Largest Christian music festival founder busted with 18-year prison sentence after molesting five children

[Learner]

It would be better if a millstone was around his neck. (should have come to his mind). Although ... " he's convinced himself " to be fair could be possible in his case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"...a child molester masquerading as a pastor,”

“...a devil in disguise.”

If there was a news story about a bank hold-up in which the robber wore a nun's habit as a disguise phands would be right back in here posting how evil those nuns are.

Jebus! Talk about the long con. The first cases raised in this trial were when he was in his late 50s.

Okay, in order to molest young girls, I'll become a pastor. Then I'll pastorize for decades, then I'll start a musical festival. If everything falls into place, I'll be able to molest young girls.

 

[abaddon]

Lion IRC,

What are your qualifications for a "true Christian"? Is it the "invitation" of God that makes someone a Christian, or what?

What do you think makes the rapist pastor an atheist instead of a Christian? Disobedience to God's law? Or what exactly?

It's all in the bible folks. The rules HAVE been established!

The example of the true Scotsman is a strawman in this regard because no rules have been established as the above mentioned - i.e. no particular criteria for Scotsman.

Example from Underseers link.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

When was sugar (for arguments sake) in the example; the criteria to determine a person being a Scotsman , compared to the gospel criteria?

Sugar was the criterion for Person A because he wanted to apply a special purity test for what a Scotsman is, in defiance of how the term is understood by people generally. He defied Person B's logical point to avoid having to correct his mistake because, like the Christians in this thread, he's a dogmatist who likes his beliefs better than reason and facts.

Person A applied a purity test that just doesn't apply. Any gospel criteria you or anyone might come up with likewise would not apply.

What criterion does apply? How people use language.

A Scotsman is any male person born in Scotland, or descended from persons born in Scotland. That's how people in general understand the term, and no one gets to gainsay it.

Same with the group "Christians". You can surmise whatever you like about the purity of the Christian pastor's spirit. But the label "Christian" applies anyway because of how people in general define the group "Christians".

The rules have been established, but not in some esoteric book.

 

[Lion IRC]

All Christians are not child molesters; all child molesters are not Christians.

But some child molesters are Christians. Some Christians are child molesters.

Lion, do you agree?

No.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...a child molester masquerading as a pastor,”

“...a devil in disguise.”

If there was a news story about a bank hold-up in which the robber wore a nun's habit as a disguise phands would be right back in here posting how evil those nuns are.

...The real problem is that all too often, these predators get away with these acts because everyone thinks that "Christian" equals "good person". So skepticism, something Christianity frowns upon constantly, goes out the window. Pay no attention to the ice cream truck with blacked out windows and no license plates, it's fine, there's a Christian fish bumper sticker. I'm sure it's fine....

I agree this is a huge part of the problem.
It creates a perfect safe space environment for the pedophile's premeditated grooming activities.

 

[ruby sparks]

All Christians are not child molesters; all child molesters are not Christians.

But some child molesters are Christians. Some Christians are child molesters.

Lion, do you agree?

No.

Well Jobar, no one can say you didn't try the reasonable approach. Lol.

 

[Jobar]

Actually I expected that. If he'd agreed I'd have been surprised.

So, Lion, you're saying that a true Christian can't be a child molester, right?

 

[Lion IRC]

You said...
All Christians are not child molesters.
Some Christians are child molesters.
Do you agree?

How can I agree with both?

Here's a few statements all of which I think are true.

Some people claim they are Christians while secretly molesting children.
Some publically claim molesting children is wrong but do it in private.
Some people think God punishes child molesters. Some don't think there is a God.
Some people don't regard child abuse as a sin. They even think you can harm defenceless children while they are in the womb.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin. It means you can't be in two different places at the same time. The tree is known by its fruit.

"I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of My mouth!"

See more about the tree and its fruit in Matthew 12:33-37 / Luke 6:43-45

 

[ruby sparks]

You said...
All Christians are not child molesters.
Some Christians are child molesters.
Do you agree?

How can I agree with both?

I think in the first line he meant not all christians are child molesters, not that all christians are non-child molesting, as in there are no christians who molest children. Clearly, there are Christians who are child molesters, just as there are christians who 'sin' in many other ways. As you said, being a christian does not mean never sinning. I don't think Christians 'sin' any more than members of any other religion or none. And it seems likely that at least some people who profess to have christian beliefs don't in fact have them (perhaps some child molesters using religion an a cover) and others who are conflicted and contradictory.

Phands goes far too far in his religion-bashing, and you go too far the other way.

 

[Elixir]

You said...
All Christians are not child molesters.
Some Christians are child molesters.
Do you agree?

How can I agree with both?

Here's a few statements all of which I think are true.

Some people claim they are Christians while secretly molesting children.
Some publically claim molesting children is wrong but do it in private.
Some people think God punishes child molesters. Some don't think there is a God.
Some people don't regard child abuse as a sin. They even think you can harm defenceless children while they are in the womb.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin. It means you can't be in two different places at the same time. The tree is known by its fruit.

"I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of My mouth!"

See more about the tree and its fruit in Matthew 12:33-37 / Luke 6:43-45

I'd posit that the Christians who wear their religion on their sleeve and proclaim themselves to be Christian, are far more likely to be child molesters than is the average citizen. I don't know enough about child molesters to form an opinion about whether USA child molesters are disproportionately Christian though; perhaps they're just stupider than your average child molester, and therefore tend to get caught more often.

 

[funinspace]

So many withered fig trees

You said...
All Christians are not child molesters.
Some Christians are child molesters.
Do you agree?

How can I agree with both?

Here's a few statements all of which I think are true.

Some people claim they are Christians while secretly molesting children.
Some publically claim molesting children is wrong but do it in private.
Some people think God punishes child molesters. Some don't think there is a God.
Some people don't regard child abuse as a sin. They even think you can harm defenceless children while they are in the womb.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin. It means you can't be in two different places at the same time. The tree is known by its fruit.

"I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of My mouth!"

See more about the tree and its fruit in Matthew 12:33-37 / Luke 6:43-45

I'd posit that the Christians who wear their religion on their sleeve and proclaim themselves to be Christian, are far more likely to be child molesters than is the average citizen. I don't know enough about child molesters to form an opinion about whether USA child molesters are disproportionately Christian though; perhaps they're just stupider than your average child molester, and therefore tend to get caught more often.

I think the Lion is onto something. No True Christian is a warmonger. No True Christian regularly cheats on his taxes. No True Christian would divorce and re-marry, except in those rare allowable cases. No True Christian would be a regular food glutton. It is amazing how small the True Christian population has become...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You said...
All Christians are not child molesters.
Some Christians are child molesters.
Do you agree?

How can I agree with both?

Here's a few statements all of which I think are true.

Some people claim they are Christians while secretly molesting children.
Some publically claim molesting children is wrong but do it in private.
Some people think God punishes child molesters. Some don't think there is a God.
Some people don't regard child abuse as a sin. They even think you can harm defenceless children while they are in the womb.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin. It means you can't be in two different places at the same time. The tree is known by its fruit.

"I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of My mouth!"

See more about the tree and its fruit in Matthew 12:33-37 / Luke 6:43-45

I'd posit that the Christians who wear their religion on their sleeve and proclaim themselves to be Christian, are far more likely to be child molesters than is the average citizen. I don't know enough about child molesters to form an opinion about whether USA child molesters are disproportionately Christian though; perhaps they're just stupider than your average child molester, and therefore tend to get caught more often.

I think the Lion is onto something. No True Christian is a warmonger. No True Christian regularly cheats on his taxes. No True Christian would divorce and re-marry, except in those rare allowable cases. No True Christian would be a regular food glutton. It is amazing how small the True Christian population has become...

Are false christians still christians?

I mean if there can be true christians there must be false christians.

So apparently we have false christians, christians and true christians. That's one fucked up religion. No wonder it has so many competing sects.

What is the difference between a follower of christ and a true follower of christ?

Very goofy stuff.

 

[Opoponax]

Stalin was an atheist. I accept that. What I also accept is that people, regardless of their beliefs, can do horrible things. History is replete with religious and political leaders doing awful things when their stated beliefs say they should do otherwise. Such is humanity.

What Lion fears though is having to admit that his religion doesn't necessarily produce good humans. As a matter of fact, it's produced millions of bad ones. Maybe it's alarming to have to confront that fact. All those years this pervert pastor was reading the Bible, preaching, organizing events, saving souls, and all that exposure to God did nothing to take away his sexual deviance.

I wonder how many people "came to The Lord" because of this guy. So maybe that's the more effective spin. God's so great He can work good things even through the worst people. See Lion, that didn't take much effort. Of course, there are many problems with this, but it beats the "not a true Christian" thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the Lion is onto something. No True Christian is a warmonger. No True Christian regularly cheats on his taxes. No True Christian would divorce and re-marry, except in those rare allowable cases. No True Christian would be a regular food glutton. It is amazing how small the True Christian population has become...

No. Sorry. Just no.

The issue is whether someone is a christian. 'True' christian, even if there were objectively such a thing, now or in history (I'm trying not to mention The Crusades here or more recent examples) is slightly irrelevant.

Whoops. I may have had my irony detector switched off when reading your post?

 

[ruby sparks]

What Lion fears though is having to admit that his religion doesn't necessarily produce good humans. As a matter of fact, it's produced millions of bad ones. Maybe it's alarming to have to confront that fact. All those years this pervert pastor was reading the Bible, preaching, organizing events, saving souls, and all that exposure to God did nothing to take away his sexual deviance.

I wonder how many people "came to The Lord" because of this guy. So maybe that's the more effective spin. God's so great He can work good things even through the worst people. See Lion, that didn't take much effort. Of course, there are many problems with this, but it beats the "not a true Christian" thing.

I'm wondering if Lion is largely just responding to phands, whose stated views are, in my opinion, similarly unwarranted in certain respects.

That's the only mitigation I can think of here.

That said, he wasn't talking to phands when, for instance, jobar asked him a question. But I get the impression Lion may have accidentally misread the first part of jobar's question.

Lion has said this:

Being a Christian doesn't mean you never sin.

Clearly, applying any reasonable criteria and evidences, there are and have been christians who 'sin', including child molesting. To assume or suggest that they are not christians or are filthy scum pedophile atheists masquerading as pastors, just because they child molest, is, I feel certain, untenable by any reasonable argument. The implication that only atheists (or non-christians) can be filthy scum pedophiles is possibly rather offensive to people in both categories, imo, as well as awry.

Possibly, calling pedophiles, even unrepentant ones, 'filthy scum', is arguably not particularly 'christian' either, in some respects at least, but that's slightly separate. As ever, each christian can in theory get particular but different views of what is christian and what isn't by selecting and emphasising certain bits of text over others. There is also the option to say that the act is vile but the person is not. "love the sinner but hate the sin", as per St Augustine, who admittedly did not write the bible as far as we know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What kinds of sins are true christians allowed to commit? How often can they commit these sins before they lose their true christian status?

And if someone confesses and is forgiven after they molest children have they regained their true christian status? Will they get along in heaven with the people they molested? Will Hitler be snuggling with the Jews he murdered?

How does it all work? Sounds very mysterious.

 

[funinspace]

I think the Lion is onto something. No True Christian is a warmonger. No True Christian regularly cheats on his taxes. No True Christian would divorce and re-marry, except in those rare allowable cases. No True Christian would be a regular food glutton. It is amazing how small the True Christian population has become...

No. Sorry. Just no.

The issue is whether someone is a christian. 'True' christian, even if there were objectively such a thing, now or in history (I'm trying not to mention The Crusades here or more recent examples) is slightly irrelevant.

Whoops. I may have had my irony detector switched off when reading your post?

It is hard to be obvious enough in the age of Don the Con, who regularly out Onions The Onion...but yes check your irony detector out...

- - - Updated - - -

What kinds of sins are true christians allowed to commit? How often can they commit these sins before they lose their true christian status?

Well, with such argument, as Lion appears to make, one might posit that King David wasn't a True Jew (religiously)...

 

[abaddon]

Maybe if people didn't argue against the term "true Christians", the Christians wouldn't argue for it.

Say faithful or heartfelt or something else, and the way the whole argument goes might change dramatically.

I suspect it'd be way more interesting. It's been suggested it takes atheism to molest kids because atheists don't fear God. Also that atheists molest children by aborting them. Is that more, or less, interesting than what "true Christian status" is? I'd say it's much more interesting. The NTS fallacy is just an informal fallacy and a rhetorical issue.

The Christians often mean something else than they say, because they're extremely sloppy with language. And we could understand them better if we didn't take advantage of their sloppiness but looked for the more charitable reading of what they're getting at. Probably they mean the pastor cannot have had Jesus or the Holy Spirit in his heart. Which, giving that a charitable reading, would mean something along the lines of not being transformed (to be less selfish) by devoting to something greater than the petty ego.

 

[Lion IRC]

What Lion fears though is having to admit that his religion doesn't necessarily produce good humans

I don't fear conceding that. It's quite biblical to state that not everyone who simply mouths the words Lord, Lord as if it were some Pharisaic vain repetition, will necessarily pass God's test.

Ruby Sparks says calling unrepentant pedophiles filthy scum isn't a True Christian thing to say. Well, I've been banned from a few notionally Christian fora for not being a good enough Christian. Oh well. But in my defence I don't call myself a true Christian. #unworthy

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe if people didn't argue against the term "true Christians", the Christians wouldn't argue for it.

Say faithful or heartfelt or something else, and the way the whole argument goes might change dramatically.

I suspect it'd be way more interesting. It's been suggested it takes atheism to molest kids because atheists don't fear God. Also that atheists molest children by aborting them. Is that more, or less, interesting than what "true Christian status" is? I'd say it's much more interesting. The NTS fallacy is just an informal fallacy and a rhetorical issue.

The Christians often mean something else than they say, because they're extremely sloppy with language. And we could understand them better if we didn't take advantage of their sloppiness but looked for the more charitable reading of what they're getting at. Probably they mean the pastor cannot have had Jesus or the Holy Spirit in his heart. Which, giving that a charitable reading, would mean something along the lines of not being transformed (to be less selfish) by devoting to something greater than the petty ego.

The problem isn't with the word "true," it's with "christian." It's like the scene in Wizard of Oz where Dorothy gets asked if she's a good witch or a bad witch. She says she isn't a witch at all because witches are old and ugly, then discovers she's talking to a very good and beautiful witch, and so she apologizes.