Quote:
Originally Posted by peyt07
I think pressing-on hit the point pretty perfectly.
"His personal church website and preaching videos are not the same as posting in a more "random" public place like YouTube. You have to decide that you want to attend his church or decide if you want to listen to his preaching on the Web. That is all that is about.
YouTube is a totally different arena and story, Daniel. And you know it. I can't, well I probably can, believe you would be so callous.
And your cropping the two messages and dragging it over to YouTube is just way over the top. So don't tell me that you love Rob, because you don't. Friends talk about things - face to face - man to man or woman to woman, if that be the case. They don't drag their carcass out in the road for everyone to run over.
I'm just disappointed in how this is being handled, that's all. I couldn't imagine doing that to someone I said I "loved". I would probably go by and visit or give them a call. I sure in the world wouldn't call them out like a gunfighter in a western town. You are acting like you slammed the saloon doors back and wanted to commence shooting. I just do not like it at all.
Very disappointing. If I don't like how a preacher preaches, I don't go to his revivals. And I sure wouldn't sit around cropping his messages and discussing him on-line. Good grief! Insanity!"
|
You guys are missing the tree because of the forest.
I don't see that DA was going after RM's sermons at random. The clips simply show that RM condemned a preacher for doing something that was in turn done at his church the next week.
Those defending RM seem to miss the point that RM condemed a preacher while being broadcast live and also archived on his website for doing something that was done a week later in his church with seemingly full acceptance.
Should RM have torn the internet preacher down?