| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dave" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2006 11:20:18 AM |
| Object: |
Interesting turn of events |
Google will not permit me to add this article to the previous thread on
the issue of Richard Dawkins's series, "The Root of All Evil," since
the thread is older than 30 days. That thread is here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9ukf5
Readers will notice that there seems to be an argument of sorts with
John Weatherly, but since Weatherly won't allow Google to keep his
golden prose more than six days, those articles have disappeared. I
have them archived, and the quotes that appear in my replies are enough
to provide the background needed for this thread. The point is that
Weatherly was all about how this good Christian pastor put Dawkins in
his place. But it would seem that the pastor has made the news,
recently:
http://tinyurl.com/y2lzas
Of course, if true, this wouldn't be the first time that a pastor
exposed himself as such a flagrant hypocrite, but the veracity of the
claims has yet to be established. Consequently, this is a news item
that bears watching, especially when one considers how smarmy Haggard
appeared in the video series with Dawkins.
.
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
04 Nov 2006 12:01:33 AM |
|
|
And yet another update:
http://tinyurl.com/y35bj9
The only public acknowledgement that Haggard has made, so far, is that
he bought some meth. He threw it away immediately afterwards, knowing
it was wrong (apparently, he didn't have that understanding before).
He doesn't remember where he threw it away.
Isn't that interesting! Haggard seems to have just decided, one day,
to buy some meth.
Haggard is said to be pleased that his accuser failed a polygraph. He
shouldn't be. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible as
evidence and, speaking anecdotally, I know a couple of exceptionally
honest people who don't do well on polygraphs and I know some
incredibly brazen liars who have passed them.
Given the events as they have unfolded, I wouldn't be surprised if
there weren't at least some variances between what we're being told and
what actually happened. Haggard's accuser has admitted having some
anger issues with respect to the reasons he decided to drop dimes on
ol' mister "Don't Be Arrogant," but Haggards quick reaction, his
original denials, and now his admission with respect to the meth tell
me that his first reaction was to lie about the issues, which means
that his first impulse is to lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
04 Nov 2006 12:29:45 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
And yet another update:
http://tinyurl.com/y35bj9
The only public acknowledgement that Haggard has made, so far, is that
he bought some meth. He threw it away immediately afterwards, knowing
it was wrong (apparently, he didn't have that understanding before).
He doesn't remember where he threw it away.
Isn't that interesting! Haggard seems to have just decided, one day,
to buy some meth.
Haggard is said to be pleased that his accuser failed a polygraph. He
shouldn't be. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible as
evidence and, speaking anecdotally, I know a couple of exceptionally
honest people who don't do well on polygraphs and I know some
incredibly brazen liars who have passed them.
Given the events as they have unfolded, I wouldn't be surprised if
there weren't at least some variances between what we're being told and
what actually happened. Haggard's accuser has admitted having some
anger issues with respect to the reasons he decided to drop dimes on
ol' mister "Don't Be Arrogant," but Haggards quick reaction, his
original denials, and now his admission with respect to the meth tell
me that his first reaction was to lie about the issues, which means
that his first impulse is to lie.
Does anyone know if meth consumption can be discerned by testing hair?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
04 Nov 2006 01:54:35 AM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
Dave wrote:
And yet another update:
http://tinyurl.com/y35bj9
The only public acknowledgement that Haggard has made, so far, is that
he bought some meth. He threw it away immediately afterwards, knowing
it was wrong (apparently, he didn't have that understanding before).
He doesn't remember where he threw it away.
Isn't that interesting! Haggard seems to have just decided, one day,
to buy some meth.
Haggard is said to be pleased that his accuser failed a polygraph. He
shouldn't be. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible as
evidence and, speaking anecdotally, I know a couple of exceptionally
honest people who don't do well on polygraphs and I know some
incredibly brazen liars who have passed them.
Given the events as they have unfolded, I wouldn't be surprised if
there weren't at least some variances between what we're being told and
what actually happened. Haggard's accuser has admitted having some
anger issues with respect to the reasons he decided to drop dimes on
ol' mister "Don't Be Arrogant," but Haggards quick reaction, his
original denials, and now his admission with respect to the meth tell
me that his first reaction was to lie about the issues, which means
that his first impulse is to lie.
Does anyone know if meth consumption can be discerned by testing hair?
Usually it's blood, but if someone is a regular user of crystal meth,
you can tell just by looking at their teeth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
04 Nov 2006 04:00:07 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
And yet another update:
http://tinyurl.com/y35bj9
The only public acknowledgement that Haggard has made, so far, is that
he bought some meth. He threw it away immediately afterwards, knowing
it was wrong (apparently, he didn't have that understanding before).
He doesn't remember where he threw it away.
Isn't that interesting! Haggard seems to have just decided, one day,
to buy some meth.
Meth tends to be more addictive at first use than any other drug. If he is
an addict it will show up, but maybe he bought it for a friend.
Haggard is said to be pleased that his accuser failed a polygraph. He
shouldn't be. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible as
evidence and, speaking anecdotally, I know a couple of exceptionally
honest people who don't do well on polygraphs and I know some
incredibly brazen liars who have passed them.
The polygraph has been shown to be worthless and now qualifies for Randi's
million dollar challange.
Given the events as they have unfolded, I wouldn't be surprised if
there weren't at least some variances between what we're being told
and what actually happened. Haggard's accuser has admitted having
some anger issues with respect to the reasons he decided to drop
dimes on ol' mister "Don't Be Arrogant," but Haggards quick reaction,
his original denials, and now his admission with respect to the meth
tell me that his first reaction was to lie about the issues, which
means that his first impulse is to lie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
10 Nov 2006 06:21:52 PM |
|
|
As an aside,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15653706/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Interesting turn of events |
02 Nov 2006 09:02:52 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Google will not permit me to add this article to the previous thread on
the issue of Richard Dawkins's series, "The Root of All Evil," since
the thread is older than 30 days. That thread is here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9ukf5
When I saw his picture in the news I immediately recognized him as the
arrogant pastor who accused Richard Dawkins of being arrogant. Oh, how
the mighty fall.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 03:48:09 PM |
|
|
In case anyone isn't too clear about Haggard, here's the section of
Dawkins's "Root of All Evil" that features him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=
Particularly amusing is Haggard's rather arrogant, "welcome to the
United States."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
10 Nov 2006 04:57:11 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
In case anyone isn't too clear about Haggard, here's the section of
Dawkins's "Root of All Evil" that features him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=
Particularly amusing is Haggard's rather arrogant, "welcome to the
United States."
Dawkins is, regrettably, British, and since we don't own your country
any more it is perfectly in place for an American to welcome us to
their country.
If I were to welcome an American to the EU, it would merely be an
acknowledgement of the trouble taken by that person in travelling to
the place I happened to meet him or her.
But you people don't own Europe, so if you come over you will be made
welcome in the way a guest is, not an owner. If I meet an American in
South Africa, as indeed I have done over the last week on numerous
occasions, I don't welcome him and he doesn't welcome me, as neither of
us as South Africans, even though the accent is so infectious I have
even started sounding like one the past couple of days.
Capetonians have been welcoming me to Cape Town, South Africa, and
Africa, and people from Durban, Pretoria and Jo'burg have been
welcoming me to South Africa and Africa. People from Botswana have been
welcoming me to their continent. I never realised any of this was
arrogance on their part - I took it all as friendliness, no more, no
less.
Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
10 Nov 2006 05:27:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dave wrote:
In case anyone isn't too clear about Haggard, here's the section of
Dawkins's "Root of All Evil" that features him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=
Particularly amusing is Haggard's rather arrogant, "welcome to the
United States."
Dawkins is, regrettably, British...
Of course, Davey has no good reason for this "regret" and it certainly
isn't the attitude of a good "Christian" to regret such things. But
Dawkins is an atheist--an atheist with just a bit more influrence than
impotent Davey, who can't even keep up with the threads in this
newsgroup, let alone publish to Dawkins's extent, so why this rather
pathetic reaction out of him? Well, it's that ego, again, getting
bruised. Dawkins not only disagrees with Davey, but is obviously more
influential, hnorable, and intelligent when it comes to expressing
*his* views, while Davey just muddles along in newsgroups.
Were I to engage in this sort of thread, in which I could explain why
Haggard is "regrettably, an American," I suspect that I could make a
far better case than Davey, but I won't do that, mostly due to
constraints of time. The fact is that it wasn't really my point, and
the rest of Davey's whimperings are characteristically beside that
point, a point which had more than one facet and which has been borne
out in subsequent actions by and revelations of Haggard. Davey was
just looking to troll and this was the best he can do.
[Snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 04:54:13 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
In case anyone isn't too clear about Haggard, here's the section of
Dawkins's "Root of All Evil" that features him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6dhwWx0&mode=related&search=
Particularly amusing is Haggard's rather arrogant, "welcome to the
United States."
Now I remember.
Did Haggard say he gave weekly blowjobs to George Bush?
I must have been half asleep.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 12:12:55 AM |
|
|
MSNBC has picked up the story, and there are subsequent developments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 05:52:46 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
MSNBC has picked up the story, and there are subsequent developments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
It's very humiliating. If it's not true then he ought not to have
resigned. If he resigned because it is true, then he ought not to be
still saying it's not true.
A lot of people will have their faith challenged by this episode.
I find the claims pretty hard to believe, myself. They have a
stage-managed look about them. But even if they are true, let's
remember that these are misdeeds not by the Saviour, but by a sinner.
He can't be a pastor anymore, if it's true. If it's true about the
regular monthly pattern, then it also calls his repentance into
question. Penitent people are supposed to fight their sins, not stick
them on a monthly schedule.
However, like I say, other than the fact the resignation looks bad, at
the moment it's one man's word against another's.
Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 07:10:11 AM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2006 03:52:46 -0800, in free.christians
jerzy.jakubowski@gmail.com wrote in
<1162554766.759162.57600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Dave wrote:
MSNBC has picked up the story, and there are subsequent developments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
It's very humiliating. If it's not true then he ought not to have
resigned. If he resigned because it is true, then he ought not to be
still saying it's not true.
A lot of people will have their faith challenged by this episode.
I find the claims pretty hard to believe, myself. They have a
stage-managed look about them. But even if they are true, let's
remember that these are misdeeds not by the Saviour, but by a sinner.
Of course the Saviour is not a bigot who makes money attacking gays.
Haggard is. That is already immoral. That he may have been a hypocrite
and drug abuser is just not much of a surprise.
He can't be a pastor anymore, if it's true. If it's true about the
regular monthly pattern, then it also calls his repentance into
question. Penitent people are supposed to fight their sins, not stick
them on a monthly schedule.
However, like I say, other than the fact the resignation looks bad, at
the moment it's one man's word against another's.
You do understand that the accuser has voice mail messages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 07:45:53 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 03:52:46 -0800, in free.christians
jerzy.jakubowski@gmail.com wrote in
<1162554766.759162.57600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Dave wrote:
MSNBC has picked up the story, and there are subsequent developments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
It's very humiliating. If it's not true then he ought not to have
resigned. If he resigned because it is true, then he ought not to be
still saying it's not true.
A lot of people will have their faith challenged by this episode.
I find the claims pretty hard to believe, myself. They have a
stage-managed look about them. But even if they are true, let's
remember that these are misdeeds not by the Saviour, but by a sinner.
Of course the Saviour is not a bigot who makes money attacking gays.
Haggard is. That is already immoral. That he may have been a hypocrite
and drug abuser is just not much of a surprise.
Well, yes, there is that, after all. Davey has always been about
making excuses, but excuses don't tend to cut it in these cases.
Haggard is an exceptionally powerful evangelical. He's not *just* a
sinner.
It hasn't been a good week for evangelicals either in free.christians
or in the world. I think most of us have heard about Kent "Dr Dino"
Hovind,
http://tinyurl.com/y6daoq
When it gets right down to it, there are far too many of these phonies
who take advantage of and try to profit from the sheep who follow them,
and those unthinking sheep are far too simple-minded, in so many cases,
and are willing to make excuses for them. They're not just sinners who
fell astray but perfect illustrations of how easy it is to take
advantage of people who just don't *think* about many of the stupid
things in which they believe and, in some cases, as so incredibly
pathetic that they will allow crooks and con-men like Hovind (and
Haggard - he's a con man even if the gay charges are not true).
What's amusing about Haggard and Hovind having these troubles so close
to one-another is that Hovind can't really be called a "volunteer" when
he has his first gay experience...
He can't be a pastor anymore, if it's true. If it's true about the
regular monthly pattern, then it also calls his repentance into
question. Penitent people are supposed to fight their sins, not stick
them on a monthly schedule.
However, like I say, other than the fact the resignation looks bad, at
the moment it's one man's word against another's.
You do understand that the accuser has voice mail messages.
It's just Davey being Davey, as usual. I already pointed out, in the
first message, that "the veracity of the claims has yet to be
established," and that the situation bears watching. But Davey was
exposed as a liar again, over in this thread,
http://tinyurl.com/ydmzh9
He gave us a "whatever" response and would prefer to move on. He
figures that if he can jump into another thread and get involved
enough, there, people will quickly forget that he was caught lying
several times in the thread above.
News items have said that the accuser has voice messages and there
appears to have been some analysis by an expert in such things,
http://tinyurl.com/yx4gvs
Davey tells us, in essense, what I have been telling people for quite
some time, that is, that Christians should at least make an effort, and
when they do not, that calls the veracity of claimed faith into
question. But Davey himself has never been able to do that for very
long. And when he does, it's usually with a "stage managed look about
them" as well, so watching him presume to engage in that sort of
high-horse talk when it comes to others takes on special significance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 05:04:51 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2006 05:45:53 -0800, in free.christians
"Dave" <horndw@gmail.com> wrote in
<1162561553.152696.136520@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 3 Nov 2006 03:52:46 -0800, in free.christians
jerzy.jakubowski@gmail.com wrote in
<1162554766.759162.57600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Dave wrote:
MSNBC has picked up the story, and there are subsequent developments:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
It's very humiliating. If it's not true then he ought not to have
resigned. If he resigned because it is true, then he ought not to be
still saying it's not true.
A lot of people will have their faith challenged by this episode.
I find the claims pretty hard to believe, myself. They have a
stage-managed look about them. But even if they are true, let's
remember that these are misdeeds not by the Saviour, but by a sinner.
Of course the Saviour is not a bigot who makes money attacking gays.
Haggard is. That is already immoral. That he may have been a hypocrite
and drug abuser is just not much of a surprise.
Well, yes, there is that, after all. Davey has always been about
making excuses, but excuses don't tend to cut it in these cases.
Haggard is an exceptionally powerful evangelical. He's not *just* a
sinner.
It hasn't been a good week for evangelicals either in free.christians
or in the world. I think most of us have heard about Kent "Dr Dino"
Hovind,
http://tinyurl.com/y6daoq
When it gets right down to it, there are far too many of these phonies
who take advantage of and try to profit from the sheep who follow them,
and those unthinking sheep are far too simple-minded, in so many cases,
and are willing to make excuses for them. They're not just sinners who
fell astray but perfect illustrations of how easy it is to take
advantage of people who just don't *think* about many of the stupid
things in which they believe and, in some cases, as so incredibly
pathetic that they will allow crooks and con-men like Hovind (and
Haggard - he's a con man even if the gay charges are not true).
What's amusing about Haggard and Hovind having these troubles so close
to one-another is that Hovind can't really be called a "volunteer" when
he has his first gay experience...
He can't be a pastor anymore, if it's true. If it's true about the
regular monthly pattern, then it also calls his repentance into
question. Penitent people are supposed to fight their sins, not stick
them on a monthly schedule.
However, like I say, other than the fact the resignation looks bad, at
the moment it's one man's word against another's.
You do understand that the accuser has voice mail messages.
It's just Davey being Davey, as usual. I already pointed out, in the
first message, that "the veracity of the claims has yet to be
established," and that the situation bears watching. But Davey was
exposed as a liar again, over in this thread,
http://tinyurl.com/ydmzh9
He gave us a "whatever" response and would prefer to move on. He
figures that if he can jump into another thread and get involved
enough, there, people will quickly forget that he was caught lying
several times in the thread above.
News items have said that the accuser has voice messages and there
appears to have been some analysis by an expert in such things,
http://tinyurl.com/yx4gvs
Davey tells us, in essense, what I have been telling people for quite
some time, that is, that Christians should at least make an effort, and
when they do not, that calls the veracity of claimed faith into
question. But Davey himself has never been able to do that for very
long. And when he does, it's usually with a "stage managed look about
them" as well, so watching him presume to engage in that sort of
high-horse talk when it comes to others takes on special significance.
All you ever need to learn about professional evangelists was covered in
a novel that appears to have become their training manual:
_Elmer Gantry_ by Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
03 Nov 2006 09:58:49 AM |
|
|
Thanks to Mark Bilbo for posting this reference to an update:
http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4557411.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
05 Nov 2006 08:45:45 PM |
|
|
The latest, Haggard admits to "sexual immorality."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
Interesting cycle of denials and subsequent vague admissions.
Haggard's first impulse to lie is clearly getting the better of him.
Of course, many of us remember this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565197.stm
Expect Haggard to try to pull a Swaggart. Christians are sheep enough
to fall for it. Bakker has a reasonably successful ministry, all
things considered, and even Peter Popoff has made something of a
comeback.
http://www.jsm.org/
http://www.jimbakkershow.com/
http://www.peterpopoff.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
10 Nov 2006 05:18:15 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
The latest, Haggard admits to "sexual immorality."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536263/
Interesting cycle of denials and subsequent vague admissions.
Haggard's first impulse to lie is clearly getting the better of him.
Of course, many of us remember this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/21/newsid_2565000/2565197.stm
Expect Haggard to try to pull a Swaggart. Christians are sheep enough
to fall for it. Bakker has a reasonably successful ministry, all
things considered, and even Peter Popoff has made something of a
comeback.
http://www.jsm.org/
http://www.jimbakkershow.com/
http://www.peterpopoff.org/
I don't think that Evangelicals should accept him back as a minister as
long as he lives. I think he could be accepted back as a member of a
church without position or authority, and simply be a member of the
congregation if he claims to be penitent, but he is going to have to
look for another source of income now.
If he has nothing to gain, he may not do a Bakker, he may actually do a
Roy Clements instead. Dr Clements probably went full steam ahead with
his homosexuality, to the extent of abandoning his wife and kids and
shacking up with his boyfriend, at least in part because of having a
burnt bridge situation with respect to the Baptist Church in the UK.
That's speculation on my part, admittedly, but I rarely find that
cynicism falls that far from the mark as far as human nature is
concerned.
Anyway the more menial the job Haggard accepts, the better it will be
for him and the believers he has disappointed. I don't wanna see a
repetition of the Clements case - one was quite painful enough,
especially as I had sat under his ministry.
Best,
Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
11 Nov 2006 01:18:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I don't think that Evangelicals should accept [Haggard] back as a minister as
long as he lives. I think he could be accepted back as a member of a
church without position or authority, and simply be a member of the
congregation if he claims to be penitent, but he is going to have to
look for another source of income now.
If he has nothing to gain, he may not do a Bakker, he may actually do a
Roy Clements instead. Dr Clements probably went full steam ahead with
his homosexuality, to the extent of abandoning his wife and kids and
shacking up with his boyfriend, at least in part because of having a
burnt bridge situation with respect to the Baptist Church in the UK.
That's speculation on my part, admittedly, but I rarely find that
cynicism falls that far from the mark as far as human nature is
concerned.
I put non-trivial odds on the possibility that Haggard will reappear as
a poster child for homosexual reparation, granting of course, that he
has the stones to admit that he is homosexual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Interesting turn of events |
10 Nov 2006 05:29:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I don't think that Evangelicals should accept him back
as a minister as...if he has nothing to gain, he may not
do a Bakker, he may actually do a Roy Clements
instead...I don't wanna see a repetition of the Clements
case - one was quite painful enough, especially as I
had sat under his ministry.
Leave it to Davey to once again attempt to make the situation all about
*him*...
Typical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
