Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Ted Haggard now says that he "over-repented" for being shame-fisted into a meth coma (thank you, Jamie Kilstein) by a male prostitute. The Wall Street Journal takes a look at his new church and interviews him as he says things like this:
He acknowledged grave lapses of judgment in the episode he refers to as "my crisis." But Mr. Haggard also said that in his sorrow and shame, he accepted too much guilt after the scandal broke."I over-repented," he said...
He portrays his encounter with the prostitute as a massage that went awry and said he doesn't have same-sex attractions. He dismisses as a "witch hunt" the findings of his former church that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including sordid talk and inappropriate relationships.
This is just another of Haggard's lies. Remember that when he resigned, he admitted that his attractions to men had been something he had fought against his entire life:
"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.
And now, suddenly, "hey, it was just a massage that got out of hand. My bad." Once a liar, always a liar.
Politics
Comments
Just another example of Lying for Jesus (the unofficial slogan of Answers in Genesis).
Posted by: Wesley | July 27, 2010 12:11 PM
Ted Haggard: He portrays his encounter with the prostitute as a massage that went awry and said he doesn't have same-sex attractions.
That masseuse must have had some magic hands!
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2010 12:12 PM
The victim of a "witch hunt"? Yeah, I suppose a church outing one of its gay members for being gay could be aptly described as a "witch hunt."
Posted by: AL | July 27, 2010 12:16 PM
Over-repenting: I hate it when that happens.
Posted by: anthrosciguy | July 27, 2010 12:16 PM
This is how it seems to go whenever you speak about most anything with many christians, they just can't keep themselves from lying to maintain the delusions of their belief system. When you point out the falsehood, you get accused of being rude or hostile. So it goes.
Posted by: Caddisfly | July 27, 2010 12:22 PM
Translation: "In my distress, I forgot how eagerly fundamentalists will fall for the repentance & redemption schtick. If I'd been thinking properly, I would have realized I could confess to a whole lot less and stay on the gravy train."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 27, 2010 12:31 PM
My masseuse charges extra for shame-fisting.
Posted by: V. Profane | July 27, 2010 12:32 PM
I hope the lasting result from this whole Haggard matter is that 'over-repenting' will be added to our lexicon.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2010 12:39 PM
Since he over-repented, does that mean he gets to have a few more affairs since he already repented enough to cover them?
Posted by: catgirl | July 27, 2010 12:40 PM
Pity the folks who attend his new church. I mean, what kind of people would attend his new church? Why would people go to his church when they have churches? Unless he attracts only those who fall off the turnip truck as it passes the door.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | July 27, 2010 12:45 PM
I don't want to be the grammar nazi here, but masseuse is female and masseur is male. Just sayin'...
Posted by: João | July 27, 2010 12:50 PM
Mr. Haggard plays up his new regular-guy image. At the picnic, he asked a friend whether anyone noticed he had said "hell" in the sermon—and not in a Biblical context.
"I cuss now," he said proudly.
I wonder if "fuck me like an angry trucker, big boy" is in his repertoire.
Posted by: Fred | July 27, 2010 12:51 PM
Whew, just got out of the quote mine. Here's what I found:
Haggard: "...all of my adult life... is so repulsive and dark..."
Posted by: John Hinkle | July 27, 2010 12:52 PM
Does this mean he "refudiates" his previous confession?
Posted by: Nebularry | July 27, 2010 1:01 PM
Reverend Rodney:
What is it with the turnip jokes, huh? I mean, what did a turnip, some kohlrabi, mustard greens or any member of my family, Brassicaceae ever do to fuck up your day?
I'm going to ask you, this time, to stop making me and my relatives the butt of your comparisons with idiots who are dumb enough to believe what a buttfuckee like Ted Haggard has to say--about anything. If your insults continue you may expect to hear from my avocado, I mean my advocate, in damned short order. It's like you people have no imagination. You can just call a spade a spade, and say they're even dumber Teabaggers than Ted is.
By the bye, the "M" is for "Motherfucker" not "Milquetoast", don't push us.
Posted by: Tommy M. Turnip | July 27, 2010 1:06 PM
Plagiarizing everyone:
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2010 1:42 PM
@Joāo:
Thank you. I've worked as a masseur, and that misuse bugs the hell out of me.
Posted by: Pieter B | July 27, 2010 1:48 PM
It's not the turnip. It's the truck.
Posted by: A | July 27, 2010 1:52 PM
I always figured Ted would finagle his way back into the religious gold mine. Its' so much money for so little work.
People like Haggard enjoy being worshiped in their cult of personality. There is a plethora of people who will pay big time so they don't have to think.
Haggard did not over-repent, he is still missing the opportunity to extend peace, love and acceptance to the gay community. If Ted believes his experience was a lesson from his deity, he did not get a passing grade.
I am more curious about his wife. What basic human trait is she missing not to pack her children up and get them out of Ted's unhealthy circus of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Pinky | July 27, 2010 2:00 PM
The only thing I suspect pastor Ted has over-repented of is getting caught. I absolutely expect there are more liaisons in his future similar to the ones in his past. Old dogs and new tricks.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 27, 2010 2:32 PM
Repent means to turn away from sin, so it is not possible to "over-repent." But to be charitable he does have a point--it is a mistake to wallow in guilt. If he is a Christian his sins are covered-- so at some point he should move on-- otherwise he is displaying a lack of confidence in the gospel.
Posted by: heddle | July 27, 2010 2:37 PM
Um, heddle? Repentance is a silly made up get out of jail free card. It is nothing more than means of making one feel better about horrid activities without actually taking any responsibility. It is reprehensible and foul. It is an excuse to never learn anything and avoid any hard work.
I just love how you christians get to get out of everything you do without an ounce of responsibility.
How any sentient being could possible display ANY "confidence" in the "gospel" makes my brain hurt.
Posted by: WBPNYC | July 27, 2010 3:08 PM
Tommy M. Turnip
You got me wrong! I like turnips (and rutabagas). It's the PEOPLE who fall off turnip trucks that I meant, not the turnips. Turnips are a blessing. Mashed turnips with a little salt, pepper, and butter. My mottos: leave no turnip behind. A turnip is a terrible thing to waste! Let me off the hook. I don't want to over-repent. I might start refudiating!
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | July 27, 2010 3:09 PM
WBPNYC, #22: Repentance is a silly made up get out of jail free card.
Actually, repentance has a perfectly good secular meaning. That Christians make it a requirement in certain aspects of their faith doesn't erase the secular meaning.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 27, 2010 3:19 PM
It is amazing how people like Haggard redefine things so completely than up becomes down, and down becomes up:
How utterly bizarro world.
Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2010 3:26 PM
WBPNYC
Fair enough. I love how you make senseless generalizations without an ounce of intellectual shame.
Posted by: heddle | July 27, 2010 3:38 PM
Actually, repentance has a perfectly good secular meaning.
It also has a perfectly good and beneficial spiritual meaning. But cowardly spineless frauds like Haggard use the mere word as a "get out of jail free" card (or, more exactly, a "look I've already suffered and God has forgiven me so I don't have to take any responsibility or make any sacrifices" card); which makes over-generalizations like WBPNYC's pretty much inevitable.
Blame the action, heddle, not the reaction.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2010 4:06 PM
Project much ?
Posted by: steve oberski | July 27, 2010 4:30 PM
The idea of arguing over how much a person should regret something that isn't even wrong to satisfy a god whose nature hasn't been established and what such a process should be called makes my head hurt.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 27, 2010 4:38 PM
While the Bible's authors and editors provide mostly horrible arguments promoting the concept of repentence and grace, I'd argue the concepts themselves are powerfully positive influences on society. A society whose minimal standard is justice but instead mostly practices grace would approach utopia.
While I moved beyond religion long ago, I continue to imperfectly attempt to practice these concepts. I'm also grateful these concepts were presented to me. Verbal admonitions by authority figures never resonated but the biblical text sure did and continues to do so. Don Henley's song The Heart of the Matter [lyrics embedded] was probably the most effective outside agency beyond the
Bible. ;)
One of my primary frustrations with conservative Christians is that I perceive them as the most unjust, unrepentant, anti-grace group I come across in the U.S. besides blatant hate groups - in spite of their claiming a divine mandate to promote these concepts (which might blind me to groups worse than them in regards to who violates these ideals).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2010 4:54 PM
Yeah Ted, I know just how you feel. Whenever I repent too much, the next day my head hurts and my mouth is all sticky and dry, and I sometimes have a stomach ache.
Oh, wait. Did I say repent too much? I meant DRINK too much. Which, come to think of it, does make me repent. At least until the next weekend.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 27, 2010 5:39 PM
Let me get this straight. Haggard cheated on his wife with a prostitute, bought meth, deceived his congregation, humiliated his family, and hypocritically denounced homosexuals while secretly engaging in same-sex liasons.
And now he thinks he "over-repented".
That's rich. Just rich. This man is the most arrogant narcissist I've ever seen. He seems to have no true remorse for all the suffering and betrayal he inflicted, and I doubt he ever will.
Posted by: Angie | July 27, 2010 5:47 PM
@25,
Iowa? Now why do you think Teddie would happen to mention Iowa?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 27, 2010 5:50 PM
For NordicFest, of course!
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2010 5:54 PM
Give it 18 months before he's discovered on his knees, ummmm, evangelising in a biker bar?
Posted by: Amadan | July 27, 2010 6:42 PM
NordicFest
That was last week. :)
Posted by: Owen | July 27, 2010 6:57 PM
Oh come on. Whenever a Christian does something it was the devil who tempted them, God forgiving them and Jesus taking the punishment.
It's all about avoiding responsibility.
Posted by: Owen | July 27, 2010 7:04 PM
... and in other news: water discovered to be wet! Film at 11. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2010 7:32 PM
I'm curious to see what Scripture you can come up with to support this assertion. Empirical claims deserve evidence.
I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 27, 2010 8:18 PM
Probably a really good idea when waiting for evidence from the Scriptures.
Posted by: Owen | July 27, 2010 8:29 PM
#16: You know the old saying, love the turnip, hate the truck.
Rutabagas always bring up bad memories for me. When I was seven my two brothers and I were placed in an institution called St Joseph's Home for the Friendless. We were forced to eat rutabaga. If we didn't eat it at dinner, it was served cold for breakfast.
Posted by: wrpd | July 27, 2010 8:47 PM
Owen: I'll take that as evidence that you don't have a clue what you're talking about (either about what Christians actually believe or about providing evidence for claims). Thanks for the quick confirmation. (I do so love a timesaver.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 27, 2010 9:10 PM
Cynic: That a Christian would draw the wrong conclusion about what is before their eyes is no suprise.
Posted by: Owen | July 27, 2010 9:14 PM
Wow, an impressive double-down, Owen! You clearly are more interested in snark than actually arguing in good faith and, you know, putting your money where your mouth is.
(P.S. Could you tell me what groups you self-identify with so I can be like you and make gross overgeneralizations about said groups based on our interaction here? Thanks a bunch!)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 27, 2010 9:24 PM
Haggard seems more repentant about the sex than the hypocrisy. He hasn't learned a thing.
Posted by: Taz | July 27, 2010 9:48 PM
as jon stewart asked: how low are you when a drug-dealing man-whore has the moral highground?
Posted by: andrew | July 27, 2010 10:37 PM
The Christian Cynic,
Normally I'm in full agreement with your arguments here, but I think Owen makes a great point encapsulated in a minor defect (hyperbole):
The biggest example I observe with conservative Christians not taking responsibility is their either avoiding the fact that long revered talking points were employed as federal policy for eight years, failed miserably, and they now either falsely claim George W. was 'no true Scotsman', again to avoid taking responsibility and therefore avoid having to adapt.
So certainly one can reasonably call out Owen for some minor hyperbole, but I think it's unattractive avoidance by you to not deal with the centrality of his very good point.
In my example these Christians aren't even classy enough to own up to their being jointly complicit, they're instead trying to pin it all on the liberal; I think in hopes they can double down on a do-over where they're committed to an even purer form of what did so much harm the first time.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2010 10:54 PM
Micheal Heath:
Don't waste your time and bytes. Both heddle and Christian Cynic have a default setting for attacks on JEBUS and his family. They may be perfectly rational when discussing household finances or the current situation in Afghanistan but, bring up GOD and their reason goes right out the fucking window.
FTR, Christian Cynic, scripture is NOT fact--as Ed and the brits say, "full stop".
Posted by: democommie | July 27, 2010 11:18 PM
Haggard has done nothing but lie since the story first broke. I mean, he pulled an "I didn't inhale" with the meth from the very beginning - IIRC he claimed to have bought it, but not used it. I don't think he ever actually admitted to any specific sexual act at the time, and his version of events only minimally overlapped with Mike Jones'. Even with all that, this crap takes major cojones. So when his counselors claimed him "cured" of his homosexual attractions, was he lying to them then? When he and his wife went on Oprah and openly discussed his struggle, was he lying then? Or is he lying now? Anyone care to bet for a little of both?
I once had some sympathy for this fool, because I know the hell of the closet, but not anymore. Contrast Haggard with Roy Ashburn, the conservative California legislator outed after he got arrested for DUI leaving a Sacramento gay club with a hot young man in his car. He consistently voted anti-gay, and now admits it was to hide his actual orientation. Refreshingly, he actually apologizes in a recent column - and not an "I'm sorry if you were offended" bullsh*t apology either:
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/07/19/my-journey-my-party-and-lgbt-rights/
Now that is a man I can respect and empathize with. Haggard can go to Hell (Which I don't, really, believe in, but you get the point).
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 27, 2010 11:36 PM
Oh come on. Whenever a Christian does something it was the devil who tempted them, God forgiving them and Jesus taking the punishment.
Owen, you're forgetting about the demons. They might have a demon problem and then Jesus could just cast them out. Luke 11:24 Jesus says that if demons leave people, then they get restless and go and find seven other demon friends and go back inside of people so that they're even worse off then when they only had just one demon in them!! A demon catch-22!!
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 12:49 AM
Nice breitbarting.
Posted by: Mithrandir | July 28, 2010 3:12 AM
Michael Heath wrote:
It's not just conservative Christians who do this, it's nearly all of them. The whole concept of someone else dying for "your" sins, or being sacrificed to magically absolve others, is an anathema to personal responsibility. The whole point of absolution is to release one from responsibility of sin, at least until the next sin is committed.
For the rest of us, can we all take a moment to think before accusing anyone who is being mildly sarcastic of not "arguing in good faith"? Besides being possibly the dumbest phrase ever, the very act of casting aspersions on your opponent by accusing them of not arguing in good faith is in itself not arguing in good faith.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 3:52 AM
Mithrandir "Nice breitbarting."
Hardly. Haggard isn't brown.
Leni "For the rest of us, can we all take a moment to think before accusing anyone who is being mildly sarcastic of not 'arguing in good faith'? Besides being possibly the dumbest phrase ever, the very act of casting aspersions on your opponent by accusing them of not arguing in good faith is in itself not arguing in good faith."
You just say that because you aren't arguing in good faith.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 28, 2010 4:09 AM
It's not just conservative Christians who do this, it's nearly all of them. The whole concept of someone else dying for "your" sins, or being sacrificed to magically absolve others, is an anathema to personal responsibility.
Not only that but people aren't even responsible for their own sins to begin with. (Adam and Eve are. Or should I say Eve is. Note how the serpent is completely absolved of all responsibility, being the lame irrational religion that it is.)
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 4:38 AM
Oh yeah, God is absolved of all responsibility too. Didn't have a dern thing to do with it. But still was nice enough to fix up the whole mess though with a lovely blood sacrifice. How lovely. Fixed it up real good too! Did a fantastic job. Kudos!
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 4:44 AM
386sx "(Adam and Eve are. Or should I say Eve is. Note how the serpent is completely absolved of all responsibility, being the lame irrational religion that it is.)"
Note, too, that a posited 3-O'd God put that serpent there.
Note, too, that He did so knowing what the snake, and the twins, would do.
Note, too, that they're all fictional characters*.
* Even 386sx. I shit you not.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 28, 2010 4:47 AM
I'm a metaphor for cabbage soup. (Thank you gracious host blog manager for allowing metaphors to post comments on humble blog.)
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 5:00 AM
Leni,
That's just crazy. What you describe, essentially, is the heresy of antinomianism.
Free from the Law, Oh blessed condition,
I can sin as I please and still have remission
the charge, symbolized by the above ditty, was made almost exclusively against Protestants. It was forcefully countered from the very beginning, by Luther and Calvin--and is addressed in the bible by Paul and James.
I have no idea what looking glass you and Heath are peering into in order to claim that Christians have absolved themselves of personal responsibility. With Michael Heath all I can say is that, like Oliver Stone, at least least gets begrudging kudos for putting his negative stereotypes front and center.
The Christians I know are dedicated to helping the poor. The Christians I know are dedicated to the environment. No Christian that I know would argue that a crime committed by a Christian should go unpunished. So what exactly are the personal responsibilities that we are ignoring?
What is it that you or Michael Heath take responsibility for that I or the Christians I know do not?
(Yes can counter-argue by anecdote, say Ted Haggard.)
Michael Heath's criticism, in its essence, is: they don't agree with me politically and won't admit they were wrong--they won't admit that Bush's policies were flawed. The bastards!
Utter nonsense. One, for it being false--in the sense that there are plenty of Christians who opposed Bush policies--many, like myself, who opposed the wars. And two because even if they still believe that Bush's policies were correct that does not represent an abdication of responsibility, it represents, at worst, that they are wrong. But conservative Christians, when presented with Heath's astute analysis--yet still having the temerity to refuse to acknowledge that he has proved his position as irrefutably as a mathematical theorem--why this is, in his mind, an unspeakable, libertine abrogation of personal responsibility.
Becoming a Christian should bring with repentance and a desire to please God. These are strong motivations to double down on personal responsibility.
I know, I know--the Christians I live among and interact with on a daily basis don't count. Even though they are conservative, southern, and Baptist they don't count. Such southern, conservative and Baptist Christians are not representative of American Christendom--they are surely outliers. On the other hand, the caricatures of Micheal Heath (who has admitted that he has personal experience only with dispensational fundamentalists) are no-doubt definitive.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 5:00 AM
Heddle - "Snow? There's no such thing as snow! I've never seen it." ;)
Let me ask you all a hypothetical:
Suppose your partner* was terribly and fatally ill. There is a man who has developed a cure, but he will only sell you it for an unfeasibly high price (from your point of view). Would you be justified in stealing it? Why or why not? - Dingo
----
* I don't know (nor need to know) whether this is so, I am speaking purely hypothetically
Posted by: DingoJack | July 28, 2010 5:44 AM
heddle - "If he is a Christian his sins are covered-- so at some point he should move on-- otherwise he is displaying a lack of confidence in the gospel."
I think you are all an alright person - and interesting - just saying because I disagree with you lots on this god stuff but trust I am not warring on you.
When you say what you said above - when you parse it - it shows the basic underlying arrogance of fervent Christians. It also shows - juxtaposed to christian baggage and arrogance - a notion of some sound secular good mental health advise.
I will not parse - I suspect if you want you'll easily see my point - you are smart enough.
You are a paradox like your statement - somewhere in the brain of yours the demons of Calvinism are being battled the forces of reason. Hey - we all have demons of some sort - yours just seem more self-imposed and unnecessary than mine ;-).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 28, 2010 5:53 AM
DJ,
I don't know if I would be justified--but I would do it. Then I would pay the price just like anyone else, Christian or not, who stole an expensive medicine.
If you are asking me a theological question--whether or not circumstances mitigate the seriousness of an offense in the eyes of God--I think they do. The bible is full of situational ethics. Rahab, for example, lied--but yet gets mentioned in the faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11. There is no mention, anywhere, that she should have found a way to help the Hebrew spies without lying.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 6:13 AM
heddle sez:
"The Christians I know are dedicated to helping the poor. The Christians I know are dedicated to the environment. No Christian that I know would argue that a crime committed by a Christian should go unpunished. So what exactly are the personal responsibilities that we are ignoring?"
And he knows them all, no doubt.
heddle, here's a hint; leave the omniscience to your imaginary skydaddy.
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2010 7:14 AM
Leni @ 52:
That has not been my experience with "born-again" Christians. The Christians I know who repent of their sins maintain some responsibility for what they did, they just falsely claim influences outside of themselves were partly to blame.
My challenge to Christian Cynic was narrower, that we do encounter conservative Christians distinguishing themselves by avoiding responsibility more than others. That observation is consistent with a more modest assertion made by Owen, who I agreed went too far.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 7:27 AM
heddle @ 58:
See my above comment noting my points do not reconcile to Leni's.
heddle - I used a very obvious example of conservative Christians avoiding personal responsibility to illuminate their propensity for avoiding responsibility, i.e., their support of a conservative agenda that clearly and directly did great damage to the country - damage that can measured and where we can observe they advocate not just merely for more of the same - but instead a doubled-down version of the same - both in policies and people. So please, explain how they're not admitting their wrong about conservatism and actually seeking more of it though even more divorced from reality and what experts advocate is anything but avoiding responsibility for what they've already wrought.
And my point is not a mere false stereotype as you dishonestly claim, I used an example where we can constantly and empirically measure their affiliation and support for certain policies.
Democommie's assertion made prior to your comment is certainly looking mighty prescient given how your subsequent post walks right into the punch he threw prior to you even engaging.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 7:37 AM
Heddle - by 'the price' I assume you'd hand yourself in the police, and plead mitigating circumstances. While you and I might strongly disagree on things, let me say I certainly admire your decency. Except, perhaps, your willingness to commit genocide if told to by god (but even then, I think you'd demand really strong evidence that it was from god).
Personally, I would say: certainly theft would be justified, because no person has the right to buy and sell someone else's life, to do so is unethical. - Dingo
----
(BTW there is no 'wrong' answer here and no 'gotcha' either. I was simply curious).
Posted by: DingoJack | July 28, 2010 7:42 AM
Michael Heath:
Here is one big problem: Owen said Christians, sans qualifier. You (clearly being the more even-handed of the two of you) made a far more reasonable claim, although I still think that you need evidence that this is a problem among the majority of conservative Christians and not just the more vocal idiots that seem to represent all evangelicals these days.
The ever lovely demo:
Which is not something that I claimed and purely a dig at me to derail the thread. (Do you think that I'm going to go sob into my pillow because an atheist thinks I'm wrong? I have thicker skin than that.)
Leni, leaving aside what Heddle has already addressed:
It wasn't the sarcasm that made me use that ever-odious (at least to you, not to me) phrase "arguing in good faith." It was the fact that Owen made an assertion merely out of snark and then refused to actually back up his assertion. Claims made with no intent to provide evidence are a clear example, in my opinion, of arguing in bad faith, i.e. arguing just to piss off your opponent rather than sustain meaningful discourse. I would have thought pretty much anyone could have gotten that.
Since you think that I was merely "casting aspersions" by my use of that phrase, what would you suggest I have done, Leni? Let Owen's unwarranted assertion go unpunished because someone might accuse me of arguing in bad faith for suggesting that a refusal to back up claims is itself arguing in bad faith? (I hope I haven't made your case of word aversion stir up too badly.) Sorry, but that makes no sense. When people act stupidly, I intend to call them on it, and if that opens me up to scrutiny, well, that's what happens when you argue in public.
Once more to democommie:
Since Heddle already cut off the ubiquitous "I know every Christian" attack, I would say that Heddle is mentioning these people as a counterexample to previous claims about Christians, not as evidence of what all Christians are really like. Actually, I don't have to say it: Heddle said it in that very same comment. Funny how that works when you read someone's whole comment not looking for a "gotcha" line.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 28, 2010 7:49 AM
heddle - you falsely claim my argument is mere opinion, it is not. We can measure that reduced effective tax rates did not provide superior economic growth rates and did not "pay for themselves" but instead enlarged the structural (read 'on-going') structural deficit to the point the Bush tax cuts are the single largest element of the current structural deficit (citation available, it's been presented in this forum many times, including my Ed in his own blog post). We had much higher growth rates without increasing the debt when effective taxation rates averaged around 18% of GDP than the 15% of GDP during the Bush years. We also know that the absence of regulations can create results which can cause deeper future recession and/or huge burdens to taxpayers as they get the bill for externalities wrought by the absence of a sound regulatory framework.
Yet conservative Christians remain the most dominant loyal voting constituency for a type of conservatism that advocates not increasing taxes to get rid of the strucutural deficit their movement created and continue to obstruct efforts to better regulate to avoid future bubbles bursting with taxpayers picking up the tab or bills to taxpayers due to the generation of externalities, in spite of your claims regarding your tiny sphere of influence being diverse. We can empirically measure exactly where conservative Christians stand - in fact like I stated earlier, it's not merely about policies, but people as well as they go from supporting George W. Bush to conservatives who are even less informed and arguing for policies which have already been falsified as having failed. Sarah Palin has the highest support of any '12 GOP candidate right now, please read the full transcripts of the Charlie Gibson interview that was just released which illuminates and validates my point ("validates" since she maintains high support coming primarily from conservative Chrisitans).
heddle - what ever critical thinking skills you have went completely out of the window on your last comment post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 7:53 AM
MH:
I would have to say that the religious faith of these people is mostly incidental in this case. Very few people will want to admit that all of the stuff they've previously espoused was dangerous (if they even know it's been dangerous, c.f. Fox News), and it takes a lot of character to own up to one's mistakes. It may be avoiding responsibility, but the source is not Christian theology (and this notion that penal substitution atonement means that Christians can do whatever and have no responsibility) but rather our human desire to avoid looking like idiots. Some of us have a harder time of this than others, I'm afraid.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 28, 2010 7:55 AM
Michael Heath,
Amazing. This maps on to a "have you stopped beating your wife?" charge. Even if valid it would apply no more to economic conservatives who are Christian than to economic conservatives who are not. And "experts" means, of course, experts Michael Heath agrees with.
Is that all you got? That conservative Christians avoid personal responsibility because they (in your fantasy world, but let's grant it) won't agree with you (or your experts) that Bush's presidency was damaging to the country? That's the extent of your quiver?
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 7:58 AM
Michael Heath,
Well of course. Like I pointed out before, you say that in darn near every discussion we have. And as I advised earlier, I think if you must adopt a hot-key mantra, "mendacious intellectual pornography" has a far better zing to it than "lack of critical thinking." Just my opinion.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 8:05 AM
but rather our human desire to avoid looking like idiots. Some of us have a harder time of this than others, I'm afraid.
Not me. I'll gladly state that when a demon leaves people, it gets bored and goes and finds seven other demon friends and goes back inside of people again and has a demon party, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Even if it's a direct quote from Jesus, which it is. (Slightly paraphrased.) If that makes me look like an idiot, then so be it. It's still the dumbest thing I ever saw, and if verses like that don't make people stop and think that maybe they are "play pretending", then I guess that makes me an idiot. I wear it proudly.
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 8:10 AM
386sx, if you read that whole passage in Luke 11 and really think that Jesus is literally saying, "When you cast out a demon, he'll bring back seven other demon friends for a demon party," then perhaps the mantle of "idiot" is yours for the taking.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 28, 2010 8:16 AM
Christian Cynic nit picks minutia and "gotcha" points instead of owning up to the tons of crazy demon verses. (As expected.) I wear it proudly, like I said.
Posted by: 386sx | July 28, 2010 8:31 AM
The Christian Cynic wrote:
When you can demonstrate how you were able to read Jesus' mind to give you the certainty that he wasn't referring to literal demons then perhaps 386x would have need of that mantle.
Because until you can you might as well be claiming you know for certain that it's the Polka and not the Charleston the pin-residing angels are currently dancing the steps to.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 28, 2010 9:00 AM
The Christians I know are dedicated to helping the poor. The Christians I know are dedicated to the environment. No Christian that I know would argue that a crime committed by a Christian should go unpunished.
Good on ya, heddle, but here's a news flash: the Christians you know are not a repersentative sample of the Christians who have dominated our public discourse (religious and secular) since Jerry Falwell first got his fat fake smile on our TV screens. Nor are they a representative sample of the Christians who have been most effective at presenting their brand of Christianity as THE ONE TRUE VERSION, and everyone else as idol-worshipping heretical compromising cafeteria-Christian materialists.
And on a more personal note, they are not a representative sample of the Christians who have been insulting my intelligence while trying to convert me since the early 1970s. You may not have met them, heddle, but there really are some BIG Christian sects whose doctrine explicitly mocks, belittles and disdains ALL of the good works the Christians you know support -- and use Bible quotes to justify their babyish refusal to do anything decent for anyone. Want yet another example of Christians avoiding responsibility? Just listen to all the evangelicals braying about how none of us can possibly be as good as Jesus, so why even bother trying?
(Oh, and how come we never hear about the goodness of your fellow Christians except when there's an argument about doctrine?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 9:48 AM
RB,
Fair enough. But are we supposed to take as gospel that the Christians who have dominated our public discourse (religious and secular) since Jerry Falwell first got his fat fake smile on our TV screens are representative?
My experience is that the people get the press and make the noise are rarely representative of the group they purport to represent. They are extremists, which is why they get the press and make the noise.
Could you give me a link? I don't mean some random bozo's blog--someone who is at least a pastor and yet teaches that since we can't be as good as Jesus we shouldn't even try to do good works. It would be good blog fodder.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 10:21 AM
Christian Cynic:
This was yours:
"I'm curious to see what Scripture you can come up with to support this assertion. Empirical claims deserve evidence.
I won't be holding my breath."
yes?
Are you saying that your Wholly Babble is not in fact, y'know, factual? Or are you saying that empirical claims do not require factual refutation? I know that you guys like to interpret the fables in whatever way best suits your beliefs--and not the other way around--but you're asking that someone quote oft copied, translated and edited "facts" in those babblical passages to support their claims?
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2010 10:43 AM
But are we supposed to take as gospel that the Christians who have dominated our public discourse (religious and secular) since Jerry Falwell first got his fat fake smile on our TV screens are representative?
We're not "taking it as Gospel," we're drawing conslusions based on the available evidence, gathered/accreted over a period of many years. It certainly makes more sense than taking YOUR word as "gospel."
Could you give me a link?
Aside from "Evangelical Outpost," no, because the crap I've heard comes by mouth and on paper. Remember, things don't just exist on the Internet.
I don't mean some random bozo's blog...
Of course not. And of course whatever link I offer will automatically be brushed off as "some random bozo's blog."
...someone who is at least a pastor...
...whom you will also brush off as "not what MY pastors say," just like you brush off every other bit of evidence that doesn't make your little religion look as good as you desperately want to believe it is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 10:48 AM
Christian Cynic sez:
"I would have to say that the religious faith of these people is mostly incidental in this case."
Of course you would have to say that. Otherwise it makes "faith" look like nothing but a convenient dodge for the shysters who fleece the sheeple. When christians, all of 'em, rise up in indignation and rid themselves of the hucksters, opportunists, haters and greedheads who occupy the loftiest positions in their churches hierarchy AND replace them with decent, caring, honest people--then they will be a nice club that does charitable works, with or without GOD'S approval. They will still be delusional, but not hateful and destructive in their madness.
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2010 10:51 AM
RB,
Not at all. It will serve two purposes. You get to demonstrate that there are indeed Christians who teach "none of us can possibly be as good as Jesus, so why even bother trying?" After all, you implied there are many in #75. And I get someone to mock in a blog post. It's a win-win.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 10:55 AM
The Christian Cynic:
Maybe rather than you whining about me answering your snark in kind, consider enlightening me where I am wrong? I'm sure you can come up with some interpretation of the Scriptures that will put me in my place. Until then, I think my brief summary of the Christian faith is spot on.
And if you wish to make generalizations about me, try Gay. Your friends have plenty of them.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 11:17 AM
Owen,
It's his business, but I don't think he should, because your comment:
is just trolling.
To first order, the first point is wrong, the second and third are features, not bugs, and the conclusion is bogus.
Again--name something, anything concrete, that I as a devout Christian avoid taking personal responsibility for that you as a non-Christian (I'm assuming), do take personal responsibility for?
<<crickets chirping>>
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 11:29 AM
Heddle, are you saying man wasn't tempted into sin? That Jesus didn't die for your sins? That God doesn't forgive you?
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 11:34 AM
Owen,
No--did you see that I said points 2 and 3 are features? What I am saying is:
1) Christian doctrine teaches that men sin because of their own depravity--not because they are tempted by Satan. By the way, Satan is a creature and therefore not omnipresent. I seriously doubt that I, for example, am on his radar or that I have ever crossed paths with him.
2) Yes God forgives.
3) Yes Jesus performed a propitiation.
Again, your conclusion is nonsense. Again, I ask for something, anything concrete, that I as a devout Christian avoid taking personal responsibility for that you as a non-Christian (I'm assuming), do take personal responsibility for.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 11:48 AM
@CPT_Doom @49,
I am awed almost about the Roy Ashburn apology (repentance?). That moves my cynicism about people a wee bit away from the brink. Class move on his part. Unexpected too.
Now, for real repentance, Ashburn needs to open a clinic for failed GOP family values types and Haggardettes.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 28, 2010 12:20 PM
Heddle, as I said said to Cynic, I'm sure you can come up with an interpretation that puts me in my place.
That's the really cool thing about discussing the Scriptures. You can say whatever fits your point of view. That makes your point of view apparently the correct point of view while mine is nonsense.
Even though it is nonsense, appropriate in the context of religion really, I'm standing by my point of view that the Christian faith is all about avoiding responsibility.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 12:40 PM
Owen,
No your point is nonsense independent of translation or interpretation, because you concluded "It's all about avoiding responsibility."
Again, I ask for something, anything concrete, that I as a devout Christian avoid taking personal responsibility for that you as a non-Christian (I'm assuming), do take personal responsibility for.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 12:45 PM
I don't believe a word of Christianity but I'm going to have to at least partially side with heddle. From where I sit, it looks as if he is arguing that there is a range of Christian opinion and being accused of the opposite. I would also agree that if you want a representative sample of Christians going to a neighbourhood church is a better bet than looking at who shouts loudest on tv and that confusing political and theological conservatism is unhelpful.
Posted by: Matty | July 28, 2010 2:28 PM
Michael Heath
Please note that I said the idea of absolution was an anathema to personal responsibility, not that Christians themselves are incapable of it or that they are feigning being repentant (although that is obviously sometimes true).
Christian Cynic:
It's not word aversion, it's pedantic whining aversion :)
Look, CC, that "provide scriptural evidence" line was total bait and Owen made the right decision not to take it. You, however, went right for his, apparently for the purpose of punishing him for insolence. Neither of you were arguing in good faith as far as I could tell. I'm not sure how you should have responded, but accusing him of doing the same thing that you were doing in order to score an argument point was, I'm sure, not the best response you could have come up with.
I'm sorry if my irritation with that phrase bothers you, but I've been seeing it used here so often that it's starting to sound like something people say just to make themselves look like the better person. In my opinion, it doesn't. It just makes you look like a whiny douche, which I don't think you are, by the way. I also like your posts and usually agree with you. Since you aren't the only person who uses (or over-uses) that phrase, I intentionally directed that remark at all of us, which includes me since it's a fair bet I've said it too.
I have a high opinion of most of the commenters here, including you, so I expect more from them than over-used douche phrases. See, it's really a compliment.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 2:37 PM
As a devout xtian you deny that methodological naturalism is the only way of understanding reality.
To the extent that you posit supernatural causes for natural events and pretend that dogma is evidence you abdicate responsibility for your actions.
This is obviously not directed solely at xtians, anybody who grovels to an invisible sky fairy is included.
Posted by: steve oberski | July 28, 2010 4:06 PM
steve oberski ,
I deny that methodological naturalism is the only way of understanding reality not just as a Christian, but also as a scientist. That is, even when I was an atheistic scientist:
• I didn't deny that I could learn something about reality from art. (Do you?)
• I didn't deny that I could learn something about reality from literature. (Do you?)
My view of methodological naturalism is not, and never has been, that it is the only way to learn something about reality. It has always been, in my opinion, the only way of doing science--i.e., it is synonymous with the scientific method.
What actions? Please be more specific: what action that I do, what specific, concrete action do I perform and not take personal responsibility for? I want something like: You leave the toilet seat up with malice aforethought! Your statement is so vague as to render it "woo."
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 4:46 PM
Not that it matters but, do you? If so, shame on you.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 5:02 PM
Well, we don't know your specific sins heddle. That's between you and your god and we do not possess his omniscience.
Have you ever acted sinfully despite the fact that you knew it was sinful when or before you acted?
How did you justify taking that action? What did you think would happen later on?
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 5:16 PM
Leni:
But the claim was that Christians abdicate personal responsibility. You in fact wrote: It's not just conservative Christians who do this, it's nearly all of them. Surely it is fair to ask for some specific examples common to most Christians?
[1] You mean, like, in the last hour? Of course.
[2] Like with any sin: because I want to.
[3] It depends on the specifics.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 5:30 PM
Appreciation of art and literature are subjective experiences. I would not claim that they increase my understanding of reality.
Sounds like you may experience something described as "spiritual" or "mystical" when reading certain texts.
As Sam Harris put in in "The End of Faith":
"But nothing about these experiences justifies arrogant and exclusionary claims about the unique sanctity of any text".
As a self professed devout xtian, your ethics and morals are are informed by bronze age mythology.
You bring nothing to the table when discussions about real problems such as global warming, stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia happen and in point of fact you are an active impediment to any possible future where we have devised mutually acceptable solutions to these problems based on an honest, evidence based appraisal of the situation.
Hope that's concrete enough for you.
Posted by: steve oberski | July 28, 2010 5:37 PM
steve oberski ,
I prefer a different irrelevant Harris quote from the same work:
"Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical."
but to each his own.
No it isn't. I 1) affirm AGW 2) support stem cell research, 3) oppose abortion, 4) oppose euthanasia. These are positions. Some shared by non-Christians. Having a position on an issue does not mean you abdicate personal responsibility. That's what the discussion is about, not about what i "Bring to the table." So it is not concrete at all. I want you to tell me of an action I take for which I do not take personal responsibility.
The woo, it is deep with you.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 5:50 PM
I will admit to a certain amount of irrationality.
I personally don't care what your position is on any of these issues.
It's how you arrived at them.
If you are a devout xtian then your position on these issues is informed by dogma and not reality and you abdicate responsibility. No amount of rational argument or evidence will change your position because it has been revealed to you from a supernatural, unfalsifiable source.
If your position on these issues is not informed by xtian dogma, why do you call your self a devout xtian ?
Someone is going to come and take away your invisible sky fairy magic decoder ring (the one that allows you understand reality via art and literature) if you don't start toeing the line.
Posted by: steve oberski | July 28, 2010 6:09 PM
steve oberski |
It is surprisingly effective with the ladies.
Posted by: heddle | July 28, 2010 6:46 PM
Fixed the link for you.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 28, 2010 7:06 PM
That's a Christian for you, always looking for an angle. They just can't be trusted.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 7:27 PM
Steve Oberski:
I'm sure that you have discovered, in this thread if you didn't already know it, that heddle is one slippery weasel when it comes to justifying his belief system. He takes his GOD on faith, but not the rest of the empirical world around him. Some scientist.
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2010 9:15 PM
I think this a bit excessive. Literature can expose you to perspectives that are deeply meaningful and have the effect of altering your views of reality. How do you form opinions about psychological reality and social reality without recourse to narrative, which is itself subjective?
If someone make the statement that "Person A" is motivated by greed or fear or contempt, would you say that that any such claim isn't based in reality? I ask that because such a claim relies on subjective perceptions. Do you eschew making claims of this sort or do you always offer the caveat that this is your subjective perspective and, therefore, not based in reality?
I assure you I'm not being disingenuous in the least. This is very much an area of my attention and concern professionally and very much a subject of concern in my profession.
Posted by: Dr X | July 28, 2010 10:02 PM
Wowbagger:
That is hardly necessary. I only need to sustain the claim that the most reasonable reading of the passage as a whole in the context of the chapter does not indicate that the verses in question (about an exorcised demon returning with seven more demons) are really indeed literally about demons. (That's not to say that a demon possession isn't involved in an earlier verse or that Jesus did not perform exorcisms or that the Bible never really refers to literal demons, but note that I haven't claimed any of that.) However, that seems even more tangential than the discussion we're having now. (Maybe Owen is a plant by Haggard to derail--no, that is unlikely.)
democommie@77: You're smarter than that, really. Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum -- that is, we don't just talk about evidence per se but about evidence for a given claim. I am not, despite your best efforts to insist that I am, claiming that the Bible is evidence for the existence of God, but I am claiming that Biblical references would be pretty good evidence for what Christians might broadly believe -- and we can even concede copyedits, etc. for the sake of argument because we're talking about what Christians believe now based on the Bible we know now. (It wouldn't be foolproof evidence, but very little of that exists in actuality, anyway.)
Let's sketch this out briefly:
I'm not asking for anything that shouldn't be expected from anyone making a positive claim. If Owen doesn't want the burden of proof, then a retraction is in order.
demo@79:
I admire your cynicism, but the truth is that this tendency (to avoid looking like an idiot) can be identified outside of religion (and in the non-religious). That you would like to tie this natural tendency to religion says something about your own bias.
Leni:
I adamantly deny that it was bait, and I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. I was not trying to score a point but instead to keep Owen honest about the claim in question. If Owen had really wanted to support the point, it might have even been appropriate not to take the specific "bait" (Scriptural evidence) and provide at least anecdotal evidence: for instance, what Christians have said about their motivations for actions they knew were improper. That would still carry the problems of generalization (for instance, I've lived around conservative Christians all my life and never heard the "devil made me do it" excuse - in fact, it was always disdained as an excuse of the "backslidden" or immoral), but it would have been evidence.
A somewhat backhanded one, perhaps. (But I suppose it's as close to a real compliment as I'm likely to get around here, being in a noticeable minority.) I still disagree that it's an "over-used douche phrase," but you're entitled to that opinion as much as the next person.
heddle@98: Ha! That's about as good a response as I could have expected for that question.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 28, 2010 10:36 PM
WTF? You guys really have a serious persecution complex.
It's really simple. Does your Bible not say Adam and Eve were tempted by a serpent in the Garden of Eden? Does your Bible not say that some guy named Jesus would be sent and sacrificed for your sins? Does your Bible not say that your God forgives you?
Hell, doesn't your Bible also say that your God chose you even before you were born?
Where in all this is your responsibility?
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 11:22 PM
heddle
Perhaps you could humor me and elaborate about these specifics. Feel free to use hypotheticals if you prefer. I'm not terribly interested in your dirty laundry, just wondering about the thought process. I think you probably know where I'm going, I just don't want to make any assumptions about what occurs in your brain.
Christian Cynic:
Well, perhaps you didn't intend to. I suppose I should be more charitable. Still, "show me the scripture" is a dead end since Owen wasn't, as far as I remember, making any claims about what was in Scripture.
This tactic is often a kind of red herring. Say Owen did show you a scripture. It only would have ended in a black hole of debate over how to interpret it, who interprets it which way at which points in time, scholars vs. everyday practice etc.
But here's an example for you: My father, who was an ex-Catholic atheist, died after a sudden illness that struck him suddenly and resulted in him dying a few weeks later without regaining consciousness.
My sister, ever the good Catholic, called in the priest to do last rites when it became apparent to us that he would not regain consciousness. Which is fine. I don't have a problem with people performing last rites. But when I asked her why she thought he still got into heaven after decades of unrepentant atheism, she told me that the last rights absolved him of that sin.
Therefore an unrepentant atheist could get into heaven while the best Catholic who by some accident failed to receive last rites would languish in purgatory (or possibly hell, I;m not sure about that, though). Granted, neither of us are theologians, but these are her beliefs. And I'm fairly certain she didn't make them up on her own since she's very active in her church and attends once a week, sometimes more.
Perhaps you can explain this to me: what meaning does personal responsibility have if you can magically absolve the sins of an unconscious, unrepentant person by saying a few magic words over them? Possibly against their will were they able to protest?
Anyway, I do understand that you're frustrated with the snide remarks. I would be too. I didn't mean to criticize you for that.
This is my special talent. Seriously, I was being tongue in cheek when I said it was a compliment. It really wasn't intended as one, yet I wouldn't have said it if I didn't expect better. So it kind of was a compliment, at least as an afterthought.
And I super have to run, so I can't really edit this at all. I apologize, but it will probably contain even more errors than my posts usually do.
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2010 11:40 PM
That is hardly necessary. I only need to sustain the claim that the most reasonable reading of the passage as a whole in the context of the chapter does not indicate that the verses in question (about an exorcised demon returning with seven more demons) are really indeed literally about demons.
Sure it is. He was describing demon behavior. We can see by looking at it. That is hardly necessary, and is trivial, [insert other fatuous phrases here]. We don't even know if it was exorcised or not, because it doesn't say. And it is hardly necessary to even read it to find out, trivially.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2010 2:03 AM
Christian Cynic wrote:
My problem with this is that it's another example of the kind of confirmation bias used to interpret scripture and absolve the writers (or God) of making any egregious errors. I see this on blogs all the time and it seems like you're using metaphor like a get-out-of-jail-free card in order to maintain the illusion of inerrancy (in some cases), and avoid criticism of sheer batshit insanity (in others).
I've never seen a good explanation of how one is able to spot the difference other than by measuring it against contemporary standards - i.e. something we can be fairly certain the writers had no knowledge of.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 29, 2010 2:47 AM
"I admire your cynicism, but the truth is that this tendency (to avoid looking like an idiot) can be identified outside of religion (and in the non-religious). That you would like to tie this natural tendency to religion says something about your own bias."
It is NOT a "natural tendency" to claim that a non-existent skydaddy exists solely to take up the burden of human sinners--it is entirely woo based. When an atheist or other non-religious person attempts to not "look like an idiot" re: wrongdoing, the reasons given/excuses for the behavior may be nonsense, but their excuses (the dog ate my howmework when I was five, so I had to rob the bank) will not fly.
Ted Haggard is a despicable piece of shit who is lying now, as he has been from the beginning of this whole sordid affair. If he was a REAL "Man of God" he would spend the rest of his life atoning for his genuine sins (which do not include being bf'd by his manwhore) by doing charitable works. IF he had some genuine power, channelled from his GOD through him, to make life better for others, he would do so. He's a fucking charlatan, a grifter and a crybaby. If he was a school teacher or government official he would have probably been hounded into obscurity--the most likely cause of that not happening is his "holiness" and his "faith". What a crock of shit.
Posted by: democommie | July 29, 2010 7:58 AM
Getting whacked across the head with a 2x4 can change your view of reality, but you can't then make conclusions about how the universe works based on that experience, although it may make you take a more cautious approach to the endeavour.
I was addressing the the xtian interpretation of the babble as the revealed word of the big sky daddy and hence primary source material for understanding reality.
Come to think of it, there is a striking similarity between reading the bible as a science textbook and getting hit across the head by a 2x4.
Posted by: steve oberski | July 29, 2010 8:45 AM
Ted Haggard says he has over-repented of some sins. But arent' some of his sins also criminal offences? Unless he has also confessed to the police, I would suggest that here is a clear case of a repentance taking the place of responsibilty for one's sins. It strikes me that many criminals have repented and been forgiven without taking responsibility for their sins and paying the price.
Posted by: Aaron Logan | July 29, 2010 3:23 PM
Aaron Logan:
If Teddy Haggard was to accept criminal responsibility for his deeds why, he might wind up in prison, getting buttslammed by his cellmate. So, I guess in a certain sense he IS punishing himself by staying out of jail!
Posted by: democommie | July 29, 2010 10:08 PM