slug.com slug.com

3 2

The student alleged to Politico that when he stayed over at the Falwell home following band practice with their eldest son in 2008, Becki Falwell jumped into bed with him and performed oral sex.

Former Liberty student alleges sexual encounter with Becki Falwell, claims she was the aggressor

[foxnews.com]student-alleges-sexual-encounter-with-becki-falwell-claims-she-was-aggressor

RAZE 7 Aug 28
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I don't know what to think of this. I hope justice is done... whatever that looks like in this case.

1

interesting story - I wonder why the Falwell family has become a recent topic of gossip out here in the cyber world.
So how old was Becki when she allegedly gave this guy a blow job and why is her role in the matter any more shocking than his...I mean surely he was strong enough he could have pushed her away...right?

0

This story just gets worse and worse. I feel bad for the university.

why

@iThink Well, there have been some pretty bad stories coming out about both Jerry Falwell, Junior, and his wife, and it has given the school a black eye in the eyes of many. I think this is unfortunate. Although I've had my disagreement with the Falwell's, and even with some stances of the university, over the years, it is generally a good school so far as I know, and I hate it when the actions of some rub off in a bad way on people who are not involved with those actions.

@KeithThroop Look - I could give a flyn' you know what about the sexual proclivities of the clan Falwell. I don't consider them immune to "temptations of the flesh" any more than anyone else - their "religiosity" notwithstanding. Underneath their clothes they are sinners no more nor less than anyone else. As for the University I also couldn't give a flyn' you know what. Any institution, be it college, university, church whatever that holds itself up to or pretends to be "of a higher moral standard" is almost certainly anything but that beneath its thin veneer godlier than thou - "if you want salvation - if you want gods forgiveness come to us! WE can save you!
LOL.
Call me a cynic but I would wager that Liberty University does very little if any real charity work to anyone not in the Falwell fold - so to speak. Same with Orel Robts university and the dozen or so others just like them. If Liberty University image is somehow blemished by the revelation of these sex scandals then so be it. Falwell always intended his University and other business operations to reflect his own self image such as it was the image he projected to the public. But gee golly - looky there - the man is just a man after all and well, maybe its not such a bad thing that Liberty University should show a bit or tarnish...for its creator is certainly not any more in gods grace than any other man so the man and his University suffer the consequences of their hypocrisy. LOL! There is probably a special place held aside by God for characters like the Falwells and other religious charlatans...but that's gods business - not mine.
I dare say that should it go out of business Liberty University will not be missed by very many people not named Falwell and not for very long.

Really though I am interested to know who Falwell crossed - who is out to get him and for what reasons. He obviously made someone very unhappy - someone who knew a lot about the family and found a reason to expose them...so he's into cuckold sex and his daughter gave some dude a blow job...maybe some humility will do them good. Either way it's no skin off my nose. LOL

@iThink Well, you probably won't be surprised to hear that I would differ with much of what you've said, but I don't see any point in debating such things with you because I suspect it won't make any difference. I would only say that I doubt you would find anyone more realistic than I am about the sinfulness of human beings. I am one of them, after all. But I am glad to say that I've experienced the life-changing power of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not so naive, however, that I believe the claims of everyone who professes such faith. There are many nominal Christians out there, and I'm not surprised to run across hypocrites along the way. Truth be told, we are all hypocrites to some extent or other, which is why we are so in need of God's constant grace and forgiveness. But this brings up the fact that there are degrees of hypocrisy, and I wouldn't put the majority of Liberty students in the category of Falwell. That is a patently unfair thing to do, but many people will do it, and that is why I feel bad for the university.

There is one further thing that I would point out, though, and it is what I see as your mischaracterization of what most all Christians believe when you falsely stereotype them as saying, ""if you want salvation - if you want gods forgiveness come to us! WE can save you!" I have never personally met an orthodox Christian who thought that anyone but God Himself could save people. In more than 30 years of proclaiming the Gospel, I can tell you that I have never once even hinted at the notion that the Church could save anyone. All we can do is tell people what we believe and leave it up to them to decide whether or not they want to believe it. In fact, you will discover that I don't even bother debating much with people about my faith. I don't think that anyone can be argued into the kingdom of God. I don't think that's how it works. I'm not saying that rational debate does not have its place; I'm just saying that it doesn't produce faith, at least not as I understand how faith works. If you are curious to know something of my journey, although it doesn't by any means get into all the details, I have a brief description on the old version of my blog here: [reformedbaptist.blogspot.com]

As for who might be out to get Falwell, I suspect there are those who have gotten sick of his hypocrisy and felt the need to expose it. And I suspect that his strong support for President Trump was probably enough to motivate many people to try to take him down as well. Just a couple possibilities to consider. I do have the sneaking suspicion, however, that we are witnessing the principle of "you reap what you sow" in action here.

@KeithThroop

  • I doubt you would find anyone more realistic than I am about the sinfulness of human beings. I am one of them, after all.*
    Amen and me too

Truth be told, we are all hypocrites to some extent or other, which is why we are so in need of God's constant grace and forgiveness. But this brings up the fact that there are degrees of hypocrisy
Agreed!

I wouldn't put the majority of Liberty students in the category of Falwell. That is a patently unfair thing to do, but many people will do it, and that is why I feel bad for the university

The students are not the ones who should feel the pain of the Founders hypocrisy IMHO. The kids will be fine even if the university folds its tent - they'll get their education regardless and this might even be a very impressionable teaching moment in their own lives. I have no sympathy for the institution itself. That's not the same thing as the student body.

your mischaracterization of what most all Christians believe when you falsely stereotype them as saying, ""if you want salvation - if you want gods forgiveness come to us! WE can save you!"

I expect my words to be taken in the context of the subject at hand - hypocritical televangelists!

I have never personally met an orthodox Christian who thought that anyone but God Himself could save people

I would agree with that but with the caveat that it almost exclusively it applies only to serious theologians.

In more than 30 years of proclaiming the Gospel, I can tell you that I have never once even hinted at the notion that the Church could save anyone
Well now isn't that a critically implicit message in formalized religion? After all does not the "sherpa" profess to know the way?

  • I don't even bother debating much with people about my faith. I don't think that anyone can be argued into the kingdom of God*
    I agree with this idea - "Faith" is not debatable lest if cease to become Faith.

I'm not saying that rational debate does not have its place; I'm just saying that it doesn't produce faith

Obviously true!

BTW my most favorite line from the bible is Pauls explanation of what is Faith.

"Faith is the belief in things unseen and the Hope for things to come"

Beautiful! just beautiful...says volumes doesn't it.

Also BTW I hope you don't take my comments as personal attacks on you. I am engaging you where I find you. I appreciate our discussions. Its good for my tired old brain.

@iThink I don't take these things personally. This is supposed to be place where there is open, adult dialog and freedom of speech. That is what we are both doing. Sometimes that means we have to speak directly about things and even risk offending someone in the process. Even if offending someone else is not what we are trying to do, sometimes it cannot be helped if important things are going to be discussed. As far as I can see, you have not used ad hominem attacks, nor have you sought to offend me personally. You have just stated your views forthrightly. Again, this is why we're here, right? So, no offense. Thanks for being as polite and respectful as you could be while being direct. I hope I have done the same. 🙂

@iThink I have a bit more time right now than previously, so I thought I would interact with just a couple of things you've said.

>>> The students are not the ones who should feel the pain of the Founders hypocrisy IMHO. The kids will be fine even if the university folds its tent - they'll get their education regardless and this might even be a very impressionable teaching moment in their own lives. I have no sympathy for the institution itself. That's not the same thing as the student body.

I get your point, and I can definitely understand why you would think that way. I certainly have more sympathy for the students than the institution in a sense, but I am concerned that there are not many institutions that buck the current trend in academia toward postmodernism and socialism (especially in the humanities) Liberty University has been one of those institutions, however, so I would hate to see it damaged precisely because I care about the impressionable young students.

>>> I expect my words to be taken in the context of the subject at hand - hypocritical televangelists!

I didn't see you specify "televangelists" in your previous comments. What you said was "Any institution, be it college, university, church whatever that holds itself up to or pretends to be "of a higher moral standard" is almost certainly anything but that beneath its thin veneer godlier than thou - "if you want salvation - if you want gods forgiveness come to us! WE can save you!" There you have it, you spoke generally of any institution -- by which you seem to mean religious institution -- or church. I did not take your words out of context, then, when I responded to your words as what I perceive to be a mischaracterization of what most all Christians and as a false stereotype. So, although you may still think your view is correct, I don't see how you can fault me for having taken your words out of context.

>>> I would agree with that but with the caveat that it almost exclusively it applies only to serious theologians.</i>

This was in response to my having said that I have never personally met an orthodox Christian who thought that anyone but God Himself could save people, and I stand by that point as someone who is very familiar with not only the wider Evangelical Christian community but also with much Christian literature and theology. I don't know what you are basing your perspective on, but most every Christian I have ever known would flatly deny that we can save anyone and would assert quite fervently that only God can do this. Now, there may be a portion of nominal or uneducated believers out there who are confused about this point, but I would hardly characterize the majority that way, which is what your comment seems to be doing.

>>> Well now isn't that a critically implicit message in formalized religion? After all does not the "sherpa" profess to know the way?

You said this in response to my assertion that in more than 30 years of proclaiming the Gospel, I can tell you that I have never once even hinted at the notion that the Church could save anyone. Now I will say that I think you are incorrect in what you think is the "critically implicit message" in the Christian religion (which must be the main formalized religion you have in mind in this discussion). To be sure, I can see how Roman Catholicism, for example, might give you that impression (although I suspect they would deny it as well), but it certainly isn't true of Protestantism. Our explicit teaching is that only God can save and that He does so when people trust in Him alone for salvation. Yes, all Christians have an obligation to share the Gospel with the hope that others will believe and be saved, but that Gospel is explicitly a message about how only God himself can save. As for your "sherpa" analogy, I would say that it falls short of what I as a pastor, for example, actually do, at least as one in the Protestant tradition (and in my case Reformed Baptist). We seek to teach our congregations what the Bible says, and we also constantly challenge them to look to the Bible itself as the standard by which they judge what we are teaching them. I have even taught my congregation Biblical Hermeneutics courses so that they could better interpret the Bible for themselves and better see if I am really getting things right or not. Yes, we pastors seek to lead them and guide them, but not as the only ones who know the way, for the way we are proclaiming comes from the same guide book that they themselves have available to them. As I understand it, sherpas are necessary because only they have access to the information about which way to go. I don't mean to quibble here over what you might see as a minor point. It just happens to be that I see it as an important distinction.

Anyway, I just thought I would clarify a few points since I found a few minutes to focus on typing a few paragraphs. These interactions remind me of one of the Proverbs, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

@KeithThroop

I am concerned that there are not many institutions that buck the current trend in academia toward postmodernism and socialism

I share your concerns and it would not be a bad thing if Liberty U lives on but only if it can do so after shucking the auspices of the unethical founder.
I will reiterate that this might be a profound learning experience for current and future students of Liberty U. As the saying goes: "the proof in the pudding is in the eating" or to steal a line from a favorite song of mine: c'est la vie said the old folks goes to show you never can tell.

>>> I expect my words to be taken in the context of the subject at hand - hypocritical televangelists!

I didn't see you specify "televangelists" in your previous comments. What you said was "Any institution, be it college, university, church whatever that holds itself up to or pretends to be "of a higher moral standard" is almost certainly anything but that beneath its thin veneer godlier than thou - "if you want salvation - if you want gods forgiveness come to us! WE can save you!" There you have it, you spoke generally of any institution -- by which you seem to mean religious institution -- or church. I did not take your words out of context, then, when I responded to your words as what I perceive to be a mischaracterization of what most all Christians and as a false stereotype. So, although you may still think your view is correct, I don't see how you can fault me for having taken your words out of context

I concede I was not precise - however the men we were talking about in particular are the televangelists who have built their own little empires what with colleges/universities etc. But again, I concede your point.

>>> I would agree with that but with the caveat that it almost exclusively it applies only to serious theologians.</i>

This was in response to my having said that I have never personally met an orthodox Christian who thought that anyone but God Himself could save people, and I stand by that point as someone who is very familiar with not only the wider Evangelical Christian community but also with much Christian literature and theology. I don't know what you are basing your perspective on, but most every Christian I have ever known would flatly deny that we can save anyone and would assert quite fervently that only God can do this. Now, there may be a portion of nominal or uneducated believers out there who are confused about this point, but I would hardly characterize the majority that way, which is what your comment seems to be doing

I take theology to be a serious and highly sophisticated field of inquiry - study. I dare say that the leadership of a given "Faith" or "Congregation" is more apt to know the nuances of the church liturgy etc. There are plenty of preachers and many times that followers who take the intellectual short route - pretty much like all other sophisticated fields of scholarship. While Keith Throop would not take that route there are plenty others who will and do. Unfortunately we happen to talking about a select dozen or so who are very high profile and are using their proverbial direct line to God in order to sherpa their paying customers to the kingdom of heaven. You know this is true.

>>> Well now isn't that a critically implicit message in formalized religion? After all does not the "sherpa" profess to know the way?

Having said all that above - I will point out that the Bible itself uses the metaphorical Shepherd and his flock in parables and such. It is an apt use of the form and I don't object to it in the least. What I do object to is those unethical "preachers" who abuse the influences they masterfully and IMHO mendaciously cultivated in their "flock". One EXTREME example of this dynamic is the obviously sick Rev. Jim Jones...we all know that story. But it is illustrative of my point. Gosh I feel like I just used a sledge hammer to kill a fly! LOL

Anyway, I just thought I would clarify a few points since I found a few minutes to focus on typing a few paragraphs. These interactions remind me of one of the Proverbs, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

Word

@iThink I agree that there are plenty of charlatans out there. I just don't agree with painting with so broad a brush as your initial comments did. You have now specified that you only intend such comments to apply more narrowly, and I accept that.

As for your reference to the Bible's use of the metaphor of the shepherd to describe the church leadership office, you are correct. It is important, however, to understand the way in which the Bible uses the metaphor. For example, the metaphor isn't used in quite the same way of church leaders as it is used of God the Father or of Jesus. Charlatans like Jim Jones deliberately blurred such distinctions, as other charlatans have done, but these are not indicative of the vast majority of pastors. They are, rather, a very small number. I think you know this is true, at least that is what I think you imply when you stress that you are using an EXTREME example in appealing to Jim Jones.

@iThink You have also made an important point when you said that, "I take theology to be a serious and highly sophisticated field of inquiry - study. I dare say that the leadership of a given "Faith" or "Congregation" is more apt to know the nuances of the church liturgy etc. There are plenty of preachers and many times that followers who take the intellectual short route - pretty much like all other sophisticated fields of scholarship."

It is true that theology can get pretty deep and technical sometimes, but what I should point out is that this really doesn't deal with the point I was making in my earlier comments about Christians believing that only God can save people. I conceded that there may be a portion of nominal or uneducated believers out there who are confused about this point, but I also said I would hardly characterize the majority that way. This is partly because this point isn't one of those deeper or more technical aspects of Christian theology; it is one of the most basic and simple tenets of the faith. So, I say again that most every Christian I have ever known would flatly deny that we can save anyone and would assert quite fervently that only God can do this.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:126947
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.