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

[mkgal1]

(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)

Thank you. I honestly appreciate that effort.

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.

We agree on that as well

 

[mkgal1]

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

You don't see these phrases as condescending?

When things are strained in a conversation.....personally, I don't think that "lightening the mood" (especially in written form and not being close friends) is possible. It, instead, comes off as dismissive (at least in my opinion or perspective) or that one isn't taking the *other* person seriously. My thoughts are.....when things are strained.....things that are questionable or have the possibility of being taken the wrong way....shouldn't be used. Again.....that's just my perspective.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

good...you spoke of not stirring the emotions like anger, sometimes, making peace requires some emotion as in the examples I gave. If we are purposing not to stir emotions like anger over speaking the truth, we become peace keepers not peace makers. But doesn't matter as long as we understand one another and matters even less if we agree.

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.

grew up in such a household...didn't leave, haven't yet found a way to "make" peace, but have said some things that stirred anger and as of Thanksgiving, found myself in a potentially hot bed of dysfunction that turned into a peaceful and miracle exchange. God's way prevails. That does not mean what some try to twist it to mean. Leave if you need to in order to be safe...however, we as a people are way too quick to proclaim that leaving is the only solution. There are times and situations where staying can and does display the power of God like nothing we could ever say or do by leaving. The key is to allow the HS to be the wisdom that we follow without compromise or fear.

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.

want to laugh again, I like the analogy...refraining, it's a struggle but refraining...they are also toxic to peace, to truth, to those that already struggle with self esteem and self worth, which is why the power of the HS and the wisdom therein is so vital to such a situation. But we should be warned, "porcupines" can and do shoot their quills on occasion, which is where we learn that suffering for the Lord is a blessing not a curse.

 

[razzelflabben]

You don't see these phrases as condescending?

?? you accuse me of these things and it isn't condescending, but when I accuse you of the same it suddenly is? Why the double standard all of a sudden? You previously accused my style as being your problem with communicating with me...I did the exact same thing here..so is it a double standard, or are you just saying you couldn't be any of the problem with communication on the forum because you are perfect?

When things are strained in a conversation.....personally, I don't think that "lightening the mood" (especially in written form and not being close friends) is possible. It, instead, comes off as dismissive (at least in my opinion or perspective) or that one isn't taking the *other* person seriously. My thoughts are.....when things are strained.....things that are questionable or have the possibility of being taken the wrong way....shouldn't be used. Again.....that's just my perspective.

you made that opinion clear and I agreed to purpose to remember living by it as to the biblical discussion of the "weaker" brother. Don't see any benefit in you continuing to bash me with your opinion as if it were a biblical issue rather than an disputable one. We disagree, I can't say I won't ever forget when talking to you that you have a problem with it, but I can say, I will purpose to live by your bias, when I am talking to you. Why isn't that enough for you? Why would you bring it up again as if it were something we have to agree on? I have quite a few friends who appreciate my "making them laugh" when there is trial and turmoil because it forces them to take their eyes off the problem for a moment and step back and look at things from a different angle. They find no disrespect at all in it, only helpful "love". So that is where I take my cue from on the matter. Laughter can help us step back and look at things from a different pov, which can help us find agreement. You don't agree, I'm okay with that, doesn't mean I'm gonna leave my friends that find it helpful abandoned on the issue, that would put me in a sinful situation, because as a disputable matter, I decide for myself based on what God witnesses to me, while allowing you to decide for yourself based on what God is witnessing to you. Seriously, once we understand one another, why would you continue to beat me over the head with your opinion on the matter? Wouldn't doing so be a violation of the peace God asks us to make?

 

[mkgal1]

good...you spoke of not stirring the emotions like anger, sometimes, making peace requires some emotion as in the examples I gave. If we are purposing not to stir emotions like anger over speaking the truth, we become peace keepers not peace makers. But doesn't matter as long as we understand one another and matters even less if we agree.

Allow me to clarify even more, then (even though we agree). I meant "unnecessarily" stir emotions (IOW.....when we can avoid it----as in using the smiley and using "LOL" when things are already tense). If truth in love stirs anger.....then we are doing something that Dr. Henry Cloud calls "upsetting the right person" in his book 9 Things You Simply Must Do. To continue on in that, though......that doesn't mean we have to keep hammering the point home. That, in my opinion, can do more harm than good (that's when the hands go over the ears in a figurative, and sometimes literal way). There are several verses that talk about saying things once or twice and then avoiding the person (or that particular conversation).

I grew up in such a household...didn't leave, haven't yet found a way to "make" peace, but have said some things that stirred anger and as of Thanksgiving, found myself in a potentially hot bed of dysfunction that turned into a peaceful and miracle exchange. God's way prevails. That does not mean what some try to twist it to mean. Leave if you need to in order to be safe...however, we as a people are way too quick to proclaim that leaving is the only solution. There are times and situations where staying can and does display the power of God like nothing we could ever say or do by leaving. The key is to allow the HS to be the wisdom that we follow without compromise or fear.

I agree here as well.

I want to laugh again, I like the analogy...refraining, it's a struggle but refraining...they are also toxic to peace, to truth, to those that already struggle with self esteem and self worth, which is why the power of the HS and the wisdom therein is so vital to such a situation. But we should be warned, "porcupines" can and do shoot their quills on occasion, which is where we learn that suffering for the Lord is a blessing not a curse.

An "LOL" there wouldn't be misunderstood.....especially when you comment on what you're laughing about.

I absolutely agree that "porcupines" are toxic to peace and to those that already struggle with self-esteem and self-worth. I mention a book by Danny Silk often.....and he also talks about "the power of the Holy Spirit's love". He often uses the terms "powerful" and "powerless". Powerful are those that are relying on the power of the Holy Spirit (abiding in love).....and "powerless" are those that are trying to relate to others on their own understanding.

I also agree that's a way to suffer for Christ (being attacked by the quills of "porcupine people"). We just have to be careful and not explain away *all* attacks as being because of that.

 

[mkgal1]

?? you accuse me of these things and it isn't condescending, but when I accuse you of the same it suddenly is? Why the double standard all of a sudden? You previously accused my style as being your problem with communicating with me..

I don't recall saying "your style" was "my problem" communicating with you. I *do* recall showing you two specific phrases that seemed to oppose each other and asking for clarification (in order to understand).

Your post seemed like finger-pointing (to me).

 

[mkgal1]

Don't see any benefit in you continuing to bash me with your opinion as if it were a biblical issue rather than an disputable one. We disagree, I can't say I won't ever forget when talking to you that you have a problem with it, but I can say, I will purpose to live by your bias, when I am talking to you. Why isn't that enough for you? Why would you continue to beat me over the head with your opinion on the matter? Wouldn't doing so be a violation of the peace God asks us to make?

I was clarifying......not bashing.....not meaning to "beat you over the head"......---and your effort *is* enough. I said I honestly appreciate the effort. I meant that.

I was responding to your statement on your perspective about how you like to "lighten the mood" (which was the first time you brought it up, in depth)........and was offering my perspective about how I see that as possibly dismissive.

 

[razzelflabben]

Allow me to clarify even more, then (even though we agree). I meant "unnecessarily" stir emotions (IOW.....when we can avoid it----as in using the smiley and using "LOL" when things are already tense). If truth in love stirs anger.....then we are doing something that Dr. Henry Cloud calls "upsetting the right person" in his book 9 Things You Simply Must Do. To continue on in that, though......that doesn't mean we have to keep hammering the point home. That, in my opinion, can do more harm than good (that's when the hands go over the ears in a figurative, and sometimes literal way). There are several verses that talk about saying things once or twice and then avoiding the person (or that particular conversation).

I agree here as well.

An "LOL" there wouldn't be misunderstood.....especially when you comment on what you're laughing about.

especially given the above, I have absolutely no way of knowing how you will take the lol when it is used...also, I have seen you repeatedly put too much emphasis on man's wisdom through this book or that book and not enough on scripture...for example in the case of lol...Romans 14 is all the wisdom we need. Man's wisdom makes no difference to truth at all.

I absolutely agree that "porcupines" are toxic to peace and to those that already struggle with self-esteem and self-worth. I mention a book by Danny Silk often.....and he also talks about "the power of the Holy Spirit's love". He often uses the terms "powerful" and "powerless". Powerful are those that are relying on the power of the Holy Spirit (abiding in love).....and "powerless" are those that are trying to relate to others on their own understanding.

in fact, I could put a lol and mean that I think you are a porcupine...I wouldn't have meant that, but the point is, anytime an lol is used, you read into it what is being laughed at or about. If you are a porcupine, or someone who has no self worth, you can twist even lol's to mean something they do not. That does not make the offense the one who offered the chuckle, but rather in that case the offense is in the one who interprets the lol, which scripture calls the weaker brother. In fact, in this paragraph, I could put an lol and intent that it made me chuckle that I had already pointed out that you put too much emphasis on man's wisdom and to address it, would be repeating myself, which is a worthless endeavor...see, it wouldn't have anything to do with you or what you said, but rather about me jumping the gun...offense in the interpreter not the speaker.

I also agree that's a way to suffer for Christ (being attacked by the quills of "porcupine people"). We just have to be careful and not explain away *all* attacks as being because of that.

again, want to put an lol, since I know people like this and think fondly of Keith Greenes performance where he says, we are not to be laugh at able for the Lord, in relation to the discussion about dismissing everything as suffering for the Lord.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't recall saying "your style" was "my problem" communicating with you. I *do* recall showing you two specific phrases that seemed to oppose each other and asking for clarification (in order to understand).

Your post seemed like finger-pointing (to me).

reread your posts as if you were me, you'll find it I'm sure. Often we type responses from our pov, and forget than someone else and someone elses pov will read it. You did tell me that communication problems on this matter were my fault and even asked me to change my style of communicating. Then you turn around and call me condescending for suggesting not even saying it outright, that the same could be said of you. Not cool...

 

[mkgal1]

especially given the above, I have absolutely no way of knowing how you will take the lol when it is used

Okay.....erring on the side of caution is always good (in my opinion).

.....also, I have seen you repeatedly put too much emphasis on man's wisdom through this book or that book and not enough on scripture..

"Too much emphasis" and "man's wisdom" are sort of opinions.....are they not? The book I mentioned is all based on Scriptural (and Spiritual) truth (it's not "man's wisdom").

.for example in the case of lol...Romans 14 is all the wisdom we need. Man's wisdom makes no difference to truth at all. in fact, I could put a lol and mean that I think you are a porcupine...I wouldn't have meant that, but the point is, anytime an lol is used, you read into it what is being laughed at or about. If you are a porcupine, or someone who has no self worth, you can twist even lol's to mean something they do not. That does not make the offense the one who offered the chuckle, but rather in that case the offense is in the one who interprets the lol, which scripture calls the weaker brother. In fact, in this paragraph, I could put an lol and intent that it made me chuckle that I had already pointed out that you put too much emphasis on man's wisdom and to address it, would be repeating myself, which is a worthless endeavor...see, it wouldn't have anything to do with you or what you said, but rather about me jumping the gun...offense in the interpreter not the speaker. again, want to put an lol, since I know people like this and think fondly of Keith Greenes performance where he says, we are not to be laugh at able for the Lord, in relation to the discussion about dismissing everything as suffering for the Lord.

What does Keith Greene say? That doesn't make sense (grammatically). Are you referring to this....from one of his songs:

So many laughing at Jesus
While the funniest thing that He's done
Is love this whole stubborn rebellious world
While their hate for Him just goes on

If so.....how are you tying that into this discussion?

 

[razzelflabben]

I was clarifying......not bashing.....not meaning to "beat you over the head"......---and your effort *is* enough. I said I honestly appreciate the effort. I meant that.

I was responding to your statement on your perspective about how you like to "lighten the mood" (which was the first time you brought it up, in depth)........and was offering my perspective about how I see that as possibly dismissive.

okay, you have an opinion...you stated that opinion. Repeating your opinion when I explain my position, is bashing me over the head with your pov, which is very disruptive to peaceful discussion. You may not have intended it to be so, but when one person tells their pov repeatedly, when the other person offers their side only once it is obvious that the first person is not respecting the difference of opinion which makes your words about appreciating the effort sound hollow, empty and otherwise meaningless. I am enough in love with my God to assume you are stirring trouble unintentionally, but the bottom line is that your behavior makes you words sound like nothing more than a ploy to sound like you are something you are not. A peace maker accepts that their pov was explained, understood and accepted whether agreed with or not, then allows the other person the respect and right to voice their side without trying to have the last word or rehash your own personal bias on a disputable matter. Seriously...your continuing to bash me with your opinion whether intentional or not, is offensive. You said your peace, we disagree, I told you why, now, if you want to make peace, you don't repeat your pov as if it held some magic or some God sent wisdom that isn't found in scripture. Enough is enough. I heard you, accepted your pov, agreed to disagree, told you one time why I disagree, I seriously don't need to keep hearing your pov as if you think you are God or at least speaking for God. I could understand repeating it if I didn't understand you view point, but I do understand, showed I did, and agreed to live with it even though I think your wrong. Why isn't that enough for you? How can you not see that your repeating your opinion is belittling and otherwise rude, disruptive to peace, and offensive. Do you want to have an all out battle over why we disagree? Is that your objective?

 

[mkgal1]

okay, you have an opinion...you stated that opinion. Repeating your opinion when I explain my position, is bashing me over the head with your pov, which is very disruptive to peaceful discussion. You may not have intended it to be so, but when one person tells their pov repeatedly, when the other person offers their side only once it is obvious that the first person is not respecting the difference of opinion which makes your words about appreciating the effort sound hollow, empty and otherwise meaningless. I am enough in love with my God to assume you are stirring trouble unintentionally, but the bottom line is that your behavior makes you words sound like nothing more than a ploy to sound like you are something you are not. A peace maker accepts that their pov was explained, understood and accepted whether agreed with or not, then allows the other person the respect and right to voice their side without trying to have the last word or rehash your own personal bias on a disputable matter. Seriously...your continuing to bash me with your opinion whether intentional or not, is offensive. You said your peace, we disagree, I told you why, now, if you want to make peace, you don't repeat your pov as if it held some magic or some God sent wisdom that isn't found in scripture. Enough is enough. I heard you, accepted your pov, agreed to disagree, told you one time why I disagree, I seriously don't need to keep hearing your pov as if you think you are God or at least speaking for God. I could understand repeating it if I didn't understand you view point, but I do understand, showed I did, and agreed to live with it even though I think your wrong. Why isn't that enough for you? ld be able to move point by counterpoint in a discussion (you state your perspective and I can respond with mine). How can you not see that your repeating your opinion is belittling and otherwise rude, disruptive to peace, and offensive. Do you want to have an all out battle over why we disagree? Is that your objective?

Okay, Razzel. I gave it my best shot. I merely responded to your new point (you had offered your opinion and varying additions more than once). In my opinion......it only seems "fair" and "just" that we would be able to respectfully hear each other out. I have no desire for a battle, though.

From my view......it seems that unless I agree with you.....you are combative with me (and cast judgment on what I'm saying---assigning labels like "disruptive" ....."rude"...and "beating me over the head" and that my words are a "ploy to sound like you are something you are not" and that I "think I am God or speaking for God" and that my previous words are "meaningless and hollow" for just offering my opinion in response to your statement). There's not much I can do with that, if I want to be honest (which I *do*). I'm not going to resort to walking on egg shells.

Like you said......truth comes before peace keeping. I agree with you whole-heartedly on that.

 

[mkgal1]

reread your posts as if you were me, you'll find it I'm sure. Often we type responses from our pov, and forget than someone else and someone elses pov will read it. You did tell me that communication problems on this matter were my fault and even asked me to change my style of communicating. Then you turn around and call me condescending for suggesting not even saying it outright, that the same could be said of you. Not cool...

You had asked me (in posts #33 & #37) how we should settle things about your use of "LOL" in posts http://www.christianforums.com/t7793820-4/

That's when I suggested not using things like "LOL" and when conversation online is getting tense. You seemed open to suggestions. To put it all into context.....I believe that all began back here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7793820-3/

Back a ways---in this thread, when I had asked you if you didn't read your own post as condescending......you were blaming *me* (or my posting style and lack of clarity) for your lack of recollection. You said it may have been *my* posting style and lack of clarity that caused you to miss me mentioning that prior. I'm not going to go dig it up (as it *was* a while ago.....maybe a couple of months) but I know I've clearly pointed it out before (but now am being accused of "beating you over the head"....so I'm going to drop it all). It just seems that it'd be sufficient to just say....."oh.....I'd forgotten you'd ever mentioned that before".

 

[mkgal1]

Those last two posts should probably be considered to be in reverse order.

 

[seeingeyes]

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....

If Joe Schmoe comes to me and tells me that laughing at fart jokes is a sin, then I would say that it isn't, and if he insisted, then I would refrain from laughing at fart jokes in front of him in the future (though I wouldn't tell him that he is a 'weaker brother').

If he then gathered witnesses against me about my unrepented sin of giggling at fart jokes, I would likely cut off most communication with that group. Why? Because I find such nitpicking silly and intolerable and useless and unChristlike (not to put too fine a point on it).

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.

I haven't been following the whole thread, so I'm not sure what you said. All I caught was that you suggested Matthew 18 as a solution to 'sin issues' (excellent, of course), and MKgal asked about issues that are not 'sin issues'. The problem being that what is a 'sin issue' to one is not a 'sin issue' to another.

My example about fart jokes (and I mean that literally...jokes about fart noises) was inspired by a thread started by a man who stopped attending any fellowship because one or two young people insisted on telling him fart jokes. This is clearly a case of personal preference morphing into moral law and I (though I certainly do humble myself to the preferences of others in love) am not obligated to the law of Joe Schmoe. Nor is any child of God, of course.

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.

Me? Twisting and drama? Maybe you have me mixed up with someone else?...

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, Razzel. I gave it my best shot. I merely responded to your new point (you had offered your opinion and varying additions more than once). In my opinion......it only seems "fair" and "just" that we would be able to respectfully hear each other out. I have no desire for a battle, though.

that is exactly what I am asking you to do...hear me out with respect rather than disrespect. You told me your point of view...I agreed to disagree with you on that pov, explaining why I disagree, which was my very first explanation of my pov on the matter. To which you repeated your view without any new information, just more of the same, like a nagging spouse who is afraid of being wrong on a matter. In fact, I care a great deal about being fair, so I prayed that God would show me if I was overreacting, I also went to the one person I trust to always tell me if I am wrong. God did not convict my heart on the matter and my husband agreed that you are the one out of line and that I am not making more of this than is there. So, at this point, what should we do to reconcile the situation? Isn't that what this discussion is about? Bravo to God for bringing up a disagreement so that we can test all that we have learned. You voiced a disagreement, I accepted that disagreement, conformed to your wished even though I disagreed, all in accordance with scripture, only for you to nag and bash me with more of your opinion. As per our discussion, that now puts you in the realm of the sin of judgment and forcing your opinion on me. That would not be the case if you had offered rebuttal of my points, or new information, but you didn't, you just repeated your previous objection. So, now we are entering the Matt. 18 phase of the discussion, where you are sinning against me and against God. I am coming to you "privately" trying to deal with the issue, and you refuse to accept responsibility for your stepping over the line and are thus trying to insight me to anger. Wouldn't the next step be for me to take it to a witness (mod) for the purpose of them evaluating whether or not you stepped over the line by continuing to proclaim your opinion even though understanding and acceptance of it being your opinion was given? You don't have to always have the last word you know...if that is what is driving you to bash me with your opinion, or is the motive that you can't accept disagreement?

From my view......it seems that unless I agree with you.....you are combative with me (and cast judgment on what I'm saying---assigning labels like "disruptive" ....."rude"...and "beating me over the head" and that my words are a "ploy to sound like you are something you are not" and that I "think I am God or speaking for God" and that my previous words are "meaningless and hollow" for just offering my opinion in response to your statement). There's not much I can do with that, if I want to be honest (which I *do*). I'm not going to resort to walking on egg shells.

really?!? Where do you get that, I already agreed to disagree, explaining why I disagree, and as far as I'm concerned that is the end, we both voiced our opinions. You on the other hand, restated your opinion as if you wanted to argue the point, I have absolutely no interest in arguing the point, I am quite content to leave it at a disagreement, however, I am not okay with hearing you repeat your position about a million and a half (exaggeration obviously) times so that you can come back and defend yourself by putting me down and blaming me for stirring what I already let go.

Like you said......truth comes before peace keeping. I agree with you whole-heartedly on that.

then how about the truthfulness of you not letting this die rather than the "lies" of me being the one who keeps it going. I already left it posts ago, my beef now is with you repeating yourself as if you think I have to agree with you in order for the situation to be settled. You stated your point, it was accepted as your point, shown to be understood, why then do you feel so compelled to bring it again and again instead of leaving it lay, especially since I already agreed to try to remember to conform to your wishes when I am talking to you, as per glorifying my Lord and King. For you to keep bringing it up, is to purpose to stir anger and hostility, which is sin and against forum rules. Seriously...you need to let it go...you got what you wanted, why doesn't that satisfy you? Because I won't conform to your wishes when it comes to everyone else in my life? Is that what is upsetting you, that you can't control my actions in real life? The need for control is sinful as well.

 

[razzelflabben]

You had asked me (in posts #33 & #37) how we should settle things about your use of "LOL" in posts http://www.christianforums.com/t7793820-4/

before that...come on, you aren't that clueless...you know that you tried to blame me and my style of communication without taking any responsibility on yourself.

That's when I suggested not using things like "LOL" and when conversation online is getting tense. You seemed open to suggestions. To put it all into context.....I believe that all began back here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7793820-3/

man am I struggling to not use a lol....first, I don't ever use the smilie you post here, so you are speaking in general at this point. In fact the only smilies I ever use are the ?, the smile, and the winkie...secondly, the lol is apparently an ongoing discussion because you can't seem to accept that I am willing to avoid using it when trying to talk to you. That kind of insistence that the conversation continues is inflammatory on your part. Thirdly, right now we are talking about the previous part of our discussion where you tried to blame me and my communication skills for the disagreement we had that eventually you agreed we didn't really disagree on, even though you tried to pretend that we did. So that's three strikes, I wonder if it's time to involve a witness? It doesn't appear that you are going to let the lol die any too soon, so maybe it is time.

Back a ways---in this thread, when I had asked you if you didn't read your own post as condescending......you were blaming *me* (or my posting style and lack of clarity) for your lack of recollection. You said it may have been *my* posting style and lack of clarity that caused you to miss me mentioning that prior. I'm not going to go dig it up (as it *was* a while ago.....maybe a couple of months)

no where close to a couple of months...can I laugh yet at you attempts to dismiss being caught in a double standard?

but I know I've clearly pointed it out before (but now am being accused of "beating you over the head"....so I'm going to drop it all). It just seems that it'd be sufficient to just say....."oh.....I'd forgotten you'd ever mentioned that before".

really? wow! so you get caught and instead of confessing and reconciling you try to make it everything else then just walk away...as I said, if this is how the church acts, it's no wonder people leave and refuse to come back into the church. oh well...moving on, at least if you are done bashing me with your opinion on the use of lol, we can avoid third party involvement.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Been reading the most recent comments. At first I was like:

But now I'm like:

BTW on a side note razzelflabben I've gone through all 13 pages of your past posts since you joined and for starters you say LOL almost every other line in everything. Aside from that you are almost always insulting people and acting immature. Its really off putting frankly. I reported you to a mod. If you can't learn to act like an adult then please don't post. I leave you with the famous quote.... WWJD... or in this case what would Jesus think of how you act? There are rules here for a reason.

 

[razzelflabben]

If Joe Schmoe comes to me and tells me that laughing at fart jokes is a sin, then I would say that it isn't, and if he insisted, then I would refrain from laughing at fart jokes in front of him in the future (though I wouldn't tell him that he is a 'weaker brother').

we are talking about in that paragraph, course jokes that contain fart humor, not just jokes about farting. As such, in that specific situation, you saying that laughing at course jokes that contain fart humor in them is not sinful would be outside the truth of scripture since we are instructed to not participate in course talk. As to the "weaker brother" if you are sighting why you are refraining from such laughter in front of him, as in disciplining in the truths of scripture, or a biblical discussion about how to handle ones self in such a situation, you better use the term "weaker brother" because it is important to the nature of the discussion. If you are not disciplining, nor discussing biblical matter, as in, just casually talking, then obviously, noting the passage you are taking your cue from would be unnecessary. IOW's all depends on the context of the situation.

If he then gathered witnesses against me about my unrepented sin of giggling at fart jokes, I would likely cut off most communication with that group. Why? Because I find such nitpicking silly and intolerable and useless and unChristlike (not to put too fine a point on it).

lol are you offended by lol's too? again, in the context of the discussion, we are now crossing a line into sin, either the sin of laughing at course jokes that involve farts, or the sin of judging another, depending on the situation at the time. The lol is because you are removing context to make a point, which is not very loving, Christian like, nor edifying, and isn't the point of the thread how to make sure we are edifying one another? I am truly amazed at how much failure there is on this thread about edifying one another, there really is. Maybe it would help to identify exactly what edifying means....from Websters...: to teach (someone) in a way that improves the mind or character....so, if I show you that you are wrong, I can be edifying you, as long as it is done in love, even if you do not like what was said, (note about done in love, in this context the key is motive, that is if the motive is reconciliation) It is not edifying to try to justify one's own sins of bashing another with opinion or taking things out of context to make a point, nor is it edifying to be unnecessarily harsh or rude. None the less, correction, is edifying even if it is not well accepted. So how then do we make sure we remain on the side of edifying? By speaking every word from our lips (fingertips) in the breath of the Love of the HS, for the purpose of building them up in the faith, that is maturity in Christ.

I haven't been following the whole thread, so I'm not sure what you said. All I caught was that you suggested Matthew 18 as a solution to 'sin issues' (excellent, of course), and MKgal asked about issues that are not 'sin issues'. The problem being that what is a 'sin issue' to one is not a 'sin issue' to another.

if scripture says it's a sin, it better be a sin for both parties that claim to be followers of Christ!!!!! As to the rest of what you say here, there were some specific situations talked about that you apparently missed, as an example, the first paragraph you mention in this post, specifies that the fart humor has crossed the line into course jokes...the second paragraph specifies that if the two have not agreed that it is a matter not specified in scripture as sin, then the line of judgment has been crossed and we are back to Matthew 18 only this time, it is to the one who is judging, not the one who is giggling at fart jokes. IOW's both of your objections require that the comments be taken out of context in order for you to make your point...which is a real problem for your objections.

My example about fart jokes (and I mean that literally...jokes about fart noises) was inspired by a thread started by a man who stopped attending any fellowship because one or two young people insisted on telling him fart jokes. This is clearly a case of personal preference morphing into moral law and I (though I certainly do humble myself to the preferences of others in love) am not obligated to the law of Joe Schmoe. Nor is any child of God, of course.

you are obligated to the law of God if the jokes cross the line into course language, which scripture speaks against and was the context of the above discussion that you are quoting.

Me? Twisting and drama? Maybe you have me mixed up with someone else?...

lol....maybe, just like some here have me mixed up with someone who can't communicate or someone who can't agree to disagree.

 

[razzelflabben]

Been reading the most recent comments. At first I was like:

But now I'm like:

BTW on a side note razzelflabben I've gone through all 13 pages of your past posts since you joined and for starters you say LOL almost every other line in everything. Aside from that you are almost always insulting people and acting immature. Its really off putting frankly. I reported you to a mod. If you can't learn to act like an adult then please don't post. I leave you with the famous quote.... WWJD... or in this case what would Jesus think of how you act? There are rules here for a reason.

really? It is now immature and insulting to accept that someone has a problem with me saying lol so I graciously agreed to stop using it so much....wow!!!! I think someone needs to define immature and insulting to me, especially since God calls that love! In fact, all I asked was that the poster in question would stop bashing me over the head with her opinion since I already agreed to conform to her bias on the matter. Amazing, simply amazing that anyone would think that was immature and insulting....I'm speechless as to how it is either, but, whatever....btw, another poster just posted that that was how it should be handled as well, might want to make sure you report them for agreeing with scripture as well.