Saddleback membership criteria: If you're gay, you cannot be a church member

"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives."

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49

And this is the man chosen to open the pageant celebrating our new President.

oh my

all that libertine stuff.

It's what they do in my neighborhood, anyway.

but I have lots of laundry to do this weekend

straight members...

do the bylaws mention pedophiles? can't bear to hit that site myself.

So that should make it all golden!

:crazy:

See, he's no bigot!

:sarcasm:

I am at Obama for sticking him in our face & telling us to suck it up. Fuck both of them.

:grr:

What was he THINKING?

That this is an excellent opportunity for some triangulating.

:puke: :puke:

Check out their webpage (obviously I can check it out because I'm saved, otherwise, well, you know).

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/beliefs.html

Or a marriage councilor service or something.

:rofl:

Why can't you be pragmatic and post-ideological, like the kool kiddies?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I'd love to see the Warren apologists respond to this one.

I mean, I come here to bask in the warm glow of The Anointed One, and maybe look at pictures of him in his swimsuit, and you people insist on harshing my buzz!

Do you think this is come kind of politics discussion board or something.

Why is it that the nastiest DUers seem to be the biggest homophobes? It's not a coincidence methinks.

As Obama likes to say, "you weren't listening." We are always being reminded that Obama taught constitutional law. But is there anything in his voting record that suggests a profound respect for our rights? He voted for the PATRIOT Act, the FISA law, "tort reform," etc. And he always said he did not believe in equal treatment for gays-- because no matter what else you say, if you think gay couples should be regarded differently by the law, you DO NOT support equal treatment. Those of us who just held our noses and voted for him-- thinking, perhaps mistakenly, that the destructive power of McCain-Palin would be far worse--are not surprised by any of his Cabinet picks or inaugural choices.

Remember, any Congressman or Senator who claims to care about rights ought to be judged by this standard: what did they do to defend us against Bush? In Obama's case, it's hard to think of any example at all from his brief Senate career.

But I didn't expect to be disappointed this much so fast, I confess.

I mean saying one prayer!!! We must REACH OUT to ALL with whom we disagree in order to build bridges!!!!!!!!!!1 :crazy:

:spray:

I'm fucking tired of this and I need to go to bed.

In the Catholic Church you can be gay, you just aren't supposed to "act on it sexually" but if you do you can go to confession. You can be in a 'non-sexual' gay relationship that doesn't 'act out'.

Between, "no gays" and "no people who act gay"? I seem to think that they are quite similar. One says that we can't accept any of you people. The other says that we'll accept you people, but only if you act like us people. To me that's close enough to the same thing to thoroughly disabuse me of any allegiance to said groups.

Progress? Yes. But like with the Catholic Church historically, it is dreadfully slow at changing.

let alone be selected to ask a million people to bow their heads in prayer.

That's what lots of DUers have been telling me today. I can just pretend to be straight, lie about who I am, and that way I can still belong to Saddleback Church! Simple. It's not like this is a real issue or anything.

Poster #28 just said that.

to lie about it.

It's all about the money.

incompatible? It seems to me that they are. I think the bible says that its an abomination or something along those lines.


I think I remember from my days as a Christian, a lot of talk about that. I just kind of figured that if you were homosexual, then you shouldn't try to be Christian. Maybe I'm wrong, but it always seemed like that to me. I'm not homosexual, but the church's intolerance for it was one of the big reasons for me leaving.

It's just been often accepted as such because one reading of scripture (Leviticus and Paul's writings - nothing Jesus had to say) have been interpreted in such a way as to support pre-existing biases against gay folk.

Any of those "clobber" passages are understood quite differently by other biblical scholars - and more to the point, by other churches.

My issue is that people are entitled to their beliefs, if you're anti-gay, then so be it, that's your choice. I just think that what a lot of those people fail to understand is that equal rights means giving equal rights to everyone, whether it be affording the legal protections of marriage or whatever. If your particular faith says that being gay is bad, then either you're not gay or you're not part of the faith. I guess my point in this is that being a member of one of these churches that's very anti-gay is fine, but at the same time, the members need to remember that equal rights apply to everyone, not just people who they find morally agreeable.

Also important for all to remember that regardless of what their particular church teaches, civil rights are not the purveiw of their church.

Also, I have hope that as younger generations come along, the reasonable position and interpretation will gain a bigger foothold. I can hope, right?

:shrug:

to be inclusive of working-class people. Equally improbable.