Harold Hoffman attacks Jim Kilgore

[Abiding Now]

Looks like nepotism does have a downside. Sad

[Real Realism]

That "shuddery" "weepy" preacher voice that he uses in the video gives me the creeps. Especially when you really listen to what he's saying and are not moved by the emotion of the room or manipulation of "preacher stage voice/acting". Why can't preachers just talk in their normal voices? It's one thing to get excited and passionate when you're talking, but would you ever have a normal conversation (even one where you're getting excited and making an important point) and use that "oooooooohhhhh" moaning type voice? Why do preachers feel the need to put on this show?

Off topic, I know. Just an observation.

[Aquila]

I pray that God grant Rev. Harold Hoffman wisdom and grace.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Except you do have an agenda, and it colors everything you post.

You jump in at every chance to marginalize those who post threads like these.

The video is not hard to understand.

The man expressed sorrow for the loss of money but none for the death of James Kilgore or his son's exit.

Words matter. He spoke what was in his heart.

Stop defending him.

Charnock. I couldn't HEAR everything he was saying in the first video, therefore I didn't UNDERSTAND the video. I have no reason to lie about that, but I guess if you want to call me a liar, feel free.

I guess you jumped on MY post because I asked you for an example of my "defense of the indefensible" the other day (which you didn't provide from past posts), and I guess you thought you had a wonderful illustration with post #6. Unfortunately, you don't. Anyone can read my first post on this thread and see that I didn't defend Harold Hoffman; I did reserve my full opinion, which is my prerogative and only speaks to the fact that I don't like to speak first and think later. In fact, what I DID say was pretty much the same thing you said ("At the very least he acted in poor taste."), so does that mean YOU were defending Harold Hoffman, e.g., "defending the indefensible?"

To clarify, here is where I commented on the second video and reserved my comments on the first one, which wasn't clear to me:

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

Please point out where I defended his comments.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal. But I have a hidden agenda and will defend the man!

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

Please point out where I defended his comments.

It's very easily seen in the quote.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Reader

It's very easily seen in the quote.

Please quote those bits, then, and explain to me how they're defending his COMMENTS. I didn't defend his COMMENTS. I only mentioned that I had heard him at family camp and enjoyed his sessions, and that I HOPED his comments weren't inspired by racism, which seems worse than "poor taste" to me.

Let's review: I didn't comment on video 1 because I didn't get it. I did comment on video 2 and said that his comments were in terrible taste and that I hoped they weren't rooted in racism.

[Reader]

LOL- Brat, it was a joke. Read the small print in your quote from my post.

[Praxeas]

MissBratt was not defending this guy. And I too could not even hear what was said, but if what they are saying is true then this guy is way out of order.

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I didn't even comprehend what he was saying in the Kilgore video, so I guess I'm missing the scandal.

As for the other video--definitely in terrible taste. I can't imagine my pastor EVER making a reference like that. There were better ways to make sure his audience knew he was talking about someone from Africa.

I don't know enough about Harold Hoffman to connect his comment to racism rather than really poor taste. I hope it's the latter instead of the former, but who knows? I've heard him teach at Oklahoma family camp and I enjoyed his sessions.

People do make mistakes and insert their feet in their mouths occasionally. Well, except for the people who like to post videos of preachers like these--they've never made poor judgment calls or said something they later wished they hadn't.

This is a defense.

It's also an attack on the person who posted this thread, accompanied by your patented and condescending eye roll.

HH's comments were not "mistakes" in the sense that he accidentally, and without thought, slipped.

He stated that he knew those comments were being taped, and didn't care.

That's something far more insidious than "poor taste."

This is what you do, Bratti. You immediately attack the poster rather than the content and in such a way as to make yourself appear above the conversation.

It's an old schtick.

[Reader]

She did not immediately attack the poster. She gave her thoughts on the two videos first. What she afterward shared about the poster was very mild, more like sarcasm to me. On the other hand, you say negative things about Brat instead of sticking to the content of the video.