Posted on 09/29/2010 5:03:01 PM PDT by pissant
After four lawsuits alleging he coerced young males into sexual relationships were filed, Georgia pastor Eddie Long took to the pulpit Sunday to carefully nuance his side of the story.
Long, the charismatic who leads his mega-church of 26,000 members, told reporters after Sunday’s service that he would challenge the allegations. Joined by members of his legal team, he carefully read from prepared remarks — always a sign of innocence.
By now we know how the redemptive process works for a televangelist accused of sexual relations with young males. First there is the allegation. Then there is the carefully worded, non-denial denial in which he says he will “fight the charges.” Then the preacher puts his jet and all the money he has yet to get into the bankruptcy-proof corporate shell he controls. Then his lawyers handle the settlements while the preacher gives lots of ensuing sermons on forgiveness.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/28/another-televangelist-flames-out/#ixzz10xwJzaox
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
There is evidently a lot around here that you are not aware of. But, we knew that because the nature of the RCC is that it teaches one to overlook truth...concentrate on Rome, concentrate on Rome, concentrate on Rome.
What I am aware of is that when you are going to refer to a FReeper by name it is considered polite to ping them.
But, we knew that because the nature of the RCC is that it teaches one to overlook truth...concentrate on Rome, concentrate on Rome, concentrate on Rome.
So, you would have links to substantiate that Pissant is a regular participant in debates on the Religion Forum?
You know, some of these statement by anti-Catholic sound incredibly paranoid. It's a lot like listening to the Ron Paultards.
You’ve never noticed that blacks support Dems almost 100%? It’s not a matter of thinking it, but seeing what is before our very eyes.
I think there are left wing elements that have taken over many Catholic groups; just like our Protestant churches. All the “social justice” (IE communist socialist) groups, the anti war nutcases, etc..
As far as major doctrinal differences, there are many and they are deep.
I really don't want to get into that; as it is a fruitless fight that will never be won on this earth anyway.
I think for us to fight that fight is completely wasteful on this forum.
That was the point of my sharp comments to you. It can take a thread and extend it for 300 posts and not accomplish anything.
They won't change, I won't change.
We are united hopefully by strong opposition to big government and Obama style socialism, etc.
There are more black conservatives than people realize, and the numbers are growing.
I don’t get why people don’t want to accept this. It’s sad 1) ideologically we are closer to black conservatives than white liberals and 2) those who are “coming out” so to speak already have enough to deal with their communities without us (who should be their allies) piling on.
This junk is no more the Gospel than Catholicism.
It implies that Catholicism is not the Gospel.
I guess that's what I expect Christians who disagree with me to think.
The two sentences together SUGGEST what I'm saying, that is the idea hat Dutchbit88 sees himself in a via media position.
Like wagglebee, I did not know that the poster was a Catholic, and I clicked on the thread because of previous conversation about this mega evangelist D00d. So I did feel blindsided by Dutchboy88's post.
But evidently he knew that the poster was Catholic. And he says
But, we who hold to the biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ like to periodically remind them that because the grandstanders err on one side, as Catholicism errs on the other, we don't embrace their nonsense any more than we acknowledge the nonsense from Rome. .
I'm GUESSING that the post in question was may have been a pre-emptive defense against an attack which might have been there and might not have been there, but which was strengthened, if not precipitated, by the defense.
Who knows? There may be a little bit of the old "The wicked flee though no one pursues" (Proverbs 28:1) going on here. The original post may not have been intended as a blanket slam on all non-Catholics. For some people everything looks like a fight and every remark feels like an insult. Others have a gift for precipitating conflict, and once they've caused it, they sincerely think they did nothing to provoke it.
I read in one of the Arthurian sources that Arthur and Mordred had a truce specifying that no sword be drawn. A knight on the field sees a viper and lifts his sword to kill it. The flash of his blade is seen up and down the field; everyone thinks the truce is broken; fighting resumes; and both Arthur and Mordred are slain.
What I learned was that dreadful fights can be started by accident. I am just trying to work the hypothesis that that's what happened here.
Sure, it's painful to read that somebody thinks we have nothing to do with the Gospel. But we already knew Dutchboy88 thinks that. What else should he say, as long as he persists in that opinion? It's hard to remember that the Catholic Church excites a visceral hatred and revulsion in a lot of non-Catholics. From MY POV that's just one of the adversary's great successes. With those strong feelings, clear thought is hobbled coming out of the gate.
So, if we're going to interact with non-Catholics, we'd better get used to being puked on -- and learn to count it as a blessing.
They won't change, I won't change.
We are united hopefully by strong opposition to big government and Obama style socialism, etc."
Paul contended vigorously for the true Gospel and many of us around here are persuaded that we are doing the same. If you wish to limit your remarks to political threads that reflect your agreement with the vociferous Catholics, that is certainly your perogative. I don't believe anyone will criticize you for such a perspective.
But, there is are all sorts of discussions taking place here, a significant portion of which are reserved for grappling over these other matters. And, sometimes it becomes apparent that the disagreements find their roots in deeper matters. For example, this thread. It began with a Catholic making some kind of point. It was my intention to clarify that, whatever his/her motive was, our distance from the kook referred to in the article was as great as it was with the Catholic Church's errant perspective. We don't limit our criticisms to just the Catholic Church. Thanks, my FRiend, for your input.
Oy vey, MD. I’m sorry that you feel this way.
We may need to frmail each other to make sure we have achieved communication. I don’t feel especially bad that some on the other side feel the need to puke on us. “It is what it is.”
I had a great and thoughtless aversion to the Church when I was in college, even though Aquinas and Dante spoke to me like few others ever have. It’s one of the adversary’s most effective tricks, especially in an age where “feeling comfortable” is assumed to trump reason.
And being abused on FR is a pretty comfortable martyrdom.
Amen! Unchristian acting too. Some times on both sides. You will know them by there fruits. Amazing.
LOL! HA!
LOL! HE HE
Wasn't intended to be a "religious discussion"? Okay. Funny how TELEVANGELIST is mentioned numerous times, references to other failed CHARISMATIC TELEVANGELISTS in the doghouse for the same offenses, and allusions to how they'll take their loot and fly away in their jet. Financial settlements are mentioned that will make it all go away, yet not a word of the other "religious" organizations that are having the same issues that have required in excess of $2 BILLION to make it all go away.
Just to be clear, I am in no way in support of Long either his message or his money or his sex life - it is disgraceful - but I'm pretty sure Dutchboy may have noticed who posted the OP and questioned the motive. Personally, I would like to never see another clergy sex scandal article posted on Free Republic. The MSM does a crummy enough job of their own trying to smear Christianity as a whole, we certainly don't need to help them.
Right, this is called NEWS.
When a person's BUSINESS is going on TV every Sunday and preaching, they are called a TELEVANGELIST. If you can think of a more appropriate term, by all means tell us.
I don't know if this preacher owns a jet or not, but plenty do. And don't make some flimsy excuse about how the jet is owned by the ministry and it's needed for the ministry, corporate CEOs use jets owned by their companies and the same reasons are given for needing it.
So, when a person commits some offense in the course of their business, it's NEWS.
The REALITY is the Dutchboy brought up Catholicism in the SECOND POST and tried to change the discussion.
but I'm pretty sure Dutchboy may have noticed who posted the OP and questioned the motive.
As I said yesterday, I was a FReeper for several years, had participated in many threads with Pissant and had no clue that he was Catholic.
I've been involved in hundreds of debates with the anti-Catholic bigots on FR and don't recall ever seeing Pissant on ANY of them.
So, if you or Dutchboy want to make this claim, you are going to need to back it up. Otherwise, the TRUTH is that Long's problems have been pretty prominent in the news the last week or so.
Personally, I would like to never see another clergy sex scandal article posted on Free Republic.
Why? The anti-Catholic bigots are going to operate under the assumption that every priest is a predator whether they have anything to back it up or not.
The MSM does a crummy enough job of their own trying to smear Christianity as a whole, we certainly don't need to help them.
Funny you should say that, as far as the anti-Catholic bigots are concerned, the MSM is to be fully trusted when they are bashing Catholics. If you don't believe me, go to some of the Catholic bashing threads that are based MSM articles.
Many of the anti-Catholic bigots on FR do not consider Catholics to be Christians, which is fine because many of them aren't Christians either (they are practitioners of satanic gnosticism belonging to cults that devote themselves to St. Paul's epistles all while denying the Gospel). Face it, there is a cadre of anti-Catholic bigots on FR whose only apparent reason for being here is to promote their own bigotry -- I know of several anti-Catholics who make well over 90% of their posts on Catholic-bashing threads in the Religion forum.
Like I said, I would be happy to not see ANY postings about clergy sex scandals on Free Republic regardless of what religion is being slammed. They are usually always posted to cause dissension and result in flame wars which I find unproductive. I don't like it whoever it attacks and would like to see us rise above all that. Catholics hate it when they are judged by what a few have done and non-Catholics don't like it either. The OP sounded like a tit-for-tat kind of post and after the responses showered down, its motive became obvious. I saw it and so did Dutchboy who called attention to it first and he was condemned for it.
Yep ... tells me everything I need to know about the "gospel" being promoted by some folks here. They can't help themselves. Their "gospel" has no independent existence ... All they can do is rant against the supposed evils of "Rome". They have nothing to say, really, all they can do is grunt "Rome Bad".
It's simply their version of "Bush's fault."
It's a little warmer than in the waterpark we just visited.Calling me a nutjob (not altogether incorrect) seems to be exactly what Jesus was referring to in that RCC favorite, the Sermon on the Mount.
I went back through all of Matthew and didn't discover that the NAB listed repercussions for transgressions against Dutchboy88. Didn't that just qualify you for the "hell of fire"? (Matt. 5:22) And here I thought you actually believed this stuff.
Matthew 5:22 17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
But you mistake me, my friend. I am not angry with you. I never said Raqa since I am afraid of the Reformed Sanhedrin and I never called you a fool. I have ever held open the hand of eternal friendship with you and only ask that you permit me to chum with you.
And here I thought you actually believed this stuff.
From the point of view of the Reformed, sadly, I do.
I don’t believe it!!! He came out very strongly against homosexual behaviour...so the homos’ are looking to crucify the man...
Is there any factual discrepency in my testimony? It’s a miracle how Martin Luther was able to escape the Catholic Church and spend the last 40 years of his life in a large estate with sharecroppers and indentured servants in luxury out in the open and public with a position in the local university as lecturer. The Vatican must have been really really incompetent since they really really really really wanted him dead. Or so I’m told...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.