[ordinaryguy]

Why the 2nd Christian doesn't believe it, or doesn't want to believe it, we DON"T know.

She said it was because of Christian No. 1's refusal to associate with her. Does your objective analysis reveal that she had a different (yet unknown) reason?

It is Christian#2's business to find forgiveness from God now for the "worldly" behavior. Then she may hopefully forgive HERSELF- is what I see as important now.

Apparently, Christian No. 2 didn't think her behavior was worldly, and so didn't feel that she needed forgiveness from either God or herself. It was Christian No. 1 who thought Christian No. 2's behavior was worldly. Does your objective analysis reveal that Christian No. 1 was right and Christian No. 2 was wrong?

Did you mean to say "...so why would ONE try"? Wouldn't that be the objective word to use?

No, actually I was referring to" YOU" in particular in that sentence. I should maybe have put the you in caps there. I'll restate from before. Yes, why would YOU try to analyze what is on Christian#2's mind any further?

I wasn't trying to analyze what either of them thought, beyond the fact that it seemed obvious that the trouble arose because each questioned the other's motives, which led them to start trading accusations. But at that point, I didn't have the benefit of your objective analysis.

[NeedKarma]

People often say I'm "worldly". I always thought it was because of my travels and experiences. I never thought that it could be christians gearing up to avoid me. :D

[ordinaryguy]

People often say I'm "worldly". I always thought it was because of my travels and experiences. I never thought that it could be christians gearing up to avoid me. :D

You probably weren't objective enough to see it clearly.:rolleyes:

[Starman]

The Christian who wanted to avoid contamination was trying to protect herself via not associating. I should have been specific about the other Christian's behavior in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Christian who was being avoided was one who regularly went to dances with nonChristians. During one of those dances a man was killed due to an argument with another in relation to her. This automatically gave her wordly reputation and based on that the other Christian thought it best to keep her distance. The personal offense was one of gossiping and backbiting. For this she was forgiven. But no association.

Hope that clears it up. Sorry about any confusion.

BTW
Although I agree that we have to avoid certain associations we also have to be very careful that don't finish the person off spiritually by causing him or her to stumble. We That can happen if we come across as feeling superior or being cruel. It's a good to keep in mind that the person's life is still precious and that he still deserves a certain measure of respect and consideration.



(King James Version)

Luke 17
1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

[NeedKarma]

The Christian who wanted to avoid contamination ...

Did the person have a communicable disease too?

[31pumpkin]

Did the person have a communicable disease too?

What do YOU think?

[Hope12]

Hello Everyone,
In my humble opinion:

“The Christian who wanted to avoid contamination was trying to protect herself via not associating. I should have been specific about the other Christian's behavior in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Christian who was being avoided was one who regularly went to dances with non Christians.”
__________________________________________________ _________
( Would a parent allow their child to play with another child if they played with guns or other things that could harm their child? No of course not, so this Christian was avoiding the association that could possibly do harm to her. Is that wrong? No! What happens to a basket of apples and one of those apples is rotten? Can not the rotten apple spoil the other apples? So too with conduct that is not Christian.
1 Corinthians 15:33
Even after a person has freed himself from the control of the powers of darkness and has come into the light he faces continued bombardment from this system of things. So it may be difficult at times for some to ‘practice the truth,’ but they need to be on guard so that they do not return to their former way of life. The apostle John wrote: “If we make the statement: ‘We are having a sharing with him,’ and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth.” (1 John 1:6) True, we all fall short at times, but what are the things that we practice? Are some of us walking in darkness rather than light, even though we claim to have come out of the darkness of this world into the light? Are we really practicing the truth, or does our pattern of life show that we are holding back, deceiving ourselves, lying to ourselves?—1 John 1:8–2:2.
7
The secret word there is Regularly. That means that the one she is avoiding makes it a practice to get involved with behavior or actions that do not befit a true Christian. She has her God given right to make that choice.

************************************************** ***
“During one of those dances a man was killed due to an argument with another in relation to her. This automatically gave her worldly reputation and based on that the other Christian thought it best to keep her distance. The personal offense was one of gossiping and backbiting. For this she was forgiven. But no association.”
The Bible states that when a Christian does wrong and sins , they should be forgiven and taken back fully into the congregation.
(1 John 2:1-6) My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. 3 And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments. 4 He that says: “I have come to know him,” and yet is not observing his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in this [person]. 5 But whoever does observe his word, truthfully in this [person] the love of God has been made perfect. By this we have the knowledge that we are in union with him. 6 He that says he remains in union with him is under obligation himself also to go on walking just as that one walked.’

So a true Christian would forgive and until they are sure of the persons conduct they would not avoid them and when they see them they must treat them as a fellow worshiper of God. They though can mark the person in the sense of keeping their association limited until they are sure this person has made the changes needed to be good association for them. They however should never treat this one badly, but show more then the usual love toward them so they can heal from their sin and return to spiritual maturity.
************************************************** ***********
BTW
Although I agree that we have to avoid certain associations we also have to be very careful that don't finish the person off spiritually by causing him or her to stumble. We That can happen if we come across as feeling superior or being cruel. It's a good to keep in mind that the person's life is still precious and that he still deserves a certain measure of respect and consideration.”

************************************************** ******
I agree totally.
We would never allow ourselves to think we are better and would never treat others poorly. We always want to help others that fall into sin to get right again with God. We also must remember that if we do not forgive our brother or sister their sin, then God does not forgive us.

An important reason to forgive others is indicated at Ephesians 5:1: “Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children.” In what respect should we “become imitators of God”? The word “therefore” connects the expression with the preceding verse, which says: “Become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32

When it comes to forgiveness, we should become imitators of God. As a little boy tries to be just like his father, we, as children whom Jehovah dearly loves, should want to become like our forgiving heavenly Father. How it must delight God’s heart to look down from the heavens and see his earthly children trying to be like him by forgiving one another! Luke 6:35, 36;
Matthew 5:44-48.

Even more important, if we refuse to forgive others when there is a basis for mercy, it can adversely affect our own relationship with God. God does not just ask us to forgive one another; he “expects us to do so. According to the Scriptures, part of the motivation for us to be forgiving is in order that God might forgive us or because he has forgiven us. Matthew 6:14; Mark 11:25; Ephesians 4:32; 1 John 4:11
Who are we that we should not show mercy and forgive others? If, then, we are unwilling to forgive others when there is sound reason to do so, can we really expect such forgiveness from God?—Matthew 18:21-35

Take care,
Hope12

[NeedKarma]

So you're equating someone who goes to dances with different people than you or whose behaviour you don't condone to a child playing with guns? That makes no sense at all. Of course a parent protects a child from harm; because it's a child. As an adult are we so weak-willed that someone else's behaviour can affect your life? Remember now, the behaviour referred to was gossipping and "backbiting" (I'm not too sure what that is).

Remember too that we are all sinners, so are you to avoid everyone? What a lonely, lonely life. Thank goodness for the internet I guess.

[Hope12]

Hello NeedKarma,
I was using the example as an illustration on why a person might avoid association with another. A persons behavior can cause another to choose not- to associate with- another.
We do not know the whole situation, however, isn't it great that we can choose who we wish to associate with and who we do not..

Take Care,
Hope12

[Starman]

Hello NeedKarma,
I was using the example as an illustration on why a person might avoid association with another. A persons behavior can cause another to choose not- to associate with- another.
We do not know the whole situation, however, isn't it great that we can choose who we wish to associate with and who we do not..

Take Care,
Hope12

I agree with the principle of avoiding certain close associations both for personal and congregational spiritual well-being. So it's concerning the manner in which the evasion of associating is carried out that I am advising caution. I know that in principle, as you describe, all should go smoothly. Unfortunately it sometimes doesn't with devastating consequences. The reason, as I am sure you already know, is that some immature individuals are prone to brandish the evasion behavior as a weapon or due to lack wisdom are unable to apply it in a nonoffensive manner.

So in my humble opinion is that more attention be given the cautioning against the dangers involved in the misuse of this right, or duty to avoid others. Otherwise the avoided person might be given the impression that the avoiders themselves are bad association that should be avoided. In short, instead of helping the person come to his senses the perceived cruelty provides a reason to conclude that his original drifting away from that particular church was the right choice. Right?


Luke 11:23
"He that is not with me is against me. He who doesn't gather with me scatters.

So you're equating someone who goes to dances with different people than you or whose behaviour you don't condone to a child playing with guns? That makes no sense at all. Of course a parent protects a child from harm; because it's a child. As an adult are we so weak-willed that someone else's behaviour can affect your life? Remember now, the behaviour referred to was gossipping and "backbiting" (I'm not too sure what that is).

Remember too that we are all sinners, so are you to avoid everyone? What a lonely, lonely life. Thank goodness for the internet I guess.

The relationship between God and humankind is that of parent and offspring. Are humans weak-willed when it comes to making right decisions? History speaks volumes on that.

[NeedKarma]

Are humans weak-willed when it comes to making right decisions? History speaks volumes on that.

I feel that myself, my family, my friends, and most of the people I've met around the world make pretty good decisions and bear no resemblance to the tyrants, murderers, rapists, etc. that make up that small percentage of the population that I'm assuming that you are referring to. In the same way that christian types probably feel no relationship to outfits such as the Westboro Baptist Church or that James Rutz guy who says "soy makes you gay".

All my decisions haven't been perfect but's that's life my friend. If you expect all your decisions to be perfect then you are going to be sorely dissapointed and have yourself up for frustration in life. Live and learn.

[Starman]

I feel that myself, my family, my friends, and most of the people I've met around the world make pretty good decisions and bear no resemblance to the tyrants, murderers, rapists, etc. that make up that small percentage of the population that I'm assuming that you are referring to. In the same way that christian types probably feel no relationship to outfits such as the Westboro Baptist Church or that James Rutz guy who says "soy makes you gay".

All my decisions haven't been perfect but's that's life my friend. If you expect all your decisions to be perfect then you are going to be sorely dissapointed and have yourself up for frustration in life. Live and learn.

I am not asking you to identify yourself with the few imbeciles who led I am asking you to identify with the billions of morons who followed=most of mankind.

BTW

Dee Dee Dee!

[0rphan]

If you would naturally come in contact with a person who has done you an injustice and this has really offended you, then depending on the severity of the act it would be totally your decision if you became friendly again.

If however the offence was so hurtful that you decide to wash your hands of them, then you could approach that person explain that you have forgiven them but feel it would be better if you kept your distance in future and go your separate ways.

Should it be a person that you have to see on a daily basis... maybe job, family etc.etc... and there's no avoiding them, well if it were me being an upfront person I'd just have to come clean, appeal to their better nature and tell them exactly what I thought depending on their crime.

If they are genuinely sorry and apologize... which is all any of us can do... and you believe that they are sincere then enough said give them a hug and get on with life.

Religion... I cannot for the life of me see where it comes in regarding this issue, surely it's about what you should do as a human being... one to another, how we treat each other... it's not whether or not your religion say's you should or should not, it's about free will, you are your own person and quite capable deciding for yourself.

The severity of the crime is of no conseqence, a crime is a crime what ever packaging it 's wrapped in, if it's been paid back to society... that's it over

[De Maria]

Suppose the person accuses us of not forgiving him because we refuse to associate with him? Takes our refusal as proof that he or she hasn't really been forgiven? I saw this happen once between two Christians. One claimed to have forgiven but evaded the other claiming that she wasn't under any obligation to associate. The other claimed that the refusal proved forgiveness hadn't really taken place.

BTW
The refusal to associte was based on the scripture which states that bad association is detrimental to spiritual health. In short, the offended Christian viewed the other as being too much in touch with the world to be good association so she tried to keep a safe distance.

You've received excellent answers from those who I believe are Christians on this board. The old saying "forgive and forget" is just a saying. Many times bullies want to keep those they have harmed close to them because they consider them easy marks. Continuing to associate with such people is simply empowering them to continue an abusive relationship.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

This just shows what a slippery slope it is to judge someone else's motives.

So, you don't judge anyone else's motives? Sounds a bit naïve.

First thing you know, Christians are accusing each other of being insincere in their forgiveness, and of being too worldly,

That's only bad if you are wrong. But in my opinion, if the person in question has proven his insincerity, then the accusation is true and you are justified in avoiding him. That only seems logical.

Or would you associate with known criminals for instance?

And while quoting scripture to justify their attitude.

And you believe quoting Scripture is bad?

So, did you answer the OP? In your opinion, MUST a person associate with someone whom he has forgiven? Or is a person free to choose his associations?

Besides it really seems as though you've ignored the OP and pardon me for judging your motives, in order to take another potshot at Christians and Christianity. Am I wrong?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

So you're equating someone who goes to dances with different people than you or whose behaviour you don't condone to a child playing with guns?

I don't condone behavior such as drug dealing. Therefore I don't associate with drug dealers.

I don't condone atheism, so I minimize my contact with atheists and my children's with atheists lest their morals rub on to me or them.

But I don't understand your objection to this attitude. If I remember correctly, You once said that you didn't want your children being taught by Christians and that you would remove your children from any school where Christianity was taught. Therefore, if you believe you have right to choose with whom you and your children associate, why do you deny that right to Christians?

That makes no sense at all. Of course a parent protects a child from harm; because it's a child. As an adult are we so weak-willed that someone else's behaviour can affect your life?

It is precisely the opposite. We are exercising our will when we decide not to associate with people whose morals and behaviour we don't agree.

We would be weak willed if we succumbed to the idea that we MUST associate with everyone no matter what they do or how they behave.

And not only does an adult have an obligation to protect his children but also himself.

Would you advocate for instance, that a young lady who was raped by her boyfriend must forogive him and then continue to associate with him?

I would say, "No!!!" It is absolutely ludicrous. But apparently, you and OG would advocate just that.

Remember now, the behaviour referred to was gossipping and "backbiting" (I'm not too sure what that is).

Remember too that we are all sinners, so are you to avoid everyone? What a lonely, lonely life. Thank goodness for the internet I guess.

Who advocated avoiding everyone? Maybe I missed it, but I thought the point being made was to avoid people whom you mistrust or whom you believe would be detrimental to your values and morals. In my case, our family avoids atheistic, immoral and criminal associations. But we have hundreds of friends. They're mostly Christian, some Muslims and other people of conscience. Not a lonely life at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[chuff]

Why is this being brought up after almost a year and half?

[De Maria]

Why is this being brought up after almost a year and half?

Sorry, I didn't notice the date.

Message #33 brought the discussion to the top of the list and since it was posted today, I assumed the discussion was recent.

If the discussion is old news, then by all means, disregard.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[ordinaryguy]

Besides it really seems as though you've ignored the OP and pardon me for judging your motives, in order to take another potshot at Christians and Christianity. Am I wrong?

Yes.

[0rphan]

Why is this being brought up after almost a year and half?

Hi chuff... I wasn't aware that you could not comment on an old question. This question is still open so I assumed a comment was still acceptable especially if you have not been a member for long like myself and of coarse there are many new members after me that perhaps might also care to comment.

My apologies if this is incorrect, perhaps some one could set me right on this.