Dead Reverend, now a few questions

[Moai]

On June 24, 2007 (I only recently became aware of this story, it hit the web a couple weeks ago), an Alabama minister was found dead in his home. Rev. Gary Aldridge was found wearing two complete wetsuits, diving booties, rubberized underwear, diving gloves, and a diving mask. He was hogtied, with a cable going from his hands/ankles to his neck. He also had a condom-covered dildo inserted into his anus.

 

Police determined the death as accidental. The Reverend was involved in rubber fetish oriented sex play and was accidentally asphyxiated.

 

Gary Aldridge was a graduate of Liberty University and worked for Jerry Falwell before pastoring his own church in Alabama.

 

For Christians out there, I have a few questions:

 

Was he engaged in sinful activity at the time of his death? Reverend Aldridge was nominally heterosexual, and I am not aware of any scripture that prohibits rubber fetishism. However, he clearly engaged in sodomy with inanimate ojects, which may be construed as sinful.

 

Were his sexual proclivities worse or better than homosexuality? Why or why not? Let's assume that his wife was engaged in this activity with him. Does that make it ok, or is it still a sin? What if he was with a man doing those things? Does that make it different?

 

Jerry Falwell claimed that it is America's immorality that caused 9/11. He said that because we are too accepting of homosexuality etc. god removed his protection from the US and the planes hit the buildings. Do you think that Rev. Aldridge's fetishism contributed to god's decision to remove his protection?

 

Do you think it is hypocritical of Rev. Aldridge to condemn homosexuals when he enjoys sodomy himself, or were his actions ok because it was a facsimile of a penis and not a real one?

 

Do you think that Rev. Aldridge, being a born-again, Baptist educated member of the clergy thought his fetish was ok, or do you think he disliked these urges and tried to stop? If he prayed to the Holy Spirit for help, why did he still engage in this behavior? Was this problem too big for the Holy Spirit to conquer? It is clear that his rubber fetish was advanced--he wasn't dabbling when he died, so we can surmise that he had been into rubber for many years at the time of his death.

 

Given that he was into rubber, do you think that he was qualified to preach to others about their morality (or lack of it)? Do you think that he was still annointed with the Holy Spirit to speak god's word? If so, can a homosexual be a minister? Why or why not?

[DazedandConfused66]

Never heard this story before.

 

One major question I have is that your post seems to really ask a lot of questions about homosexuality and his death. You seem fixated that deviant (in your eyes) sexual practices such as fetishism and buttplay are equivalent to homosexuality, thereby also labeling homosexuality as deviant as well. I see no evidence in your story that he was a practicing homosexuality.

 

I personally don't see masturbation as a sin. The sin of Onanism, as often cited as evidence that it is a sin, is clearly a sin of disobedience to what God commanded of Onan. The fact that he spilled his own seed was an act of defiance, not self pleasure. If there was a sin here it was that he took great risk with his own body and, as a result, killed himself for pleasure. That has many scriptural references against it if you are looking for evidence to condemn his behavior.

 

I doubt Falwell knew of his practices. So there is no correlation there at all.

 

If he engaged in this behavior with his wife, I wouldn't see it as a sin. I don't find buttplay itself a sin as the original translation for "sodomy" doesn't apply the same here. Go check out "The Marriage Bed" website for a graphic and frank discussion of sex inside a Christian marriage...pretty much everything is ok EXCEPT infidelity or "roleplayed" infidelity. Basically, imagining you are having sex with someone other than your spouse is the only off-limits act there is.

 

Back to the homosexuality thing....how does someone define "gradients" of sin? Was he worse or better than a homosexual by what he did? If he did sin (and the only sin I see is one of putting the Temple of God at grave risk for personal pleasure, killing himself in the process), a sin is a sin. Punishment may have gradients according to Christian beliefs of rewards/punishment, but the wages of sin is death. However, as a Southern Baptist, he also believed in a perpetual grace system, meaning that his actions, while possibly sinful, wouldn't keep him from enjoying god's gift of salvation, assuming he had already accepted that.

 

But again, you seem very eager to associate buttplay with homosexuality. Does this mean all heterosexuals need to plug theirs as an act of atonement or what?

 

Falwell is an idiot in my book. His beliefs don't reflect those of Christ's. He is still hung up on the Old Testament view of an angry and vengeful god. Frankly, he's more like a militant jew than a Christian to me.

 

I should close with an admission that, while I'm not a practicing Christian, I was raised as one. Even attended 2 years of seminary. That was enough for me to realize I was listening to the wrong drummer.

[Moose]

The Reverend was involved in rubber fetish oriented sex play and was accidentally asphyxiated.

How do we know this to be sure?

Was he engaged in sinful activity at the time of his death?

Hard to tell. How do we know he wasn't murdered? I know you said the police determined it was accidental, however, the police aren't rocket scientists either.....they do make mistakes. I've read the story, so I'm going to assume that it is how you've explained. If so, then yes, I believe he was indeed engaging in a sinful activity at the time of his death.

Reverend Aldridge was nominally heterosexual, and I am not aware of any scripture that prohibits rubber fetishism.

Ok, I'll give you 5 to start with:

 

Romans 1:24

2 Corinthians 12:21

Galatians: 5:19

Ephesians: 5:3

Colossians: 3:5

 

All of these scriptures deal with sexual impurity and debauchery. Just because scripture doesn't come right out and say, "Thou Shalt not have fetishes or perform sexual acts with rubber or any other inanimate objects" doesn't mean it isn't sinful.

Were his sexual proclivities worse or better than homosexuality? Why or why not? Let's assume that his wife was engaged in this activity with him. Does that make it ok, or is it still a sin? What if he was with a man doing those things? Does that make it different?

Sin is Sin. There are none greater than the next. God hates it all.....equally.

Jerry Falwell claimed that it is America's immorality that caused 9/11. He said that because we are too accepting of homosexuality etc. god removed his protection from the US and the planes hit the buildings. Do you think that Rev. Aldridge's fetishism contributed to god's decision to remove his protection?

Nope. And Jerry Falwell is full of bologna....while we ARE deserving of such an attack for the reasons Mr. Falwell stated.....had it come from God, we wouldn't of merely lost 5-6 thousand souls.....it would've been FAR more catastrophic!

Do you think it is hypocritical of Rev. Aldridge to condemn homosexuals when he enjoys sodomy himself, or were his actions ok because it was a facsimile of a penis and not a real one?

Very hypocritical in my opinion. The man had no business in the clergy with this problem....or fetish...

Do you think that Rev. Aldridge, being a born-again, Baptist educated member of the clergy thought his fetish was ok, or do you think he disliked these urges and tried to stop?

I would hope and love to believe that he's tried to stop.

If he prayed to the Holy Spirit for help, why did he still engage in this behavior?

The decision to stop is ultimately his. Not the Holy Spirit.

Was this problem too big for the Holy Spirit to conquer?

Again, the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the believer to be a "genie" who grants wishes and takes away habits.

 

I think of the Holy Spirit as a GPS system that guides us through our life here on Earth. It's up to us to turn when He says, "turn"......

Given that he was into rubber, do you think that he was qualified to preach to others about their morality (or lack of it)?

There's not one here on Earth who hasn't sinned or is sinning in way, shape or form. So yes, he was qualified to preach morals to his congregation.....as hypocritical as that might sound, he should've confessed his sin and ask for help from his brothers and sisters in Christ...

Do you think that he was still annointed with the Holy Spirit to speak god's word?

None of us could know whether or not he was annointed in the first place, let alone during his ministry.

If so, can a homosexual be a minister?

I'm sure they already exist whether we know it or not.....

Why or why not?

Personally, I don't think they should be. If they can't walk the walk, they shouldn't be in a position to talk the talk.....

[Moai]

Never heard this story before.

 

One major question I have is that your post seems to really ask a lot of questions about homosexuality and his death. You seem fixated that deviant (in your eyes) sexual practices such as fetishism and buttplay are equivalent to homosexuality, thereby also labeling homosexuality as deviant as well. I see no evidence in your story that he was a practicing homosexuality.

 

I am not fixated on it in the least. I personally don't think that what he was doing was particularly deviant, or rare. I certainly don't think that it was immoral.

 

On threads past, just because I am an atheist Christians have accused me of being a homosexual, and it is no secret that Jerry Falwell and Fundamentalists in general take a dim view of homosexuality, and deviant behavior in general. Do you watch the news?

 

Which leads to the questions I asked. Is anal play ok as long as the inserted object is inanimate, or not? How do you know?

 

While Aldrige himself was certainly a hypocrite--his sexuality is ok but homosexuality is not--that isn't the worst hyposcrisy, in my mind. The worst is that somehow married heterosexuals are "normal" and everyone else is "deviant", when heterosexual people get into some kinky behavior also. Read their websites or listen to them on the news. They seem to think that heterosexuals have sex only for procreation, in the missionary position, and in the dark.

 

The Good Morals website ( http://www.goodmorals.com/sterile.html ) claim that any sexual activity that does not result in procreation is a sin. They also claim that masturbation is a homosexual act.

 

I found that site in two seconds on a dogpile search. I don't think I am misrepresenting the point of view of Christians in asking my questions. I actually asked my questions in hopes of getting many different Christian's points of view, since they don't all believe the same thing, obviously. But Fallwell and his ilk, do.

 

I personally don't see masturbation as a sin.

I don't even think there is such a thing as a "sin". I also think masturbation is a healthy, enjoyable activity, alone or with a partner. Or multiple partners if that is what you are into.

 

The sin of Onanism, as often cited as evidence that it is a sin, is clearly a sin of disobedience to what God commanded of Onan. The fact that he spilled his own seed was an act of defiance, not self pleasure. If there was a sin here it was that he took great risk with his own body and, as a result, killed himself for pleasure. That has many scriptural references against it if you are looking for evidence to condemn his behavior.

Yes, the sin of Onanism was an act of defiance. He did not want to impregnate his brother's wife. To quote the Good Morals website, "the seed of life is not a plaything."

 

I doubt Falwell knew of his practices. So there is no correlation there at all.

Sure there is. Falwell agreed with the Good Morals website, and made those claims about 9/11. Aldridge was working for Falwell at the time, and I am sure had numerous prayer meetings regarding the horrible moral climate in America. It is at best naive, at worst hypocritical to blame homosexuals for the problems in the US, but ignore deviance in the heterosexual community--especially when you are the one deciding what is deviant and what isn't based on your interpretation of scripture.

 

If he engaged in this behavior with his wife, I wouldn't see it as a sin. I don't find buttplay itself a sin as the original translation for "sodomy" doesn't apply the same here. Go check out "The Marriage Bed" website for a graphic and frank discussion of sex inside a Christian marriage...pretty much everything is ok EXCEPT infidelity or "roleplayed" infidelity.

Uh-huh. Check out the "Good Morals" website. Not all Christians agree about this. Which is kind of the point.

 

Basically, imagining you are having sex with someone other than your spouse is the only off-limits act there is.

I think "the Marriage Bed" is not representative of most Christians beliefs. Of course, there are Episcopalian minsters who are homosexuals, who also marry homosexuals.

 

Back to the homosexuality thing....how does someone define "gradients" of sin?

That is part of my question. I hope that a Christian takes the time to answer at some point.

 

Was he worse or better than a homosexual by what he did? If he did sin (and the only sin I see is one of putting the Temple of God at grave risk for personal pleasure, killing himself in the process), a sin is a sin. Punishment may have gradients according to Christian beliefs of rewards/punishment, but the wages of sin is death. However, as a Southern Baptist, he also believed in a perpetual grace system, meaning that his actions, while possibly sinful, wouldn't keep him from enjoying god's gift of salvation, assuming he had already accepted that.

Well, when one is born-again they are a new person, and are to turn away from their previous sinful life. Also, the Holy Spirit is now within them, and is supposed to help them avoid sin.

 

But again, you seem very eager to associate buttplay with homosexuality. Does this mean all heterosexuals need to plug theirs as an act of atonement or what?

No, I don't, THEY do. They are the ones with all the sexual rules, not me. DId you read my questions? Not only do you repeat one above, but I asked if a Christian thought of anal play as homosexual activity or not. Sodomy includes oral sex, by the way, which is illegal in 13 states as of now (as well as in the US military). All 50 states have repealed all specific laws regarding homosexual activity--which led Falwell to make that statement about 9/11--a statement that Aldridge agreed with.

 

Again--a facsimile of a penis is ok, but an actual one is not? Why or why not?

 

Falwell is an idiot in my book. His beliefs don't reflect those of Christ's. He is still hung up on the Old Testament view of an angry and vengeful god. Frankly, he's more like a militant jew than a Christian to me.

He had been a rabid anti-Semite at one point, but he believed that a sign of Jesus' return was the conversion of the Jews and the rebuilding of the Temple, so he loved Israel. I disagree with Falwell and his ilk on just about everything, but there are millions who agree with him. Some even post to these forums. It is there response to my questions that I am hoping for.

 

I should close with an admission that, while I'm not a practicing Christian, I was raised as one. Even attended 2 years of seminary. That was enough for me to realize I was listening to the wrong drummer.

Good for you. I too attended seminary for two years (Jesuit school) and my father was a Baptist minister. As is well-known here, I am a rather militant atheist.

[Moai]

How do we know this to be sure?

 

You can read the police report and the results of the autopsy. It is on the "Smoking Gun" website. Here is the link (sorry, I thought I posted it before).

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html

 

Hard to tell. How do we know he wasn't murdered? I know you said the police determined it was accidental, however, the police aren't rocket scientists either.....they do make mistakes.

 

True. But there was no sign of a struggle, and no lesions on his neck. I apologize for no tlinking the autopsy report earlier.

 

I've read the story, so I'm going to assume that it is how you've explained. If so, then yes, I believe he was indeed engaging in a sinful activity at the time of his death.Ok, I'll give you 5 to start with:

 

Romans 1:24

2 Corinthians 12:21

Galatians: 5:19

Ephesians: 5:3

Colossians: 3:5

 

All of these scriptures deal with sexual impurity and debauchery. Just because scripture doesn't come right out and say, "Thou Shalt not have fetishes or perform sexual acts with rubber or any other inanimate objects" doesn't mean it isn't sinful.Sin is Sin. There are none greater than the next. God hates it all.....equally.

 

Got it. I figured you were in the "all sin is equal" camp, you not being Catholic and all.

 

Nope. And Jerry Falwell is full of bologna....while we ARE deserving of such an attack for the reasons Mr. Falwell stated.....had it come from God, we wouldn't of merely lost 5-6 thousand souls.....it would've been FAR more catastrophic!

 

I never thought of that, but that is a good point. One would think that an attack from god would be devastating.

 

Very hypocritical in my opinion. The man had no business in the clergy with this problem....or fetish...I would hope and love to believe that he's tried to stop.The decision to stop is ultimately his. Not the Holy Spirit.Again, the Holy Spirit wasn't given to the believer to be a "genie" who grants wishes and takes away habits.

 

What would you say to those believers who do suggest that the "genie" version of the Holy Spirit is correct? Which scriptures would you use?

 

I think of the Holy Spirit as a GPS system that guides us through our life here on Earth. It's up to us to turn when He says, "turn"......There's not one here on Earth who hasn't sinned or is sinning in way, shape or form. So yes, he was qualified to preach morals to his congregation.....as hypocritical as that might sound, he should've confessed his sin and ask for help from his brothers and sisters in Christ...None of us could know whether or not he was annointed in the first place, let alone during his ministry.

 

Interesting. How can you tell who is annointed and who isn't? The Holy Spirit, right? I mean, you aren't Catholic for a reason. Is it the Holy Spirit that leads you to that conclusion, and if so, doesn't that mean that we can know who is annointed and who isn't?

 

I never heard any of his sermons, but I would imagine that they were of the standard Baptist variety.

 

I'm sure they already exist whether we know it or not.....Personally, I don't think they should be. If they can't walk the walk, they shouldn't be in a position to talk the talk.....

 

Thanks for your input as always, Moose. I recently read "Good Religion Gone Bad" which was written by a former friend/pastor with Falwell who claims that homosexuality is not forbidden, and uses scripture to back up his claim. As you may expect, he himself is a homosexual. There is more to the book than just that, but it was an interesting read.

[Moose]

What would you say to those believers who do suggest that the "genie" version of the Holy Spirit is correct?

I would have them look at Scripture and test it.

 

For one instance: 1 Corinthians 6:19 clearly indicates that our bodies are a temple for the Holy Spirit, we are not of our own. Therefore, we are to listen to the Holy Spirit, and not the other way around. By doing so, we receive these, "powers" as promised.

How can you tell who is annointed and who isn't?

It isn't easy, if not impossible. There are several couples in my Church who you'd think live on the straight and narrow just by the way they carry themselves, only to find out, (later), that they aren't who they claim to be at all.....

The Holy Spirit, right?

The Holy Spirit would remind me that it doesn't matter who I think is annointed or who isn't. It's my testimony that counts. Those who aren't, (annointed), but are leading others to believe otherwise will be dealt with accordingly. (By God of course).

[FleshNBones]

Why are the actions of this minister considered significant? Is it evidence suggesting the requirements in the Christian moral code are too high?

Maybe this story is an example of the conflict between restraint and indulgence, and the difficulty in maintaining discipline. There is no question we are all sinners.

Moai, are you saying we should abandon the faith because we all fall short?

 

I don't think there is anything dignified about delighting in someone's death especially under those circumstances. Maybe it is an athiest virtue to kick a dead horse, or better yet, a dead Christian.

[disgracian]

I don't think there is anything dignified about delighting in someone's death especially under those circumstances. Maybe it is an athiest virtue to kick a dead horse, or better yet, a dead Christian.

Nobody is delighting in anything of the sort, or even close. Is it a Christian virtue to make ignorant comments in an attempt to slander non-Christians?

 

Cheers,

D.

[riobikini]

As for the sexuality of someone -I think you are the gender your hormones tell you to be.

 

As for the unfortunate Reverend -well- it appears he wasn't sure, wasn't convinced that he could live what he preached.

 

So he took a dive (no pun intended) and became a victim of his own uncertainty.

 

Was he homosexual? We do not know that -heterosexual couples can engage in the very same type of sexual activity as he did.

 

Was it "immoral" that he engaged in the type of sexual activity described?

 

I think he may have been more likely to focus on the fear that others would think it was immoral than anything else.

 

I certainly think there's a line you can cross that's pretty clearly defined concerning the laws that protect people from being victims of sexual crimes -but I don't see any of them being broken here -he appears to have been a willing participant.

 

I only see a man who engaged in sexual acts not thought of as the "norm" -and didn't expect to die right in the middle of them.

 

The only "crime" I see here, is that someone left him to be discovered by police.

 

Keep in mind -concerning his sexual activities- that most people (Christian or not) are usually not talking about them openly -that's private information.

 

So what are we asking here? -whether or not the dearly departed Reverend represented the entire Christian population?

 

Or how awful a representative he turned out to be because he had such a secret that contradicted what was expected by others out of all representatives of the Christian religion around the world?

 

Or that -by finding him in such a predicament at his death- we should all just have a great laugh, allow him to be, yet, another grain that forms or reinforces the much rehashed ill concept of Christianity often bantered about -give reason to ridicule it- and let it add just one more lash to keep the wounds of bitterness open, and delight in allowing it contribute to the dark reflection cast by some upon the entire religion?

 

The Reverend did not conceive Christianity -he certainly cannot, himself- represent every facet of it.

 

As to how anyone who turns to Christianity chooses to understand and practice his belief -it becomes his own personal challenge.

 

If he falls short of people's expectations of meeting the challenge -it appears- his failure becomes his legacy, as well as the legacy of his chosen belief by default.

 

-Rio

[Moai]

Why are the actions of this minister considered significant?

 

They are only significant because Rev. Aldridge put himself in a position to define what is moral and what isn't regarding sexuality. He considered homosexuality deviant and sinful, and yet engaged in activity himself that many would consider deviant, if not sinful. It was certainly dangerous, as it killed him.

 

The same goes for Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and on and on.

 

Is it evidence suggesting the requirements in the Christian moral code are too high?

 

Not necessarily. It is evidence that those who would dictate Christian morality cannot or chose not to follow it themselves. If they never said a word regarding homosexuals, for example, nobody would notice or care.

 

Maybe this story is an example of the conflict between restraint and indulgence, and the difficulty in maintaining discipline. There is no question we are all sinners.

 

Sure there is. Since I don't accept the Bible as a moral guide, and I doubt the whole concept of sin, there is a question as to everyone being a sinner. Why should this discipline be maintained in the first place? So what if Aldridge enjoyed being encased in rubber, have his breathing restricted, and enjoyed being penetrated? Life is short, and if that gave him pleasure more power to him. He wasn't endangering anyone but himself.

 

Maybe if he was able to be more open about his fetish he would still be alive. It is easy to determine if someone tied himself up (which Aldridge did) and if somone else tied the knots. If he could have een open, someone could have helped him, and he'd still be alive. But I suspect he himself knew he was a hypocrite and couldn't share his fetish, and he died because of it.

 

Nobody forced him to be a reacher, and nobody forced him to condemn the behavior of others--behavior that does no harm to anyone.

 

Moai, are you saying we should abandon the faith because we all fall short?

 

Fall short of what? Some Christians say that anything is ok as long as you are heterosexual and married, others say that even masturbation is wrong. This man was of the second camp, yet he didn't practice what he preached. He was a flaming hypocrite.

 

If people "falling short" is reason enough for someone to abandon faith, more power to them. There ar eplenty of other, better reasons for doing so, though.

 

I don't think there is anything dignified about delighting in someone's death especially under those circumstances. Maybe it is an athiest virtue to kick a dead horse, or better yet, a dead Christian.

 

I am not delighting in his death. I don't delight in anyone's death. But I think that the circumstances of this man's death are yet another example of a hypocritical, hateful person behaving in a way contrary to what he espouses.

 

How many families are destroyed because believers followed this man's teaching and disowned their gay son or daughter? How many people feel shame for having urges that they are told go against god's will--like rubber fetishes or bondage, for example? Aldridge was a hypocrite. Do you know what the Bible says about hypocrites?

 

As an atheist, I think for myself and determine what is moral and what isn't. While I do think that his fetish was oviously dangerous, there is nothing wrong with it. He should do whatever gives him pleasure, in the privacy of his own home, as long as it is between adults and everyone is consenting.

 

See? Now, if I were to die in the same circumstances, who would care? I don't judge anyone for their sexual proclivities, so I would be just another dead rubber-fetishist.

 

In the outside chance that something like that did happen and it made the news, how many Christians--ministers and lay-people alike--would use my death as an example of me being a sinner and being punished for deviant behavior? Probably a lot.

 

You do know that Jerry Falwell and Rev. Aldridge said publically that AIDS was god's punishment for homosexuality, right?

 

All things being equal, his death wasn't that bad. He died engaging in something he enjoyed. I hope that I die doing something that gives me pleasure.

[Moai]

As for the sexuality of someone -I think you are the gender your hormones tell you to be.

 

As for the unfortunate Reverend -well- it appears he wasn't sure, wasn't convinced that he could live what he preached.

 

So he took a dive (no pun intended) and became a victim of his own uncertainty.

 

Was he homosexual? We do not know that -heterosexual couples can engage in the very same type of sexual activity as he did.

 

Was it "immoral" that he engaged in the type of sexual activity described?

 

I think he may have been more likely to focus on the fear that others would think it was immoral than anything else.

 

Others certainly would. His own congregation probably would. Hence me asking Christians what they think. If you aren;t a Christian, you clearly define your morality based on something other than the Bible.

 

I certainly think there's a line you can cross that's pretty clearly defined concerning the laws that protect people from being victims of sexual crimes -but I don't see any of them being broken here -he appears to have been a willing participant.

 

I only see a man who engaged in sexual acts not thought of as the "norm" -and didn't expect to die right in the middle of them.

 

The only "crime" I see here, is that someone left him to be discovered by police.

 

He tied himself up.

 

Keep in mind -concerning his sexual activities- that most people (Christian or not) are usually not talking about them openly -that's private information.

 

So what are we asking here? -whether or not the dearly departed Reverend represented the entire Christian population?

 

Rev. ALdridge represented the Baptist population. He was an ordained minster in that church, meaning that he studied their doctrine and in the eyes of the church was qualified to teach it to others. And one of their doctrines is that homosexuality is wrong, and that any sexual behavior that is not for procreation is a sin. Nothing the Reverend was engaged in at the time of his death would result in procreation.

 

Or how awful a representative he turned out to be because he had such a secret that contradicted what was expected by others out of all representatives of the Christian religion around the world?

 

Perhaps.

 

Or that -by finding him in such a predicament at his death- we should all just have a great laugh, allow him to be, yet, another grain that forms or reinforces the much rehashed ill concept of Christianity often bantered about -give reason to ridicule it- and let it add just one more lash to keep the wounds of bitterness open, and delight in allowing it contribute to the dark reflection cast by some upon the entire religion?

 

His behavior itself says nothing about Christianity, it says something about him, and how he was a hypocrite. There are legions of them. But his death does raise some interesting for Christians, I think. Hence me asking.

 

The Reverend did not conceive Christianity -he certainly cannot, himself- represent every facet of it.

 

Yes, he can, and he went to school to do just that.

 

As to how anyone who turns to Christianity chooses to understand and practice his belief -it becomes his own personal challenge.

 

Not necessarily. His calling led him to the Baptist faith, a rather Fundamentalist one that has very specific attitudes regarding sexuality. He could have become an Episcopalian or Methodist and nobody would have no challenge at all regarding his sexuality. He was in a prison of his own making.

 

If he falls short of people's expectations of meeting the challenge -it appears- his failure becomes his legacy, as well as the legacy of his chosen belief by default.

 

-Rio

 

He only fell shor tof expectations he set for himself, and set for others. He certainly didn't fall short of my expectations; in fact, he met mine.

[Herzen]

Ever since this story broke, I've been following it. I've even visited the Church's website and viewed pictures of the dead Pastor, his wife and his very young children. The loss of a husband and father at such a young age is always a tragedy, and I take no glee in these circumstances.

 

What the Christian Right, Moral Majority and Values Voters must understand, however, is that you "live by the sword, you die by the sword." The Pastor and his ilk preach a moral absolutism, and implicit in their message to us Atheists/Agnostics/Secularists is the statement: "We're moral, you're not".

 

So when something like this happens, personal tragedy morphs into political jabs. The lesson: don't play "more moral than thou" and lead a secret life of sexual perversion. People, especially those denounced as sinners and non-believers, always enjoy it when Moral Arrogance gets its comeuppance.

[riobikini]

re:

 

Moai: "He certainly didn't fall short of my expectations; in fact, he met mine."

 

 

Herzen: "....The lesson: don't play "more moral than thou" ..."

 

I agree, Herzen.

 

That particular statement, alone, is enough -for Christians, athiests, and believers/non-believers of all kinds, as well as the indifferent.

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

re:

 

Moai: " He tied himself up. "

 

 

Moai (Smile) -if you really believe that he tied himself up you are growing much more weak in your resistance of nonsense than I had realized.

 

And if you continue to believe in such fairy tales (a favorite word of yours) then you may be in danger of (just steps away from) believing in other such ridiculous things as -perhaps- (oh my!) a God of some kind.

 

Get a grip, man!

 

This is totally unexpected out of you.

 

I think we all know you better than that.

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

[blind_otter]

How can you tie yourself up?

[riobikini]

Well, B_O (btw, nice to see you in the boards!) -I once tangled myself up in my pantyhose and fell over my own feet rushing to get the phone (silly me).

 

My skirt just dropped to the ground, once, as I was walking back to my car through a shopping mall parking lot, wrapping around my legs and causing me to nearly go flying head over heels (I'd been trying on clothes just before and forgot to button up; stupid, but true).

 

I've even been tangled up in fishing line, barbed wire and found myself wound up in electrical cord while vaccuming.....

 

 

But I've never been able to hogtie myself.

 

(Smile)

 

I don't dive, either.

 

-Rio

[blind_otter]

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

 

Yes, there are people who practice autoerotic asphyxiation (is that how you spell it?) -- but the methods used are almost universally very different from the ones described in the original scenario. I used to be fascinated with deviant behaviors of all kinds and this was one of the ones I researched, especially after the lead singer of INXS died.

[Herzen]

Well, B_O (btw, nice to see you in the boards!) -I once tangled myself up in my pantyhose and fell over my own feet rushing to get the phone (silly me).

 

My skirt just dropped to the ground, once, as I was walking back to my car through a shopping mall parking lot, wrapping around my legs and causing me to nearly go flying head over heels (I'd been trying on clothes just before and forgot to button up; stupid, but true).

 

I've even been tangled up in fishing line, barbed wire and found myself wound up in electrical cord while vaccuming.....

 

 

But I've never been able to hogtie myself.

 

(Smile)

 

I don't dive, either.

 

-Rio

 

Good points, Rio and BO. I suspect another agent, perhaps a male or female dom in a bdsm session that went terribly wrong. My GF and I are somewhat familiar with the bdsm world, and we cannot figure out how this guy was able to hogtie himself, get all that gear on and insert a dildo in his butt. Double jointed?

 

Something's not right.

 

I'm not convinced that this was all autoerotica.

[FleshNBones]

I can't help wondering about the creditability of the story because everything seems to point to that website.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html

[Moai]

How can you tie yourself up?

 

It's actually easy. You tie a couple fo slipt-knots, secure your wrists to your ankles, loop around your neck, and you grab the end with one hand and pull.

 

You'd be amazed at the different things you can do with rope. Japanese Rope Bondage is amazing. Not my gig sexaully, but there is certainly an art to it.

[Moai]

re:

Moai (Smile) -if you really believe that he tied himself up you are growing much more weak in your resistance of nonsense than I had realized.

 

There is an obvious difference between knots tied by someone else than knots tied by another. Self-tied knots leavelots of extra rope hanging, for one thing.

 

Even a vague search on bondage techinques will give you an idea of how easy it is to hog-tie yourself.

 

It's cool that you aren't into such things, and you may not know the different aspects of BDSM, but you would do well not to suggest that I am not being skeptical in this instance.

 

While you are at it look up "CBT" and give me your thoughts.

 

And if you continue to believe in such fairy tales (a favorite word of yours) then you may be in danger of (just steps away from) believing in other such ridiculous things as -perhaps- (oh my!) a God of some kind.

 

Get a grip, man!

 

This is totally unexpected out of you.

 

I think we all know you better than that.

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

 

Again, a cursory look at the BDSM scene will show that tying yourself up in all sorts of ways is easy. And you can tell the difference between self-tied restraints and those done with a partner.

 

You are now calling me ridiculous based on what? Because you can't imagine how someone could hog-tie himself? This is the ultimate of "argument from ignorance." You can't figure it out, so it can't be done, right?

 

Well, it turns out it is easy. You can take my word for it, or you could do the easy thing and look it up for yourself.

 

I would think for your own sake you would look something like this up before accusing me of accepting fairy-tales etc. Given your immediate accusations and opinions on this subject--the antecedents of which can be so easily looked up--what creedence does that give your other opinions.

 

I have see such things with my own eyes, and unlike your spiritual experiences I can have the same easily demonstrated for you at your earliest convenience.

[Moai]

 

But I've never been able to hogtie myself.

 

(Smile)

 

I don't dive, either.

 

-Rio

 

But you must admit you haven't tried. He didn't wind up where he was by accident, he wound up where he was on purpose, because it got him off sexually.

 

Sit back on your couch and imagine how you would hog-tie yourself. In a few moments you'll grasp how it is done. Or find out where the BDSM folks hang out where you live and show up on a Friday.

[Moai]

Good points, Rio and BO. I suspect another agent, perhaps a male or female dom in a bdsm session that went terribly wrong.[/quote

 

As I have written on a couple of posts, those aren't good points--or I suppose they are if you are ignorant of that particular fetish. Tie your own wrists together. You can see that you can scure yourself wuite well, but it will look very different than if you had someone else tie your wrists together. And if you are into such thigs, it gets more complex. None of what happened to this guy happened by accident.

 

My GF and I are somewhat familiar with the bdsm world, and we cannot figure out how this guy was able to hogtie himself, get all that gear on and insert a dildo in his butt. Double jointed?

Jeeeeeezz.

 

First: Cover dildo with condom. Lubricate same.

 

Second: Insert dildo.

 

Third. Put on wetsuit #1.

 

Fourth: Put on wetsuit #2.

 

Fifth: Put on booties.

 

Sixth: Put on gloves.

 

Seventh. Put on specially modified mask. (Yes, the mask he had on was specially modified to restrict breathing. Restricted breathing is a common factor in this fetish).

 

Eighth: Wrap rope around your ankles.

 

Ninth: Wrap the same rope around your left wrist (or right if you are left-handed).

 

Tenth: Loop rope around your neck.

 

Eleventh: Take the en of the rop and tie a slip-knot. Put the loop of the slip knot around your right hand (or left as above).

 

Twelveth: Pull the free end of the rope away from you. Do this until you feel the desired tension. *Be Careful!* Because you are using a one-way slip-kot, the knot will tighten but willl not slack, so if you go to tight you can asphixiate yourself. The instructions above can result in injury or death; follow them at your own risk, and always have a trusted partner available to aid you if you get into trouble.

 

See?

 

Something's not right.

 

I'm not convinced that this was all autoerotica.

Again, argument from ignorance. The police aren't total morons, and you can obviously tell when someone tied himself up ad when he didn't.

 

Or are you suggesting that it looked like murder and the cops are either a) too stpuid to tell, or b) they revel in discrediting a pastor because they are really Satanists, or c) the police chief was involved?

[Moai]

I can't help wondering about the creditability of the story because everything seems to point to that website.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html

 

A website where you can read the autposy results. Do you have a specific reason to doubt the veracity of the site, or are you just saying that you don't believe it because you haven't seen it in ten places also?

 

Let me also note that nobody is answering the questions I asked, All ayone is doing is trying to find reasons why a minister would'nt have done such a thing, or it couldn't be possible, or whatever. I am, of course, surprised and shocked. Not.

[Moai]

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

 

Yes, there are people who practice autoerotic asphyxiation (is that how you spell it?) -- but the methods used are almost universally very different from the ones described in the original scenario.

 

Auto-erotic asphyxiation is different.

 

When approaching orgasm, restricting the flow of oxygen to the brain intensifies the orgasm itself. When done alone, it is possible to pass out and thereby strangle yourself to death.

 

Rev. Aldridge was obviously an advanced rubber fetishist. He was wearing two wetsuits--if he had three he would have been wearing three. Restricted breathing is often coupled with this fetish, but it is not associated with orgasm as it si with auto-erotic aspyxiation. The sensation of restricted breathing is and end to itself, and the attempt is to prolong same as long as possible. Both are very dangerous without another person involved.

 

I used to be fascinated with deviant behaviors of all kinds and this was one of the ones I researched, especially after the lead singer of INXS died.

 

Do more research. Rev. Aldridge was not into auto-erotic asphyxiation. He was into rubber and restricted breathing.

 

There is a contraption you can buy that completely seals a person in rubber, and all they can breathe through is a tube, which can be opened and closed by the dominant.

 

This kink, while not uncommon, is extremely dangerous.