Man indicted for allegedly trying to extort (gay) gospel singer
Vince
By RANDY KENNER, ken...@knews.com December 23, 2003
A Johnson City man has been indicted on a federal extortion charge for
allegedly trying to blackmail a gospel singer by threatening to reveal that
the singer is gay.
FBI agents arrested Walbert Keith Farmer, 39, after he met with Kirk Talley,
a Dove Award-winning and Grammy-nominated singer and songwriter, at the
Applebee's restaurant near Knoxville Center mall on Dec. 9.
-Snip-
The affidavit also states that Talley "felt the Internet" was the only place
he could meet men.
The rest of the story -
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_2525378,00.htm
l
Yaderp
--
Yaderp
Peeing on an electric fence is one of those lessons you only have to be
taught once in a lifetime.
"Vince" <y...@no.why> wrote in message
news:iQZFb.3675$n26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Greg Taylor
that this was one of the reasons Roger and Debra ended the Talleys and
later reformed with their daughter.
If true, Kirk faces a tough road ahead. While we certainly cannot
condone the sin, he is still a sinner saved by grace like the rest of us
and definitely needs our prayers.
Sadly, if the news article is any indication, SG will also probably take
a bruising from the world over this.
David Bruce Murray
news:Ev_Fb.138$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> Unfortunately this lends some new credibility to the rumor years ago
> that this was one of the reasons Roger and Debra ended the Talleys and
> later reformed with their daughter.
I wish the article had been written a little more clearly. At first reading,
it was difficult to tell whether the blackmailer was just making claims that
Talley was gay or if the FBI rep, Hughes, was saying that Talley said he was
gay when reporting the crime. After reading the article two or three times,
I think it's saying Talley told Hughes he was gay. Is that how you took it?
> If true, Kirk faces a tough road ahead. While we certainly cannot
> condone the sin, he is still a sinner saved by grace like the rest of us
> and definitely needs our prayers.
No doubt. He's obviously got a lot of good qualities as a person to be fund
raising for Roger Bennett's health care so aggressively, etc. I expect his
career as a gospel singer is basically over, though. Even if he denies he is
homosexual or renounces that lifestyle from here on out, SG fans are pretty
unforgiving once rumors have a more concrete footing, and that seems to be
the case with this information being public record.
> Sadly, if the news article is any indication, SG will also probably take
> a bruising from the world over this.
Nah, I doubt that. Talley is popular in SG circles, but not much more than
that. The "world" will probably never hear much about it, and if they do,
they'll say "Kirk who?" I'd be shocked if it gets a tenth of the secular
media coverage that was given to Michael English's extra-marital affair.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@NOSPAMmailblocks.com
---Making hay while the sun shines---
"I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." ---Dr. Bobby Clark
5/7/03 by "The Original Tenor of the Cathedral Quartet"
Paul Slopak, Jr.
got that famous line "Well, until I hear it from the person himself we
shouldn't even talk about it".
Well, folks, Kirk Talley has told the FBI that he was being threatened with
being "outed" if he didn't pay money.
If he wasn't gay, why would he worry if some crackpot wanted to "out" him?
If Kirk were not gay, there would be no crime here because if he were not
gay, there could be no extortion. Just saying someone was gay does not make
him gay. The extortion comes when the information to be told is secret,
damaging and most of all TRUE.
Plain and simple, Kirk Talley is gay as told from his own mouth.
Brandon
years.
FOR GREAT PRICES ON GREAT MUSIC & MOVIES VISIT CHEAPOPRICES
http://stores.ebay.com/cheapoprices
"Vince" <y...@no.why> wrote in message
news:iQZFb.3675$n26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
-Snip-
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Just Allan
<gta...@umd.umich.edu> wrote:
>If true, Kirk faces a tough road ahead.
IF it's true: He needs too face a tough road, yes. But if he hasn't
turned from it after all these years, it's not likely he's going to.
(Miracles can still happen today tho'.)
If you're referring to his career - then he SHOULD be kicked out on
his ear, like every other person representing the Gospel in public,
while serving the devil in their heart. Paul "delivered" such folks
that had given up their "good conscience", thus making their "faith
shipwreck", "unto Satan" - that they would "learn not to BLASPHEME.
> While we certainly cannot condone the sin,
That's for sure.
>he is still a sinner saved by grace like the rest of us
Nope - he's nothing like "the rest of us" - unless the rest of us are
heading for the Lake of Fire. A homosexual is a sinner living in sin.
They have removed themselves from under the protection of grace. What
can separate us from the love of Christ? Nothing - except us.
I often hear a certain feeble argument that grace excuses us from sin
so we can continue doing that sin. This is a doctrine of devils.
"Oh, we shouldn't judge!"
"Grace covers everything..."
Well, if no-one was "judged" in such evil things, they would never
clearly realise their error and so would never return to the grace of
God.
And if people do want to claim grace works that way, then there's
another verse folks about grace - that tells us that grace
***TEACHES*** us something:
Titus 2:11-15
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
TEACHING us that, DENYING UNGODLINESS and WORLDLY LUSTS, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking
for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might
REDEEM US FROM INIQUITY, and PURIFY unto himself a peculiar people,
zealous of GOOD WORKS. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke
with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
I'm sick of feeble-minded christians defending homosexual behaviour.
Grace teaches us to DENY UNgodliness. In reference to the above
verses, for such weak-minded people, think on this:
Regardless of if people think homosexuality is under grace or not -
could it be classified as "Godly" or "ungodly"? (If someone answers
"Godly" - then they're totally reprobate.) Therefore, if it's ungodly
(which it is) then we are to do what...? DENY it.
Is homosexuality a Godly desire, or a WORLDLY ***LUST***? (Again, if
you answer "Godly desire", then you're totally reprobate.) If it's a
worldly lust - we are to live RIGHTEOUSLY and GODLY. Since
homosexuality is ungodly, it only takes a pretty limited IQ to realise
it must be the opposite of righteousness and must be turned away from.
The Scripture above goes on to say that if such a person *doesn't*
turn from such things, they are not "looking for that blessed hope".
They aren't looking for the "glorious appearing of Jesus Christ"
either. In what way are they not looking for this? It goes on to say
because Jesus GAVE HIMSELF for us - to REDEEM us FROM INIQUITY. To
PURIFY a peculiar people. ZEALOUS of GOOD works (not works of the
flesh, evil & darkness).
I've often thought about King David - why they didn't stone him for
his adultery. I believe one of the biggest reasons was, once his sin
was POINTED OUT TO HIM, he REPENTED and TURNED AWAY from HIS SIN. Of
course, David *knew* he'd sinned, how could he not... But he needed
someone to confront him with it. In that exact same way, homosexuals
need to be confronted - not hugged and told "it's ok - it's under
grace".
Elsewhere in the Bible, it alludes that David still "made it in".
Practicing homosexuals will not make it in. David repented - a
practicing homosexual hasn't repented. Going to church & singing
Gospel songs just isn't enough. That's not living godly - it's making
a living. People can think it's godly if they like - God will respect
their decision to fool themselves. He respected Adam & Eve's decision
too. But they still paid the penality for their decision. The
penalty for eating the fruit was death. The penalty for homosexuality
is death. Nothing has changed except the amount of effort people go
to, to delude themselves and others. Instead of passing the buck to
Eve, the homosexuals pass the buck to God - "God *made* me gay".
"It's under grace." NO HE DIDN'T and NO IT'S NOT.
>and definitely needs our prayers.
Certainly.
>Sadly, if the news article is any indication, SG will also probably take
>a bruising from the world over this.
Do you really think so? Maybe... When I was in the world though, all
things "christian" went under the same banner - hypocracy carried out
by hypocrites. With Catholic priests molesting children, evangelists
with gold faucets in their bathrooms committing adultery, and faith
teachers claiming our spoken words have power over God Himself, that
He must do what we speak out - I don't see that one more false prophet
will make any difference. To the world, it will only confirm what
they already believe to be true.
Allan.
TomFooleryinFL
Because, true or not, it would damage his reputation and career.
>If Kirk were not gay, there would be no crime here because if he were not
>gay, there could be no extortion.
Not true. Legally, extortion doesn't have anything to do with "true" or
"untrue". If you tell someone you'll burn his house down unless he pays you
$10,000 that's extortion.
>Just saying someone was gay does not make
>him gay. The extortion comes when the information to be told is secret,
>damaging and most of all TRUE.
Again, extortion has nothing to do with truth. You can threaten to slander
someone - tell a complete lie that will damage their reputation - and say that
you won't slander them if they pay you money. That would still be extortion.
I don't know Kirk Talley personally; I'm just trying to correct the
misstatements as to the crime of extortion.
- Tom
garydw
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qkhuvko3i2ershi1...@4ax.com...
No one in this groups has the Right, or the privilege to Judge Kirk Talley
or any other Gay or suspected Gay person.
No where does the original text (Hebrew and Greek) ever mention
Homosexuality.
Also the people who use the English text and the book of Leviticus seem to
have forgotten that there are other laws given in that book, and many so
called Christians are not living by them.
So be careful at how you judge
TommyDale
You know, a couple of years ago I heard the rumor. I told the person
who repeated it to me that they shouldn't repeat anything like this,
because it could ruin a career, and possibly destroy lives. Well,
now that it appears to be true by his own admission, I am deeply
disturbed. It's one thing that there has been deceitfulness and sin.
Anyone can sin. No one is perfect. What bothers me even more is
that some on the inner circle have apparently known this for quite
some time and have covered it up. Why couldn't they have gone to him
and said "Step aside for the sake of the Gospel"? There are going to
be some serious ramifications from this, no doubt. I will have to
really think about who I will trust in the future in the SG industry.
CJBrown
> that some on the inner circle have apparently known this for quite
> some time and have covered it up. Why couldn't they have gone to him
> and said "Step aside for the sake of the Gospel"? There are going to
> be some serious ramifications from this, no doubt. I will have to
> really think about who I will trust in the future in the SG industry.
How did you jump to this conclusion?
CJ
csmith
Number 1. Until you know Kirk Talley is gay for a fact you shouldnt
say he is. However, it appears to me too by the article that he is
saying he is. I also heard this same thing at least ten years ago.
(however, knowing what it feels like to be completely lied about on
another level, i would never say someone is or is not something unless
they say it themselves.) Number 2. How can people be so so quick to
say Kirk Talley is OVER, etc. This is who I THINK should be OVER.
Its the false teachers of the day, and they are in abundance, they are
everywhere, even in the nice little southern gospel world, who are
TEACHING that its ok to be homosexual. That is not what the Bible
says, and if a teacher is teaching something opposing the Bible, it is
time we stupid people stop putting our money towards the people who
are supporting these ideas, or WE are going to be held in judgment for
people like Kirk Talleys life being destroyed. It is time to wake up
to the enemy and the deceit, PLEASE. Or is it just too late? Kirk
Talley is probably suffering a lot right now. Who all is to blame
besides him? We ALL have the same enemy...WAKE UP PLEASE!!!!!!! Keep
on sleeping with the enemy folks, and we are ALL going to answer for
it. ( im one of those pessimists who thinks it is too late by the
way, for a whole lot of reasons.)
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>No one in this groups has the Right, or the privilege to Judge Kirk Talley
>or any other Gay or suspected Gay person.
>
>No where does the original text (Hebrew and Greek) ever mention
>Homosexuality.
>
>Also the people who use the English text and the book of Leviticus seem to
>have forgotten that there are other laws given in that book, and many so
>called Christians are not living by them.
>
>So be careful at how you judge
In the Beginning God Created
> No where does the original text (Hebrew and Greek) ever mention
> Homosexuality.
>
You or no one else has the original text, you are denying the one in your
hand and claiming one you have never seen.
garydw
"In the Beginning God Created" <ken...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:bsbvv...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Are you living all the laws as laid down in the current english language
transalations of the bible?
And I do mean ALL THE LAW.
TommyDale
Several people have told of incidents in the past few years. I am not
going to name them, but they know who they are. Up until now, I was
willing to give KT the benefit of the doubt. Now he will have to
explain that he didn't say what he has been quoted in a LEGAL
AFFIDAVIT, which is sworn as truthful in his own words. That's
fairly strong evidence.
TommyDale
>
> No one in this groups has the Right, or the privilege to Judge Kirk Talley
> or any other Gay or suspected Gay person.
>
> No where does the original text (Hebrew and Greek) ever mention
> Homosexuality.
>
> Also the people who use the English text and the book of Leviticus seem to
> have forgotten that there are other laws given in that book, and many so
> called Christians are not living by them.
>
> So be careful at how you judge
You are totally off base. If you are defending homosexuality by
stating that people can have homosexual tendencies and NOT act upon
those tendencies then I can accept that they can be Christians.
However, by ACTING upon those unnatural homosexual tendencies by
engaging in homosexual activities (sex) then it is a sin. The ACT of
sexual promiscuity is most definitely a sin, whether heterosexual or
homosexual, and the consequences will be addressed on Judgement Day.
People who are presenting the Gospel should live their lives above
reproach. Those who pretend will eventually be exposed. "Be sure
your sins will find you out." The Southern Gospel industry has no
business promoting nor accepting such behavior.
Carol LeFevre
suspect something? I find it hard to believe that George or Glen would
not have removed him from the group, but then maybe they did. Nothing
is surprising any longer. I had asked, on this ng, (about 2 years ago)
if Kirk were married and got jumped on pretty bad for just a simple
question. I love Kirk Talley's singing but apparently it is all phoney.
Your walk must match up with your talk. Sooner or later you will be
found out and then there will be consequences to pay. I, too, feel like
the person who said that there had to be others in the industry who knew
of this going on and kept quiet. I have lost a good deal of respect
for.......I don't know who. I think of that news reporter, Pete
Williams (?) who is an avowed sodomite. I can handle that, I don't like
it, but I can handle that because he is not representing Jesus Christ
nor purporting to be something he isn't. It is no wonder the world
looks at Christianity and sees hypocrisy. Maybe we need to go back and
read Fox's Book of Martyrs and see what real Christians were all about.
CL
TommyDale
AMEN! Well stated, Allan!
David Stuart
what other gospel singers will be next?, sad that the truth is there are
more singing professionally that are gay, more than just Kirk.
David
CJBrown
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf14c408.03122...@posting.google.com...
I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. I agree that it looks like he's
queer, but that's not what I was asking you. My question was in regards to
the statement you made about industry people covering it up. How did you
jump to the conclusion that there have been "inner circle" people who knew
this? Apparently Talley's record label didn't know or he wouldn't have been
concerned about this blackmailer. I just didn't understand that part of
your post; that's all.
CJ
CJBrown
"David Stuart" <Blig...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14795-3FE...@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Perhaps Kirk could form a quartet with them...
Ok, that was just nasty, sorry. LOL
CJ
TommyDale
It was suggested that his family knew it.
Greg Taylor
to preserve someone's livelyhood, in this case SG. I guess the chances
of there being other homosexuals in SG are real and unfortunate. I
think our society is sinking to the point that quartet emcees can no
longer tease their tenors about being the 'girl' of the group without
raising eyebrows.
I also think many groups take the old saying, "What goes on in the bus,
stays in the bus" to an extreme that condones sin. It's one thing to
not speak about a fellow singer's bad habits like nose-picking or
gas-passing, but things like substance abuse (mainly alcohol) or
infidelity (like the story I heard about one group wife-swapping on
their bus at NQC 2002) should not be tolerated.
Very few of us have the guts to say 'I've done wrong' and 'I'm sorry'
BEFORE we get caught.
Then again, Kirk may be like garydw and feel that homosexuality is not a
sin and covered it up just to protect his recording contract.
I guess sometime in the hopefully near future we'll find out...
revpaul
>
> Are you living all the laws as laid down in the current english language
> transalations of the bible?
My English Bible condemns "fornicators", "effeminate" and "abusers of
themselves with mankind" no matter how you want to interprete those
terms, and my Bible also condemns "extortioners". . .
1Cor. 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.
So whatever it says in Leviticus, under the law, is not the point.
The book of First Corinthians is not law, but grace, and the
condemnations are right there.
Michael Crocker
not? Flamers take note: I'm not making a moral judgement with this question,
just interested in well-thought-out replies.
Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are
spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
"Vince" <y...@no.why> wrote in message
news:iQZFb.3675$n26....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
sammy
Southern Gospel News message boards...is the board moderated with such a
heavy hand?...only happy news allowed?....one can't put their head in the
sand on this issue
DanLemke
see the alleged homosexual, the alleged extortioner, and the alleged
participants in what some seem to think is a conspiracy of silence all
repent, and be reconciled to God. I pray we all do so in a spirit of
meekness; many of us recognize that, even if we aren't tempted to engage in
these sins, we have our own failings for which we need God's mercy.
--
"Don't just make a statement; make a difference."
"Michael Crocker" <yeah...@dontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:vujnsi2...@corp.supernews.com...
Greg Taylor
I believe Gal 6:1 was one of the verses that gave rise to the principle
of judging the sin, not the sinner. Note Paul acknowledges the fact
that 'brethren' can be overtaken in faults. He states in another place
that he will not be 'brought under the power of any'. Clearly the most
dangerous of 'faults' are the ones that take control of our sense of
right and wrong when we are under their influence.
Jesus himself also set the example with the adulterous woman when he
stated 'neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more'. He did not deny
the sin, but forgave the sinner, and commanded her to leave the sin behind.
I think we can and should forgive Kirk even before he asks for it. But
we cannot deny the sin(s) and should encourage his repentance and
restoration. I believe this was how the situation was handled with
Kenny Bishop and from I've read he is being restored.
How to restore? Well, back to Gal 6:1: (1) the person(s) doing it
should be 'spiritual', meaning they can approach the person and
situation with spiritual maturity and not out of their own carnal
vanity, (2) they must deal with Kirk in spiritual meekness, because, as
I said before, we are all just sinners saved by grace and any of us are
capable of being 'overtaken in a fault' ourselves. Any discussion with
him about his faults should be based on scripture. Finally, some plan
of action to put these sins behind him and restore him must be
articulated and followed.
But, like any alcoholic knows, you cannot be helped until you first
acknowledge the addiction (sin). One of the issues here is the fact
that, as I stated in an earlier post, Kirk may not recognize
homosexuality as a fault or sin. Even though most of us feel the
Biblical stand against homosexuality is irrefutable there are some who
don't, including even people on this list.
This past year a rather lengthy debate ensued on the list about
homosexuality, and while some informative and constructive comments were
made at times it became ugly. In the end I don't think it resulted in
anyone changing their position on the subject. I don't think any of us
want to revive the issue in that way (hint, hint).
garydw
You seemed to have left out any comment on the other LAWS as laid down in
the Bible and the book of Leviticus.
Until you can address ALL THE LAW, then do not sit in judgment on one point
of the law.
Kirk is not the only person in the Gospel industry that is gay or maybe gay,
or has other things to hide.
Do you enjoy football on Sunday? That is a sin
Do you eat BBQ, or Bacon or Sausage? That is a sin
Do you have a daughter? If yes, did you sell her into slavery? The law
states you must.
Do you own slaves? The bible states that you should.
We could go on and on....
Please comment on all the law, not just part of it. And before you judge
Kirk or anyone else, you must first judge yourself.
David Ching
Last evening SoGospelNews had a thread called "Knoxville article" or
something like that, which is now gone. That's consistent with their
policy of disallowing rumor and innuendo. So far whether Kirk is gay is
only rumor. The only fact we have is that one newspaper has cited an FBI
agent's aftadavit (sp?) saying Kirk told him the Internet was the only safe
way to meet men. It was not a direct quote, it was paraphrased. Therefore,
it is hearsay.
However, let's not bury our heads in the sand as you say. If Kirk were not
gay, he would be loudly proclaiming that fact instead of keeping quiet. So
in all probability, he is. But whether he engaged in homosexual acts is
still not mentioned, and that is what the Bible specifically prohibits. And
even if he did on various occasions, God forgives.
Also, when he went to the FBI, he took a big risk that this would become a
legal matter and become public, which it has. He didn't have to do that.
He could have kept quiet, but he should be given credit for doing his civic
duty to stop that kind of crime.
Still, seeing the kind of responses on this newsgroup and knowing of the
ways of typical people who buy and sell Southern Gospel music, Kirk's career
is probably done for. This is a very sad day.
Kirk's music deals with hurting people, and several times in my life, the
only thing that kept me going were songs like his, when I was going through
rough times, even if my life seemed fine to the outside world. Kirk's
ability to minister to hurting people is unmatched. I only hope and pray he
finds the same source of comfort and love which I found through his music.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
-- David
garydw
"Greg Taylor" <gta...@umd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:dakGb.170$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
I have not said that it is or is not a sin. What I have said, and what I am
saying is that we must look at all the law, everything the Bible states. We
then must apply that to ourselves before we can sit in judgment of someone
else.
Kirk must determine for himself if he is or is not in sin. But we must each
and everyone of us look at the book that is being used to condem him, and
apply what that book tells us to our own lives. I again will provide a few
examples:
Do you work on Sunday? The bible says to keep the Sabbath holy
Do you play football? The Bible tells us not to touch the skin of a dead pig
Do you eat Bacon, Sausage, BBQ? The bible tells us not to eat pork.
Do you own slaves? The bible tells us we should
The list goes on and on. So are we as Christians living all of the law or
just part it?
Before we judge anyone, we must judge ourselves. And if we find we are not
doing wrong, but are not keeping the law, then that means that Kirk is not
in sin.
I ask everyone to Think about it.
Deanshafer
>ability to minister to hurting people is unmatched. I only hope and pray he
>finds the same source of comfort and love which I found through his music.
Somebody said one time, the Christian army is the only army in the world that
shoots its wounded.
The E-Mail Traveler,
Dean
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, USA
"Money talks, chocolate sings."
Just Allan
(Carol LeFevre) wrote:
>What years did Kirk sing with The Cathedrals? Did they not know or
>suspect something?
This was my first thought too.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>You seemed to have left out any comment on the other LAWS as laid down in
>the Bible and the book of Leviticus.
>
>Until you can address ALL THE LAW, then do not sit in judgment on one point
>of the law.
Gary, you have received Scriptural answers in the past to all your
questions - from many people here. For some reason, you refuse to
believe/obey God's Word - and then admit you don't even think it IS
God's Word and it cannot be trusted. So if you really want these
answers, here's one of the threads with some of those same answers
again. Nothing has changed in the Bible since then:
>Please comment on all the law, not just part of it. And before you judge
>Kirk or anyone else, you must first judge yourself.
Just one point on this comment... What it actually says is, with the
same judgement, you will judged. None of the people you're
disagreeing with have a problem with receiving back that same
judgement on themselves. Because number one, the judgement you're
referring to, is the nit-picking type of judgement - it is not
referring to the apostate, reprobate, backsliden, pornographic, sinful
lust of homosexuality that is against God's original design. (One
man, for one woman, for life.)
Secondly, even if it *did* mean it the way you're projecting it (which
of course it doesn't) - it's a pretty safe bet that the people here
"judging" homosexuality are not practicing it themselves. Therefore,
they have already: "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
eye." As they don't practice homosexuality, they do now see clearly
and have the right to cast out motes from others' eyes.
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>AMEN! Well stated, Allan!
Aw shucks... But I can't take credit for it - I believe I read it
somewhere. :-)
Just Allan
wrote:
>Perhaps Kirk could form a quartet with them...
Hm... The trouble is, I'm beginning to wonder if anyone would
notice...
Just Allan
<gta...@umd.umich.edu> wrote:
>infidelity (like the story I heard about one group wife-swapping on
>their bus at NQC 2002) should not be tolerated.
I feel ill. Surely this one wouldn't be true - how would you get
three or four women to all agree to degrade themselves so? They may
as well go stand on a street corner. At least they'd have some cash
to show for doing it.
Allan.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I ask everyone to Think about it.
It can't be thought about, because it makes no sense. Put aside the
Bible for a second and even the logic of your argument invalidates
itself.
First you said:
>everyone of us
must:
>look at the book...
and:
>apply what that book tells us to our own lives...
Then you say, if WE don't keep the law:
>then that means that Kirk is not in sin.
If someone is in sin - they're in sin. No matter what *I'M* doing.
Allan.
Just Allan
<yeah...@dontthinkso.com> wrote:
>Question for this ng: Does Galatians 6:1 apply in this case, and if not, why
>not? Flamers take note: I'm not making a moral judgement with this question,
>just interested in well-thought-out replies.
>
>Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are
>spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering
>thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Hi Michael... Here's just one past thread on this subject - you might
have to cut & paste it in separately into a browser, if it doesn't all
appear on one line:
Allan.
Just Allan
>It's interesting that not one word has been said about this situation on the
>Southern Gospel News message boards...is the board moderated with such a
>heavy hand?
Yep.
Just Allan
<d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote:
>Still, seeing the kind of responses on this newsgroup and knowing of the
>ways of typical people who buy and sell Southern Gospel music, Kirk's career
>is probably done for. This is a very sad day.
IF it's as it seems - ***IF***. Then I'd say it's a day for rejoicing
- IF it brings repentance.
Luke 15:10
Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels
of God over one sinner that repenteth.
>Kirk's music deals with hurting people, and several times in my life, the
>only thing that kept me going were songs like his, when I was going through
>rough times, even if my life seemed fine to the outside world. Kirk's
>ability to minister to hurting people is unmatched. I only hope and pray he
>finds the same source of comfort and love which I found through his music.
It's funny how different people look at things differently.
Personally, I've never liked his music. It's too "fairy floss" (sorry
- "cotton candy" you guys call it) for me. IF i found out someone had
been living such a life for such a long time, it would make the music
they sang during that time "counterfeit" to me - and I'd probably end
up discarding it. Perhaps though, that's because as I said, I'm not
impressed by it anyway.
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>Somebody said one time, the Christian army is the only army in the world that
>shoots its wounded.
Struggling to overcome sin = Wounded.
Given in to sin & unable to judge right from wickedness = Dead.
Just Allan
Just Allan
wrote:
>I think it applies quite plainly. I believe that many of us would like to
>see the alleged homosexual, the alleged extortioner, and the alleged
>participants in what some seem to think is a conspiracy of silence all
>repent, and be reconciled to God. I pray we all do so in a spirit of
>meekness; many of us recognize that, even if we aren't tempted to engage in
>these sins, we have our own failings for which we need God's mercy.
Exactly. I haven't seen anyone judging incorrectly here. I have seen
however, people lamenting a person's possible error.
Allan
In the Beginning God Created
why
> not? Flamers take note: I'm not making a moral judgement with this
question,
> just interested in well-thought-out replies.
>
> Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are
> spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering
> thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
>
>
>
be a gay! But this is talking about fault, not an unnatural lifestyle. That
God calls abomination is more than a fault.
KJCSmith1
>if Kirk were married and got jumped on pretty bad for just a simple
>question.
Kirk has been married before.
> I love Kirk Talley's singing but apparently it is all phoney.
I love the way everyone is ready to condemn Kirk, when NO ONE has talked to
him.
David Stuart
of the old CAts videos with him, you can notice his wedding band!
David
Paul Slopak, Jr.
never admitted the affair. He just said he was leaving the group to spend
more time with his wife.
If he spent more time with his wife instead of the other woman he probably
would have not been forced to leave the group.
Now we get the ones who want us to walk up to Kirk and ask him if he is gay.
The FBI affidavit says that Kirk stated he was being blackmailed (extorted)
about his sexuality. He admitted to the FBI that he was gay.
No wonder the world is in the shape it is in. All you have to do is look at
the posts on this thread and see all the people who are not convinced
homosexuality is a sin.
I'm done.
THE Old Man
<gta...@umd.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>I also think many groups take the old saying, "What goes on in the bus,
>stays in the bus" to an extreme that condones sin. It's one thing to
>not speak about a fellow singer's bad habits like nose-picking or
>gas-passing, but things like substance abuse (mainly alcohol) or
>infidelity (like the story I heard about one group wife-swapping on
>their bus at NQC 2002) should not be tolerated.
>
I'm not going to get into the middle of something to the point of
carrying on a long LONG winded debate but it always bothers me when
one comes up with something like "like the story I heard about one
group wife-swapping on their bus at NQC 2002:.
Really, should we be carrying on with "stories" that are undocumented,
or even documented, about people? What's it called ... tale bearing?
gossiping?
Just curious.
CJBrown
"Fruitcake" song means more than meets the eye? "What in the world am I
gonna do with a fruitcake?"
CJ
David Bruce Murray
"sammy" <niv...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:wrlGb.34664$mV5....@read1.cgocable.net...
Here's one link that has an "I've been advised not to comment" response from
Talley and a statement of support from Chris White at his record label,
although it neglects to mention the details of the extortion attempt:
http://www.thesoutherngospel.com/more.php?id=648_0_1_0_C
Other websites and print magazines have made it clear they are not in the
"news" business when it comes to stuff like this. I don't see it necessarily
as "putting their heads in the sand." It's just that they view themselves as
entertainment entities more than journalistic news sources.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@NOSPAMmailblocks.com
---Making hay while the sun shines---
"I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." ---Dr. Bobby Clark
5/7/03 by "The Original Tenor of the Cathedral Quartet"
David Bruce Murray
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r7ckuv042gn4o4f13...@4ax.com...
If you're speaking about the message boards at www.sogospelnews.com, they
make it very plain what is allowed for discussion and what isn't.
(If you're speaking about some other message board, then ignore the rest of
this post . . .)
About www.sogospelnews.com, it's their ballfield. If you post there and
break a posting rule, your post is deleted. It isn't moderating just for the
sake of banning posters you don't like. It's even handed moderating. There's
nothing "heavy handed" about a policy that is stated so plain and clear
right up front. Before a new visitor to the site is allowed to post their
first message, they have to read to and agree with the posting policy.
I write reviews of CDs for www.sogospelnews.com, and yet I'm not spared from
being moderated. I've had my own posts deleted when they were on the
borderline of the areas they don't allow. Unlike most of the whiners though,
I don't complain about it. If I want to say something on some topic that
isn't allowed on their site, I say it here. Any type of moderating is going
to be considered "unfair" by some people, but again, they have made it clear
that theological debates; rumor, gossip, and innuendo about artists; and
political discussions are off limits.
In fact, I posted a new thread on there three or four days ago that was
completely deleted. I assume the moderator did it. It's not a big deal.
Someone had a thread on under appreciated artists, so I started one on over
appreciated artists. Someone else posted "what happened to the over
appreciated artists thread?" after it was deleted, but you heard nary a peep
from me. If the moderator thought that was over the line, well, so be it.
It's their property.
What's interesting to me is that someone would be surprised they didn't
report something when they've said from day one that they don't report those
types of stories, and they don't allow those types of stories to be posted
by members of their message boards.
David Bruce Murray
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
> Personally, I've never liked his music. It's too "fairy floss" (sorry
"Fairy" is NOT a word I'd be using to describe Kirk Talley's music right
now. :o)
David Bruce Murray
"THE Old Man" <ddal...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:89skuv0d07bfq1s19...@4ax.com...
> I'm not going to get into the middle of something to the point of
> carrying on a long LONG winded debate but it always bothers me when
> one comes up with something like "like the story I heard about one
> group wife-swapping on their bus at NQC 2002:.
>
> Really, should we be carrying on with "stories" that are undocumented,
> or even documented, about people? What's it called ... tale bearing?
> gossiping?
There's an area that overlaps between "tale bearing" and "protecting others
who may be duped."
Let's say you visit a new store and are treated rudely by the employees and
the store manager. You're going to tell your friends about your experience
before they go shop there . . . at least, you'll tell them if it's
convenient to tell them and the subject comes up. They may even pass the
info along to their friends . . . are they "tale bearing" at that point, or
just giving a nice "buyer beware" warning. No one would complain if it was a
positive shopping experience and you were endorsing the new store by word of
mouth.
When it comes to living a moral Christian life, all of us, even big name
artists, are going to mess up. We fall down. We get up. God forgives, and
hopefully, so do the fans. When an artist has ego issues, ongoing infidelity
problems, drunkeness, drug abuse, gluttony, etc., at what point should the
fans who become aware of these issues start letting other fans know? Some
would say never. Some would say SG artists are just entertainers, not
ministers, so how they live their lives is their own business. Others would
say that fans are being sold a product by a shyster who should be exposed.
Others would say the artist should be approached and confronted privately
about their lack of control over certain sin.
I'm not making a statement about which of these is correct. I'm just saying
these areas often overlap, and you're going to have people on both sides of
the issue with strong arguments that are biblically backed.
garydw
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
And Allan, you like all others continue to side step around the law, when it
means you are committing the sin.
I shall stand as I have in the past. Unless you live ALL the law, then you
are not in any position to judge others.
garydw
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
But if you are not living all of the law, then you cannot use the law to
judge someone else.
CJBrown
"garydw" <no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:pMudnbXGd70...@speakeasy.net...
Only in fairy tale land (no pun intended) would your last statement be true.
According to the Bible, the final authority for faith and practice:
"Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of
the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
The fact is, NO MAN has ever kept the whole law. Yet God instituted human
government. God instituted penalties for various crimes and sins. If only
a perfect person can judge, then God was foolish in telling us how, when,
where, and why to judge.
CJ
alan
I have been away for several days, maybe a couple of weeks, and I
return to hear this tragic news. I chose Greg Taylor's response to
Michael Crocker's post as my jumping off point, since I agree with
their sentiments. But I'll be brief.
1. Galations 6:1 is exactly on point. You can say all that you want
about Kirk having to admit his sin and whatever else, but Gal 6:1 is
addressed to those of us, as it says, "who are spiritual." I hope and
pray that I am one of those that qualifies under this verse. And if I
do, it only tells me what to do, not Kirk Talley, and warns me to
humility, reminding me that I too have within me what could cause me
to fall.
2. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." I am a
person in great need of God's mercy so I do my very best to extend it
to others. I would not want to be certain people who have posted here
and find myself in need of mercy, and the qualification for my
receiving it be how merciful I have been with respect to Kirk Talley.
3. The use of jokes about this situation, puns, and pejorative terms
for homosexuals is not spiritual at all. It shows two things. In some,
it shows that, really, all of your supposedly righteous indignation is
just a cover for a fleshly expression of your own personal distaste
for homosexual practice, which you would have whether or not you were
Christians. In others, it shows that you lack the comprehension of the
seriousness with which God views this matter.
4. Homosexual practice is a sin, according to the Bible. It doesn't
matter what else appears in Leviticus or what dispute one may have
over which Sabbath day to practice, or whether to practice one. It is
a sin of the flesh.
Unfortunately, it is, as I said above, a sin that gets all tied up in
the personal prejudices of people who wouldn't like it even if they
weren't Christians. Therefore, people practicing it are subjected to a
different standard of indignation, disgust, and rejection that those
practicing other sins of the flesh.
I see Sandi Patti (or however you spell it) and Michael English are
making a comeback, both of them with different spouses; and being
accepted by the Southern Gospel community. Why? Because the Christian
world is rife with heterosexual unfaithfulness and divorce and it's a
whole lot easier to forgive a sin in someone else and accept them back
when you've committed it yourself and have managed to keep accepting
yourself. Especially if YOU had "good reasons" for doing it.
Most of us aren't inclined to commit the sin of homosexuality, so it's
easy to jump on anyone who does.
5. I have a number of homosexual friends that I have made through work
and organizational associations. Some of them I didn't know were gay
when we became friends, some I did. All of them know exactly what I
believe about Christ and the Bible, and about homosexual practice. But
I still love them and pray for them and hope that they will repent.
There is not a one of these people who doesn't wish he was straight.
Some of them have suffered terribly at the hands of family and former
friends because they are gay. Some of them suffer abuse and
discrimination in their jobs, and never know if they are going to be
attacked by someone just because they are gay. And these are the ones
who are "out", who don't have the fear of being "outed" as Kirk
appears to have been. In regard to their "choice of lifestyle", they
have said to me, "Do you think I would CHOOSE this? This suffering and
prejudice." They asked me when it was that I chose to be straight. At
what point in the formation of my sexual identity did I say, "Hmm, I
could go down this road or down this other road." That was a telling
argument because I just remember being awakened to the fact that girls
were there and suddenly were a whole lot more interesting than they
had been before :). I don't remember it at all as being a choice.
That's what they say happened to them. (and yes, for you who just must
be negative, I remind them that the choice is whether to practice
their sin, not their propensity for it)
It's not hard for me to believe that Kirk's songs about suffering and
struggle grow out of his own pain and attempts to win in his struggle
between his flesh and his Christian heart. Oh, and I believe that it
is fortunate that we don't have to be sinless to be saved. At least,
fortunate for me. Tendency towards sin is something I have to deal
with, even if some of you guys don't.
6. Finally, I ask myself, how does God the Father look at Kirk Talley?
How does Jesus the Son look at him? I believe God looks upon him with
all the love and suffering that an earthly father would look upon his
son who was suffering, and yet, with the desire that he would exchange
his lifestyle for one where he is finding his fulfilment in God.
Christ, it says, looked upon them with compassion, always and only
with compassion. The only ones he ever got angry with were the ones
who cloaked personal issues in the cloak of religious practice for
their own purposes. Hmmm.
7. We need to see what is happening to Kirk, and the thing he battles,
not as sin (though it is), not as a personality trait (though it is),
but as an ENEMY, and we need to help him fight his enemy. That is part
of the restoration of Ephesians 6:1.
After all, we all have the same enemy, just not in the same form.
LD
When you up your own personal prejudice against a particular sin Greg Taylor <gta...@umd.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<xZlGb.184$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> Yes.
>
> I believe Gal 6:1 was one of the verses that gave rise to the principle
> of judging the sin, not the sinner. Note Paul acknowledges the fact
> that 'brethren' can be overtaken in faults. He states in another place
> that he will not be 'brought under the power of any'. Clearly the most
> dangerous of 'faults' are the ones that take control of our sense of
> right and wrong when we are under their influence.
>
> Jesus himself also set the example with the adulterous woman when he
> stated 'neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more'. He did not deny
> the sin, but forgave the sinner, and commanded her to leave the sin behind.
>
> I think we can and should forgive Kirk even before he asks for it. But
> we cannot deny the sin(s) and should encourage his repentance and
> restoration. I believe this was how the situation was handled with
> Kenny Bishop and from I've read he is being restored.
>
> How to restore? Well, back to Gal 6:1: (1) the person(s) doing it
> should be 'spiritual', meaning they can approach the person and
> situation with spiritual maturity and not out of their own carnal
> vanity, (2) they must deal with Kirk in spiritual meekness, because, as
> I said before, we are all just sinners saved by grace and any of us are
> capable of being 'overtaken in a fault' ourselves. Any discussion with
> him about his faults should be based on scripture. Finally, some plan
> of action to put these sins behind him and restore him must be
> articulated and followed.
>
> But, like any alcoholic knows, you cannot be helped until you first
> acknowledge the addiction (sin). One of the issues here is the fact
> that, as I stated in an earlier post, Kirk may not recognize
> homosexuality as a fault or sin. Even though most of us feel the
> Biblical stand against homosexuality is irrefutable there are some who
> don't, including even people on this list.
>
> This past year a rather lengthy debate ensued on the list about
> homosexuality, and while some informative and constructive comments were
> made at times it became ugly. In the end I don't think it resulted in
> anyone changing their position on the subject. I don't think any of us
> want to revive the issue in that way (hint, hint).
Just Allan
<dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote:
>"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fackuvc6a6bj59em3...@4ax.com...
>> Personally, I've never liked his music. It's too "fairy floss" (sorry
>
>"Fairy" is NOT a word I'd be using to describe Kirk Talley's music right
>now. :o)
Hm... I didn't think of that while I was typing... You guys over
there don't call it that - do you... The er... pink stuff on sticks.
(Am I allowed to say "pink", or should I say red with a touch of
white?)
Allan.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>And Allan, you like all others continue to side step around the law, when it
>means you are committing the sin.
>
>I shall stand as I have in the past. Unless you live ALL the law, then you
>are not in any position to judge others.
Ok - you certainly are a confusing fellow.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> If someone is in sin - they're in sin. No matter what *I'M* doing.
>>
>> Allan.
>
>But if you are not living all of the law, then you cannot use the law to
>judge someone else.
1. The "judging" you're referring to is not the same thing as "judging
sin".
2. Homosexuality was a part of the OT. It's part of the NT too. The
law was fulfilled. The NT dispensation has not ended.
Yes - I know the comment that's soon to come - the Bible was written
by man anyway. Well if that's the case why read it at all? (Why go
to church or listen to Gospel music for that matter.)
Times are getting stranger every day...
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>The fact is, NO MAN has ever kept the whole law. Yet God instituted human
>government. God instituted penalties for various crimes and sins. If only
>a perfect person can judge, then God was foolish in telling us how, when,
>where, and why to judge.
>
>CJ
Which by the way - proves what most people with a balanced
understanding of judgement have been saying all along. If we're told
not to judge, then told elsewhere how to judge - *obviously* - there
must be two types of "judging" - one wrong and one allowable.
Allan.
garydw
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ himself every mention
Homosexuality?
Now I am not talking about any one except for Jesus. So Where did he mention
it?
TommyDale
> "TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bf14c408.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > "CJBrown" <sgm...@nospamexcite.com> wrote in message
> news:<1o8Gb.13462$NZ1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > > What bothers me even more is
> > > > that some on the inner circle have apparently known this for quite
> > > > some time and have covered it up. Why couldn't they have gone to him
> > > > and said "Step aside for the sake of the Gospel"? There are going to
> > > > be some serious ramifications from this, no doubt. I will have to
> > > > really think about who I will trust in the future in the SG industry.
> > >
> > > How did you jump to this conclusion?
> > >
> > > CJ
> >
> > Several people have told of incidents in the past few years. I am not
> > going to name them, but they know who they are. Up until now, I was
> > willing to give KT the benefit of the doubt. Now he will have to
> > explain that he didn't say what he has been quoted in a LEGAL
> > AFFIDAVIT, which is sworn as truthful in his own words. That's
> > fairly strong evidence.
>
> I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. I agree that it looks like he's
> queer, but that's not what I was asking you. My question was in regards to
> the statement you made about industry people covering it up. How did you
> jump to the conclusion that there have been "inner circle" people who knew
> this? Apparently Talley's record label didn't know or he wouldn't have been
> concerned about this blackmailer. I just didn't understand that part of
> your post; that's all.
>
> CJ
It was suggested early in this thread that his family knew it, and it
has been suggested that his former quartet may have known it.
Certainly the rumors have been around long enough that there was
suspicion all along.
CJBrown
Alan made. I mean no disrespect at all, and am simply trying to offer some
additional opinion and insight.
The concern I have with your comments here are that they seem to ignore
certain scripture. Read: Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto
vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence
of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain
God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;
According to the Bible, there are no saved homosexuals. They are
"reprobate." The idea that their sin is the same as a non sexual sin, or
even adultery is simply not supported by scripture.
If the Bible is to be believed, and naturally I think it is, then your quote
from Ephesians is not applicable. Restoration is for the backslidden, not
the unsaved. That's not to say that a homosexual cannot be saved. I
believe that if they repent of their wickedness and trust Jesus Christ, they
can be saved like anyone else. But restoring someone who is unsaved to begin
with is impossible.
Also, I think that everyone is taking this too seriously? A lot of people
have suspected this for years. Why the shock and hand wringing? You're
concerned that some folks (read: me) are being light with this or,
alternately, homophobic.
First of all, my (apparently vain) attempts at humor have been in an effort
to keep this from degenerating into a flamefest. Perhaps they've been
grating to sensitive souls. That certainly was not my intention. Having
sadi that, I remind everyone that this is the internet for pete's sake; it's
not life or death. Arguing on the internet is akin to being in a
three-legged race at a church picnic. A person may win, but who cares? :-)
Secondly, I'm not homophobic, but I much dislike the use of the word "gay"
in describing a homosexual. Gay used to be a good word, and what they do is
not "gay." To use the word homosexual is a little grating to me simply
because it's graphic. We are an oversexed society as it is. So I'd prefer
to use the word queer. They are queer, aren't they? Lest you think of that
as a perjoritive term, you should know that there are homosexual
organizations that call themselves queer.
Let me close with this disclaimer. You have a right to your opinion, as
does everyone here. I'm glad you've expressed yours because it gives us
pause to consider your point of view. I understand and agree with a portion
of what you have written. However, I reserve the right to express my point
of view on this and other matters also. I wanted both to inject another
wrinkle in the fabric of this discussion, and answer some of the points you
made. Please don't construe this as an escalation in a flame war. I mean
you no harm, and have no desire to cause bad feelings on this or any other
issue.
CJ
CJBrown
CJ
CJBrown
CJ
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:id0muv8o214bsmn87...@4ax.com...
Paul Slopak, Jr.
etc said in the New Testament just because you only believe it if Jesus said
it?
And remember everything quoted as being attributed to Jesus would be
considered hearsay in a court of law because it is not first person
testimony.
Where did you ever get so warped on your ideas of the Bible and what is
truth?
Just Allan
>2. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." I am a
>person in great need of God's mercy so I do my very best to extend it
>to others. I would not want to be certain people who have posted here
>and find myself in need of mercy, and the qualification for my
>receiving it be how merciful I have been with respect to Kirk Talley.
I don't anyone being unmerciful to the fellow. I have heard some
expression of Godly sorrow about the effects it will have on a career,
if it's true. Also some discussion about homosexuality & Scripture...
(Unless I've missed the unmerciful bits, or didn't read them
correctly...)
>3. The use of jokes about this situation, puns, and pejorative terms
>for homosexuals is not spiritual at all.
Don't recall this either. Maybe I'm having a slow day.
>Unfortunately, it is, as I said above, a sin that gets all tied up in
>the personal prejudices of people who wouldn't like it even if they
>weren't Christians.
Well me for one, before becoming a Christian I couldn't have cared
less if someone chose to be gay. My current disgust of the practice
comes because God's Word says it's wickedness.
>I see Sandi Patti (or however you spell it) and Michael English are
>making a comeback, both of them with different spouses; and being
>accepted by the Southern Gospel community.
Well, *some* of the Southern Gospel community anyway. : o
>Why? Because the Christian
>world is rife with heterosexual unfaithfulness and divorce and it's a
>whole lot easier to forgive a sin in someone else and accept them back
>when you've committed it yourself and have managed to keep accepting
>yourself. Especially if YOU had "good reasons" for doing it.
Well said!
>Most of us aren't inclined to commit the sin of homosexuality, so it's
>easy to jump on anyone who does.
Oh, I don't know - I'd like to think I would "jump on" the other types
equally! : )
>5. I have a number of homosexual friends that I have made through work
>and organizational associations. Some of them I didn't know were gay
>when we became friends, some I did. All of them know exactly what I
>believe about Christ and the Bible, and about homosexual practice. But
>I still love them and pray for them and hope that they will repent.
Good stuff.
>They
>have said to me, "Do you think I would CHOOSE this? This suffering and
>prejudice."
What they're really whining about is the fact they are not socially
accepted everywhere they go - not that they'd prefer to be with the
opposite sex - otherwise they *would* simply change. I've known
several homosexuals that have come to Christ and changed orientation.
One is now happily married with four children! Another with two
children. Another has been praying for a partner for over a decade.
All these chose to change. So yes - it IS a choice. They chose to be
homosexuals, then they chose to be heterosexual again (with the help
of the Holy Spirit within them of course - which is perhaps the
problem the others have). The fact is, they can't be bothered making
the choice - they don't want to make it - the only they do want is to
not be a walking controversy so they can live in their sin.
>They asked me when it was that I chose to be straight. At
>what point in the formation of my sexual identity did I say, "Hmm, I
>could go down this road or down this other road." That was a telling
>argument because I just remember being awakened to the fact that girls
>were there and suddenly were a whole lot more interesting than they
>had been before :).
Sorry, but this is rot. If the above is true, then there's no reason
to jail pedophiles - after all - it's just the sexual orientation they
were born with, just like homosexuals. Same thing goes for
necrophilla, beastiallity, rapists... All these people could claim
it's simply "imprinted" on them and such arguments are just rubbish -
because if it applies to homosexuals then it has to apply to *all*
sexual orientations. And further - if it applies there, then it has
to apply to other socially unacceptable practices also. Theft,
flashing, murder, urinating in public... Sounds like a Scripture to
me:
"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that
which was right in his own eyes."
The simple fact is - Christ is not a homosexual's King. His own eyes
(lusts) are his ruler.
>I don't remember it at all as being a choice.
That's exactly right - you never choose to be heterosexual, because
it's normal! You don't choose to breath - it just happens - you have
to choose to hold your breath. Homosexuality is a deviation from
God's inbuilt design. It has to be chosen. People take the natural
need that God placed there to have a companion, and add *their own
lust* to it. Once they choose to go against God's imprint, God
respects their decision. This very thing is so obvious in
Scripture...
"For this cause God GAVE THEM UP unto VILE AFFECTIONS: for even their
women DID CHANGE the NATURAL USE into that which is AGAINST NATURE"
Notice that God respected their decision (even though he hated it) to
choose vile affections. Why were they vile? Because they're against
the *natural use* - *against nature* (God's imprint & design).
"And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL USE of the woman,
burned in THEIR LUST one toward another; men with men WORKING that
which is UNSEEMLY"
There it is again - natural and unnatural. They *choose* it (their
LUST). Why unseemly? Because again - it's against God's design.
"God GAVE THEM OVER to a REPROBATE MIND, to do those things which are
not convenient;"
Again - God repects *their decision* to have a *reprobate mind* - they
turn the lusts over in their minds and then commit the act - do those
things which are *not convenient*.
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which COMMIT SUCH THINGS
are worthy of death..."
Yet again above - they *commit* the act. They had to CHOOSE to commit
it. If you commit money to a charity - you choose to donate it. If
you commit to a marriage - you choose to do it. If you commit
homosexual acts - you have chosen to be a homosexual.
>That's what they say happened to them. (and yes, for you who just must
>be negative, I remind them that the choice is whether to practice
>their sin, not their propensity for it)
I've covered above that their "preference" is not something they're
born with. It's a lust that has been developed in a reprobate mind,
because God has left them in respect of their decision.
>It's not hard for me to believe that Kirk's songs about suffering and
>struggle grow out of his own pain and attempts to win in his struggle
>between his flesh and his Christian heart. Oh, and I believe that it
>is fortunate that we don't have to be sinless to be saved. At least,
>fortunate for me. Tendency towards sin is something I have to deal
>with, even if some of you guys don't.
You're right - we don't have to sinless - but we do have to be
"perfect". Perfect is being where God wants us in our walk today by
correcting any errors we know about. "Christian" homosexuals have not
corrected an obvious error, but instead justify it to themselves.
>6. Finally, I ask myself, how does God the Father look at Kirk Talley?
>How does Jesus the Son look at him? I believe God looks upon him with
>all the love and suffering that an earthly father would look upon his
>son who was suffering, and yet, with the desire that he would exchange
>his lifestyle for one where he is finding his fulfilment in God.
Amen!
>Christ, it says, looked upon them with compassion, always and only
>with compassion. The only ones he ever got angry with were the ones
>who cloaked personal issues in the cloak of religious practice for
>their own purposes. Hmmm.
He also chided people for their lack of faith. A homosexual who says
God made him that way, has no faith. He has denied Genesis, where God
made one man for one woman. He has denied the words of Jesus in the
NT, when he gave his approval of heterosexual marriage. He has denied
God's judgement of Sodom & Gomorrah for the act named after them. He
has denied the born again experience (behold, all things are become
new).
Besides, your insinuation doesn't fit anyone here (that I've read
anyway). I've said it before - if you knew someone was doing
something that was going to send them straight to hell, who's the true
Christian - the one who cowers in a corner and says nothing in case
they offend, or the one who stands up and says "hey, you need to deal
with this because..." The one who says nothing about *real* sin is
the enemy of your soul.
Even Jesus questioned the woman about her sin - and only once she'd
ADMITTED it said: "Go and sin no more."
>7. We need to see what is happening to Kirk, and the thing he battles,
>not as sin (though it is), not as a personality trait (though it is),
>but as an ENEMY, and we need to help him fight his enemy. That is part
>of the restoration of Ephesians 6:1.
Exactly.
>After all, we all have the same enemy, just not in the same form.
And again.
>LD
Allan.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ himself every mention
>Homosexuality?
Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ Himself ever mention
homosexuality was now ok?
>Now I am not talking about any one except for Jesus. So Where did he mention
>it?
Ditto.
David Bruce Murray
I have a feeling this discussion is going to go on for some time, and it
would be nice if the subject line reflected the actual content of the posts,
especially considering that it's going to be archived on Google Groups
forever.
Just Allan
wrote:
>Gay used to be a good word, and what they do is not "gay."
We have an ice-cream in Australia - you may have it over there - I
think it's Streets brand. It's called a Golden Gaytime. Great
ice-cream! I really can't enjoy it anymore without thinking... Well,
you know.
Also when I was a kid, we had "fags". They were white musk sticks
with red-dyed tips - the idea was they were made to look like
cigarettes. They've changed the name now to something else - "fabs"
maybe? (I can't remember now.)
>To use the word homosexual is a little grating to me simply
>because it's graphic. We are an oversexed society as it is. So I'd prefer
>to use the word queer. They are queer, aren't they? Lest you think of that
>as a perjoritive term, you should know that there are homosexual
>organizations that call themselves queer.
Funny how people think - I won't use the q word for the very same
reason you give above... Because they call themselves that as if it's
something to be proud of. I'm a "facts" person and so just use the h
word.
Allan.
David Bruce Murray
"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:J8GdnS96HLa...@pghconnect.com...
> Would you guys mind putting the theory discussion into another thread?
>
> I have a feeling this discussion is going to go on for some time, and it
> would be nice if the subject line reflected the actual content of the
posts,
> especially considering that it's going to be archived on Google Groups
> forever.
Ah . . . nevermind that. This entire discussion is no longer about Kirk
Talley. It would be like trying to stop a Kenworth truck.
Let me change my request . . . if anyone has anything new to say about Kirk
Talley, would you please start a new thread? That's probably easier.
David Bruce Murray
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
We call it "cotton candy," if you're describing what I think you're
describing. I'd never heard it called "fairy fluff," so I thought you were
making a "Freudian slip" (implying a sexual idea unintentionally).
"Fairy" is commonly used to refer to gay men "over here."
David Bruce Murray
"alan" <NightH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d35f0b6b.0312...@posting.google.com...
> 1. Galations 6:1 is exactly on point.
Yep.
> 2. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." I am a
> person in great need of God's mercy so I do my very best to extend it
> to others.
Yep.
> 3. The use of jokes about this situation, puns, and pejorative terms
> for homosexuals is not spiritual at all. It shows two things. In some,
> it shows that, really, all of your supposedly righteous indignation is
> just a cover for a fleshly expression of your own personal distaste
> for homosexual practice, which you would have whether or not you were
> Christians. In others, it shows that you lack the comprehension of the
> seriousness with which God views this matter.
Not necessarily. Some of the "puns" (such as Allan's using "fairy fluff" to
describe Talley's music) were completely unintentional. Also, as CJ said, a
degree of levity keeps a discussion like this from going to the point where
members of this forum are hating each other before it's all over. I've seen
no jokes that indicated the person making them thought the sin wasn't
serious to God.
> 4. Homosexual practice is a sin, according to the Bible.
Yep.
> It doesn't
> matter what else appears in Leviticus or what dispute one may have
> over which Sabbath day to practice, or whether to practice one. It is
> a sin of the flesh.
I believe it actually does matter about those things, but I agree it's not
really related to the discussion at hand. Homosexuality is a lifestyle that
both the Bible AND nature teaches to be wrong, at least in the case of
nature, it's very inconvenient. It's addressed throughout the Bible,
including the NT, not just in the Levitical law, plus we have the example of
Sodom where God gives His opinion in no uncertain terms.
> I see Sandi Patti (or however you spell it) and Michael English are
> making a comeback, both of them with different spouses; and being
> accepted by the Southern Gospel community.
In truth, neither is anywhere near the same level of popularity they enjoyed
previously and likely never will be. I do believe in moving on. Both Patty
and English issued public statements of repentance when their private sins
became public. They moved on as public musical artists and I moved on as a
fan. Other "fans" didn't move on and still let things that happened ten
years ago affect whether they will enjoy music. It's their loss.
It's too early to tell what Talley's next move may be, but if he hopes to
have any sort of career in the music world, he will be forthcoming with his
fans on this issue. As bad as it may be for Patty and English right now,
things would have been worse if they had left it all hanging with no
comment. Either that, or they could have stepped away from this source of
income like Kenny Bishop.
> Most of us aren't inclined to commit the sin of homosexuality, so it's
> easy to jump on anyone who does.
Yep.
> 5. I have a number of homosexual friends that I have made through work
> and organizational associations.
. . .
> In regard to their "choice of lifestyle", they
> have said to me, "Do you think I would CHOOSE this? This suffering and
> prejudice."
They may honestly feel it's part of their own makeup. I don't live their
lives, so I can't comment on that. However, I do know they choose whether to
act on those inclinations. We're all born with a natural desire to sin; some
sins attract some people while other sins attract other people. It's the
decision to act out on our sinful desires that makes us sinners.
> They asked me when it was that I chose to be straight.
For me it was in sixth grade, when Sally (not her real name) leaned over to
get some books from under her desk. As the old gospel song goes, "I can tell
you now the time. I can take you to the place." :o)
> 6. Finally, I ask myself, how does God the Father look at Kirk Talley?
> How does Jesus the Son look at him? I believe God looks upon him with
> all the love and suffering that an earthly father would look upon his
> son who was suffering, and yet, with the desire that he would exchange
> his lifestyle for one where he is finding his fulfilment in God.
Yep.
> 7. We need to see what is happening to Kirk, and the thing he battles,
> not as sin (though it is), not as a personality trait (though it is),
> but as an ENEMY, and we need to help him fight his enemy. That is part
> of the restoration of Ephesians 6:1.
>
> After all, we all have the same enemy, just not in the same form.
Yep. Good post overall. Now stop top posting!
TomFooleryinFL
I'll probably get slammed for this, and let me preface my thoughts by saying I
do not claim to be an authority on what is or isn't sin. (Some things I just
don't understand - like why was Ham cursed just for seeing Noah drunk and
naked? Shouldn't the blame have been Noah's?)
Anyway, I have to say that I enjoyed Kirk's singing very much and he always
delivered the message well in his songs. To me, that's the main thing; he
never flaunted or advocated an "alternate" lifestyle.
JD Sumner smoked cigarettes, and to some that's a sin - should he have been
banned from gospel singing?
I think it was Lily Weatherford who wrote that some churches considered wearing
makeup a sin and so she wasn't invited to sing there.
To some churches, drinking alcohol is a sin, while to others it's included in
the services.
According to the book "The Music Men", a number of early gospel singers weren't
Christian - they simply sang as entertainers. Should they have been banned, or
should they have been allowed to sing, entertain, and bless their audiences who
got the message despite personal flaws in the messanger?
Anyway, I don't care if a gospel singer smokes, or drinks a few beers, or has a
sexual preference different from mine. To me, if they're not flaunted they
don't interfere with the message. Note: I would boycott a wifebeater, or
anyone else who harmed others, because I simply would not want to support such
a person. But I don't care about private matters that harm no one else.
Putting on my helmet and ducking,
Tom
TommyDale
Your comments are excellent. I appreciated some humor as well. You
know, it could be worse -- we could be without this forum where we
have the right to voice our opinions, unlike other sites, where the
truth will probably never surface.
THE Old Man
IF I were on the bus and witnessed the "story" it might be one thing
... as IF I were mistreated in the store. However, the person in the
post to which I replied [It's late, I'm old and don't recall who
posted it] said ""like the story I heard about one group wife-swapping
on their bus at NQC 2002:."
Now this is a story he heard, not one that he witnessed. He was not
the mistreated customer.
No more from here.
Merry Christmas all.
dd
TommyDale
Your comments are excellent. I appreciated some humor as well. You
Just Allan
<dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote:
>We call it "cotton candy," if you're describing what I think you're
>describing. I'd never heard it called "fairy fluff," so I thought you were
>making a "Freudian slip" (implying a sexual idea unintentionally).
Haha! Fairy FLOSS. (I think the idea being, it's so delicate that
fairys could floss with it.)
>"Fairy" is commonly used to refer to gay men "over here."
Yes, here too.
Just Allan
<dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote:
>> I see Sandi Patti (or however you spell it) and Michael English are
>> making a comeback, both of them with different spouses; and being
>> accepted by the Southern Gospel community.
>
>In truth, neither is anywhere near the same level of popularity they enjoyed
>previously and likely never will be.
Never "should" be, is more like it. I don't know much about the
fellow, but from what I've read about the other, they've done the
wrong thing all the way down the line in total contradiction of the
Bible they're supposed to be singing about...
1. Divorce among Christians is forbidden - unless you've been cheated
on (not the one doing the cheating).
2. If a Christian chooses to initiate divorce for another reason
anyway, they are to remain single.
3. If a Christian is divorced by their spouse against their will, they
are allowed to remarry.
4. If a Christian's spouse leaves for the world and divorces them,
they are free to remarry.
5. If a Christian cheats, leaves and returns, their spouse should show
forgiveness and accept them back once it's known they're genuine. If
their spouse has since remarried, or, won't accept them - the cheating
spouse is to remain single.
None of these apply. (As a matter of fact, she's the on the wrong
side in every case.)
As someone else said I think - just because it's popular, doesn't make
it right.
>I do believe in moving on.
Definitely - in the right direction though. If someone has an affair,
divorces their spouse, then supposedly repents - they have the
Biblical directive - remain single. If they were 100% serious about
being a Christian, that is. I bet that's a big reason many people
have not "returned" as fans. They see an adulteress still living in
adultery.
>Both Patty
>and English issued public statements of repentance when their private sins
>became public. They moved on as public musical artists and I moved on as a
>fan. Other "fans" didn't move on and still let things that happened ten
>years ago affect whether they will enjoy music. It's their loss.
I don't know the statements - but if she's still married to someone
else, she hasn't repented at all. She's sorry it's hurt her record
sales and hasn't given thought to anyone else including God. Trouble
is, to now repent, she's effectively "sealed" herself into sin. If
she stays with the present guy, she's still in adultery. If she
leaves, she destroys a second marriage. I believe this is why the one
who leaves is commanded to remain single - because it seals a person
into sin no matter which way they turn. Oh well, she made her bed,
and she has to lie in it. Record sales are the least her worries.
(Then again - maybe they aren't.)
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>I think it was Lily Weatherford who wrote that some churches considered wearing
>makeup a sin and so she wasn't invited to sing there.
I can't understand why a woman would want to wear it - unless she was
badly disfigured from a burn, etc. Most can't even apply it correctly
and they end up looking like painted circus clowns. : )
>According to the book "The Music Men", a number of early gospel singers weren't
>Christian - they simply sang as entertainers.
What a strange world.
>Should they have been banned, or
>should they have been allowed to sing, entertain, and bless their audiences who
>got the message despite personal flaws in the messanger?
I couldn't listen to someone singing about the Creator who doesn't
even believe in him. To begin with, supporting them financially would
be to cheat other genuine artists of that income. Also, for me to
sing along with them would be like - I don't know - like I was somehow
cheapening the One being sung about.
>Anyway, I don't care if a gospel singer smokes, or drinks a few beers, or has a
>sexual preference different from mine. To me, if they're not flaunted they
>don't interfere with the message. Note: I would boycott a wifebeater, or
>anyone else who harmed others, because I simply would not want to support such
>a person. But I don't care about private matters that harm no one else.
Sin rarely harms only one person. Even when you're skulking around
Internet chat rooms trying to meet others of the same gender.
>Putting on my helmet and ducking,
>Tom
You have a helmet handy for such occasions?
Allan.
KJCSmith1
>about his sexuality. He admitted to the FBI that he was gay.
I read the same article it was not a direct quote from Kirk. And I would be
going to authorites if someone was try to blackmail me. Everyone seems to
think because Kirk went to the authorities about it then it must be true. I
don't think so.
KJCSmith1
>about their lack of control over certain sin.
Doesn't the Bible say that also. If there is a problem with a brother to go to
that brother in private first and then if that doesn't not settle then go
through the church.
garydw
"Paul Slopak, Jr." <pauls...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:dAEGb.659461$Fm2.579596@attbi_s04...
plenty that is wrong with the way the Bible in all it variations is read,
and used.
The four Gospels are the only account we have of what Jesus Christ had to
say. As such they are the only books I see with any authority to speak as
Christ.
The other books are great, and have great advice, but they are not the
accounting of the words of Christ.
I stand as I always will. Jesus Christ did not teach hate, he did not teach
against homosexuals, and he did not teach that heterosexual are better are
favored.
All the things used in the Bible are there by the selection of the 13
councils of Niosen, and as such we cannot states that we have all the
writings. Many where left out, and things where changed to fit the standards
of the Catholic church.
Anyone who has studied knows this to be fact, hell I learned it in my
college classes at University of Memphis. As such only God may judge Kirk or
anyone else.
Therefore, Christ did not teach that being Gay is wrong.
Paul did, and Paul is not God, and Paul is not Jesus Christ.
garydw
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
He did not speak to the subject of Homosexuality, or Heterosexuality.
TommyDale
I'm glad you admitted that you "do not claim to be an authority on
what is or isn't sin." I think we all know that homosexual acts are a
sin. I agree with you that KT has been a blessing to many people in
the past, and has been a perennial favorite of the fans. If a
wifebeater offends you, why can't you see that other sins offend other
people, and they can't be expected to support anyone who partakes of
that sin?
TommyDale
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:52:29 -0600, "garydw"
> <no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ himself every mention
> >Homosexuality?
>
> Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ Himself ever mention
> homosexuality was now ok?
LOL! Great answer! You realize that now you've upset many churches
who have accepted the homosexual lifestyle, right? Uh, oh. There
goes their "Statement of Faith"!
TommyDale
accepted"
by Southern Gospel fans. They rarely appear in SG venues, but appeal
more to the contemporary fans. While people have certainly forgiven,
they haven't forgotten -- after all, humans have a tough time doing
that. God does, however.
DanLemke
--
"Don't just make a statement; make a difference."
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031225183808...@mb-m13.aol.com...
John R
<snip>
> I couldn't listen to someone singing about the Creator who
> doesn't even believe in him. To begin with, supporting
> them financially would be to cheat other genuine artists of
> that income. Also, for me to sing along with them would be
> like - I don't know - like I was somehow cheapening the One
> being sung about.
<snip>
Allen,
You don't really practice this do you? Are you telling me that
if you heard a Christaon/Gospel song on the radio and they
didn't give the name of the singer, you would turn it off
because you might be listening to a singer that didn't believe?
That is what you said in the above quote.
Greg Taylor
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:17:41 -0500, "David Bruce Murray"
><dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"THE Old Man" <ddal...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:89skuv0d07bfq1s19...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>I'm not going to get into the middle of something to the point of
>>>carrying on a long LONG winded debate but it always bothers me when
>>>one comes up with something like "like the story I heard about one
>>>group wife-swapping on their bus at NQC 2002:.
>>>
>>>Really, should we be carrying on with "stories" that are undocumented,
>>>or even documented, about people? What's it called ... tale bearing?
>>>gossiping?
>>>
>>>
>>There's an area that overlaps between "tale bearing" and "protecting others
>>who may be duped."...
>>
>
>IF I were on the bus and witnessed the "story" it might be one thing
>... as IF I were mistreated in the store. However, the person in the
>post to which I replied [It's late, I'm old and don't recall who
>posted it] said ""like the story I heard about one group wife-swapping
>on their bus at NQC 2002:."
>Now this is a story he heard, not one that he witnessed. He was not
>the mistreated customer...
>
I relayed the story, which came from a fellow gospel singer I respect.
But talebearing was not my intent, I would have otherwise named the
group. My intent was just to illustrate the extent to which some people
with a very public testimony will try to justify their private lives
(hence the 'bus' philosophy). If their private sins come to public
light the consequences will probably hurt many more people than those
originally involved. It is probably very unfair to hold gospel singers
(and preachers, for that matter) up to that level of scrutiny, but to
whom much is given, much is required.
David Stuart
David
TomFooleryinFL
>people, and they can't be expected to > support anyone who partakes of that
sin?
I CAN see that other sins offend others, and if they choose not to support
those "sinners" that's fine by me; we're all free to make those choices. I was
merely stating my own view - which is that JD harmed no one but himself by
smoking, Lily Fern harmed no one by wearing make up, and Kirk got into trouble
by someone commiting a crime against him (blackmail). Kirk never sang songs
that advocated homosexuality and never made his personal preferences public. I
would be happy to hear him sing again.
- Tom
Paul Slopak, Jr.
Gospels? Might as well, since the rest of the Bible means nothing to you but
some good advice.
You need some real counseling my friend.
THE Old Man
>Target of purported blackmail attempt sought help from FBI
>
>By RANDY KENNER, ken...@knews.com December 23, 2003
>
>A Johnson City man has been indicted on a federal extortion charge for
>allegedly trying to blackmail a gospel singer by threatening to reveal that
>the singer is gay.
>
>FBI agents arrested Walbert Keith Farmer, 39, after he met with Kirk Talley,
>a Dove Award-winning and Grammy-nominated singer and songwriter, at the
>Applebee's restaurant near Knoxville Center mall on Dec. 9.
>
>-Snip-
>
>The affidavit also states that Talley "felt the Internet" was the only place
>he could meet men.
>
>
>
>The rest of the story -
>http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_2525378,00.htm
>l
>
OK ... I went and read the rest of "the story". Has ANYONE in this
group seen the actual FBI report? It has been interesting over the
years to see how often a news reporter, in a rush or for other
reasons, leaves out or adds words/sentences/paragraphs. Then the
editor, usually portrayed as a harried, over worked guy looks at the
tear sheet and says "that looks pretty good" ... often without seeing
the documentation.
What did the FBI report actually say that Talley said?
I have only seen Tally a couple of times on the Gaithers and have no
clue to what his individual recordings are. So either way the chips
fall he is not going to be hurt financially by me ... as I don't buy
CDs/Records/Tapes often.
It would be helpful is someone could furnish the group with an
authentic copy of the report and not have to rely on the reporter.
By the way ... where did this topic originate? I cannot find the post
that has been snipped by the poster to whom I am replying. How did it
get here?
csmith
> It's interesting that not one word has been said about this situation on the
> Southern Gospel News message boards...is the board moderated with such a
> heavy hand?...only happy news allowed?....one can't put their head in the
> sand on this issue
Yes they are. Just ask me. Ive been booted off them all. Nothing
like not living in the real world, and whoever moderates southern
gospel boards, including gaithernet, in my opinion, has only the
bottom line in mind. Its too bad, and basically, its the last straw
thats turned me off to christian music forever. I cant even listen to
it anymore. Just knowing that the bottom line i.e. money is all thats
controlling everything. Its just too nauseating. Just read the post
on these boards. How many people want to excuse homosexuality and
every other sin. For quite some time ive wondered whos really running
the show with christian music, and just how much they would be capable
of doing to people who had honest questions. And ive wondered about
their true agenda. And every single day, the answer gets clearer and
clearer and clearer. People are excusing everything to sell to
everyone. Period. Money. Thats all there is. And now, somebody
answer me this. I wont attend Praise Gathering next year because tony
campolo is the main speaker. Why does tony campolo excuse
homosexuality, and why does gaither have him as the main speaker? And
how can people talk about kirk talley, and not talk about that?
Anybody? I want answers.
Just Allan
<no.spam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>He did not speak to the subject of Homosexuality, or Heterosexuality.
Exactly - so in the case of sexual orientation, nothing changed from
the OT to the NT.
I rest my case.
Just Allan
I laughed despite myself. Sorry!