Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>The problem with belief that God "can do anything" is that he doesn't do anything or everything.<< I understand where you are coming from. People who place their faith in Faith alone will inevitably be disappointed. Worse, there are many who make Faith their object of devotion, leading to the very questions you cite: Why isn't every faithful person healed? Why doesn't every faithful person prosper? For many thoughtful Christians, Faith isn't a simple slogan or formula, the outcome of which is based on the skill of the one who believes. The way this story has been presented frankly surprised me. I was fully expecting the usual, "I have been cured; God has forgiven me; Now you must forgive me, too." Instead, while there is still strong denial, there is also acknowledgement that a magical "cure" has not made it all go away.<< Well said. A Christian's faith is to be in Christ, not faith itself. Faith is only is as powerful as its object (what is believed in).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I will again endure a scolding when I say that post #79 is inherently dishonest." No, as long as you insist on opening this can of worms, I really believe that would be you. It is beyond me why you're going this route. It's a cure big guy, like it or not. As ecdc has often pointed out, for someone who pretends to paint himself above the fray, you sure do like to wallow in it anyway. Suit yourself.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Paint myself above the fray? At least I don't have any delusions that my word is some sort of final authority. But if you want to create something out of whole cloth and then deplore it, go right ahead.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The article is unclear, but it implies that there is a group from his denomination that is urging him to move on, and literally move away. > Yes - as I said, they're hoping to distance themselves from Haggard. Right now the country knows them as "Haggard's church," and they want a new identity. <Whether Haggard would be able to pastor a church again is unlikely. Sadly, some things are more "forgivable" than others. When Jim Bakker (PTL) was facing allegations of financial impropriety and fraud his followers rallied around him. The moment it became clear he was embroiled in a sex scandal, that support crumbled. He and his handlers fought very hard to discount the charges he was involved in homosexual activity. They knew that for many of his followers, that would be unforgivable. Sad, but true.> Which is one reason why I think Haggard is trying so hard to press the "I'm 100% heterosexual" thing. If he disappears from public view with the public still thinking of him as gay or bi, that would make a comeback much harder. I'm not saying he'll definitely attempt to start up another church. Just that I wouldn't rule it out. It's what he knows, it was quite lucrative for him, and people get addicted to the fame and money and adulation. He might not ever get back to the level he was, but like Jimmy Swaggart, might get back to making a nice living at it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux He could start a new branch called the "crystal meth-odists". DLD - now you've got me interested. Why is it important for you to delineate such a clear difference between "cure" and other euphemisms such as the church-approved "restoration"? Why split this hair - is there a larger point to be made?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Why is it important for you to delineate such a clear difference between "cure" and other euphemisms such as the church-approved "restoration"?<< Since this conversation deals specifically with Ted Haggard's situation, I have chosen to address it in that context alone. As the original article makes clear, Haggard does not consider himself gay, has "discovered" that he is completely heterosexual, and has neither sought nor claimed a cure. From the article we read: >>Haggard admitted to "sexual immorality" and a long battle against feelings contrary to his beliefs.<< Also: >>"He is completely heterosexual... That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."<< "Restoration" in this context is not a euphemism. As Friendofdd so succinctly stated in post #70, it is "a biblical concept that has nothing to do with changing from homosexual to heterosexual." >>Why split this hair - is there a larger point to be made?<< There are two "larger points" that certainly could be made here. First, there is something that has already been alluded to. It is important to Ted Haggard, and those who support him, that he not be gay. Despite all evidence to the contrary (and there is a lot), he has chosen to claim, and they have chosen to believe, that he is not gay. Therefore, the concept of a "cure" is irrelevant. The second point deals with the reaction by many on this board, and in the world at large. By saying that Haggard is claiming to be "cured," it legitimizes the notion that Christians are fundamentally out of touch: "There is no cure; ergo these people are either stupid or bigoted. Or both." I have no real sympathy for Ted Haggard. I feel sorry for his followers, for his family, and for the Christian community in general. Haggard himself is an adult man who knew exactly what he was doing at all times. This is not the experimentation of youth. His activites took place over a three year time period. That hardly constitutes a couple of instances of "acting out." I frankly do not know whether Ted Haggard is actually gay or not. It's between him and his God. But I also know that Haggard has not claimed to be "cured" of homosexuality. That's all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But I also know that Haggard has not claimed to be "cured" of homosexuality." "First, there is something that has already been alluded to. It is important to Ted Haggard, and those who support him, that he not be gay. Despite all evidence to the contrary (and there is a lot), he has chosen to claim, and they have chosen to believe, that he is not gay. Therefore, the concept of a "cure" is irrelevant." You still haven't answered the basic question. Haggard can be in denial all he wants, you can be in denial over the word "cure", but facts are facts. He engaged in repeated homosexual behavior. That he chooses to repress this part of himself doesn't mean that the rest of the world needs to be a party to his ongoing fraud and conceit. He's gay or bisexual. There's no such thing as getting "restored", or "reparative therapy" that Dobson thinks would take 4-5 years to accomplish, or laughably, 90 days in this instance. You can choose to play along with him and help further the hypocrisy. If your fear is this some how damages Christians, it's well established the Far Christian Right, such as Haggard and Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al, are bigoted and not very credible. Doesn't mean all Christians think gays can be "cured", quite the contrary, a true Christian would take the person as he or she found them. But not Haggard and friends, and that's why they deserve all the scorn that can be heaped upon them.
Originally Posted By Jetlag "I frankly do not know whether Ted Haggard is actually gay or not. It's between him and his God." I have to disagree with the last sentence. At the very moment Mr. Haggard made homosexuality part of his "religious program" it is not between him and his god anymore. Alaways keep in mind that he used his platform to make the life of gays around the world more difficult, while he was enjyoing the service of a male prostitute and consuming illegal substances.
Originally Posted By DlandDug In the given context, it is quite reasonable to say that whether Haggard is gay or not is between him and God. It simply means that I cannot know.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Thank you very much for your posts on this topic, SPP. The claim that religious "therapy" can cure someone of being gay is LESS ridiculous than the claim that a completely straight man would repeatedly seek out sex with a male prostitute. Ergo, when the person in question is determined to now be "completely heterosexual" after three weeks of instensive efforts by religious counselors, there is a definite implication of a "cure." I loved it that the church leaders so boldly stated that if any other man had had sex with Haggard they would surely have come forward by now. Riiiiiiigggghhht. As if the men he may have traded sex with at reststops or adult book stores or bathhouses knew who he was. Or, if they did, would sacrifice their marriages (or gay relationships) by coming forward about it.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka When someone compares their sexual escapades as an open wound that has healed or is healing, I feel that is implying that they are cured.
