UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! - Page 94

RandyWayne · #**931** 07-15-2010, 10:11 PM

Quote:

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 · #**932** 07-15-2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

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.

drummerboy_dave · #**933** 07-15-2010, 11:00 PM

If only we had such a concerted effort for the definition if "is" back in the 90's.

Pressing-On · #**934** 07-15-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

If only we had such a concerted effort for the definition if "is" back in the 90's.

Pressing-On · #**935** 07-15-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

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 · #**936** 07-15-2010, 11:23 PM

Quote:

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 · #**937** 07-15-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

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?

pelathais · #**938** 07-15-2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Cajun, yes, you are typing very clearly.

I'm still amazed at the number of folks who just want to endlessly hammer on a young lady for her choice of swimwear, while giving a complete pass to the bishop of the house, the man who is supposed to be blameless. I mean, really! Is "two wrongs don't make a right" still in effect?

An excerpt of something you wrote yesterday in this thread, which I think, shows impecible wisdom (probably because I share your view).

1)The pastor violated the law
2)The pastor did not bridle his tongue
3)The pastor did not excercise wisdom or sound judgement
4)The pastor deliberately stretched the definition of aldultry in order to justify a divorce and subsequent relationship which violate the Bible and UPCI edict.
5)On any one point above, one would be within ones right to question whether this pastor is indeed, at this time, following Christ and therefore is to be followed
6)With all 4 points above being true, it is, in my opinion, the duty of all involved to question this man's qualifications to remain a pastor. If the board wont question it, then each individual member must decide if they wish, by remaining a member, to be implicitly agreeing with these practices.

Few, would dare admit these truths.

One part of the problem with your list of "truths" is that they are not entirely "true."

The woman in question brought the divorce proceeding and thus made the husband a "victim" of divorce. The UPC Manual very clearly delineates the propriety of such a "victim" of divorce to remarry while then asking that ministers in such a position not remarry.

The man was not a minister so he was free to remarry "only in the Lord" according to the UPCI Manual. There was simply no need for the pastor to do what he did. He could have simply read from the Manual if he wanted to "back up" the 'rights' of his daughter to date and later marry this guy.

mizpeh · #**939** 07-16-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

One part of the problem with your list of "truths" is that they are not entirely "true."

The woman in question brought the divorce proceeding and thus made the husband a "victim" of divorce. The UPC Manual very clearly delineates the propriety of such a "victim" of divorce to remarry while then asking that ministers in such a position not remarry.

The man was not a minister so he was free to remarry "only in the Lord" according to the UPCI Manual. There was simply no need for the pastor to do what he did. He could have simply read from the Manual if he wanted to "back up" the 'rights' of his daughter to date and later marry this guy.

And how does the manual line up with the Bible on this instance? ...if the unbelieving depart, let him depart, the brother wouldn't be under bondage in such a case?

Pressing-On · #**940** 07-16-2010, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

One part of the problem with your list of "truths" is that they are not entirely "true."

The woman in question brought the divorce proceeding and thus made the husband a "victim" of divorce. The UPC Manual very clearly delineates the propriety of such a "victim" of divorce to remarry while then asking that ministers in such a position not remarry.

The man was not a minister so he was free to remarry "only in the Lord" according to the UPCI Manual. There was simply no need for the pastor to do what he did. He could have simply read from the Manual if he wanted to "back up" the 'rights' of his daughter to date and later marry this guy.

Good point, Pel. At the end of the discussion, we would have to accept, at this point, whatever the court settled on. Nothing could be proved against her.