Voicing Valid Concerns vs Verbal Bashing

[SpiritPsalmist]

This is subject that is somewhat of a concern for me. 

I have noticed, not only in these forums but in several churches that I have attended and Christians I have had contact with that there seems to be a lot of verbal bashing of people and ministries that are dissagreed with.

I understand the concern on some issues but the comments coming out of peoples mouths are non-constructive.  I have even participated in this activity myself, so I am including myself in this issue as well.  

However, what does scripture say about the issue.  Is it OK to make negative character statements about others?  Especially those who claim to be of the household of God.  Is it OK for us to come to the conclusion they are not saved because of our opinion?

What if they are not guilty of the things we have perceived?  Are we possibly bringing judgement down on ourselves when we do this?

I do not want this to turn into verbal bashing, so please give  thoughtful and constructive views.  I will ask the Mod's to intervene if it gets out of hand.

Now, please share your thoughts.

 

[ZiSunka]

Negative character statements about others are what Jesus was talking about when he commanded us not to judge.

No one has the right to judge another's salvation. You might point out things that are not doctrinally correct. You might quote Bible references that show someone where they have gone wrong. You might discuss your concerns about someone's fruits, but you don't have the right to tell another believer that he is or is not saved because of some anger you have toward them.

 

[dignitized]

lamb? where does God command us not to judge?

As far as other ministries are concerned I remember the verse where God says - touch not my annointed. If they are out of line, God will correct their errors who am I so sand in Gods place in judgement over another mans calling?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Br. Max
lamb? where does God command us not to judge?

I always thought Romans 2 was a pretty good starting point; also the parable of the two debtors.

 

[eldermike]

It's actually never ok to make negative discouraging statements in public. Matt 18 tells us how to confront each other, first in private then with 2 or three others and then to the church. In forums we tend to go right to the last step, skipping the private conversation. It's never ok to make points at the expense of the feelings and rights of others.

 

[dignitized]

elder - I agree.

However I think its a great falasy of this age that we are forbidden to judge. Christ warns us - JUDGE NOT that you be not judged.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Br. Max
elder - I agree.

However I think its a great falasy of this age that we are forbidden to judge. Christ warns us - JUDGE NOT that you be not judged.

Bro Max

I'm not quite following the point you're making.  It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.  You say you think the "forbidden to judge is a falacy", but then you quote scripture where Christ tells us not to judge. 

What am I missing? 

 

[Blade]

I think we all love to get right in there when someone slips up. Because you know we all know that WE are right and there wrong

No one wants there WASH looked at. Its like " I new that dude was wrong, just look at that whole in there shirt" Other person looks down " Ok but wow look at that whole in your socks." Just trying to be funny. I found out not to long ago I am very bad at it.

To Judge you REALLY have to know every thing going on.

As soon as I can Judge which came 1st the chicken or the egg I'll get back to you... 

 

[Blessed-one]

In forums we tend to go right to the last step, skipping the private conversation.

in light of eldermike's opinion, i agree with him. In a forum, you've never really interacted personally with the person you're having a disagreement with, and even if you knew him personally, can you be sure that you know every single event in his life? because we are not all knowing, we can falsely condemn people by judging them. However, only God can judge, by knowing everything.

 

[Susan]

There are two judgments. I will use a person for my example that hopefully no one here will be offended at.

Judgment of actions is one that is necessary for us to not be decieved or misled. For instance, if I say "Charles Ponzi was a con artist," this is not a judgment of Charles Ponzi's soul. It is a quick way of asserting a truth based on solid evidence: that Ponzi and his scheme stole money from people through deceit, and that if someone tells you that he has some wonderful financial lessons that he has learned from the career of Ponzi, that your money would be better "invested" in a slot machine than with that person.

The judgment of the soul is the one that we cannot make. I cannot say that "Charles Ponzi's miserable soul is burning in the fires of Hades." Although I am reasonably sure that I won't be meeting up with a smarmy con artist in Heaven who is busily scraping the streets of gold and shoving the gold in his pockets, I am not God and do not know with 100% certainty.

However, we are bound by law, ethics and common sense to proclaim Ponzi's actions on Earth and the schemes that live on in his name to be fraudulent, sinful, wrong, and not beneficial. We have every right to insist that people who practice these schemes go to jail, and to warn potential victims of their existence and of the warning signs of such a scam. That is not judgment of Ponzi's soul, just of his actions and the actions of his "descendants" in the fraud business.

I hope that was somewhat helpful

 

[Andrew]

For instance, if I say "Charles Ponzi was a con artist," this is not a judgment of Charles Ponzi's soul.

So its ok to attack a person's character (without proof usu) but not ok to say whether he's saved or not? It's even legal to do that publicly? and Christ-like behaviour?

What abt when the man or woman is in ministry? ie God's servant. It's ok to call him or her a cheat becos you dont agree with some things they are doing?

 

[Susan]

You did not read my post. I said that you had to have evidence.

 

[Andrew]

so even if you have evidence its alright? esp when the person is not here to defend himself? is this forum, for eg, a platform to attack other Christian's character, esp those who are not here to defend themselves? so if you have evidence against, says the catholics here, then its ok to call them liar/cheat/fasle teacher etc? i dont think so.

If Charles Ponzi was participating in this thread, wld you still dare to say what you said? Or do you dare to do it becos he can't see this? Isnt there a double standard?

 

[Outspoken]

"esp when the person is not here to defend himself?"

There is evidience for something yes, it can be stated that he was wrong. Please don't slander someone though. It is okay to say someone is wrong and that seems to be what she was doing in her post Andrew.

 

[Andrew]

There is evidience for something yes, it can be stated that he was wrong. Please don't slander someone though. It is okay to say someone is wrong and that seems to be what she was doing in her post Andrew.

There's a big difference between stating that someone is wrong and calling that person a liar or cheat or false prophet.

The unwritten understanding among preachers and ministers is that if you want to attack something, attack the teaching or doctrine, without naming names. You dont need to call the preacher (who is your bro or sis in Christ) a lair, cheat, false prophet etc. Afterall, it is better to address the "false" doctrine, so that it can be recognised, regardless of who is teaching it.

To call someone a cheat or liar can amount to libel, if your "evidence" does not hold up in court. And are you prepared to go to court? Also, ask yourself, are Christians supp to take each other to court? The Bible says no.

There's also something called right of reply. You attack a person who's not here (on this forum) to defend himself. How do you know he cannot counter your evidence? So that is simply not fair -- it's like throwing stones from behind mummy's skirt. Why not write to the person, call him up or something and clear things up with him first?

Finally, I know that ministers who walk in love, even if they are attacked, while hurt, do not reply or 'counter attack'. The simply leave it to God to defend them, and bless their critics. Afterall, at the end of the day, the servant of God answers to God. And God can make him stand.

To criticise a fellow Christian behind his back when he's not looking is to me simply the coward's way and not the way of love.

 

[Outspoken]

"Afterall, it is better to address the "false" doctrine, so that it can be recognised, regardless of who is teaching it."

If someone's teachings are false, they are a false "prophet" are they not?

"How do you know he cannot counter your evidence? "

you can 1. write him and get him to reply 2. reply in his defence. There is nothing wrong with posting thoughs about his teachings though, nor anyone else's.

"To criticise a fellow Christian behind his back when he's not looking is to me simply the coward's way and not the way of love."

this is not behind his back. We are not attempted to keep these words from anyone, Andrew. What you're doing is creating a false assumption and jumping to a false conclusion based on it. Saying someone's teachings are false, when you have evidience is not a wrong thing, its your opinion that you are entitled to.

 

[Greeter]

Originally posted by Outspoken
If someone's teachings are false, they are a false "prophet" are they not?

So if we believe someone is off in their doctrine we just name them a false prophet?  What about the commandment of not bearing false witness?  Are we going against this commandment by insulting someone?  Every Protestant and Catholic here believes the other side to have false teachings.  Does that mean we should start calling each other false prophets?  I hope not.

you can 1. write him and get him to reply 2. reply in his defence. There is nothing wrong with posting thoughs about his teachings though, nor anyone else's.

Instead of outright insulting the person, how about just pointing out where you feel they are mistaken and the evidence you have to support it?  Are we justified as Christians to start calling people names?  Or is there any commandments about showing love?

this is not behind his back. We are not attempted to keep these words from anyone, Andrew. What you're doing is creating a false assumption and jumping to a false conclusion based on it. Saying someone's teachings are false, when you have evidience is not a wrong thing, its your opinion that you are entitled to.

There must be a better way as that "false assumption" is an easy one to come to.  Shouldn't there be love in how we give our opinions?  Aren't we as Christians supposed to stand out in the world- in a good way?  Shouldn't the evidence for any insult be given?

 

[Susan]

Originally posted by Andrew
If Charles Ponzi was participating in this thread, wld you still dare to say what you said? Or do you dare to do it becos he can't see this? Isnt there a double standard?

I don't believe this. . .

and YES, I can say absolutely and unequivocally that if Ponzi were reading this (absolutely impossible BTW) or if someone practicing his scam were here, I would say every word of what I said. And I would report him/her for practicing an illegal activity under rule 4.

This has to be one of the silliest things I have heard said in a long while.  If I were not so sad, I would probably laugh.

Andrew, please do go ahead and defend Charles Ponzi. I will assume you do not even know who this person or what his scam was/is, and I do wonder how you would even think of defending this person's actions and those who follow in his path.

I will even give you an unfair advantage that will put us on an even level in this "debate": go to your attorney (if you have one) or an attorney on this board and ask him or her what a Ponzi scheme is. If you find nothing there, look it up in Google.

I am waiting for your reply.

 

 

 

 

[Greeter]

Originally posted by Susan
Andrew, please do go ahead and defend Charles Ponzi. I will assume you do not even know who this person or what his scam was/is, and I do wonder how you would even think of defending this person's actions and those who follow in his path.

Ofcourse we don't know.  Even the source I used is titled "Useless Information".  You never gave us any background or evidence of his crimes.  None of us knows everything there is that is out there.

I don't think Andrew is trying to defend the man but rather that he is trying to help get us all to act as Christians.  The scheme was wrong.  I say we make sure no one uses it.  How is insulting a dead man, or running his name through the mud, a good idea for Christians?

I don't think it is ever a good idea for us to identify people by their sins.  Ponzi is human and sinned.  Does that mean we should punish him further for it?  Or should we let God handle this?

How about that line about hating the sin and loving the sinner?  Or does that not apply?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Greeter
Ofcourse we don't know.  Even the source I used is titled "Useless Information".  You never gave us any background or evidence of his crimes.  None of us knows everything there is that is out there.

I don't think Andrew is trying to defend the man but rather that he is trying to help get us all to act as Christians.  The scheme was wrong.  I say we make sure no one uses it.  How is insulting a dead man, or running his name through the mud, a good idea for Christians?

I don't think it is ever a good idea for us to identify people by their sins.  Ponzi is human and sinned.  Does that mean we should punish him further for it?  Or should we let God handle this?

How about that line about hating the sin and loving the sinner?  Or does that not apply?

I totally agree with this thought.  I too have been known to defend people, even those I do not agree with simply because the person spouting off did not personally do what Jesus commanded us to do when we believe another believer is in sin. 

Since we cannot accurately conclude the condition of their heart we don't know. 

We also must never go by hearsay.  That is not allowed in a court of law, why should we allow in the courts of the Lord. 

We all will stand before God and be held accountable for what we do.  Part of that will be how loose we let our tongues (or in forums case, our fingers) run.