Time to stop Social Media Abusers

I just viewed one of the most disgusting tweeter threads I've read since I started on Twitter a few years back. Believe me, Twitter can get really nasty really quickly. The truth is I rarely, if ever, bother to check Twitter that much. My largest contribution to Twitter is the feed connection to SBC Tomorrow. Whenever I post a piece on the blog, I link it to my Twitter feed.

In January, the Twitter nastiness became so bad, I started a little site entitled Twitter and the Truth.   I gave then the reason for the site: "Twitter and the Truth is a special page and the purpose is simple: to address the gross moral ignorance and unsurpassed nonsense of social media abusers."

As one can see, I haven't followed through in fleshing it out as it rightly should be. Only two abusers are presently named. We could easily add a half-dozen significant others not to mention a host of cowardly anons who logon undercover. Eventually, I hope to do that. But alas....the time and energy to do so escapes me. Honestly, to wade through the senseless muck these guys produce on a daily basis would constitute a heavy emotional drain. Who has the stamina to do this? I surely don't have the time even if I had the stamina.

On the other hand, when someone goes after a 15 year old boy, ridiculing him and his household, and even encouraging the teen to personally contact him if ever he wanted to know the "real truth" about his dad, now that's something else.

For several months, JD Hall has been baiting me into responding to him concerning Ergun Caner apparently since I am the Vice President of Communications at Brewton-Parker College serving under the President, Dr. Ergun Caner. Hall's last trumpet blast goaded me because I haven't spoken about things going on in Dr. Caner's personal life. The truth is, only an undeniable buffoon assumes a college official thinks it's his or her obligation to speak publicly about the personal life of any employee of the college much less its president. But avoiding buffoonery has never been, nor do I think it will ever be, a virtue social media abusers like JD Hall will crave.

Just today, JD Hall unloaded a series of tweets aimed at intimidating and bullying Ergun Caner's son, Braxton Caner. The unabashed arrogance Hall displays is breathtaking. See for yourself below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hall perpetually calls for Caner et al to repent. If Hall is calling us to live in his world where he judges what right is, I'd rather take my chances in what Hall rejects as an ungodly, immoral world. The scary truth is, more and more the social media abusers sound like the late Fred Phelps.  

As for me and my house, no thanks.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Comments

[Bennett Willis]

Not trying to guess J.D.'s motives, but maybe he thought that if EC could insist that Autry's whole family should have to sign papers that families were in play.

But I don't do Tweets and don't check them.

[peter lumpkins]

Well, Bennett, I'm sure you've got more of an inside scoop on JD's motives than any here since you hang there quite a bit pounding on all things Caner and me. In fact, your connecting JD's despicable attacks toward a 15 year old kid and the lawsuit judgment stands as little more than a backdoor push in getting the lawsuit chatter started on this thread.

Whatever was in the lawsuit can offer no moral justification whatsoever for JD's deplorable morals in not only attacking a 15 year-old kid, but also encouraging the kid to contact him for correct info about his dad. Refusing to morally condemn such an act outright can only be perceived, in my view, as blatant moral ignorance or a hardened moral conscience.

[hariette]

Does JD Hall profess to be Christian? this is not only ridiculous, it's reprehensible!

[Bigfatdrummer]

Too bad there is not a way to get JD flagged for approaching a minor in the manor that he did. It also baffles me how JD can forget about his duty as a Christian and devote so much time to Ergun. Devotion belongs to God--not chasing supposed liars. Good read Peter!

[peter lumpkins]

H,

You are correct. It's fairly uncertain what any father would instinctively do if JD would have said to his teenage son in person what he said to him in the tweet--"contact me sometime if you want to know the real story about your dad." Deliberately undermining the parent-child relationship is morally reprehensible in any worldview.

Thanks Jon. Devotion belongs to God as you clearly affirm. Moral police like Hall and company inevitably devolve into conscienceless moral thugs who do morally reprehensible acts themselves but continue focusing on the errors of others. Jesus indicated this as the neglect-the-log-in-your-eye-and-condemn-the-splinter-in-neighbor malady.

[Bigfatdrummer]

I just browsed through JD's Twitter feed and man my heart sank. It is filled with vitriol and there is a void of any kind of Christian love. I even saw one of my old friends, Justin Peters, has joined his ilk--and that made me sick as well. No wonder the unbelieving world still doesn't believe.

[Lydia]

"Deliberately undermining the parent-child relationship is morally reprehensible in any worldview."

Yep. I have had the same done to me by "evangelical Christians" with an agenda.

Have you ever seen a mama bear protect her cubs on one of those wildlife shows? Mulitiply by 10.

You don't want to mess with the Lydia and her relationship with her kids. Trust me on this. Be very afraid because you won't see me coming.

Only a moral reprobate would even consider such a thing.

[dustin germain]

If those comments represent one of the "most disgusting" threads you have every read, you must be purer than the driven snow, or rather just be suuuuuper sheltered. Despite your inflammatory rhetoric, its pretty mild by any comparison. If it wasn't Ergun's kid, but some other 15 year old professing Christian acting badly, I'm not sure you'd care.

[peter lumpkins]

Dustin,

To minimize Hall's despicable practice of telling a kid to contact him and he would tell him the real scoop about his daddy almost defies description without using extreme language. Yet, you come here not only mocking as if I'm apparently sheltered, but suggesting I wouldn't care about another 15 year old boy if somebody did that to him. Don't come here again justifying Hall in his incisive, ugly moralism by making me out to be the bad guy.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jonathan & Dustain,

As bad as you guys would love to make this thread about EC's lawsuit, I'm afraid you don't get to make the rules in this domain like you do amongst your harassing colleagues. Hence, we are not going there. Take your scoop and shovel your...your...YOUR... eekeeekekekeke.. stuff!! over at JD or Rich's place. They like it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Whew! I don't know which is scarier ... JD or those who follow and defend him. Pastors are to model Christlikeness. This is not what it looks like.

[Lydia]

Dustin,

To try and turn a teen against their parent is right out of Screwtape.

[peter lumpkins]

Max

You are spot on. Scary is an accurate albeit concerning way to put it. What if these guys were actually in control of the buttons? What if they made the rules and were in control of enforcing the rules? I'm once again reminded of Calvin's Geneva where the Consistory interrogated children attempting to expose their parents' ungodly deeds through them. Is this approach intrinsic to Calvinism? I used not to think so. However, in today's most pronounced Calvinist world, I'm not so sure any more.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia

Screwtape is an apt metaphor. If it's not devilish to incite children against their parents, to what could devilish then refer?

And, Dustin has the audacity to come here accusing me of "selective outrage." Excuse me? JD Hall's sidekick logs on to defend JD's morally reprehensibly action of turning a child against his dad and then accuses me of selective outrage? What a double Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Nate]

I'm disgusted by J.D.'s words towards the Caner boy as well...however you may want to Google his Twitter name which you have posted on your blog.

I'll give you a hint: it's in Turkish, and it's referencing the male genitalia of a certain race. I just thought you should know that.

By the way, it would be nice if you were clear that most of us who desire Dr. Caner's repentance are also disgusted by Hall's personal attacks. This may be hard for you to grasp, but it really has nothing to do with soteriology. Sin is sin and it hurts our Gospel witness.

[Steven]

Peter:

I generally try only to post a comment when we agree with each other to a certain degree. I don't want to come across as only having something negative to say.

I completely agree with you on this issue. No matter what a person thinks about a father's position on a point of theology or a point of morality, nobody should ever try to create a wedge between a father and a child. Parents have enough trouble in this world with keeping kids from viewing things for which they might not be ready. To have a professed antagonist (if not enemy) contact a child directly for the purpose of alienating a child from his father is below even what non-believers would do. Hall should be ashamed.

Thanks for speaking out on this issue. I know that by doing so you acknowledge the chatter and that will only encourage some people.

Steven

[Lydia]

Nate,

Do you have children? If so, how old are they? If there is one thing I will NOT abide it is your type of comment. I think people should wait until their children are in their 40's before they make judgements or hand out rearing advice.

I want to see how theirs turn out and what sorts of phases they went through, first. That is why my mom was amused with Dobson being so popular a child rearing guru back in the day. She said, let us wait and see....

In my day, it was usually the pastor's boys who were the worst behaved when the youth group got together. Why do you think that was and continues to this day in many situations?

So spare me. I have seen too many Christian parents raise a wonderful group of children yet ONE goes off the rails either in a phase or for a long time. Why do you think that is? And, I have personally taken kids to church/VBS whose parents were total reprobates yet that kid became an adult Christian.

I say, hands off the kids/teens. They really do have enough to contend with navigating this world without us speculating about them personally online.

Now, when they are adults in paid public ministry, they are fair game. So, give it some time.

[Joshua David Kelso]

"To try and turn a teen against their parent is right out of Screwtape."

"If it's not devilish to incite children against their parents, to what could devilish then refer?"

Matt 10:35 was just screaming in my ear, I had to say it. Regardless, yes, despite the kid and his girlfriend's questionable level of modesty, that's solely an issue for their pastor or parent to raise in private, not fair game for an enemy of his parent to use as a smear. Hall is clearly in the wrong here, woefully so. Hopefully an apology will be forthcoming.

[dustin germain]

This whole idea of "its a sin to turn father against child" doesn't make sense and isn't some holy moral absolute. Its not an inherently devilish action, particularly when his father has engaged in a sustained pattern of great evil and deceit. By your logic then, even if the child is 30 and the father sixty, it would be wrong to ever tell him about his dad's behavior. that seems very artificial and unworkable

[peter lumpkins]

Tell you what Dustain. You come around my circles and stick your fat little bearded-head around a corner and tell one of my granddaughters to call you sometime and you'll tell her what her mama is really like, and you'll see very quickly what we mean in Georgia by moral absolutes.

By the way, the Bible doesn't say torturing puppies is a absolute no-no either, yet it remains morally disgusting and ethically reprehensible.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Nate,

I haven't Googled Braxton's Turkish title. Of course the issue is not Braxton's title. Nor was JD's conversation with Braxton motivated by his concern over Braxton's imprudence. Rather it was to use Braxton as a whipping post so he could paint more condemnation stripes on his dad's back. To pile on more, JD Hall flings a wedge between a minor and his daddy encouraging a breach in the sacred parental bond. Nothing devised at this juncture could display Satan at work more than to cause a boy to lose love and respect for his daddy. This is JD Hall's world.

What is more, we actually get Hall's buddies coming here defending Hall's action. Dustain has the rip-roaring courage to say what Hall did was not even breaking a moral absolute. This is sheer moral chaos...an ethical plague of a) judgmental legalism against others enforced to the inth degree and at all costs; b) moral antinomianism for us because we're God's anointed and can do no wrong no matter how morally grievous you might think it is. We make the rules.

I'm wondering out loud if Hall's despicable actions will be featured in his making of the supposed "Caner Project." Kinda doubt ir...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Here's the truth of Hall's action and Dustain's defense of Hall's action--cult-like behavior. Cults demand full control over its members AND its members' kids. Parental guidance is merely a relative device. They know what's best for your kids. Spiritual authority ('pastors' and 'elders') trump parental authority. Thus, perhaps that's why guys like Hall and Germane think it's OK to mess around with other people's kids. Who knows? What a tragedy our church is facing...

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Um...a married man making an obviously inappropriate comment (Hall can't be THAT stupidly innocent) about a lady not his wife isn't "gross immorality," but single guys kissing girls is "gross immorality?"

Come on...

The fact is, JD Hall got personal with an underage male on the internet.

Looking at Facebook chicks and supposed "making out" pics on the internet all day from a guy accusing others who "scour" the internet to find dirt just doesn't hold up.

That's just creepy. Creepers get no defense.

So far as we know, "...seek truth about your dad, email me" may as well be the new "hey, would you like some candy" by the creepy dude in the van.

Why do I get to even speculate such a thing as possible and it not be slander or false witness? Because, aside from being speculation and not accusation, the fact is, JD Hall got personal with an underage male on the internet. And, obviously has made a habit of creeping pics on the internet.

Don't like it? Don't get personal with underage males on the internet. Period. Don't be a married pastor who has a public habit of creeping pics on the internet. Period.

Anyway, if you defend married creepers who get personal with underage boys on the internet, you don't really get to voice gripes about Caner and those who defend him.

[Barry]

I believe his asking the kid if he speaks Arabic was inappropriate, and the invitation to contact him if he ever wants to know the truth about his dad was despicable. But commenting on the content of the kid's Twitter is legitimate. The kid chose to make his Twitter feed public instead of private, so presumably he wanted the world to be able to access it. There were and are things on there that I find disturbing - an obscene handle, a cover picture showing a passionate kiss, and a picture with his arm around a half-naked girl in a very skimpy bathing suit. Ergun Caner has chosen to put himself in the public limelight and hold himself out as a minister, particularly a minister to young people. That a kid still under his roof and presumably under his authority is engaging in behavior like this is relevant to his fitness to minister to kids.

[Mary]

Who knew that ol' JD was a Hilary Clinton supporter. It takes a village doncha know. Wonder what someone like Voddie Bachaum thinks of this idea that strangers on the internet should interfere with family matters. Of course Dr. Caner is declared reprobate because JD Hall has been gifted by God to read hearts and minds and KNOWS absolutely without a doubt those who do and do not have a relationship with Christ so nothing in the Bible actually applies to how the Caner family should be dealt with. Why in the Calvinists Bible that verse where Jesus talks about shaking the dust off those who don't listen goes on to say when they keep ignoring you because you're an idiot just keep obsessing and spend hours upon hours stalking them and their children through cyberspace and talk, and talk, and talk about them because there is obviously nothing more important you could be doing in your life.

And Peter you're right this is the Cult of Calvinism in action. JD considers himself a high priest and he gets to declare who is and is not elect and he will determine what rules apply to him. If a kid's out there on twitter he's fair game, especially when JD needs ammunition to attack the father.

[peter lumpkins]

Look Barry. Stop the moral grandstanding. This feed is not about the moral virtue of the content on Braxton's site. Whatever is on the site is irrelevant to whether JD crossed the moral line by engaging a minor and driving a wedge between him and his dad. Let the kid alone--at least on this thread. Got it?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Barry]

I choose not to debate someone who fails to follow the rules of logic and reason. I've read your blog for a while and I don't know if you're incapable of doing so or refuse to do so. I suspect the former. You use all the bully tactics that people of low intelligence employ when they know they're logically and intellectually challenged. "Got it", what an utterly mindless, arrogant, and stupid thing to say. Why did you post my comment if you thought I was not "letting the kid alone"? I think you enjoy arguing, plain and simple. You don't realize what a fool you make of yourself. Incidentally, I didn't attack the kid at all. He's a kid, and kids need moral direction. Neither did I "attack" Caner, I just called his conduct into question.

I honestly don't care if you post this comment or not. If you want to make a fool of yourself once again then go ahead and do so. It's meant for you to read. But I suspect you won't be able to resist posting it and then making some snide retort which you think is clever but intelligent people realize is nonsense. Go for it.

[Mary]

Of course Barry you think you and JD have the right to correct other people's children and humiliate them all under the guise of "correcting" them. This is about attacking a child to attack the father. And encouraging division within a family, encouraging a child to "learn" about his father (hey there young kid don't respect your father you know he's a liar and a reprobate don't you? you don't have to show HIM respect) is all hunky dory. There is no excuse. Don't try to distract from JD Hall and his despicable behavior of going after a kid with "but, but but...."

[Barry]

You just have to smack your head when the moderator of a moderated thread admonishes you for making an inappropriate comment when that very moderator chose to let the comment through.

Care to explain this, Mr. Lumpkins?

[Barry]

You still haven't answered the question of why, if you truly are concerned about Braxton and you thought my initial comment inappropriately attacked him (which it did not), then why did you let it through? Obviously if you truly believed that my post was attacking him and you are concerned about him, you wouldn't have let it through. That you did so speaks volumes about your true motivations. You can't justify this behavior in a manner that makes any sense to an intelligent person. Of course, that has never stopped you before.

[BDW]

There is something creepy (criminal?) about a grown man initiating contact with and badgering a 15-year-old on Twitter. That behavior indicates a complete lack of boundaries....

[Bennett Willis]

If anyone thinks that a 15 year old who Tweets, posts photos, and selects public rather than private for his settings does not know exactly what his father has done that involves the Internet... He may choose not to believe that his father has done bad things, or to excuse them, but he knows the story in great detail.

J.D.'s offer to explain the history of EC was insulting, but only to the determination and skill of the person he made the offer to.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Barry,

You have my express permission to think of me as you wish. Got it?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Barry,

You say, "...if you truly are concerned about Braxton and you thought my initial comment inappropriately attacked him...then why did you let it through? Obviously if you truly believed that my post was attacking him and you are concerned about him, you wouldn't have let it through."

Well, let's see. I let your comment inappropriately attacking me through. Does that mean I am not really concerned about me? What a double Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Barry]

This is yet another example of how logically challenged you are. How does your letting my comment attacking you through and then your posting a snide retort to it in any way prove that you truly care about protecting the kid despite your letting a post through which you claimed "attacks" him? Let me distill your dumb argument down for you: "I do care about Braxton, and my allowing a post of a comment (supposedly) attacking him doesn't in any way indicate otherwise. The proof that this is true is that I allow a post attacking me through."

In any event, this is not an answer to the question I asked - why did you call me out for a post which you claim is inappropriate when you could have simply refused to let it through if you truly were concerned about the kid being "attacked"? Your motivation for allowing a post attacking yourself through is a total red herring. It provides no answer at all to the question.

In both cases your only motivation is to mouth off. If you had any wisdom you'd just turn off your computer. Permanently.

Have fun with the last word.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Barry,

Yes I can see how logically challenged I am. And it makes me feel so wonderfully free to have someone with the level of your intelligence to tell me. All the criticism I ever get is from southern rednecks like me. And, we're all logically challenged down here. Think how high I could fly...how loud I could yell...how far I could spit my backy... if I had the intelligent, mind-bending brilliant analysis from IQ guys like you've proved yourself to be on this thread coaching me on a daily basis. My hounds are yelping already! Cut the fattest pig, Ma. We gonna celebrate tonight!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaver]

Would be fun to catch JD or "Barry" "correcting/humilating" my kids.

[Mary]

So is it a thing now where "men" like JD and Barry go trolling about the malls looking for young people in need of their correction? I mean the kids are out there in public right? So does JD enjoy going to the mall and correcting the young girls who are dressed immodestly? He seems to derive pleasure from trolling kids facebook and twitter accounts looking for "correctable" behavior. All in the name of John Calvin of course. Of course if JD finds a kid and JD's elect-o-meter tells him this kid comes from a reprobate household he has the right to then declare to the kid "let me tell you the TRUTH about your father!"

[Steven]

Watch out Peter. With your comment at 12:35 you are walking into Barry's trap. He is trying to get you to acknowledge the dual causality: he drafted the comment (at 11:00) of his own free will, but in your absolute discretion you allowed the comment to go forward. Dual causality and Peter Lumpkins is implicit in it! Calvinists of the world are rejoicing!

This is all obviously in jest. Have a great Fourt of July! Down with the Britsh!

Steven

[Lydia]

Steven,

Thanks for the humor. You know when hyper cals start accusing others of having no logic or reason one has entered the alternative universe of a two willed god who determined every single word that has happened on twitter and this thread. I am always curious why certain things bother them so much when they also believe they were determined at the same time. Defies logic. Go figure.

[Nate]

This has all escalated very quickly. I'm eagerly awaiting the resolution that is certain to come from all of this mature interaction.

**crickets**

[volfan007]

No matter how hard some of you try to make this about Peter, or about Braxton Caner, or whoever, or whatever else....the fact still remains that a grown man, who claims to be a Christian, went after another man's son....and, tried to play on the rebellious nature of a teenager...to drive a wedge between a man and his son. A grown man confronted a 15 yr. old boy, and basically went after the boy...and, this is what happens to people, who are obsessed with attacking other people, rather than exalting Christ and preaching the Gospel. This is what happens when hate grips the heart...and someone becomes obsessed with "getting" that person, who is the object of their hate. And, sadder still, is that the "followers" jump into these conversations to try to defend this despicable thing.

smh

David

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

Thanks for posting this. It is a sham, not shame, it is a sham for someone who has no relational opportunity at all to address a child. This is predatory and ought to be illegal. I have had to run off some related to my own son. This is not in any far, far stretch of the imagination remotely biblical, much less christian. And I appeal firmly to Matthew's 7th chapter and seven judgments to make these statements.
Chris

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks David. Inevitably some commenters simply cannot focus on the question a blog post raises. Instead they must make it personally about me, or in this case, Caner-haters make it about him. If I put up a post on July 4th and how I love our country, some Caner-hater will log on with something like, "If you loved our country, how can you support Ergun Caner?" I've never in my almost 61 years of life now, experienced such high level of obsession over a single man. The internet can be really scary sometimes.

Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks, brother. It's a sad day when a rogue consistory attempts to police the church like Calvin's consistory did Geneva.

Lord bless brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

"Thanks for posting this. It is a sham, not shame, it is a sham for someone who has no relational opportunity at all to address a child."

I had the same thought. They think it is their place to correct him but have no relationship with him at all which says more about them, actually.

" This is predatory and ought to be illegal. I have had to run off some related to my own son. "

There is some precedence for this as more and more parents are having to respond officially to such situations in getting "adults" to leave their teens alone in social media venues because they have a problem with the teens parent.

I would start with twitter.

This vendetta with Caner has gone on long enough to become cartoonish in nature to those looking on. Especially some of us who were never Caner supporters.

It is not like the man protected many child molesters over many years as the leader of a "family of churches". We have one of those some of our leaders have given special perks, protections and promotions too for a while now.

Methinks they are gagging at gnats while swallowing camels.

[Mary]

It's sick that they're dragging a girl into this now and gossiping about Caner's marriage.

These people who keep screaming "it's calling out sin" need to understand that what they are advocating is the equavilant of going to the mall on Friday night and calling out sin to the youths who hang out there - maybe hang out at the pool and tell all the young girls in bikinis that they're jezebels. It's creepy for grown adults to go into that teen zone especially if they have no relationship with the teen. And no 15 is not a child but it is no where close to being the same as an adult. I got three teens and they don't always act rationally - we don't need science even though they have actually done studies - to tell us that teenagers do not have fully developed brain functions with impulse controls being the last to mature.

This boy was attacked simply because of his last name. First notice how this incident shows evidence that anyone who has any social contact with Ergun Caner is being stalked by this man. The obsession is mentally unstable. Who has time to just sit around and follow not just everything Ergun Caner is doing in social media, but to follow all the people who come in contact with him? Someone should consider an intervention because that is seriously disturbed that these people are that obsessed.

But notice the snarky "do you communicate in Arabic" What could possibly be the motivation for this kind of question except to tell the boy he couldn't possibly speak Arabic because the High Priest have declared his father a liar or to try to get the boy to call his father a liar. And then we see the "contact me if you want to speak or seek TRUTH about your dad" This is a direct hateful attack against the Caner family. This person is encouraging a 15 year old to SPEAK TRUTH to SEEK TRUTH. This person is trying to encourage a 15 year old to turn against his father, to stir up division and discord in this family.

And then finally the utter hypocrisy of the people who went ballistic over a tweet about James White's family. What happened in James White's family was information made public on the internet by a family member. So following the logic of "calling out sin" it's open season on Doktor Jimmie. But of course to them the rules don't apply to the High Priest. But as for me the same rule applies - what happened in the White family I don't know and I pray God's healing and hand in that situation. I will hope that people close to that family are counseling them and dealing with them, but it's not my business.

Now I have three kids all over social media. If they say stupid stuff or link to inappropriate this or that or whatever. Here's what I think should happen if people were really interested in "loving" my child. They would contact me or perhaps contact someone they know is close to me. Even contact my church. If that were impossible, then I would hope they prayed for me and my family. But what I don't think they should do is humiliate my child by taking what are stupid (and yes perhaps sinful behavior) and blasting it all over for more people to see and then encourage people to talk about it. I would hope they would have more decency than to drag in their friends and start critiquing what a friend is wearing. How disgusting is it that a teen age girl is now being dragged into a conversation and being critiqued for her choice of swim suit by creepy old men who don't even know her but because they want so badly to go after the father of a friend they are now using her and calling it "loving" her enough to call out sin. These people are so sick and twisted in their head by their hatred that now they are subjecting a young girl to their gossip simply because she's the friend of a teenage son of a man they've declared reprobate.

It's just really pathetic and disgusting that people are now resorting to "slut shaming" a girl only because she's the friend of a son. And to encourage a 15 yr old boy to turn against his father. What do they honestly think should happen. This 15 yr old should leave his family? He's not even old enough to drive or get a job but somehow he's a man and should stand against his family? How pathetic is that.

Just shaking my head. I don't know anymore, but these are not people who should be allowed around teenagers with their slut shaming and their encouraging kids to show disrespect to their fathers. The encouragement that yeah go a head and stir division within the family of those we hate. Just pure gossip about the state of a marriage. Hateful, hateful people. But unlike them I know God will not be mocked and as my daddy used to say "it all comes out in the wash"

[Bill Mac]

It seems odd that he would follow "I'll break off this convo because of your age" with an immediate invitation for another "convo", albeit a more private one.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary, I couldn't agree more. Your analogy of grown men--or even a church youth group for that matter--going to the area mall and heckling the teens hanging there could not be more relevant. Who do they imagine they're influencing with this type of approach? What influence are they actually having toward the teens associated with BC?

As I mentioned in the OP, the image they're more and more likening themselves to are the late Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church gang who made their fame as public protesters carrying signs, picketing, heckling the dirty "fags" God hates.

[Scott Shaver]

Hall's defense is that the boy is to be castigated publicly..."fair game" despite his age (15)since he's on a public venue.

JD is how old?

Would seem by the same rationale that those of us who find Hall's actions reprehensible have every right to treat him like a 15 year old online.

Have no use for his kind of "Christianity".