Talk:Lonnie Frisbee/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Lonnie's Testimony
It has been reported that Lonnie took out the part about him being a homosexual before he was saved from his testimony.
That makes sense to me given the time.
However, a GRATUITOUS cheap shot against the church is added to this fact in the article.
Why, other than the obvious (some of the editors in here controlling the article might not be fans of Christianity), is this insult included?
Society was so much different back then. People could lose their jobs for being homosexual. My God, even Paul Lynde couldn't come out of the closet back then. lol
Why does the church need to be indicted in specific? You are anachronistically taking a cheap shot.
It'd be like me saying New York City did not allow blacks in certain neighborhoods in 1870 and then find a source to RIDICULOUSLY say 'And I think that's AN INDICTMENT against NYC.'
I'll leave it in for a few days. But unless someone can offer a LEGIT reason for it's inclusion, it should come out.
Again..HATING Jesus does not qualify as a legitimate reason. Not that anyone in here does. Since I'm assuming good faith. I'm sure you all LOVE him...71.238.68.127 05:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, let's save the presumptions about other editors and stick the discussing the article. If you're referring to the statement I think that's an indictment of the church that is a direct quote. I'm happy to button that with a follow up statement that now the church allows openly gay ministers or even now the church allows gay ministers as long as they keep their sexuality covert if we have a reference supporting it. Benjiboi 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'll keep my presumptions in check if you promise to do the same. It may be a direct quote, but it's a gratiutious slam that has no relevance. It is relevant that Lonnie USED to tell people he WAS gay as part of his testimony. But not for the reasons you probably think. He felt it was a sign of God's power that he could deliver someone from such a WRETCHED lifestyle. That WAS his opinion, you know. The fact that he later backslid notwithstanding. Personally, I would include that in the article, but I know it would make you cry, so I'm cool keeping it out. I don't have an agenda other than to make the article NPOV which it most certainly was NOT until I began contributing. In the 70's and early 80's the church was a little creeped out about homosexuality (as was much of society), esp the male variety. Remember, this was before LGBT people got in high positions within the entertainment community and began their non-stop blitzkrieg to the point where now it seems that every show has to have at least one gay character.
So, Lonnie deleted that part from his testimony. That is all that is important here. Whether some guy interprets this deletion as a sign the church is/was full of homophobic meanies is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT in this regard. 71.238.68.127 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please confine your comments to what is directly related to writing this article. I am not interested in your personal views on homosexuality, American politics or entertainment, and certainly not your suppositions about whether or not editors have taken Jesus Christ as their personal savior. As interesting as all of that might be to you, it has nothing to do with our purpose and only serves to make the editing atmosphere tense. The next time you post in such a manner I will either delete your remarks or refractor them to make render them harmless to others who happen upon this page. Jeffpw (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims of member numbers
The article (as well as the linked one on the House of Miracles - see Talk Page) states that membership was at 100,000. This claim needs to be verified and if not, the assertion should be removed. The HoM article will be tagged accordingly. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- ref added. Benjiboi 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)