[Ford Prefect]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

If the genie of public scandals gave me three wishes, I would wish for this three times.

[Mefustae]

Testament to the fact that every single person that vehemently opposes homosexuality is in fact gay at heart.

[Nuke]

oddly amusing.

[Sandwich]

Yeah, I heard about this yesterday. Christians are human, too. We all have our weaknesses and flaws; Ted's was just considerably more public and hypocritical than most of us.

[vyper]

[Mefustae]

Yeah, I heard about this yesterday. Christians are human, too. We all have our weaknesses and flaws; Ted's was just considerably more public and hypocritical than most of us.

Well that's just untrue, plain and simple. If that were true, that would me that I have a flaw of some kind, which is just ****ing bullocks.

[NGTM-1R]

Your flaw is that you're too modest.

[Mefustae]

Mmm, touche.

[karajorma]

I have a flaw of some kind, which is just ****ing bullocks.

Most people would claim that zoophilia is a flaw you know

[Mefustae]

Oooh, now that's just plain mean.

[Sandwich]

Yeow! I don't normally revert to such verbiage, but... PWNT!

[Sandwich]

BTW, an interesting point I read on another blog:

    A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week.

    Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.

Interesting point. Why the difference?

[Taristin]

Because he stayed with his family?

[aldo_14]

BTW, an interesting point I read on another blog:

    A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week.

    Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.

Interesting point. Why the difference?

Strange how it deigns to note, whilst lovingly using phraseology to paint him as the victim (of what?  His own hypocracy?), that yon pastors 'temptation' was, er, paying a man over several years for sex and buying metamphetamine.

Whereas Gene Robinson divorcing - whilst maintaining a friendly relationship with his wife (according to the linked wikipedia article, who was also aware he had doubts about his sexuality), suddenly becomes labelled as 'abandoning' his wife and children (the latter of which there is no mention of in the linked article).  Oh, and how it wrongly implies the appointment was universally accepted by the church when - yet again - the linked wikipedia article indicates the resultant schism.

I'd suggest the difference is simple - one lied for many years until he was caught by his rent-boy speaking out.

EDIT; regardless of your view on homosexuality in the church, that little article you quoted is obviously worded to create a preconception of double standards and bias - and that wording is designed to conceal the reality of both situations.  I'm curious where you found it.

[NGTM-1R]

Why the difference?

Because he's a liar, for one, which is generally frowned upon no matter your religion (scientology is not a religon, don't look at me like that) or lack thereof. Because every major sect of Christianity including his takes a dim view of prostitution and drug use.

The situations are simply put not comparable.

[aldo_14]

Why the difference?

Because he's a liar, for one, which is generally frowned upon no matter your religion (scientology is not a religon, don't look at me like that) or lack thereof. Because every major sect of Christianity including his takes a dim view of prostitution and drug use.

The situations are simply put not comparable.

Scientology does frown upon liars.

The problem is that it invents the truth when it does so.








Or is that true for all relgions?.........

[NGTM-1R]

Scientology does frown upon liars.

I'd argue that's false, considering they are reputed to tell people different things depending upon their "level" in the church, and hence somebody, at some level, is being lied to. So it smiles upon lying, institutionalizes it.

[aldo_14]

Scientology does frown upon liars.

I'd argue that's false, considering they are reputed to tell people different things depending upon their "level" in the church, and hence somebody, at some level, is being lied to. So it smiles upon lying, institutionalizes it.

Ah, but it's not a lie, y'see   It's subjective truth as dictated by the thetan overlord flippertygibbert.

[Bobboau]

because one of them spent his life railing against homosexuality while the other one didn't?
because one of them has spent his life telling everyone how homosexuality is evil and wrong and immoral, while the whole time paying for gay sex (and meth none the less), while the other one was saying that there was nothing wrong about homosexuality and so when he swiched teams wasn't going against his own words (and thus what he made clear he thought were also the words of God, for whatever that's worth)?
because one of them was cheating on his wife with a meth-wore, while the other devorced his wife because he recognized that he was unable to fufill his husbandly responsibilities and then entered into a relationship with someone else?

need I go on, or have I made the distinction clear enough?

[Sandwich]

From a worldly point of view, I guess you guys are quite right. From a Christian or Biblical POV, however, there is recognition that "all have sinned", and therefore, sometimes the difference is how we deal with the results of that sin. Biblically-speaking, they both sinned. One of them recognized that sin for what it was and tried to hide it, fight against it, but eventually what was done in darkness was shouted from the rooftops. The other took pride in that sin, and went on to be given an official position of respect/responsibility/honor/whatever in an organization whose very existence is (should be?) based on the same Bible that vehemently denounces that same sin.

Hypocrisy is, in my opinion, one of the most prevalent evils in the Christian world today. And I fully agree that Ted Haggard was being an incredible hypocrite in practicing what he was preaching against. But let's not forget that that is not the only hypocrisy in these stories.

Is it not hypocrisy to accept a leadership role in the church while openly contradicting the Bible with one's life in multiple ways? Not only has Gene remained a homosexual (a blatant sin), but he divorced his wife (I'm not read up on the circumstances surrounding that, but as far as I can recall, the Biblical allowance for divorce is one partner divorcing an unfaithful mate, not one partner divorcing because they themselves were unfaithful... I may be mixed up in this though).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that one of these guys is worse than the other. According to their chosen faith, both of them have sinned (as have I), and both of them deserve death (as do I). It is only by the grace of God that we aren't corpsified. It's merely a shame that such blatant hypocrisy will be seen by many around the world as representative of the standard Christian; and while most Christians may very well be raging hypocrites, that does not mean that that's how it's supposed to be.

By the way, the original article linked to the LA Times article it mentioned, not to the Wikipedia article. However, the link is a "pay to access" thing, so I replaced it with the Wikipedia so people wouldn't be totally lost.

Also, I dunno where I quoted it from... it was some site I ran across while browsing another site I had run across. I can get the link from work tomorrow if you'd like.