Missouri Molestation Case - Page 13

FRINGE_NUTTER · #**121** 08-26-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

The man who molested was a presbyter?? God help us!!

This is absolutely no surprise to me!

myhaloisintheshop · #**122** 08-26-2007, 02:02 PM

He was until very recently.

And yes...I do think it was the start of the GOBN.

Having been in the section--I DO think some tried to hide it.

ILG · #**123** 08-26-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRINGE_NUTTER

This is absolutely no surprise to me!

It's not an awful surprise to me either. I've seen too much. Regardless, it is a terrible tragedy and this makes it that much worse.

ILG · #**124** 08-26-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myhaloisintheshop

He was until very recently.

And yes...I do think it was the start of the GOBN.

Having been in the section--I DO think some tried to hide it.

I'm sure that many did....having been the recipient of many false accusations themselves OR being guilty themselves of some things. Both things happen to cause the GOBN. But NO respectable minister (and any thinking unrespectable one) would back this guy after he confessed. Support for restoration of his own walk, yes. Backing him completely, no.

FRINGE_NUTTER · #**125** 08-26-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

The beginning of the GOBN?

SHHHH. I'm not initiating a post on this thread with the GOBN mentioned here again but I will comment on a post if the GOBN is meentioned. Most of the time the GOBN works incognito or behind the scenes where the truly sincere and "good" know nothing about it. The guy confessed, so there should be no need for the GOBN. If he had not confessed, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened. Confession is good for the soul for ALL, but you won't see it if others do not see their sins.

myhaloisintheshop · #**126** 08-26-2007, 02:08 PM

That is exactly what I thought. I am discusted by what Huling did--but to BACK a man that is accused of this and try to hide it? That discust me as well.

FRINGE_NUTTER · #**127** 08-26-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

It's not an awful surprise to me either. I've seen too much. Regardless, it is a terrible tragedy and this makes it that much worse.

I've seen it, too....I believe you are referring to "the group". Makes me want to stay as far away as I can. God has a church and I don't think "it" is part of it - unless they repent and make things right. To me it would be like the SS troops being saved with no repentance. That may seem harsh, but that's how I see it. Even Hitler himself said, "How lucky for those in power, that people don't think". His network was the ultimate in being corrupt. I have no idea whether "it" would have shown itself in this situation. Making only general statements here. Praying that this would not have been the case.

Amos · #**128** 08-26-2007, 02:21 PM

As reprehensible and inexcusable as this sin is, let me just drop a little Scriptural nugget on all you guys bemoaning the infamous GOBN...

If he had not confessed, the church is obligated to reject any accusation against an elder that doesn't come with at least two or three witnesses.

Thank God the man at least had the decency or whatever it was that made him confess...because if he had not, her word against his with no proof would have left the church with no choice but to put aside the accusation.

That isn't GOBN, that is Bible.

FRINGE_NUTTER · #**129** 08-26-2007, 02:34 PM

I realize that sometimes men are accused unjustly. The church is obligated to do whatever is needed to get to the truth.

In our age, the man can be a witness against himself when he does not desire to be. His "DNA" can be a witness, fingerprints can be a witness, a polygraph test might be a witness. Sometimes a video or audio may be his own witness against himself. When a man gives his word in the presence of others, he may be a witness against himself. If the girl says it, the forensic evidence says it, but he doesn't say it, that's still two witnesses by reason of the evidence.

Who knows if some of the later "witnessing" may have been the case? I don't know. Just speculating. Yes, the Bible is the Bible. In the year 2007 there are more ways to be "a witness" than in Biblical days. Technology and science can show someone as an unwilling witness against himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos

As reprehensible and inexcusable as this sin is, let me just drop a little Scriptural nugget on all you guys bemoaning the infamous GOBN...

If he had not confessed, the church is obligated to reject any accusation against an elder that doesn't come with at least two or three witnesses.

Thank God the man at least had the decency or whatever it was that made him confess...because if he had not, her word against his with no proof would have left the church with no choice but to put aside the accusation.

That isn't GOBN, that is Bible.

Amos · #**130** 08-26-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRINGE_NUTTER

I realize that sometimes men are accused unjustly. The church is obligated to do whatever is needed to get to the truth.

In our age, the man can be a witness against himself when he does not desire to be. His "DNA" can be a witness, fingerprints can be a witness, a polygraph test might be a witness. Sometimes a video or audio may be his own witness against himself. When a man gives his word in the presence of others, he may be a witness against himself. If the girl says it, the forensic evidence says it, but he doesn't say it, that's still two witnesses by reason of the evidence.

Who knows if some of the later "witnessing" may have been the case? I don't know. Just speculating. Yes, the Bible is the Bible. In the year 2007 there are more ways to be "a witness" than in Biblical days.

I agree that forensics would indeed constitute a witness; hearsay does not.

In this case, it sounds as if forensic evidence would have been virtually impossible to obtain.

Therefore, thank the Lord he confessed, or there would have been no way to convict him Scripturally.