Michael Tait accusations.

Tarheel Baptist

Tarheel Baptist

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
9,505
Reaction score
1,446
Points
113
Last edited:
I don't know him or his music
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Full story over at Roy’s Report.
Click to expand...
Got another source?

Charges like this should be taken seriously if credible, but whenever I see "Roys Report" my first question is how the story's subject fits in with her ongoing smear campaign against John MacArthur. Julie Roys has pretty much shot her credibility bolt.
 
Ransom said:
Got another source?

Charges like this should be taken seriously if credible, but whenever I see "Roys Report" my first question is how the story's subject fits in with her ongoing smear campaign against John MacArthur. Julie Roys has pretty much shot her credibility bolt.
Click to expand...
All I hear from her on YouTube is her obsession with Daystar TV but yeah, she seems kind of creepy to me.
 
Ransom said:
Got another source?

Charges like this should be taken seriously if credible, but whenever I see "Roys Report" my first question is how the story's subject fits in with her ongoing smear campaign against John MacArthur. Julie Roys has pretty much shot her credibility bolt.
Click to expand...
The story is pretty much everywhere but she has details most do not mention. I’m aware of her bias.
 
Ransom said:
"Tait’s allegations come from The Roys Report." There's an entire paragraph about the story being a TRR exclusive.
Click to expand...
OK! I’ll start a You Can’t Trust the Roy’s Report thread….tomorrow! 🙃
 
abcaines said:
I don't care to read much from Roys...
Click to expand...
Roys is horrible. I've had a long history with her. She wrote exposes on friends of mine and my church and I started commenting. At first she posted my questions. But then I got really pushy and disagreed with her conclusions publicly. She didn't block me, but she will not post any of my replies.
 
Okay, if Julie Roys is not fit or qualified to report on the various sex scandals, abuse scandals, and financial scandals among Christian televangelists, Christian megachurch preachers, Christian faith healers, Christian rockers and Christian rappers, is there another better source of information about these things that we are allowed to pay attention to? Or is it better that these things be un-reported and covered up?

I was an admirer of Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church of Hammond (I was baptized there) until Dr. Robert Sumner came forth with his revelations about the problems there. My perception was that Christians were entitled to know about these things, and I personally thanked Dr. Sumner for making them known. (I was a personal friend of Dr. Sumner and his family). Anyway, there was a massive torrent of accusations unleashed against Dr. Sumner by the Hyles defenders, all about the details of Sumner's faults and offenses, and lots of name-calling - Peter Ruckman called him "Scumner." So if Sumner was not morally fit enough to document the problems with Jack and Dave Hyles, then who was? And how was it a sin for Sumner to talk about Hyles, but not a sin for the "100% for Hyles" folks to tell us all about Sumner?

I'm sure that Julie Roys has some failings, some biases, and some skeletons in her closet, and she appears to be aligned with the liberal American Baptist Churches denomination. If this means she has no moral standing to report on the serious problems in modern celebrity Christianity, are there other journalists who do have such standing, or should the problems not be reported?
 
illinoisguy said:
I'm sure that Julie Roys has some failings, some biases, and some skeletons in her closet, and she appears to be aligned with the liberal American Baptist Churches denomination. If this means she has no moral standing to report on the serious problems in modern celebrity Christianity, are there other journalists who do have such standing, or should the problems not be reported?
Click to expand...

Julie Roys' failings and biases lead to the conclusion that she is not a credible reporter. Roys at one time had a very good program on Moody Radio; she gave up her moral standing when she started engaging in yellow journalism instead.

That's the stage we appear to be at right now: not, "Should we report these accusations?" but, "Are these accusations true?" (We currently live in an era where to be "credibly accused" is about as ironic as "mostly peaceful.") If the answer to the latter is no, then so is the answer to the former. To try Tait in the court of public opinion at this stage is muckraking and possibly defamatory.

If Tait is guilty, throw the book at him; if he's innocent, so much the better, and I hope that's the case. Either way, I just want to hear it from someone else before passing judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top