mulls Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1109894' date='Nov 3 2006, 02:28 PM'] Hmmm... really? That sort of surprises me, actually... [/quote] me too. i'm usually pretty up to date on the who's who of the evangelical world. but i think that's mostly when it comes to things like i care about, like missions work and theology. this guy seems like politics is one of his main things, and i'm not much into politics.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 It will be interesting to see if his treatment by the press would be any different than if he were a priest.
KizlarAgha Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109973' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:35 PM'] It will be interesting to see if his treatment by the press would be any different than if he were a priest. [/quote] It will be. He's the head of his own little institution, not a member of the world's second largest religion in its own right.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 pray for this guy: Evangelist Admits Meth, Massage, No Sex Nov 03 2:34 PM US/Eastern By CATHERINE TSAI Associated Press Writer COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. Evangelist Ted Haggard admitted Friday that he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the outspoken gay marriage opponent. Haggard resigned Thursday as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and stepped down as leader of his Colorado megachurch while the two groups investigate the allegations. Talking to reporters outside his house Friday, Haggard denied the sex allegations but said that he did buy meth from the man because he was curious. "I bought it for myself but never used it," he said. "I was tempted, but I never used it." Haggard, a married father of five, said he never had sex with Mike Jones, a 49-year-old male prostitute who sparked the scandal when he told a radio station he had had a three-year sexual relationship with the minister. He said he did get a massage from Jones after being referred to him by a Denver hotel. Haggard resigned as president of the 30 million-member association Thursday and stepped down as the leader of the New Life Church pending investigations into Jones' claims. The executive committee of the National Association of Evangelicals, which claims 30 million members, planned a conference call Friday and said it would release a statement afterward. The acting pastor of Haggard's New Life Church, Ross Parsley, told congregants in an e-mail that the church's four-member board of overseers had met with Haggard on Thursday. "It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation," the e-mail stated. The scandal hit as voters in Colorado and seven other states are getting ready to decide Tuesday on amendments banning gay marriage. Besides the proposed ban on the Colorado ballot, a separate measure would establish the legality of domestic partnerships providing same- sex couples with many of the rights of married couples. Members of Haggard's 14,000-member megachurch were stunned. "It's political, right before the elections," said Brian Boals, a New Life member for 17 years. Church member E.J. Cox, 25, called the claims "ridiculous." "People are always saying stuff about Pastor Ted," she said. "You just sort of blow it off. He's just like anyone else in the public eye." Jones said he decided to go public because he was also upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same- sex marriage. "It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," he said. "I just want people to step back and take a look and say, 'Look, we're all sinners, we all have faults, but if two people want to get married, just let them, and let them have a happy life,'" said Jones, who added that he isn't working for any political group. Jones claimed that Haggard, 50, paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. He said he advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and was contacted by a man who called himself Art, who snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience. Jones said he later saw the man on television identified as Haggard and that the two last had sex in August. He said he has voice mail messages from Haggard, as well as an envelope he said Haggard used to mail him cash. He declined to make the voice mails available to the AP, but KUSA-TV reported what it said were excerpts late Thursday that referred to methamphetamine. "Hi Mike, this is Art," one call began, according to the station. "Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply." A second message, left a few hours later, began: "Hi Mike, this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever." Haggard was appointed president of the evangelicals association in March 2003. He has participated in conservative Christian leaders' conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied members of Congress last year on U.S. Supreme Court appointees after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, Haggard and others began organizing state-by-state opposition. Last year, Haggard and officials from the nearby Christian ministry Focus on the Family announced plans to push Colorado's gay marriage ban for the 2006 ballot. At the time, Haggard said that he believed marriage is a union between a man and woman rooted in centuries of tradition, and that research shows it's the best family unit for children.
mulls Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1109973' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:35 PM'] It will be interesting to see if his treatment by the press would be any different than if he were a priest. [/quote] do you know of a specific incident with a priest possibly having a homosexual affair with another man? because it would make for an interesting study. but i don't think one could compare this to child molestation, if that's what you are referring to. there will always be more outrage when a child is involved in a crime/scandal, as opposed to a consenting adult.
kujo Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 I dunno if this will be modded or cause scandal. I live in Florida, but I have friends in Colorado Springs who go to this New Life Church. I've been to this guy's congregation and seen the fruits of his ministry. He seems like a strong man of God who desires to do what is holy. However, he did always seem to be a little off. I'm not saying that I thought he was gay, but I always thought there was something...off. I can't explain it. But my friend's mom said she thought he was gay. Just my thoughts..
kamiller42 Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 The story gets more confusing. The accuser, who still refuses to hand over his evidence, fails a lie detector test. Haggard, who initially denied all charges, admits buying drugs from Jones, which leads to more questions. How did the two meet? How did Haggard know the guy sold this kind of stuff? Haggard says he bought it once out of curiosity and threw it away, but apparently voice mails show he pursued it more than once. Why again? This story is politics. The devil gains strength through division. The democrats are looking to fracture the base. Smut peddler Larry Flynt promised to do this to republicans by exposing them. Larry and the democrats, your tails are showing. A sad story. If anyone doubts the devil is real, just look at his works.
Anomaly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='kujo' post='1109988' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:52 PM'] I dunno if this will be modded or cause scandal. I live in Florida, but I have friends in Colorado Springs who go to this New Life Church. I've been to this guy's congregation and seen the fruits of his ministry. He seems like a strong man of God who desires to do what is holy. However, he did always seem to be a little off. I'm not saying that I thought he was gay, but I always thought there was something...off. I can't explain it. But my friend's mom said she thought he was gay. Just my thoughts.. [/quote]You live in Florida? What Diocese?
KizlarAgha Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='kamiller42' post='1109995' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:06 PM'] The story gets more confusing. The accuser, who still refuses to hand over his evidence, fails a lie detector test. Haggard, who initially denied all charges, admits buying drugs from Jones, which leads to more questions. How did the two meet? How did Haggard know the guy sold this kind of stuff? Haggard says he bought it once out of curiosity and threw it away, but apparently voice mails show he pursued it more than once. Why again? This story is politics. The devil gains strength through division. The democrats are looking to fracture the base. Smut peddler Larry Flynt promised to do this to republicans by exposing them. Larry and the democrats, your tails are showing. A sad story. If anyone doubts the devil is real, just look at his works. [/quote] Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal.
kamiller42 Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) [quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1109997' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:08 PM'] Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal. [/quote] Because someone partook of illicit activities makes the activity "normal" is an intellectually vacant statement. Edited November 3, 2006 by kamiller42
KizlarAgha Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='kamiller42' post='1110001' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:13 PM'] Because someone partook of illicit activities makes the activity "normal" is an intellectually vapid statement. [/quote] There's nothing illicit about gay sex.
kujo Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1109996' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:07 PM'] You live in Florida? What Diocese? [/quote] I go to UCF, so I am in the Orlando Diocese. But I grew up in South Florida, in the Archdiocese of Miami.
kamiller42 Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110002' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:13 PM'] There's nothing illicit about gay sex. [/quote] Your position is because some participated in an action, the action is therefore "normal." That's is ludicrous. The mere occurrence of an event does not determine the rightness or wrongness of the event. By your rationale, there should be nothing declared unethical as to avoid scandal.
KizlarAgha Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) [quote name='kamiller42' post='1110010' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:22 PM'] Your position is because some participated in an action, the action is therefore "normal." That's is ludicrous. The mere occurrence of an event does not determine the rightness or wrongness of the event. By your rationale, there should be nothing declared unethical as to avoid scandal. [/quote] You said an illicit action is not made licit by the relative frequency of its occurrence. Logically, that's true, but it isn't the case in terms of actual practice. What is common behavior inevitably is either always considered legal or is legalized, or it is ignored by the judiciary to the extent that the proscribed punishments no longer hold. Secondly, gay sex is not illicit, that is to say, unlawful. I should add, there are several proofs for my argument, the most famous being prohibition. Others include blue laws against public displays of affection or opening businesses on Sunday. Edited November 3, 2006 by KizlarAgha
kamiller42 Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110011' date='Nov 3 2006, 03:26 PM'] You said an illicit action is not made licit by the relative frequency of its occurrence. Logically, that's true, but it isn't the case in terms of actual practice. What is common behavior inevitably is either always considered legal or is legalized, or it is ignored by the judiciary to the extent that the proscribed punishments no longer hold. Secondly, gay sex is not illicit, that is to say, unlawful. [/quote] I say illicit because that's my opinion of the action. I know it's not yours, but that wasn't the point of your original message. You called it "normal" implying the frequency of occurrence determines the ethics of an action. That is simply wrong. You believe whatever lawful is ethically sound. Whatever is unlawful is unethical. Are you arguing civil law defines ethics?
KizlarAgha Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='kamiller42' post='1110016' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:31 PM'] I say illicit because that's my opinion of the action. I know it's not yours, but that wasn't the point of your original message. You called it "normal" implying the frequency of occurrence determines the ethics of an action. That is simply wrong. You believe whatever lawful is ethically sound. Whatever is unlawful is unethical. Are you arguing civil law defines ethics? [/quote] No. I'm arguing civil law is defined by what the consenus of the nation believes to be normal behavior. Drinking alcohol is normal behavior, but that doesn't mean it is ethical or unethical, however it does mean that it's legal. I think we'll eventually go the way of Holland and legalize drugs or prostitution as well, but I'm not going to comment on the ethics of that. As to my statement, I said: Or maybe it just goes to show that homosexuality is perfectly normal and they should stop pathologizing it - then there wouldn't be any scandal. Pathologize means: to view or characterize as medically or psychologically abnormal So I'm saying something that is normal should be viewed as something normal. Not that it should be viewed as something moral. That was simply your interpretation of my statement.
Winchester Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 I believe he mean morally illicit, which is a term common even in moral theology books where the audience can be assumed to be aimed in the same general direction.
Katholikos Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 [quote name='RC_' post='1110013' date='Nov 3 2006, 04:28 PM'] It goes against God's law, ergo it is illicit. [/quote]The parts don't fit. Ergo, it was not intended by the Creator and is disordered. =================== Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now