Sun, Nov 22, 2009
EURweb |
|
Back to the Article »
Click Here
|
|---|
| Click here to post your comments. |
|
Name:
chrislrob
Comment: Sorry, Mo.
But this isn't worse than the Bynum situation. You're doing a LOT of speculating. And you're delirious if you think anyone's going to jail or that ORU is going anywhere.
It's an established school now.
Some resignations and this will likely be all over.
Unless, of course, someone can actually tie some real acts to the text messages. THAT would be a problem.
|
|
Name:
Snicker
Comment: i don't know chrislrob i think i agree with mo on this one....this is worst then juanita bynum's situation.
|
|
Name:
FiveMore
Comment: Why havn't I heard about this confusion before now?This is a straight trifling confusing mess!These church houses are being ran by imposters of the Gospel that do not believe in God(cause they sure do not serve or fear him)SMH @ this hot mess!This is totally insane!
|
|
Name:
Stephanie
Comment: That was funny. I feel like this, if anybody is that damn stupid to give money to folks like these guys, they need to be had. Its like suing Ms. Cleo for not giving you the winning lotto numbers...If your that damn guillible, that's on you. Oral Roberts would have been a dead azz before he got one quarter from me and Juanita will be homeless if she thinks I'd ever contribute anything to her lake front whatever! The real sad part is, people will come through and give her the money despite her being a false prophet. I mean, with her prophet status, you would think the Lord would have reveal to her that azz kicking was on its way...whatever. I think she needed a pelvic thrashing from the good Bishop and he agreed if she would sign a blank check and when she got up from being face down, azz up, she told him to take a hike and in Jesus name he wasn't getting shyt and Satan told him, don't go out like a sucka and the rest, well....LOL
|
|
Name:
FiveMore
Comment: Stephanie, Juanita has been receiving those beatings, and this is not the first time he has whupped on her either.Somebody(a former employee) claims he beat them over their paycheck.Weeks beats on women but I betcha money that fool is scared to fight dudes.smh
|
|
Name:
CRENEEJ
Comment: has anyone seen the youtube video of someone exposing people in JB's camp, and accusing her of having a lesbian sex tape out there. There is also some clips of JB and BW. very interesting. while i wholeheartedly agree that he should not have lifted his hands to her, i know that realistically, people do snap. their reaction is still wrong, but a person can only be pushed but so much.
|
|
Name:
CRENEEJ
Comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2EsMkO4b7c
check out this link about some other stuff going on between JB/BW. this is going to get sooooo ugly...
|
|
Name:
McNasty
Comment: You would have to have the gospel in mind before you could be an imposter. These folk are straight conning, conniving and stealing their followers blind and living larger than life itself. One is no worse than the other but it's curious how this story on roberts is first memorialized in print by MoKelly and not mainstream media who are villifying anything black!
|
|
Name:
queeniebunz
Comment: Nothing surprises me anymore about church folk. Nothing. What does make me scratch my head is the people who write the checks and pay for all of this nonsense. I just don't get it. It's brainwashing, I guess. I know it won't ever happen to me, though because I can't really be ministered to by a preacher who has to have a jet or a Bentley or whatever. He/she can't tell me anything about God because clearly he/she doesn't know God. He/she worships Neiman Marcus and Tiffany's and Saks. I worship Christ. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
Name:
YLawdY
Comment: I've always had a problem with the name Oral.
|
|
Name:
Winn30344
Comment: Interesting article. Can't wait to see how this plays out. In the yt community; Oral Roberts' is like Ronald Reagan..worshiped..funny i've heard more about Michael Vick than this little dirty secret.
|
|
Name:
TGen
Comment: Wow, yeah I was wondering the same thing FiveMore, why have I not heard about this? If the Bynum story was "hot" enough to make the front page of NY Times, seems like Oral Roberts who has mega fame would surely be everywhere. For this reason, I tend to agree with chrislrob, there's a lot of speculation here, so I'll reserve judgement...
|
|
Name:
SweetieDarlin
Comment: Doggone it, we were just talking about these mega-Churches/Mega Ministies. It is such a shame that it is difficult to trust anyone that has a big Church---for that matter some smaller Churches are suspect! A friend of mine who was a son of Preacher said that religion was one of the biggest scams you could make money from, serious money and it's all based on the fact that people don't know what to seek so they fall for all of this fake Christianity. I wonder if these fakers even believe, did they have faith then get caught up or what happened? Of course your faith is in God, these Ministers are supposed to be the messagers/faith leaders only so shame on the Congregations as well. I guess nobody is scared of a bolt of lightening from God anymore.....
|
|
Name:
KimDenae
Comment: Truthfully, i believe it's easier to fall for the bull when you ain't reading. If you are reading, studying, and in devotion, then i think you're a lot less likely to fall for the nonsense. Problem is, people are following MAN and not GOD!!!
|
|
Name:
Exmun
Comment: Mo', you DEAD wrong for the "freakmama" comments! :) It's any interesting story. We'll see how this plays out. I just don't understand why people who have questionable text messages or cell phone bills would want to put their business out on front street by submitting said questionable bills to be paid by the university or "ministry." While Mo' had a lot of fun with the "freakmama" comments the texts and the cell phone calls could have been done by the daughter. That's entirely possible. And it's also possible that mom could have submitted those bills as her own in order to claim that the bills were being done for "ministry" purposes. There are a few unanswered questions here. Even if the "improprieties" are generally true, who did what is still an open question.
|
|
Name:
MzTee
Comment: I'm with Fivemore and TGEN...I haven't heard about this at all. As McNasty pointed out, anything with a black face doing something wrong gets more airtime these days.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: On CNN video...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/08/roberts .oral.roberts.scandal.cnn
|
|
Name:
Exmun
Comment: Well as I speculated on yesterday, it appears that the cell phone that incited Mo' to the "freakmama" comments may have indeed been loaned or given to the daughters ... and the late night/early morning text messages came from the Roberts young women/girls rather than Lindsay Roberts. See http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/10/oru.suit/index.ht ml?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCText "Lindsay Roberts said she routinely allows her daughters and their friends to use her cell phone, and it was likely the messages were from them to other youths." I'm not saying its true, all I'm saying is these are allegations and its not clear yet whose telling the truth. It could be either or none at all.
|
|
Name:
CrazzeeGyrl
Comment: This story was reported on Comcast last week. That was when I first heard about this.
|
|
Name:
Snicker
Comment: --->Exmun or the mama could just be lying saying she was loaning the phone out so she won't seem like a freakmama.
|
|
Name:
Exmun
Comment: Snicker, I agree. My point was that none of us know right now. There's too little "evidence" to say one way or the other. And while I'm not saying that Mo' is irresponsible in the "freakmama" commentary, I am saying that his characterization (as well as that of others) might need to be taken with a couple grains of salt until we have more information. Remember these are "allegations."
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: What did you expect Mom to say..."I used the phone"?
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: And...you have lavish jets and cars, but the daughter has to "borrow" mom's phone?
Whatever.
|
|
Name:
Exmun
Comment: Mo', all I'm saying is that it's a lot easier to characterize the mom's issuance of the phone(s) as a 'ministry expense' or some other non-ministry/nontaxable university purpose than it would be for the daughters. Mom is a regent of the university and in theory would have the ability to get university phones at no charge for her use. The daughters are students, and the characterization that the phones are for ministry use of university use would be a tougher sell for audit/IRS purposes. All I'm sayin'. Not saying you're wrong, just saying there's not enough info to be quite as definitive as you were. Though, I can't fault your very entertaining poetic license to write the story.
|
|
Name:
MorrisOKelly
Comment: Exmun...If there were any legitimacy to the claim that all the texts were "daughter-related" that would mean that none of the "boys" admit to being texted by "mom."
We're not hearing from the boys...just the lawyer for the mom. And that's not by coincidence.
This is easily exculpatory if she were innocent. So clearly there's muddy water here.
Also, it's easy to assume that there are return/received texts from the "boys" in question. And clearly it would indicate that they're talking to mom and not daughter.
I hear what you're saying...but the burden of proof is squarely on Roberts in the court of public opinion. An op/ed column is not a court of law. They wouldn't have to "claim" innocence with the text messages (having nothing to do with all the other allegations) they could simply SHOW them. But...guess not. We're just supposed to take their word for it.
Not buying...not in the least.
|
| Back to Top |
| Click here to post your comments. |
| Back to the Article » Click Here |
|---|
...
