Dead Reverend, now a few questions

[FleshNBones]

In mainstream Christianity, the effort to maintain the Christian ethics is a private matter unless it involves breaking the law.

 

In Catholicism, there is a practice called Confession, and it involves a God, a preist, and the participant. The priest conducts the ritual, and the participant confesses his sins. The priest usually provides some advice, and the session is concluded with a prayer. That priest must keep everything he confessed a secret even under the pain of death. There are priests who make the information public, but they are the exception.

 

You on the other hand will gladly trumpet those failings from the mountain tops.

 

If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find some cult that freely publicizes this information, but we aren't talking about them.

 

In Christianity, it is understood that we Christians are sinners, and the process of avoiding sin is a day-to-day struggle. Christians can and do sin.

 

Assuming the story is true (still thinking of memogate), the reasons surrounding the reverend's death are only known to the deceased reverend, and God. I don't think you will get an answer from either.

 

Why would someone want to publicize this information? Are they demanding an apology? You can't get an apology from a corpse. Are they trying to assert their own sense of righteousness? Is this an individual they are focusing on, or the group in general?

 

Jesus ignored the complaints made by people who publicized the sins of others. Why don't you follow his example?

[Storyrider]

It is possible that his association with Christianity (even if we agree that the fundamentalism he claimed to believe in was highly flawed) prevented his behavior from being worse than it was.

 

All other judgments aside, his fetish was a negative in the sense that it killed him.

 

Also, we have no reason to believe that he thought what he was doing was good and moral. People do things they believe are wrong all the time. They do them in spite of their morals because they are compelled to do them. In fact, it may have been his belief that he was sinning that made it a turn on for him.

 

Now maybe I'm simple, but I don't at all see how his behavior negates or confirms the tenants of his church. Either this highly literal, fundamentalist church is right about things or they aren't. Clearly they could be somewhere in the middle and get some things right. They probably contribute some good to the universe and some bad. I could probably agree that the damage they do outweighs the good because fundamentalism is so one dimensional, sometimes abusive (as to homosexuals) and it makes other religious people look bad.

 

I can make that assessment without ever knowing about this guy and his death by fetish. His actions do not change what his particular church represents. Their goodness or badness exists independently of his actions.

 

Also, whether he lied or told the truth when he preached has nothing to do with his fetish. A mugger can speak the truth or tell a lie. So can a shoplifter. So can a homosexual. So can a hooker. So can someone who eats too many cookies. It is possible that those things he preached that were good and true helped people. Perhaps one of his sermons encouraged an abused wife to leave her husband, thus protecting her children. Or perhaps something he preached prevented a child from bullying another child. These positive outcomes could occur even if he went home that very night and f*cked rubber.

 

Both the Torah and the NT glorify figures who spoke God's word and also sinned in the eyes of God, so this story fits into the framework of both Judaism and Christianity just fine. King David was a murderer and an adulterer.

 

Peter denied knowing Christ three times after Christ was arrested. He later became the head of the Church. He was never considered perfect.

 

Here is a secular example: Newton was perhaps one of the greatest scientists of all times. His discoveries in physics form the basis for modern science. Yet he also believed in alchemy and was clearly misled and a little nutty on that score.

[Moai]

In mainstream Christianity, the effort to maintain the Christian ethics is a private matter unless it involves breaking the law. {/quote]

 

Which answers nothing. Who are "mainstream" Christians? Lutherans? Methodists? Pentacostals? Baptists? Shall I continue to list all 2500 different sects? What you propose is a Noe True Scotsman fallacy.

 

In Catholicism, there is a practice called Confession, and it involves a God, a preist, and the participant. The priest conducts the ritual, and the participant confesses his sins. The priest usually provides some advice, and the session is concluded with a prayer. That priest must keep everything he confessed a secret even under the pain of death. There are priests who make the information public, but they are the exception.

 

Yep. And if priests happen to molest young boys, they are moved around to avoid prosecution.

 

You on the other hand will gladly trumpet those failings from the mountain tops.

 

I am not trumpeting anything. I don't operate the Smoking Gun website, nor did I take out an ad in the paper about this story, or anything else. I went on a public forum and asked very simple questions of people who profess to accept (perhaps) what Rev. Aldridge preached. By my count, only one Christian has attempted to answer my questions.

 

It is sad that he is dead, but he was a hypocrite of the highest order, and as such doesn't deserve my respect.

 

If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find some cult that freely publicizes this information, but we aren't talking about them.

 

It isn't about his keeping his rubber fetish a secret. I am sure most fetishists are secretive, and more power to them. Most rubber fetishists don't condemn other people because of their sexuality, either.

 

In Christianity, it is understood that we Christians are sinners, and the process of avoiding sin is a day-to-day struggle. Christians can and do sin.

 

I never said he was a sinner. I personally don't think he was doing anything wrong (it was obviously dangerous). And if "most" Christians didn't rail on so much about other's morality, it would be a non-issue. But Christians do, and it is.

 

Assuming the story is true (still thinking of memogate), the reasons surrounding the reverend's death are only known to the deceased reverend, and God. I don't think you will get an answer from either.

 

The reason he died was because he couldn't breathe. I don't need to ask god about that. But, since Christians are the ones who brought up the concept of sin, they should know what a sin is or isn't, right? Is rubber fetishism a sin or not? Some say yes (Aldridge's own faith says yes), others say now. I am merely curious as to how many Christians think it is, or isn't, and why. But somehow it is all against me because someone else is a hypocrite. I am not the least surprised, of course.

 

Also, you can read about the incident on more websites than Smoking Gun. They just have the autopoy report.

 

Why would someone want to publicize this information?

 

Because it is news. Why do newspapers publish stories about judge's affairs, bankers guilty of fraud, or anything else? He was a minister in a sect that is very strict regarding sexual behavior, and he died engaging in a dangerous and uncommon fetish. If he was just some guy we never would have heard of it. As I have written before, he was in a prison of his own making.

 

Are they demanding an apology? You can't get an apology from a corpse. Are they trying to assert their own sense of righteousness? Is this an individual they are focusing on, or the group in general?

 

Well, he is the only one who died. I don't think anyone is asking for an apology, but it does weaken the position of his brqand of Christianity probably. I wouldn't know, as I am not a Christian and reject it for reasons beyond their hypocrisy.

 

Jesus ignored the complaints made by people who publicized the sins of others. Why don't you follow his example?

 

Because I am ot a Christian, for one. For another, he is one of the people Jesus was railing against, not me. I am not judging him (beyond his being a hypocrite). Remember what Jesus said about hypocrites? Why don't YOU follow Jesus' example and condemn him as such?

[Moai]

Also, whether he lied or told the truth when he preached has nothing to do with his fetish. A mugger can speak the truth or tell a lie. So can a shoplifter. So can a homosexual. So can a hooker. So can someone who eats too many cookies. It is possible that those things he preached that were good and true helped people. Perhaps one of his sermons encouraged an abused wife to leave her husband, thus protecting her children. Or perhaps something he preached prevented a child from bullying another child. These positive outcomes could occur even if he went home that very night and f*cked rubber.

 

There is a difference. There is a difference between making a statement of fact and making a judgement. Hence the old saying, "Practice what you preach." Clearly, he wasn't, was he?

[Storyrider]

No, he wasn't.

 

But I don't see how any of your conclusions follow from that observation. He was human. By definition, humans make judgements. Also by definition, we f*ck up.

 

If he didn't believe the behaviors he preached against were tempting, he wouldn't have found it necessary to preach against them. Apparently he had direct experience with that temptation.

 

You didn't respond to any of my other points.

[JamesM]

 

 

I am not trumpeting anything. I don't operate the Smoking Gun website, nor did I take out an ad in the paper about this story, or anything else. I went on a public forum and asked very simple questions of people who profess to accept (perhaps) what Rev. Aldridge preached. By my count, only one Christian has attempted to answer my questions.

 

It is sad that he is dead, but he was a hypocrite of the highest order, and as such doesn't deserve my respect.

 

 

 

Moai, just to let you know...I have followed this thread from the beginning. Personally, I feel that you have legitimate questions. And from your standpoint...and from mine, I can see why you ask them. Since Moose has done a good job of answering your questions, I have not even attempted to do so. I am guessing that many others like me felt that it was not necessary to chime in with a "ditto."

 

Interestingly enough, I agree with your second comment. As one who also professes to be a Christian, I find it disgusting when men who portray themselves to be one thing (such as against homosexuality) while living the same lifestyle as very hypocritical. And I do not find it necessary to spin such behavior as somehow excusable. It is not.

 

Moai, you bring up a good point. While I certainly do not think such a person invalidates the Christian beliefs, I do think it will do some damage to those who knew him as their "Christian pastor."

 

Regarding your comments about 9-11 being a judgment against homosexuality, I can say that I have heard that disaster as being a judgment for a list of sins or supposed sins. And my first thought is...how did you get a direct line to the mind of God? If such a disaster IS a judgment, then where was the sign that said what sin it was aimed at? Nowhere. If anything, one could only say that such judgments are aimed at all sins...certainly not at one particular sin.

 

There is a good book that discusses this very question. It is called "Is God to Blame?" by Gregory Boyd.

[Citizen Erased]

Why put a condom on the dildo? I mean, unless he was in an orgy and it was being passed around... other then that I can't see the dildo contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Unless it was a REALLY slutty dildo that is

[Storyrider]

Why put a condom on the dildo? I mean, unless he was in an orgy and it was being passed around... other then that I can't see the dildo contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Unless it was a REALLY slutty dildo that is

Maybe so he didn't have to clean the dildo every time. Like putting aluminum foil on the roasting pan.

 

Ewww!

[riobikini]

re:

 

Moai: " 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?"

 

Oh, Moai -contrary, of course.

 

I think the same could be applied to the hot topic we're always debating -the existence of a spiritual supernatural being that we, the "ignorant", refer to as "God".

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

[Herzen]

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

OK, I surrender. Your points are well made. My only question is where did he keep all that stuff? And I suspect his PC's hard drive would turn up some interesting porn.

 

My error was based on my own disinclination to believe that someone would do all that to himself. For me, BDSM play is what one does with sexual partners. I can only assume that he didn't want to risk disclosure by bringing a third party into his games.

 

So he killed himself, by accident, because he had to remain in the closet. Double lives suck.

[Moai]

No, he wasn't.

 

But I don't see how any of your conclusions follow from that observation. He was human. By definition, humans make judgements. Also by definition, we f*ck up.

 

Very true. Humans do make mistakes. But we all aren't hypocrites.

 

If he didn't believe the behaviors he preached against were tempting, he wouldn't have found it necessary to preach against them. Apparently he had direct experience with that temptation.

 

It goes beyond preaching about temptation. Even then, he wouldn't have been such a glaring hypocrite. He and his handler Jerry Falwell claimed that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were because of America being too accepting of homosexuals specifically and "perverts" in general, so god lifted his protection of our country. Pat Robertson said similar things.

 

Not only that, they specifically refer to the sexuality of others as an abomination and against god. Nobody forced him to preach those things, he did so because he believed them.

 

You didn't respond to any of my other points.

 

I have no response to your other points.

[Moai]

 

OK, I surrender. Your points are well made. My only question is where did he keep all that stuff? And I suspect his PC's hard drive would turn up some interesting porn.

 

Thanks! I'd imagine that he was a certified diver, then owning a wetsuit wouldn't be suspicious. You can rent them, too. He did have a modified mask on, so that, I would imagine, was his personal property.

 

My error was based on my own disinclination to believe that someone would do all that to himself. For me, BDSM play is what one does with sexual partners. I can only assume that he didn't want to risk disclosure by bringing a third party into his games.

 

Or his regular partner was unavailable. Given the advancement of his fetish, he probably had done this before.

 

Which is part of the point. He wasn't resisting his "temptation", he was doing what most fetishists do--going further and further because the beginning behaviors don't make it anymore.

 

So he killed himself, by accident, because he had to remain in the closet. Double lives suck.

 

Yes, they do.

[blind_otter]

I still can't understand what makes this an important point. One person usually isn't representative of an entire faith.

 

And I understand the whole process that he may have taken in order to reach the point at which he was found -- but even after reading your breakdown I still find it highly unlikely that he would go through all that for sex. I always thought the whole point of sexuality is it's spontaneity. Waddling around for 20 minutes with a dildo up your ass while you go through extensive preparations to get off doesn't sound like something that one would do in order to get off.

[Moai]

Moai, just to let you know...I have followed this thread from the beginning. Personally, I feel that you have legitimate questions. And from your standpoint...and from mine, I can see why you ask them. Since Moose has done a good job of answering your questions, I have not even attempted to do so. I am guessing that many others like me felt that it was not necessary to chime in with a "ditto."

 

I thought that he did a good job, too. I know that there are other Christias who don't share Moose's (or your) interpretation, and I was hoping to hear from them. Perhaps others will jump in.

 

Interestingly enough, I agree with your second comment. As one who also professes to be a Christian, I find it disgusting when men who portray themselves to be one thing (such as against homosexuality) while living the same lifestyle as very hypocritical. And I do not find it necessary to spin such behavior as somehow excusable. It is not.

Yep. While we do not agree on the existence of god or the benefits of faith, it would seem we have the same view of hypocrisy. It is my opinion that most believers would do well to emulate you and Moose more, and rail against behavior less.

 

Moai, you bring up a good point. While I certainly do not think such a person invalidates the Christian beliefs, I do think it will do some damage to those who knew him as their "Christian pastor."

Yep. It is mainly a problem for his flock, not believers or Christianity in general. My heart actually goes out tot hose people. Their feeling of betrayal must be intense.

 

Regarding your comments about 9-11 being a judgment against homosexuality, I can say that I have heard that disaster as being a judgment for a list of sins or supposed sins. And my first thought is...how did you get a direct line to the mind of God? If such a disaster IS a judgment, then where was the sign that said what sin it was aimed at? Nowhere. If anything, one could only say that such judgments are aimed at all sins...certainly not at one particular sin.

Good point.

 

There is a good book that discusses this very question. It is called "Is God to Blame?" by Gregory Boyd.

I am familiar with such assertions (and reject them) but I didn't start this thread to debate such things--I will on another thread, fo course. I was jsut curious as to how each individual believer reacted to this rather bizarre event. Hence me not debating Moose's points.

 

Thank you for your response, James.

[Moai]

I still can't understand what makes this an important point. One person usually isn't representative of an entire faith.

 

They are when they are ordained and preach and teach others about that faith.

 

And I understand the whole process that he may have taken in order to reach the point at which he was found -- but even after reading your breakdown I still find it highly unlikely that he would go through all that for sex.

 

Why?

 

I always thought the whole point of sexuality is it's spontaneity. Waddling around for 20 minutes with a dildo up your ass while you go through extensive preparations to get off doesn't sound like something that one would do in order to get off.

 

Not for you, maybe. There is o such thing as "normal" sexuality.

[Moai]

re:

 

 

 

Oh, Moai -contrary, of course.

 

I think the same could be applied to the hot topic we're always debating -the existence of a spiritual supernatural being that we, the "ignorant", refer to as "God".

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

 

I never said that believers are ignorant, on this thread or any other.

 

You are correct in the sense that most people who profess a belief in god use the argument from ignorance quite a bit. Using that argument doesn't make that person "ignorant", by the way.

[blind_otter]

Well the act is cumulative and climactic. If you go through such extensive preparation what exactly would you do to get off?

[Moai]

Why put a condom on the dildo? I mean, unless he was in an orgy and it was being passed around... other then that I can't see the dildo contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Unless it was a REALLY slutty dildo that is

 

Good question. Maybe the condom was a lubricated one and saved him a step, or made cleanup easier.

[blind_otter]

I was trying to edit but was thwarted.

 

With masturbation, the key is friction. What would he do to reach orgasm in that state without a partner to control the situation? I can't wrap my mind around the mechanics.

[Moai]

Well the act is cumulative and climactic. If you go through such extensive preparation what exactly would you do to get off?

 

I am not sure, as I am not into restricted breathing or rubber, but I would imagine that the individual pleasures himself afterward while remembering the event, or they actually can acheive orgasm in such a position.

 

I have seen a frame that has latex stretched on it, and you put someone in it, close it, and then hook it up to a vacuum and it seals the person in. There is a small tube for breathing, and then the other partner can restrict breathing at will. It does require two, obviously.

 

I don't know how one can get off licking a woman's high heel either, but there are people who can.

 

I watched an interview once with a man who was into the same fetish as the Rev. Aldridge, and he said that when he was very young, his older brother and some friends buried him alive in the back yard, and during that experience he became very sexually aroused. Now, he goes to a dominatrix who suits him up and restricts his breathing over several hours. It is expensive, but he's into it. It's a good thing that he is able to practice his fetsih safely.

[marlena]

Moai,

 

I think your obsession with the reverend is SICK! What started of as a discussion about religious ethics has turned into a sick step by step account of the reverend's alleged last activities before this poor man died. Hell, what does it matter if he was the perpetrator of his own demise or not? Sheesh already!! You are turning this into a porn/virtual reality show! Why are you so relishing in the details? I think you have sadly digressed from your main points and are turning this into side circus show!!! Enough already!!! I can't believe that anyone who has supposedly reached a higher level of intellect would expend so much energy and time over a person's sexual proclivities when there are so many other more important things to talk about. we got your point from your first post. You needn't have gone into such explicit and perverse details.

 

Your obsession over this ridiculous story when you could be using your brain to expound on other more critical issues is disheartening. You are as guilty of throwing stones and being morally judgemental, no matter how subtly, as any religious fundamentalist in here.

[marlena]

P.S.

 

Let this man lie in peace. I can't believe educated people can harp on about this indefinately! It sounds like midday T.V. reality garbage..and we all know the type of audience that "religiously" watches this kind of crap!!! Come on! Get real!!!

[FleshNBones]

P.S.

 

Let this man lie in peace. I can't believe educated people can harp on about this indefinately! It sounds like midday T.V. reality garbage..and we all know the type of audience that "religiously" watches this kind of crap!!! Come on! Get real!!!

One reason he is doing it is because he believes this Reverend's actions are representative of the faith as a whole.

I wonder if the US prison system is representative of the US in general.

 

He also believes that salvation is a group activity. If the Reverend is damned, so is his flock.

In actuality, it is an individual effort. They will look for a replacement.

[Moai]

Moai,

 

I think your obsession with the reverend is SICK!

I'm not obsessed, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

What started of as a discussion about religious ethics has turned into a sick step by step account of the reverend's alleged last activities before this poor man died.

How is it sick? Someone asked a question, and I answered it. You are aware that people practice such things, right? Why is it sick to discuss human behavior?

Hell, what does it matter if he was the perpetrator of his own demise or not? Sheesh already!!

Oh gee, I don't know, MURDER maybe?

You are turning this into a porn/virtual reality show!

No, I'm not. I am answering legitimate questions posed by others. Admittedly, they are off-topic, but as the OP I don't mind in particular.

Why are you so relishing in the details?

I am not relishing in the details. The details are what they are. They neither make me happy, nor sad. Why do they bother you so much? If you don't like to read about such things, stop reading. Easy, huh?

I think you have sadly digressed from your main points and are turning this into side circus show!!! Enough already!!!

No, I haven't. As in this post, I am addressing what others brought up. I'd be happy to address your answers to the questions I posed, if you'd care to answer them. But you didn't, you chose to lecture me about a discussion regarding behavior I don't even engage in. The Rev. did, though. Can I take this post to suggest that you think that his behavior was sick? If so, why is he a "poor man" as you described earlier?

I can't believe that anyone who has supposedly reached a higher level of intellect would expend so much energy and time over a person's sexual proclivities when there are so many other more important things to talk about. we got your point from your first post. You needn't have gone into such explicit and perverse details.

The details aren't perverse. you think the behavior is perverse. All I did was answer someone else's question. Why don't you rant at them for asking? They could've ansered the questions, too. I also don't see what intelligence has to do with anything. I didn't make a point with my first post, I asked some questions. I wasn't even trolling for a debate--read my response to Moose. Did I disagree with anything he wrote, or attempt to debate him on anything? No.

 

Your obsession over this ridiculous story when you could be using your brain to expound on other more critical issues is disheartening. You are as guilty of throwing stones and being morally judgemental, no matter how subtly, as any religious fundamentalist in here.

Yes, I do think that hypocrisy is immoral. Most people think so, too. I am not making any judgements about his sexual behavior at all. As I have written previously, while I think what he was doing was undoubtedly dangerous, it wasn't "wrong" or "immoral." I don't even think that it was "sick" as you so describe. So what stones am I throwing? Also, what I choose to think about and learn about it my business, right? If you don't like it, don't read the thread. See how easy that is? beyond that, why take the time to criticize me on how I choose to spend my free time? Why did you take so much time out of your life to express your disgust at me?

[Moai]

One reason he is doing it is because he believes this Reverend's actions are representative of the faith as a whole

No, I don't and nowhere did I say I did. In fact, one of the reasons that I asked the questions I did is because I am under the impression that most Christians would consider his behavior immoral. But I am just guessing, so I thought I would ask. I have written repeatedly that I do not view this event as an indictment of the Christian religion in general. I know it makes you happy to think that I do, but I don't. As far as how he was found, I only think that was representative of rubber fetishists and those who enjoy restricted breathing.

I wonder if the US prison system is representative of the US in general.

Uh-huh.

He also believes that salvation is a group activity. If the Reverend is damned, so is his flock.

No, I don't. Either you have diffculty reading English for meaning, or you are discussing someone else. In fact, my opinion about salvation is irrelevant to this thread.

In actuality, it is an individual effort. They will look for a replacement.

And yet again, it is better to discuss me than to discuss the hypocrisy invovled, the lying, or anything else that the Rev. did that directly effects those to whom he preached, it is better to discuss me and what I have written. [sarcasm]I am shocked.[/sarcasm]