UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[MrMasterMind]

So she is guilty of fornication because she was seen by a pool with a married man, while wearing a bikini.

I suppose if it were another woman instead that would have made her a lesbian?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

So she is guilty of fornication because she was seen by a pool with a married man, while wearing a bikini.

I suppose if it were another woman instead that would have made her a lesbian?

You jest and yet I have heard this argument used ...

The Book has a name for those that peek into the heart and mind ...

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

So she is guilty of fornication because she was seen by a pool with a married man, while wearing a bikini.

I suppose if it were another woman instead that would have made her a lesbian?

That's very astute of you.

[Michlow]

I confess, I only read 54 of the 80 pages of this thread before I literally couldn't take anymore. To be honest, it's been fascinating reading. I can't imagine people being so mortified at the thought of a woman wearing a bikini in public. I know once upon a time I probably would have been one of them...which is even more amazing to me.

[OilCityCajun]

Actually, I wouldnt say I am mortified...It's a sign of the times. But as a technical point, this wasnt in public. This was in the privacy of the friend's home. 1 Married woman and 1 married man...married to someone else...apparently with neither spouse nor any other 3rd party present. Adultery? Absolutely not, but surely you wouldn't argue that there was absolutely nothing improper about it. Would you be poolside in a bikini with a married man when no one else is present?

Bear in mind, this in no way excuses the pastor. As I see it, he is equally sinful for justifying an unscriptural divorce as the woman in the bikini.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I predict you will get pm's from earnst-while UPC preachers to advise you not to post on AFF or it may affect your licensing.

It may, and I have considered this. But I dont see how it would, considering the fact that I am standing up for UPC edict against deliberate misinterpretation. What will definately present a much larger problem is the fact that I am divorced. But in my case she was in her third trimester before she filed for divorce {EDIT} and of course the child isnt mine {/EDIT}, and I havent remarried, so I should be in the clear on that point.

And yet, if it does present a problem for the UPC, apparently it doesnt present a problem for God, as the call and annointing of God on my life to preach His word is as strong as ever.

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

Actually, I wouldnt say I am mortified...It's a sign of the times. But as a technical point, this wasnt in public. This was in the privacy of the friend's home. 1 Married woman and 1 married man...married to someone else...apparently with neither spouse nor any other 3rd party present. Adultery? Absolutely not, but surely you wouldn't argue that there was absolutely nothing improper about it. Would you be poolside with a married man when no one else is present?

You didn't quote me, but I am guessing this is in response to my post. Was it ever proven that there was no one else there? (I only read the first 55 pages of this thread) Or is it still conjecture?

I have no problem with men and women being friends or being alone together, marital status not withstanding. HOWEVER, I would say that one of the obvious problems with it is this very thing, everyone wonders about it.

I for the record, am still (even after losing 90 pounds) about 30 pounds too fat to get away with wearing a bikini. In addition I have already been "unbiblically" divorced. Thirdly, I don't believe my atheist boyfriend would find wearing a bikini to be scandalously immodest. So I'm not really sure my opinion of whether or not it was improper is worth anything.

For what it is worth; If I was married, or say my boyfriend did take issue with me having male friends, OR if said male friends were married and their wives took issue with it, I would arrange my behavior accordingly. (Out of love for my friends/boyfriend)

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by Michlow

You didn't quote me, but I am guessing this is in response to my post.

Correct

Originally Posted by Michlow

Was it ever proven that there was no one else there? (I only read the first 55 pages of this thread) Or is it still conjecture?

It is still conjecture, which is why I use phrases such as "from the details in the story" and "apparently".

Originally Posted by Michlow

I have no problem with men and women being friends or being alone together, marital status not withstanding. HOWEVER, I would say that one of the obvious problems with it is this very thing, everyone wonders about it.

Fair enough. From a UPC minister's point of view, that is exactly what makes 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (King James Version) applicable, and therefore the woman's actions inappropriate. However, I emphatically reiterate that the pastor was equally wrong, secularly and theologically, in stretching the definition of adultery to excuse the divorce and subsequent relationship.

Originally Posted by Michlow

I for the record, am still ...In addition I have...Thirdly, I don't believe...

So noted.

Originally Posted by Michlow

...So I'm not really sure my opinion of whether or not it was improper is worth anything.

Certainly it is! Your opinion is just as valid as mine or that of anyone else on this forum.

Originally Posted by Michlow

For what it is worth; If I was married, or say my boyfriend did take issue with me having male friends, OR if said male friends were married and their wives took issue with it, I would arrange my behavior accordingly. (Out of love for my friends/boyfriend)

So you agree, at least in part, that the woman was at fault. Seeing how, knowing full well the standards of the church and her husband's level of commitment to those teachings, she knew he would take offense and did it anyway. So from your perspective, what the pastor did would be far less egregious than from our perspective. Which begs the question: How do you feel about what the pastor did? Was it ok? Was it wrong only because it maligned the woman? Was it wrong only because it misrepresented UPC teachings? Was it wrong for both reasons? Was it wrong for reasons which have not yet been adequately presented?

[ForeverBlessed]

Originally Posted by Michlow

I confess, I only read 54 of the 80 pages of this thread before I literally couldn't take anymore. To be honest, it's been fascinating reading. I can't imagine people being so mortified at the thought of a woman wearing a bikini in public. I know once upon a time I probably would have been one of them...which is even more amazing to me.

I'm with you on that one... they just have not a clue do they? I'm not and never have been built for one, but know plenty of moral, married and single women who are built nice, and do wear them.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

I'm with you on that one... they just have not a clue do they? I'm not and never have been built for one, but know plenty of moral, married and single women who are built nice, and do wear them.

But do they wear them in public - mixed company ? If so, I'm sorry, but I personally don't think that is "modest".

I don't think wearing them in mixed company means they are (or necessarily will) commit adultery or fornication - but I don't believe it is "modest".

JMHO

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

But do they wear them in public - mixed company ? If so, I'm sorry, but I personally don't think that is "modest".

I don't think wearing them in mixed company means they are (or necessarily will) commit adultery or fornication - but I don't believe it is "modest".

JMHO