(( Would You File Charges on this Holiness Cop? )) - Page 15

Kim Komando · #**141** 07-15-2009, 05:25 PM

I understand that the district board has called in this minister about his forum posts. I am tempted to shoot them an email.

rgcraig · #**142** 07-15-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

I understand that the district board has called in this minister about his forum posts. I am tempted to shoot them an email.

This is good to hear!

tv1a · #**143** 07-15-2009, 09:34 PM

Everyone who is that obsessed with wardrobe has a lust of the eye problem.

Most of those guys are a breath away from being a full blown pervert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moniker

Aren't these the same guys that posted a picture of Stephanie Suber so that they could inspect her body to determine how unholy she was?

tv1a · #**144** 07-15-2009, 09:36 PM

The guy's a (edited). He just disguises it concern.
If that guy ever done that to my wife or my daughters, his family would have a difficult time identifying the body, if they could find it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moniker

You keep bringing up the words private forum and private discussion as if those are valid excuses to take such pictures and post them for leering, perverted eyes to see. Sounds like your private forum is more of a gentlemen's club.

What possesses a man to take the pics, and what possesses him to share them? Motivation is the key here.

There is no valid reason to do either, and that is why I sincerely believe the man is just (edited). If he is licensed, he should be censured.

Scott Hutchinson · #**145** 07-15-2009, 09:41 PM

Can I ask a question what would someone taking pictures like this have to do with Holiness ?
It seems taking pictures like this would be unholy behaviour.

ChipsnDip · #**146** 07-16-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Predicador

I know the minister in question and like Stephanas decry the unwarranted scurrilous attacks , innuendo, and character assignation of this brother.

How is it a posted obscenity if it was what these women wore to campmeeting? This photos were not close-ups or zoom ins, and deliberately had no face shots. This was to keep it from being a personal issue and sticking to the issue at hand. Namely the infiltration of immodesty into our ranks. In the name of relevancy all standards of modesty are being destroyed and mocked. This entire thread merely proves that point.

Bobbed hair, slit skirts, what is next, let’s just wear miniskirts and go braless because the world does? If we cover our bodies they won’t like us and we can’t lead them to Jesus?

Also sick of this being a supposed gender bais. It is the women pushing the envelope at campmeeting. There was no discussion of the men showing up in shorts or sleeveless was there? The biggest crime is men no longer having authority in their own home and are letting these women run over them.

But, back to the issue. SH is a man of God, and a prophet, it is his obligation to point out sin when it runs rampant and no one else is speaking out. Where is the outrage against the district leaders who have allowed this at their district? Why are they trying to cover it up? And it IS relevant that this was done at a campmeeting instead of just going out to a fast food restaurant. When did it become the norm to dress down for church?

For those of you disgusted by these actions against the the people and district leaders of the Western District, please contact these district leaders at these email addresses to express your outrage:

(edited by admin)

Baron1710 · #**147** 07-16-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Predicador

There is a time and season to everything, by your logic a prosecutor could not prosecute pornography because he could not look at it because it is illegal per se. Fallacious reasoning.

Once again time, place and circumstance: A private forum, for preachers, to discuss whether something should be constituted immodest.

You also apparently may have trouble distinguishing between immodest and either obscene or depraved immorality.

If your mythical prosecutor published the child pornography for other attorneys to see and comment on, he would become the prosecuted. Your analogy is lame.

GraceAmazing · #**148** 07-16-2009, 06:50 AM

Hmmm, this thread has me shaking my head in deep confusion.

With that being said, taking pictures at a campmeeting of women in slits is strange, but not against any laws I don't think. For that person to post them on a private ministerial forum is weird and it makes you wonder what the REAL heart of the problem is, but I'm not sure it's illegal. Strange? Yes! Wrong? Not sure, but don't think so.

The real problem is much deeper folks and nothing we say or do on here is gonna help that.

Admin · #**149** 07-16-2009, 07:16 AM

No matter your opinion, please refrain from calling this pastor specific names.

n david · #**150** 07-16-2009, 08:21 AM

*insert heavy sarcasm*

I'm really glad someone is spending a lot of time taking pics of the backsides of unsuspecting females and detailing the evil these slits present ... I mean, this is really THE most pressing matter for the organization today. Forget about salvation ... bleh, that's so 2008 ... the real gospel is guarding against slits in church.

So a big thumbs up

for this defender against the slits! You are a real UPCI hero!