Holy Jesus!
[SIZE="5"]Haggard leaves posts amid gay-sex scandal...[/SIZE]
Former male escort says he, pastor had 3-year relationship.
A Colorado Springs-based giant of the conservative Christian movement, with direct access to President Bush, stepped down Thursday as leader of the National Association of Evangelicals in the wake of allegations by a former male escort that the two had a three-year sexual relationship.
The Rev. Ted Haggard also took leave as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church he founded in his living room in 1985.Haggard said in a statement he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
He said he would step down to allow the church to carry out an investigation and so that he could "seek both spiritual advice and guidance." His three-paragraph statement contained no denial of the allegations by 49-year-old Mike Jones, of Denver.
Jones, a bodybuilder and personal trainer, went public with a general claim of a sexual affair with a prominent pastor on Peter Boyles' morning talk show on KHOW radio Wednesday, but neither he nor Haggard was identified. KUSA's 9News first reported Haggard's and Jones' names Wednesday night.
Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that "I've never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife."
But KKTV in Colorado Springs reported that New Life Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley told a meeting of church elders Thursday night that Haggard had met with the church's overseers earlier in the day and "had admitted to some indiscretions."
Developing...No big surprise to those who know the nature of hypocrisy.
Another one bites the dust - He'll be back in a couple years and the same people who followed him will be falling all over themselves to give him their money.
Sick, sick is what it is. All these guys who say they are preaching the word of GOD are just in it for the money - period.
As exciting as the story is to you, there was really no need to blaspheme.
"Blaspheme"? Who? What? Where?
This should knock the Kerry fiasco out of the headlines, anyway.
Praise the Lord and pass the Astro-Glide?
As exciting as the story is to you, there was really no need to blaspheme.
Or reason not to.
Or reason not to.
Other than simple respect and courtesy, which vanishes whenever someone gets a chance to mock faith. What if the title was, "Hypocrite fags hang one of their own out to dry"? After all, it's considered reprehensible to out someone against their will. Such a title would be seen (rightfully so) as not only unnecessarily rude, but would be roundly denounced as an unfair judgement of an entire group of people over the actions of one, or a few.
It's only 2 words, but the context is loaded with mockery and derision for a large group of people who don't deserve it. Stealing a page from the judgemental Jesus freaks when it suits us, eh?
Being disrespectful towards others doesn't generally encourage special treatment in return.
When have I been disrespectful on this issue? When did simple courtesy become special treatment? At any rate, your post doesn't answer mine, it strengthens my argument.
I don't believe in blasphemy.
I don't believe in tree spirits, but I don't mock them out of respect for the pagans on this board.
This kind of thing is wrong, and every attempt to make it not wrong looks increasingly simpleminded.
Tree spirits are a dumb idea.
But at least they're frequently drawn as seminude attractive women.
Just hope, HM, that the tree spirits either don't think you are a dumb idea, or have already gone to their winter's rest.
blasphemy is mrnoodle's asshole button
Just hope, HM, that the tree spirits either don't think you are a dumb idea, or have already gone to their winter's rest.
I bet they wouldn't surf the net, anyway.
Animal rights is my asshole button, if I have the definition right. As far as the religious issue, I just want the same courtesy I try to give others (most of the time), and it's impossible. Being white, male, and Christian, I have no recourse to force it, but I can keep asking.
Save your 'omg lol he feels persecuted' comebacks, I don't feel oppressed or whatever. I am not going to stop pointing out the discrepancy whenever I see it, though. Eventually I'll get a response that acknowledges the issue and admits that there is a double standard, then I'll be happy.
When have I been disrespectful on this issue?
I never said you were. I was referring to the institution of Christianity, not to any individual person.
When did simple courtesy become special treatment?
I never said it did. What I call expecting special treatment is: expecting more courtesy than is extended.
At any rate, your post doesn't answer mine, it strengthens my argument.
Is this like: I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off my argument and sticks to yours?
Eventually I'll get a response that acknowledges the issue and admits that there is a double standard, then I'll be happy.
I acknowledge that you are observing something, and your view of it differs fundamentally from mine. I accept your opinion, and disagree with it.
And I raise you a tsk tsk
Is blasphemy a posh word for blowme?
LIKE MANY PASTORS, the Rev. Ted Haggard has a packed schedule,
including four worship services on Sunday, counseling sessions with church members, and radio commercials promoting the Scriptures. But in his Palm Pilot, next to an electronic copy of the Bible, Mr. Haggard has one Monday appointment that stands out: "3 p.m.: White House." It's a weekly conference call Mr. Haggard dials into that's led by Tim Goeglein, the White House's liaison to the conservative community, and includes prominent religious leaders. "We have direct access," says Mr. Haggard, senior pastor of the giant New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I can call [Mr. Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me in 24 hours."
more...
How did he find the time to have a 3 year affair with a male prostitute and will the White House still get back to him in 24 hours?
OMG, this guy is going to go slowly. He just claimed that he did buy meth, but that he threw it out. Right, that's what people do with meth, they just buy it and throw it out.
HM, do you mean that animal rights activists piss you off, or do you spend your weekends picketing by research labs and shampoo companies?
HM, do you mean that animal rights activists piss you off, or do you spend your weekends picketing by research labs and shampoo companies?
Thread hijack but I'm not sure what threads you watch - but post a video of yourself 9th, please! You're one of my favourite dissenting "voices" :grinnylov
I never said you were. I was referring to the institution of Christianity, not to any individual person.
Institutions can't act, only people. By saying that "Christians do
blah blah blah", you include me, an individual Christian, in your statement. I understand that you don't accept my definition of Christian, however.
I never said it did. What I call expecting special treatment is: expecting more courtesy than is extended.
If you make fun of my God, knowing that I find it offensive, it is discourteous. Not illegal, not oppressive, just discourteous.
Is this like: I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off my argument and sticks to yours?
No, it's like perpetually reframing the question so that you never have to answer it. Here it is again, in extended form, and with specific example:
If I walked into a room where I knew, in advance, that among the crowd were 5 Hindi, and I wore a big red dot on my forehead, loudly told Ghandi jokes, and asked where the monkey brains were, would I be considered rude? Keep in mind that we all have the right to be there, and it is neutral territory, so no particular group has a right over the others.
If I walked into the same room, and knew there were 5 Christians, would it not be considered
less rude if I loudly said "Jesus effing Christ, that guy is a goddam idiot."?
Why?
HM, do you mean that animal rights activists ...
(That wasn't me, it was mrnoodle.)
I bet Dubya got his salad tossed.
If I walked into a room where I knew, in advance, that among the crowd were 5 Hindi, and I wore a big red dot on my forehead, loudly told Ghandi jokes, and asked where the monkey brains were, would I be considered rude? Keep in mind that we all have the right to be there, and it is neutral territory, so no particular group has a right over the others.
If I walked into the same room, and knew there were 5 Christians, would it not be considered less rude if I loudly said "Jesus effing Christ, that guy is a goddam idiot."?
Why?
Of course it would. The former is direct insults, and the latter is saying a "bad word" in a way that the vast majority of exclamations in the English language are derived from.
I saw a video on YouTube recently with him threatening all "the gays".
I gotta' find that again.
...
This screenshot is so depressing on so many levels.
That soooo sounds like a suspension system for a 1967 Buick.
Of course it would. The former is direct insults, and the latter is saying a "bad word" in a way that the vast majority of exclamations in the English language are derived from.
The former is a direct insult because you know that's how it would be received. The latter is no different, but it's okay to offend Christians, because to consciously not do so would be somehow inhibiting to you.
side note:
lol someone accused you of being me :D One of us should be miffed.
Not even close. If I knew any Hindi "bad words", I wouldn't be any more averse to using them than I would "take the Lord's name in vain", except insofar as it feels sorta artificial to use a foreign curse word.
Why should I "respect" religion? Any religion?
That is a good question.
I may not respect a religion, but one may want to try not to intentionally offend its followers unnecessarily.
but one may want to try not to intentionally offend its followers unnecessarily.
I can't say if the original intent was to offend. I think it was to be ironic. And "Holy Jesus" is fairly common in vernacular ussage. I usually hold my tongue. When I didn't as a kid, my mom litterally put soap in my mouth. Maybe THAT is why I'm an atheist.
I did not say you did... just my criteria. I'm not always very good at it.
I was responding to the "Why not be blasphemous" (or however it went) post, not directly to the title of the thread.
I'm not talking about respecting religion, but respecting people. I'll shut up now, because it's clear that my point will not be acknowledged for what it is.
Pizza for dinner tonight :D :p:
It's OK mr. noodle. I'll acknowlege your point.
I kinda love everybody right now...don't know why...just a feeling.
I don't think there is such a thing as blasphemy.
I kinda love everybody right now...don't know why...just a feeling.
Me too, could be the booze though. I'm very gay for the cellar tonight.
OMG, this guy is going to go slowly. He just claimed that he did buy meth, but that he threw it out. Right, that's what people do with meth, they just buy it and throw it out.
If Jesus told him to buy it and then throw it out, that makes it alright.
I never said you were. I was referring to the institution of Christianity, not to any individual person.
That's exactly the problem. you cast aspersions on billions of people because of what one asshole did. :rolleyes:
OMG, this guy is going to go slowly. He just claimed that he did buy meth, but that he threw it out. Right, that's what people do with meth, they just buy it and throw it out.
Well you see,the masseuse told him how it improved his sexual prowess so the Rev bought some. But when his wife said she wasn't taking it up the ass, he threw it away.:cool:
That's exactly the problem. you cast aspersions on billions of people because of what one asshole did.
No, I don't. I understand that you'll always take it that way, but that doesn't change what I mean. I don't hold Christianity as beyond criticism, where it is deserved. That's what I would have to do in order to satisfy your conditions that nothing bad ever be said about Christianity under any circumstance whatsoever. I'm not gonna play that game. Sorry.
Institutions can't act, only people. By saying that "Christians do blah blah blah", you include me, an individual Christian, in your statement.
Same as above goes for you. Deal with it. You choose to be part of a diverse group, and label yoruself with that group affiliation. Not my fault.
Edit: By the way, you'll notice I never said "Christians do
blah blah blah" - I said Christianity. The Institution. To clarify your misunderstanding.
Astro-Glide That soooo sounds like a suspension system for a 1967 Buick.
Astro was Chevy.:lol:
Why should I "respect" religion? Any religion?
Because some of them will cut your head off, if you don't. :worried:
...because it's clear that my point will not be acknowledged for what it is...
I've noticed, in several of your posts, that you attribute people not agreeing with you to them not understanding or acknowledging your point.
You have to admit, sometimes people just disagree.
Well you see,the masseuse told him how it improved his sexual prowess so the Rev bought some. But when his wife said she wasn't taking it up the ass, he threw it away.:cool:
You mean "giving" it to him up the ass.
I'm with Flint about the INSTITUTION of Christianity not being christianity, or christians, or anything, in the same way that the White House is not America.
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]Hand Check![/COLOR][/SIZE]
No, I don't. I understand that you'll always take it that way, but that doesn't change what I mean. I don't hold Christianity as beyond criticism, where it is deserved. That's what I would have to do in order to satisfy your conditions that nothing bad ever be said about Christianity under any circumstance whatsoever. I'm not gonna play that game. Sorry.
What you do is blame Christianity for the actions of individual people or religions. If you have a problem with some part (or all of) the Roman Catholic Religion, you say Christianity. Same with the Baptist Religion, or Lutheran, et al. That's not right. When you say Christian or Christianity that includes(unfairly) everyone. :cool:
I've explained what I mean by Christian, countless times. It's the obvious definition.
You mean "giving" it to him up the ass.
I don't know if he thought it would give him, or her, the prowess.
As exciting as the story is to you, there was really no need to blaspheme.
I wonder what is blasphemy? My ironic thread title, or the incredible hypocrite behavior of a President of 20,000,000 christians in the US and A? Or for instance catholic priests fondling around with kids, of which I'm certain has only been shown a tip of the iceberg? Grapes are sour, Wolf?
You mean "giving" it to him up the ass.
According Haggard's lover they had only sex one time. Usually they performed oral sex.... oops... massage.
Watched Haggard answering questions in his car, his wife sitting next to him. Felt sorry for her, being married an sitting next to such a creep.
If Jesus told him to buy it and then throw it out, that makes it alright.
That's called a price support, its part of the Republican agenda.
I wonder what is blasphemy? My ironic thread title, or the incredible hypocrite behavior of a President of 20,000,000 christians in the US and A?
Who are you talking about? :question:
Who are you talking about? :question:
According Haggard´s own
website:
[COLOR="Blue"]"Pastor Ted Haggard is the president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the largest evangelical group in America."[/COLOR]
Sorry, I was wrong, it wasn´t 20 Mio but 30 Mio.
Who do you thought I was talking about, Merl Haggard?
I didn't know if you were talking about Haggard or Bush. All you said was president of 20 million christians in the US.
As an aside, don't be fooled into thinking more than 10% of those 30 million people he purports to represent, even knew his name before the shit hit the fan. :lol:
From
here:
How close was Haggard to the White House?
Tim Grieve of Salon talk to Lauren Sandler, the author of "Righteous: Dispatches From the Evangelical Youth Movement," who reports: "Haggard participates -- or at least he did -- in weekly White House conference calls, and he and the president like to joke that the only thing they disagree on is what truck to drive."
..and where to get top quality illegal drugs.
From
here.
In case you were wondering, yesterday the White House trotted out traveling press aide Tony Fratto to field questions about Ted Haggard. Here's the exchange:
Q This Reverend Haggard out in Colorado, is he someone who is close to the White House? There had been reports that he was on the weekly call with evangelicals. Is that true?
MR. FRATTO: I'm actually told that that's not true, that he has -- in terms of a weekly call that he has? He had been on a couple of calls, but was not a weekly participant in those calls. I believe he's been to the White House one or two times. I don't want to confine it to a specific number because it would take a while to figure out how many times. But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House, and --
Q -- when was he at the White House?
MR. FRATTO: I couldn't tell you specifically. I know that there was a picture of him with the President in one of the TV reports, so obviously he met with the President at some point in time.
And so Rev. Haggard joins a growing list of people, like Jack Abramoff, who have been to the White House, but who, according to the White House, haven't really
been to the White House. Not in any..er..strict definition of the word been.
Watching the White House try to define the word 'visit' is almost as much fun as watching Clinton try to define the word 'sex'. And if 10 minutes after the scandal broke, Josh Bolten and Karl Rove didn't have an exact list of the dates of each of Haggard's visits, I'd be personally shocked.
I've been to that city, I know it like the back of my hand........ New Life was a thorn in everyone's side and the "Brotherhood" was just as obnoxious. Here Here and cheers. They were intolerant haters which is why the story is so interesting. I guess they are their own example. Do not judge lest you be...... They fought equal rights campaigns as well (showing their politics) and should have their tax rights revoked as well.
I guess their hate and intolerance is not as strong as I had thought. Someone there likes a gay person......
Yes, at least one and probably more in the closet.
But notice as soon as it was public, he had to bail.....they're intolerant of him, too. They don't need no stinkin tolerance.:rolleyes:
Tolerance is for people who don't hold The Truth (tm). People holding The Truth (tm) can be complete asshats, because they're Believers.
Having The Almighty vouching for your prejudices is pretty handy at times.
Tolerance is for people who don't hold The Truth (tm). People holding The Truth (tm) can be complete asshats, because they're Believers.
Having The Almighty vouching for your prejudices is pretty handy at times.
The fundamental concept of
The Truth (tm) (as a blanket justification/excuse) is so offensive, it makes me wonder how Christians can be so "offended" by people not "respecting" them. After all, I am
burning in hell for all eternity, according to what they believe. What could be more offensive than that? :::Pot/Kettle:::
The truth takes away excuses, it doesn't provide them. I'm with you on many many points that you've made about hypocrisy, etc. But like xoB said, when one (or several) people fail to live up to their own standards, their personal hypocrisy is to blame. It's not an indictment of the belief system. It's the individual's failure to live up to the tenets of the belief system that is the whole problem. The Truth(tm) is what it is. That's why it's so obvious when someone's not living up to it.
How many times have you seen someone with the little Jesus fish thingie on their car drive like a maniac and put someone in danger? The first thought that crosses my mind is, "Oh yeah, real Christian, that." I imagine the non-Christian's reaction is similar. Why? Because somewhere inside you, you are aware of what The Truth(tm) is supposed to mean, and you are seeing it being trampled on by someone displaying a public advertisement for it.
Right, Christianity doesn't have any definable characteristics when you say something bad about it, only when you say something good about it.
For some people there's something more important than Truth(tm) and that's POWER®
Una vez mas:
Christianity means following Christ, it's not open to personal interpretation. If you say something "bad" about Christianity, it must be weighed against that fact. If you say that Christianity is about pushing gays down flights of stairs, you must say that Christ would have pushed gays down flights of stairs. If it's not true, it is not "Christian" by definition. Someone calling themself Christian cannot assign his or her non-Christian actions to Christianity; he or she must take full responsibility for them.
Haggard bought dope from and engaged in sex with a prostitute. Christ would not have done so. That means that Haggard failed to live up to Christ-like standards, not that Christ-like standards are faulty.
For some people there's something more important than Truth(tm) and that's POWER®
Haggard seems to be a case in point. But not all 30 million people who belong to the same organization as him.
Christianity means following Christ, it's not open to personal interpretation.
Again, there are two definitions of Christianity, the the on-paper definition, and the observable-in-reality definition.
If by "definition" you mean "whatever I want it to mean," yes.
No, I mean whatever you want it to mean. If you say you're a Christian I have no reason to doubt you.
No, I mean whatever you want it to mean. If you say you're a Christian I have no reason to doubt you.
[SIZE=1]That's how feel about definitions of gods.[/SIZE]
...How many times have you seen someone with the little Jesus fish thingie on their car drive like a maniac and put someone in danger? The first thought that crosses my mind is, "Oh yeah, real Christian, that." ...
If the Christian-ness of this person wasn't being advertised, it would make things more palatable. If people who displayed the fish weren't so ready to try to make everyone behave as they think people should behave, it would make things more palatable. If the Christian actually behaved the way he wants to force everyone else to behave, it would make things more palatable.
[SIZE=1]That's how feel about definitions of gods.[/SIZE]
I must know: did you mean to say "I" or "you"
???Everybody knows fish can't drive. It's better to just back off when you see them advertising it. :fish: :bolt:
I must know: did you mean to say "I" or "you" ???
I.
I'm with Flint about the INSTITUTION of Christianity not being christianity, or christians, or anything, in the same way that the White House is not America.
Not an original idea. He's posted that thought probably 500 times as have so many others. Just because others arn't stating the obvious dosn't make them oblivious to that redundant truth.
Not an original idea. He's posted that thought probably 500 times as have so many others. Just because others arn't stating the obvious dosn't make them oblivious to that redundant truth.
I would hope so, considering how blatantly anti-Christian, most of the "Institutions of Christianity" are. Just the fact that they've done more to harm the teachings of Christ than anyone.:(