The Lost Shepherd

TORQUEFLITE:

He only "harmed gays" by being a hypocrite, not due to speaking the truth about homosexuality. What's "harmful to gays" is lying to them about the moral and scientific basis for their homosexuality, to make then feel good, justified, happy, or so they won't dislike or get mad at you--that is the true "homophobia."

Ted isn't "in denial" about anything--just the opposite--and trying to heal his life and concentrate on his real love, committment, and desire for his wife. Read any of my previous posts on this issue. It is also uselessly hypocritical to justify the homosexual lifestyle and behavior, while falsely criticizing, condemning, and judging others and their lives.

Funny how you surely wouldn't like being "judged" for your homosexuality (?), but will quickly falsely judge anyone you disagree with.

DOLMANCE:

The actual Matt. 16:18 quote is: "...thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..."

The Greek word for "rock" (petra) is simply played against the name "Peter" (Petros), and the same words are spoken to all the disciples in Matt. 18:18 as are spoken to Peter in the follow up passage of 16:19. Other passages uphold the twelvefold foundation of the apostles of the Christian church. The actual rock or foundation of the Christian church is the confession/doctrine of all the apostles.

Catholicism simply erroneously misinterpreted and justified this passage to mean that Peter was the first of an apostolic succession of popes, which this passage is not teaching or establishing.

CPIPKINS:

I AM IMPRESSED WITH AND HIGHLY RESPECT YOUR LEARNED, INFORMED, AND RESPECTFUL POSTS, ESPECIALLY IN RESPONSE. AND THE COSMOLOGICAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS, FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND "PROOFS" ARE CLEAR AND CAN BE CLEARLY LAID OUT.

YOU WOULD LIKELY AGREE WITH ME THAT THE IGNORANCE OF SCIENCE, HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY, PARTICULARLY BIBLICAL ILLITERACY, IN THESE BLOGS IS PROFOUND. THOSE, PARTICULARLY ON THE LEFT, TYPICALLY BLUFF THAT THEY ARE INFORMED IN THESE AREAS AND USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT SINCE THEY PROBABLY RARELY ENCOUNTER TRULY INFORMED PEOPLE, CHRISTIAN OR NOT, AMONG THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH THEM. WHEN FACTUALLY COUNTERED THOUGH THEY DO QUICK GOOGLE SEARCHES ON WEBSITES THAT AGREE W/THEM, WING IT, OR REGURGITATE FROM THEIR FAVORITE POP-CULTURE, LEFTIST/ATHEIST BOOKS, MEDIA, OR ENTERTAINMENT SOURCE--AND/OR THEY JUST CALL US CHILDISH NAMES AND SPEW STEROTYPICALLY INVECTIVE SLOGANS, AND MAKE RIDICULOUS/FALSE ACCUSATIONS IN THEIR INTOLERANCE, HATE, ANGER, AND PURE, CLOSED-MINDED IGNORANCE.

YOUR LATEST RESPONSE:

Posted By: olddognewtricks @ 01/10/2009 3:17:59 PMcpipkins wrote -- Since you're suggesting leaving, maybe you should leave for a more liberal nation - we were founded on Christian principles in the United States.

Actually that is merely a falsehood perpetuated by the religious right. The founding fathers were clear in the separation; might do you good to read history, not fiction....

Report Abuse Reply Posted By: cpipkins @ 01/16/2009 3:02:36 AMThe founding fathers meant for the state to stay out of Christianity - not the other way around. Maybe you should go back and re-read the constitution.

CPIPKINS:

Once again, you are indeed correct, and well put to OLDDOGNEWTRICKS!

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The establishment of a national church and freedom of religious expression is the issue. In Jefferson's letter to the Delaware Baptists, he is clear that the government can't get involved in church matters, which is what he meant by the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," which is the origination of and only time that phrase is ever used.

The constitution does not prohibit Judeo-Christian displays on public or government property, especially as those same simply and appropriately reflect our foundation and heritage in law, government, philosophy, faith, etc. Washington and the Supreme Court itself are replete with Judeo-Christian representations and displays.

WILDERNESSVOICE:

TO CONTINUE WHERE I CUT MYSELF OFF IN MY LAST PARAGRAPH:

Don't take my or sciences' word for it; read any of Joe Dallas' books, listen to him speak, or ask any of the thousands of former, and sometimes still struggling to varying degrees, homosexuals that have been healed by his couseling organizations.

WILDERNESSVOICE:

With all do respect to your opinion, which doesn't correspond to the facts of reality, your last 5 sentences are such a common stereotypical, justifying contrivance and distortion of reality.

So, you're saying that a drug-hazed, homosexual affair defines Ted and his sexuality, and not a--by both their accounts--generally happy 30 year marriage which, and again, by both their accounts, is renewed in its passion, love, and commitment. So, Ted's collateral homosexual feelings resulting from "complicated"--indeed--socio/psycho factors during his childhood--specifically, molestation, and resultant confusion, so common--completely trump his predominant heterosexual and procreational feelings and love. So convenient, to justify a particular agenda or lifestyle.

Ted has "come to terms with himself"--his love for God and his wife are infinitely stronger than any latent homosexual feelings acquired in childhood, although those feelings may probably never "go away," as they're ingrained in his psyche, like so many other things in life.

Society doesn't cause homosexuals to abuse substances at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, the same psycho/socio factors that gave rise to their homosexuality as well as conscience do. The open and "accepting" gay population in San Francisco actually has the highest rates of substance abuse, AIDS, and STD's per capita than anywhere else in the country.

The true "misguided and hurtful approach" is to homophobically lie to homosexuals that their feelings are genetic. No even homosexual supported study has ever found a "gay gene." The leading studies clearly point to socio/psycho factors, which include the major and conclusive twin studies. According to science, genes DO NOT determine complex human behavior or pathology, only simple traits and characteristics (eye/skin color, and to a degree, along with modeling/learned behavior, mannerisms, and personality traits). Further, according to real and actual science, "MODELING" is the primary determinate of human behavior--not genes.

Even if there were a gene, wouldn't justify anything.

It is common for heterosexuals to go to prison, commit homosexual behavior in that environment, and never do it again after they're released--pretty sick, but common.

And how did all these heterosexuals pass this mysterious "gay gene" along, or vice versa, and which even evolutionary THEORY rules out?

And NO ONE "CHOOSES" the psycho/socio factors or conditions that give rise to their homosexuality, only the behavior to act upon it, as with substance abuse, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, adultery, bravery, heterosexual marriage, celibacy, religion, etc.

Don't take my or sciences' word for it; read any of Joe Dallas' books, listen to him speak, or ask any of the thousands of former, and sometimes still struggling to varying degrees, homosexuals that have

RANDYHIGGINS:

Excellent points from all angles. People can be quick to falsely judge and exploit.

Any middle aged man looking for a new career is going to experience some of the same issues. Neither Ted Haggard nor many other men trying to start over did a Madoff ponzi, plane crash and motorcycle dash, or Enron scam. So there needs to be some perspective on what bad and deceiving versus dumb and deluded is. Pelosi is openly and unapolegetically exploiting someone else's life, I have some questions about her ethics. How does she justify spending the time it took to just bump into Haggard. Neither she nor anyone else needed to film and witness him moving into a hotel room. She's a creeper.

THE GARDENER:

Ya gotta expand your mind--see, "open"--and horizons, since you won't get anything valid or true from your dishonestly self-serving atheist websites that only set out to prove what they already presuppositionally believe, instead of following the well-known and common actual facts and evidence, which are far more abundant than for any person or events of historical ancient antiquity. You only know and learn fantasy and lies, which is so sad.

You need a good dose of intelligence, critical-thinking skills, and open-mindedness--a.k.a., "reason." Regardless though, how can any sane human being believe what you spout?--but then again, it sounds like your anti-semitism and general hatred controls you.

"YAWEH":

So cute. Drunk or high when posted? Sounds like you got the munchies.

This Is jesus speaking You are all wrong the answer has been right in front of you the whole time. What is itmy flock?
Simple CHeese Specificlly Nacho Cheese Lots and Lots of it. No go in peace to love and serve the lord.

THE GARDENER:

One last observation before I give up--yet pray for you--you obviously get all of you fantastical rhetoric from atheist websites, as you've offered, and which I'm very familiar with and in other venues, as a former non-Christian.

But I've suggested the legitimately scholarly information and sources, and you haven't responded to or been able to contradict anything I've presented, as I have yours. Whoops.

You also seem obsessed with comparisons to Mythra and ancient mystical scults and the SUN god, which are all easily addressed according to scholarship and history, which is also useless for me to go into with someone with your revealed and apparent mindset.

However, if you love far-flung beaches on vacation, as I do, I'm right there with your whole sun-obsession thing, brother! Vitamin S, baby!--or is it A, or D?

Happy vacations, my friend; you sound like you need one.

QUIDISRUPT:

I totally agree, and actually love and use your quote about being so open-minded that our brains fall/leak out. And sorry if I may have misread you.

Granted, Ted may not ever be able to return to and serve in a leadership capacity for many reasons, including a lack of trust, and which he seemed to have recognized, per the article--I just didn't interpret the article as Haggard playing the victim and blaming others, but see your point and take on it.

But none of that may simply preclude the ultimate, eternal issues, I guess, is what I was mainly saying.

However, I do respect and learn from genuinely repentant people who have turned to Christ from atheism, and which include our most current and historically respected teachers. On a social level too, if I was an addict to anything, for instance, I'd giive more credence to and rather be counseled by a former, recovered/repentant addict like me, etc.

Ted Haggard will just have to work all of that out between him and God and his family and his new and ultimate purpose in life. And my prayers will be with him and his family.

THEGARDENER:

1. No one--scholar, historian, or otherwise--would look nonsensically ridiculous and foolish denying Jesus' existence, anymore than any commonly known historical person or event. Even the Quran and scores of historical sources hostile and antithetical to Christianity verify the gospel and epistle accounts as well as the OT and it's prophesy--including Josephus, Heroditus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, etc., etc.

2. Jesus and all the original apostles/disciples were Jewish, and part of the Jewish culture and tradition. Christ simply taught lived that He was the prophesied fulfillment of the types and shadows, rights and rituals of the OT.

3. The Gnostics were a mystical, spiritistic, heretical cult that broke off from Christianity, and taught completely opposite things against Christ and the orginal apostles/disciples. They were well known and warned against in the NT as false teachers archetype anti-Christs. None of their writings were ever an influence in the first century or after--other than the danger of leading true Christians away.

4. I've already explained the truth of the Council of Nicaea. And superficial and other biblical "discrepancies" are a common and easily--or not so easily--addressed issue, one by one. But if the Bible was conspiratorily contrived by the Catholic Church or Romans, why would they leave so many or any alleged/supposed "discrepancies" behind, in addition to the actual embarrassing facts surrounding especially the apostles and the prominence of women, as eyewitnesses, and more.

5. I could go on, but already have addressed many things, and it would be no use anyway. The Bible warns about "throwing pearls to swine"--and no, not calling you any name, just quoting a biblical analogy/metaphor for wasted explanation/witness to the purposefully closed-minded or otherwise incapable of comprehension.

What are your sources for your unbelievable and confusingly non-sensical claims? I simply have to conclude that you are delusionally out of touch with reality in your apparent anti-semitism, anger, intolerance, and hate. You make some--enough to respond to--but mostly little to no sense, and honestly even come across as practically schizophrenic at times.

You are very lost, and I mean it when I say I'll pray for ya. Oooh, don't get mad, now!

Poor Ted's anger with his former congregation is misplaced. I can't see how he would blame them for behaving exactly as he taught them to. It is surely his own hatred and intolerance, poured over his flock week after week, that he now kicks against. He makes a very unconvincing victim.