>>I would give you a response, but I don't think it will change your mind. You must be incapable of putting yourself in the man's shoes. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying let's wait until it's proven before you guys salivate. Sad.
I think you need to jump back as you're the one who lept to his defense before anyone even went after the guy. I read the other posts after I read yours and got the feeling you have some type of association with this individual, his church, general message or what have you (maybe you are a fundamentalist, radical Christian or evangelical). So I threw out those questions.
But 'sad'? Hardly. What's sad is people who follow "leaders" in the evangelical movement and the things they make up as they go along with the occasional Biblical quote to add some legitimacy. What's sad is the people walking around teaching dinosaurs, fossils and the like are the tool of satan whilst homeschooling their kids in a cultish fashion to protect them from reality and information that may help them actually think. What's sad is pseudo-intellectuals brainwashing the easily led into believing things like the literalism of time as they present it and the history of the world (e.g. a 6,000 year old earth).
So what's your beef with me? I never said the guy was guilty. I don't know who he is nor do I care except in wondering why it is you don't want anyone to "drag his name through the mud until proven (guilty)." Why would I drag him through the mud anyway? Why would you want to drag his name through the mud if it is later proven that he's guilty? That's also pretty sad if you ask me. If you're trying to usurp the "hypocritical" angle before one of the atheists (or anyone else) jumps on in and wonders "why are all these leaders of God pedophiles, gay, adulturers and such" and can't keep their zippers up, well that would be their right to pose those questions or raise those allegations it would seem. It's not like there isn't a sordid history of evangelicals and their associated secret lives (Swaggert, Gorman, Bakker, ad nauseum).
And really, why would I salivate that some religious leader is possibly having an affair with a male prostitute? That's on him. Unless he's come out in the pulpit, the national media and such and condemned that which he has possibly done, I don't have a dog in that fight. Now if he has been some adamant anti-gay homophobic radical Christian or something, then I guess he gets his if he is "guilty."
Otherwise, you ought not jump to conclusions when you aren't clear where you're going wtih them. Without going against the TOS, let me suggest that if you're going to pick targets, you should probably give them some thought before hand. If you would have happened to have been a high quality poster, then maybe it would mean something to me. I just asked questions. You got cocky. I don't really care to discuss it any longer as we don't have a Trash Bin where this might have been treated in a way to dignify your response.
:)
TPS