair persons are victims. We aren’t talking about secretaries here, we are talking about young school girls and young baby sitters. It is RAMPANT among these men.

      2. I never said fundamentalism caused it.
        But he did use fundamentalism to cover his behavior.

        1. BJg – stacy’s my girl. It was love at first post. She is my trollmate.


        2. Scorpio claimed “her”, there’s no sense trying to find true love with anyone but Scorpio!

    2. I wonder if this forgive-and-above-all-forget brand of grace extends to other perverts and sex offenders, or if it’s only open to those that are “under the blood.” I mean, what do they think about sex offender registries? (The ones they aren’t on.)

      There’s just NO way the Bible supports this get out of jail free idea. When Jesus Himself forgave the sinner on the cross, the sinner wasn’t magically flown off his cross to avoid his sentence. Moses was forgiven, but he still didn’t get to partake in the final steps of the journey to the promised land. Even David, the man after God’s own heart, lost his baby son as a consequence of sin that Nathan told him had been forgiven.

      As my mother told me during The Talk, “Being washed in the blood doesn’t cure herpes.”

      1. Also, David’s family was never the same. God said, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife” (II Samuel 12:10).
        Oh, and Adam and Eve weren’t allowed back into the garden of Eden. Ever!

  7. Maybe that was just David Hyles’ way of saying that he doesn’t have a great marriage and he knows why?

    No, wait, his problem was he was so in love with himself.

    Moving right along.

  8. I don’t want to be guilty of genetic fallacy but… David Hyles??? Marriage??? Really??
    Oy Vey!

  9. Who could possibly be a better authority on how to have a great marriage than David Hyles?

    1. Jack schaap….speaking of that man, he now wants to get his sentence overturned because the girl was the one that pursued him

      1. It makes me so disgusted that he DARES to make this claim: somebody should make him read his disgusting, manipulative, spiritually-abusive letters he wrote to the girl out loud to the judge.

        1. Well, those letters ARE in the court record. They were introduced for his sentencing hearing.

      2. I was actually impressed with him when he seemed willing to serve ten years – turns out he just thought his fake MOG humility would get him 18 months or probation. What if the Lord wants him to have a 12 year prison ministry?

        1. Don’t know about the law, but that’s what the federal judge decided on.
          With minimum sentencing laws, it actually couldn’t have been radically shorter than that.
          And practically speaking, there’s no longer any parole for federal sentences.

        2. Major typo. That should have said, “Don’t know about the Lord, but that’s what the federal judge decided on.”

      3. Repeating myself here: if a 30-year-old woman comes into my husband’s office, jumps onto his desk and rips her clothes off, I have a reasonable expectation that he will decline, seeing as how he’s a married man. Reasonable but not total, they are both adults.

        If a 16-year-old girl does the same thing I expect him to run from the room, yelling loudly to attract attention while he removes himself from the situation, because regardless of HER behavior, the onus is on the adult. In Schaap’s position of authority in her life, the onus is even stronger.

  10. It’s early in the day, but I see we already have a great new game:
    “Taking marital advice from David Hyles is like …”

    … Taking financial advice from Bernie Madoff
    … Taking flying lessons from Lester Roloff
    … Quoting John Wilkes Booth about respecting the office of the President

    It’s like …
    … Letting Tony Hutson be your dietician
    … Hiring Stephen Anderson to potty-train your boys
    … Giving Larry Brown a job as a TV repairman
    … Listening to ANYTHING Phil Kidd ever says
    … Taking geography lessons from Sarah Palin
    … Learning science from Bill O’Reilly
    … Having Lindsay Lohan as your AA sponsor
    … Hiring Jayson Blair as your Life Coach— and I am NOT making up that one:

    1. …taking pick-up artist advice from Bill Gothard.
      …taking batting tips from “Pastor Nate”

    2. It’s like learning how to play D&D from Jack Chick.
      …Like learning how to play football from the Buccaneers
      …Like having Charles Barkley help you with your golf swing
      … Like learning the history of rock and roll from a 75 year old white preacher

    3. … Like getting advice from David Hyles’ current beard, er, “wife,” about how to choose a good marriage partner

      1. Oh my God!! In the words of Simon Cowell: “that was utterly horrendous”

        This guy would be one the the funny rejects they display on the new hit summer show: “Fundy’s got talent.” How quickly do you thing he would have gotten 3 Xs? Thing is, this guy really thinks he a talented church singer/performer!! Talk about reality check…

        1. I think these people actually came closer to making music than the guy singing “Looking for a City!” This video was hilarious!!! I’m from Arkansas, so I have heard my share of pig calls.
          I kept waiting for the last woman to spit whatever it was she was trying to hock up!!!

  11. “Great marriages exist where we are more in love with each other than with our expectations of each other.” David Hyles.

    Isn’t it great? Seems like a true statement! Sounds like wonderful advice!

    Fundamentalism is full of these kinds of truisms. They seem to be true, but they are traps.

    Are you disgruntled with your spouse? Bad, bad! You are supposed to be more in love with your spouse than with the expectations you have of your spouse! And no one wants you to remember this than David Hyles.

    Your spouse cheated on you and you are angry? You are supposed to be more in love with your spouse than with the expectations you have of your spouse!

    See the trap? His statement is one the cheater uses to lay guilt on the cheated. It is equivalent to saying, “If you love me, you won’t be hurt when I don’t act like I love you.”

    The statement is the “pointing back” of the fingers. It is the way the person in the wrong turns the tables. “Well, you shouldn’t have hit me back! *That* wasn’t love!” It avoids the question at hand.

    1 Corinthians 13 tells us how love behaves. This statement turns it on its head. It puts responsibility for the relationship on the other, not on the self. It avoids accountability.

    David Hyles knows all about avoiding accountability. His advice here is poison.

    1. Interesting. I was gonna post that I kind of agreed with the quote itself, but after reading that I feel bad for even thinking that. It is a trap like you say.

      I would also like to add that, on my opinion, love means a different thing to fundamentalists. They may say it is unconditional, but it really isnt. I could see it in how men treat their wives. Saying to love someone has a completely different meaning if your love isn’t true. Just my thoughts on that…

      1. No need to feel bad. It sure sounded good to me at first. Except that it felt a little “off” somehow, and I had to think about why.

        Then it hit me. There was a double standard. It was sneaky.

        Most of us ex-fundies and most fundies would find it hard to recognize the double standards built into their teachings. They sound good. They promise a lot. Strength, power, invigoration — just like you get from a carbonated soda or one of those energy drinks. Then the crash.

        And don’t you get the idea, somehow, that fundies are largely spiritual diabetics? They have consumed so much sugar their spiritual bodies can’t tolerate it any more, and it destroys them from the inside, out.

        Recovery takes a long time. And candy is hard to resist. So don’t feel too bad about being fooled.

      2. I don’t think that humans can exhibit unconditional love. Human love always has conditions.

        If I find out that a family member (whom I should love unconditionally) is a child molester, I’m not loving that person any longer.

        Sometimes when we think someone is showing unconditional love for an undeserving person, it’s just co-dependency.

    2. Here’s my thoughts on how a man and wife should “relate” to each other. And it just comes straight out of scripture. Wives should submit themselves to their husbands, yes, i said it and I believe it.

      Now before you go crazy on me, husbands are to love their wives (and here’s the kicker) just exactly like Christ loved the church. Whoa!!! Now I don’t know if a husband NOT loving their wife relieves her of the responsibility to submit, honestly I don’t know. But what I do know is that we, as husbands, if we could really truly love our wives in the manner described here, they wouldn’t mind submitting because everything we wanted them to do would be the absolute best thing for them anyhow.

      Do I love my wife like Christ loved the church? In my limited knowledge, I don’t even come close. Does she submit to me? Well, honestly, until I love her like I’m supposed to, I don’t even have the right to question her submission. And it’s a whole lot easier to type this stuff out than it is to live it out 🙂 .

      1. This statement here, “But what I do know is that we, as husbands, if we could really truly love our wives in the manner described here, they wouldn’t mind submitting because everything we wanted them to do would be the absolute best thing for them anyhow”; I disagree with you.

        Do you always submit to Christ? If you don’t, then how can you say that always loving a woman as Christ loves us would make her “not mind submitting?”

        You cannot put the whole weight of a wife’s faithfullness to what she says she believes on a husband’s performance. Woman are responsible for their own choices as are men. A godly woman can end up with a selfish husband and visa versa.

        I don’t buy formulas.

        1. Thank God it’s not up to me to make all my wife’s decisions for her.
          How should I know what’s best for her better than she knows? She’s an adult.

        2. To clarify: It’s not a question of how much I love her, it’s the painfully obvious fact that my judgment is not infallible.

        3. @fundy. Christ loved the church PERFECTLY. He wasn’t a man, He was God. I will NEVER love my wife perfectly, because I AM a man, not God. Call it a formula if you want. God created the world that had it functioned by His perfect “formula” would be a perfect place. Man didn’t follow His perfect “formula” and here we are.

          You said a godly woman can end up with a selfish husband. That’s correct. Does a selfish husband relieve the duty of the woman from what scripture says about submitting. I said I don’t know. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know, because I’m a man and will never be a woman. Therefore, it will NEVER be my duty or responsibility to “submit”. The duty that I, as a man, as a husband, MUST fulfill is to lover her like Christ loved the church. I don’t love her in order to MAKE her submit, I love her because God told me to. And I TRY to love her perfectly (even though I must admit my human weakness and that I will never accomplish that). I’m not trying to put and “duty of faithfulness” on wives based on how their husbands treat them. I’m putting “duty of faithfulness” on myself to LOVE like the Bible tells me to. Like Christ loved the church.

        4. @ Big Gary, rtgmath, BJg and maybe a few others. It seems as though y’all simply read comments to see how you can disagree with them. That’s fine. I know this is gonna make you mad, but just offering some “constructive criticism” if you’re willing to take it. In all your criticisms of fundamentalists, you are indulging in “their behavior” more than you might think or for sure more than you want to.

          I have contacted several “fundy heavyweights” with issues I have with them and there is NEVER a response of “you know, I’ve never looked at it that way before, maybe you’ve got a point there.” It’s always, “Well, here’s why your wrong”.

          And especially in this instance, you took the words that I meant as placing responsibility solely on the husbands and twisted them to make it sound like I was saying “I love my wife perfectly like Christ love the church and she isn’t submitting to me, something is wrong with her”. I REALIZE I will NEVER love her with perfect love BECAUSE I’M NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m saying how I am SUPPOSED to love her and until I DO love her that way (and I never will) I can’t try to impose submission on her.


        5. Feel better, Norm? We all need those AUGGGGH! moments now and again. I know I do.

          Please understand. I am not trying to put you down or to be disagreeable. I am not trying to nitpick, either. As far as I am concerned, you are sincere, honest, and someone I want to be friends with.

          And I can come across in a manner I don’t expect. Probably do. And apparently I did.

          So I am sorry I came across as being critical of you. It wasn’t you. I just “don’t believe” in the idea that the women are supposed to be submissive to the men. I don’t believe in the necessity of head coverings either. And I appreciate the fact that women lead some congregations. A woman as a pastor is not a bad thing, though it would make Paul and John crazy with anger. That’s okay — their view of women was on par with their Jewish culture (how low can you go? Limbo!).

          And it is okay if you disagree with me. I won’t complain that you don’t see things my way. After all, I don’t see things the way I did!

          But let’s face it. The church does not love Christ or submit to Him in any way reflecting the ideal. You are young, yet. You will find that no matter how much you love your wife, no matter how much you do, her reactions will not always be what you expect. Theory and practice differ. I have discovered that, and still experience it.

          And you are my friend. I see a lot of a younger me inside you. I wish good things for you.

        6. and especially @Big Gary. What did I possibly say about making all my wife’s decisions for her? Talk about twisting what somebody says into something ENTIRELY different!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        7. @fundy again. Take my whole statement, not “this right here”. THAT’S WHAT WE RANT ABOUT “FUNDIES” FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          I don’t read the Bible and say “this right here” “and he was uncovered within his tent”. Look, the Bible says I should be uncovered in my tent!!!!

          If there’s ANYTHING we rant about on here it’s pulling stuff out of context. If you need to start a comment with “this right here” then just STOP, it’s out of context!!!!!

        8. Norm, I didn’t say anything about your post. My wife wouldn’t let me.

        9. @ BJg. Lol, you’re right, you didn’t say anything about my comments today. So I was especially wrong to “lump you in” with my raving. I was remembering past days.

          Jesus said (paraphrased) people will know you are mine by how you love each other. In I Corinthians 13 we are told that love “keeps no record of wrongs”.

          So, I don’t “love” y’all like I should if I truly belong to Christ because I kept a ‘record of wrongs’. On top of that, I “judged” y’all “wrong” before I could ‘keep the record’.

          Long Way Home.

        10. @rtg. Thanks. I agree that I don’t love my wife perfectly. In fact, I don’t think we, as humans, truly understand what love is. I think what we call love is really lust, infatuation, greed, but not really love. Therefore, why would I expect my wife to uphold the ‘submit’ part to perfection when I don’t uphold the ‘love’ part to perfection? Not trying to stress submit over love, which, true love DOES submit… *sigh* I probably just opened another “loophole”

        11. If your wife is reading your comment, she would probably agree that you had opened another loophole.

          I have days like that. Peace, brother!

        12. @Norm

          I picked that statement out because that’s what I disagree with. I do not believe that someone who fulfills their role even perfectly will automatically result in the other person “not minding” to fulfill their role.

          But you seem to be saying that if a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church then she won’t have a problem submitting because the husband will just be doing what’s best for her. This claim is full of assumptions.

          1. That we know what is best for us
          2. That we want what is best for us
          3. That someone wll behave in a godly manner when others behave in a godly manner towards them
          4. That a husbands behavoir dictates his wife’s behavoir

          I’m sure I can find more, but that’s what I see off the top of my head with your statement.

        13. @ fundyfacinated. I see what you’re saying. But if I am “loving” her in order to get her to submit to me, I am not “loving” her I am manipulating her.

          That’s what I was trying to get across and now that I’ve had more time to think about it (which is a great lesson in itself) I can express it better. True love, IMO, is wanting what is best and doing what is best for another regardless of how they react to you or how they treat you.

          My love for my wife operates outside of and oblivious to anything but wanting what’s best for her. Now, do I do that? I don’t even need to answer that. But i guess, what I’m saying is, if I love my wife, really love her, submitting to me wouldn’t even seem like submission. But I think we say “love” many times when we really mean “manipulate”. Acting towards her in a way to get her to react to me in a certain way is manipulation.

          So if I say it this way, I can understand why y’all would pummel me. “If I manipulate my wife perfectly, she will WANT to submit to me because it’s what’s best for her”. Yeah, that sounds pretty bad, ha! Love my wife perfectly, good. Manipulate my wife perfectly, bad.

      2. Norm, I greatly appreciate what you have written. But I am going to show my liberal face here.

        I agree with Eph. 5:21, where we should submit to each other. I do not agree with Eph. 5:22, where the wives are told to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord.”

        Remember, while I believe in the Inspiration of the Scriptures, I do not believe that they are right about everything. For example, I do not believe that slavery is right or good, and Paul gave slavery his endorsement!

        Wives, in that society, were little or no better than slaves. Girls were generally not allowed to be educated. They were blamed for the sin problem (after all, Eve passed the apple!) (Yes, that last was a joke!) Telling a wife to “submit” to her husband as if he were God is shackling her with a pretty heavy chain.

        This admonition does not recognize that the wife may be her husband’s equal (or superior) emotionally and intellectually. The passage assumes that the husband has to perform as a “priest” for his wife by “cleansing her.” No such cleansing need is attributed to the husband! After all, in Jewish culture, men were worth twice as much as women, and women were twice as unclean after the birth of a girl baby as they were from the birth of a boy baby.

        And the husband is NOT Christ, having none of Christ’s perfections. While we may submit to Christ, we are assured that He has Our best interest in mind, even at the expense of His own. But I did not die for my wife. I did not even pay a “bride price.” Why should she submit to my imperfections as if I were in Christ’s stead?

        Paul definitely supported the cultural status quo, here. So did Jesus in teaching about divorce. According to Jesus, a man could remarry if he had a faithless wife and divorced her. Not so the wife who was divorced! And fundamentalists support the status quo and even going backward. Women can vote? One Republican recently said that Amendment should be repealed. He also wanted to repeal the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and the 14th Amendment giving citizenship to those naturally born in the United States.

        Peter said for men to dwell with their wives “according to knowledge.” THAT is a big task, and a much more challenging one (and possibly more honoring to her) than expecting my wife to submit to me or telling her that she should. Of course, Peter also told women to act like Sarah, who called Abraham, “Lord.” Can you imagine what would happen to me if I reminded my wife of this “command”?

        No, I see my wife as an equal. I want to treat her that way. Some things she defers to me about. Others I defer to her. And some things we have to work out together. My word is not Law.

      3. Thank you A James. You took my comment EXACTLY as I meant it and said it better than I could. The obligation my wife has to submit to me is NONE of my worry or concern. She answers directly to God for how she fulfills that scripture. My responsibility is to LOVE her as Christ loved the church (which is perfect love, not that I as a man can attain that, but that is what I am to strive for). And I don’t love her so that I can manipulate her to submit to me, I LOVE her simply because I am commanded by my God to do that and I submit to Him.

      4. I agree with Norm’s original post and your explanation.

        I’ll say “God Bless you, Norm” too.

      5. Would you be willing to try an experiment?

        Would you be willing to temporarily, for the sake of loving your wife and understanding her experiences better, switch roles for a day? Or a week?

        That way you can truly experience the effects of expected submission.

        Just a thought.

  12. Okay, now, talk about someone preaching about something his life shows he isn’t qualified to preach!

  13. In all seriousness, this man could give about the best advice of anyone around on how to build a strong marriage! It sounds like he has a lot of experience with marriage (from a variety of angles!) and could give better advice than any of us on how to have a solid marriage and avoid affairs and burnout. Software companies do this all the time. What better person to give advice on computer security than someone who was an expert hacker?

    1. Using that logic then Satan would be the one of the best sources for soul-winning and all things Christian anyone could ask for right?

    2. Ummm…You’re equating marriage to writing secure software code?

      You can listen to whomever you’d like. I’ll stick to the guy who’s been married for a few decades and has remained faithful to his wife and his God for my advice.

  14. I’m sorry for “going off” on some of y’all (I called out Big Gary, rtgmath and BJg specifically) but I just get so tired of the, “Well, what you said was right but you held your mouth wrong while you said it” mentality.

    1. What stuck in my craw was the business about wives submitting.
      Unless you’re in the camp that says a wife and a husband should each submit to the other.

      I’m for equal rights, equal dignity, and equal responsibility.

      1. I suppose since Christ humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, that is a type of submission. If anyone has the idea that I am one who thinks “what I say goes” my wife would just have a good laugh and move on. We (my wife and I) have a running joke that my opinion doesn’t matter.

        1. He loved us so much he submitted to death on the cross, putting our needs in front of his own.

          So yes, I say both can submit to each other.

          But what do I know, I’m just a girl. I’m not even married…..

    2. Norm, you have presented Paul’s position (probably) adequately. Some folks on this site see the bible as the product of its day and culture, and don’t believe in verbal, plenary inspiration any longer. I’m in that group. I don’t know Big Gary’s take on inspiration, but I’m with him in seeing women as equal to men. I don’t agree with Paul’s ideas about “submission,” and I think that fundamentalists and evangelicals have engaged in artful ruses to try to get around what Paul really did say. He said that women should submit to their husbands.

      I believe that Paul was writing from his own worldview and culture. I just don’t agree with him, or with that ancient worldview.

  15. “@fundy. Christ loved the church PERFECTLY. He wasn’t a man, He was God”

    Oh yes, he was a man. Go to the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds.

    Plus, of course, Luke 2, KJV or otherwise.

    1. @ Jay. I am sorry, but we will absolutely have to agree to disagree here. You have your “creeds”, but they were not “given by inspiration of God”. Christ WAS a man, He was FULLY man and He was FULLY God. That I FULLY believe. If you don’t believe that, that is perfectly fine with me. But you will never convince me that Jesus Christ was NOT 100% man and 100% God. Otherwise, what good would it have done for Him to do what He did?

        1. I guess I should have said, “He wasn’t MERELY a man. Whew! Sometimes I feel like I’m writing tax code on here. If I fail to close every single loophole or don’t cross a t, I get pummeled!

        2. As do we all, Norm. As do we all.

          I have gotten my share of it, too. Just grin and bear it. Just don’t be too grizzly.

          You have a good heart.

        3. @rtg. I was thinking about that (being grizzly) as I cut grass this evening. Don’t want to turn people off to giving me their opinion because I certainly do enjoy discussion. I just don’t like when it seems like someone is purposely trying to twist my words. That just seems so unprofitable.

        4. I understand perfectly. That is probably why I write volumes and sound like a teacher, even when I write about light-hearted things. I can’t stand to be misunderstood.

          But I *do* like to twist words with punning. Puns are America’s number one form of humor — and you can’t get a lower position than number one. Mine are the worst.

        5. And Norm, so you don’t misunderstand. Jay’s jumping at your statement was not intended to be at you, but at an idea you have had pummeled into you within fundystan, but which definitely bears challenging.

          “Christ loved the church PERFECTLY. He wasn’t a man, He was God.”

          Yes, you didn’t mean to say that, exactly. But it shows how our indoctrination is so subtle. Fundamentalism has so focused on the deity of Christ, they have made it impossible for Jesus to experience true humanity. They so emphasize His Holiness and being “separate from sinners” they forget that He ate and drank with sinners, touched them, healed them.

          I don’t know how Jesus could be fully God and fully man at the same time. It is a mystery, and no philosophizing can solve it. Theologians have struggled with it over the centuries, never coming close to reconciling the irreconcilable. But if we minimize the humanity of Christ to emphasize His deity, we diminish the importance of what He did and said on earth.

          I continually run into these kinds of things, where I find myself giving a fundamentalist-taught statement, even when I know better when I think about it.

        6. I understand rtg. And I’m not trying to use the ‘my church wasn’t that bad argument’ but I always have understood Christ to be fully MAN and fully God. That truly was a typing miscommunication. I have enough things to sort through from previous churches teachings that I don’t need to add ones they DIDN’T teach 🙂

        7. @rtg. When I say “understood” I don’t mean “comprehended” 🙂 go ahead and close that loophole right quick

      1. Hey, Norm, you and I are in agreement! And, like it or not, “fully God and fully man” is exactly what the creeds say!

        I hope you’re not too shocked, Norm.

  16. Jay, I’m not real sure why you quote these “creeds” to me as basis for argument. In my opinion, unless something is ‘inspired by God’ you can’t argue from it. I mean, why don’t I pull something out of one of Max Lucado’s books and argue from that foundation?

    1. Norm,
      I’m a regular lurker here at SFL. I’ve been enjoying watching you comment here because it shows that you are truly attempting to work through the dross to find what is valuable in your faith. Having said that, you should really do some study about the creeds. I didn’t used to think much of them either, but now that I say them at every service (Episcopalian), I really appreciate the wisdom and depth in them.

      One thing to consider is that the same early church that gave us the canon of scripture is the church that gave us the creeds. In many respects, the creeds have as much credence for understanding orthodox Christianity as the New Testament does. They both receive their authority from the same source, the church. Without the church, there is no canon and thus there is no New Testament. If you reject the creeds, you are rejecting the authority of the church. If you reject the authority of the church, you reject the source of the authority of the canon. If you reject the authority of the canon, you should treat Maccabees and the gospel of Thomas as authoritative as Jude or Revelation, or reject them all outright, or whatever combination suites your fancy.

      These are some of the things I’ve discovered in my faith journey, I wish you well as you travel on yours.

      1. Thank you FormerFundieLite. This I do know. What I believe and hold dear today, could possibly change tomorrow or 20 years from now. I want to always be open to understanding new truth. The only thing, in my opinion, is that it MUST line up with scripture.

        I must ask you what you mean by “the authority of the church”?

    2. That is right! If you are going to claim some writing or another is “inspired by God,” you are going to have to quote what specific committee of MEN came up with that conclusion. And anyone who may possibly disagree with those MEN, we can simply accuse them of doubting GOD. (What is wrong with this picture?)

      1. @ Ricardo. I may not understand what you are trying to say. But it sounds like you are saying since humans were used in the writing and interpretation of and in determining what to include and what not to include in the Bible, that it is simply a book. Simply a book to glean from it what you will. If you agree with something in it, then use it. If you disagree with something in it, then ignore it. Is this a fair statement of your belief of what the Bible is?

        1. Norm: “Simply a book to glean from it what you will. If you agree with something in it, then use it. If you disagree with something in it, then ignore it. Is this a fair statement of your belief of what the Bible is?”

          Correct. That is what we all do. Some of us actually admit to it.

  17. Wouldn’t the witty, snappy comeback to Bro. Jim Ward have been, “Which one?”?

    1. Which wife?
      Yes, I agree completely (although most of the wives involved were not legally David’s).

  18. Norm, have you ever actually read the Apostles, Nicene or Athanasian creeds?

      1. The Creeds pretty much define what it means “to be Christian.” They are the historical essence of the fundamentals of the faith.

        Funny that fundamentalism disregards them almost completely, preferring their modern version of foolishness.

    1. I have read the apostles creed and the Nicene creed. I agree with what they state. I just feel they summarize scripture so rather than going to a summary of scripture, I like to go straight to scripture. If you like these “summaries”, terrific, but I don’t regard them as authoritative. Just my opinion, not trying to change you.

    2. Ok. I said I had read them. I had actually just glanced through them. I read them carefully this time. As I understand them, I believe all that they say except for two things. I don’t believe in the “holy catholic church” and I don’t believe in the “baptism FOR sins”. You say everything is backed up by scripture. Can you give me the scriptures that back up these two statements?

      1. Please note Norm, that is ‘catholic’ with t small ‘c’.

        “The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”, and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning “about” and όλος meaning “whole”.[3][4] The word in English can mean either “including a wide variety of things; all-embracing” or “of the Roman Catholic faith” as “relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.”.[5] (“Catholicos, the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin).


      2. You’re reading a 4th century creed with 21st century eyes. Luitgard has quite a bit of info there on lower case c catholic. The issues at dispute/stake in Nicea were not whether baptism was redemptive/salvific, but whether the nature of Christ was a created being or “very God of very God” (Homoousian – same substance as God). A secondary issue at debate was Donatism RE the validity of baptism/sacraments by priests who then recanted the faith in times of persecution. Donatists said that those who had been baptised by unfaithful priests were invalid, and would need to be rebaptised. The emphasis of “we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins”, the emphasis is on the ONE.

        I don’t have the scriptures but there are plenty of references to “believe & be baptised”. In Corinth (in Acts somewhere), Paul wants to know what baptism the people have had to determine if they have received the Holy Spirit, and baptizes them for the Holy Spirits indwelling. I don’t believe (and frankly, there aren’t really people who believe) what Baptist’s teach you that Baptismal Regeneration or “Baptism for Sins” is. But Baptists contort most every other denomination into heresy that those teachings aren’t actually in their actual practice.

        1. Your explanation was excellent. I really liked the statement “reading a 4th century creed with 21st century eyes.”

          That is how people read the Scriptures as well. They use 21st century eyes to read writings from the first century (NT) and from the 4th century BCE and prior (OT). The misunderstandings of the Scripture are just as dramatic as the misunderstandings of the creeds, and more so.

          In large measure we have built theology upon those misunderstandings. And the theology fundamentalism holds to engenders more misunderstandings, effectively demanding that we interpret earlier Scripture by later Scripture, and not even on the same topic, or that we assume that the writers and hearers of Scripture have the same point of view about God and His works as we do.

          It makes for a very big muddle. We don’t *know* what we think we know. Isn’t throwing away scholarship wonderful? You get to misunderstand so many things and still think you are right!

          Thanks again!

        2. I’ve chided my own family how struggle mightily to understand how to read narratives and even attempt to understand what the author is actually saying (let alone Pauline treatises), rather than be tricked by pulling a verse or phrase to proof text, etc. I’ve given my family the advice multiple times that you really need to take a literature class at the community college before you abuse the authors of Scripture they way they do. Scripture’s authors have never done anything to my family to deserve the abuse. 🙂

  19. Norm,
    I do have to ask why you say the Bible tells her to submit and not you. Read Eph. 5:21 lately? 🙂

    1. The whole point to fundy doctrine is that we hold several isolated verses out of their context as being TERRIBLY IMPORTANT and anybody who doesn’t think they mean what I think they mean DON’T BELIEVE THE BIBLE and are probably HERETICS or something.

      But… their doctrine falls apart as soon as you read the context those verses were written in or the entire theme as presented across the bible.

    2. Honestly, the wife’s submission to the husband is so low on my scale of “Christian necessity” I shouldn’t have mentioned it. I am a husband and will never be a wife. I am concerned with loving her as Christ loved the Church. That is the command to me so that is what I am to do. What my wife does or what any wife does is completely out of my hands.

      1. So wifely submission is so low on your scale of importance that it doesn’t matter (to you) that you completely ignore the commands for all christians, male and female, to submit to each other.

        1. Ha ha Tiarali, I’m not gonna get riled up (again). Put whatever words in my mouth you choose. You bring to mind titus 3:10. Not saying that IS what your doing, just brings it to mind.

        2. I would ask you Tiarali. Are you trying to understand scripture better and change if and when you find something in your life that doesn’t “line up”? Or do you just like to fight and point out why everyone else is wrong so that it makes you feel like you don’t need to change anything?

    3. Just read it Beth. It’s definitely a two way street. Submission doesn’t have to be tyrant / serf in nature. If you view submission as Husband: wash the dishes! Wife: yes sir. Then yeah, that’s awful. But that’s not submission working inside of love. I don’t even know what that is.

  20. This may have already been posted, but translation: Secret to a great marriage is the wife humbly submitting to & loving my philandering more than she loves her expectation of faithfulness & honoring my marital vows.

    1. Yup, that about sums it up. Gotta know that codespeak.

      If a fundy leader ever utters an admonition that sounds good, look for the out he is giving himself.

    2. She’s really not a christian if she doesn’t forgive her husband’s philandering, keep a clean house, and make herself sexy. In fact, it’s really her fault if he is a big old cheater. Because she didn’t look hot enough for him, didn’t perform the Chinese rope trick, and so he strayed. He’s JUST A MAN!! And she is just BITTER! She should FORGIVE him!

      This is where women ‘submitting’ to their husbands leads us. The fundies are the christian taliban.

      PS Don’t ask me about the ‘Chinese rope trick’ because I won’t answer. This is a G rated website not NC-17.

  21. de·lu·sion·al/dɪˈluʒənl/ Show Spelled [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] Show IPA
    1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.

    2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

    Sometimes, de·lu·sion·ar·y.

    Taken from Dictionary.com.


    P.S. I’m growing weary of talking about these cultists.

  22. “Summary of Scripture.”

    Exactly. That’s what the creeds are.

    The creeds have been handed down from the early church. They are said in the liturgical churches EVERY Sunday, and thus become engraved on the hearts of believers. They are not re-invented by every new church every few years.

    The creeds say nothing about which version of the Bible is correct, nor about smoking, gambling, hem lengths on women’s dresses (or whether they can wear “britches”) or even about sexual preferences. They state what we believe about God, and God’s relationship with us.

    Every phrase in the creeds is supported by the Bible. Yes, the creeds summarize Scripture.

    1. Regardless if you are familiar with creeds, you still are squishing scripture into something (systematic theology, KJVO’ism, commentaries, fundamentalism, Calvinism, etc). Just because you aren’t familiar with the creeds doesn’t mean you aren’t participating in the same. Unless all you are doing is reading from cover to cover, in the original language, you are participating is summarization.

      1. @rtg. I do want to “think” about other viewpoints. I realized today that it actually scares me to think about other viewpoints. This is exactly what I think. “What if I consider another viewpoint and then start believing it and it’s wrong? I’ll go to hell!!!!!” I’m not saying I want to think that, or why I think that, or definitely not that someone else should think that. It’s just how my mind works at the current time.

        1. Norm, I appreciate you more and more. You have a way of saying things straightforward and clear, and you are transparent with how you think and feel.

          Yes, you hit upon why it took me so long to get out of fundamentalism. “What if I consider another viewpoint and then start believing it and it’s wrong? I’ll go to hell!!!!!”

          The “Why” of your believing that is because that is what you have been taught. You have been told that only in the arms of those around you, the loving care of your MOG who teaches “the Truth” are you safe. “Out there” in “the World” amongst those “Who Are Not Us” are “doctrines of devils” and demons who lie in wait for your soul.

          Even if you have been taught eternal security, you have also been told about people who left that “they never were saved in the first place.” So they give you incentive to be afraid.

          For years I lived in terror of a God Who was going to bash me for every disobedient thought, for the sins I couldn’t help committing, for not submitting, not having enough faith, etc. At the same time they preached that God was a God of Love — unless you happened to believe the wrong thing about this or that, then, being unsaved because of an obscure point, you would feel God’s wrath as you were tortured forever.

          I finally had to say, “If God is really like that, He is a Monster. I will not worship a Monster, no matter how much power or might he might have.” I told God that I did not believe the creation lied about its extreme age or about the physical processes we have discovered. I told Him that I could not bear to be afraid any more. I knew I was going to sin. I knew I was going to believe differently than those who claimed to have “the Truth.” I was going to accept truth wherever I could find it. And I told God I was willing for Him to change my mind if I was wrong — but I wanted Him to provide clear proof, not the lies so often told in His name.

          God has not bashed me. He has not crushed me for asking questions. He has not stomped on me for telling Him that I think He has let people besmirch His name and hurt His cause by not stopping them. I recognize that life happens and it isn’t always pretty. But life’s troubles are not God’s judgments.

          The Lord knows my heart. I want to know what is true and right. But I am not going to drink the KoolAid because that is what everyone tells me I should do. And somehow, I don’t think that God is as close-minded as people make Him out to be.

          And think. When was the last time some preacher made a pronouncement of divine judgment that actually came true in the way they said it would? After a while you have to think that being wrong so often before, they are still going to be wrong going forward.

    2. You said it so well A James. In a “knee jerk” reaction to “fundamentalism” the desire is to distance oneself from the teachings of “fundies”. But in so doing, if one goes too far “the other way” then he or she is still “wrong”.

      But “right” and “wrong” isn’t what you were hitting on, and not what I want to look at either. It’s the point of beliefs not lining up and the criticism and attacks that come out of disagreements. If someone doesn’t agree with me, I attack them as wrong. If I don’t agree with someone they attack me as wrong. You hit it right on the head, A James, that is EXACTLY what fundies do and that is EXACTLY why we have forty gazillion denominations in this country.

      So we get on our little site to “bash the craziness of the fundies” and then we do exactly what they do. Instead of arguing over hem length and alcohol, we argue over creeds vs. scripture.

      The bottom line is this. Me, you, rtg, BJg, Big Gary, EVERYONE will one day stand in front of a holy God and give an account. It doesn’t matter if you believe that or don’t, it will happen. It’s like saying, I don’t believe if I step off this ladder I’ll fall, rather, I believe I’ll float. No, you’ll fall.
      So, whatever you want to argue against or for in this life is fine. But if it doesn’t point you to a holy God, it’s worthless.

      While I’m on this, I do want to say this, because I believe this is a matter of heaven or hell. It’s the matter of substitutionary atonement. I know some on here don’t believe in that, and that’s fine. But if you don’t believe in substitutionary atonement, what’s left? God is holy and just and therefore He WILL serve justice. We ALL deserve hell, of that there is no doubt. We as mere humans can NEVER live holy, just, and PERFECT enough to “satisfy” (that’s the wrong word I’m certain, that’s why I put it in quotations) a perfectly holy God. So if you don’t believe Jesus was sacrificed in our place, then you MUST believe you create your own righteousness and holiness (as Charles Finney did). I hate to say this, but I just can’t get over the arrogance and pride in saying, “I don’t need Jesus as my propitiation, I’m PLENTY good to go to heaven.” I can’t see any other attitude if you DON’T believe in substitutionary atonement.

      1. I started a thread in ‘believer space’ on the forum about this. That’s probably a better place for this kind of thing.

      2. Hi Norm.

        Uhhh, I am a bit unsure about this, since you thought I was jumping on you the last time I weighed in on a doctrinal point you made. I am not trying to discourage you. And I am not even denying a belief in the Substitutionary Atonement. What I want to convey is that there is room within the Scripture for a different point of view.

        And when someone says, “If you don’t believe this then you must believe that,” I tend to think they don’t know what they are talking about (which is actually the kinder viewpoint) or they are trying to force someone into a theological hole.

        Someone told me that if I did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal, single-point-in-time fall of man, that I couldn’t be saved. Because if I didn’t believe in the fall, I didn’t believe in original sin, which meant I didn’t see the need for a Savior and meant I thought I could be good enough for God and His heaven by myself.

        It was rot and nonsense. I don’t have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to know that I am a sinner and need a Savior. And I don’t need to believe in them to believe in the gospel. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. Where in there is Adam and Eve?

        Someone else has said that if I don’t believe every word of the Bible then I am picking and choosing for myself and can’t be saved because I am trusting my own intellect and not Christ’s righteousness.

        Such arguments are called non-sequiturs, that is the conclusion they reach does not follow from the premises they espouse.

        Do I *have* to believe in the Substitutionary Atonement? What if the only verse of Scripture I had was that Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God? This is not a legal argument. It is a practical one. Christ took the sin problem out of the way so we could be brought to God.

        Do I have to believe that God Keeps The Books and assesses a penalty for every misdeed and thought, and summarily passed judgment on Christ so that God’s Legal Judgment against me was fully paid, down to the last piece of fire and brimstone? Or do I need to know that Christ died for me? Does it matter that I love Him because He so patiently endured the wrath of man against Him? Or must I love Him because God poured out His fury at me on His Son to appease His Wrath? And which of these scenarios might tell me that God is a God of Love? Must I believe in a God of Wrath?

        Remember, God is not constrained in how He saves. The Rules did not force God into a situation where only killing His Son would do. God made the rules. Interestingly enough, He did not start off by telling them to us.

        Indeed, the Scriptures in the Old Testament never, ever indicate that sin would send you to hell. It might send you to the grave! But Hell was a concept Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism, as was the idea that God was at war with Satan, Light at war with Dark, and that the Devil’s powers were nearly as great as God’s. God did not tell Adam that he needed a substitute for God to forgive him. And the Scriptures do not in any straight-forward manner suggest that God made a sacrifice of animals to Himself to appease His Wrath against Adam and Eve. God killed the animals and made coats of skin. Interpretations beyond that are just fanciful.

        Jesus said that “the Kingdom of Heaven” was made of such souls as innocent children who had come to Him. They didn’t know about substitutionary atonement.

        We make such a big issue about sin. We hide from God. God, on the other hand, wants to bring us back to Him, and it is not His anger but our sense of shame that gets in the way. Perhaps the offering of Christ was not God’s need to see the Books Balanced. Perhaps Christ was telling us how far God would go, how much he was willing to suffer to get us back.

        You can take this as you will. But it fits the Scriptures as a whole. And perhaps there are people who do not understand the gospel as you do, but still are Christ’s own.

        It is worth thinking about.

    3. ~I’m just not used to seeing this badgering of individual beliefs at SFL–it looks like, it looks like…a FUNDY site with an agenda ;)~

      I’m confused. Are you expecting us to all speak with one voice? Many of us who left fundamentalism went in different directions so of course we are going to differ on various things

      There is that ‘agenda’ word again. It makes it sound like we all get together in some secret place and set around a table and try to come to some consensus getting ‘our’ message across. We have no common message apart from having a common experience. Some of us are more or less ‘live and let live’. Let the fundamentalists believe what they want and live how they want as long as they are not hurting people physically, emotionally or spiritually. Some want fundamentalism to wither and die.

      We are also at various stages of coming out. Some are just out and full of anger and some of us are more relaxed about it all. We’re not all at the same place so of course reactions will vary.

      Of course that may not be what you meant at all and if not please disregard this post.

Comments are closed.