president of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals is gay

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ted Haggard

who?

First and foremost, if he did what was claimed, he should admit it and repent and God will restore him.

Second, accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained. 

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

If the witness has evidence (voice messages, etc), then the evidence can act as a second witness.  But, as a church member, I would demand the evidence be presented before I would entertain this accusation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First and foremost, if he did what was claimed, he should admit it and repent and God will restore him.

Second, accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained. 

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

If the witness has evidence (voice messages, etc), then the evidence can act as a second witness.  But, as a church member, I would demand the evidence be presented before I would entertain this accusation.

Ross Parsley is the person that has taken over for Ted Haggard at his church. Hardly one accusation from one person at this point.

I guess you can't read: 

First and foremost, if he did what was claimed, he should admit it and repent and God will restore him.

If he is admitting it, then it is a done deal.

---

As for who Haggard is - he's the most influential evangelical in the country, he has weekly communications with the white house and leads by far the largest evangelical organization in the country.

yet, I have never heard of him

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That you know so little about the goings on in the evangelical world, and yet are a part of is, is hardly something I can correct.

correct?  How is it even a problem? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess you can't read: 

First and foremost, if he did what was claimed, he should admit it and repent and God will restore him.

Second, accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained. 

What does that say? "accusations made by one witness against anyone in the leadership of a church should not be entertained."

Thanks for your concern - I can read just fine.

Why do you argue and stumble over the simplest of concepts?

So far, there are only two witnesses:  the pastor and the prostitute.

If one witncess (the pastor) has agreed with some of the accusations the other witness (the prostitute) is making, then the case can move forward.  And since the accused is acting as a witness against himself, the case is over.

I am simply saying that if just one witness comes forward and accuses someone of doing something, I don't give it the time of day.  But if there are two witnesses, then I will entertain the accusation.  How is that a problem?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That you know so little about the goings on in the evangelical world, and yet are a part of is, is hardly something I can correct.

correct?  How is it even a problem? 

It's not a problem for me that you don't know the leaders that shape the movement of which you are a part.

LOL!   Since when did Haggard become my leader?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not your leader - a leader of the movement of which you are a part. Which he is - perhaps the most important one (from a political stand point).

I am part of a "movement"?  Gee, I never got that memo.

You don't have to be part of a "movement" to agree with others on an issue.

And these so-called leaders' opinion of Harriet Miers didn't stop people like me from writing the White House and my Senators and demanding that her nomination be withdrawn.

You underestimate the power of the individual.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Since Haggard has admitted it - why would you need to demand more evidence?

I didn't.  I am not even involved. 


---

What was the point you were trying to make with this post as it related to the the information in this thread?

Simply to demonstrate I don't agree with how this has been handled.  I would not have even questioned the pastor unless evidence was presented other than simply the word of a single person.

I would have dismissed the witness' testimony until he produced another witness, either in the form of an eyewitness or physical evidence.

Obviously, I don't have to worry about getting picked for jury duty.  For I would never convict a person based on the testimony of a single witness.  In such cases, I don't believe charges should even be pressed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ah, but if it wasn't for that one individual and the fact that people were willing to listen to him - unlike you are saying should be done - the full scope of this lunatics hypocricy would never be known. Ignorance may be bliss for some - but it never uncovered a truth or helped to solve a problem.

would never have been known?  The guy says he has tapes.  I simply would demand he produce the evidence (or another eyewitness) before I listened to him or even questioned the accused.

Why should I believe one person over another?  Why should I take a traffic cop's word over a motorist's?  How do I know that cop wasn't abusing his power?  The cop better produce some evidence that a person did what he is accusing, or else I am going to acquit the accused on the basis of lack of evidence. 

Like I said, I would never be picked for jury duty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You seem to be following the same formula used by the Catholics to solve their child sex problems.

So, you're saying that if someone accuses YOU of rape, I am to listen to them and remove you from power even though no evidence has been produced to back up the claim?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Haggard came down against Miers as well - I wonder who had more suck with the white house, you or Haggard? I wonder if the info you received about Miers that you found to be disturbing originated from the offices of Pastor Ted.

I don't know if Haggard's opinion evolved on Miers, but this is how it begun:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Haggard, this so-called leader, was NOT a leader in demanding Miers withdrawal.  And I very much believe it was millions of conservatives like myself, going ballistic from the very moment she was nominated, who turned the tide and got her nomination withdrawn.

Unlike Haggard, I didn’t want a milquetoast rubber stamping Christian on the SCOTUS.  I wanted someone who had excelled in constitutional law who was willing to adhere to the Constitution.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Look a page or so earlier in the thread - the person that took over his church said he confessed to at least a portion of the accusations, there's a link there as well.

That's hearsay, which is interesting, but not dispositive.  Once again I'm asking, where's the admittance?

That is NOT hearsay.  He is an eyewitness to Haggard's statement.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you're not a politically active evangelical? Hmmm.

but that doesn't make me part of Haggard's "movement", just as agreeing with the Dems on certain issues (like min. wage) doesn't make me a Democrat.

I am an individual who picks and chooses the issues I will support, without affiation to any "movement".  

I am a registered Republican, however.

---

It not that I underestimate the power of the individual, it's that I understand the danger of mixing politics and religion in an overt manner and how that can effect some individuals.

As witnessed by EVERYONE'S expressed opinion on this forum, it is nearly impossible to seperate politics from religion.  People vote according to what they believe.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Look a page or so earlier in the thread - the person that took over his church said he confessed to at least a portion of the accusations, there's a link there as well.

That's hearsay, which is interesting, but not dispositive.  Once again I'm asking, where's the admittance?

That is NOT hearsay.  He is an eyewitness to Haggard's statement.

Uh, the classic definition of hearsay is one person saying to you that another person told him X or Y.

I disagree.  Hearsay is an indirect witness speaking for a direct witness, "she told me he said xyz".  But if you yourself heard him say that, that is NOT hearsay, for you are a direct witness.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess that's a matter of perspective. You are a politically active evangelical and he is the central leader of politcally active evangelicals. Certainly there are degrees to this - but you are not a Democrat, even if you agree with an issue or two with them. There is a sharp difference between the two.

But I think you are assigning WAY too much importance to Haggard.  Most Christians who vote the way I do don't even know who he is.  And his removal from what ever power he held is negligible.  Our votes are not tied to Haggard.  Our numbers are not diminished and Bush isn’t going to start listening to N.O.W.

As the Miers nomination proved:  we social conservatives don't march to the order to so-called Christian leaders.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What puzzles me about this whole thing is the accusation of buying and use of meth

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The Rev. Ted Haggard admitted Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"I bought it for myself but never used it," Haggard told reporters gathered outside his home. "I was tempted, but I never used it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/

---

huh?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You also keep saying "our" while saying you are not a part of a group - please explain.

"our" as in christian social conservations, be were are not organized any more than beer drinkers are organized. 

I also don't know how this group grew to be 30 million in number.  Does that number mean that 30 million individuals joined their club, or does 30 million simply represent the total congregations of the ministers who subscribe to their newsletter?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The Rev. Ted Haggard admitted Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"I bought it for myself but never used it," Haggard told reporters gathered outside his home. "I was tempted, but I never used it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/

---

huh?!

correct me if I am wrong, but isnt methamphetamine one of the strongest and most dangerous drugs?  How, exactly, does one become "tempted" to try meth?

The fact he was even tempted to try it tells me he has a very serious drug problem.  From what I have heard, you've crossed several lines if you're fooling around with meth.  No one his age decides out of the blue that he'd like to try meth.

How did this guy even function in life?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Voting as a block does imply organization

you're trying to make people fit your idea of politcal reality.  The fact is we don't need to be politically organized to vote against gay-marriage.  All we have to know is that it is on the ballot, and we're there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's strong stuff - and illegal. Possession of it would be a crime. But the meth problem in this country is so large I doubt anybody will go after him for it. It certainly sets a very poor example for youngsters to follow. I've heard that one hit of meth is enough to addict somebody.

Well, to me that is more damaging to his image than being caught with a male prostitute.  Everyone understands sexual sin, but not many people can relate to having a desire to use meth at that age.

That is just plain stupidity and makes me think he has been spinning totally out of control for a long, long, time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While I don't doubt you - and many others - would do as you say. There are plenty more that only do so because their pastor tells them to.

I am bewildered that you would think that, for there is nothing in my 14 years of Christian experience with other Christians to lead me to think Christians have to be told how to vote on the subject of gay-marriage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just think, a meth user (but he didn't inhale - right?), as a consultant to the President of the United States - helping him form social policy for this nation. Lucky us!

Since you fail to lesson to reason and simply believe that Bush is more of a puppet to Haggard than to himself (or to people like me), there is no need to continue this conversation.

That is why people like you were blindsided in 1994 and 2004.  You just don't get it.  You think we have no guiding principles other than to be blindly led by blind leaders.  When the fact is, normal run of the mill Christians are the leaders of social conservatism.  And we will topple any so-called “leader” that does not march to our orders.

We are more likened to drinkers of alcohol.  We are largely unorganized, but if someone advocates prohibition, they will soon find themselves out of office.  The mob will rise up in unison, without having to be prompted, and will restore order according to their terms and definitions.

We are more likened to drinkers of alcohol.  We are largely unorganized, but if someone advocates prohibition, they will soon find themselves out of office.  The mob will rise up in unison, without having to be prompted, and will restore order according to their terms and definitions.

(I repeated the analogy twice so that you wont so easily ignore it)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess our experiences differ. One would think that if you read this very forum you would have concluded that there are quite a few Christians that have a differing opinion of the subject than you - in fact I've seen them tell you that directly. I guess you weren't paying attention.

If you think this majority opinion of this forum represents the social views of the majority of Americans, then you truly are delusional.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

We shall see on the 8th - dude. I think the organizational structure of the Christian is more important to the movement than you do, I think that organizational structure has taken some serious blows. I think Christian Right voters are going to have much less impact this year than in the last few elections because of it.

But again - we'll see on the 8th if there has been a wave election against the GOP or not.

I do think the analogy using drunks and Christians is a good one - but for different reasons than you

I think a far better test to is see what happens in the 7 gay-marriage votes

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think a far better test to is see what happens in the 7 gay-marriage votes

Those votes are actually an indication of the sheep-like qualities that some evangelicals have with their leaders (at least in the perception of those leaders).

Actually, it is a testiment as to how social conservativism crosses party lines.   Which is why pols must hide their agenda and pretend not to support gay-marriage.

---

Otherwise, why would this one issue out of all the issues that one could base out of biblical teachings (and not a teaching universally accepted by all self-professed Christians, tho admittedly it is by a solid majority of the evangelical movement) be the one that is being hammered home this year as in 2006.  How about debt cancellation every 7 years (Deut 15:1)  How about propositions to make divination and speaking with the dead illegal in accordance with Deut 18:10-11?  There are plenty of biblically based laws that could be fought for in the political arena, and yet the ones that are based on disputed biblical interpretations are the ones that end up on the agenda of political evangelicals.

The ballot measures do not make homosexuality illegal, they merely reject having The People being forced to publicly recognizing gay marriages.

And since you believe that God will force Christians to restart sacrificing animals again, thus making Christ's sacrifice on the cross null and void, you're really not one to comment on what is and what is not proper Christian dogma.  Can you name a single Christian denomination that agrees with you on this issue?