UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[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.