Charismatic Bishop In Lawsuit.

[Praxeas]

I never thought a woman would kill her kids, go on TV and say a black man did it, but that happened

I never thought a white woman would burn her face with acid and say a black woman did it, on TV....but that happened too

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I never thought a woman would kill her kids, go on TV and say a black man did it, but that happened

I never thought a white woman would burn her face with acid and say a black woman did it, on TV....but that happened too

Where is the Bishop's clear and flat denial of the allegations?


Where is his concern to clear his name?


In the words of one of his congregants, "We want the truth man!"

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Where is the Bishop's clear and flat denial of the allegations?


Where is his concern to clear his name?


In the words of one of his congregants, "We want the truth man!"

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.

[Praxeas]

A reminder, he has not been found guilty of anything yet and all we have are accusations

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

A reminder, he has not been found guilty of anything yet and all we have are accusations

I do not have any stones-- neither will I pick any up.

He is still a man of God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I do not have any stones-- neither will I pick any up.

He is still a man of God.

Right....the man is guilty but Im not gonna throw a stone. What does that mean?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right....the man is guilty but Im not gonna throw a stone. What does that mean?

I am not calling him names.

I am not discounting his ministry.

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


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


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

Fact requires proof.

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


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


His sidestepping of the issue only further damages his credibility.

Why leave room for questioning?

[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?

[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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Where is the Bishop's clear and flat denial of the allegations?


Where is his concern to clear his name?


In the words of one of his congregants, "We want the truth man!"

He said He was NOT the man THEY are portraying

He has a lawyer and they are gonna FIGHT this.

Where is his confession?