UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! - Page 16

Praxeas · #**151** 07-13-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The church would be able to define fornication, however it appears that even under his definition there were no facts to support his claims, thus truth was not used as a defense.

I think the fact that he deliberately defined it so widely and left the congregation to imagine the worst was a huge mistake.

Definitely. In fact had he just came out and said "she was guilty of being in a bikini with the husband of a mutual friend" many members would have said "but that doesn't mean they had sexual relations"

DAII · #**152** 07-13-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsMcD

The pastor was looking for an excuse so his daughter could biblical marry the ex husband.

You live/lived in Georgia .... right?

drummerboy_dave · #**153** 07-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Cindy, he didn't make the public statement until 3 months after the divorce was final. The daughter and husband were married another 4 months after that.

I'm sure his daughter being interested in the ex had everything to do with him making a public statement. I can imagine my father feeling the need to do the same thing, although hopefully with a bit more wisdom in regard to the details. Actually, I can see my Dad fumbling it even worse.

The implication here is that the marriage was conveniently helped to its dissolution so that the daughter and ex-husband could pursue their already formed romantic relationship. I don't feel that is a fair assessment.

It's very poor taste for anyone to suggest the "implication" you are stating. Doing so is speculative and gossipping. It certainly has no bearing on the case we are looking at, nor does her choice of swimwear.

The court found, while daddy was publicly justifying his daughter getting "romanticly involved" with a man who was 4 months prior, married to someone else, he just happened to publicly slander the former Mrs Driver.

An irony here is that she (the first wife) tried to make things right by seeking the apology, but daddy and his "supervisors" denied it happened. It's a good ruling in my eyes.

RandyWayne · #**154** 07-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think we'd all be in jail.

True, but then I have gotten in semi-arguments with others here already who felt that a true Christian can indeed live a perfect sinless life and in fact are required to do so.

BeenThinkin · #**155** 07-13-2010, 12:53 PM

I have a couple of questions. Maybe I should post on a different thread. But here goes.

When, in this day and time, (a litigious society) should a pastor expose someone before the congregation?

Even in this case, ..... Matthew 18:15* ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16* But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17* And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican..... it may be a stretch! May be out of context.

Does anyone on AFF suggest that public exposure is wise in this time in which we live? If, because of the time in which we live, we do not do what Matt 18 states are we guilty of violation of scripture?

Also, where does the pastor determine scripturally that all nine things listed constitute fornication?

Just wondering....

Been Thinkin

Cindy · #**156** 07-13-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

True, but then I have gotten in semi-arguments with others here already who felt that a true Christian can indeed live a perfect sinless life and in fact are required to do so.

I have said before, I have enough problems trying to keep my heart right. I sure can't speak about someone else.

Cindy · #**157** 07-13-2010, 12:54 PM

In the words of Jesus. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

jfrog · #**158** 07-13-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

It's very poor taste for anyone to suggest the "implication" you are stating. Doing so is speculative and gossipping. It certainly has no bearing on the case we are looking at, nor does her choice of swimwear.

The court found, while daddy was publicly justifying his daughter getting "romanticly involved" with a man who was 4 months prior, married to someone else, he just happened to publicly slander the former Mrs Driver.

An irony here is that she (the first wife) tried to make things right by seeking the apology, but daddy and his "supervisors" denied it happened. It's a good ruling in my eyes.

?what implication?

Baron1710 · #**159** 07-13-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

I have a couple of questions. Maybe I should post on a different thread. But here goes.

When, in this day and time, (a litigious society) should a pastor expose someone before the congregation?

Even in this case, ..... Matthew 18:15* ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16* But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17* And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican..... it may be a stretch! May be out of context.

Does anyone on AFF suggest that public exposure is wise in this time in which we live? If, because of the time in which we live, we do not do what Matt 18 states are we guilty of violation of scripture?

Also, where does the pastor determine scripturally that all nine things listed constitute fornication?

Just wondering....

Been Thinkin

Truth is a always a defense. If the facts are accurate, no fear.

Now I don't know that there are a lot of situations where one should go before the church but I can see where it could happen.

jfrog · #**160** 07-13-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Truth is a always a defense. If the facts are accurate, no fear.

Now I don't know that there are a lot of situations where one should go before the church but I can see where it could happen.

If you had the facts wrong and later publicly apologized when you realized that, could you still be sued for slander?