UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[missourimary]

People, there is a photo of me in a bikini, in a swimming pool. A man took the picture. But I was NOT in fornication. I was two years old!!!!

I spent a lot of time in the water growing up. There was no fornication. I have swum recently in mixed company. In a swimming suit. No fornication. No one that saw me thought I was a bad person for jumping in the pool. There are a wide variety of opinions, even within UPC, on what is acceptable and what is not at the pool. Some churches are ok with family (brothers, sisters, cousins) swimming together. Others frown on even getting wet, pool or no pool, and no matter how well dressed. Some want women to wear skirts when they swim, and others think a swimming suit is fine.

What we are discussing is a bunch of guesses and assumptions. NOT facts. And our little dose of entertainment for the day is hurting innocent people-the plaintiff, the defendant, the ex and his new wife, any children involved, the entire membership of a church, and their friends, to name a few.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things. Phil 4:8

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:

“The statements were made and calculated to harm the plaintiff and to justify defendant’s daughter’s relationship with James Driver, who was previously divorced from plaintiff, and to obtain the church congregation’s approval of the relationship between James Driver and Reverend Fogarty’s daughter,” the lawsuit stated.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tfzQCOSj

Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.

From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:

“We do not believe that the verdict is supported by the law or the facts, and in particular the law concerning the separation of church and state. We are considering with our client the various post-trial and appeal options that are available and think that further comment at this point would not be appropriate.”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tg0KZpKb

Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Color me unmoved.

If someone was really worried about stopping gossip, I highly doubt they would publish their entire story on an internet website such as www.spiritualabuse.org.

Thank you!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Pressing, you've already said too much. I have an honest request.

I may be too much of a bleeding heart on this, but I must ask and am trying to do so respectfully, that you walk away from this thread. Your argument is extremely weak, complete speculation based on your own notions and totally irrelevent; not to mention you hadn't even read the case you are being recklessly insensitive to the parties involved. If you must continue, will you please take it to PM. I'm aware of how to use the ignore feature, and would do so, but I'm not asking this for myself.

Please, let's reign in some of our recklessness and show some respect to our brothers and sisters and the world who are reading what we type.

Put me on ignore then. Everyone else is voicing their opinion and I am doing the same. And, BTW, go back to the first page. I'm not discussing anything that no one else has touched.

[DAII]

HOUSTON 2010 ... DON'T MISS IT!!!!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:




Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

First, I would point out that her as the Plaintiff in the case in many jurisdictions is not absolute proof that she was the one wanting the divorce. An example from DC is that if a couple were filing for an uncontested divorce and she was the party filing out the paperwork they would tell her to list herself as the Plaintiff. He would file an uncontested Answer as the defendant.

She asked for very little in damages, I think she was at about $300 when the complaint was filed. If she was seeing a counselor and distressed about what was said this could qualify. Let me tell you beyond a shadow of doubt, that someone that has been through this would have very serious emotional stress, and it would not be uncommon to see a doctor for anxiety in a situation like this.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:



Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.
From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:



Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

I never said or implied that the lawsuit was an "in your face" to the church. I said her wearing a bikini was.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by DAII

HOUSTON 2010 ... DON'T MISS IT!!!!

Funny!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

First, I would point out that here as the Plaintiff in the case in many jurisdictions is not absolute proof that she was the one wanting the divorce. An example from DC is that if a couple were filing for an uncontested divorce and she was the party filing out the paperwork they would tell her to list herself as the Plaintiff. He would file an uncontested Answer as the defendant.

Thanks for this explanation.

She asked for very little in damages, I think she was at about $300 when the complaint was filed. If she was seeing a counselor and distressed about what was said this could qualify. Let me tell you beyond a shadow of doubt, that someone that has been through this would have very serious emotional stress, and it would not be uncommon to see a doctor for anxiety in a situation like this.

That could be quite true, but I see it a lot and my first inclination is to be suspect.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:



Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.

From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:



Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

You're correct. We don't have the whole context and dynamics of the situation. So let's give Angela the benefit of the doubt and say that neither flirting nor fornication was in her heart when her husband found her in a bikini in mixed company. The thing I cannot agree with is equating wearing a bikini with fornication unless we know the context and the intents of the heart, which we don't.