Excellent, the church shows its ugly side and pushes more people away.

What does this say about their religious organization? That it is there as a method of controlling its members.

Although, I do wonder what she would do if this was happening to another member of that church. Would she accept it and listen to the revelations? Of course she would.

A part of me thinks if you are willing to submit yourself to such a stupid existence, if you align yourself with a group of people who believe that they have the right to dictate and control, you deserve little sympathy when that same group turns against you.

This should be a lesson to all that organized religion is a waste of time and an insult to any true spiritual belief system.

Don't align yourself with such people, and you have nothing to be worried about.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
This should be a lesson to all that organized religion is a waste of time and an insult to any true spiritual belief system.

BEHOLD! The wide swing of the judgement hammer for it sweeps in a wide circle. BEWARE...when it misses and strikes onself.

Actually I would be happy if this happened to me. Then I could sue and have the lovely church finance a trip to Jamaica for me!

Originally posted by veranda
Actually I would be happy if this happened to me. Then I could sue and have the lovely church finance a trip to Jamaica for me!

So glad to hear you have a selfless motivation in which your interests are for the benefit of humanity . A true sense of community...or not. A lot of churches provide food and care to the needy, ill, elderly and widowed.


[edit on 22-12-2008 by saint4God]

At a church where I formerly attended, only Members were subject to church discipline. The nature of sins requiring discipline and the rules of order and conduct for dealing with such sins were clearly enumerated in our Constitution, which was voted on by the membership itself. Though we were a non-denominational church, our form of government - style of constitution, by-laws, etc. - was mostly Presbyterian. Church discipline essentially is supposed to be a process with the goal of repentance and reconciliation.

In cases of serious sins for which the Member refuses to repent, and if the Member instead tries to evade discipline by seeking membership at a different church, the Pastor is permitted to contact the Pastor of the new church and advise him of the situation. At our church this was never actually invoked, but it was a condition provided for in the Constitution just in case. And all Members read the Constitution and sign an agreement to abide by it. It is a legally binding contract - so that if the Pastor has to contact another Pastor to warn him of possible problems, the church cannot then be sued for libel or slander - because the Member has already agreed to these measures in advance.

Unless the woman has signed such a contract, what is happening to her cannot be legally defended. And I question the motivation of her pastor and methods used. Far more effective - and reasonable - would be just to contact the Pastor of the church she is attending. But even that is a risky step if the discipline was not enumerated int he church Constitution, or if she never signed an official membership agreement. The chosen method of "discipline" is more like a "scarlet letter" approach - which is completely inappropriate in today's world.

That was well articulated OuttaHere and true to form. I also agree with your assessment that the actions of the church were not a move towards reconciliation because of the provocative nature instead of a compassionate one.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by saint4God]