Search Members

[Caroline]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 10 2005,18:19)

Hi Caroline, We do not serve ourselves or even logic ultimately. We seek the will of God in our life and He outlines that plan daily for us surely? Has He not made plain what he requires of you yet in this matter? If you got where you find yourself today through being in Jesus and following him and seeking his will then that is where he wants you to be surely; and the only way forward from here is to keep doing these things? Jas 1.5 “But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him”

I find that, particularly when you are in the middle of a distressing experience, it can be very difficult to identify the finer details of how you ought to behave. How far does loyalty stretch? Does compassion really lead you to just accept someone's unacceptable behaviour?

In particular, if it seems that God is leading you in what seems to be the easier direction, then it can be difficult to believe that you are listening to Him rather than your own desires. Surely, therefore, it is necessary to challenge such feelings to see if they stand fast? That, surely, is wisdom.

My thoughts about the Scribes and Pharisees and the apostles shaking the dust from their shoes, were not intended to be direct commands, but simply an indication that sometimes it is right to move on.

To return to the initial question of how to behave when you have forgiven someone, here is a very simplistic example (and not one from experience):

If someone steals from you, is sorry, and you forgive them, then it is surely right (by Christian rather then human standards) for you to have no qualms about leaving them alone in a room with your valuables.
If they steal from you and do not admit that they have done so (for the sake of straightforward argument, let us assume that there is no doubt that they have stolen, and lay aside any issues of need etc), clearly you would still forgive them, but would you leave them alone with your valuables?

Is there any reason why these principles should not be equally applied if someone is causing personal or emotional damage to you or those you love?

[Caroline]

This isn't about judgement, though. It is clear to us when the most straightforward of God's instructions to us are being flouted. Recognition of sin does not imply judgement of the sinner.

Is there any reason to put ourselves into the firing line of the suffering that such behaviour causes? Should we not take whatever preventative measures we can to protect others from the same – or worse – suffering?

Is there any point in presenting ourselves as targets when our presence has no remedial effect?

[Caroline]

I would add that adult children have a responsibility towards their parents. Bearing one another's burdens also suggests a very wide responsibility for others – but I think you are talking about a responsibility for their behaviour, rather than their protection.

It is rather difficult to know how we would want to be treated if we are looking at someone who is behaving in a way we cannot imagine doing. Maybe the question is 'How should we be treated' if we behave in such a way? But that is taking us into the realms of judgement, and possibly punishment (in a corrective way), and is so fraught with emotion that it is very difficult to answer.

If someone is a brother (I am assuming that you are talking about the Body of Christ rather than human family relationships), but geographically distant, there is surely nothing more we can do once we have made it clear that what they are doing is unacceptable – unless, as you say, we are dealing with illegalities, in which case our actions would be much more straightforward.

It can be easier to forgive someone who has hurt you than someone who has hurt someone you love. Leaving that aside, the question I cannot answer is whether or not it is right to remove yourself from the firing line in order to protect yourself – and, to a lesser extent, others – from further hurt and unproductive argument, when you know that there is nothing you can do to improve the situation. Punishment does not come into this. Self-preservation does, and also protection of others. I think, too, that there is a desire not to feel hypocritical – 'If I welcome you into my home I am implicitly condoning your behaviour'. There is also the thought – and it is possible that this is actually the main point – that, while their behaviour is on-going, every association with them is going to renew the hurt.

I think of the apostles shaking the dust off their shoes when they had not been made welcome, of Jesus not associating with the Scribes and Pharisees, who had been given a chance, but rejected it, and of the instruction to cut off your right hand if it offends.

[Caroline]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 08 2005,18:52)

Does commonsense suggest a course of action. Who decides what is serious? Is it a matter of the world or the Body of Christ? Should we mind our own business or get involved in judging others? Have we been given responsibility for resolving these issues or does that responsibility belong to others? Will be be distracted from the role given us if we take on other matters that have not been given to us? Am I stopping the person from helping themself? Am I taking over the role of someone else because I judge they are not competant to continue doing that work? Galatians 6.2f ” Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ………For each will bear his own load”

No.
The Word of God.
I thought the latter, but now suspect the former.
Not a matter of judgement, more of protection.
Responsibility for those being hurt, not for resolution.
There is nothing to be profitably taken on.
No.
No.
Whose burden to bear – the sinned against or the sinning? (Actually, I think that's fairly obvious.)

Prayer is always the most important part of the solution, but life has to be lived while God does His work. Is it possible – acceptable – to forgive, but cut oneself off from a person because of their continuing or previous behaviour? Does such an action suggest a lack of forgiveness?

Thanks.

[Caroline]

Do you mean that if you can see someone doing something that is seriously – and possibly physically – damaging to someone else, and they know that you believe them to be wrong, you should behave towards them as though there was nothing wrong?

I am not talking about not bearing grudges, or being bitter – these are internal issues, and issues between ourselves and God – but about what forgiveness means in practical terms, when translated into everyday life.

[Caroline]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 06 2005,04:34)

I grew up on Good News and loved it's simplicity and readability and I am sure many others had their eyes opened to the beauty in the Word through this translation.I still read it when I am feeding my soul and not searching out truth and it still speaks to me.

I agree entirely, Nick. I use the Good News, too, when I am reading rather than studying, and I must admit that I take great pleasure, and inspiration too, from the illustrations.

When studying I try to use as many versions as I can, usually Good News, NIV, New American Standard, KJV, New English (which has some odd turns of phrase, often worth investigating) and the Revised Standard Version.

The cultural differences between the times and places of the Bible, and our time and place do mean that we need good commentaries, and again, I try to use a number of well-respected versions, and also to dip into a couple of more obscure, or even slightly odd-ball ones. Sometimes identifying another person's mistakes can shed a great deal of light on what you are doing, and, equally, there are often nuggets of gold in the most unlikely places – but care is needed, of course.

[Caroline]

I have always believed that the books of the Apocrypha should be used as any spiritual book written by man – with discernment, judging all we read by what we know from the Bible.
There are truly inspiring passages in some of the books, and I cannot believe that such inspiration is not God-given in at least the same way as the inspiring poetry written by Christian poets and song-writers. Similarly, there are passages whose truth is so clearly in line with Biblical truth, that it would be absurd to reject them as though they were bad.
I think these books are of great value, and should be regarded in the same light as a preacher's sermon or a scholar's treatise. We should read them with our eyes open, and our brains in gear!

[Caroline]

I don't know much about world religions, although I do have a degree in Christian Theology. I can see the appeal of a one world religion, but it seems to me that this would have to be completely manufactured.
The backgrounds, biographies, teachings, chronologies etc of the main religious figures would not allow for them to have genuinely been the same figure. Don't forget that a lot of the history of Jesus is just that – history, and not simply unsubstantiated belief. Speaking from a Christian point of view, if you denied the truth of the Bible, you would be making Jesus a liar, and there would be no purpose in following Him.

[Caroline]

Quote (t8 @ Jan. 07 2005,05:43)

Quote (Caroline @ Jan. 07 2005,10:38) Surely it is the person who matters.  A rose by any other name etc. I think that by getting hung up on a name we run the risk of concentrating on the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, rather than the spirit of the law, which Jesus taught us was the only  important thing.   God hears your meaning when you pray, rather than just listening to the words you speak, and between you and Jesus, the name you use is irrelevant.  Any associations that might be made by the use of a particular name are only going to be relevant to a small number of people, and if we were to worry about such things we would probably find that all names are flawed in some way – after all, all language is created by man rather than God.   That said, if you use the name 'Jesus', most people will understand who you mean. God Bless I would tend to agree that the heart of a person is really what counts. For surely you can have all the right words and have a corrupt heart. But if the name thing didn't matter too much, then one could change Jesus name to say Bob and if that got universal acceptance then would that matter, (if they knew who you meant)?

Personally, I think that you could call Jesus 'Bucket', and as long as it was understood where it needed to be, and done with respect (which, admittedly, could be difficult with a word like bucket!), it would make no difference at all.

[Caroline]

I have just read the book, and I do agree with Surgeon83 that the big problem is the way we are led to believe that a lot of the contents are factual.  There is a page at the beginning laying out carefully selected facts, which could very easily lead to people accepting the vast majority of the book as factual.  I spent a lot of time flipping backwards and forwards to check what was and wasn't factual, but still didn't initially notice the careful wording which simplies a broader degree of truth than it supports on closer inspection.

I do hope that most people will realise the absurdity of elevating da Vinci to the level of a prophet on the basis of his painting pictures for the religious (because they paid him well), and inserting half-hidden symbols into them for his own amusement.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid most people won't spot this.

[Caroline]

Surely it is the person who matters.  A rose by any other name etc.
I think that by getting hung up on a name we run the risk of concentrating on the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, rather than the spirit of the law, which Jesus taught us was the only  important thing.  
God hears your meaning when you pray, rather than just listening to the words you speak, and between you and Jesus, the name you use is irrelevant.  Any associations that might be made by the use of a particular name are only going to be relevant to a small number of people, and if we were to worry about such things we would probably find that all names are flawed in some way – after all, all language is created by man rather than God.  
That said, if you use the name 'Jesus', most people will understand who you mean.
God Bless

[Author]

Posts