Arrested for Murder - Former Calvary Chapel Bible College Worship Leader & Graduate

HukNduck said:
I have nothing personal against Calvary Chapel. My best friend (at least in Florida) attends a CC church and I visit his church once every few months and have for a number of years when our families plan lunch together afterwards, and they occasionally do the same with our church. (Our churches have different start/stop times.)
Click to expand...
If anyone wants to bring up dirt on CC, I can supply the crowd with plenty. That's because like every other church/denomination, CC is run by fallible human beings.
 
I never noticed much difference between my friend’s CC church and my own IFB church. The dress is a little more casual and the music is a little more contemporary, otherwise not much I can tell. By IFB standards, my church is pretty relaxed, especially compared to the IFB church I grew up in. I’m not big into theology, but maybe if I were, I’d detect some differences.
 
HukNduck said:
I never noticed much difference between my friend’s CC church and my own IFB church. The dress is a little more casual and the music is a little more contemporary, otherwise not much I can tell. By IFB standards, my church is pretty relaxed, especially compared to the IFB church I grew up in. I’m not big into theology, but maybe if I were, I’d detect some differences.
Click to expand...
Exactly what attracted me to them.

Not so much anymore, but 20 years ago, "members" of CC went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from Baptists. I'd laugh... While there are differences, CCs are more Baptist than they care to admit.
 
HukNduck said:
Yes it was! I posted the title near the beginning of this thread. There are two different titles. There’s the title that is shown when you click on the link from the DM homepage, then there’s another, altered title on the actual article. The “clickbait title” on the homepage states the following: “Accountant and Bible school graduate, 37, is charged with murder of teacher girlfriend, 27, who was found stuffed in the trunk of a burnt out car.”

So quit saying there was no religious angle. It’s what drew me to click on the link in the first place!
Click to expand...
I see no such title anywhere that you suggest. And could you point to where I said “there was no religious angle”?
 
HukNduck said:
No I actually didn’t, but I quickly realized once ABC responded as he did. Search every article I’ve ever posted and I guarantee you’ll never see once I posted about Calvary Chapel. Libelous nonsense!
Click to expand...
Libel? lol, and you think abcaines is the one guilty of some kind of censorship or chilling effect???
 
ALAYMAN said:
Are you saying that when Huk conceived the thread title and included the descriptor that he had nobody on this forum in mind?
Click to expand...
None of us know 100 percent. So, why continue to press back on it, Chris? Do you know 100 percent that this was his motivation?
 
ALAYMAN said:
Libel? lol, and you think abcaines is the one guilty of some kind of censorship or chilling effect???
Click to expand...
TBH, I haven't seen him censor anything. Yet, unlike Scott or FSSL he was sort of quick on the defense of CC. I can understand that to a point, but we ALL know that CC isn't without it's issues, which, at times, Mr. Caines seems to turn a blind eye 👁️ too. To me that makes it nearly as bad as FBCH/HAC. It's just how it comes across to me.
 
AverageJoe said:
None of us know 100 percent. So, why continue to press back on it, Chris? Do you know 100 percent that this was his motivation?
Click to expand...
Since I posted that Huk responded that he had no intentions of targeting abcaines, so I take him out his word. Just a coincidence, I suppose.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I see no such title anywhere that you suggest. And could you point to where I said “there was no religious angle”?
Click to expand...
You didn’t say “no religious angle,” but you implied I played it up to somehow secretly target ABC. Your exact quote to AverageJoe last night: “Depends on your perspective, I guess. The thrust of the article was about the circumstances of the murder, and it seemed like the religious angle was not played up. Of course, it would play well here, and Huk knew that, which is why he posted the title that he did. It was a mild form of Clickbait.”

Despite the tabloid nature of Daily Mail, I use it as a source of news because I find it to be far less censored than U.S. newspapers, and I often find it far more truthful. I’m very familiar with how the website works. It has a running stream of news articles that are constantly being updated and replaced. That particular article isn’t even on the mobile version of their website now, but I’ll use another, more current article as an example. Take a look at the screenshot of this article about Charlie Scheen and the wording of the “clickbait title” compare it to the actual title article and you’ll notice very different wording:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6686.jpeg
    IMG_6686.jpeg
    193.7 KB · Views: 5
AverageJoe said:
TBH, I haven't seen him censor anything. Yet, unlike Scott or FSSL he was sort of quick on the defense of CC. I can understand that to a point, but we ALL know that CC isn't without it's issues, which, at times, Mr. Caines seems to turn a blind eye 👁️ too. To me that makes it nearly as bad as FBCH/HAC. It's just how it comes across to me.
Click to expand...
abcaines has often said that CC is not without fault, so I don’t see how he turns a blind eye to their warts. He responded in the beginning of this by asking about what appeared to be an obscure fact regarding the specific denomination of the pervert murderer. They’ve hashed things out since that initial exchange so it appears it’s all good.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Huk-N-Duck said:
You didn’t say “no religious angle,” but you implied I played it up to somehow secretly target ABC. Your exact quote to AverageJoe last night: “Depends on your perspective, I guess. The thrust of the article was about the circumstances of the murder, and it seemed like the religious angle was not played up. Of course, it would play well here, and Huk knew that, which is why he posted the title that he did. It was a mild form of Clickbait.”

Despite the tabloid nature of Daily Mail, I use it as a source of news because I find it to be far less censored than U.S. newspapers, and I often find it far more truthful. I’m very familiar with how the website works. It has a running stream of news articles that are constantly being updated and replaced. That particular article isn’t even on the mobile version of their website now, but I’ll use another, more current article as an example. Take a look at the screenshot of this article about Charlie Scheen and the wording of the “clickbait title” compare it to the actual title article and you’ll notice very different wording:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
Click to expand...
I am not now disputing your claims about how you came across the title of the article and it’s original title, but merely stating that not everybody could access the content in the manner and appearance or format in which you did. That, in itself, provides for ample reasoning as to why miscommunications occurred about your claims regarding the nature of how you came across the inspiration for your thread title, that’s all.

All that aside, it’s much ado about nothing at this point. You said you weren’t targeting anybody specifically and I tend to take people at their word, ant least until I have ample reason not to.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I am not now disputing your claims about how you came across the title of the article and it’s original title, but merely stating that not everybody could access the content in the manner and appearance or format in which you did. That, in itself, provides for ample reasoning as to why miscommunications occurred about your claims regarding the nature of how you came across the inspiration for your thread title, that’s all.
Click to expand...
OK, good, because I’m not the most tech savvy person, so I feel like an idiot trying to explain it. TBH, I don’t even know if a person is generating all of the various titles because I’ve always suspected AI might be involved due to erroneous content at times (and I’m not the only one, I read the comments on the DM at times and see similar reactions).
ALAYMAN said:
All that aside, it’s much ado about nothing at this point.
Click to expand...
I agree.
ALAYMAN said:
You said you weren’t targeting anybody specifically and I tend to take people at their word, ant least until I have ample reason not to.
Click to expand...
This is the concerning part for me. Help me understand your (and some others) thought process here. I have seen a garden variety of anti-IFB posts on this forum since joining a year ago (or whenever it was). I have never seen anyone say they’re being “targeted.” Despite the fact that I’ve been IFB since birth, and I’m sure there are at least a couple others who are IFB as well.

I don’t know every person’s denomination or alma mater, but I have seen negative posts about various denominations and colleges—again, no one attempting to psychoanalyze the poster to see if they secretly had a particular person in mind. I’ve made it very clear that I don’t believe, in over a year of being on this forum, that I’ve even once mentioned the words “Calvary Chapel” before.

So, my question to you is this: what difference would it have made if I did have ABC in mind? I, obviously, didn’t mention him by name, so am I to assume that anything related to Calvary Chapel (even if in current events) is automatically off limits because we have a moderator affiliated with the church? Also, why do you feel it’s your responsibility to defend him and question my intentions?
 
Dr. Huk-N-Duck said:
...am I to assume that anything related to Calvary Chapel (even if in current events) is automatically off limits because we have a moderator affiliated with the church?
Click to expand...
Jumping in on this point.

Nope. Not off limits. Moderators can voice criticism and behave just like any other poster.

If a change in the title is ever necessary, then the moderators have the tools to change things. Those "things" falling into the categories of threats, illicit and inflammatory content. "Things" typically reported by other posters.

If a change is made, moderators place a note in the post... it happens very infrequently.
 
Dr. Huk-N-Duck said:
….

So, my question to you is this: what difference would it have made if I did have ABC in mind? I, obviously, didn’t mention him by name, so am I to assume that anything related to Calvary Chapel (even if in current events) is automatically off limits because we have a moderator affiliated with the church? Also, why do you feel it’s your responsibility to defend him and question my intentions?
Click to expand...

I suppose it goes back to the old axiom about people talking about ideas rather than other people. The old FFF had a lot more personality clashes because of the extensive participation by a diverse demographic and forum makeup. I prefer to talk about ideas, not participate and/or read ad hominem arguments.

Regarding “defending him”, he is more than capable of holding his own in debate and needs no one’s defense, but it seemed to me that the initial analysis of what you seemed to be doing was sparring for a fight on the basis of personally attacking what you knew to be his denominational allegiance. That seems far enough out of line that I decided you should be challenged. The rest of the thread clarified that was not your intent.
 
FSSL said:
Jumping in on this point.

Nope. Not off limits. Moderators can voice criticism and behave just like any other poster.

If a change in the title is ever necessary, then the moderators have the tools to change things. Those "things" falling into the categories of threats, illicit and inflammatory content. "Things" typically reported by other posters.

If a change is made, moderators place a note in the post... it happens very infrequently.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I’ll engage anyone as long as they are not making threats and engaging in unnecessary ad hominem attacks.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I suppose it goes back to the old axiom about people talking about ideas rather than other people. The old FFF had a lot more personality clashes because of the extensive participation by a diverse demographic and forum makeup. I prefer to talk about ideas, not participate and/or read ad hominem arguments.

Regarding “defending him”, he is more than capable of holding his own in debate and needs no one’s defense, but it seemed to me that the initial analysis of what you seemed to be doing was sparring for a fight on the basis of personally attacking what you knew to be his denominational allegiance. That seems far enough out of line that I decided you should be challenged. The rest of the thread clarified that was not your intent.
Click to expand...
If tomorrow’s DM headline is negative story about the Ohio State Buckeyes, I’m just going to post and run for my life….🫣😆🙏🏻
 
ALAYMAN said:
Regarding “defending him”, he is more than capable of holding his own in debate and needs no one’s defense, but it seemed to me that the initial analysis of what you seemed to be doing was sparring for a fight on the basis of personally attacking what you knew to be his denominational allegiance. That seems far enough out of line that I decided you should be challenged. The rest of the thread clarified that was not your intent.
Click to expand...
I did not in any way take the inclusion of CC within the headline as a slight against the denomination. My first reaction was, "Oh?" Upon reading the entire article and seeing that the suspect's association with CC was nothing more than a bullet point on LinkedIn, I began to wonder why it was given such prominence in the title of the thread. Yes, the inclusion of CC hits close to home which made me more likely to inquire. As for the motivation for the inclusion, I don't care to speculate... This is the FFF after all... I was looking to engage in dialogue, not trying to criticize or cause a big mess... But this is the FFF...

BTW if you want to rile up a died in the wool CC, call CC a denomination. You will be graciously yet firmly admonished that CC is NON- denominational. Me, I've always regarded CC as the nation's largest non denominational denomination.
 
abcaines said:
I did not in any way take the inclusion of CC within the headline as a slight against the denomination. My first reaction was, "Oh?" Upon reading the entire article and seeing that the suspect's association with CC was nothing more than a bullet point on LinkedIn, I began to wonder why it was given such prominence in the title of the thread. Yes, the inclusion of CC hits close to home which made me more likely to inquire. As for the motivation for the inclusion, I don't care to speculate... This is the FFF after all... I was looking to engage in dialogue, not trying to criticize or cause a big mess... But this is the FFF...

BTW if you want to rile up a died in the wool CC, call CC a denomination. You will be graciously yet firmly admonished that CC is NON- denominational. Me, I've always regarded CC as the nation's largest non denominational denomination.
Click to expand...
Let me just say. CC is just low-key Pentecostal. I hope you'll find a Reformed Baptist church soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top