Charismatic Bishop In Lawsuit.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Seems to me that until he makes a confession or is proven guilty, we should not rush to judgment

Am I judging?


If I truly believed he was guilty, but never said it outloud, am I judging?


I hope I am never judged publicly for any of my sins, misdeeds, whatever-- I've got skeletons for sure.


If I have put myself in a place of judging the man of God, then I should stop, repent, and continue to pray for him.


Prax, does it appear to you that I have judged the man of God?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I am not calling him names.

Nobody said you were...were they?

I am not discounting his ministry.

Nobody said you did, did they?

I am not denying that God has used him and his ministry.

Nobody said you had, had you?

I am hoping that God will allow him the wisdom to gracefully step down if there is any truth to the accusations.

Why do you say IF? You already said he is guilty

Saying that he is guilty is not casting stones, it appears to me to be a matter of fact.

Why not cast stones though? You've already said he is guilty without any trial

Fact requires proof.

No PROOF requires FACTS

He had the perfect opportunity to flatly deny the accusations and that honestly would have been proof enough for me.

That is neither proof nor a fact. You never said you weren't a drag queen, so I should assume you are one? Again let this go to trial or some other route and THEN determine his guilt or innocence.

I would have believed him over his accusers if he had just denied the accusations

So in other words if he denied it, there would be no need for a trial? You don't see how subjective you are?

His sidestepping of the issue only further damages his credibility.

Why leave room for questioning?

\
Why not wait for the trial or some proof positive fact to come up?

If it was you and you denied guilt...wouldn't it be nice if people chose to believe you instead of those boys and not drag you out and lynch you without a trial where facts can be presented rather than emotional outbursts? My point is, his statement is irrelevant. If he is innocent, or he believes he is, he can fight this in court and there proclaim his innocence. He can allow the facts to speak for him.

Any and every Criminal in America says they are innocent, that means nothing. It's when we take all the facts and put them together and hear the arguments that we can decide.

Back to my earlier point...just because you say you are innocent does not make you innocent. What you are doing is saying we don't need to examine the facts or a trial, because he never flat out denied the allegations the way I would like it...well what if he did and people had to chose, before going to trial, who to believe? How fair is that? Being accused and being found guilty or being guilty until proven innocent, before a trail?

Well that is what you just did. You found him guilty before a trial based on what those young men said. God forbid you are ever falsely accused of rape or something and people find you guilty before there can ever be a trial

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Really?????? You've already determined his guilt?

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

In a word, "Yes."

I look at it as HE has determined his guilt-- long before this thread, long before the accusations.

There is no way that these guys would come on national tv, without hiding, and accuse such a powerful man of God to his face, in the face of millions, unless the man is guilty.


Even without the public nature of the accusations, Bishop Long's own wording betrayed him.

A flat and clear denial is all that was necessary and he gave his congregation everything except that.


The man was attempting to shore up support from his congregation, as he knows very well that most sane Christians will find his actions beyond unacceptable for a Pastor.

He knows he will have to tell them truth, and he made a plea to his congregation to stand by him.

I sure hope he does not intend to retain his Pastorate, but it appears that he may indeed try to do that, given his language to his congregation.

This would bring mockery and shame to the cause of Christ.


We can stand by him, help this perpetrator heal, and allow him to gracefully step down from his Pastorate without devouring him.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Am I judging?


If I truly believed he was guilty, but never said it outloud, am I judging?


I hope I am never judged publicly for any of my sins, misdeeds, whatever-- I've got skeletons for sure.


If I have put myself in a place of judging the man of God, then I should stop, repent, and continue to pray for him.


Prax, does it appear to you that I have judged the man of God?

I suggest you DID judge him.

I also suggest you contradict yourself. You determined his guilt by saying

There is no way that these guys would come on national tv, without hiding, and accuse such a powerful man of God to his face, in the face of millions, unless the man is guilty.

Then turn around and say

A flat and clear denial is all that was necessary and he gave his congregation everything except that.

That is a contradiction. You can't be both guilty and not guilty at the same time and you DID say the man was guilty

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

How on google-earth could my view be sad?

You've judged him and pronounced his guilt and as of this moment, we don't know a darn thing. Not a darn thing.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

That's what I'm not hearing.

If I was innocent you bet I would have worded that speech on Sunday completely different than he did.

So because he didn't say what YOU think he should say, then he's guilty? What if his lawyers have begged him to stay silent and let them do all the defending? What if there's a reason that we don't know about?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Mr. Smith, Praxeas,

Thank you for correcting me.


I never meant to judge the man of God-- why would I intentionally curse myself like that?

I expressed earlier in this thread that I didn't believe the accusers and thought they had ulterior motives.

Most recently, I have expressed that I think the man of God is guilty, based off of what he said and did not say.



The Bible says it is unwise to judge a matter before time.

My posts have been unwise.

God, Bishop Eddie Long, AFF, please forgive me.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

That's what I'm not hearing.

If I was innocent you bet I would have worded that speech on Sunday completely different than he did.

And one more thing....what does it mean if someone flatly denies allegations? The answer.....NOTHING. Ted Haggard flatly denied, didn't he? So if he had denied it, this thread would still be here and for the most part, people would be saying the same thing.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Mr. Smith,

Seriously. How is my view sad?

How am I or anyone else-- how are we supposed to think about this?

You're supposed to let the process take place and hold judgement until we know the whole matter. And that's actually in the bible.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Seems to me that until he makes a confession or is proven guilty, we should not rush to judgment

PRAX!!!!! Are we actually on the same side of a discussion??? The world is coming to an end!!!

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Mr. Smith, Praxeas,

Thank you for correcting me.


I never meant to judge the man of God-- why would I intentionally curse myself like that?

I expressed earlier in this thread that I didn't believe the accusers and thought they had ulterior motives.

Most recently, I have expressed that I think the man of God is guilty, based off of what he said and did not say.



The Bible says it is unwise to judge a matter before time.

My posts have been unwise.

God, Bishop Eddie Long, AFF, please forgive me.

Apologies....I kept posting answers and hadn't read everything yet and just got to this. Thank you, Jermyn. Man, no one admits they're wrong on AFF. What's wrong with you?