I just finished “I Had To Say Something” by Mike Jones.
It is the story of the man who outed Ted Haggard, and the circumstances surrounding the outing.
First off I have to say that Mike Jones is a great hero, in every sense of the word. He took an enormous chance, knowing his personal future and livlihood was going to be tossed into the toilet, yet he did the right thing anyway.
The book details Mike’s early life and upbringing. Most notable was the influence of his Mother and Great Grandmother, both as friends/confidants and role models. We are allowed to see how they shaped his life and morality.
He details how he got into “escorting” and how the men he’d service affected his life. He writes with a simple, slightly naieve style which I found at times a little frustrating, but once he started to detail his sessions with “Art” as Haggard called himself, it became compulsive reading. Especially after Mike realised that this pathetic, deeply closeted, sexually retarded nitwit he was “entertaining” once a month was Haggard.
For those two of you who don’t know, and for the benefit of all of my faithful spam bots (and my human readership of five) Ted Haggard preached damnation of homosexuals and denial of human and marriage rights for all homos and was leading a double life on the side as a homosexual jackass john who was also a crystal meth addict.
Ted Haggard may be a smart man and all in his field as a deluded religious moron, but he sure comes across in this book as a total asshat. Moreso even than Jones himself realises.
Mike Jones, I salute you! You’ve exposed the religious right for what it is: A pack of vile, opportunistic gas bags who don’t believe the bullshit they preach, but definitely believe in the money that their moron, deluded sheeple followers throw at them.
BEAR, SCHMEAR! 
Rich: “Sexually retarded”? But Haggard fathered five kids!! He had been able to function as a father. I agree he didn’t live up to what he preached. But isn’t “sexually retarded” overstated? But then again, Haggard did go after men while married!
Again, I have to take issue with the evangelical Christian being a “moron”. There is a lot of wackiness out there, but there are also many who are caring, loving, and, while they remain sinners, do manifest real consistency.
But then, they will not make the news. CB
CB- Yeah, he’s sexually retarded, and a nitwit. but please don’t take my word for it, read the book. It’s all recounted there. All right. here’s a for instance: The boob didn’t even know how to masturbate, for god’s sake.
As to your second point:Please furnish an example of a sane religious fundamentalist. By their very nature they are cracked. They base their lives on utter delusion. If someone was seriously mounting expeditions to the north pole to locate Santa Claus, wouldn’t you say he was deluded and moronic? – Rich
Yeah, I’m probably going to read his book and thanks for your take on it. To me, that crisis in evengelical circles along with that Florida congressman embarrassment were much more important events than people realize.
Rich: A sane fundamentalist? Glad to answer! First of all, I hold to a historic belief that every word of Scripture is the “Word of God written” and is therefore “profitable…” as St. Paul put it, for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (the minister) might be equipped…” II Timothy 3:16-17. A true fundamentalist will hold to this, along with the truths confessed in the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian Chreeds.
I fear the fundamentalist of the sort that Ted Haggard was may have been self-righteous, therefore not taking his own sinfulness seriously. If you define a fundamentalist as any conservative Christian, a site called whitehorseinn.org will be a good place to start. Going from memory here, but there is an internet program called “Saints and Sinners.” URL from memory is urc.start.learning.org. One of the sponsors is the Pasadena United Reformed Church. You will find that site interesting, to say the least.
At bottom line Rich, no one is without sin. Our weaknesses may differ; with some, it is sexual sin. Obviously, Ted Haggard fell into that. If conformity to the Ten Commandments is true holiness, then this guy falls far short! Again, going back to St. Paul, by the law is the knowledge of sin Romans 3:21. Hope this helps! Take care. CB
That final point! Were you aware of the fact that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is one of the most confirmed events of history? Just in passing, in the 1800’s, a German Rationalist school began to attack the coherency of Holy Scripture, and, for example, affirmed there never was a Hittite civilization, until evidence was recovered by archaeology. Could I be so bold as to suggest some apologetics reading? RC Sproul is a good one to start with.
I think his website is ligonier.org The White Horse Inn has apologetics recources as well. Thanks for the opportunity to share. CB
The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most confirmed events in history? Really? Well! I never!
I guess I’ll go out right now and buy myself a cassock and convert back!
oh, but first, CB, can you do me one small favor?
Can you please cite ONE CREDIBLE PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION of your preposterous claim?
I’m not expecting your batting average to improve. You completely failed to provide even one example of a sane fundamentalist, so I expect nothing here.
Rich: If you understand “fundamentalist” as a Bible based Christian, here is a list:
J.I. Packer-Anglican Professor
J.C. Ryle-Anglican
R.C. Sproul-apologist theologian
Dr. Scott Clark-President Westminster Seminary California
John R. W. Stott
John Piper-pastor
Erwin Lutzer-Moody Church Chicago
Simon Kistemacker-writer
Any of the major Reformers: Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, Bucer, Ursinus…
The list can be expanded. If I wrongly understood your definition of “fundamentalist”, please correct me. CB
The Resurrection (This is for starters; there is more to come.
1. Details of our Lord’s burial. The tomb had a Roman Seal on it, the violation of which would have meant certain death for the guards. That the heavy stone was rolled away can only be explained by Divine Power. I assume you have read the accounts in the Gospels!
2. I will put this point in the form of a question: If Jesus Christ had not risen from the dead, all that would have been needed was for the Authorities to produce the Body. They never did!
Again, there is more to come. CB
Charles,
Perhaps a definition of DELUSION will help you.
from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: di-‘lü-zh&n, dE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
– de·lu·sion·al /-‘lüzh-n&l, -‘lü-zh&-n&l/ adjective
– de·lu·sion·ary /-zh&-“ner-E/ adjective
synonyms DELUSION, ILLUSION, HALLUCINATION, MIRAGE mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. DELUSION implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind . ILLUSION implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines . HALLUCINATION implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs
Also, in regards to your “proof” of the ressurection of Jesus,
why not read the definition below of “circular logic”?
Please pay particular attention to the last line.
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises [1]. Stephen Barker explains the fallacy more clearly in The Elements of Logic: “If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most case-iron rigor” [1]. In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.
Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in the Prior Analytics.
The phrase is sometimes used to simply mean “suggests the question”. This recasting of the term more directly describes a related fallacy, known as the Fallacy of many questions, that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself.
Thanks for posting, I wasn’t aware of the book.
Some of the comments here would be laughable if they weren’t so damned ridiculous.
I remain unconvinced that there are even any sane religious people at all. To believe this crock you have to neglect reason on some level. Heh! And they all think we just haven’t read the bible ‘correctly’ or *really* understood their message.
Lauren-It’s weird, isnt it? It’s like there’s some broken equipment in their head. Maybe some damaged circuits. They’re definitely not playing with a full deck. unfortunately there are LOT of them in the world. -r.c.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on coupons. Regards