UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Cindy

This thread should have a subtitle. The Bikini Thread.

Exactly. Except without any pictures.

And honestly I don't know why (OK, I kinda do). The whole premise of the thread is a pastor who got himself in hot water by proclaiming someone a harlot (and 7 or 8 other things by inference) when his only "proof" was a statement by the ex about appearing in mixed company wearing the..... infamous bikini (wonder if he or she saved it for the DNA evidence?). And the fact that she wouldn't SUB-mittttt <spit>.

And yes, had I been on that jury and heard him spitting SUB-mittttt out, it would probably put me over the top in her favor.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Exactly. Except without any pictures.

And honestly I don't know why (OK, I kinda do). The whole premise of the thread is a pastor who got himself in hot water by proclaiming someone a harlot (and 7 or 8 other things by inference) when his only "proof" was a statement by the ex about appearing in mixed company wearing the..... infamous bikini (wonder if he or she saved it for the DNA evidence?). And the fact that she wouldn't SUB-mittttt <spit>.

And yes, had I been on that jury and heard him spitting SUB-mittttt out, it would probably put me over the top in her favor.

I'm not convinced that her being in a bikini with a married man was the pastors original reason for telling his congregation that he knew she committed fornication. It may have simply been the only thing he could prove that she actually did in court.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm not convinced that her being in a bikini with a married man was the pastors original reason for telling his congregation that he knew she committed fornication. It may have simply been the only thing he could prove that she actually did in court.

Maybe. Maybe not. But the statements he did make really make it appear he is grasping at straws in order to justify the other romance/marriage.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Maybe. Maybe not. But the statements he did make really make it appear he is grasping at straws in order to justify the other romance/marriage.

Or grasping at straws so he wouldn't have to pay out 500,000 dollars

His intent in saying that woman committed adultery might have been because he actually believed deep down inside that she did commit adultery in the traditional sense. Of course the woman denied it and when push came to shove the best he could do is show that she was at a pool in a bikini and then call it exhibitionism and try to say thats what he was claiming she had done.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

His intent in saying that woman committed adultery might have been because he actually believed deep down inside that she did commit adultery in the traditional sense.

This is what I am speculating as well. The only thing is, it would not, could not and did not stand up in a secular court of law.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This is what I am speculating as well. The only thing is, it would not, could not and did not stand up in a secular court of law.

Do you agree that if the pastor really thought she did commit adultery that it is a far cry from saying that she actually did anything wrong in relation to her marriage?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Do you agree that if the pastor really thought she did commit adultery that it is a far cry from saying that she actually did anything wrong in relation to her marriage?

I honestly think that, because he is a strict standards teacher, he felt her behavior was "intent" to commit adultery, which to him is adultery. He might have felt she was doing that, but couldn't prove it and thinking he couldn't conceive how she wouldn't be, dressed in that way. If he is very strict on standards, he would view that as promiscuous behavior and extremely suspect.

It's just that he could take a Biblical stance against that in his church, but it would never hold up in a secular court of law, which it didn't.

Did you see one of my posts on Adam Clark's definition of "fornication"? He said that fornication is connected with adultery and means "illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also." Illicit is defined as "contrary to accepted morality".

So, I am wondering if we are trying to define fornication as only the actual act. Adam Clark seems to think it also includes anything that is "contrary to accepted morality."

What do you think about that?