UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How do you know that? Didn't someone say SHE filed for divorce? It's just as much speculation to say what you think he was thinking and doing as it is to say we think we know what she was about.

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. And it's even worse if we apply sinful reasons for Angela being in a bikini in mixed company. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. And it's even worse if we apply sinful reasons for Angela being in a bikini in mixed company. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

The idea that a marriage can survive when each partner exposes themselves to members of the opposite sex, at will, is new to me. You are totally disregarding his feelings.

I thought that interaction was to be saved for the marriage bed. Silly me. I'm such a prude.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Charnock

The idea that a marriage can survive when each partner exposes themselves to members of the opposite sex, at will, is new to me. You are totally disregarding his feelings.

I thought that interaction was to be saved for the marriage bed. Silly me. I'm such a prude.

What if it happened like this:

Let me give you an example. Angela went to visit a mutual friend of her and her husband's. A coworker of both of them. It was hot on that Georgia day and her friend gave Angela a swimsuit so they could both go in the pool to cool off. Her friend isn't an Apostolic. Angela didn't see anything wrong with wearing her friends bathing suit and taking a dip in the pool. After they were done swimming, they laid out on the lawn chairs in the sun. Angela's husband called on her phone. He knew where Angela was. Angela got hot again while lying in the sun and went for another swim. About that time Angela's friend's husband came home while Angela was in the pool. He had just gotten off from working outside all day and all he had thought about was jumping in the pool as soon as he got home.His wife, Angela's friend, went into the house about that time to take a cake out of the oven. The man didn't care that Angela was in his pool and his wife was in the kitchen, he took off his shirt and jumped in the pool. When he jumped in the pool, he splashed Angela and they both were laughing about it. At that moment , Angela's husband came by and saw Angela and the other man in the pool.

This is called context and I'm being charitable because I would want the same charity given to me in a like situation.

Let's add a little more speculative context. James and Angela's marriage was shaky at that time as well but it had nothing to do with Angela desiring to be with another man. They were both in different places in the Lord. Angela was asking the same questions Mirth is. And like Mirth's husband, James was not happy with her new ideas about holiness standards. Would this type of info change what we think of Angela and her decision to wear her friend's bikini?

James Driver was looking for biblical cause to remarry. He used this cause (he found his wife wearing a bikini in mixed company). In my opinion it is a trumped up charge of fornication. This is all we have to go by. We don't have any other testimony of the event. Nor do we have both sides of the event. And we shouldn't automatically think the worst of Angela just because James is still in the same church and married to the pastor's daughter.

And, Charnock, what would you think of Joseph if you only had Potiphar's wife's testimony?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Charnock

The idea that a marriage can survive when each partner exposes themselves to members of the opposite sex, at will, is new to me. You are totally disregarding his feelings.

I thought that interaction was to be saved for the marriage bed. Silly me. I'm such a prude.

Charnock..... GET A GRIP !!!!!! I'm pretty conservative and I would never wear a bikini in front of anyone except my husband.......

HOWEVER, I have to respond to your repeated remarks regarding this being a reason for divorce

Marriages CAN and DO survive infidelity ! I personally know of at least two - one of them lasting "till death do us part" (well over 25 years after the fact and it wasn't a one-night fling) .... Marriages can become stronger and yes, this person told me that TRUST WAS RESTORED !!!!!!

Like Bratti said.... have you never read the book of Hosea ?

Do you not believe that God is the healer of ALL diseases - even emotional hurts and ailments ????

It takes a REAL commitment to one another and to God to make it happen, but it can ! MY GOD IS BIG ENOUGH !!!!!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you think I'm being unfair and uncharitable to him? Wearing a bikini in mixed company is not fornication. If he thought it was cause for divorce then why didn't he file?

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:

“The statements were made and calculated to harm the plaintiff and to justify defendant’s daughter’s relationship with James Driver, who was previously divorced from plaintiff, and to obtain the church congregation’s approval of the relationship between James Driver and Reverend Fogarty’s daughter,” the lawsuit stated.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tfzQCOSj

Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.

From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:

“We do not believe that the verdict is supported by the law or the facts, and in particular the law concerning the separation of church and state. We are considering with our client the various post-trial and appeal options that are available and think that further comment at this point would not be appropriate.”

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tg0KZpKb

Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:




Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

First, I would point out that her as the Plaintiff in the case in many jurisdictions is not absolute proof that she was the one wanting the divorce. An example from DC is that if a couple were filing for an uncontested divorce and she was the party filing out the paperwork they would tell her to list herself as the Plaintiff. He would file an uncontested Answer as the defendant.

She asked for very little in damages, I think she was at about $300 when the complaint was filed. If she was seeing a counselor and distressed about what was said this could qualify. Let me tell you beyond a shadow of doubt, that someone that has been through this would have very serious emotional stress, and it would not be uncommon to see a doctor for anxiety in a situation like this.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:



Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.
From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:



Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

I never said or implied that the lawsuit was an "in your face" to the church. I said her wearing a bikini was.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that you are assessing the situation for him and not allowing me the same privilege of assessing her. Neither of us know one thing about either of them. That's all I'm saying, but we both appear to be emphatic on what we believe about it. LOL!

I'm saying that my husband told me that if he saw me in a bikini with another man at a poolside, he would feel I was committing adultery. I asked him that question yesterday and he answered in the affirmative. That doesn't mean he would divorce me over that incident. It doesn't mean that James wanted to divorce her that day. It just means that he is bringing up a point of contention in their marriage that shows she can be an unstable and unfaithful person. He viewed her actions as fornication because he believes in holiness standards and she crossed the line, in his view.

Fornication is, according to Adam Clark - - Adultery - Μοιχεια· Illicit connection with a married person. This word is wanting in this place in the best MSS., versions, and fathers; the next term often comprehending both.
Fornication - Πορνεια· Illicit connection between single or unmarried persons; yet often signifying adultery also.

Illicit means: contrary to accepted morality (especially sexual morality) or convention. Convention meaning something regarded as a normative example.

It could cover a plethora of things, "intent" being one of them. Her behavior in a bikini and being "with" a man who was not her husband is "contrary to accepted morality". The pastor could have used that, I think.

Now, we have heard that SHE filed for divorce and Danny mentioned she was 7 years older. There just seems to be some other things, we don't know, that we would have to factor into this situation.

I am just saying that it doesn't appear to come up clean for her.

There is also the statement that she made, which is cited in the news article:



Only a Pentecostal person would know to say something like that, IMO. And, so, I am leaning toward jfrog saying that the lawsuit may be an "in your face" to the church.

From a secular view, she had a great case. The church has it's beliefs that a secular court could never uphold. That is why the Bible admonishes us to not take our matters to a secular court.

I would like to also point out, again, the information about her at the poolside and that she has filed for divorce. Although, at this point, we do not have the cause. It could just say "irreconcilable differences " which would get us nowhere, BUT the case filed, from the pastor's point of view and general characterization of Angela causes his lawyer to say:



Baron could elaborate on that further.

I also noted in the case filed that she is seeking damages for having been under duress and needing medical attention. I rolled my eyes on that one. Typical, IMO.

I also noted that there was mention of other things said on the tape and over the pulpit which we do not get to read or hear. Just a couple of snippets - the worst snippets. I would want to hear or read all the comments.

This is my overview, which I didn't take the time to put out yesterday. It was true when I told Stephen I had not read the article. I had, in fact, skimmed over the highlights, and felt I got the gist of what was going on. Even after reading it thoroughly and every link listed at Spiritual Abuse, I come away with the same opinion - no one is innocent in this case - neither pastor, ex-husband nor the ex-wife.

You're correct. We don't have the whole context and dynamics of the situation. So let's give Angela the benefit of the doubt and say that neither flirting nor fornication was in her heart when her husband found her in a bikini in mixed company. The thing I cannot agree with is equating wearing a bikini with fornication unless we know the context and the intents of the heart, which we don't.

[DAII]

PO, get help.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

PO, get help.

What do you want me to correct? That I think the pastor is the only one in the wrong?