Evangelical leader quits after gay sex allegation

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The media and others have done a good job equating "evangelical" with "fundamentalist" (in the radical sense).

The public in general (and many Christians, for that matter), have forgotten what fundamentalism originally meant, I think. It's another word that has become so amorphous, and sometimes coded, that one has to be careful with it.

Of course, a similar observation could be made about "evangelical," which originally simply meant Protestant, especially Lutheran Protestants as opposed to Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants or Anabaptists.

A more realistic portrayal of a evangelical leader, and one who is more conservative than the average evangelical Christian, is Dr. James Dobson.

Though I wouldn't be classified as an "evangelical Christian" as that term is usually used (and as I understand you to be using it), I think you're right.

[DeltAlum]

This from AP:

"The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station."

Here is a DeltAlum opinion -- for whatever anything may think it's worth.

To coin a phrase, "Power Corrupts."

That's true of some politicians, many chief executives and other high ranking officials, and even powerful religious leaders.

As people become more powerful and influential, they begin to believe that they are not subject to the same standards as we simple mortals -- some even believe they are above the law.

The fact that Haggard is a minister/spiritual leader, and even more, leader of a huge organization certainly makes it more shocking. In reality, misdeeds are not uncommon -- even among people at this level. Look at some of the recent (and past) political scandals.

A final comment on the man who brought the situation to light. It has been said above (by me among others) that he might have a political agenda, given the timing of these charges. To his credit, he admits it. He heard that Rev. Haggard was leading efforts in several states against gay marriage and other gay rights bills/amendments.

Again, this is an opinion, but it seems to me that the difference here is that the guy has little to gain personally, with the exception of what he feels is right for the gay community. He isn't running for office or supporting any candidate.

To me, that seems to make a difference.

[shinerbock]

I really don't care whether its political or not, if he did it, he did it. However, I don't think this guy who got paid to have sex with him is advancing any noble cause here. He's filth too.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I really don't care whether its political or not, if he did it, he did it. However, I don't think this guy who got paid to have sex with him is advancing any noble cause here. He's filth too.

I don't recall commenting on his "cause."

Perhaps, since you don't know either man, you might want to label you "filth" comment as opinion as well.

I suspect there may be some people on these boards who might not choose to use that word.

[AlphaFrog]

I would suspect that a gay prostitute fits many people's definitions of "filth".

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I would suspect that a gay prostitute fits many people's definitions of "filth".

Probably even most peoples opinion. Even mine. But not everyone.

And, is a "gay" prostitute morally worse than any other prostitute?

Both are sins. Where in any religious teaching are levels of sin defined?

Or are we talking opinions again?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Where in any religious teaching are levels of sin defined?

Catholicism.

See also: Mortal and Venial.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Probably even most peoples opinion. Even mine. But not everyone.

And, is a "gay" prostitute morally worse than any other prostitute?

Both are sins. Where in any religious teaching are levels of sin defined?

Or are we talking opinions again?

Catholicism I believe.


And what is your deal with these "opinion" disclaimers. Shut up, its a message board. I'm pretty sure that most people on this forum with half a brain would realize that Shinerbock is posting his opinion when he calls a guy getting hired to have gay sex with a guy....."filth." When he says something and writes "in my book".....that is more than likely an opinion. Being a journalist, I would expect you to know that.

[shinerbock]

Well, if you cheat on your wife with a man, in my book, you're a crappy person. If you have sex for money and then go to the press about it, you're probably not of the highest moral level either. Granted, we all have faults, we all fail, but some do it on a larger and more damaging scale.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well, if you cheat on your wife with a man, in my book, you're a crappy person. If you have sex for money and then go to the press about it, you're probably not of the highest moral level either. Granted, we all have faults, we all fail, but some do it on a larger and more damaging scale.

So, cheating with another woman is okay? And, no, you did not explicitly say that, but it was implied.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

So, cheating with another woman is okay? And, no, you did not explicitly say that, but it was implied.

Well, the topic is on gay sex......so, does he really have to comment on cheating with another woman?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

So, cheating with another woman is okay? And, no, you did not explicitly say that, but it was implied.

No, it was inferred. Nothing about the statement implied that a married man cheating with a woman was okay.

It was an inference that the two examples given by shinerbock, both directly related to the subject matter of the thread, were exclusive rather than illustrative. In light of the context of this thread -- the accusations concerning Haggard -- it was an unwarranted inference.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well, if you cheat on your wife with a man, in my book, you're a crappy person. If you have sex for money and then go to the press about it, you're probably not of the highest moral level either. Granted, we all have faults, we all fail, but some do it on a larger and more damaging scale.

So, does that part I've made bold mean that you're stating an opinion -- or are you the moral leader for all of us?

[shinerbock]

Delt, most everything I said is opinion, I don't see what your deal is.

Lane, no cheating on your wife with a woman is pretty crappy as well, it just happens to be more personally revolting when its with a man...I imagine it wrecks families even worse as well, but you're right, they're both terrible.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Here is a DeltAlum opinion -- for whatever anything may think it's worth.

To coin a phrase, "Power Corrupts."

That's true of some politicians, many chief executives and other high ranking officials, and even powerful religious leaders.

As people become more powerful and influential, they begin to believe that they are not subject to the same standards as we simple mortals -- some even believe they are above the law.

The following is a link to a story in this mornings Rocky Mountain News...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...118233,00.html

Interesting.