Comments on: Update on Ted Haggard

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:27:33 +0000

He’ll probably start a lucrative “ministry” to gays who want to go straight.

Yeah. And with all those young, confused and vulnerable gay men around he’ll probably be able to get some action back in the, uh, rectory.

By: Darryl

Darryl — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:27:37 +0000

He’ll do a book, go on the lecture circuit, and do some talks shows. He’ll probably start a lucrative “ministry” to gays who want to go straight. He can remain a fundamentalist gay-hater and still make a good living as a hypocrite.

By: Metro

Metro — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:34:29 +0000

Haggard deserves all the thumping he gets. He roared from the pulpit about the immorality of gays for years, contributing to the reflexive fear and loathing various alleged Christians bring to their relationships with the world.

He can’t come out. He’s an adulterous drug-using bisexual, possibly homo. His stamp of Christianity can’t accept that. But they might let him back in if he can stuff himself far enough back into the closet and spend the rest of his life preaching his loathing for people who are just like him.

Fortunately, if he remains a devoted Republican he’ll have plenty of company–it’s a very crowded closet.

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:45:36 +0000

If you remember, the original scandal also included methamphetamine use. I’ve heard nothing about that issue being a part of his “restoration.” Interest in drug use does not spontaneously go away any more than sexual orientation does. I hope for his sake that he has support in recovering from that. If not, eventually the poop will hit the propeller once again and we’ll have another summer’s worth of grim entertainment. As much as I find him despicable, I also find him pitiful. I don’t think he deserves to die that way.

By: James

James — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Yep…I smell a book deal. And a lucrative one at that.

By: kirk

kirk — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:51:09 +0000

I’m pretty certain he won’t come out and say he is a gay christian. His entire point will be that he was sinning and thanks to this program he went to he is cured of his gay-ways. The man out-right lied for years, to think he’s going to do the right thing now is ridiculous.

By: Jonsi

Jonsi — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:07:30 +0000

Yes, some early Christian sects were determined heresies, but that doesn’t mean those sects were less valid or less Christian than what became the orthodox church. To someone skeptical, if I’m supposed to accept that the other sects beliefs came from some people’s social values at the time, it’s more probable that many orthodox teachings were determined by social values as opposed to the word of God.

Who decided they were heretical? What was the evidence? By what standards and what authority? Were their differences — or heresies — any more significant than the spectrum of Christianity that exists today? Should Paul Tillich be labeled heretical and all of his books stolen from libraries and burned? Should Catholics persecute Pentecostals? Saying “it was determined to be heresy” reads “the people with more power didn’t like it because it challenged their authority” moreso than “the true word of God filled the hearts of the sects that lasted, which allowed them to endure while others perished.”

And it is a joke. Women complain all the time about not finding men who want to commit. “It’s not you, it’s me.” That is because — punchline — the only men left who actually want to commit are gay.

As for Hagard…I think the results would be mediocre. I do think you’d see other people in less fundamental positions coming out and saying “I too am gay.” I don’t feel it would reach the members of those organizations though; they would remain bigots.

By: Daniel Hoffman

Daniel Hoffman — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:39:42 +0000

Brief and to the point. I agree. I would add that this “convenient ignoring” may take the form of avoidance, outright rejection of some parts of the Scripture, or hermeneutical repositioning (denying that the Bible ever really taught that, or asserting that the understanding changes over time, or some such mechanism that permits face-saving for those who just have to be right).

Examples?

Many of the earliest Christians believed in marriage but believed sex should be abstained so that all humans can enter the spirit world and the second coming arrive more soon. Sex within marriage was allowed but discouraged.

Well, many early offshoots of Christianity such as that were quickly recognized as and declared to be heresies. And the BIble certainly teaches nothing like that.

Say all you want about the sanctity of marriage, but many heterosexual marriages are not for love.

Love is a duty in marriage, not necessarily the ground of it. That’s a relatively modern and western concept, and is probably why we have more divorces than ever. When feelings are the basis of marriage, when the feelings go, people bolt.

Besides, if you truly want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, you have to allow gay people to get married…they are the only males left in this country who actually want to get married.

Well, I’m a male who wants to get married, and so are a lot of my friends.

By: bradm

bradm — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:37:42 +0000

“If he just admits he’s gay and a Christian …”

Ummm, as far as I can tell, he’s bi-sexual.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:17:29 +0000

Jonsi said:
“many heterosexual marriages are not for love. Gay marriage truly is. Besides, if you truly want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, you have to allow gay people to get married…they are the only males left in this country who actually want to get married.”

The only males left? Please tell me you’re joking, right?