All The Gossip That’s Fit To Print… *UPDATED*
It is no secret that a certain Christian website has taken great pains to vilify teen star Miley Cyrus (of “Hannah Montana” fame), who frequently uses her public stage to reference her Christian faith. We’ve defended Ms. Cyrus, who attends Mosaic Church in Los Angeles, CA at least twice previously (along with a bit of tongue-in-cheek advice for her and other Christian artists). In one of the most read chapters of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, we read:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
And so it is that we try to consider love, though we have a lot of room for improvement. In light of this, it seems that almost the OPPOSITE of love is displayed in this article (UPDATE: cached image), which gleefully ‘exposes’ Ms. Cyrus for having racy photos taken of her and posted on the internet:
My congenital detractors hooted and howled with laughter when I posted on Miley Cyrus, rock idol to millions of little girls around the world, and her claims that she is a Christian, doing everything she does for Jesus. Irate evangelical Hannah Montana fans indignantly defended the professing Christian rock star for her “squeaky clean” image and her image as a “good Christian role model” for their daughters. Yeah, yeah, right. The news headlines at AOL this morning:
Yet another batch of probably-meant-to-be-private photos of teen sensation Miley ‘Hannah Montana’ Cyrus have found their way on to the Internet, showing the 15-year-old starlet flashing a bra and laying across the lap of a male with her top pulled up. While certainly scandalous simply because of her age, this wouldn’t be the first time that mature photos of Cyrus have made their rounds. In the past, pictures of the singer-actress in underwear and bikinis also made headlines.
Noting that Ms. Cyrus thanked “my lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” when accepting a recent award, the author sneered:
Just leave my Saviour’s holy name out of it, Miley. (emphasis mine)
So what, exactly is the problem with this response to the news about Ms. Cyrus’ suggestive pictures? Well, maybe the fact that they weren’t pictures of her, and that the reporting standard was just shy of that of the National Enquirer? In this age of frequent “Photoshopped” scandals, it doesn’t make sense to be sensational with ‘breaking news’ - particularly when it is salacious - until enough time (typically one or two news cycles - 1-2 weekdays) has passed for the actual facts of a situation have been ascertained. As for the final comment about “my Saviour’s holy name”, the implication is clear that the author arrogantly believes that her Saviour and Ms. Cyrus’ Saviour are two different individuals. If they are two separate individuals, indeed, I think I will take the one publicly proclaimed by Ms. Cyrus over one that (by the author’s implication) would wholeheartedly endorse the gossip-mongering, externals-focused, deceitful, slander-filled rantings of her critic.
If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
I wonder if a retraction will be forthcoming, or if it will be an Obama-like “I’m sorry if people were hurt by the way I said things, but the underlying truth still exists” non-apology. I am truly hoping for the former. ***UPDATE (with thanks to Matt B)*** It seems that the original author deleted the article (I’ll rescue the original from my cache and link it tomorrow, if possible) and - rather than issue an apology - used her own error to compound her attack against the teenager in her crosshairs, by issuing an increasingly vitriolic non-apology. What is sad is that she links to a rather innocuous video of Ms. Cyrus performing at a charity event to raise money for the relief of human suffering. (See below)
Were we to be of the same, twisted mindset, we could write up a post comparing this author’s ideal of Christian dress with that of the FLDS Texas polygamy cult. Then, we could make suggestions that the two are somehow connected. (See below):
While we could do this, such a comparison would be just as much of an ad homenim attack as the string of anti-Christian attacks made by the author of the attack piece. Instead, we have an author who has had to issue multiple corrections in the past week, whether for being punk’d (along with several other media outlets) by a Yale student, for linking to gay porn, or - now - for posting false, salacious gossip that might be a stumbling block for Christians struggling with porn. Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that this website claims to have the gift of discernment here:
That’s right the Lord gave everything he had for us, the least we can do is to return what we have — the gifts that he’s given us — to use them for his glory and to warn those in the church — as unpopular as it is — to be in the postition of watchman you take a bit of egg in the face from the kids standing down below.
Despite claiming such powers, its own powers of ‘discernment’ seem to be on par with the Weekly World News, and just as sinful. Certainly, God has called - and He wants His truth back…
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Here’s my response:
Ingrid posted an unsubstantiated rumor about some photos that appear to be a girl closely resembling Mylie Cyrus. I’ve looked at the photos and there are three possibilities here.
#1. These are real photos of Mylie. However, according to the rumors about how these photos leaked, the rumor is that someone hacked into Mylie’s personal myspace page and stole these photos from her. If someone broke into Ingrid’s house and stole naughty pictures of her and put them on the Internet, Ingrid would be more then upset. If the rumors are true, then these photos were stolen. Is Ingrid showing support for breaking into people’s online accounts and stealing from them?
#2. These are created in Photoshop. Now I’ve been using Photoshop professionally for over 10 years. I’ve done plenty of work where I’ve put a person’s head on a different person’s body. This would be an easy task for anyone who knows Photoshop to do. In addition, one can find “nude photos” of any celebrity on the internet, completely fabricated in photoshop.
#3. This is a girl who closely resembles Mylie. This wouldn’t be the first time someone has done this. Again, with a little Photoshop, one could easily make someone who kind of looked like Mylie and manipulate them so that they really looked like Mylie.
So, I’ve looked at these photos and in my opinion, it’s either #2 or 3. They seem way too posed. There were some photos that were released late last year, which I do believe are real and are completely harmless. These new photos just look like fakes.
Ingrid should know better then to post unsubstantiated rumors about anyone. This is clearly against scripture (1 Timothy 5:13).
In any case, it appears that Satan and Ingrid are working together on this. Good for them.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mrs. Schlueter is a gossip absorbed, self righteous, loveless, graceless, absolutely pitiful representative of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Any questions…?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Go Ingrid, way to attack a young girl who I imagine has a very pressured and stressful life even without “christians” attacking her. Way to be a role model for young women. Don’t quit your day job… oh wait, on second thought…
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
A retraction? From Slice? Pull the other one! More likely, Ingrid will follow her previous MO, and the post will simply disappear, with Ingrid pretending it never happened.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Wait a minute…something on the internet isn’t true?? I’m telling Al Gore!!
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Yeah - I’ve saved a cache of it…
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Speaking of cache - how about a link to “Spreading Christian Dirt” reprise. It’s so relevant!
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Here’s the link, and I added the Schadenfruede tag, as well.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
Here’s a link that’s quite relevant to Ingrid’s research.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Thanks Chris.
See Tim, it’s not personal, strictly business.
(Michael Coroleone in Godfather)
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
haha. that’s because what Obama said was TRUE!
that said, when Ingrid issues “retractions,” she usually finds a way to stick in an extra lie or two, as well as some 3rd grade-level character assassination.
because she’s a Liar for the Kingdom!
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
naughty photos Ingrid?
if only…
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Hey guys,
Miley needs a lot of love and Ingrid needs a lot of love and grace. We’ve shown Miley love, now let’s work on Ingrid. The things she writes about Miley irks me too, but I still can’t stand seeing nasty remarks about Ingrid–please let’s not start that again? I’m saying this now before it heads in that direction. I would appreciate it so much, as your sister in Christ, and Ingrid’s too! Thanks!
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
You are a sick puppy. Seek help now.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
the irony would be delicious.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
” If someone broke into Ingrid’s house and stole naughty pictures of her and put them on the Internet, Ingrid would be more then upset. If the rumors are true, then these photos were stolen. Is Ingrid showing support for breaking into people’s online accounts and stealing from them?”
And yet we speak of love like we know what it is ourselves.
YEP !! I can see the love.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
merry - Mrs. Schlueter receives no correction, she only attempts to give it. Her continuing expose about a teenager suggest some type of obsession, while being unchristian as well. Her blog gives subtantive, public, doctrinal, pastoral, and personal rebukes to ordained pastors and elders while she herself is an unordained wife and mother.
There, the orthodox emperor has no clothes. Maybe with that display the unclothed emperor deserves a SOL post!
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Also, she lies a lot.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Let us put a finer point on this issue. Even if a sixteen year old girl was behaving in a sinful manner, we should feel grieved, not haughty. Some of you guys don’t care for me because I disagree with some teachings of some men, but I have never said anything about them personally. In fact, I have gone out of my way to commend what I see in their lives. This includes Brian MacLaren.
I would NEVER comment or post about someone’s affair or temper or divorce or anything of that nature because I draw a distinct line of demarcation between discussing truth and attacking a person. And if we are led to discuss modesty we should do it Biblically and without using a sixteen year old girl as some blog piñata.
Have we no compassion? Have we no prayers? And how can anyone justfy searching the secular press to find garbage and dirt about someone and then gleefully construct another pile on personal attack ad?
You want to talk doctrine, OK, lets. You want to tell me about the sins of others, well, I’m too busy cataloging my own. I’m just glad mine haven’t made it to the blogasphere. (If I had any!!) Let us walk in forgiveness toward all men, and as far as exposing some sixteen year old girl, well, if that’s Christianity I’m calling the Dalai Lama!
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“merry - Mrs. Schlueter receives no correction, she only attempts to give it. Her continuing expose about a teenager suggest some type of obsession, while being unchristian as well. Her blog gives subtantive, public, doctrinal, pastoral, and personal rebukes to ordained pastors and elders while she herself is an unordained wife and mother.”
That’s true, and I agree, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
FYI - this is not meant so much as a “slam” to Ingrid, but as a defense of Ms. Cyrus and a warning to using the rush-to-judgment methods of the linked article. Thus, my purposely avoiding her name in the OP.
I truly hope she repents.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think Rick is awesome.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
You can play the home game version of this situation by the way:
1. When you get a forward that you know is an untrue story, point or call to arms, send back the reaserch (you can hop on Snopes or whatever else you like to use. Bonus points if you can use a text book or an in-person interview).
2. Wait and see if the truth is forwarded as fast as the urban legends, misleading, sometimes hurtful and gossipy, information was.
3. Every time the truth is forwarded to the same list of people the lie was, buy yourself a nice dinner.
That way you get a nice dinner once a year.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I thought it was kinda funny that Ingrid’s almost-apology uses a video showing Cyrus helping impoverished children. I live in KY and haven’t seen any outreach programs in my area sponsored by VCY Ministries.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Here is the “I made a mistake” type of apology from Mrs. Schlueter:
“I will not apologize for linking to stories from major media that are presented as fact.”
And Mrs. Schlueter uses this clarification post to again bash Miley Cyrus. Anyone who cannot see this as Phariseeism is as deceived as the ones they attack. Putting a video of a sixteen year old girl as evidence of her sinfulness if SATANIC! It is the message of the Accuser and offers no heart of grace and intecession.
I have known sixteen year old Christian girls who dressed innappropriately and yet read the Word, witnessed to sinners, and turned out to be a godly Christian mother. So instead of creamating them while the Holy Spirit was still molding them, we loved them and offered words of gentle wisdom.
The law is death and the letter kills. Showcasing the sins of others for public consumption is SATANIC. It is part of the ministry of the Accuser and blogs like SOL are being faithful to his calling. Extremely sad.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
My first thought was … I wonder what I. Todyaso so would say and do about this… then I became physically ill and just could not follow through on it… it seems even someone like him has more principle than Ingrid…
iggy
The scariest thing about this comment is that I am talking about a fiction character as if he was real…
BOO!
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
That continuing comment is innappropriate. Mrs. Schlueter’s blog is fair game, not anything about her personal life and there isn’t any evidence about which you infer.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Ah come on, Rick.
I don’t think anyone outside a small circle which Ingrid calls “the Remnant” takes SOL seriously. Even teampyro has taken down the link to Ingrid’s blog.
SOL is now good for entertainment. Keep it going, Ingrid.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
My point is, Satan is usually involved in lies and deceptions which people take seriously. He wouldn’t waste his time and resources on things which are easily caricatured and dismissed.
So calling SOL Satanic is a bit over the top. Entertaining? Yes. Statanic? well probably not.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
My point isn’t even lies, its taking the sins of people and exposing them to everyone. The Devil is the Accuser of the brethren. (Job)
Love covers a multitude of sins.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It’s so sad how she tries to make herself sound righteous even in the midst of being found to be a fraud. Just admit you made a mistake. Admit, you were over eager and you’re not the “reporter” you want to think you are. Apologies worked for Bill Clinton, they might work for you.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I watched the movie “Resurrecting the Champ” last night. Excellent movie and the parallels to this situation are eerily similar.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Not only did Mrs. Schlueter not admit a mistake, she said she would continue to link to unproven secular articles and let the chips fall where they may. If the reports are lies, oh well, not my concern.
I am still waiting for the FIRST post that is a follow-up to someone who she posted about their moral failure. I would love to hear a story of repentance and resortoration about those long forgotten, unprayed for brothers whose sin was multiplied by a public and detailed expose by the secular press and then offerred up by sites like SOL.
They are not concerned in the leaset about these people, their only interest is their sin. Videos of Miley Cyrus available for you Bible study so everyone can be informed of this little tramp. As you can tell, I will spar with anyone about doctrinal truth etc., but I cannot stomach parading the sins of others. It is unchristian and it comes from the Phelps school of brotherhood.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
ODMs are never wrong. Never on big issues at least. Wank…
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Methinks she doth protest too much…
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
hey, she didn’t link to “gay porn.”
she’s lying.
she saw an opportunity to vilify gay people and Azariah Southworth by lying.
because she lies.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
She’s now put a bunch of puff pieces up to push her “apology” down the page.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
Amen, Rick.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Ingrid writes that “every major media outlet” reported the story as truth.
Huh? She found it, probably because she gets google news updates every morning on Miley Cyrus, on AOL. I tend to frequent the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., and I didn’t see a whiff of it.
Ingrid, for simple integrity, please don’t post a bogus story you found on AOL hours (if not minutes) after it comes up, and then attempt to cover up your actions by claiming every major media reported it. That’s disgraceful.
This is about basic integrity. If Christians can’t muster up the kind of integrity displayed by secular journalists, where does that leave us?
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
It was on CBS a couple hours after the story broke. They said the photos were fake.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
M.G. - Is that true about the google updates? Do you mean you can have secular news outlets e-mail you when they print anything on a certain person??
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Rick,
I don’t know if she’s using them (and AOL, I believe, has one), but news aggregators will filter news stories, based on the key words you specify, and will either give you a customized page that displays them - or will email you a digest version of them.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 am
That is incredibly unchristian. You quoted I Cor.13, where does having gossip sent to you fit in wit God’s love? M.G. said “This is about basic integrity” and I agree. But basic integrity might see something about a sixteen year old professing Christian girl, but integrity does not look for it and Christianity does not post it.
I reiterate my position, I consider the practice of seeking out the sins of others and using those sins to publicly attack and expose them as Satanic, pure and simple. And I believe that that practice is as evil as any doctrinal issue we have ever discussed or the men we’ve disagreed about.
And here’s a little statement: I honestly believe that posting the sins of others is worse than cursing, and on some level, it IS cursing. Am I coming across loud and clear?
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
Personally, I think she ought to heed Napoleon’s advice.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
good night…
these folks act like they’re protecting the truth and standing up for the “right”…
they wallow in sin just as much as the sinner…but they compound it by adding a self-righteousness to it.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Ingrid getting RSS feeds on certain stories is pure speculation still.
I was thinking the other day about how awesome it would be if non-Christians felt free enough to talk to Christians about any issue because they were known as loving, caring, non-judgmental people. This sort of thing really shows how our image is cast down by things we think are rightous to do.
I wonder how many “biblical” things I do that actually destroy the image of Christ to someone.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
It seems now the pictures were of Miley Cyrus. However they should never be further exposed by a “Christian” blog site as proof of anything, that would be God’s job. Also Miss Cryrus apologized for the photos and what they suggest so I wonder whether her apology will be in an “update” on the sites that exposed her.
But, you say, maybe she’s not sincere in her apology. I would hope that the same principle applies to her printed apology that applies to other new stories in this statement:
Can you say “consistent”?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Rick, the photos floating around the last few weeks were not Mylie. There are new photos which appear in the June issue of Vanity Fair.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Matt - she apologized for those as well.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=311437>1=7703
April 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Rick, I stand corrected. Thanks.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
OK…
I want to publicly state I apologize for stating that Ingrid was wrong about the photos of Miley Cyrus. Ingrid apparently had a good “source” after all… good for her.
Yet, what concerns me more is the obsession over the minor discretion and immature actions of a 15 year old girl by Ingrid. It seems there are much more better use of all Ingrid’s resources…
Oh….
In Jesus Name,
iggy
April 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Now that apologies have been made, I hope Ingrid will pony up and commend Mylie for her apology and mea culpa.
Neil
April 28th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Yes, I too would like to admit that the gossip photos of Miss Cyrus that were linked to were definitely of her. Thank God we have someone watching on the wall for teenage girls sins and being so fervent and speedy in distributing those photos so all of us could
prayjudge her and feel so much closer toGod.Nothing like teenage mistakes to feed our spirits and bring persoanl revival!
April 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Like Jr High all over again… sorry, just don’t miss it… nuhu…
Wuteeeeeverrr! I would have you talk to the hand… but your not worth the extension…
iggy
April 28th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Just Like Ingrid had to ” sort of ” apologize, shouldn’t we do the same in this blog?
April 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
The issue whether the pictures were real or not was never an issue with me. Attacking a 16 year old on a blog that is read worldwide is just wrong. Always has been, always will be.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Ingrid didn’t apologize.
And we didn’t publish false reports about anyone.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Rick,
So if a 16 year old makes a mistake how should we handle it?
April 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Oscar said: “Rick,
So if a 16 year old makes a mistake how should we handle it?”
In the case of Miss Cyrus, you let her PARENTS and her CHURCH handle!
April 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
If we don’t have a relationship with said 16 year old, I don’t see how it’s any of our problems. Ingrid should worry about her own freakin’ kids. Nothing ticks me off like busybodies.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
How should we handle it?
I guess prayer because God hasn’t given my authority over Miley Cyrus, Mrs. Schlueter is not her aunt either, because if she was her aunt and loved her, she wouldn’t post her mistakes.
Let’s be clear, when that kind of money comes into a family there will always be compromise, temptation, and maybe even family conflict. Our calling is to pray not post!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Iggy did. And I and others acknowledged that Ingrid was correct… or better, that her source was correct since she claims no responsibility either way…
April 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
And if you feel compelled to critique her, as Ingrid did, you should also forgive and commend her when she acknowledges what she did was wrong… that’s why I call for Ingrid to openly and publicly commend Mylie for her mea culpa… but I don;e expect it since ODM’s are not in the business of forgiving.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The Scriptures are clrea that women (and men) should dress modestly. So when a 15 year old girl dresses innappropriately and your children see it, you can use it as both an object lesson and a prayer request.
What you may not do is link to the secular press and pass out those photos all over the cyber world in a viscious attack post. I would like to know if there are church elders that approve of this type of malicious slander. Remember, slander and gossip can sometimes be true.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Ingrid has shifted her focus and she is attacking Billy Ray… so at least she is picking on as adult.
Of course, she does take an opening swipe by calling him a “Professing Evangelical” - code word; and fans the flames by saying Mylie was “was attired in only a bed sheet at the photo shoot” - which reports have said to be false.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
And one more objection, or question for Ingrid… what’s the point of this anyway. I thought her “calling” was to point out lukewarmness in the churches. Now she’s attacking individual Christians who do not even lead a ministry.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“Now she’s attacking individual Christians who do not even lead a ministry.”
OK, Neil, have you been hiding in the biosphere for a couple of years?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
OK - I guess the “now” does imply a change on her part or a recent revelation on mine… what I meant to do was point out the tabloidesque manner she has taken on this recent tact.
Neil
April 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The photos of her w/ the boys are fake. The photo she got duped in to taking was supposed to be an art piece, but she and her parents got lied to and it got turned in to a vanity fair expose. Hardly an oversight by her ‘rents or herself. They got screwed. I’d give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
One has to wonder what’s the continuing obsession Ingrid has with Cyrus. Perhaps it’s her divine mission to be ‘right’ about this, at the expense and slander of a 15 YEAR OLD GIRL. LOL. Shennanigans.
Joe
April 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Heck, even Disney’s calling it a bunch of trickery on the mag’s part. Losers.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
You mightn think that Mrs. Schlueter was actually a puritan transported forward into today. Except she has the best of both worlds, the judgmentalism of a puritan with the vocal volume of today’s modern woman.
Joe - it is still my understanding that the photos with the boy was not fake. I believe her apology covered all the photos in question.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=311437>1=7703
My question: Is it another man’s wife’s Biblical mandate to correct any and all fathers she deems necessary? Doesn’t the Scriptures say that a wife should submit to her own husband?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Yes, I gree with should not slander or gossip about anybody.
Then why in this blog we have comments like this?
“#1. These are real photos of Mylie. However, according to the rumors about how these photos leaked, the rumor is that someone hacked into Mylie’s personal myspace page and stole these photos from her. If someone broke into Ingrid’s house and stole naughty pictures of her and put them on the Internet, Ingrid would be more then upset. If the rumors are true, then these photos were stolen. Is Ingrid showing support for breaking into people’s online accounts and stealing from them?”
“naughty photos Ingrid?
if only…
You are a sick puppy. Seek help now.”
“It’s so sad how she tries to make herself sound righteous even in the midst of being found to be a fraud. Just admit you made a mistake. Admit, you were over eager and you’re not the “reporter” you want to think you are. Apologies worked for Bill Clinton, they might work for you.”
Can this be considered slander and gossip? or does it only
apply to Ingrid?
Miley is a 15 year old Idolized by many youn teens, as a parent yes we need to take that reponsibility and teach our girls and boys.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
None of that is gossip or slander. Gossip is sharing news about someone that may or may not be true. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community.
No one said that Ingrid had inappropriate photos of herself. I often will try to put people in someone else’s shoes to make a point.
The comment “if only” might have been inappropriate. It was not gossip or slander.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
oscar - I reject any personal attacks on Mrs. Schlueter akin to the one you mentioned. It did not matter if the photos were of Miss Cyrus or not, but Mrs. Schlueter laid out the principle for research.
I trusted what I read on SOL and she said they were not of Miss Cyrus! :).
April 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
oscar,
If your daughter made the mistake of posing in her bra and panties on Myspace for her friends and it was hacked and posted on the Internet then picked up by someone who wanted only to shame her and then you, would you want people to do that regardless if she was a mega star or not?
Many of the “quotes” you posted were when the jury was still out on some of the pictures. Yet, again instead of seeing that no one really cares about a 15 year old girls stupid mistake, who now is trying to do damage control over it… who apologized… then still has not yet (as of this comment) received anything but judgment and condemnation from Ingrid.
Ingrid is fixated on this little girl. Why? There are real atrocities out there and Ingrid wants to be like the gossip papers and talk about a girl who showed her bra?
I wonder at the priorities sometimes of ODMs…
iggy
April 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
If we give numbers to each of the letters in M-i-l-e-y C-y-r-u-s do they add up to 666?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Iggy,
First my daughter wouldn’t do it 3 times in a row. Once would be enough for me as a parent to step in and correct.
this is the third time Miley has had pictures of her on the web. Not the first time.
You think as a parent of a 14 yearl old I shouldn’t care what she is doing?. When my 14 year old is beign bombarded with this sort of stuff.
have you wonder what the world thinks of this?
you might wanna read some comments.
http://www.tellinitlikeitis.net/2008/04/miley-cyrus-aka-hanna-montana-going-topless-for-vanity-fair.html
I am not even defending what ingrid wrote or did, but we sit here and swing personal attacks as well. Then we write that she shouldn’t swing personal attacks on ohers.
Which one is it? should we or shouldn’t we?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
oscar,
First off, as a father myself, I hope I raise my daughter to realize the dangers of putting photos of herself on the Internet clothed or not…
Secondly there is a huge difference what i am stating. If Ingrid is worried about the “church” and is out to warn others of dangers out there… yet offers no reconciliation on her part toward others, then I think the one to warn about is Ingrid. We are given the ministry of reconciliation… not judgement and condemnation.
I do not condemn Ingrid, I may judge her in that she sets a standard (her own) of holiness and projects that on others. If they do not tow her line then she attacks. That is sick. She needs help and prayer.
Again, if you daughter did something similar and your pastor saw it and then attacked her from the pulpit would you be upset? I would! Even if everything he said was right, his humiliation of her was wrong and unloving. Don’t you see that?
There are times and ways to call out sin. But I do not read anywhere to make someones sin public unless they have gone through all the proper steps. Ingrid and many other ODM’s overstep biblical mandates right and left with total disregard then claim they are the higher biblical banner holders. Again, it sounds like rule keepers to me who set their own rules and standards as if they were Gods and then mock anyone that makes a mistake or miss-speaks. I think Jesus spoke quite often about and against that sort of thing.
iggy
April 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Oscar is correct that we should always be careful to make sure we are addressing the shameful tactics of the ODM and not the person.
In this case Ingrid’s antics are shameful, but we should never delve to the level of personal jabs.
Neil
April 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Okay so check it out.
A. They guy she’s lying with is her dad, pretty sure.
B. the blanket picture is obvious an art piece. Painfully obvious. It’s being used in a way the family didn’t think it would be, and that’s regrettable.
C. I have an article from another reliable news source saying those pictures on myspace ain’t her, and her apology is that regardless of it not being her it hurts her image and fans. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_en_ce/people_miley_cyrus
D. Regardless, if you watch the video on the page Rick linked to, you can see she’s embarassed and is set on ‘changing her ways’ for the pictures that are of her, artsy or not, because of how they’ve been used. She’ll be more careful in the future I’ll bet.
Wow…took me…mmm…10 minutes to figure all that out. How hard can it be Ingrid? Cut the KID some slack.
Joe
April 28th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Ingrid apparently has not met the Great Ga-zoogle!
Great Ga-zoogle, can you help Ingrid stop slandering children in order to feel morally superior???
April 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
well, crap, apparently i can’t put an image in the post.
http://sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/03/greatgazoogle.jpg
April 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
lawl….you’re killin me Evan.