Apostolic Friends Forum - UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30783)

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave (Post 940857)

Pel, I know it's extremely long, but how much of this thread have you really read? All the crying over the "bikini" came from others, not me. The jury didn't seem to care about the "bikini" and it's a total non-issue for me. The cajun's post states how he can seperate his personal feelings about "bikinis" and the women who wear them from the facts of this case. He further states that he sees the pastors errors for what they are.

We are the only ones that makes a big deal out of the bikini. The world takes it in stride and probably would be saying "what is the big deal?".

The more we shelter ourselves from the world the more things are "big deals". IMO

Would I be going out dressed in a bikini? Not hardly. But when I was not in church I wore a swimsuit but not bikini. Never was that brave. lol

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margies3 (Post 940829)

I've read most of the pages of this thread - interesting stuff. I just have one thing to say (ya right! famous last words, eh?).

I've never seen a divorce that happened because ONE party was completely at fault. My experience in life tells me that in almost every situation there is "her side", "his side" and "the whole truth". Meaning this: everybody has been finding lots of fault for this woman for wearing a bikini in front of her friend's husband. I agree. That's probably not the wisest thing she could have done. Is it fornication? No, I don't think so. But I also have to wonder what kinds of things she was having to live with in her home that would make her look outside. I have to believe there were alot more problems in this marriage than just her dress code. And I don't believe all the fault was on her side. No, I don't know that for a fact. I have nothing to really base that belief on - except life experience.

The thing that bothers me about the situation is that the pastor chose to put himself in the middle of things by handling this from the pulpit instead of in the privacy of his office with only the parties involved. I honestly don't believe that this was about him loving the sheep under his care. I believe it was about him justifying the relationship his daughter has gotten involved in. And honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear a few years from now that those two end up having problems in their relationship - just like he did in his first marriage.

Unless I missed it, I have never seen where it was said she was ALONE with the man in her bikini.

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esther (Post 940890)

Unless I missed it, I have never seen where it was said she was ALONE with the man in her bikini.

Well see? Now you're just compounding the problems here - and this is the second time this has come up! Why was this fellow wearing a woman's bikini in the first place?

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun (Post 940776)

"often assosciated with..." does not define a word. Your understanding - or misunderstanding - of a word does not determine whether or not my usage of said word is acceptable and proper. Merriam-Webster.com defines Apparently, thusly:

and further defines "apparent" as:

The article does give us enough evidence to make it seem to be 3 : appearing as actual to the ...mind, or seem to 5 : manifest to the...mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid that she was alone with the man.

I have already agreed with that point.

Oh but it does have a basis for being more probable. If other people where present before the husband "caught" her there, then there would be no opportunity for any improper activity. The fact that the husband and pastor are all in a tiff about "what could have been" makes it SEEM (can you say apparent?) that there was no one else there to prevent what could have been. So my speculation isnt really all that wild, after all.

Now that is wild speculation, seeing how I have adamantly stated the pastor was wrong and should have all his positions, including that of pastor, revoked. You assume a motive and assign it to me, without any word or action on my part which leads one to the reasonable conclusion that I have any such motive.

More wild speculation on your part. You assume I am trying to defend him when quite the opposite is true. There is no defense for what he did. Have you ever heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" ? My only purpose for mentioning her actions is to prevent anyone from reasonably assuming I am condoning any woman being immodestly dressed in the presence of any male other than her husband.

You do have a valid point there. It is weak evidence, but not totally invalid.

Here is what I originally posted about your use of apparently. I have bolded the most relevant parts of what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 940305)

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.

You are correct that my understanding does not have any bearing on whether the way you used "apparently" was proper. The dictionary does have bearing on this and it shows that you improperly used the word. I will elaborate:

You said that this statement does not define the word apparently: "It is a word that is often associated with things which are readily seen, visible, easily understood, plain, clear, obvious."

The part of the statement I bolded does in fact come from the dictionary and thus does define the word, albeit not exhaustively.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apparently

Quote:

ap·par·ent
/əˈpærənt, əˈpɛər-/ Show Spelled[uh-par-uhnt, uh-pair-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible: The crack in the wall was readily apparent.
2.
capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: The solution to the problem was apparent to all.
3.
according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election.
4.
entitled to a right of inheritance by birth, indefeasible except by one's death before that of the ancestor, to an inherited throne, title, or other estate.

Now I will show that you did not use the word "apparently" by either definition 3 or 5 of your dictionary nor by definition 3 of mine.

To do this, I will first show that there is no evidence or even probableness that she was alone with the other man.

1. Note that the article never claims she was alone with him nor claims that anyone ever claimed this. Therefore there is no concrete evidence that she was alone with the other man.

2. As to the probableness of her being alone with the other man you said this, and I will requote:

Quote:

Oh but it does have a basis for being more probable. If other people where present before the husband "caught" her there, then there would be no opportunity for any improper activity. The fact that the husband and pastor are all in a tiff about "what could have been" makes it SEEM (can you say apparent?) that there was no one else there to prevent what could have been.

We have no concrete evidence that either the husband or pastor were in a tiff about "what could have been."

We can't even say it was probable they were in a tiff about "what could have been" because we can't say that her and the man were alone, or even probably alone until we first establish that the husband and pastor were in a tiff about "what could have been". As you said, if they were not alone then the husband and pastor couldn't be in a tiff about "what could have been."

So we can conclude that there is no evidence or probableness that her and the man were alone (with our current facts of course).

So let's examine each definition individually:
From your dictionary:
3. appearing as actual to the eye or mind -- without any evidence or probableness to suggest that she and the man were alone how can we say that it appears she and the man were actually alone? We can't and thus this definition won't work for you.

5. manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid -- without any evidence or probableness then this definition won't work for you because it requires that we have evidence as our basis.

From my dictionary:
3. according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual -- without any evidence or probableness to suggest that she and the man were alone how can we say that according to appearances, initial evidence, or even incomplete results that she and the man were alone? We can't and thus this definition won't work for you either.

Hopefully that was exhaustive enough to prove my point: you used apparently wrong. However, I don't think you intentionally did or even that you were ignorant of its meaning. I simply think that your evidence was faulty.

In the future I hope we can speak with a more peaceful tone towards each other. In fact, the only reason I responded as I did this time was because of the tone of your post. If you feel my post before that had a similar tone (the one I quoted from in this response) then I apologize because that was not my intention with that post; I had even tried to tone everything down in that post as best as I could (I didn't directly quote the dictionary, I did say you used the word apparently wrong, albeit in slightly different words, but I gave an explanation as to why I felt that way). I did all that so that you would hopefully not be offended and so that you would feel that I left you with an opportunity to respond with what you felt was evidence or probableness for believing that they were alone. Of course, I apparently failed in the reduced tone I was trying to convey. Again I apologize for that.

As to your other points I will reply later in another post.

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 940806)

This thread should have a subtitle. The Bikini Thread.

Exactly. Except without any pictures. :(

And honestly I don't know why (OK, I kinda do). The whole premise of the thread is a pastor who got himself in hot water by proclaiming someone a harlot (and 7 or 8 other things by inference) when his only "proof" was a statement by the ex about appearing in mixed company wearing the..... infamous bikini (wonder if he or she saved it for the DNA evidence?). And the fact that she wouldn't SUB-mittttt <spit>.

And yes, had I been on that jury and heard him spitting SUB-mittttt out, it would probably put me over the top in her favor.

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

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). :toofunny

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. :thumbsup

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

I thought you guys were all saying the same thing, except that apparently (seemingly, it appears that) JFrog and Cajun use different dictionaries.

Just shows how STOOPID I am. (Wonder if I should get that tatooed on my forehead?)

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne (Post 940910)

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.

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter (Post 940919)

LOL!

Re: UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 940398)

His idea of levels is absurd. If we view what he says as points some of them actually make sense.

Point 1 is good (As long as we can agree what is actual biblical holiness).
Point 3 is good also.
Point 2...

Point 2 is laughable. Scripture no where supports the idea of anyone making extra rules for God's people other than what God already gave. The bible calls such extra rules the "traditions and commandments of men". Those who made and enforced those extra rules in the bible were the Pharisees. In fact, just like the Pharisees of old, he goes on to say that if you won't do what he says then you are not right with God. And yet some of you are still wondering how the connection between such people and the pharisees can honestly be made...

In my opinion, point one is that all of God's people ARE HOLY because God lives in them and God is their holiness. He is called YHWH-m’kaddesh (m-keh-desh). 1 Corinthians 1:30 says that Jesus is our holiness/sanctification

I agree with you on point 2

I liked what the article said in point 3. I think it should apply to the pastor. In my opinion the pastor should not preach that his/her convictions or opinions are necessary for anyone else --including the members in the assembly.