How to stay on the "right" side of encouraging others.

[seeingeyes]

This may be where things get difficult to discern. What some people believe is someone "sinning against them" may just be an annoyance or even something within them that causes them to see things differently (for instance.....a person may have an entitlement issue and see it as "sinning" when someone has to bow out of a ministry project due to a seriously sick family member).

This is a great point.

There was a guy on the forums last week railing against the evils of fart jokes. If someone took me aside and confronted me about giggling at a fart joke, I would certainly not repent. And if they brought two or three witnesses against me, I think I'd run.

And if I ever demanded for someone to repent of fart jokes, and then took the time to gather witnesses against them...well, I hope one of my brothers or sisters would just put me out of my misery. I remember being dead like that, and I don't wanna go back.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is a great point.

There was a guy on the forums last week railing against the evils of fart jokes. If someone took me aside and confronted me about giggling at a fart joke, I would certainly not repent. And if they brought two or three witnesses against me, I think I'd run.

And if I ever demanded for someone to repent of fart jokes, and then took the time to gather witnesses against them...well, I hope one of my brothers or sisters would just put me out of my misery. I remember being dead like that, and I don't wanna go back.

now, I'm confused...if I have a problem with you laughing at course jokes, and I go to you, and you say, it isn't sin (course, not fart) I would have an obligation to take someone with me to confront the sin issue.

If it's just fart jokes, it would be me judging you and after we talked and I said, "I have a problem with your laughing at them" and you said, "sorry that offends you, but I see nothing wrong with it and you show me nothing in scripture that shows it wrong, I will try to refrain from laughing at them in front of you because of what scripture tells us about the weaker brother". I see no reason for there to be a need to bring a witness....

come on, please, someone tell me what I am missing here. It's as if you all don't like what I'm saying so your gonna insist on applying it outside the context by which it was given so that you can make some point that is contrary, for the sake of being contrary and puffing yourselves up...show me what I am missing.

Are you really trying to imply that two people that are part of the same body of believers cannot come together and reason a matter in love? Really, all Matt. 18 does is give us a model for reasoning together...if you are accurately applying how you think that model works, it is seriously no wonder the church hurts more people than it helps...chasing people away, driving them to swear to never enter a church again. But, if this is an accurate picture of your understanding of Matt. 18 in practice, then not only does it explain the condition of the church, but also tells us how far removed the church is from the heart of God and how diligently all believers should be in spreading the gospel not only outside the church but inside as well. But, again, I'm banking on you just twisting things to make some point and that you don't really believe the application is what you are pretending it is here, you know drama for the sake of making a point that is invalid on it's own.

 

[mkgal1]

come on, please, someone tell me what I am missing here. It's as if you all don't like what I'm saying so your gonna insist on applying it outside the context by which it was given so that you can make some point that is contrary, for the sake of being contrary and puffing yourselves up...show me what I am missing.

It's not that at all. I just cannot follow your posts, Razzel. In this post....I don't understand what your point is.....it seems as if you're saying two opposing things here (for instance):

I would have an obligation to take someone with me to confront the sin issue.

and

I see no reason for there to be a need to bring a witness.

Fart jokes aren't the same thing (IMO) as "coarse joking".....are you saying they are?

 

[mkgal1]

This is a great point.

There was a guy on the forums last week railing against the evils of fart jokes. If someone took me aside and confronted me about giggling at a fart joke, I would certainly not repent. And if they brought two or three witnesses against me, I think I'd run.

And if I ever demanded for someone to repent of fart jokes, and then took the time to gather witnesses against them...well, I hope one of my brothers or sisters would just put me out of my misery. I remember being dead like that, and I don't wanna go back.

That's another great example of what I meant. Thanks. That's something that person (the one that saw evil in fart jokes) needs to work out within his own self.

 

[razzelflabben]

It's not that at all. I just cannot follow your posts, Razzel. In this post....I don't understand what your point is.....it seems as if you're saying two opposing things here (for instance):



and



Fart jokes aren't the same thing (IMO) as "coarse joking".....are you saying they are?

lol you can't follow my posts...lol...that is my point. fart jokes aren't course as I understand it, therefore falls in the category of "my sin of judgment" not the sin of another....however, if we are talking about laughing at course jokes, we are talking about the sin of another...either way, sin enters the picture and according to you Matt.18 is only to be used in the case of sin, so we are still applying Matt. 18 to the situation, the only question is who is at fault...but remember, Matt. 18 first tells us to go to a brother and reason together in love. IOW's we try to work out our difference according to love, which says that we need to know scripture, prayer, reasoning, peaceable, reverent lifestyle in which we have purified ourselves before we even talk to the person. That means that the example given is out of context with what was said, shown, or is biblical on the matter.

Okay, but you can't follow any of my posts because I give you examples to clarify what I am saying, and that somehow is problematic for you, so...in the case of being offended that someone is laughing at fart jokes. The one being offended is involved in the sin of judgment.

In the case of laughing at course jokes, the one laughing is sinning in that scripture tells us not to participate in this type of course behavior.

Not sure how to be any clearer...according to you Matt. 18 is only about sin issues and in both possibles, sin is happening, so Matt. 18 still applies no matter how you read it...got another example you want to present? The two provided I already showed how Matt. 18 would apply.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's another great example of what I meant. Thanks. That's something that person (the one that saw evil in fart jokes) needs to work out within his own self.

you are aware are you not, that judging another is sin? Which means we are back to a sin issue, and identifying who is at sin...of which the HS is the judge and reveals it to all who seek Him.

 

[mkgal1]

lol you can't follow my posts...lol...that is my point.

So.....is laughing about that really appropriate or should there be a greater effort towards clear (and kind) communication?

fart jokes aren't course as I understand it

The addition of "course jokes" confused me even more. Throwing in new concepts into an already misunderstood dialogue doesn't seem like a good idea.

therefore falls in the category of "my sin of judgment" not the sin of another

I agree

....however, if we are talking about laughing at course jokes

No.....we aren't. Let's not add any more confusion.

Okay, but you can't follow any of my posts because I give you examples to clarify what I am saying, and that somehow is problematic for you, so...in the case of being offended that someone is laughing at fart jokes. The one being offended is involved in the sin of judgment.

So.....are you saying if it's someone being offended at fart jokes---it's something they need to work out on their own (as the sin is within them---they're judging others, not rightly so), and no other people need to be involved? Am I understanding you correctly?

Not sure how to be any clearer...

One suggestion would be to realize that not everyone is on the same train of thought that you are. Also.....not adding in more to confuse the issue, would also help.

 

[razzelflabben]

So.....is laughing about that really appropriate or should there be a greater effort towards clear (and kind) communication?

I was laughing because....never mind, you would just read into it what is not there...never said I wouldn't try harder, been trying to learn your style of communication for a long time now, and it still baffles me what you do not understand.

The addition of "course jokes" confused me even more. Throwing in new concepts into an already misunderstood dialogue doesn't seem like a good idea.

really, you don't know that some course jokes can have "farts" imbedded in them? If it is a course joke that involves farts, it is one thing, if just about farts, another issue...the way most on here argue, if I said, being offended at fart jokes would be judgment, someone would come on and talk about course jokes with fart humor in them...come on, it's all about covering all the bases so that there is less opportunity for things to be twisted into something they are not, you know, like we have already seen on this thread.

I agree

No.....we aren't. Let's not add any more confusion.

So.....are you saying if it's someone being offended at fart jokes---it's something they need to work out on their own (as the sin is within them---they're judging others, not rightly so), and no other people need to be involved? Am I understanding you correctly?

what did I previously say? If I judge someone, and in that find offense, I need to 1. confess and repent of my sin, thus reconciling with God and 2. go to that brother and reconcile with him as to the unfair judgment I had for him. One thing I have learned from the counseling I have done, is that people perceive things more than we think they do. In fact, one woman I talk to often, perceives trouble in others all the time, but her perception is just off enough for her to turn it against her. So, application to this specific situation.

Person A is offended by person B laughing at "clear" fart jokes. (that is, not course) In prayer, Person A is convicted by God that they are judging and thus in sin. Person A then deals with that sin according to God, through repentance of that sin. All the while person B knew something was wrong, that something was keeping them from fellowship with person A, but has no idea why. Scripture tells us to confess one to another, we also know that we are to follow Matt. 18, and a few other dozen passages that tell us to address the issue with our brother B. So we go to our brother and say, brother B, I have sinned against you and against God, I repented of that sin and ask your forgiveness. At which point, we hope that brother B accepts the apology and the two are reconciled. But, how does Matt. 18 tell us to respond if they don't? Unforgiveness is also a sin, so now brother B if he is not willing to forgive is entered into sin and we went to him privately already...what to do...what to do? Take another brother, a witness, saying, dude, come on, we all make mistakes, brother A was wrong, he apologized, he wants to make amends and reconcile just like we are told to do....now, somehow, you find this method of reconciling offensive, what I am wanting to know is why? What do you find offensive in following this Matt. 18 model of reconciliation? Personally, if someone came to me, as above, and used that model, I'd be ecstatic, cause it means we were reasoning together in love.

One suggestion would be to realize that not everyone is on the same train of thought that you are. Also.....not adding in more to confuse the issue, would also help.

lol...really, you don't think I already know that, given how many times I have asked you to show me what I, not you..are missing on this issue.

As I said, the "adding" is nothing more than clarifying so that it is harder to twist things into something they are not.

 

[mkgal1]

I've sort of been wrestling with the phrase "speak to them in love" for a long time. I think I can finally articulate my definition is of that. I believe that means speaking to someone in a way that's going to allow them to "hear" what's best for them. IOW....to be able to plant seeds of goodness (although, I realize, that's also debatable if we're really understanding what "goodness" is).

If our words cause someone to put up walls of defense (or to get our their weapons of defense)........then (IMO) we need to leave it alone (better to not encourage walls of division to be formed). I think that's why there are so many verses that encourage us to "leave them alone" after a couple of tries.

 

[mkgal1]

I was laughing because....never mind, you would just read into it what is not there...

That's not helpful to this conversation (or any others).....in my opinion. I've pointed out the use of "LOL" before. It sounds a lot like mocking.

 

[mkgal1]

Based on your last post, Razzel, it sounds as if you and I are in agreement. This has been the progression of our posts:

That does not mean beating them with the truth, or shunning them for unrepentant sin, but rather it's a Matt. 18 approach to sin issues.

This may be where things get difficult to discern. What some people believe is someone "sinning against them" may just be an annoyance or even something within them that causes them to see things differently.

why does everyone make Matt. 18 only about sinning against "me"? If I take an offering and remember someone has ought against me...ought, not sin, something. What would be hurt by going privately to someone who is bowing out of a ministry project and talking to them in love? Finding out that they have a serious family issue, and in that being able to help them and pray for the situation...haven't you won them over in that situation, and done so in love?

What did I previously say? If I judge someone, I need to 1. confess and repent of my sin, thus reconciling with God and 2. go to that brother and reconcile with him as to the unfair judgment I had for him.

I agree. I also think it's an important point that before we go "correcting" others, we need to first make sure it's not something within us that needs to be addressed (like being judgmental....not knowing all the details and unfairly and harshly criticizing someone).

 

[razzelflabben]

I've sort of been wrestling with the phrase "speak to them in love" for a long time. I think I can finally articulate my definition is of that. I believe that means speaking to someone in a way that's going to allow them to "hear" what's best for them. IOW....to be able to plant seeds of goodness (although, I realize, that's also debatable if we're really understanding what "goodness" is).

that wouldn't be a bad definition, but it leaves out a couple of vital aspects. 1. is that the purpose is reconciliation, which you kind of touched on, but should be a bit clearer. For example, goodness as you use it could be interpreted several different ways, goodness the way scripture uses it means Righteousness/Godliness...which comes to us through reconciliation with God through the Lord Jesus Christ by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT. 2. also you might want to emphasis the need for truth. I Cor. 13 tells us that love rejoices in the truth. That means that even if the person doesn't get it at first, truth will still win out in the end. IOW's your definition might assume these two aspects of love, but as I pointed out earlier, people are very good about twisting things on the forum to make points that are out of bounds of the discussion, therefore emphasizing some aspects to it might be helpful. BTW, just to make it harder for my words to be twisted, I am not saying that we can say anything as long as we preface it with "speak the truth in love..." I am saying that the truth, coupled with the goal of reconciliation, brings us to a gentleness, kindness, mercy, grace, and compassion in our speech when it comes to others. But not speaking the truth, is to lack love, even when we know that the truth will hurt the one we are speaking to. Many people allow bitterness and anger to consume them because they know that speaking about the truth (whatever that is in that situation) will stir emotions that are hard to address, this is no more love than slamming someone over an issue without thought or care for how it sounds.

If our words cause someone to put up walls of defense (or to get our their weapons of defense)........then (IMO) we need to leave it alone (better to not encourage walls of division to be formed). I think that's why there are so many verses that encourage us to "leave them alone" after a couple of tries.

lol...the one situation in which I already spoke, about the woman who was borderline using prayer requests as a gossip opportunity...she was angry with me and the other person for a while. It hurt her to think that she had crossed a line. Her anger was not with me for talking to her, but with herself and with the other person for refusing to talk to her. Anger is not an emotion that we can avoid in some situations, cause like it or not, some people are simply bent on being angry and hostile no matter what is said or how it is said.

Case in point, I know someone who is angry and bitter, no one, and I mean no one that I have found so far, can talk to him about anything without him being angry and hostile about the situation that is troubling him, and you don't even have to bring up the situation in order for him to turn it to that situation and unleash venom. Point being, we can try to "keep" peace, but it is the peace "makers" that God tells us are blessed....Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.


The more I read your thoughts here, the more it sounds like you are advocating being peace keepers and that is some dangerous grounds in that it provides opportunity for us to partake in the sin of another. Ouch, not a good place to be. Hope your intent is peace maker, not peace keeper.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's not helpful to this conversation (or any others).....in my opinion. I've pointed out the use of "LOL" before. It sounds a lot like mocking.

if you think I was mocking, then you were reading into it what was not there....how should we settle this one? Who is sinning? If no one, what do we do then? As to your previous claims about what you think about lol...I wasn't part of them, so I'm coming into it without the benefit of your bias to lol. Let's put action behind out discussion and you tell us how you think this should be settled?!?

 

[razzelflabben]

Based on your last post, Razzel, it sounds as if you and I are in agreement. This has been the progression of our posts:


I agree. I also think it's an important point that before we go "correcting" others, we need to first make sure it's not something within us that first (and, maybe even, only) needs to be addressed (like being judgmental....not knowing all the details and unfairly and harshly criticizing someone).

great, so we came together and reasoned the matter in love...mark one up for God's way of dealing with matters.

 

[mkgal1]

that wouldn't be a bad definition, but it leaves out a couple of vital aspects. 1. is that the purpose is reconciliation, which you kind of touched on, but should be a bit clearer.

Right (I agree).........as long as everyone is reconciling on the side of good (and not that one person is caving in on a moral issue in order for there to be reconciliation. For instance, that one isn't enabling another one to sin...(like in substance abuse or covering up for a marital affair). However......if it's a debatable topic (one that even based on Scripture can go either way......or something like evolution/literal 6-day creation)....the Bible does say for us to get into arguments over things like that.

 

[mkgal1]

great, so we came together and reasoned the matter in love...mark one up for God's way of dealing with matters.

 

[mkgal1]

if you think I was mocking, then you were reading into it what was not there....how should we settle this one? Who is sinning? If no one, what do we do then? As to your previous claims about what you think about lol...I wasn't part of them, so I'm coming into it without the benefit of your bias to lol. Let's put action behind out discussion and you tell us how you think this should be settled?!?

You were a part of my previous claims about the use of "LOL". I recall asking you several times previously to refrain from using it, especially when there's a long back-and-forth misunderstanding.

IMO.....if the conversation is strained....and there's difficulty for two people to understand one another......"LOL" should not be used (as one example) neither should this smiley :. They have a condescending and rude tone to them (in my opinion) and seem to escalate or perpetuate more problems than they are helpful. That's just my humble opinion.

 

[razzelflabben]

Right (I agree).........as long as everyone is reconciling on the side of good (and not that one person is caving in on a moral issue in order for there to be reconciliation. For instance, that one isn't enabling another one to sin...(like in substance abuse or covering up for a marital affair). However......if it's a debatable topic (one that even based on Scripture can go either way......or something like evolution/literal 6-day creation)....the Bible does say for us to get into arguments over things like that.

(I was going to put an lol here, because of our previous conversation in which we are clarifying meanings, which is another such instance, so I chuckled, but being that you don't see chuckling in the lol's I refrain, in accordance with scripture) The first issue you address, isn't reconciliation at all, so we are absolutely in agreement on that, and goes back to clarifying what we mean when we say X. Reconciliation is neither enabling, nor covering over a sin with anything but forgiveness when the sin is done to you, goes back to what reconciliation means.

Secondly, debatable topics, again, we agree...we can talk about them, but in the end, we decide for ourselves in light of God's witness in our life. That does not mean however, that we cannot discuss them, or any scriptures that apply, only that we decide for ourselves within the power of the HS in our own lives.

 

[razzelflabben]

You were a part of my previous claims about the use of "LOL". I recall asking you several times previously to refrain from using it, especially when there's a long back-and-forth misunderstanding.

don't recall that, might be your style of communication or your lack of clarity when I ask you for it.

IMO.....if the conversation is strained....and there's difficulty for two people to understand one another......"LOL" should not be used (as one example) neither should this smiley :. They have a condescending and rude tone to them (in my opinion) and seem to escalate or perpetuate more problems than they are helpful. That's just my humble opinion.

a disputable matter...and according to scripture, I am to conform to the wishes of my "weaker" brother...I will try to remember your bias in the future...I might forget, but I will purpose to remember. personally, I see it as a way to lighten the mood and demonstrate that one is not taking themselves too seriously.

 

[mkgal1]

Case in point, I know someone who is angry and bitter, no one, and I mean no one that I have found so far, can talk to him about anything without him being angry and hostile about the situation that is troubling him, and you don't even have to bring up the situation in order for him to turn it to that situation and unleash venom. Point being, we can try to "keep" peace, but it is the peace "makers" that God tells us are blessed....Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.


The more I read your thoughts here, the more it sounds like you are advocating being peace keepers and that is some dangerous grounds in that it provides opportunity for us to partake in the sin of another. Ouch, not a good place to be. Hope your intent is peace maker, not peace keeper.

I'm not sure what I posted that gave you that impression (that I'm advocating "peace keepers" instead of "peace makers"---that's a good distinction, BTW).....I'm not.

I absolutely agree with you about the danger of "peace keeping"......however, in some environments (like a dysfunctional family, where no one else wants to acknowledge the dysfunction) sometimes the *only* two choices are to 1. keep the peace.....not buying into the lies and false reality and keeping good personal boundaries (and boundaries that protect our own children) or 2. leave and have nothing to do with them.

The type of people you're mentioning (the ones that are defensive and won't hear reason)......I call them "porcupines". They have their quills out and won't let anyone near.