[snarks_when_bored]

There's a distinction to be made between evidence and argument. The article I linked to contains evidence gathered by the reporter, Nickel, about Hinn's activities and their detrimental effects on some of his 'healed' subjects. It's the evidence that is so damning, not the little bit of argument that's also included. Ignore the argument, if you wish, but don't fail to at least examine the evidence.

And even if one claims that the evidence against Hinn is itself fake or tainted, how could one possibly decide that without examing the evidence for oneself? That's one of the puzzling things to me about CyberAnt's position.

[snarks_when_bored]

In post #151 to you, I spoke of "Hinn's activities and their detrimental effects on some of his 'healed' subjects."

Let me make that clearer. What appears to be the case is that Hinn claims to be healing people (only those who are well enough to be allowed onto his stage), but, at least in some cases, he isn't really healing them because later examinations show that their condition is unchanged or worse, or they even die not long after their supposed 'healing' by him from the very condition that he claimed to have 'healed'. In some cases, those 'healed' by Hinn even refused subsequent medical treatment for their conditions, thus perhaps depriving themselves of life-saving therapies. This is what I meant by "detrimental effects".