Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

No one has yet to demonstrate the hate of this person that Bush supposedly listens to once a week.

dvpierce did a pretty thorough job. Even made a dictionary comparison. Well, I suppose its not really hate if "its for our own good." After all God is just and loving, so I guess his followers will be too.

He was always on the lookout for spies. At the time, Colorado Springs was a small city split between the Air Force and the New Age, and the latter, Pastor Ted believed, worked for the devil. Pastor Ted soon began upsetting the devil’s plans. He staked out gay bars, inviting men to come to his church; his whole congregation pitched itself into invisible battles with demonic forces, sometimes in front of public buildings. One day, while he was working in his garage, a woman who said she’d been sent by a witches’ coven tried to stab Pastor Ted with a five-inch knife she pulled from a leg sheath; Pastor Ted wrestled the blade out of her hand. He let that story get around. He called the evil forces that dominated Colorado Springs—and every other metropolitan area in the country—“Control.”

Sometimes, he says, Control would call him late on Saturday night, threatening to kill him. “Any more impertinence out of you, Ted Haggard,” he claims Control once told him, “and there will be unrelenting pandemonium in this city.” No kidding! Pastor Ted hadn’t come to Colorado Springs for his health; he had come to wage “spiritual war.”

I would like to see that documented - not just what some guy says in an online magazine _without_ references, so the context of the situations can be looked at.

Spiritual War has a meaning that perhaps some of you are not familiar with, it has nothing to do with hate. Oh, Inviting gays to his church is not hateful.

-=-

He moved the church to a strip mall. There was a bar, a liquor store, New Life Church, a massage parlor. His congregation spilled out and blocked the other businesses. He set up chairs in the alley. He strung up a banner: SIEGE THIS CITY FOR ME, signed JESUS. He assigned everyone in the church names from the phone book they were to pray for. He sent teams to pray in front of the homes of supposed witches—in one month, ten out of fifteen of his targets put their houses on the market. His congregation “prayer-walked” nearly every street of the city.

Blocking the other business is a form of protest, not necessarily one of hate. It's also illegal, but it does not mean hate. I wouldn't do it, but I don't see how it is hateful - it is demonstration.

Praying in front of the homes of people is not hateful (nor illegal unless they are on private property or violating a restraining order), nor is prayer walking. Harrasment is hateful, but praying in front of someones home is not. I would like to know more about the sending of teams to pray in front homes, is there a source for that?

“The first . . . was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying angel.” Look! said Pastor Hayford, his voice sonorous and dignified. “All wonderful, all angels.” The angels were merely different from one another. Just, he said, as we have different “ethnicities.” And just as we have, in politics, a “hierarchy.” And just as we have, in business, “different responsibilities,” employer and employees. Angels, ethnicities, hierarchy, employers and employees—each category must follow a natural order.

That I would like to see in context.
So I did a google string - everything I found used the Harpers magazine as a source. Can we get the actual source for that?

A force—Pastor Ted liked that. He smiled and offered other examples. His favorite was the Ukraine, where, he claimed, a sister church to New Life had led the protests that helped sweep the pro-Western candidate into power. Kiev is, in fact, home to Europe’s largest evangelical church, and over the last dozen years the Ukrainian evangelical population has grown more than tenfold, from 250,000 to 3 million. According to Ted, it was this army of Christian capitalists that took to the streets. “They’re pro-free markets, they’re pro-private property,” he said. “That’s what evangelical stands for.”

So, capitalism is christian? Hmmm... didn't jesus and his disciples give away everything they owned and live like a commune? Coulda sworn...

He didn't say capitalism is christian.
If that statement of his is accurate, I don't agree with it - but its still not hate.

And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. “I teach a strong ideology of the use of power,” he says, “of military might, as a public service.” He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because “the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot about blood.”

That looks like authors interpretation of what he said.
Being for preemptive war when the need calls for it though does not mean that he is hateful. Notice the part of him being for a ferocious war is the article authors words, and not his words.

She reached across the table and touched my hand. “I have to tell you, the spiritual battle is very real.” We are surrounded by demons, she explained, reciting the lessons she had learned in her small-group studies at New Life. The demons are cold, they need bodies, they long to come inside. People let them in in two different ways. One is to be sinned against. “Molested,” suggested Linda. The other is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could walk by sin—a murder, a homosexual act—and a demon will leap onto your bones. Cities, therefore, are especially dangerous.

I don't agree with that, but I also don't see how that is hateful.

We prayed for Christian leaders to emerge from UCCS that would invade Hololywood, Washington DC, Colorado Springs, and the ends of the earth. It was so fun!

That does NOT mean it is hateful.

One pedestrian looked a bit befuddled to see trendy college students boisterously screaming at a club, smirking when he heard us asking God to make twenty-something miserable in lust and drunkenness, so that they would check out purity and soberness

Again - weird, but I don't see the hate there.

-=-

There may be a case for hate with sending lots of people to pray in front of particular houses. It also could be a case of poor judgement and over-enthusiasm, and not hate.

There also may be just cause for saying he is racists, but again - the article doesn't cite the source so the context can be looked at, and google just provided links that cited that article.

resedit wrote:

Blocking the other business is a form of protest, not necessarily one of hate. It's also illegal, but it does not mean hate. I wouldn't do it, but I don't see how it is hateful - it is demonstration.

I take that back.
I would do it at an abortion protest.

How about an antiwar protest?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

A show I once worked for interviewed Harry Shearer on the subject of secret societies, and he described visiting the Bohemian Grove doings. He said it was a totally non-sinster bunch of clowns frolicking around. He expressed deep contempt for all its participants. He likened it to Skull & Bones; a way for the elite to feel eliter.

You might take a look at his movie Teddy Bears' Picnic.

MrJ in OZ wrote:

resedit wrote:

Blocking the other business is a form of protest, not necessarily one of hate. It's also illegal, but it does not mean hate. I wouldn't do it, but I don't see how it is hateful - it is demonstration.

I take that back.
I would do it at an abortion protest.

I'm glad you took that back. Satan told me you would on my ouiji board.

ALL HAIL SATAN!!!!                             

That was actually me just messing with your mind.
Magnets and remote control.

Oh come on.
When most magazines site something someone said, they say when and where.
I did not see that in the article. I did not see that anywhere in the article for anything they stated.

Did I just plain miss it?

Those kind of references are extremely important. That's how you check the facts and look for spin.

Back on topic - what is wrong with Bush & Cronies?

[the]single-minded focus on its "war on terror." In order to justify its invasion of Iraq (which has gone badly both for the US and Iraqis) and the nullification of our essential civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, that are the foundation of our political and social order, the Bush administration has made terrorists into a greater threat than cold warriors were able to make the Soviet Union. The over-hyped threat of terrorism has become a greater threat than terrorists themselves.

Well said Paul C. Roberts.

Troutski wrote:

Back on topic - what is wrong with Bush & Cronies?

[the]single-minded focus on its "war on terror." In order to justify its invasion of Iraq (which has gone badly both for the US and Iraqis) and the nullification of our essential civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, that are the foundation of our political and social order, the Bush administration has made terrorists into a greater threat than cold warriors were able to make the Soviet Union. The over-hyped threat of terrorism has become a greater threat than terrorists themselves.

Well said Paul C. Roberts.

In one of the few rulings Roberts has made as a judge, didn't he agree with the government's position that it was ok to strip Padilla (the dirty-bomber) of his citizenship and lock him up indefinitely?

resedit wrote:

Oh come on.
When most magazines site something someone said, they say when and where.
I did not see that in the article. I did not see that anywhere in the article for anything they stated.

Did I just plain miss it?

Those kind of references are extremely important. That's how you check the facts and look for spin.

And the straw man walkith. 

resedit wrote:

How the hell am I suppose to know how solid it is when they blah blah blah blah blah

There are reliable news sources and unreliable news sources. Harper's is the former. Seriously, you're starting to sound like Cyberpawz.

resedit wrote:

-- in fact, absent the deadline pressure of a newspaper, it's likely to be more accurate.

You assume accuracy was the goal.
I don't think it was. Their take on the phrase spiritual warfare is a clear indication that the author either didn't want to research what that means to christians, or didn't like what he found.

It may be factually accurate, but intellectually dishonest (I haven't read it, and don't know the facts anyway).

But the issue is, maybe its not what "spiritual warfare" means to responsible Christians; but how people outside of religion see the extremist Christians using actions that can be loosely called "spiritual warfare."

If some nutjob tells some other wingnut some crazy stuff and calls it "spiritual warfare," can't other commentators use that label?  Even if it has another meaning to you?  Otherwise, I want the label "liberal" to quit being a simple insult, and also to quit being misused to mean "American left."

JakeTheTall wrote:

Troutski wrote:

Back on topic - what is wrong with Bush & Cronies?

[the]single-minded focus on its "war on terror." In order to justify its invasion of Iraq (which has gone badly both for the US and Iraqis) and the nullification of our essential civil liberties, such as habeas corpus, that are the foundation of our political and social order, the Bush administration has made terrorists into a greater threat than cold warriors were able to make the Soviet Union. The over-hyped threat of terrorism has become a greater threat than terrorists themselves.

Well said Paul C. Roberts.

In one of the few rulings Roberts has made as a judge, didn't he agree with the government's position that it was ok to strip Padilla (the dirty-bomber) of his citizenship and lock him up indefinitely?

This is from Paul Roberts, a no-name freelance journalist.
Ya, Judge Dred Roberts is more of the same, but worse 'cause he is young enough to cause damage for decades.