The President of the National Association of Evangelicals is GAY!!! (alleged) (1 Viewer)

This story could be true, but, it also could be a complete lie. We'll see. I'm not going to condemn this man, either way.
If proven true I won't condemn the man...not my place to. At the same time, if proven true I will break out the "h" word in a heartbeat.
 
>>I would give you a response, but I don't think it will change your mind. You must be incapable of putting yourself in the man's shoes. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying let's wait until it's proven before you guys salivate. Sad.

I think you need to jump back as you're the one who lept to his defense before anyone even went after the guy. I read the other posts after I read yours and got the feeling you have some type of association with this individual, his church, general message or what have you (maybe you are a fundamentalist, radical Christian or evangelical). So I threw out those questions.

But 'sad'? Hardly. What's sad is people who follow "leaders" in the evangelical movement and the things they make up as they go along with the occasional Biblical quote to add some legitimacy. What's sad is the people walking around teaching dinosaurs, fossils and the like are the tool of satan whilst homeschooling their kids in a cultish fashion to protect them from reality and information that may help them actually think. What's sad is pseudo-intellectuals brainwashing the easily led into believing things like the literalism of time as they present it and the history of the world (e.g. a 6,000 year old earth).

So what's your beef with me? I never said the guy was guilty. I don't know who he is nor do I care except in wondering why it is you don't want anyone to "drag his name through the mud until proven (guilty)." Why would I drag him through the mud anyway? Why would you want to drag his name through the mud if it is later proven that he's guilty? That's also pretty sad if you ask me. If you're trying to usurp the "hypocritical" angle before one of the atheists (or anyone else) jumps on in and wonders "why are all these leaders of God pedophiles, gay, adulturers and such" and can't keep their zippers up, well that would be their right to pose those questions or raise those allegations it would seem. It's not like there isn't a sordid history of evangelicals and their associated secret lives (Swaggert, Gorman, Bakker, ad nauseum).

And really, why would I salivate that some religious leader is possibly having an affair with a male prostitute? That's on him. Unless he's come out in the pulpit, the national media and such and condemned that which he has possibly done, I don't have a dog in that fight. Now if he has been some adamant anti-gay homophobic radical Christian or something, then I guess he gets his if he is "guilty."

Otherwise, you ought not jump to conclusions when you aren't clear where you're going wtih them. Without going against the TOS, let me suggest that if you're going to pick targets, you should probably give them some thought before hand. If you would have happened to have been a high quality poster, then maybe it would mean something to me. I just asked questions. You got cocky. I don't really care to discuss it any longer as we don't have a Trash Bin where this might have been treated in a way to dignify your response.

:)

TPS
 
Last edited:
If anything you should feel bad for the misled flock and the family...their is little reality in anything the man supposedly stands for as represented by his own supposed actions....he's a walking contradiction...it's pretty plain to see....

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gmNjfpoRZpE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gmNjfpoRZpE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 
>>I would give you a response, but I don't think it will change your mind. You must be incapable of putting yourself in the man's shoes. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying let's wait until it's proven before you guys salivate. Sad.

I think you need to jump back as you're the one who lept to his defense before anyone even went after the guy. I read the other posts after I read yours and got the feeling you have some type of association with this individual, his church, general message or what have you (maybe you are a fundamentalist, radical Christian or evangelical). So I threw out those questions.

But 'sad'? Hardly. What's sad is people who follow "leaders" in the evangelical movement and the things they make up as they go along with the occasional Biblical quote to add some legitimacy. What's sad is the people walking around teaching dinosaurs, fossils and the like are the tool of satan whilst homeschooling their kids in a cultish fashion to protect them from reality and information that may help them actually think. What's sad is pseudo-intellectuals brainwashing the easily led into believing things like the literalism of time as they present it and the history of the world (e.g. a 6,000 year old earth).

So what's your beef with me? I never said the guy was guilty. I don't know who he is nor do I care except in wondering why it is you don't want anyone to "drag his name through the mud until proven (guilty)." Why would I drag him through the mud anyway? Why would you want to drag his name through the mud if it is later proven that he's guilty? That's also pretty sad if you ask me. If you're trying to usurp the "hypocritical" angle before one of the atheists (or anyone else) jumps on in and wonders "why are all these leaders of God pedophiles, gay, adulturers and such" and can't keep their zippers up, well that would be their right to pose those questions or raise those allegations it would seem. It's not like there isn't a sordid history of evangelicals and their associated secret lives (Swaggert, Gorman, Bakker, ad nauseum).

And really, why would I salivate that some religious leader is possibly having an affair with a male prostitute? That's on him. Unless he's come out in the pulpit, the national media and such and condemned that which he has possibly done, I don't have a dog in that fight. Now if he has been some adamant anti-gay homophobic radical Christian or something, then I guess he gets his if he is "guilty."

Otherwise, you ought not jump to conclusions when you aren't clear where you're going wtih them. Without going against the TOS, let me suggest that if you're going to pick targets, you should probably give them some thought before hand. If you would have happened to have been a high quality poster, then maybe it would mean something to me. I just asked questions. You got cocky. I don't really care to discuss it any longer as we don't have a Trash Bin where this might have been treated in a way to dignify your response.

:)

TPS
I think you need to take a step back, man. This is getting a little silly. I'm not a "high-quality poster?" We're not 3rd graders here. We're men. Let's rise above that.
For the record, I did not "defend" the guy. If he did what he's accused of, shame on him. All I said was let's not make fun of him and vilify him until it's been proven. Not that people were doing it directly, but I've been around on this forum long enough to know how these types of threads usually end up...and so I posted the comment to hopefully prevent it from happening. And I don't think I'm out of line to say what I said. I don't know what nerve I stepped on dude, but you need to lighten up. And yes, you're darn right I have a personal connection to this. Gorman is my uncle.
 
The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station.

He did not elaborate, and a telephone number for Parsley could not be found late Thursday.

--------------------------------------
Wow.
 
>>I think you need to take a step back, man. This is getting a little silly. I'm not a "high-quality poster?" We're not 3rd graders here. We're men. Let's rise above that. For the record, I did not "defend" the guy. If he did what he's accused of, shame on him. All I said was let's not make fun of him and vilify him until it's been proven. Not that people were doing it directly, but I've been around on this forum long enough to know how these types of threads usually end up...and so I posted the comment to hopefully prevent it from happening. And I don't think I'm out of line to say what I said. I don't know what nerve I stepped on dude, but you need to lighten up. And yes, you're darn right I have a personal connection to this. Gorman is my uncle.

You inferred that I/it was "sad" when I didn't say anything but ask you 3 questions which were neither arrogant nor assuming. They exist in my first post on this thread. So you were just trying to nip this in the bud before people went off on this guy (now that I've watched the British video interview, I see where you might have drawn the conclusions that people would potentially expose hypocrisy though none had yet done so).

As for "Brother Gorman", a dude I knew (despite the fact that he was wrong) spray painted "Jesus was a prophet, not a profit" on the church compound on Airline Hwy. While neither is technically true (at least in my beliefs), "prophet" is a little closer than "profit."

Send me a "love gift" indeed. Maybe you don't recall those television shows that came on at 11 or 11:30 back in the mid-80's. You would have been a very young child. Televangelists set back Christianity in my mind. And while I'm presuming you, televangelists, and I all believe that we're all sinners, I don't go around condmening others while pretending to live a pious existence. I don't believe you can say the same things about many of these televangelists and evangelicals.

TPSendmealovegift
 
"If anything you should feel bad for the misled flock and the family...their is little reality in anything the man supposedly stands for as represented by his own supposed actions....he's a walking contradiction...it's pretty plain to see...."

sounds a little nuts to me - and as expected self righteous and doesn't see his own arrogance - which if what he is accused of doing is in fact true is how he probably justified to himself that his actions were a contradiction to his preaching's

faith comes from within, not from the pulpit
 
>>
You inferred that I/it was "sad" when I didn't say anything but ask you 3 questions which were neither arrogant nor assuming. They exist in my first post on this thread. So you were just trying to nip this in the bud before people went off on this guy (now that I've watched the British video interview, I see where you might have drawn the conclusions that people would potentially expose hypocrisy though none had yet done so).

As for "Brother Gorman", a dude I knew (despite the fact that he was wrong) spray painted "Jesus was a prophet, not a profit" on the church compound on Airline Hwy. While neither is technically true (at least in my beliefs), "prophet" is a little closer than "profit."

Send me a "love gift" indeed. Maybe you don't recall those television shows that came on at 11 or 11:30 back in the mid-80's. You would have been a very young child. Televangelists set back Christianity in my mind. And while I'm presuming you, televangelists, and I all believe that we're all sinners, I don't go around condmening others while pretending to live a pious existence. I don't believe you can say the same things about many of these televangelists and evangelicals.

TPSendmealovegift
I understand why people have an aversion for prominent Christian ministers. I understand where it comes from. Though I was young, I do remember the mid-80's and I remember seeing the pain in my family when the Swaggart/Gorman feud took place. There's no doubt that when the men "in the spotlight" make mistakes, it casts a shadow over the whole movement (perception-wise).
However, to lump all Christians (or all Christian ministers, for that matter) into the whole "pious, condemning" stereo-type, is definitely off-base (I know that's not what you did, but many do). I just think it's sad that people are going to use this as political ammunition and thus, are happy it happened. That's not a statement targeted at anyone here. If Haggard is guilty, it's really a shame that it will be used to continue to damage America's perception of ministers. There are many, many incredible, sincere, faithful, compassionate ministers out there doing what they do with the utmost integrity. And if you were to meet my uncle today, you'd be surprised. It's incredible how compassionate, selfless, and humble he is today. It's possible to learn from your mistakes.
 
I understand what you're getting at and don't have any lingering resentment over those other comments. And while it probably is sad that people will tend to paint ministers and preachers with a broad brush, they tend to bring it on themselves IMHO. For instance,

>>I just think it's sad that people are going to use this as political ammunition and thus, are happy it happened.

Had Mr. Haggard not involved himself politically in the Colorado gay-marriage battle, he wouldn't probably seem so insincere or a potentially inviting target. Most likely (some) people would feel sorry for him and have a little pity on him for the pain he's going through. But when these ministers get out front and center on issues and current events, then they open themselves up to a new form of criticism. It no longer is a case of "I disagree with your position and ideas" but "look at this hypocrite making all this money and peddling all this influence because he knows which strings to pull, but then he steps off the stage and does the exact same thing he's telling everyone else not to do."

I'm sure there are millions of good intentioned and decent ministers, preachers, preists, elders and such - I know plenty of them. But just the same, more of them should probably lead by example rather than a profit motive. JMO.

TPS
 
please someone tell me what a "high quality poster" is...?

is it based on posting over 12 times a day on average?

I would call that an "I like seeing my thoughts in print poster"

sorry TPS...."If you would have happened to have been a high quality poster, then maybe it would mean something to me" ....WOWZA

serious question. is there an index on this site for that (high quality poster)?
 
I didn't have much of a history with Postman, and I felt like he took a cheap shot at me without cause. But we talked it out and all is forgiven and forgotten in my view.

So what did you bring it back up for, and what's your beef with me? Serious question? Come on dude, what's that all about? The sarcasm in the rest of your post is shining brightly. Spill it.

TPS
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom