I always found him very quiet and calm in a small group.. Would see him often in resturants after Sunday Church and never felt smugged by him.. But in the concert setting, I have seen audience attendees rude and demanding of talent, as Carman and others in the Ministry were preparing to reach out on stage... Two way street, you know! :-\
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
rbrucecarter5 said:
No. I was there.
I WAS one of his biggest fans. After seeing what happened to the boy in the wheelchair and how Carman's treatment of the child took place I was and am upset that he was too big to honor his word.
Took place in Fairland Indiana at a small High school in Shelby County.
Seeing the people Carman ministries promised to meet with who were so excited loosing their day because Carman couldn't get out of the hotel room on time was disheartening.
Again, I was one of his biggest fans.
No urban legend. And what's up with a 54 year old man who dresses in purple. When will he come out?
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
ChiefEngineer said:
NAMES. And PHONE NUMBERS. By email if you want to preserve privacy. I'm calling your bluff - just like I have done every other time I've heard this same story. Don't waste everybody's time trying to pass this off as truth if you aren't willing to back it up with contact information.
You know what? I never hear from trolls like this again to verify the story. It is always a Carman hater of some sort, usually a cult member thwarted by his staff. Same tearjerker about a kid in a wheelchair. Sometimes a variant to the story is a "make a wish" kid in the hospital.
I can see right now - we need a Christian "Snopes" site to put this garbage to rest.
Yeah - I've heard criticism of the outfit. It came from the same person that dressed up in a suit, went to Newsboys concert, and criticized them on the web because people treated them like they didn't fit in. Well - DUH! They tried to make a big deal out of one guy's blad head. Yeah - I visit the hater sites - just to see if they have repented yet. They haven't.
rbrucecarter5 said:
Is there a good reference site for appropriate attire for a concert, preferably by artist?
Or does one have to research each artist to make sure that they "fit in" to the crowd?
I'm assuming from your tone that you believe your 'person' knew better. Not everyone does.
rbrucecarter5 said:
That reminds me of once how I heard an anti-CCM preacher blasting Bob Hartman of Petra for supposedly being rude. I don't know the whole story, but supposedly the preacher asked Bob at a concert what the song Witch Hunt (From Beat the System) and Bob supposedly snapped at him and said "It's about guys like you!"
I don't doubt but what the preacher had gone in with a negative attitude and the intentions of attacking Petra and their ministry. If that happened and Bob was rude with him, the preacher probably had it coming.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
justalurker said:
These people were really being judgemental and rude themselves on their web site and email exchanges with me. If they dressed in a suit and tie to attend a Christian contemporary concert, they were just plain clueless. What did they think - they were going to attend high opera? It was obvious from their web site they were seeking to be confrontational, attended the concert with their minds already made up to criticize the artist, and then proceeded to do so. Not even an attempt at objectivity.
I have attended several Newsboys concerts, and witnessed 10,000 kids in an enthusiastic worship experience. Every last adult who ever has done youth work was called in to handle hundreds of salvations. I followed up with the kids who got saved, and the vast majority I counseled stuck with the faith and became active in their churches. No - I'm not going to provide names and phone numbers - because I am not gossipping. A positive statement requires no defense.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
anotherguy said:
As I expected - I got no proof or documentation from the Carman critic. Until such time as there is proof - somebody I can call and verify the story - I will continue to call it FALSE WITNESS.
If somebody wants to touch one of God's annointed, they better be prepared to go before their authority with names, phone numbers, and documentation. Otherwise, it is a violation of several scriptural principals and one of the commandments. REPENT - OR BE SILENT!!!!
This one, at least for now is BUSTED!!!! Once again - no names. No numbers. No proof. CHRISTIAN URBAN LEGEND.
B
BehindTheLines
Guest
I've gotta agree with you, Bruce.
If someone is going to bring charges against individuals who have reputations for being soulwinners or champions for Christ, they'd better have documentation. Otherwise, it's just NOT worth listening to. I'd rather er on the side of believing the best than deride falsely someone whom God has called.
If someone is going to bring charges against individuals who have reputations for being soulwinners or champions for Christ, they'd better have documentation. Otherwise, it's just NOT worth listening to. I'd rather er on the side of believing the best than deride falsely someone whom God has called.
rbrucecarter5 said:
So a lie is ok as long as the story is positive? I'm not saying your story is a lie, but that last line A positive statement requires no defense. seems to excuse lies - false witness as you might put it - just because it is positive.
Bearing false witness goes beyond slander. If I were to say that I met President Clinton and he was a kind and gentle person, very friendly, and he shared his hamburger with me it would still be a lie. (Which parts of that statement are a lie are an offline exercise.) Yet a positive statement requires no defense?
Feel free to wait until tomorrow to answer this, after all you should be remembering the Sabbath day and making it holy.
If you won't accept first hand knowledge of an event there is no help for you.
We are to be in the world, but not of the world. This entire discussion shouldn't be happening. If a brother or sister in the Lord stumbles we are to go to them in private and discuss it with them, if that doesn't work, then discuss again with a witness, if that doesn't work then discuss with the person only this time with the Elders of your local church included. This public worldwide bashing of brothers and sisters in Christ serves no Godly purpose. The idea of confronting the person is to bring the person who's stumbled back from unrightousness to the path of rightousness.
I saw this done in a church about 15 years ago, where a woman in the church had a drinking problem, but of course was in denial. Her husband had tried all sorts of things to address this problem, finally he went to the Elders, they talked to her and she wasn't responsive. After a period of time of discussions with her and prayer, they decided to ask her to leave the fellowship as she wasn't repentant of her sins and not willing to seek help, which in their discussions with her had offered to provide, etc. Long story short, she and her family left the church. They were on the church's prayer list and we as a congregation kept them lifted up in prayer. About 6 months later, they returned, she had sought out treatment and was a recovering alcoholic. The Elders gladly reinstated their membership as the congregation warmly welcomed them back. She was allowed to address the congregation where she thanked the Elders for using tough love with her to help her see that she needed to change.
If we aren't in the position to be of service to these famous brothers and sisters who have stumbled, then we should keep quiet about their "sins" and allow their local church Elders to counsel them. As one poster said, these folks have a much harder walk to walk then you and I do as they are in the spot light constantly. They also are human as we, sinners saved by grace. We are supposed to be freely giving away the Godly Love that Christ went to the cross to give us. Gossiping about famous brothers and sisters in Christ somehow doesn't seem like an expression of Godly Love to me.
I saw this done in a church about 15 years ago, where a woman in the church had a drinking problem, but of course was in denial. Her husband had tried all sorts of things to address this problem, finally he went to the Elders, they talked to her and she wasn't responsive. After a period of time of discussions with her and prayer, they decided to ask her to leave the fellowship as she wasn't repentant of her sins and not willing to seek help, which in their discussions with her had offered to provide, etc. Long story short, she and her family left the church. They were on the church's prayer list and we as a congregation kept them lifted up in prayer. About 6 months later, they returned, she had sought out treatment and was a recovering alcoholic. The Elders gladly reinstated their membership as the congregation warmly welcomed them back. She was allowed to address the congregation where she thanked the Elders for using tough love with her to help her see that she needed to change.
If we aren't in the position to be of service to these famous brothers and sisters who have stumbled, then we should keep quiet about their "sins" and allow their local church Elders to counsel them. As one poster said, these folks have a much harder walk to walk then you and I do as they are in the spot light constantly. They also are human as we, sinners saved by grace. We are supposed to be freely giving away the Godly Love that Christ went to the cross to give us. Gossiping about famous brothers and sisters in Christ somehow doesn't seem like an expression of Godly Love to me.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
justalurker said:
Of course not - that is not what I meant - and you are twisting my words. If I can make a truthful positive statement, I'll do it. I've had to make negative statements before, but there is a Biblical chain of authority to do it. This board is NOT the Biblical chain of authority - is somebody has something against Carman, the Bible specifies the chain in Matthew 18. First they go directly to Carman. If he won't receive them, they bring two or three people with them to meet with him. The last - and final - item in the chain of command is to take it to the pastor of Carman's church, who has the authority to disfellowship him if he still doesn't repent. NOWHERE is public gossip on a message board sanctioned in scripture.
I will ONLY accept first hand knowledge - that is why I absolutely demand telephone numbers of the persons involved. Otherwise - the story has no documentation, and therefore has to be treated as a lie.
rbrucecarter5 said:
I emailed you personally Bruce. Get the email?
rbrucecarter5 said:
If you truly want to follow that chain of authority we should have seen your rebuke in private messages before reading it on the open forums. Personally, I have found that it isn't in the nature of secular internet boards to follow that chain of authority, and your behavior has followed the norm for a secular board.
IMHO the best public response would be silence ... you have chosen to call out members of this forum in public as liars. And now you're preaching Matthew 18? I guess when others post they must follow "your rules" but when you post you don't have to follow those rules? There is a word for that ...
rbrucecarter5 said:
Then why are you participating in it?
rbrucecarter5 said:
Your demands are interesting but not important to me. I can choose to believe or not believe the claims against any of the people mentioned in this thread without getting PERMISSION from you. In general, I have chosen disbelief. Your protests make me wonder what sins you ARE trying to cover up.
Seeing Chief Engineer's first hand knowledge is good enough for me ... I believe there is more to his story than some new unknown poster who drops by to bash and run ... perhaps there is a fair defense by Carman for what happened there. I'm not condemning Carman over what Chief said ... that's not my job. Should you be condemning Chief and other posters in this thread? Is that your job? If it is you need a better job.
B
BehindTheLines
Guest
Bruce hasn't called ANYONE a liar by name. Therefore, he hasn't slandered ANYONE'S name publicly.
On the converse, the person being derided here without iron-clad documentation is being derided BY NAME.
Big difference between calling someone out by name and in suggesting someone posting under an alias (and providing no proof) may be 'fudging' things.
You ask him why he's participating in it. It looks like he's trying to quell unsubstantiated rumors to me. That seems noble enough to get involved.
As far as Bruce 'condeming' people, I haven't seen that at all. Remember, to condem someone, you have to know who they are. Everyone here is essentially anonymous. So what he's doing when he suggests an un-named poster might be fudging a story is not even close to tantamount with telling a non proven story about an actual person who is NAMED.
Bruce is not the one out of line here, spiritually. I've only seen him suggesting that a group of apparent Christians adhere to biblical chain of authority. And last time I checked, those principles covered message boards.
Bruce and I haven't always agreed programming-wise on things posted recently on this board. But spiritually, he's right on here.
On the converse, the person being derided here without iron-clad documentation is being derided BY NAME.
Big difference between calling someone out by name and in suggesting someone posting under an alias (and providing no proof) may be 'fudging' things.
You ask him why he's participating in it. It looks like he's trying to quell unsubstantiated rumors to me. That seems noble enough to get involved.
As far as Bruce 'condeming' people, I haven't seen that at all. Remember, to condem someone, you have to know who they are. Everyone here is essentially anonymous. So what he's doing when he suggests an un-named poster might be fudging a story is not even close to tantamount with telling a non proven story about an actual person who is NAMED.
Bruce is not the one out of line here, spiritually. I've only seen him suggesting that a group of apparent Christians adhere to biblical chain of authority. And last time I checked, those principles covered message boards.
Bruce and I haven't always agreed programming-wise on things posted recently on this board. But spiritually, he's right on here.
Seems that he went after Chief Engineer's personal report ... but people can read the thread for themselves. I don't need Mr Carter to attack any poster and require proof to come to an opinion about the veracity of posts.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
This is Mr. Carter - I asked for, and did not receive, contact information to verify the story with the original person - the wheelchair kid - involved. I realize there are privacy issues involved, but if there really WAS a wheelchair kid, and the issue is important to them, confirming the story would probably override any privacy concerns. Incidentally - I keep privacy information of many television stars private. I know things I could sell to tabloids for big money, but I will not - because I know how to respect privacy.justalurker said:
"Chief Engineer" is a totally anonymous poster - I have not attacked them personally because it is impossible to do so in this form. I have attacked their story because they do not provide any way to verify it. It is their word - second hand - against Carman and his ministry. They come into this forum, assasinate the character of a specific individual, then REFUSE to offer even one shred of proof other than their own word - which could be the word of anybody. A cult thwarted by his staff. An anti-CCM NUT. Anybody. Until I am on the phone with the actual individual wronged, they have dates, an original copy of the invitation backstage or whatever it was, I am a sceptic and so should you be.
"Chief Engineer" has, on the other hand - attacked a Christian ministry and its head by name - which is a blatant invasion of their privacy, and could even be considered legal slander. So they better have their own facts straight and be able to verify and document the story. If not, the Bible tells them to be silent, and Carman's lawyers may follow suit.
B
BlaineMcDaniel
Guest
Agreed.
In addition, a previous poster had mentioned that assuming 'the positive' about someone when that positive aspect has not been verified is the same as a lie.
To that, I would disagree and say "Innocent Until Proven Guilty beyond a resonable doubt."
And
1st Corinthians 13 states that "Love Believes the best..."
It assumes the best. So for Bruce to default to the positive and assume innocence (until proven otherwise) is certainly scriptural as well as constitutional in this case.
In addition, a previous poster had mentioned that assuming 'the positive' about someone when that positive aspect has not been verified is the same as a lie.
To that, I would disagree and say "Innocent Until Proven Guilty beyond a resonable doubt."
And
1st Corinthians 13 states that "Love Believes the best..."
It assumes the best. So for Bruce to default to the positive and assume innocence (until proven otherwise) is certainly scriptural as well as constitutional in this case.
Well, Mr Carter, I don't see why you are led to make such vile posts in an internet forum regardless of if you know your victim's name or not.
And Mr McDaniel, you need to reread the post you are misquoting. Mr Carter claimed that positive comments did not need to be proved. I demonstrated that positive comments could still be lies. Mr Carter (and apparently you) don't seem to care if a statement is true or not as long as it is positive.
To assume that a statement is true just because it is positive is a foolish folly. To assume that such blatant attacks on PEOPLE in this forum that Mr Carter has made are acceptable because he attacks the anonymous is also foolish folly. God doesn't care if you know the person you are attacking or not, your actions are what He will look at ... and your witness in this thread and others.
If you don't like this public rebuke don't publicly rebuke others.
And Mr McDaniel, you need to reread the post you are misquoting. Mr Carter claimed that positive comments did not need to be proved. I demonstrated that positive comments could still be lies. Mr Carter (and apparently you) don't seem to care if a statement is true or not as long as it is positive.
To assume that a statement is true just because it is positive is a foolish folly. To assume that such blatant attacks on PEOPLE in this forum that Mr Carter has made are acceptable because he attacks the anonymous is also foolish folly. God doesn't care if you know the person you are attacking or not, your actions are what He will look at ... and your witness in this thread and others.
If you don't like this public rebuke don't publicly rebuke others.
B
BehindTheLines
Guest
Well, it appears that the lot of us are at an impass here.
I guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree.
There is a HUGE difference between publicly rebuking the anonymous and publicly leveling charges against ACTUALLY named people...HUGE.
One could ruins someone's reputation and/or livelyhood.
The other might tick someone off for a little bit.
And when Bruce says that positive comments need no defense, my interperetation of what he was saying is also that 'the act of generally assuming someone is truthful and upright (until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt) is a moral high ground.
I didn't see Bruce coming out and saying that positive lies are ok. I think when he said that positive comments need no substantiation, he was implying that generally assuming that someone is upright doesn't require witnesses and documented proof.
Bruce, you weren't implying that spreading positive lies is ok were you?
I certainly don't believe that's what you meant. But that seems to be the nail that some here are hanging their idictment of your argument upon.
I guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree.
There is a HUGE difference between publicly rebuking the anonymous and publicly leveling charges against ACTUALLY named people...HUGE.
One could ruins someone's reputation and/or livelyhood.
The other might tick someone off for a little bit.
And when Bruce says that positive comments need no defense, my interperetation of what he was saying is also that 'the act of generally assuming someone is truthful and upright (until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt) is a moral high ground.
I didn't see Bruce coming out and saying that positive lies are ok. I think when he said that positive comments need no substantiation, he was implying that generally assuming that someone is upright doesn't require witnesses and documented proof.
Bruce, you weren't implying that spreading positive lies is ok were you?
I certainly don't believe that's what you meant. But that seems to be the nail that some here are hanging their idictment of your argument upon.
I'm not going to give Bruce a child's name but am happy to speak with him personally. Emailed him...no response.
I have to say i ahve been to every indy Carman concert since 1994 and WAS a huge Carman fan.
I approached Carman ministries direct. Called, emailed, no response.
Carman and his staff treated their fans poorly the day he appeared in Fairland indiana. Not a big town so who cares?
Look on his appearance page and scroll backwards.
This came up as a question. Others had simialr experiences. Certainly not an urban legend.
When you have a large ministry where you can ignore what you want you don't have a need to recognize fans or radio stations you make promises to.
No need to approach Carman or his staff because they don't care. When you have the same experience maybe you can understand.
I didn't start the thread but had the personal experience. Felt it was a good outlet when my personal attempt to contact Carman failed. Maybe there is a reason his label dumped him.
I have to say i ahve been to every indy Carman concert since 1994 and WAS a huge Carman fan.
I approached Carman ministries direct. Called, emailed, no response.
Carman and his staff treated their fans poorly the day he appeared in Fairland indiana. Not a big town so who cares?
Look on his appearance page and scroll backwards.
This came up as a question. Others had simialr experiences. Certainly not an urban legend.
When you have a large ministry where you can ignore what you want you don't have a need to recognize fans or radio stations you make promises to.
No need to approach Carman or his staff because they don't care. When you have the same experience maybe you can understand.
I didn't start the thread but had the personal experience. Felt it was a good outlet when my personal attempt to contact Carman failed. Maybe there is a reason his label dumped him.
- Status