I'll try to remember to ask Bob about it the next time we talk.
Randall Terry in Studio
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Even if they are lying, despicable, hypocritical narcissistic liars, adulterers, and con men.
I think I've asked you before what he would have to do for you to not support him. Now I honestly don't think he ever could cross a line in your book. If theft and adultery don't cut it, nothing will.
Do you honestly not see the problem in supporting a man such as Randall Terry?
Supporting him in being a pastor? Sure, I'd have a problem with that if he's unrepentant. But supporting him by helping him save lives of the unborn? Absolutely I will support him or anyone else who attempts such a thing.
Despite the disservice he does to the pro-life community if he's welcomed with open arms?
Do you not understand why associating with this man is destructive?
Do you not understand the moral relativism of your position?
Well, I didn't know you cared so deeply for the social status of fundies, Granite. I'm touched.
Like I said before, I'm sure Bob Enyart knows a lot more about Terry's situation than I do and I'll try to remember to ask him about it the next time we talk.
I care about the pro-life movement, regardless of what you think. If a cheating fraud is doing the movement a disservice, that's a problem. If the movement is being damaged by supporting and welcoming the same lying hypocrite, that's a problem.
What exactly are people who see Terry held up as a virtuous paragon of morality supposed to think in light of his actions? What are they supposed to think of the people who support him? Worse, what are they going to assume about the "morality" that undergirds opposition to abortion, when hypocrisy is evidently acceptable so long as abortion's foes talk the talk in the right setting?
By your standards, Terry's a remorseless adulterer and thief. If he had glommed on to any other social issue, other than one you feel passionately about, I really doubt you'd go out of your way to avoid criticizing the man. But because it happens to be abortion Terry opposes, you feel as though he's perfectly worth defending, and supporting. Oh, he hates abortion? Well, fine! Let's give him a mulligan, shall we? Forget his past--we're familiar with his past, you know. Live and let live!
Something tells me you'll remember to ask, Jeff. Don't be coy. If you're "familiar" with Terry's past I'm sure a question or two for Enyart about this heel won't slip your mind.
P.S. If anything Mr. Terry's prolific "fundraising" efforts (for himself) should make anyone in the movement exceedingly wary. "Please Remove Randall’s Feeding Tube," by Patrick Poole, is a devastating indictment of Terry's consistent deception when it comes to two things he can't get enough of: attention, and money. Poole says it best: "Sadly, there is much more that could be mentioned, but this is sufficient to demonstrate that even if Randall's past efforts for the cause of Christ were considered, he has completely disqualified himself from any leadership position in the Christian community through his unwillingness to be held accountable for his adultery, theft, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, perjury, failing to provide for his first wife and children, and evasion of church discipline."
Wrong as usual Granite. I don't support and defend him, just his efforts at defending innocent life. If you saw Terry running to push a child out of the way of an oncoming car would you trip him?
The analogy's inaccurate and I'd appreciate it if you responded to more than a single sentence from my post.
So by your reasoning would you support a man you knew to be a burglar so long as he spent his spare time picketing gay bars?
Would you support the efforts of a known wife beater to put a smut shop out of business?
Your relativism on this issue is really interesting: as long as Terry parrots the same anti-abortion rhetoric (when he's not begging for more money), you seem to think he's on solid ground. It doesn't matter how reprehensible or hypocritical his behavior is; all you're interested in is whether or not he's saying the "right" things about abortion. So if Terry wasn't an activist but just your run of the mill Christian hypocrite, you'd have no problem denouncing his behavior? That's exceedingly convenient.
A lying thieving perjurer is no kind of moral authority, no kind of legitimate spokesman, and is exactly the kind of greedy opportunist anyone with a shred of sense should distance themselves from. Once again, your inability to understand this very simple point is really astounding.
Don't let your dislike of me cloud the issue. And while you're at it, you should really read Poole's piece.
Granite, you're being your usual bratty self. You said my analogy was inaccurate but, of course, you didn't explain how. And you keep painting my support of Terry's specific efforts at saving lives with broad strokes to imply I support every immoral thing he has ever done. You're just a little brat Granite. Stop wasting my time.
Jeff, I've kept this civil. And for the record I'm a grown man who acts like one, as do you. So let's not waste time with this kind of bickering, since it doesn't do a lick of good.
If Enyart provides comment or clarification for why he welcomed someone like Terry on his show, I'm all ears.
As I said already, don't let your dislike of me cloud the issue. When you have a chance, please ask Enyart about this, and please read Poole's article. It's worth your time.
If Enyart provides comment or clarification for why he welcomed someone like Terry on his show, I'm all ears.
As I said already, don't let your dislike of me cloud the issue. When you have a chance, please ask Enyart about this, and please read Poole's article. It's worth your time.
It's your dislike of us fundies that clouds your objectivity.
What I "dislike" (as anyone should) is hypocrisy. Please don't tell me what I think, as that usually is a gigantic waste of time for all parties involved. Remember: it's not just me who has a problem with Terry. (If you trust Gary North for insights on foreign affairs I find it very funny that you don't trust what he has to say when it comes to one man, or find it next to impossible to admit you agree with him.)
Is every fundie on the planet a hypocrite Granite?
No, and I never said otherwise. I'm talking about one hypocrite in particular.
I talked with Bob about this. You should read A Humble Plea. Additionally, Bob had an in depth conversation with Terry about this and frankly Granite, you're too much of a brat to be privy to such inside information. BTW, when I call you a brat, it has nothing to do with your age but your attitude.
My conclusion of the matter, after learning the full story, is that Terry still has no good reason for his actions. He thinks it's a perfectly legitimate reason. My view is that he only has an excuse but not a good reason, not even a lousy reason.
But, my position still stands that if Terry (or anyone else) was running to push a child out of the way of an on coming car, I wouldn't trip him.
My conclusion of the matter, after learning the full story, is that Terry still has no good reason for his actions. He thinks it's a perfectly legitimate reason. My view is that he only has an excuse but not a good reason, not even a lousy reason.
But, my position still stands that if Terry (or anyone else) was running to push a child out of the way of an on coming car, I wouldn't trip him.
:yawn:
So you said you'd talk to Enyart, and now you say that whatever "inside info" you have is above my pay grade. Uh-huh. Pretty convenient.
Do you think Enyart made a mistake inviting this charlatan onto his show?
At the very least, at long last, you're willing to admit Terry has no good reasons for what he did. That's something, anyway.
I haven't seen this addressed, and I'd like to add a follow-up question:
If your answer is yes, were his actions a sin?
Yes, his actions were a sin.
But that doesn't really answer the entirety of the question.
Was Terry a Christian during, before, or after he committed adultery and walked out on his family?
Option A: Terry was a Christian when he abandoned his family and fleeced his supporters. This calls into question the effectiveness of the "morality" and "values" Terry talks about, at the very least. He certainly seems impervious to the higher authority and message he appeals to.
Option B: Terry was a Christian before, but not during, the time in his life when he chose to leave his wife for a twentysomething trollop. So he lapsed, this argument would go, was briefly "backslidden" or fallen from the faith, but returned to the fold--only after the damage was done.
Option C: Terry was a Christian only after he betrayed his family and friends. This would imply he was not a "real" Christian and that he had deceived an awful lot of people for years prior into thinking that he was.
- Status