Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
by News AU
Thanks to DarwinsChihuahua for the link.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24248791-421,00.html
Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
THE wife of fraud pastor Michael Guglielmucci has vowed to try to save their marriage, despite the humiliating revelations of his cancer hoax and pornography addiction.
Speaking exclusively to The Advertiser, Amanda Guglielmucci, 29, defended her husband, who faked a two-year battle with cancer.
She insisted he was a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control.
"I know he's not an evil man, there's not evil in his heart," she said.
Mrs Guglielmucci, who is staying in their Sydney home while Michael is with his family in Adelaide's southern suburbs, said she would try to salvage her marriage.
"I know that I love him, I know that much," she said.
"We're just not going to rush anything, we're gonna walk through the process, however slowly it needs to happen, in order for the healing and restoration to be complete and then we'll go from there."
She has turned to a counsellor to help cope with her husband's massive deception, which has shocked not only his family's church, Edge Church International, but the world-wide Christian movement.
"I'm actually seeking professional counselling myself. I need to be able to unravel a lot of emotion that's bombarding me at the moment, I owe it to myself to work through that properly, and to him," she said.
"I had questions after the shock of it all, but my initial thoughts after hearing that were a sense of sorrow for the church and that a lot of people were going to be hurt because of it."
Just 15 days ago, the world-renowned pastor and songwriter sat his wife of seven years down at their Sydney home and told her the awful truth.
"I was the first one he told, he confessed everything to me," Mrs Guglielmucci said.
"He just went through it — where it had started, everything in his life as a young kid, the patterns. He was crying, sobbing actually, absolutely sobbing, he just said `I don't have cancer'.
"He was terrified, I still remember the look on his face . . . it was a very hard moment for him, as it was for me hearing it."
Despite his elaborate deception and his admission of an addiction to adult pornography, Mrs Guglielmucci said it was feelings of sympathy and shock rather than anger that overwhelmed her.
"I could just see a really broken, unwell man. At that point I found it really quite hard to get angry," she said.
"Seeing your husband of seven years absolutely sobbing in front of you, risking everything coming forward and telling the truth — in that instance it was really hard to be angry or mad."
Mrs Guglielmucci said she understood people struggled to believe she could not have known her husband was faking his illness.
However, she maintained his real symptoms — vomiting, hair loss and apparent pain — never gave her reason to suspect otherwise.
"I never questioned it, when you love someone you trust them. I had no reason not to trust him," she said.
"Perhaps I feel a little bit foolish in this, hindsight's a fabulous thing . . . but I'm trying not to beat myself up."
Mrs Guglielmucci even quit work to look after her ailing husband. "In the middle of the night he was in so much pain I would put towels in the microwave to try and give him some relief in his back," she said.
However, she never attended doctors' appointments with him, a move she now regrets.
"Before I stopped working to care for him, I was busy, he'd have doctor's appointments when I couldn't be there and he would say `it's fine you don't need to be there'," she said.
"Or I would just drop him off at the hospital."
While his initial confession to his wife did include his addiction to porn, Mrs Guglielmucci said she had not even begun to process that element of his deception.
"We're only talking two weeks (since admitting his lies), there's a lot of stuff to deal with," she said.
"That sort of side of things hasn't really hit me yet, there's many levels and layers to everything. I can almost talk about it like I'm removed from it. That's where the professional help will help me work through that — it hasn't hit me yet."
Mrs Guglielmucci said her faith in God had remained unmoved throughout the ordeal.
"At times like this, it's just a stronger resolve," she said.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24248791-421,00.html
Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
THE wife of fraud pastor Michael Guglielmucci has vowed to try to save their marriage, despite the humiliating revelations of his cancer hoax and pornography addiction.
Speaking exclusively to The Advertiser, Amanda Guglielmucci, 29, defended her husband, who faked a two-year battle with cancer.
She insisted he was a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control.
"I know he's not an evil man, there's not evil in his heart," she said.
Mrs Guglielmucci, who is staying in their Sydney home while Michael is with his family in Adelaide's southern suburbs, said she would try to salvage her marriage.
"I know that I love him, I know that much," she said.
"We're just not going to rush anything, we're gonna walk through the process, however slowly it needs to happen, in order for the healing and restoration to be complete and then we'll go from there."
She has turned to a counsellor to help cope with her husband's massive deception, which has shocked not only his family's church, Edge Church International, but the world-wide Christian movement.
"I'm actually seeking professional counselling myself. I need to be able to unravel a lot of emotion that's bombarding me at the moment, I owe it to myself to work through that properly, and to him," she said.
"I had questions after the shock of it all, but my initial thoughts after hearing that were a sense of sorrow for the church and that a lot of people were going to be hurt because of it."
Just 15 days ago, the world-renowned pastor and songwriter sat his wife of seven years down at their Sydney home and told her the awful truth.
"I was the first one he told, he confessed everything to me," Mrs Guglielmucci said.
"He just went through it — where it had started, everything in his life as a young kid, the patterns. He was crying, sobbing actually, absolutely sobbing, he just said `I don't have cancer'.
"He was terrified, I still remember the look on his face . . . it was a very hard moment for him, as it was for me hearing it."
Despite his elaborate deception and his admission of an addiction to adult pornography, Mrs Guglielmucci said it was feelings of sympathy and shock rather than anger that overwhelmed her.
"I could just see a really broken, unwell man. At that point I found it really quite hard to get angry," she said.
"Seeing your husband of seven years absolutely sobbing in front of you, risking everything coming forward and telling the truth — in that instance it was really hard to be angry or mad."
Mrs Guglielmucci said she understood people struggled to believe she could not have known her husband was faking his illness.
However, she maintained his real symptoms — vomiting, hair loss and apparent pain — never gave her reason to suspect otherwise.
"I never questioned it, when you love someone you trust them. I had no reason not to trust him," she said.
"Perhaps I feel a little bit foolish in this, hindsight's a fabulous thing . . . but I'm trying not to beat myself up."
Mrs Guglielmucci even quit work to look after her ailing husband. "In the middle of the night he was in so much pain I would put towels in the microwave to try and give him some relief in his back," she said.
However, she never attended doctors' appointments with him, a move she now regrets.
"Before I stopped working to care for him, I was busy, he'd have doctor's appointments when I couldn't be there and he would say `it's fine you don't need to be there'," she said.
"Or I would just drop him off at the hospital."
While his initial confession to his wife did include his addiction to porn, Mrs Guglielmucci said she had not even begun to process that element of his deception.
"We're only talking two weeks (since admitting his lies), there's a lot of stuff to deal with," she said.
"That sort of side of things hasn't really hit me yet, there's many levels and layers to everything. I can almost talk about it like I'm removed from it. That's where the professional help will help me work through that — it hasn't hit me yet."
Mrs Guglielmucci said her faith in God had remained unmoved throughout the ordeal.
"At times like this, it's just a stronger resolve," she said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 144 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #237315 by Faithhead on August 26, 2008 at 10:45 am
She insisted he was a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control.blockquote>
I will never understand how she can stand by him after this. This guy makes the people on Jerry Springer look normal
Other Comments by Faithhead
3. Comment #237318 by Ishruul on August 26, 2008 at 10:49 am
"I know he's not an evil man, there's not evil in his heart," she said.
Wow, denial is such a great place to live.
Other Comments by Ishruul
4. Comment #237321 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 10:52 am
Two articles on Michael Guglielmucci -Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
Other Comments by David A Robertson
5. Comment #237322 by Tyler Durden on August 26, 2008 at 10:53 am
"We're only talking two weeks (since admitting his lies), there's a lot of stuff to deal with," she said.And still a lot of ill-gotten money to spend - she didn't say!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
6. Comment #237324 by EvidenceOnly on August 26, 2008 at 10:54 am
"She insisted he was a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control. "Hmm. Let's stop and think where this series of lies could have started:
1. The bible is the word of God.
Just one more lie on top of 2000 years of deception. What's so special about that?
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
7. Comment #237325 by Ishruul on August 26, 2008 at 10:56 am
4. Comment #237321 by David A Robertson
You'Re right about that, but since mr.Guglielmucci is a prime exemple of fundamentalistic manipulation, it's probably better to point him out. Just like Ted Haggard.
Other Comments by Ishruul
8. Comment #237326 by Vaal on August 26, 2008 at 10:56 am
Oh come on David, we are all human, and I am sure even you can see the humour in somebody who has no problem with ripping people off and being caught out in an act of gross hypocrisy, when he is espousing superior morality. Ever seen Dave Allen?
Other Comments by Vaal
9. Comment #237328 by Smith on August 26, 2008 at 10:58 am
A tip for Pastor G: Redefine cancer and declare porn addiction (and whatever trivialities you are hiding) as cancer. Be sure to back you up with a passage of scripture or two. Other Comments by Smith
10. Comment #237329 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 10:59 am
What's a little porn, fraud, and intentionally deceiving all of your friends and family, when you are trying to save souls?! Other Comments by Don_Quix
11. Comment #237330 by thewhitepearl on August 26, 2008 at 11:00 am
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
As for your first question, I mean really think about it. As people who pride themselves as being more moral and born again with the nature of god and such, it's not hard to figure out.
Secondly, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism and that is a wildly inappropriate accusation to make. Outside of just plain wrong and stupid.
And lastly whether RD agrees with Ad Hominem arguments or not-is moot. RD is NOT our leader and does not try to control us as such. Nor do we feel the need that everything he says must be followed because we have minds of our own.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
12. Comment #237333 by Tyler Durden on August 26, 2008 at 11:02 am
Comment #237321 by David A Robertson
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession (sic) with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy?Yet another case of "Lying for Jesus?" perhaps?
Why do some clergy have such a perverse interest in little boys, all the while hypocritically telling their flock how to behave with regard to their own sex lives?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
13. Comment #237336 by Don_Quix on August 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
Fundamentalist Christian Troll wrote:The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for fundamentalist Christianity is even sadder.
There, I fixed it for you.
Funny how the exact same thing can be applied to every Christian forum on the internet, isn't it?
Other Comments by Don_Quix
14. Comment #237337 by Quetzalcoatl on August 26, 2008 at 11:04 am
David A Robertson-
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
If, for instance, Christopher Hitchens committed adultery, do you not think that it would be all over the Christian sites? It would probably be brought up on FCOS as well.
The difference, however, is that this guy's lies affected thousands of people. That makes it newsworthy.
And how is it ad hominem? This is not a response to any arguments he has put forth, but merely a reporting of the facts as he himself has confessed them.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
15. Comment #237338 by Lucas on August 26, 2008 at 11:06 am
Wait, you mean a human being was a liar and sex addict? Are there any two more commonly held attributes? If you hate on this guy, you might as well hate on all humanity. Not that he isn't worth laughing at a bit in the context of being a pastor.And remember, folks: ignore the trolls.
Other Comments by Lucas
16. Comment #237339 by Tyler Durden on August 26, 2008 at 11:06 am
Comment #237321 by David A Robertson
I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?Has Richard actually made an ad-hominem attack??
Please point it out.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
17. Comment #237342 by Gregg Townsend on August 26, 2008 at 11:09 am
4. Comment #237321 by David A Robertson The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enoughemphasis added.
I think what we are seeing is a little backlash against perceived self righteousness in the religious. Posting the article here seems to satiate peoples desire to say, "Religion isn't a reliable or automatic path to morality."
That being said, I tend to agree with you. The article doesn't belong here.
Other Comments by Gregg Townsend
18. Comment #237344 by Lucas on August 26, 2008 at 11:10 am
Okay, forget it. Carry on. Other Comments by Lucas
19. Comment #237346 by Ian Bamlett on August 26, 2008 at 11:13 am
Comment #237321 by David A Robertson:
why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy?
I don't accept the premise of the question. There is no such thing as "sexual sin", that's your twisted hang up.
It's the hypocrisy we like to see held up for all to see; that's the important point. Sin? Doesn't exist in my world.
Other Comments by Ian Bamlett
20. Comment #237349 by oasis-al-reason on August 26, 2008 at 11:17 am
Please lets not have this sort of tabloid title-tattle trash on this site. No need to stoop this low for 'latest news' content. Other Comments by oasis-al-reason
21. Comment #237350 by ShadesOfGrey on August 26, 2008 at 11:17 am
Two articles on Michael Guglielmucci -
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
David, you obviously have not noticed the original article posted in respect of Mike Guglielmucci did not refer to 'sexual sins' but rather was in respect of his fraudulent claim to be dying of cancer, off the back of which claim he raised money for himself and the church. Fraud not 'sexual sin'.
I note that you felt free to comment on the Todd Bentley Florida revival, for which I commend you. However are only christians allowed to comment on other christians misdemeanours? I see that he too has now left the church due to an 'inappropriate relationship' with another woman.
Other Comments by ShadesOfGrey
22. Comment #237351 by epeeist on August 26, 2008 at 11:18 am
Comment #237321 by David A RobertsonPersonally I am with Eleanor Roosevelt Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.. If this was just another person committing sexual peccadilloes then it would not be worth reporting. And I wouldn't want to generalise one person's crimes to a whole class of people (unlike some people who post on this site do).
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy?
However, given that we have had the furore over gay clergy in the CofE, Iris Robinson's homophobic comments, the Bishop of Lancaster blaming floods on homosexuality, the Catholic Church (they are Christians David) moving Cardinal Newman's body possibly because of homosexual connotations then don't you think that it might not be atheists who are hung up (pun intended) about sex?
Other Comments by epeeist
23. Comment #237352 by Vaal on August 26, 2008 at 11:22 am
Don't forget the Bishop of Bath and Wells :)EDIT: Epeeist, enjoy your holiday? Did you see any of the fencing at the Olympics. Man, they were fast!
Other Comments by Vaal
24. Comment #237353 by scottishgeologist on August 26, 2008 at 11:32 am
Excellent point Epeeist.
The churches over the years have and continue to make a "BIG THING" out of sex and all its manifestations. They are quick to pronounce on "sin" at the slightest hint of it.
I think it is fair to say that the churches are obsessed with it.
If on the other hand, the churches were cool about sex and not nearly so judgmental, then stories like this wouldnt nearly be so important, if at all.
Its the sheer hypocrisy of it that is staggering.
Pastors rightly or wrongly elevate or *are* elevted to positions of high moral fortitude. If they then abuse that position by hectoring other people while all the time carrying on with their own "sins", then they are fair game. Ted Haggard, Todd Bentley, and now this guy among the recent crop.
Burns' Holy Willie's Prayer seems appropriate at this point....
http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/holy_willies_prayer.htm
(This page is a good one because it has a modern English version alongside the old Scots version of Burns. Also worth pointing out that in Burns day, the church had a phenomenal grip on people's lives)
:-))
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
25. Comment #237355 by Galactor on August 26, 2008 at 11:38 am
In response of comment #237321 by David A Robertson
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like [sic] obcession [sic] with the sexual sins of hypocritical ...
I am afraid that I have to wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of this question.
Other Comments by Galactor
26. Comment #237357 by rod-the-farmer on August 26, 2008 at 11:40 am
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession (sic) with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
The 'obsession' with sexual sins is really only due to our observations of the behaviour of many outspoken preachers, especially of the evangelical bent. These preachers go to considerable pains to 'instruct' their flocks on various 'family values', and attack homosexuality. Note they never seem to attack lesbianism, unless in the context of a lesbian couple trying to adopt a child, or to formalise their relationship in a marriage. So when one, and another, and another, and still another of these preachers falls off the wagon and indulges in the very acts he has been preaching against, why would we not point it out as yet another example of why these people should not be trusted, about anything. To find they break their own sternly voiced commandments is newsworthy. I believe a phrase you may be familiar with is "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
Our interest is not purely in the sexual antics. Suppose a mormon preacher spoke out strongly about the evils of a blood transfusion, and was then seen to request such a thing for himself or a family member when seriously ill. You had the correct word. Hypocrite. Like a member of the Flat Earth Society booking an around the world cruise, or one of those expensive tourist flights on the shuttle. Once you set yourself up for this kind of ridicule, you can't complain when it comes back to smack you in the face.
Your second point about an "argument for atheism" can be addressed this way. When a group of individuals rabidly follows the teachings and predictions of such an individual as this pastor, many of his followers point to him as an example of what is good about their particular sect and beliefs. We who disagree with those teachings etc. try to pick holes in those same arguments and beliefs. When the preacher proves to have been a liar all along, deceiving many of his followers for years, and gaining financially because of it, we have no recourse but to put the spot light on him. If he had been a quiet, private person minding his own business, preaching whatever in some tiny, backwater church, he would not even appear on the radar of sites like this. But once he makes a spectacle of himself, on the world stage, he is then fair game. Notice there is little discussion on Billy Graham here ? He seems to be a good person. I don't believe what he says is true, but he seems a genuine human. Ted Haggard, on the other hand, has proven to be less so, especially when he himself was guilty of the behaviour he castigated so strongly from his pulpit. Perhaps you should bear this in mind for yourself. I have never heard you speak, but some here have, and many have seen your writings. If you should prove to be false to your own preachings, then beware. The axe of sarcasm will fall on your head, I predict. Correction, the cricket bat of thewhitepearl......
Now try the same tactic on us rationalists. Pick something we espouse. Evolution, the size of the universe, the age of the earth, the equality of sexes, the unlikelihood of the existence of god, whatever. Then catch us in a mistake, prove it to the world, and we will be caught dead to rights. You win, on that subject. But fair play means you have to grin and bear it when we catch you with your pants down, in a figurative sense.
Edit to correct typo in last sentence, and to detune the threat of terminal violence.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
27. Comment #237362 by Ishruul on August 26, 2008 at 11:43 am
26. Comment #237357 by rod-the-farmer
Ah crap, now I admire you :)
Other Comments by Ishruul
28. Comment #237363 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 11:43 am
theres lots that one can dissect out from this whole scenario.
She insisted he was a good man, trapped by lies which had spiralled out of control.
agreed, from this to beheadings and all manner of lesser things theres lots of ways lies can spiral out of control.
"I know he's not an evil man, there's not evil in his heart," she said.
maybe just in his mind then??
"I know that I love him, I know that much," she said.
prove it!! (ok, im just digging here)
in order for the healing and restoration to be complete and then we'll go from there
pass me the sick bucket.
She has turned to a counsellor to help cope with her husband's massive deception, which has shocked not only his family's church, Edge Church International, but the world-wide Christian movement.
religious people seem to really rely on crutches dont they. shocking?? its really rather common to have religious leaders fleecing gullible sheep with lies.
"I had questions after the shock of it all, but my initial thoughts after hearing that were a sense of sorrow for the church and that a lot of people were going to be hurt because of it."
translation: if i sound sincere enough maybe people will forgive us and buy our book later on.
Mrs Guglielmucci said her faith in God had remained unmoved throughout the ordeal.well theres no good reason that she shouldnt believe in god just bacuse her husband is a crook. also this gives her brownie points for the possibly upcoming book.
pathetic.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
29. Comment #237364 by scottishgeologist on August 26, 2008 at 11:46 am
Rod
Interesting that you bring up Billy Graham. I remember reading somewhere that he NEVER allowed himself to be alone in a situation with another woman, always had some sort of chaperone present or whatever.
Whether that was to put a check on any of his own temptations or whether it was to avoid someone running off to the press saying "Billy Graham did this.....", who knows.
Cant imagine any of these modern image obsessed pastors doing that.
:-)
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
30. Comment #237367 by stephenray on August 26, 2008 at 11:53 am
Good for the wife for forgiving her husband. That shows admirable qualities that seem to be in short supply these days.But I do find myself wondering... "there's not evil in his heart" ...exactly what she thinks would be evil.
Or maybe she thinks the evil is somewhere else other than his heart?
Other Comments by stephenray
31. Comment #237370 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 11:55 am
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
DR you are talking nonsense again (i edited my original post, i was name calling, thats not good, i retract that, forgive)
this ISNT an argument for atheism and its not posted as such. If you think so thats beause you are incapable of understanding logical arguments, it merely demonstrates that thing that is a speciality of religion (considering its supposed monopoly on goodness-thats the point), disgusting hypocrisy.
i'll speak for myself. because people preaching hell fire and brimstone for something and then doing it themselves is by any definition a fucking dispicable thing in itself, it also makes one wonder how honest they actually are about their beliefs. if it were a school principal/head teacher we'd be pointing the finger too, people in positions of authority who abuse their power deserve the village stocks.
the preacher isnt guilt of any sexual sins, the notion of sin only exists in the religious mind, its the notion of sin that probably drives half these hypocrites into sexual 'diversions' in the first place.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
32. Comment #237373 by NMcC on August 26, 2008 at 11:59 am
DAVID ROBERTSON:"Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder."
Just a question, but why don't you answer the serious questions that have been posed to you on numerous other threads, instead of wasting your time responding to this type of article, you cowardly fraud!
As to your question above, this type of thing should be posted simply because it shows, if nothing else, that Christians who go about claiming a special connection to the supernatural upon which their 'higher morality' is predicated, are lying hypocritical frauds, just like you. And this fact should be exposed at every opportunity.
I have no hesitation in admitting that I chortle with glee when I read such stories. The recent case concerning the freak, Todd Bentley, for example, has me in howls of mirth. Here we have someone who's supposed connection with Cheeeesus and the almighty was such that, not only did it make him go completely doolally, but, as as an infallible sign of his God inspired 'power', thousands of others were 'slain in the spirit', some when he merely blew on them! Here was the genuine article; a hopelessly lost sinner saved from a life of debauchery, drug taking and sexual crimes by the loving grace of almighty God, we were told. Everyone assured us it was so. The thousands healed and those even raised from the dead were proof positive. Seekaboombam, who could fail to be impressed!
Well, we atheists for a start. But then, we are just materialist cynics who simply fail to recognise the 'spirituality' and 'truth' of it all.
And now, of course, the great annointed one has been revealed to have been, not only drinking heavily, but knocking off his female assistant(though not, one surmises, simultaneously) all along.
What a joke! What a laugh! What a farce!
Oh, titter ye not!
We cynics knew he was a fraud all along. But then the questions arise: how exactly was his spirituality different from that of the likes of Robertson? What of the people who were floored when it's now obvious that there was nothing to be floored by and what does all that signify? What about the supposed healings? The raisings from the dead at his command? What about this scumbag being allowed access to all those kids, on the grounds that he was a 'man of God'? What about the creeps who promoted this charlatan? And so on, ad nauseam.
In short, Robertson, the more this type of thing is exposed, the more we reveal just what a pile of disgusting, fraudulent, mind-warping nonsense your religion really is.
Does that answer your question?
Other Comments by NMcC
33. Comment #237377 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Interesting that you bring up Billy Graham. I remember reading somewhere that he NEVER allowed himself to be alone in a situation with another woman, always had some sort of chaperone present or whatever.
interesting, this effectively ensures that nobody can accuse him of something, a similar situation is found in Uk schools, teachers tend not to allow themselves to be in isolated situations with one pupil.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
34. Comment #237384 by blaine on August 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Most of us here champion the Scientific method. Contrary to the fundie interpretation that Science just can't be applied if you can't witness events first-hand, indirect evidence is just as important.You think what the necessary consequences are for a proposition. If the consequences don't exist, then the proposition is false. If there is an interactive God who listens (and answers) to prayers and favors His boot-lickers, and if He is so partial to humility and honesty, then it's reasonable to conclude that practicing Christians should be better than non-Christians in many areas. Criminality, honesty, wealth, health. This is one brick in that argument.
Other Comments by blaine
35. Comment #237385 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm
NMcC
In short, Robertson, the more this type of thing is exposed, the more we reveal just what a pile of disgusting, fraudulent, mind-warping nonsense your religion really is.
funny how in an old village setting the dirty old preacher could get away with this type of thing, but hopefully the net and better communications generally will slowly out religion for the hot air that it is.
DR's post is something like 'a supposedly pious man does some sinning, you lot laugh, you lot are nasty because you laugh, atheists are nasty'
condensed: religious man sins=nasty atheists.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
36. Comment #237387 by mordacious1 on August 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The guy was addicted to porn....he was a hypocrite, ok not too bad.He said he had cancer...he was a fraud, but that's what preachers do, they tell their flock lies to get money.
What I want to know is: did he do anything bad that affects the rest of us, like writing bum checks?
Other Comments by mordacious1
37. Comment #237391 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Christians should be better than non-Christians in many areas. Criminality, honesty, wealth, health. This is one brick in that argument
id be suprised if almost every person living on the streets in the USA didnt believe in god.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
38. Comment #237399 by phasmagigas on August 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm
TWP
And lastly whether RD agrees with Ad Hominem arguments or not-is moot. RD is NOT our leader and does not try to control us as such. Nor do we feel the need that everything he says must be followed because we have minds of our own.
i missed that bit, i thought only creationist arguments could be inherently flawed with almost every point made!
Other Comments by phasmagigas
39. Comment #237400 by bluebird on August 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm
This certainly tests the Tammy Wynette classic.
...the axe of sarcasm...
Reminds me of this:
http://peasantswithpitchforks.com/point/images/butch_yelton_swing_that_gospel_axe.jpg
Other Comments by bluebird
40. Comment #237403 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I'm just waiting for the family to find a doctor who says "Wait, he wasn't lying, he really did (does?) have cancer but he could have only known because god told him."
(I'm going to take a picture of my shirt and change my avatar...
Why do criminals find god in jail? Have you read the Bible? That's where he'd be!)
Other Comments by eh-theist
41. Comment #237410 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm
This avatar works just as well :) Other Comments by eh-theist
42. Comment #237412 by thewhitepearl on August 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Phasmagigas,
PM for you.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
43. Comment #237418 by JFHalsey on August 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Curious--if he didn't have cancer, why was he vomiting/losing hair/going to the doctor/etc? What kind of wierd, 2-year long sickness did he have, or was it all psychosomatic?Allow me to take a little cynical bend here and say that it's too bad he didn't come out of religion before this confession. I've often, in my most cyinical, bitter-at-what-religious-brainwashing-made-me-do moments thought how easy it would be to make money "faking it". I know all the right buzzwords, know what qualities the sheep look for in a shephard... he could have continued milking this for a while and then been HEALED! and start charging people for healings a la Benny Hinn.
But, I understand the mindset that did him in. I can't recall how many tearful confessions of all my "sins" I gave that got me into far more trouble than the sins themselves did (which never hurt anybody else, unlike the lying and fleecing I'm describing above).
Other Comments by JFHalsey
44. Comment #237428 by Smith on August 26, 2008 at 1:10 pm
JFHalsey,
Maybe even thief has principles sometimes.
Other Comments by Smith
45. Comment #237433 by Nails on August 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Mrs Guglielmucci even quit work to look after her ailing husband. "In the middle of the night he was in so much pain I would put towels in the microwave to try and give him some relief in his back," she said.
Ouch, and I thought too much masturbating made you go blind.........
Other Comments by Nails
46. Comment #237434 by Philster61 on August 26, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Id almost bet money that she ends up sueing his "un-evil" heart and eventually runs off with another pastor.Other Comments by Philster61
47. Comment #237435 by Quetzalcoatl on August 26, 2008 at 1:18 pm
JFHalsey-
Curious--if he didn't have cancer, why was he vomiting/losing hair/going to the doctor/etc? What kind of wierd, 2-year long sickness did he have, or was it all psychosomatic?
Could he have been taking something that would give him those symptoms? A heavy metal, perhaps?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
48. Comment #237438 by D'Arcy on August 26, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Robertson has maybe half a point. Why should this site be obsessing with an Oz preacher who liked porn sites. It shouldn't, and it isn't. The fact that one man has been fleecing some people of a lot of money on the basis of a lie, whilst telling the same people how to behave, seems more to the point.
The fact that most of humanity is continuously fleeced by a minority goes unreported.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
49. Comment #237439 by DarwinsChihuahua on August 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Funny how he had no problem with being addicted to pornography for the 14 years before he faked having cancer.To answer the comment: "Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?"
As has been mentioned, this has nothing to do with sexual sins but rather the fact that he lied about having cancer and then only later blamed it on his pornography addiction. It's almost as if he found a way to kill two birds with one stone. Not only did he find a scapegoat for his lying about cancer but he found a way to come clean about his porno addiction at the same time!
Who said that this is an argument for atheism? I can't recall that ever being brought up even by me (I made the post in the forum from which this link was taken). It is an argument for the lack of integrity of the people who are peddling religion to others. It points to the fact that these people are no more honest or no more moral than anyone else.
Also, this is not an ad hominem attack. If someone does something wrong and admits it and we point it out, that is not ad hominem. If I were to say that he's a fraud because he's a lying douchebag, that would be an ad hominem attack. Though, just because something is ad hominem doesn't mean it's false.
DC
Other Comments by DarwinsChihuahua
50. Comment #237444 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Secondly, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism and that is a wildly inappropriate accusation to make. Outside of just plain wrong and stupid.
Whitepearl - for once I completely agree with you. Thanks...
Other Comments by David A Robertson
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #237312 by fullyladenswallow on August 26, 2008 at 10:41 am
Other Comments by fullyladenswallow