Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 302 (361307)
11-03-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
11-03-2006 9:17 PM


Re: Drugs
But there are consequences.
Maybe there are, maybe there isn't. It seems to me that if you want to use the consequences as a basis for intercepting another person's behavior, you're under an obligation to prove there actually will be consequences.
I'm sorry that you couldn't toke a joint without becoming a hard-living, boozing, whoring drunk or whatever. But far too often, busybody moralists are essentially trying to outlaw steak because babies can't chew it (that's a metaphor.) Some people can handle the consequences of their behavior, or even avoid them entirely. And to a great extent, you don't have any right to be concerned about the consequences to anybody but yourself.
Its the pride of refusing to acknowledge one's sins.
I'm with Schraf on this. I don't recall anything in my past that I'm particularly ashamed of. Nothing I can think of that wasn't either a natural reaction to the situation or the best decision based on what I knew at the time. Or simply part of growing up.
It's not pride; I'm simply unwilling to invent some fictious moral crime on my part so I can join your little sharing circle. Atheists are just typically more moral than believers, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-03-2006 9:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-03-2006 10:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 302 (361308)
11-03-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
11-03-2006 8:27 PM


We must suppose that there can be no lawmakers given that everyone hides stuff behind a front. The only lawmakers we can have are those who do not:
- speed in their vehicles
- drink and drive
- hit their wives/husbands
- take meth/coke/herion/hash/lsd/mushroom/crack/drink
- shoplift
- default on mortgages
- dodge their taxes
- pour thinners down the sink
etc.etc.etc...
...you see the extent of the problem when it comes to recruiting lawmakers don't you.
Quick Bible quiz. Which of these are the words of Jesus?
1) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
2) Hey, if we had to be sinless to cast stones, we'd never get anything done! Stone that bitch!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 11-03-2006 8:27 PM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 302 (361553)
11-04-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2006 2:49 PM


Re: nemesis_juggernaut's moral standard refuted by Haggard ... et al
Otherwise, you might walk up to someone and kick them in the face, only to explain, "That's how I like to be treated. I'm just following the Golden Rule."
That sounds like a good way to get yourself kicked in the face, or worse. If that's what you really want, then by all means, start kicking faces.
But if you don't, then you're not being honest. You aren't treating people as you want to be treated, because you don't want to be kicked in the face. So you aren't actually following the golden rule at all.
It's a good rule because it's largely self-enforcing. Being an immoral bastard to people generally results in some form of consequence that prevents you from being a bastard in the future. It's hard to kick faces, for instance, when a mob of big burly guys shows up and breaks both of your legs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2006 2:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 302 (361557)
11-04-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
11-04-2006 2:50 PM


Re: Christians have no magic protection against sin
In the case of Ted Haggard, he was obviously a major major target of not only the demonic hordes but the human beings who hate Christianity, the liberals who are thrilled that an evangelical leader was felled right before a major election, now gloating and sneering and thumping their chests.
No.
He was a major target of people who thought that two adults, in love, should be able to marry, and that the configuration of their genitals had no bearing on whether or not that should be allowed to happen.
Why was he a target to those people? Because he took it upon himself, with no provocation whatsoever, to antagonize those people to the greatest extent possible.
What we're seeing is one more example of the almost axiomatic fact that evangelical leaders who froth at the mouth to "protect traditional marriage" (whatever the hell that means) are almost always self-hating homosexuals who simply don't feel like they can emerge from the closet without the destruction of everything they hold dear.
Never mind, of course, that it's the closeting and the homo-bashing that make that the case in the first place. If they could simply make peace with themselves and the reality of their situation, like normal homosexuals do, they would see what Andrew Sullivan calls "the deep wound of the closet."
To the extent that a linchpin of the gay-bashing movement has been rendered powerless, the news is good. But to the extent that an environment of homo-hating bigotry drove him into the closet and to the abuse of drugs, and has inflicted deep wounds on his wife and family, the man should be pitied. He's got no one to blame but himself - not for being gay, but for being so determined to be straight and to enforce ostracism of homosexuals that he made a very simple situation about a thousand times worse than it had to be, for himself, his family, and even the nation.
How such Christian leaders get themselves into such totally unprotected positions is the question.
It's not a hard question. Whenever someone is elevated as the central figure in a cult of personality, as Haggard was, it becomes very, very easy to believe the rhetoric people are saying about you - you're better than everybody else, you're more holy, you're more righteous. You begin to be under the impression that you can't possibly do wrong, and whatever you want to do must be right. How could it not? Why would God elevate someone who wanted to do bad things?
Haggard was elevated beyond the traditional structures of accountability. Christians tend to do that to their leaders. (See Bush et al.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 11-04-2006 2:50 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by MangyTiger, posted 11-04-2006 8:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024