UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! - Page 89

Cindy · #**881** 07-15-2010, 07:07 PM

This thread should have a subtitle. The Bikini Thread.

Pressing-On · #**882** 07-15-2010, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Totally possible she could be a contributing factor, but, fact is, they may very well have done the same if she were in a burka.

You would be correct and I agree. It is a heart issue for the man. However, the woman has the responsibility to dress as a woman professing godliness. That is Bible. There is no way around that one for any woman.

And as I said, if a woman is not wanting to agree to participate in a church that teaches a stricter dress standard, I would hope she would remain modestly dressed. This doesn't appear to be the case. Therefore, I am wondering what else was said at the meeting and am not prepared to think this pastor, solely, wanted to give his daughter a pass to marry a divorced man.

There is no way I can think she was lining up with the Word of God in her life or in her marriage. Apparently not, they are divorced.

So, while I still say it looks bad all around, I refuse to point at ONLY the pastor until I know ALL of the solid facts. A court case siding with her, is not going to do it for me.

However, I will say, not excusing the woman, but if that was the pastor's intent, he needs to pay up and dearly!

Pressing-On · #**883** 07-15-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

This thread should have a subtitle. The Bikini Thread.

The Olive Oyl Thread!!

Pressing-On · #**884** 07-15-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

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

pelathais · #**885** 07-15-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

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

Has anyone established that this was actually a bona fide "bikini" and not some other sort of swim wear? Given the exaggeration in the "charges" that were made from the pulpit I don't readily accept that it was a "bikini" out of hand.

And the other innuendo: "With the husband of a mutual friend..." The whole account lacks the specifics of a real allegation, and the "damning" portions are vague. It has all the markers of something that was either made up or hyped up.

Either way, it in no way justifies the pulpit behavior that followed.

*AQuietPlace* · #**886** 07-15-2010, 07:49 PM

Would she have been guilty of "fornication" if she had been wearing a one-piece?

pelathais · #**887** 07-15-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Would she have been guilty of "fornication" if she had been wearing a one-piece?

Or would it have been a lesser "charge" still, if it had one of those frilly "skirts" hemmed around it?

What if, at the same time, she was wearing a snorkel, mask and swim fins? Would that still be "adultery, child molestation and bestiality?"

DAII · #**888** 07-15-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Has anyone established that this was actually a bona fide "bikini" and not some other sort of swim wear? Given the exaggeration in the "charges" that were made from the pulpit I don't readily accept that it was a "bikini" out of hand.

And the other innuendo: "With the husband of a mutual friend..." The whole account lacks the specifics of a real allegation, and the "damning" portions are vague. It has all the markers of something that was either made up or hyped up.

Either way, it in no way justifies the pulpit behavior that followed.

Yep. Not one shred of evidence to this even happening yet those who claim to be conservative would liberally malign a woman who did not by any account ... including from her ex-husband or former pastor even approach the suspicion of having committed immorality ...

Mind boggling.

DAII · #**889** 07-15-2010, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Would she have been guilty of "fornication" if she had been wearing a one-piece?

I believe so. When one is fishing to justify ... anything will do.

drummerboy_dave · #**890** 07-15-2010, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

....

Some, including me, consider immodesty immoral and have scriptural support in that view. Some, including me, consider bikinis immodestly revealing except when in private alone or with a spouse. Therefore, wearing a bikini in the presence of a man not her husband = immodest = immoral.

And yet, I agree that immodest does not=fornication, and thus is not grounds for divorce. I also agree that apparently (There's that word again! I love it!) Pastor Fogarty was making excuses for what, from a biblical perspective, is an unacceptable relationship and subsequent marriage. In fact, from a biblical perspective, it would appear that Mr and Mrs Rider are living in adultery, because there were no biblical grounds (that we know of) for him to divorce the first Mrs. Rider and in God's eyes, He and the first Mrs Rider are still one flesh. And Pastor Fogarty condones this!

....

Cajun, those are some most excellent points! How people can not see this, is beyond me.

Well, I have some ideas....