Quote:
Originally Posted by OilCityCajun
I thought the article mentioned the pool was at the home of the mutual friend. After re-reading the article, you are correct. It isnt specified.
True, but in every post which I address this aspect of the story, I use the phrase "apparently" or something to the affect, therefore admitting it is speculation.
That's what makes discussion interesting. How long would a discussion last if the only response were 121 versions of "Yeah. That's right. Me too."?
I hope you havent included me in this "some". I mention my position on her actions, but I try to make it clear that I am more focused on the pastor's actions.
Speculation? Yes. Wild? I don't think I've made any rediculous leaps with my conclusions. I think each assumption I admittedly make is reasonable to make with the facts presented. I also thought I made it clear my opinion is subject to change if more facts were forthcoming.
And yet, all of the above circumvents my main reason for posting. My main point is the fact that the unanimous agreement that the pastor was wrong in his actions isn't exactly what one would expect from those of us who are portrayed as brainwashed and cultish for being affiliated with the UPCI. Perhaps those here who scorn the UPC and all it's loyal members need to re-evaluate the size of their brush.
Actually that possibility has been mentioned, and fairly early in the thread. Where have you been?
|
First let me address the speculation on the speed of the pastor's daughters engagement and wedding to the divorced man. At first I thought the speed of these events made the more probable scenario be that they grew close before the mans actual divorce. I no longer believe that scenario is more probable. It too was just wild speculation (by wild speculation I mean acknowledging any speculated scenario which casts a person in a bad light as being more probable without even having a basis for why that scenario is more probable) and I am guilty of it. For that I apologize.
Apparently is not a good word to denote speculation. It is a word that is often associated with things which are readily seen, visible, easily understood, plain, clear, obvious. In fact, it was along these very lines that I understood your use of the word: "apparently (according to the facts we know, she was clearly, plainly and obviously there) with neither spouse nor any third party present."
The article doesn't give us enough evidence to make it apparent that she was alone though. So, there was nothing apparent about what you were saying happened, it was just speculation and since your speculated scenario had no basis for being any more probable than any other scenario then it was apparently wild speculation. So yes, I have included you in that "some" that are trying to turn this back onto the woman with wild speculation.
As for your main point I disagree. The unanamious agreement that a leader did wrong who is far away and distant and most of us have never met only shows that we lack any personal connections to that leader. Further, if we look beyond the surface, some have tried to defend him by wildly speculating that the woman involved in this case must somehow be partly to blame. By making her appear bad then anything that he did wrong doesn't seem quite as bad... and this is coming from people not personally connected to him. Can you imagine the kinds of things that came from the people he pastors? So, I'm not sure this case is such a good one to use as proof positive that the UPCI is not "cultish". (DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT SAY I BELIEVE THE UPCI IS CULTISH. THOUGH THERE ARE SOME CHURCHES IN IT THAT I'M SURE ARE).
Threaded Mode
