Anti-Facebook Pastor Was In A Three-Way With His Wife And Male Church Assistant!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Excuse me but what's wrong with a 3some? He wasn't cheating.

One of the threesome was another man. That's what is wrong.

Very black and dark day for this church.

Isn't that the very definition of a 3some? Aren't these adults we're talking about. I just can't see the issue.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Well, I agree with the general thrust of your OP, so Flag, but no stars. Its this bit:

How many do we have to see/hear about before we realize that those who preach the loudest against something are those who are the most guilty of that which they preach against!!!

I've read you before & I suspect this was just a slip of the semantic tongue, falling into the common parlance etc, but "guilty"? What the man is guilty of is being a hypocrite. There's nothing "guilty" about enjoying a sex life simply b/c its not the sanctioned norm.
I realise this is a pernickety detail, but seriously: language is not just the expression of ideas, by defining ideas, it normalises some & marginalises others. If we are ever to break free from the herd mentality, a good 1st step is to stop using "common parlance" in our efforts to communicate & take the time to find the words to say what we actually mean.
Anyhoo, good job for bringing this to ATS. Imo, prudery is just 1 form of ignorance that needs denying.

Indeed... But guilty is a term i would use to mean, complicit.

But your point is very well taken.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Isn't that the very definition of a 3some? Aren't these adults we're talking about. I just can't see the issue.

The issue is that he just demanded that all clergy in his church remove their facebook accounts because its a portal to infidelity...

It looks like the only portal to infidelity is the human heart....

reply to post by Carseller4

One of the threesome was another man. That's what is wrong.

Very black and dark day for this church.

Lets just forget the blatant homophobia of this comment. I'm frankly bored of it & there seems very little point in rehashing the arguments that the civilised world have already accepted, in the main.
I'll get to some specifics that may not have occured to some folk. For starters, sexual activity can be enjoyed for a lot longer than most people are prepared to devote to a single session. I'm now middle aged, but occasionally I can still do an 8hr sesh, so long as I prep & have time to recover. This would have been average for a sunday after 2 nights dancing & saturday taking care of logistics etc, during my 20s. There is however a physical limit to what any man can do sexually. Even if you're a cross between Casanova & an olympic athelete, a fit & healthy woman can do more.
Now I realise that some men are so insecure about their own sexual abilities that they couldn't stand the idea, let alone the reality, of their partner getting off big time with another man, but something to consider is that 2 average men, with reasonable communication, a fair degree of trust & a little experience, can take just about any woman to her limits.
Well, do you love your partner enough to want her to get all she can out of sex, or are you too selfish for that?
For those who just cannot imagine a 2on1 scenario, the trick is to be there, ready & able, for the "home straight" of such a marathon.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Indeed... But guilty is a term i would use to mean, complicit.

Ok, but if I chuck £5 into the pot when a friend rings up the pizza shop, am I guilty of purchasing fast food, or complicit in ordinary human laziness?
I suppose there's arguments for both & the morality of the action. I'd say @midnight, with a few beers onboard, the last thing I, or whoever's place we're in, need is the wreckage we'd make in the kitchen.

Religion is the crutch of hypocrites and charlatans everywhere.

It shall surely bring them crashing down like a house of cards, once their flock learns of their ghastly deeds.

Keep in mind, I am a nihilist. I believe in nothing, not even Lucifer.

That's not actually infidelity.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Anti-Facebook Pastor Was In A Three-Way With His Wife And Male Church Assistant!

perezhilton< br />

Rev. Cedric Miller, a New Jersey pastor and leader of Living Word Christian Fellowship Church, gained notoriety this week when he called the social networking website a "portal to infidelity" and demanded that married church leaders delete their accounts or resign.

However, this guy has no business discussing infidelity, because in 2003, he and his wife were involved in a three-way sexual relationship with a male church assistant!

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:

www.torontosun.com

www2.dailyprogress.com

www.boston.com

edit on 21-11-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)

It is easy to see a parallel here between these preachers and those political types who espouse so much. In both cases the mindless masses listen with glazed over eyes and believe all the crap. Then these dummies go and vote.

Infidelity is not having a three way sexual encounter including your wife. Infidelity is having an affair and hiding it from your wife or husband.

Hence this guy is not a hypocrite in relation to his call.

His alleged three-way was 7 years ago.. people can learn and grow in less time than that, as he may have.

And, what business is it of anyone's what he, his wife and anyone else does behind closed doors?

Lastly, Facebook is a growing societal cancer in our world.. so the more voices that oppose it the better.

reply to post by Tayesin

Infidelity is not having a three way sexual encounter including your wife. Infidelity is having an affair and hiding it from your wife or husband.

Infidelity in relation to sexual activity outside of marriage dishonestly is a modern concept. In the bible & christian doctrine the "sin" is called "adultery", which is defined as sex outside of marriage. Almost all christian doctrine limits marriage to 1 man & 1 woman, therefor a 3some is by definition adultery & sinful to christians, regardless of who knows about it or takes part.
If this pastor had broken with christian doctrine & told his flock that infidelity is wrong but consensual adultery is ok, I feel sure that this detail would not have slipped past the journalist's need to pander to the public's prurient appetites & would've been included in the OP article. I suspect that had he stood up in front of his flock, admitted his adultery & explained why he'd concluded it was wrong since, so the flock could make up their own minds as to the merits of his argument, we'd have heard about that too.
What we're left with is a man assuming the mantle of authority & arguing from that position. We dont know if the adultery continued/es so we cant say for sure that his position is "do as I say, not as I do", which would be quintessentially hypocritical, but, without either of the scenarios I've outlined above, he is intellectually dishonest in a way that, via "do as I say, not as I did", is so close to hypocritical that few would nit pick the difference without an ulterior motive.

Originally posted by Tayesin
Infidelity is not having a three way sexual encounter including your wife. Infidelity is having an affair and hiding it from your wife or husband.

Hence this guy is not a hypocrite in relation to his call.

His alleged three-way was 7 years ago.. people can learn and grow in less time than that, as he may have.

And, what business is it of anyone's what he, his wife and anyone else does behind closed doors?

Lastly, Facebook is a growing societal cancer in our world.. so the more voices that oppose it the better.

You do know that the luddite stance is not one that has a successful history don't you?

The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the nineteenth century who protested – often by destroying mechanised looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life.

...

In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies

Come on people, get off your high horses. I think some people enjoy taking pleasure in something like this and trick themselves into thinking it is a worthwhile story.

He once had a swinger/swinging/swing/whateverthetermis experience....so now he can't comment on Facebook? Come on...

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


It's not that he can't.. it's that he is obviously over compensating by condemning facebook as a den of inequity... don't you see, its the same type of pattern as most self loathers... they preach against those things they are... painting others with the same broad brush they paint themselves with.

St Augustine wrote extensively on sex, BECAUSE he was a recovering sex addict himself...

It's just hilarious to see such a self deluded man in a position of religious or political leadership....

And in a long line of them...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by TheFinalTruth14

 

It's not that he can't.. it's that he is obviously over compensating by condemning facebook as a den of inequity... don't you see, its the same type of pattern as most self loathers... they preach against those things they are... painting others with the same broad brush they paint themselves with.

St Augustine wrote extensively on sex, BECAUSE he was a recovering sex addict himself...

It's just hilarious to see such a self deluded man in a position of religious or political leadership....

And in a long line of them...

I don't know if the article talks about his sermon, but maybe he felt he learned from his past and wanted to share the message with others?

And I don't see how having a threesome/foursome with his wife makes this guy a bad person...I guess I just don't get it.

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


Perhaps you didn't see what his latest edict was to all workers of his church... delete your facebook account or be fired because it leads to infidelity...

Paranoid much?


Obviously well within his rights, but hey so is barking like a dog in front of people for money...

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Well said mate and thank you for enlightening me some more today.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
You do know that the luddite stance is not one that has a successful history don't you?

I see the damage caused by the abuse of Facebook by most treens and misdirected adults in my own town. I see school kids using Facebook in class, communicating with friends, boyfriends/girldfriends/other adults instead of focusing on what they are in school for.

I see single mum's using their friends contacts lists to find and meet single (?) men. I see adults using Facebook to abuse opther people including teenagers, etc.

And yes I see some people using Facebook for positive reasons.. who seem to be a minority in my town.

So what I see is a scourge in society, another super-addictive thing for Teens who go positively apesh#t when they lose connection and begin addiction withdrawals.

I attempted to have my daughter's Facebook account closed because she signed up at 13 years of age without my permission.. and no not while using the family computer in the loungeroom... and only got waffle from Facebook!

They told me I had no right to demand the account be closed, that if I wanted to pursue my line of interest then I had to provide U.S. documentation proving I was the child's legal guardian. Being an Australian this U.S. documentation is not applicable.. hence it is impossible for me to get the Required Official Documentation in the U.S.

They informed that the rules for getting an account changed, despite my informing them that the child at the time was under the age and got an account without my express permission. They did not give a rats-ar#e, and refused to assist me in any way from then on.

Hence why I personally think Facebook is a Cancer in our society. And I do not care what anyone else says about the matter. I do not see the NEED for Facebook, or the NEED for so many Businesses today offering Facebook and Twitter as second lines of contact with them.

I use telephone, snail mail and email to communicate.. as well as the old tried and true communications method called Face to Face. Can't go wrong with those. Can't be ridden rough-shod over by a faceless organisation with no Responsiblity to their members or the families of young teens.

Originally posted by Tayesin
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Well said mate and thank you for enlightening me some more today.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
You do know that the luddite stance is not one that has a successful history don't you?

I see the damage caused by the abuse of Facebook by most treens and misdirected adults in my own town. I see school kids using Facebook in class, communicating with friends, boyfriends/girldfriends/other adults instead of focusing on what they are in school for.

What are they in school for? It sure isn't to become successful because if so, schools suck!

Oh wait, that's right the current school system was designed to produce WORKERS... not PRODUCERS...

Fact is the social networking being made currently via the social media is what sets the successful apart these days... there truly is a digital divide....

But as with all things, it takes education... and unfortunately unless you know the things the kids are doing and can teach them the good bad and ugly, then they are going to learn from others...

Some parents just can't provide the education required for todays life....

reply to post by Tayesin

Well said mate and thank you for enlightening me some more today.

Glad to, & thank you for reminding me that there are people on ATS who are here for what it says on the tin. I thought I'd put that post together pretty well & not that I'm a star whore, b/c I'm not particularly interested in RATS, but its somewhat depressing when a well reasoned argument gets not a single acknowledgment!
Anyhoo, I dont have a personal account with FaceBook, MySpace, Bebo, Twitter, et al b/c I value my privacy too much. There are several projects I'm involved with that use these tools, so I must sometimes dabble. It reminds me of my 1st carphone - a bit daft, but used intelligently, bloody useful. As comms tech has advanced, I've found ways to make it work for me, but it comes @the cost of having less time "legitimately unavailable", which bugs me. Part of the problem is that, its not just that we are available 24/7, wherever we are, unless we deliberately ignore someone, its that we get sucked into a whole load of stuff thats interesting, but ultimately not that relevant to our most pressing concerns. I've got a saved txt msg & email that I respond with:
"Hi,
hope you're well. If not ping back. Otherwise I'll be in touch when I can.
[name]"
The younger people I know, my g/f in particular, hate this. Well, new tech either works for us, or its a nuisance. If the people that want me actually want me, not some cipher to distract them from their current boredom, they know I'm available. Otherwise they can eff off!
I suppose it'll take a while before the majority of people understand that being able to communicate with people 1/2way round the world is a tool, not a soap-opera to live in, but we'll get there.