arphaxad

Why Risk Trust?

154 posts in this topic

It is excellent testimony  to never be alone in a situation where either self delusion, or the enticement by Satan may cast it's seed, or flourish in any manner. 

David first sinned the sin of not following God's command to him. He set himself up to be in position  to be enticed, and David soon sinned mightily.

See https://bible.org/seriespage/19-david-s-downfall-2-samuel-11-24 

David was denying God's instructions from the beginning- that set up the final snare. Be about the battle at all times. Never take the small pleasures that relax the defenses and invites disaster. For like David,if we do relax from the standards we know protect, we will soon father sin whose consequence harms even entire nations and bends History through to eternity.

 It is the simple things failed at, that lead to the big errors that humiliate  and shame us. So never even just once relax from the rules known to protect self and others from the nasty consequence of sins thoughts and actions.

Edited by Neighbor
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1 Thessalonians passage is afforded very good commentaries at this Biblehub site http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_thessalonians/5-22.htm

The gossips we've all encountered would avail themselves of the opportunity to spread rumor should they see a woman dining alone with a man not her husband. The appearance of evil, the appearance of adultery in that case, could very well be a perch upon which those who would offend in bearing false testimony to others about that spouse.

Trust being paramount in a marriage, a husband and wife trusting one another without reservation does not preclude the dark thoughts of others from spreading falsehoods if afforded opportunity.

And that then would come to bear in furtherance of that gossip concerning the dining alone with someone not their spouse, then lead into the implication against the faith of that spouse. And for the inference the dining with someone not one's spouse would then afford toward that spouse and their Christian faith.

The appearance of evil pertains to our actions as we represent to truth of God in Christ and his ministry and wisdom. The appearance of violating the ordinances that pertain to a marriage, keeping on the subject mentioned earlier of Vice President Pence and his testimony against dining with a woman not his wife, invites the image of wrong doing, disrespect for our spouse, from others who watch.

People will always think what they will, but our behavior I believe should always keep the testimony we are to all people who see us as God's servant.

The appearance of evil for instance of one who has just left Bible study on a Wednesday night and is then seen leaving the bar three blocks down. Walking drunkenly , heading for the car, after cursing up a storm during  a pool game inside. That is the appearance of evil. Wrong doing. Violating the principles of righteous behavior as Jesus namesake, Christian.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

It is excellent testimony  to never be alone in a situation where either self delusion, or the enticement by Satan may cast it's seed, or flourish in any manner. 

David first sinned the sin of not following God's command to him. He set himself up to be in position  to be enticed, and David soon sinned mightily.

See https://bible.org/seriespage/19-david-s-downfall-2-samuel-11-24 

David was denying God's instructions from the beginning- that set up the final snare. Be about the battle at all times. Never take the small pleasures that relax the defenses and invites disaster. Like David, we may father sin whose consequence harms even entire nations and bends History through to eternity.

 It is the simple things failed at, that lead to the big errors that humiliate  and shame us. So never even just once relax from the rules known to protect self and others from the nasty consequence of sins thoughts and actions.

A great example there brother of the appearance of evil and even beyond as King David's lust for another man's wife corrupted his focus on God and righteousness.

Taken from that Bible.org site article,

Quote

This story reminds me of the account of David’s sin with Bathsheba in our text. To David, his actions on that fateful spring night seemed trivial, just a momentary pause in an otherwise pious life. The consequences, however, were devastating, not just for David, or for Uriah, but also for David’s family and the entire nation. The whole nation paid a high price for David’s immorality.

 

Edited by JoshuasonFlower
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Right there is the whole problem with your argument.  You are assuming something that has never been stated, nor even implied.   That is not the assumption.  It has been made clear to you on multiple posts that such is NOT the assumption, but you persist on assigning that false value to my position.   My position is not that women and men will lose control if they eat together.   There is NO way you can get that from any of my posts.   My point has only ever been that it is guard against outside misperceptions of what might be happening.

 

Obviously you think someone is making that assumption, or there would not be a problem.  And whomever is making it, it is still not rational assumption.  I do not think that we should base our actions on the irrational assumptions made by others. I do not belive that the bible teaches us to base our actions off of the irrational assumptions made by others

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

   Arphaxad said;       "Am I over reacting? Do I go too far?"

Not in the least, Arphaxad, not like some, here.  Would like your reaction on how this thread has evolved.   Jump in.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoshuasonFlower said:

I have exhausted the number of reputation points I can give today. Rest assured I shall return to your post when I am able to resume.
That is a great scripture to add to this discussion. Thank you Davida. Wise words in both your posts.

Thank you JoshuasonFlower, for your kind words.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Obviously you think someone is making that assumption, or there would not be a problem.  

Wrong.  That is not the assumption anyone is making.  That is a false value/ motive you are assigning artificially, because you cannot refute my actual stated position.  You need to start correctly framing my position instead of refuting arguments I never raised. 

Quote

And whomever is making it, it is still not rational assumption.  I do not think that we should base our actions on the irrational assumptions made by others. I do not belive that the bible teaches us to base our actions off of the irrational assumptions made by others

I guess I care enough about a woman's honor, that I am willing to take measures to protect that honor because of the very fact that people can be stupid an irrational.    It is because people say things and do things, irrational things that can hurt someone else's reputation, that I care enough to take measures to preempt and prevent anyone from tarnishing that woman's reputation.   

The Bible puts a very high premium on both wisdom and selfless living.  It's part of the love-walk of the Christian to put someone else's welfare ahead of our own.  Biblical love wants that which makes for someone else's highest good.    It is that value system that is at the heart of wanting to not only preserve my own testimony, but to preserve the honor of someone else.  I would never want my actions or lack of careful planning to end up creating a situation that might stain the reputation of woman I am meeting with.   Walking in love and in practical wisdom will put her welfare first and foremost in my thinking.  

I have never been in a situation where women felt demeaned or thought they were being treated as second-class people because I required a third person at the table or in the room. They usually appreciate it.  It makes them feel safe, and raises their comfort level significantly, especially if they are married.  So your argument about sexism, and inequality doesn't hold water in the real world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Wrong.  That is not the assumption anyone is making.  That is a false value/ motive you are assigning artificially, because you cannot refute my actual stated position.  You need to start correctly framing my position instead of refuting arguments I never raised. 

If you were not assuming that someone might see two people of opposite genders and assume they are having an affair then there would be no potential for the appearance of evil.   

Quote

I guess I care enough about a woman's honor, that I am willing to take measures to protect that honor because of the very fact that people can be stupid an irrational.    It is because people say things and do things, irrational things that can hurt someone else's reputation, that I care enough to take measures to preempt and prevent anyone from tarnishing that woman's reputation.   

I am glad that you have that personal opinion, but don't try and pretend it is a biblical opinion. 

Quote

The Bible puts a very high premium on both wisdom and selfless living.  It's part of the love-walk of the Christian to put someone else's welfare ahead of our own.  Biblical love wants that which makes for someone else's highest good.    It is that value system that is at the heart of wanting to not only preserve my own testimony, but to preserve the honor of someone else.  I would never want my actions or lack of careful planning to end up creating a situation that might stain the reputation of woman I am meeting with.   Walking in love and in practical wisdom will put her welfare first and foremost in my thinking.  

I put someone else's welfare ahead of my own by treating them the same as I treat everyone else. I belive this is how we honor someone and put them ahead of us.  I do not have one set of rules for one group and one set of rules for another, as that is not putting either group ahead of myself.

Quote

I have never been in a situation where women felt demeaned or thought they were being treated as second-class people because I required a third person at the table or in the room. They usually appreciate it.  It makes them feel safe, and raises their comfort level significantly, especially if they are married.  So your argument about sexism, and inequality doesn't hold water in the real world.

Perhaps they just were putting you ahead of themselves and choose not to hurt your feelings by telling you how archaic such a view is.  Since this has been an ongoing topic on this fourm I did a quick informal poll at work yesterday and found not a single person out of 30 plus that agreed with this view.  I even had one female tell me she would report me for discrimination if I refused to ride in a car with her on official business.

In the end, we still come back to a personal view of what appears to be evil, nothing more.  And this does not even address the fact that the KJV version of I Thess 5:22 is poorly translated and the verse should read "Abstain from every form of evil."  And But such a translation removes the controlling power of the legalist. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

If you were not assuming that someone might see two people of opposite genders and assume they are having an affair then there would be no potential for the appearance of evil.   

As has been explained by more people in this thread than just me, it is about guarding against what other people might be prone to think.   It really isn't a hard concept to grasp.  It is about preventing the possibility giving others the wrong impression, especially those who might know one or both people.

Quote

I am glad that you have that personal opinion, but don't try and pretend it is a biblical opinion. 

It is wholly biblical and is not an opinion.   It is reflective biblical values and your response is really just a non-response as you can't really refute, as can be seen.
 

Quote

 

I put someone else's welfare ahead of my own by treating them the same as I treat everyone else. I belive this is how we honor someone and put them ahead of us.  I do not have one set of rules for one group and one set of rules for another, as that is not putting either group ahead of myself.

 

Which is again, a non-response and a desperate attempt at deflecting what can't be refuted.  This is has nothing about treating someone as inferior or in a discriminatory manner.  In the scenario given, my approach is entirely correct and in line with biblical values, and your attempt to spin it otherwise is simply not getting off the ground.   It isn't matter of having a different set of "rules."   It has never been about having different sets of rules, but rather a godly manner of conduct.

Quote

Perhaps they just were putting you ahead of themselves and choose not to hurt your feelings by telling you how archaic such a view is.  Since this has been an ongoing topic on this fourm I did a quick informal poll at work yesterday and found not a single person out of 30 plus that agreed with this view.  I even had one female tell me she would report me for discrimination if I refused to ride in a car with her on official business.

Pardon me while I doubt that the questions were posed in a truly objective manner without seeking a desired response.  

 

Quote

In the end, we still come back to a personal view of what appears to be evil, nothing more.  And this does not even address the fact that the KJV version of I Thess 5:22 is poorly translated and the verse should read "Abstain from every form of evil."  And But such a translation removes the controlling power of the legalist. 

Actually, the original Greek word, eidos, in I Thess. 5:22, includes what is actually evil and the appearance of what is evil.   Hence, the nuanced characteristic of biblical Greek.   It includes both evil deeds and anything that could be seen as evil.

So in the context of this discussion, we are to avoid not only adultery, but anything that could appear to be adulterous in nature, anything that puts questions in the minds of others as to our conduct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, the original Greek word, eidos, in I Thess. 5:22, includes what is actually evil and the appearance of what is evil.   Hence, the nuanced characteristic of biblical Greek.   It includes both evil deeds and anything that could be seen as evil.

So in the context of this discussion, we are to avoid not only adultery, but anything that could appear to be adulterous in nature, anything that puts questions in the minds of others as to our conduct.

Everything could possibly be seen as evil, yet only sex ever gets the attention of this passage.  Why is that?  Why is it never applied to the appearance of greed or gluttony or slothfulness?   Any why is is only ever applied by what the person thinks others might find to appear evil, and not what people tell them appears evil?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites