"exludes one from the Kingdom of God"

To a Christian, that of course is NOT true.

NO ONE's excluded from the Kingdom of God.

Least not any one who wants to be there.

That's the core promise of the Christian Faith.

Ask, and it will be given you.

If you sincerely and from your heart acknowledge Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and ask God for the gift of his Grace -- you will get it.

WITHOUT RESERVATION.

In the Christian view, we're all sinners.

That's why Grace is given without condition.

Otherwise, we'd still be living under the Law -- the Torah.

Grace is given without reservation.

And it cannot be taken away from you.

God doesn't say he's going to do something -- and then not do it.

Nor does he give you something and then yank it away from you.

Which is why there's room for everyone at the foot of the cross.

If Haggard were right, Christianity would be far more primitive and punitive than most pagan religions of the past, which always contained provisions for propitiating the gods and expiating sins.

According to his own doctrine -- and that's all it is, his very twisted view of the Faith -- Haggard is now excluded from the kingdom of God.

Fortunately for Haggard, he's wrong.

But this sort of doctrine erects "hurdles to the Faith" -- every time an evangelical preacher spouts this stuff, it alienates gay and bi men and pushes them into the arms of the secularists and analists.

So it is profoundly damaging.

Why are people so easily fooled by charlatans and liars like Ted Haggard?

Because society teaches there are two discrete groups -- gay men and straight men.

And the assumption is made that if a guy's married and has kids -- as Haggard is and does -- he's straight.

But NO ONE's straight.

That's the reality.

That's the truth.

I hope that those of you who are Christians and have struggled with these issues will learn from guys like Haggard and Foley to trust your own feelings and to distrust those who say that love between men is a sin.

It's not.

Yes, in my view, it matters a great deal what men do sexually.

But that men are sexual with each other matters not at all.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-5-2006

I stopped getting excited decades ago when I discovered that the faithful were far outnumbered by the hypocrites. Men like Haggard have given God a bad name! Full of hypocrisy they stand in the pulpit condemning the very thing they themselves are while pretending that they are "holier-than-thou." What liars such men are! What charlatans! What "devils" preaching their hypocrisy and FALSE doctrines from the pulpits! But, alas, most of Christendom sleeps soundly like the living dead.

Having grown up in an Evangelical church I've seen many just like him fall over the years. Going to church every Sunday as a child and teen (not voluntarily BTW) I'd sit and listen to these men spout their hell-fire-and brimstone garbage against gay people, alcoholics, drug addicts, women's libers, etc.,etc., etc. And then, lo and behold, the next thing you knew the preacher had come forth to the Church board and congregation confessing his own "sin" of homosexuality, womanizing (ie: whoredom), drug use, and/or alcoholism. And then that preacher would be gone and replaced by yet another preacher who ended up doing the same. So, over the years I got used to these "pillars of faith" falling left and right.

As for being gay or bi and it's exclusion of one from the Kingdom of God that's a CROCK OF SHIT! That is a FALSE doctrine that is NOT even Biblical. Under this doctrine one must conclude that such biblical pillars such as David and Jonathan of the Old Testament are excluded from the Kingdom. Under this false doctrine one must surmise that the Roman Centurion and his lover are excluded from the Kingdom EVEN though JESUS healed the soldiers male lover per the soldiers request! And, to carry this false doctrine even further, one must conclude that Jesus and his Apostles are even excluded from the Kingdom. I mean, afterall, that was a pack of MALES running together! A homo-social group! In today's homophobic, psychotically twisted society, Jesus and his Apostles would be accused immediately of being homosexuals. See how ridiculous the false doctrine is???

God, the one common Creator that we ALL share, is NOT exclusive. In fact, God is INCLUSIVE! How can God who claims to be Love exclude one of his own children? And we are ALL God's children BTW. The doctrine put forth by Haggard and his kind is false and it paints a false image of God. For, that doctrine paints God as "God is Hate and Anger" rather than the BIBLICAL image of God which is "God is LOVE." God is NOT some ruthlessly Divine tyrant sitting on a man-made throne somewhere...out there...in some place called Heaven. God is RIGHT HERE! Above and below us...all around us...and YES even within EACH of us! The image of God as ruthless king and tyrant is, in fact, an image drawn from none other than the egotistically psychotic Emperor Constantine. Constantine ruled over the Christian Church during it's formation and the man was so ego-bent that he once told the early Church fathers, "I am you ONLY savior!" That kinda throws Christ on the funeral fire doesn't it? All church doctrines and teachings had to be approved by Constantine before such doctrines and teachings could be fed to the masses. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who considered himself a..THE...living god just as most Roman emperors considered themselves. Our image of God is really the image of Constantine.

The Bible teaches that God is Spirit and that God is Love. God is an active Father who is both personal and personable. God cannot hate because hatred come from outside of Love (it comes from fear which is the opposite of love). To claim that being gay or bi automatically excludes one from the Kingdom is absolute hypocrisy and anti-biblical. When you research the original Greek and Hebrew of the Bible you discover that the words used for homosexuality are not referring to gay or bi people or men. They are words that are used for gay/bi whores! Whoredom is what the Bible condemns folks! It does NOT condemn homo or bisexuality!! There's a great writing online all about this topic. It's authored by a Baptist preacher and it's entitled

"Letter to Louise."

Google it and read it!! It is very enlightening.

God does NOT hate gay or bi people. Being gay or bi does NOT exclude you from the Kingdom of God. However, seething hatred and rage against one's own brother in the brotherhood of man just might keep you from entering the Kingdom.

Think about it.

Redd

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-5-2006

The Ted Haggards of religion are annoying. Their thinking is primitive.

When primitives explained phenomenon that occurred in nature, say a thunderstorm, they reasoned a supernatural force was the cause. Such reasoning was their "scientific" test for proof. This kind of reasoning about what we didn't understand lasted really until the Renaissance when the likes of Galileo contradicted the Church's non-scientific answers about Nature.

But religious people like Haggard continue with primitive thinking. They condemn what's natural to maintain power. They claim to believe something they don't.

I speak from experience of being a one-time Bible toting, door-to-door and street "Jesus" witnessing fundamentalist who in my gut knew I didn't believe the shit about condemnation I spewed. I wasn't witnessing Christ's love; I was witnessing the Church's power, the Church's hate, the Church's lie that they loved the sinner and hated the sin.

Even while I was "holy," I was naturally me. I attempted to deny my natural urges, like masturbation, because the Church said any expression of sex was sin, even so-called heterosexual sex. So I abstained from sex, which appeased my insecurities about women, and I clinged to the artificality of holiness. Holiness was gauged by don'ts, delusional don't, don'ts that demanded physical otherworldliness, which is impossible.

I wasn't alone. Many people, many couples were confused. Married couples felt they were sinning when they had sex. Church-going men often told of their wives' apathy about sex because the wives felt guilty. The wives equated sex with sin. Imagine how unholy a holy union when sex is felt to be sin. Imagine what happens when who we are, humans, is condemned. We become hypocrits, hiding behind Christianity or Islam, and acting unseemingly.

Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Jim Bakker and all the other closeted religious people are hypocrits. Their sexuality isn't in the closet; THEIR HUMANITY IS IN THE CLOSET. They keep their sheep ignorant through condemnation. They tell their flock that God speaks to ministers, and the flock believes them.

It seems that for religious people, they condemn what they are, what they practice. They condemn because they feel condemned. They feel God has really rejected them. They talk religious talk, walk religious walk because they're conflicted with their natural selves against unnatural demands of religion. They define holiness as otherworldly, an otherworldliness that requires they cut themselves off from their whole self, that they separate body and mind because "the body is the tool of the devil."

I think such distorted thinking is the type of platform analism and heterosexism thrives upon. The Church has demonized the body, and analsts acknowledge such demonization by infecting the body with fatal diseases. It's like an exorcism. The only way to exorcise a demonized body is to kill the body.

When I think about what Bill posted, that drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and promiscuity (which is physical abuse) characterize the gay community, I hear of a community that has condemned itself. I hear of a community that has mistaken promiscuity for fun and has given themselves to delusion by ignoring the fact that they are killing each other more than is homophobia as they claim. I hear of a community that hates itself just as the religious fundamentalists condemn themselves and just as the heterosexists delude themselves.

We have seen on many of these threads that analists, heterosexists, and religious fundamentalists are similar, if not the same. Each encourages delusion. Each condemns the body, especially the male's body. Each has its strength in binary oppositional thinking wherein reality is straight or gay, black or white, etc.

I doubt if these groups care at all about others. Maybe when they actually begin caring, they'll take the path Rev. Carlton Pearson has taken and has been condemned as a heretic.

No longer does Rev. Pearson believe in a God who excludes. Now his "Gospel of Inclusion" has him marginalized within religious circles because inclusion doesn't condemn. The religious powers that be don't know if the inclusion message is financially rewarding.

Redd

Robert Loring

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-6-2006

Good post Redd and you hit many things right on the head. The thinking of the religious right is in fact primitive. And it is, indeed, people like the hypocrite Ted Haggard who condemn what is NATURAL in order to maintain their own power and egos, not to mention their bank accounts.

These people continue to demonize the male body and everything natural for and about all males. The urge to masturbate is NATURAL for all males straight, gay, or bisexual. Jackin' Off is a NATURAL MALE thing just as two males beating off together is a natural thing. Yet, it's all condemned and passed off as "sin" by the right wingers steeped in their own egotistical sense of self righteousness and "holiness." And so many guys grow up with an overwhelming sense of shame and guilt for having "sinned."

These people have demonized the human body and especially the masculine male body. They have demonized natural male aggressiveness and the natural male spirit of competitiveness. No longer are males aloud to be proud of their masculine bodies as they were in the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans! Today males must cover their "sinful" nakedness because, to these people, a nude masculine male is a billboard for SIN. Bullshit!!

HOW CAN A SACRED CREATION CREATED BY GOD BE SINFUL AND DEMONIC?

That is what the male body is. A Sacred Creation! The body is the LIVING TEMPLE of the Holy Spirit. The body is something to be cared for and respected but not worshipped, biblically. Yet this BIBLICAL FACT is completely ignored by the right wingers steeped in their own egotism and self righteousness! It's NOT God who has demonized the male body and everything NATURALLY MALE but it is people like the HYPOCRITE Haggard et. al.

Countless numbers of males have grown up feeling no connection with other males and fearful of sharing their feelings with other males, which is NOT real good for anyone's mental or spiritual health. Countless numbers of males have grown up under feelings of shame because the cannot resist their NATURAL male urges like masturbation and/or love for another male. These males live out their lives under the jack-boot Nazi-like OPPRESSION of the right wingers like the Gestapo Haggard! They fear being themselves! They fear being naturally masculine males for fear of being condemned by Haggard's idea of a hateful, vengeful, angry God. And all the while the FACT that Christ preached FREEDOM and LIBERATION is ignored!! Christ was NOT against natural maleness. He was for it!!

As for Rev. Pearson and his INCLUSION theology he is probably closer to the truth than any of the right wingers want to believe. But the right wingers will never accept his Gospel of Inclusion because if they did then they would have no "enemy" (ie: sinner) for which to rally around the "troops." And, of course, you know that, that means empty collection plates on Sunday mornings.

Haggard built a big financial empire under the guise of God. Yet now his hypocrisy is exposed for the whole world to see. That man's mouth spewed so much hatred about gay people that it was like listening to Satan incarnate! Rage, anger, and hatred flowed from his mouth against gay people like an untamed raging river of fire and brimstone. Yet, now he has confessed to being what he so rallied people to hate....HOMOSEXUAL!! I'm glad his hypocrisy is now exposed and that the man is now silent. Perhaps now he will find time to come to terms with his OWN self rejection and manhood since he no longer has to live the lie.

Bill Weintraub

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-6-2006

Thank you Robert and Redd.

Yours are the words of HONEST MEN.

Which Haggard is not.

I want to respond to something Haggard said on Sunday:

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life."

"Deceiver and liar" is right.

But Haggard, ever the brainy little saboteur, managed to mix in there the notion that sex between men is immoral, repulsive, and dark.

And then to subtly cast himself in heroic terms by saying he's been "warring against it."

NO.

This male is no hero.

And he's most certainly NO warrior.

To use his own words:

Ted Haggard is repulsive.

Ted Haggard is immoral.

Ted Haggard is dark.

What's HEROIC is the open and honest LOVE of MEN.

Man for Man.

Warrior for Warrior.

The LOVE of MAN for MAN.

NOT the drug-crazed lust of a fucked-up closeted cleric for a hustler.

But the LOVE of MAN for MAN.

The Love of Men is a source of Light, a source of Good.

And it is profoundly MORAL.

I can't imagine my life without the love of Men and Masculinity.

Men to me are luminous beings.

For me, Masculine Men have a divine aura.

And I mean that.

An aura.

They radiate life.

That's why I have all those pictures of fighters on this site.

Because to me Man the Fighter Man the Warrior partakes of and gives forth the Divine.

Of course, a man has to be behaving morally when he fights and elsewise in his life.

But for me, not just Sexuality, Spirituality, Masculinity -- but Men, Masculinity, Morality -- are all interconnected and intertwined.

As Robert has often said, a truly Masculine Man is also a Moral Man.

The ancients too understood that.

Vir -- Virilis -- Virtus =

Man -- Manliness -- Morality =

Virtue.

Masculinity and Morality.

That's what's given me the strength to live my life the way I have -- honestly and openly.

Despite the opprobrium which has been heaped on me by people like Haggard and the analists.

What's REPULSIVE about Haggard are his constant and unrelenting lies.

And I ask the Christians among you to compare him to myself and the other men who've posted here.

Men like Robert and Redd.

No joke.

I mean it.

Because I know that many of you are still mired in that Haggard / religious right bullshit.

Ask yourself -- who's honest?

Ted Haggard or Bill Weintraub?

I don't have a mega-church I don't have a big house in Colorado I don't have an SUV.

Why?

Because I haven't sold my soul to the sort of dark forces that Haggard has represented throughout his benighted career.

Haggard says he's been a deceiver and a liar all his adult life.

I've done the opposite.

I've told the truth all my adult life.

Even when it was not and is not popular.

When I came out, coming out was NOT popular.

Nor was it easy.

What I've said about anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy has not made me popular either.

Nor has it been easy.

Doesn't matter.

What I say is the TRUTH.

That's why I say it.

Haggard does the opposite.

He lies for gain.

HAGGARD IS DARK.

HAGGARD IS REPULSIVE.

I look at the parking lots of these mega-churches and they're full of SUVs.

And I go Whoa -- should a Christian drive an SUV?

Not when there are people hungry, not when there are people homeless -- of course not.

These people keep talking about values.

What values?

Where values?

Who values?

All I see is selfishness and greed.

And Haggard to me is among the worst.

He won't stop.

He gets caught doing drugs and paying for sex with another male.

And he USES that to characterize sex between men as dark and repulsive.

What an asshole.

Both his behavior and his words are contemptible.

Here's a Value:

The Devoted Love of Man for Man.

THE LOVE OF MAN FOR MAN IS AMONG THE HIGHEST EXPRESSIONS OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT.

You can't make money off of it -- but it's a Value.

Masculinity is a Divine Principle, Manhood a Divine Gift, and Frot a Holy Sacrament.

Those are Values.

That's what I believe.

And I won't stop believing it because someone offers me money.

Yesterday I got an email from a guy who said, I've donated in the past and would like to again, but I'm an atheist and I'm concerned that in that Haggard message thread, you're proselytizing.

Well, as it happens, I'm not proselytizing, I'm trying to explain the Faith to guys who've been taken in by that "if you're into guys God hates you and you can't be saved" bullshit.

But let me make something very clear.

I AM NOT FOR SALE.

I don't care if you're an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a pagan, whatever.

Doesn't matter.

Donor dollars do not buy Bill.

It doesn't work that way.

Donate because you think it's the right thing to do.

Do not donate because you want to change the discussion.

You will not.

Everyone is welcome here: atheists, agnostics, believers, etc.

But I get to say what I think.

And if I believe that Masculinity is a Divine Principle and Manhood a Divine Gift and Frot a Sacrament -- I get to say so.

Haggard and people like him are for sale.

I'm not.

Frances said to me in an email:

I think your declaration that m2m love needs to be seen as sacramental again is HUGE. Weren't many of the ancient Greek myths telling their culture--"THIS IS SACRED". Imagine that culture without that belief. Imagine boys believing that again.

YES!

And that's why I talk about sacramental.

Because if Men thought of the sex between them as Sacred -- their lives would be transformed.

Yet there are people out there who will not so subtly offer me money to stop talking about faith.

The mind boggles.

And it's two sides of the same coin.

The atheists / secularists want to advance their agenda -- and Haggard wants to advance his agenda -- with nary a thought for the, in this case, MEN who will get crushed between them.

But that's who I care about:

the MEN.

Now, here's the TRUTH about male-male sexual desire as expressed by my foreign friend:

My experiences of working with young men for the past 10 years + my experiences of living in a traditional society show that male sexual desire for men cannot be tied down to a minority group. Rather it is a universal male phenomenon, especially strong amongst masculine gendered men --- unlike what the west propagates. It also seems that the male phobia against such bonds in America is mostly socially engineered and partly a media hype.

I think male sexual bonds are an important part of masculinity that must be made available to all men (and not just a specific group) --- especially in their youth --- and with suiting masculine pride. Depriving men of this amounts to robbing them of their true natural masculinity.

Let's look at this statement closely because it's important:

"Male sexual desire for men cannot be tied down to a minority group."

Yet that's exactly what Haggard wants to do.

He wants to restrict this desire which is NORMAL and NATURAL to what he considers an evil and perverse minority.

And again, I urge those of you who are Christians and are struggling with these issues to look at that very closely.

Because it's apparent to me that, if we are made in our Creator's image, and if, as my foreign friend says, "male sexual desire for men is a universal male phenomenon, especially strong amongst masculine gendered men" -- then:

And it is BLASPHEMOUS to characterize it as dark and repulsive.

Is God dark and repulsive?

Does God exclude from his kingdom those who live natural and moral lives?

Does God exclude anyone?

Look at what Haggard says.

He's a blaspheming, lying idiot.

And that's all he is.

My foreign friend:

"It also seems that the male phobia against such bonds in America is mostly socially engineered and partly a media hype."

No kidding!

"Socially engineered and a media hype" -- and who's engineering it and who's hyping it?

Ted Haggard and his well-heeled, well-connected buddies.

My foreign friend:

I think male sexual bonds are an important part of masculinity that must be made available to all men (and not just a specific group) --- especially in their youth --- and with suiting masculine pride. Depriving men of this amounts to robbing them of their true natural masculinity.

DEPRIVING MEN OF MALE SEXUAL BONDS AMOUNTS TO ROBBING THEM OF THEIR TRUE NATURAL MASCULINITY.

WHICH IS A GIFT FROM GOD.

Yet Ted Haggard does it.

Again, I urge the Christians among you to think really really really really really really really really hard about Ted Haggard and what he believes.

And about yourself and what you believe.

That man is a blaspheming liar and hypocrite.

And something else too -- this is from an email Aswad sent me today -- I've asked for permission to post the whole email and I hope it's forthcoming:

Interesting too how all those Black Preachers who were against Gay Marriage turned out to be PAID BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION huh? I guess ho's come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Even Religions.

Ted Haggard has been a whore for the religious right.

The religious right has given him money and power.

And those are NOT Christian values.

Or Jewish values, or Islamic values, or Buddhist values, or Hindu values, etc.

They are NOT SPIRITUAL.

They are of this world, and that's all they are.

Haggard is a man who gained the whole world and lost his soul.

That he was empowered to do so by a force we call the "religious right" is utterly damning.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Robert Loring

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-7-2006

Haggard is a SNAKE! He's not only been a liar and deceiver all his life but he's also been a SNAKE all his life! With his slick tongue and deceiving words he slithered his way into the Church and went on the attack against the very thing that he is and likes. Boy could Freud have a field-day with this dude or what? This man wore the MASK of self righteousness and it got stuck to his face until a few days ago. Now his mask has been ripped off and he is exposed for all the world to see. And of course he had to throw in a comment about sex between men being dark and evil because this SNAKE STILL refuses to accept who he is and he still rejects his own NATURAL MASCULINITY! He still has urges to have sex with other men and he's continuing to deem those urges as being dark and evil meaning that this man is still deeming the masculine part of himself as dark and evil. What a CROCK! And, least I point out that his final comment on this matter is his last gasp? He still needs to attack M2M because even after being exposed he still is in a state of self rejection and self denial. What a PSYCHOTIC!

Should Christians be driving SUV's? Should they have multi-million dollar building they call mega-churches when so many people are homeless, poor, and hungry? The resounding answer is, "HELL NO!!" What they ought to be doing is using the $$$ to feed the hungry, help the poor, provide homes for the homeless NOT feeding their own greed ridden EGOS! But, alas, they will not because MAMMON (ie: money) is the true god for many today!

And as for "values." Exactly, WHAT VALUES? How can you have values when you are allowing your fellow human being to live in misery? How can you have values when you are living a double life like Haggard? Values my ass!

You're right Bill. Haggard is NOT a warrior! He's a sold out, washed out, inner disaster that is a man of DISHONOR and he has now proved it to the entire planet. I spit on the man and walk away! He is scum! Lying and deceiving scum! He is an enemy defeated now and THANK Creation for that! Too bad we could not meet this liar on the battlefields of 5000 years ago. He'd quickly discover what REAL WARRIORS are and are NOT. He'd be a defeated enemy and silent forever. Haggard is a TRAITOR to EVERY MALE on the planet today. He is now a defeated enemy of MANHOOD. His demise is a VICTORY for MANHOOD and BROTHERHOOD!

All I have to say now is,

"Good-bye and good ridden's Ted and SHUT THE FUCK UP already!"

FROT IS HEALTHY MASCULINITY IS EMPOWERING FIDELITY IS STRENGHTENER

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-7-2006

Thank you very much for this excellent post Bill. And I want to tell to the poor coward soul that tried to delete my posts: I dont know and I dont care if you are a right-wing religious fanatic or a leftist analist intolerant EVERY TIME THAT YOU ATTACK US YOU MAKE US STRONGER because with this kind od childish idiot represive efforts you confirm that the issues that we talk about are important and our messages are valuable and true. Again thank you Bill. Let's keep fighting.

Bill Weintraub

Re: About Ted Haggard

11-8-2006

Thank you guys.

Robert says "Haggard is a SNAKE!"

And Oscar says that the guy who tried to delete the board is a "coward."

Right.

Haggard's a coward too.

Aswad pointed out in his email that Haggard was hiding behind his wife and kids -- in his SUV.

What Haggard signaled in his little contrition speech to New Life was that he was going to continue to spout the same anti-manly love and anti-masculine line that's made him so rich.

"There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.

Hmmmmm.

Warring against it huh?

After I'd put up that last reply, I googled "Mike Jones," the male prostitute who'd been having sex with Haggard.

In an interview with gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile, Jones said that he and Haggard had met once a month for three years, that the sessions were very brief, no more than 10 or 15 minutes, that the sex was usually "vanilla," meaning mutual masturbation and oral, and that Jones had buttfucked Haggard once.

And that Haggard had used meth at least once and claimed that he used it when having sex with his wife as well.

Now -- do I trust every word that Mike Jones says?

No.

He's a prostitute.

And by his own account, he put his dick in the aptly-named Haggard's ass.

Not a pretty picture.

Nevertheless, it's fair to ask:

Are Haggard's actions those of a conflicted man who's involved in a valiant struggle -- a war -- against his dark and repulsive same-sex feelings?

NO.

They're the actions of a man who's found a convenient, if utterly soulless and no doubt somewhat expensive, way to have his same-sex needs taken care of, all the while maintaining a profitable career as an anti-homosexual cleric.

He met with Jones regularly.

The regular part is very telling.

A conflicted man wouldn't do that.

He'd show up sporadically, when overcome by an overwhelming and irresistible urge.

Haggard didn't do that.

He and Jones had a regular deal going.

Moreover, at no time did Haggard express regret or remorse in his interaction with Jones, at no time did he say, "I don't know whether I should be doing this"; nor did he make any effort to get to know Jones as a human being.

He simply used Jones for sex -- to meet a need.

If Haggard had called Jones and said, "I know I shouldn't be doing this but I'm really desperate..." -- that would have been one thing.

He didn't do that.

He used Jones.

For sex.

Jones was his paid boytoy.

Again, there's nothing we've heard which suggests conflict.

Rather, it suggests, again, convenience.

And there's no doubt been a succession of men he's used in this way over the years.

That's why Haggard said "all my adult life."

He was preparing the faithful for new revelations.

Probably from congregants.

We'll see if anyone comes forward.

It would be surprising if no one did.

On the other hand -- Haggard has a lot of money and many reasons to keep people quiet.

Patrick has told me that these exclusionary evangelicals are quite ruthless in dealing with those who get in the way of their making money or holding onto power.

And money and power are what have motivated Ted Haggard "all his adult life."

Not the love of Man.

And most certainly not the love of God.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

William Schuler

Re: About Ted Haggard

3-29-2007

As I read the posts about Ted Haggard, this is not a new phenomenon among the leaders of churchianity.

As some of you may know from other posts, I was excommunicated from the LDS Church.

I had joined the LDS Church in 2002. My earliest exposure to the Church was when I was eight years old. Neighbors to my grandparents took me to Primary (which is a program for children) Also, my mother had been taking discussions with the Missionaries.

When I fifteen, I went to Young Men's with friends from high school who invited me. I never joined the Church. In fact, I came to accept Christ as my personal Savior from a Baptist minister when I was sixteen (in the summer of '87). He baptized (immersed me in water). About two months later, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was hosting a series of revival meetings presented by a SDA evangelist named Ted Struntz. I answered the alter call and was baptized along with several others.

I continued with the SDA Church for a year. I got to talking with an uncle, aunt, and cousin (their only child and my age). They were members of the Worldwide Church of God. They convinced me of the Holy Days as well as the seventh-day Sabbath (I had already been keeping). Actually, my tenure with Armstrongism lasted from 1988 till the beginning of 2000 (though I left Worldwide in 1995 and joined the Philadelphia Church of God because Worldwide changed many of its doctrine--something with which I disagreed at the time).

This is where I would like to comment.

The Worldwide Church of God was founded by Herbert W. Armstrong in the early 1930's. He has a son named Garner Ted.

Garner Ted Armstrong was the personality on "The World Tomorrow" radio and television program. (My father listened to Garner Ted in the early '60's my Mom was telling me the other day.)

Garner Ted was NOTORIOUS for denouncing male/male intimacy. Herbert W. condemned masturbation in his book the Missing Dimension in Sex. HWA said masturbation (I'm trying to remember exactly--it's been awhile since I've Missing Dimension) causes partial blindness, memory lapses, and dullness of mind. He said the motivational factor, is: the mind is on sex and self. (Incidentally, Boyd K. Packer President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church has given numerous talks on the "evils" of masturbation and has written to the same effect as Armstrong in his book For Young Men Only...

Garner Ted would be "caught with his pants down" quite literally, on occasion. He was a prolifigate philanderer. His latest indiscretion was attempting to rape a female massage therapist. That led to his expulsion from his own church (which he formed in 1978 after being disfellowshipped from Worldwide), Church of God, International. GTA then moved on and formed the Intercontinental Church of God and headed that up till he died of pneumonia.

Garner Ted Armstrong, Jimmy Swaggart, and a host of other are quick to denounce male/male intimacy. Yet, look at the indiscretions in their own lives. Same holds true of the Mormon General Authorities. Same holds true of Republican Conservative politicians.

Recently, I went to a Southern Baptist worship service with my mother. (Mom's been attending this Baptist congregation for a couple years now, though she's a Methodist--which my parents raised me).

The preacher was talking about the fellowship of God and Christ which was severed the moment Christ became sin on the cross. to put it in perspective, he likened it to marriage between a man and woman.

EXCUSE ME!! God, the FATHER and Christ, the SON are MASCULINE!! What we frotmen have for BROTHERHOOD is the BETTER TYPE to compare to what God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost had for eternity. Definitely the heterosexist agenda has permeated the Southern Baptist Convention.

Ted Haggard is of the same ilk that comes and goes. Any insights??

William Schuler

William Schuler

Re: About Ted Haggard

4-2-2007

(Just to clarify) I had been baptized by an LDS Missionary later in my life. I meant I had never joined the LDS Church when I was a teen attending Young Men's functions.

Also, as a matter of doctrinal clarification, the "Holy Ghost" is the lfe, power, prescence, manifestion, and LOVE of God the Father and Christ the Son (Who was the Word from the beginning) The Holy Ghost may be called the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God is likened to Light (like what radiates from the sun).

As I've studied my Bible, I have come to understand, that: we read in John 1:1 there were only TWO mentioned of the Godhead God and the Word. In the Old Testament, God is translated from YHVH Elohim Elohim is a uni-plural word (like brotherhood). Jesus prayed that the disciples may be one--EVEN AS He was one with Heavenly Father for ALL ETERNITY!!

How would this be possible? The Spirit of God coming into the hearts of the believers. This is the LOVE of God shed abroad in our hearts.

The Father and the Son. Just the Two for ALL eternity.

Does marriage between a man and woman adequately picture that close connection? NO! (To the shock of many) the answer is NO!!

When it discusses in Ecclesiastes about two lying together and being warmed, it is referring to BROTHERHOOD!!

A thing that is done among Anabaptists (Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish) and Adventists (Seventh-day Adventists, Church of God 7th Day, Worldwide Church of God), is: footwashing before the Lord's Supper. Footwashing is NOT practiced by Mormons.

Jesus knelt down and washed feet. It is an ordinance of humility. He bid His followers do so.

Last night was the Passover, the occasion to commemorate the Savior's death with the unleavened bread and wine. I went to observe it with the United Church of God (something I hadn't done in YEARS). There IS a sense of brotherhood among all these peoples. I believe the footwashing is in keeping with the brotherly love theme we read about in the Gospel of John.

After reading about footwashing, we read about the disciple whom Jesus loved leaning against His bosom.

This I KNOW: When I was still in Worldwide, I had two roommates who were brothers. Very handsome, muscular men. They also had VERY beautiful sisters.

These brothers and I commemorated Passover together with the washing of each others' feet. WE WERE CLOSE!! When they would shower, they would have have me come in and shave the hair off the back of the neck.

I loved them so much I wanted to marry a sister so I could be officially part of the family. After my own immediate family, THEY WERE MY FAMILY!!!

Once, the one (who was a year older than me) and came close to frot when wrestling in just our underwear on the living room floor.

We would have pillow fights that got to be physical and we would end up in each others' embrace. All this in a VERY NATURAL GUY WAY!!

We were into bodybuilding big-time and being masculine--big-time. We HATED effeminacy and denounced it as abomination and knew those who are effeminate are not to be in the Kingdom of God (according to 1 Cor. 6:9)

This is all when I was 21 years old (I'm 36 now).

Recently, I came into contact with an ex-Worldwide Church of God member who was my age (who, also, I was very fond of) On one the weekends we had a Saturday night formal dinner-dance, after the dance and I dropped my date off home, he came to stay the night at my house.

We slept in the same bed wearing nothing but or underwear. This is when we were 18.

When I ran into him recently, he told me he had been initimate with a young man two years our junior from the Grand Forks, ND WCG congregation. NO ONE would have ever guessed this. You see, FROT GOES ON ALL THE TIME (in our midst)--unbeknownst to the Puritanical, Victorian prudes. How can it not when you wash each others' feet and are together constantly like Anabaptists and Adventists are??

So, just as with the LDS leadership trying to stop frot, any attempts by Anabaptist or Adventists BACKFIRE RIGHT IN THEIR FACES!! Once the people know the Bible DOESN'T condemn frot and even see it as the TYPE of the communion between God and Christ Jesus (Jesus even having this with John The Beloved), the inhibitions are lowered.

No, all the Bible ever condemns, are: anal penetration, effeminacy, and promiscuity. Any bizarre aberrations according to prurient interests (such as kink) do the Holy Scriptures condemn. AND WE SHOULD, ADAMANTLY, AGREE WITH THE WORD OF GOD ON THIS POSITION!!!! But, NOT add to the Bible and condemn frot, masculinity, and fidelity that the BIBLE DOESN'T!!!!! Not even masturbation, BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN'T!!!!!!

(Not to belabor this point) I am studying the Bible and am coming to conclusions about matters of doctrine I previously endorsed--mentioned in earlier posts. I am changing my mind about LDS doctrine with which I agreed before upon closer examination of Scripture. I am willing to admit only let my error be proven by Scripture and plain reason (as Martin Luther stated).

William Schuler

Bill Weintraub

Re: About Ted Haggard

4-23-2007

Hi Bill

This is something one of our guys, Blake who lives in Virginia, said to me in a recent email:

I concluded long ago that organized religion is the enemy of freedom, especially for MSM [men who have sex with men]. While I respect individual spiritual quests, such as a desire to live a Christ-like life, the hate- and fear-mongering and the attempts to subvert the separation of church and state give away the true intent of the "godly", which is to control people and separate them from their money. As you have observed about man-love being inimical to political tyranny, so is it also hostile to religious tyranny; the religious nutcases seem to recognize this instinctively.

I think those are valuable observations.

The Greeks did indeed believe that political tyrants feared Man2Man love; and we can see that the same is true of religious tyrants.

The churches -- whether the Catholic Church or Haggard's New Life or the Armstrongs or LDS -- will gladly make use of male-male energy which has been suppressed and sublimated to the needs of the church.

But when that energy takes the form of an open and honest Man2Man bond -- the churches fear it and seek to destroy it.

Bill, from your posts, it sounds like you were brought up in a number of what to me are little cult-like offshoots of Christianity -- which were also homophobic and hypocritical.

And which are controlled by tyrants like the Armstrongs and the LDS hierarchy.

And now you're trying to find your own way, and to see what works for you.

Which is great.

And I really like what you have to say about Masculinity and Divinity.

I think it's important, and particularly important for our guys.

Now, there's one thing you said which I want to respond to;

but I'm doing so reluctantly, because the one thing I don't want to do is squelch any of our guys who are moving towards a spirituality, a faith, or a religious construct which is Masculine.

Because, again, I think a sense of Masculinity as a Divine Principle, to use my phrase, is really important for us living in this society as Men who openly and proudly Love Men.

However, Bill, you said that you and your buddy

knew those who are effeminate are not to be in the Kingdom of God (according to 1 Cor. 6:9)

Bill, I understand where you and your buddy were coming from with that.

And it makes sense in the context of the friendship you described.

That said, and however, there are, to my mind, two ways we can read that statement.

One, as I've said before regarding Christianity or any other religion, is psychological.

So just as we can talk about the psychological reality of God the Father resurrecting his Son and restoring him to his Masculinity --

so in this instance we can say that, psychologically, effeminate males -- Men who have, for whatever reason, betrayed their Manhood -- will never know that Natural Masculinity which for Men is the "Kingdom of Heaven."

The "Kingdom of Heaven" being, in this sense, the best place physically, psychologically, and spiritually, for a man to be.

It's like what Spike says about sparring with a buddy -- that at its conclusion he feels as though he's fulfilled a spiritual mission:

The truth is that Masculinity is the best thing in the world. Whenever I wrestle another guy, or we put our arms around each other after a hard round of sparring, it feels like some spiritual mission has been fulfilled -- in those moments I always feel so complete, like I'm accepted in a brotherhood of kings. It's like the trust you've just built together will let you conquer the world. It's incredible.

"a spiritual mission fulfilled"

"the brotherhood of kings"

That's what it feels like.

But there's another level to certain folks "not being in the Kingdom of God," and that's the literal level.

And that one I'm not comfortable with, nor do I believe it.

Ted Haggard had on his website that "homosexuals are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven."

And that's not true.

Bill, you and your buddy agreed that femmys are to be excluded from the Kingdom of God.

And that's not true either -- in my opinion.

The Kingdom of Heaven after all is God's Love.

And no human being can say of another that he's not loved by God.

Yet Bill, the sects that were part of your boyhood and young adult life -- SDA and then the Armstrongs and later LDS -- say that all the time:

They exclude.

They divide.

They ex-communicate.

They "dis-fellowship."

That's their big thing.

Exclusion.

But it's not Christian.

Christ died for everyone.

That's the point.

When anyone -- I don't care who it is -- says that Christ only died for some people -- he makes a mockery of Christ's sacrifice.

Christ died for everyone.

Which is why Christianity is a *universal* religion.

Because it applies, potentially, to anyone and everyone.

So:

We as Frot Men have a disagreement with the analists over how Men who Love Men should best live their lives.

But to jump from that to saying that femmys or buttboys or whoever don't get into heaven -- No.

I've written about Sacred Phallic Love.

And I've said that for me Frot is a Holy Sacrament.

That Masculinity is a Divine Principle and Manhood a Divine Gift.

And I've said that you can't say the same about anal.

Because there's a difference between the Sacred Union of Man with Man, Phallus to Phallus and Manhood to Manhood -- and sticking your dick in a hole full of shit.

But that doesn't mean I think that bottoms don't get into Heaven.

Bill, that's up to God.

It's not up to me or any other human being.

And again, it leads to hypocrisy.

When I started this message thread, I brought up Haggard as an example of hypocrisy -- which he would be no matter what religious faith he professed to practice.

And I brought him up because this site is about Men loving Men -- and his hypocrisy was about Men loving Men.

But here's another instance:

I recently read where a lesbian couple in Wyoming was denied communion by their Roman Catholic church after they came out publicly.

The problem for their pastor was that they'd gone public:

Huskinson questioned why Catholics having premarital sex and using birth control are not barred from receiving Communion, too. But the parish priest said the difference is this: The other Catholics are "not going around broadcasting, 'Hey I'm having sex outside of marriage' or 'I'm using birth control.'"

That's hypocrisy.

Is it worse in the eyes of God for two women to love each other than for a man and woman to prevent conception?

And what difference does it make to God whether they "broadcast" what they're doing?

God knows what they're doing whether they tell their local paper or not.

The priest's stance is nutty -- and bigoted -- and hypocritical.

And political.

Not religious.

Political.

So:

The three principles of this site and of the Alliance --

Frot

Fidelity

Masculinity

are grounded in this world, not the next, and of what's best for Men in this life.

Frot -- healthy, hot, mutually and directly genital, Frot celebrates Male Aggression, Masculinity, and true Male Sexuality, and bonds Men sexually Manhood2Manhood -- which is the ultimate Man2Man experience;

Fidelity -- the gold standard in human relationships;

Masculinity -- Men are happiest when they are permitted and encouraged to be *Naturally* Masculine; while to buy into effeminacy is to buy into the lies of the heterosexists and the religious fanatics that men who have sex with men -- aren't real men.

Not true.

Bill, that's all in this world.

And this world matters.

For example, I have a post pending from JK where he mentions in passing that he was upset with the movie 300 because it was critical of mysticism.

That's correct.

In the movie, Leonidas, the leader of the Spartans, is made into a sort of posterboy for rationalism, and for the Greek discovery of rationalism.

While the "mystics" are corrupt priests who've been bribed by the Persians.

Well, there's some historical truth there, in that it was widely believed among the Greeks that the Persians had bribed the oracle at Delphi -- which was very powerful and important.

But that aside, my question for, in this instance, JK, is -- if you had a burst appendix, who would you want operating on you?

An MD who's the heir to the Greek rationalist tradition, and who's studied anatomy and physiology?

Or Swami Smutagananda?

Or how bout Garner Ted Armstrong?

Would you want him doing the surgery?

To me, people like the Armstrongs -- whose emphasis after all isn't this life but the life to come -- are an utter waste of space.

What they do is exploit the propensity of Christianity --and Judaism and Islam -- to splinter -- and they make money and acquire some degree of power from it.

But as to benefitting their fellow human beings -- they don't.

Not one whit.

Bill, how important is the "seventh-day sabbath" as opposed to keeping Sunday as the sabbath?

How important is that?

Isn't the spirit in which you keep the sabbath more important than the day?

Yet you need to understand that under the guidance of people like the Armstrongs, hundreds of thousands of human beings -- actually millions -- have been killed over questions like Saturday vs Sunday.

Here's a great historical irony:

When Islam burst out of Arabia, one of the reasons it gained adherents was that it was simple.

Christianity had been weakened by literally centuries of dispute over such arcane issues as the nature of Christ and his relationship to God the Father.

Islam didn't bother with that -- not at least at first.

It said there is but one God and Allah is his name.

That was part of Islam's appeal -- its simplicity.

Yet, less than 50 years after Mohammed's death, Islam too splintered.

Over a question of doctrine.

And life for Moslems became a lot more complicated.

And you can see the results today in Iraq, where Shiite and Sunni are savagely killing each other.

Now -- how many Americans understand the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni?

And how many Moslems understand the difference between the SDA and the LDS and the Worldwide Church of God and the Intercontinental Church of God?

And the Anglicans and the Southern Baptists and ...?

Yet the fact is that as soon as Constantine gave the Christians the power of the state, they started using that power to kill each other.

Over nothing.

How many people today can explain Arianism -- an early "heresy"?

There were some really brutal riots -- and deaths -- over Arianism.

Why does that happen?

In Christianity, in Islam, and in Judaism?

In "Occidental Mythology," the third book in his magesterial four-volume work, The Masks of God, mythographer Joseph Campbell says this about religious fanaticism:

Now it is simply a fact, signally illustrated in the history of the Levant and particularly in Judaism and Islam, that when religion is identified with community (or, as we have expressed the idea, with a consensus), and this community, in turn, is not identified with an actual land-based socio-political organism, but with a transcendental principle embodied in the laws of a church or sect, its effects on the local secular body politic, within which it thrives but with which it does not identify itself, are inevitably and predictably destructive.

I know that sentence is difficult.

But it expresses a really important idea and fact in the history of religion.

So let's take a look.

Campbell is talking about a religion which is "identified with community," but "not identified with an actual land-based socio-political organism."

That's not as bad as it sounds.

The second part, "an actual land-based socio-political organism," is what we would call a "nation" or "country."

So he's saying that when a religious community -- or sect -- is not identified with a country -- you can have problems.

Easy case in point.

In Iraq there are, as I just said, two Muslim religious communities or sects, Sunni and Shiite, which are the result of that split back in 680 AD.

To a non-Muslim, Sunnis and Shiites appear much the same:

They address God as Allah, they worship in mosques, and they share the same holy book -- the Koran.

Yet they have a disagreement about religion, and in the name of that disagreement, they are killing each other not only with great gusto but with great savagery and brutality.

And in so doing, they are destroying their "land-based socio-political organism" -- the country of Iraq.

Now of course there's a struggle over resources in back of this particular sectarian strife.

But human beings are always fighting over resources.

What makes the fight in Iraq distinctive is the religious aspect.

And what's happening is what Campbell said would happen way back in 1964:

"its effects on the local secular body politic, within which it thrives but with which it does not identify itself, are inevitably and predictably destructive."

The "local secular body politic" is the secular government, such as it is -- and CULTURE -- of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a secularist.

And he helped create in Iraq the world's most secular Arab society.

Seeing that secularism, neoconservatives in our country thought that Iraq was a good candidate for democracy.

They were wrong.

They failed to factor in religious sectarianism's "effects on the local secular body politic, within which it thrives but with which it does not identify itself, [which] are inevitably and predictably destructive."

Indeed, I read a recent interview with Richard Perle, a neoconservative who was one of the architects of our Iraq policy, in which he admitted he was "unprepared for the degree of depravity" he saw in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam.

Now guys, I don't want to get into a discussion of the pros and cons of the war in Iraq -- which is way off-topic for us.

I'm just using Iraq as an example of Campbell's point.

For if Perle had asked Campbell -- who unfortunately died in 1987 -- about what would happen in a country like Iraq once those sectarian forces had been set loose -- he would have responded, that based on the history of religion, *predictable* brutality and depravity.

Campbell's point is one which must concern us because here in the United States we have our own sectarian movement:

the religious right.

That movement is Christian, not Muslim.

But the danger is the same.

The religious right represents a danger to democracy and to our secular society, "within which it thrives but with which it does not identify."

So: the religious right uses our secular technology -- like TV and the internet -- and our secular laws -- like the Bill of Rights -- to advance its views, all the while seeking to overturn our secular society.

And that's what folks like the Armstrongs and the LDS are ultimately after.

A Christian States of America, ruled by -- themselves.

Now, Bill, as I see it, you have three choices:

1. You can come to your own understanding of God and Christ and not seek to be part of an established church.

Patrick, who served the Christian evangelical faith as a missionary for years and remains a devout Christian, nevertheless today has NOTHING to do with organized Christianity.

He just plain doesn't like it.

From his point of view, the churches are either exclusionary, which is clearly false -- denying those lesbians communion is a perfect example of something Christ would NEVER have done -- as is dis-fellowshipping you because you're trying to show the Men around you that there's a wonderful way for one Man to Love another;

so -- the churches are either exclusionary and thus false;

or they've abandoned, from his point of view, the literal truths of Christianity, and become what he calls a sort of "duck soup" religion.

That's not for him.

2. You can join an inclusive evangelical congregation.

For example, a gay evangelical congregation.

But there you will be among people whose way of life and behavior you may not agree with.

3. You can look to other religions.

For example, Jedi wants us to talk about Mithraism.

And I understand why.

Mithraism has long interested me because it was an alternative to Christianity in the later Roman Empire, and was much favored by soldiers.

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia, which, ironically, actually seems like one of the more reliable sources on Mithraism, has to say about that:

Mithraism was emphatically a soldier religion: Mithra, its hero, was especially a divinity of fidelity, manliness, and bravery; the stress it laid on good fellowship and brotherliness, its exclusion of women, and the secret bond amongst its members have suggested the idea that Mithraism was Masonry amongst the Roman soldiery.

At the same time Eastern slaves and foreign tradesmen maintained its propaganda in the cities. When magi, coming from King Tiridates of Armenia, had worshipped in Nero an emanation of Mithra, the emperor wished to be initiated in their mysteries. As Mithraism passed as a Phrygian cult it began to share in the official recognition which Phrygian worship had long enjoyed in Rome. The Emperor Commodus was publicly initiated. Its greatest devotee however was the imperial son of a priestess of the sun-god at Sirmium in Pannonia, Valerian, who according to the testimony of Flavius Vopiscus, never forgot the cave where his mother initiated him. In Rome, he established a college of sun priests and his coins bear the legend "Sol, Dominus Imperii Romani".

Diocletian, Galerius, and Licinius [who were essentially military rulers] built at Carnuntum on the Danube a temple to Mithra with the dedication: "Fautori Imperii Sui". But with the triumph of Christianity Mithraism came to a sudden end.

No kidding about the sudden end.

More like a sudden death -- at the hands of the Christians.

What were the moral beliefs of the Mithraics?

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

As Mazdean dualists the Mithraists were strongly inclined towards asceticism; abstention from food and absolute continence seemed to them noble and praiseworthy, though not obligatory. They battled on Mithra's side against all impurity, against all evil within and without. They believed in the immortality of the soul, sinners after death were dragged off to hell; the just passed through the seven spheres of the planets, through seven gates opening at a mystical word to Ahura Mazda, leaving at each planet a part of their lower humanity until, as pure spirits, they stood before God. At the end of the world Mithra will descend to earth on another bull, which he will sacrifice, and mixing its fat with sacred wine he will make all drink the beverage of immortality. He will thus have proved himself Nabarses, i.e. "never conquered".

Sounds pretty good -- if a little archaic.

But there are two huge problems with Mithraism.

1. Mithraism was a mystery religion.

Which means its adherents were sworn to secrecy.

Which means we don't really know what they believed.

And if someone tells you differently, they're not telling you the truth.

Almost everything we know about the Mithraics is extrapolated from the symbols in their meeting places, of which a fair number have been preserved.

But it's extrapolation.

Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about that:

Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past -- these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing.

"of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing."

It's important to understand that.

2. Mithraic cosmology -- that is, its view of the universe -- is, another web scholar argues, an essentially first century AD cosmology.

That's a problem because although that cosmology is in many ways aesthetically appealing, it's out of date.

No one today believes that the earth is at the center of a universe of cocentric spheres.

Then there's the exclusion of women.

That may be a problem -- and it may not be.

Thing is, we don't know why the Mithraics excluded women.

If they did it because they thought women were inherently inferior to men or inherently immoral -- that's a problem.

But they may have done it because they believed Men should have their own cult and places of worship.

That wouldn't be unusual in the context of the ancient world, where women too had their own cults and places of worship.

Remember, unlike Christianity, Mithraism was NOT a universal religion.

It was a mystery cult -- it was for initiates and initiates only.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum [head of the Mithraics] himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.

So Mithraism tolerated ALL other cults -- including cults for women.

And that was typical in the ancient world.

While Christianity was exclusive, "condemning every other religion in the world," and once in power, ruthlessly eliminating any rivals.

And that's something we need to clearly understand.

Christianity, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, was "exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty."

It was also alone and unique in the brutality with which it exterminated all other faiths.

That's why, Bill, I get uncomfortable when someone says femmys are excluded from the Kingdom of God.

I have no problem telling a femmy -- There's a better way to live your life bro.

But telling him that God doesn't love him?

No, thank you.

Now, do I see good things in Mithraism?

Sure:

"Mithraism was emphatically a soldier religion: Mithra, its hero, was especially a divinity of fidelity, manliness, and bravery; the stress it laid on good fellowship and brotherliness ..."

And

"the Mithraists were strongly inclined towards asceticism; abstention from food and absolute continence seemed to them noble and praiseworthy, though not obligatory. They battled on Mithra's side against all impurity, against all evil within and without."

That's all great.

On the other hand, the Spartans had a Warrior Society with essentially the same values -- and with a lot of freedom for women -- but without the overlay of Persian beliefs -- and yes, mysticism -- which accompany Mithraism.

How were they able to do that?

Well, they did have a religion.

But that religion was identified with the Spartan state -- basically, with their country.

Remember what Campbell said:

The problem arises when you have a religious community which does not identify with a "land-based socio-political organism" -- the "secular body politic."

By contrast, Spartan religious faith was acutely identified with Sparta, which had a constitutional government -- a "secular body politic" -- and with Greece and the Greeks in general.

Which means that there were certain religious holidays which were unique to Sparta, but which were related to the Greek gods.

For example, there was the Carnea, which was dedicated to Apollo, the Greek god of reason.

This was a Dorian festival -- Dorian was the Greek dialect spoken by the Spartans -- which had been adapted to the Spartan Warrior way, and included bands of hoplites camping out together.

There was the Hyacinthia, which was dedicated to Hyacinthus, the Spartan youth who was beloved of Apollo.

There was the Gymnopaedia, or Festival of the Naked Youths, which also was dedicated to Apollo.

Then there were Spartan versions of the Greek gods.

A Spartan Athena -- Athena of the Bronze House -- goddess of wisdom and wisdom in battle.

A Spartan Artemis, Artemis Orthia, goddess of the hunt and of chastity, whose festival played a part in the agoge.

That was not unusual -- having a local version of a Greek god.

They also worshipped heroes -- like Achilles; and almost certainly Heracles, from whom the Spartans claimed descent.

Achilles had his own "heroon" -- hero shrine -- and we know that "the boys who are required to fight in a near-by plane-tree grove enter and sacrifice to him beforehand."

There were shrines to the Dioscuri or sons of God, Castor and Polydeuces, who were Spartan by birth and immensely popular at Sparta.

To Poseidon.

To Helen and Menelaus and Orestes and Chilon and Lycurgus himself.

So this was Greek worship adapted to Spartan needs.

And Bill what I see you doing is attempting to adapt Christian worship to your needs certainly and to our needs as Frot men.

And which I encourage you to continue to do.

What Jedi has proposed, is that we somehow hobble together a new religion which is "earth-based" -- that is, if I understand him correctly, which takes the whole earth for its land-based organism and the human race for its secular body politic.

I suppose that's possible, but I don't know how it would be done.

In general, and obviously, I'm not a big fan of organized religion.

To me, Bill, your personal search for God is one thing; organized religion is another.

And in my experience, the big churches and other bodies which constitute organized religion today don't have a lot to do with God.

They have their uses, but they're also very limited.

It may be that what would work for you, Bill, would be a sort of Mithraic style of Christianity, which I think Robert Loring was perhaps trying to point toward when he wrote his very powerful essay The Warrior God.

Here are Robert's first paragraphs -- I hope they help:

Imagine a world in which men bonded closely with other men. A world in which natural male masculinity ruled the day instead of some pseudo-manhood known as male femininity. A world in which men were unafraid to show their feelings to other males. A world in which masculine men honored their own manhood and the masculinity of other men.

Imagine a world in which masculine male nudity was commonplace and socially acceptable. A world in which it was not a "sin" for men to sexually frot with other masculine males. A world, in which, male bonding was encouraged and supported. A world in which masculine men taught other males how to become truly masculine men of pride, honor, and fidelity.

Imagine a world in which the Warrior Ethos was something that was honored and esteemed instead of shunned and discouraged. A world in which natural male aggression was respected and valued. Natural male aggression would be self disciplined by such males as they walked through their lives living as honorable and noble Warriors.

The naturally masculine male would have a major place in such a world just as he did in ancient days when the Hoplites and others ruled the times. No longer would there be a war against the natural male, natural masculinity, or natural male aggression. Man would truly be once again MASCULINE MAN. Males would be unafraid to love their brothers in the natural bonds of the brotherhood of man. Males could simply be themselves.

The world we live in today stands against this vision at every turn. It opposes anything that even comes near natural maleness, natural masculinity, and natural male aggression be that aggression disciplined aggression or unbridled aggressiveness. Today's society is a society of hypocrisy! More and more the nude male body is becoming an object of shame and disgust even though the nude male body is something beautiful, masculine, serene, and sacred.

There is a war against the natural male and the sad fact is that most males are losing that war. To even begin to win that war, males need to return to what they once were and be unafraid again to love, to be simply themselves, and to being noble modern Warriors!

For males to be whole again they need to not only begin to take pride in their natural and god-given manhood but they also need to replace the present image of God in the world. The wimpy limp handed image of the feminized Christ can no longer suffice as a pattern and example for the natural male, the masculine Warrior. The present feminized concept of the Christ serves only to enhance femininity in the minds of males. This image calls into question everything that is natural and god-given to a male. This guru image serves only to emasculate males as they try to follow in His footsteps. This wimpy, feminine image of the Christ must be replaced by an image that shows the Christ to be more masculine and that shows Him to be a Warrior! For, a Warrior is what the Christ was.

The Warrior Christ is presented in the Biblical book of Revelation. Here we see an image of Christ who is the Warrior. He is mounted on a war horse and clothed in armor. He bears a sword in hand and leads an army. This is the image of Christ for our times! This is the image of the War God whom all warriors who chose to follow the Christ must take on as their own personal pattern and example in their own lives!

Bill, thank you for your posts and your life.

You're a true Warrior.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Michael

Re: About Ted Haggard

4-24-2007

Good post Mr. Weintraub. I'd also like to point out what I thought was an interesting passage from the 365Gay dot com article you site in your post...

"You spend half your time defending your gayness to Catholics," Vader said, "and the other half of your time defending your Catholicism to gays."

The first part of that statment is obvious many men who love men and women who love women have had to defend their love from religious fools. It's the second part of the statement that sparks interest.

It sends out the message that if you are gay and still belong to a religion that is known for being anti-gay then either the authenticity of your sexuality is questioned or your religious beliefes are brought into question. It seems that as far as the gay community is concerned you have two choices either renounce your religion and join them, or keep your religion but be viewed with suspicion for the rest of your life.

This is a sad state. While I do have a great distaste for orginized religion as well, I know that many use religion as a way of finding spiritual enlightenment (of course, sometimes you're better off looking for it yourself, but this is a decent starting point). The absence of spirituality in the gay community is a tell-tale sign of corruption, and that is blatantly obvious in the messages and attitudes that are being put out by said community. There is no spirit in such a world, just meaningless, dangerous, diseased sex, drag, broken relationships, and drugs. Truly a spiritless community.

gearheadfl

Re: About Ted Haggard

4-28-2007

In response to your question on wather I would choose a surgeon or a healer, the awnser is BOTH. Responsible Modern energy medacine practioners will allways tell you to seek out both the best in technology and devine healing. No one question the miricles of modern medicine. However I also belve in we heal ourselves by tapping into devine energy(The Tao, Source, Soul, God or whatever other name you would like to call it.) And most of the spiritual writings I lean twords teach that it is of the most importance to focus on present moment time. Yes you can heal your past, yes you can manifest the future, but you can only do those things in the present moment. Its not about thrwoing stones and fortune telling. Its about finding your compas in the here and now to get you where you need to be. Yes there are many "mystics" and preachers for that matter that are con artists but many others are for real and are very gifted and do a lot of good for peoples spiritual health.

Bill Weintraub

Re: About Ted Haggard

5-8-2007

Thank you both Michael and JK.

Guys, I'm a little chagrined that no one picked up on the Mithraic stuff, but I realize that's in part my fault, since I kind of pooh-poohed it compared to the Spartans.

But Sparta was a tiny city-state.

It had an immense impact on Greece, and it's had an immense impact on the world and the world's imagination.

But it was small, and other than occasionally, didn't aspire to be much more than it was.

Mithraism, on the other hand, spread through the Roman Empire, and it was large enough that clearly the Christians considered it a threat.

You can see that by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia articles I cited above and in other message threads.

When the Church doesn't like you, you know it.

The Church doesn't like Giordano Bruno -- whom it burned.

It doesn't like the Arians -- whom it persecuted.

And it doesn't like Mithraism -- which it wiped out.

So:

Mithraism was a Masculine and Martial religion which appealed to a lot of Men, particularly soldiers, including a number of emperors.

One was Commodus, who was a flake.

But another was Diocletian, who was the last "pagan" Roman emperor before Constantine, and very capable.

He was the son of slaves, and yet rose through ability alone to become ruler of the empire.

He's credited with reforms which kept the empire going for about 150 years longer than most people had thought possible.

His reforms were by and large authoritarian -- the empire he created bore little resemblance to the Augustan principate and virtually none to the old Republic -- but his reforms worked.

He wasn't an intellectual like Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, or even Julian the Apostate -- but, like I say, he was capable.

And what's very rare in a Roman Emperor -- he retired, and refused, though asked more than once, to resume being emperor.

In other words, he was substantial.

And he was a Mithraic.

So -- I've been sitting on some messages from Jedi, one about Mithraism, another about Christianity.

Let me get them posted -- that'll take a few days -- and maybe people will comment on them.

I feel more urgency about this since discovering, via Statius, that the word "sacrament" originally referred to a Sacred Warrior Oath.

An oath taken, in point of fact, by Roman soldiers.

That said, let's remember the good points about Mithraism:

"Mithraism was emphatically a soldier religion: Mithra, its hero, was especially a divinity of fidelity, manliness, and bravery; the stress it laid on good fellowship and brotherliness ..."

And

"the Mithraists were strongly inclined towards asceticism; abstention from food and absolute continence seemed to them noble and praiseworthy, though not obligatory. They battled on Mithra's side against all impurity, against all evil within and without."

Worth thinking about.

Thank you all again.

You're all true Warriors.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Brian Hulme

Re: About Ted Haggard

7-20-09

Hi Bill,

As a Christian Man in relation to Ted Haggard or any pastor or preacher I would say this if they don't or can't back up their OPINION with at least one scriptural reference then it is not worth anything.

If you take a quick look though the gospels you will see that Jesus refers to the Old Testament scriptures on several occasions; if it is good enough for Him then it is good enough for Ted Haggard to do so.

Finally yes Man is sacred and yes I CAN give scripture to back ME up: Genesis 1:26,27.

Love,

Brian