This Is Why We Get a Bad Rap!!

MissBrattified · #1 03-23-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

You are right, and I also do not mean any offense, but I classify this as useless gossip.

It's absurd to accuse someone without coming out with proof.

This thread boils down to the tongue.
The Bible is very clear about these kind of issues.

Proverbs 25:23 and Romans 1:30 make mention of a backbiting tongue. A backbiter is someone who uses their tongue against you when you aren't present, yet they will not face you with their charges when you are present. This is a cowardly backbiter who would rather stir up problems than solve problems.

A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT someone than talk TO the person. A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT some weak Christian in the church than offer some words of encouragement TO them. A backbiter is of no use to anyone, and no one has ever been strengthened or edified through backbiting. Beware of the backbiters, especially the ones who sow discord among brethren (Pro. 6:19)!

Since Sherri didn't link to the blog, or actually name the author, she hasn't slandered anyone, despite requests from you and at least one other person for the details.

So which is it? Do you want her to actually gossip about someone and give you the personal details? Or do you want to discuss the topic generically, without names, numbers and addresses, so as to NOT gossip, slander or backbite about anyone in particular?

It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to start a thread about stealing. "I know a person who shoplifts, who claims to be a Christian. What do you think about that?" THAT is not gossiping about someone behind their back. Gossiping would be saying, "Sis. __________ shoplifts when she goes to Target every week, and I think we need to talk about that."

1. Trusted members of this forum who have posted for a long time, and have shown integrity have the privilege of being taken at "face value."

2. Your attempt to call Sherri a backbiter is just uncalled for.

Furthermore, when someone posts something publicly, for all the world to read, it isn't private. It's no different than taking out an ad in the newspaper, posting your opinions for all the world to see--and discuss. Is it backbiting to talk about an article in a newspaper, and what the author meant by it?

As for Christians who cuss--some of you must have your heads in the sand.

Baron1710 · #2 03-23-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Since Sherri didn't link to the blog, or actually name the author, she hasn't slandered anyone, despite requests from you and at least one other person for the details.

If she had named the person and the facts were true, she still has not slandered anyone. In fact she wrote it so slander is a legal impossibility.
If what she wrote was untrue and and we knew who it was she would be guilty of libel not slander.

MissBrattified · #3 03-23-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If she had named the person and the facts were true, she still has not slandered anyone. In fact she wrote it so slander is a legal impossibility.
If what she wrote was untrue and and we knew who it was she would be guilty of libel not slander.

Thanks, Baron, but I wasn't intending to use legalese.

Obviously something can be legal, but still unchristian.

Backbiting is not a Christian thing to do, and I don't believe Sherri's thread qualifies for the label.

Baron1710 · #4 03-23-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Thanks, Baron, but I wasn't intending to use legalese.

Obviously something can be legal, but still unchristian.

Backbiting is not a Christian thing to do, and I don't believe Sherri's thread qualifies for the label.

Legalese aside slander is spoken not written. Which label does it not qualify for? backbiter? I would agree there was no malice involved nor do I doubt the truth of what she said.

MissBrattified · #5 03-23-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Legalese aside slander is spoken not written. Which label does it not qualify for? backbiter? I would agree there was no malice involved nor do I doubt the truth of what she said.

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you when I said "you and at least one other person."

I agree that it's hard to discuss something effectively without being able to independently review the source. However, admin would probably remove any link because of the language, and if we start getting into specific names and churches, other problems arise.

Kind of a can't win for losing request, to ask for the source on this one.

Barb · #6 03-23-2009, 10:23 AM

The bottom line is that a pastor's wife should not be cussing, online or any other place.

That Sherri showed concern over this shows her spiritual good sense...that she didn't reveal the individual involved shows character and wisdom.

n david · #7 03-23-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

You are right, and I also do not mean any offense, but I classify this as useless gossip.

It's absurd to accuse someone without coming out with proof.

This thread boils down to the tongue.
The Bible is very clear about these kind of issues.

Proverbs 25:23 and Romans 1:30 make mention of a backbiting tongue. A backbiter is someone who uses their tongue against you when you aren't present, yet they will not face you with their charges when you are present. This is a cowardly backbiter who would rather stir up problems than solve problems.

A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT someone than talk TO the person. A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT some weak Christian in the church than offer some words of encouragement TO them. A backbiter is of no use to anyone, and no one has ever been strengthened or edified through backbiting. Beware of the backbiters, especially the ones who sow discord among brethren (Pro. 6:19)!

While I agree with some of this post, I don't believe Sherri meant any malice or had ill will against the individual. Furthermore, to describe her as cowardly is to reveal your novice with this forum. The lady is not a coward.

I don't agree with the decision to post without a source, but I wouldn't dare accuse her of any ill malice or of being a coward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Since Sherri didn't link to the blog, or actually name the author, she hasn't slandered anyone, despite requests from you and at least one other person for the details.

Slander is spoken, libel is written; neither would apply here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So which is it? Do you want her to actually gossip about someone and give you the personal details? Or do you want to discuss the topic generically, without names, numbers and addresses, so as to NOT gossip, slander or backbite about anyone in particular?

It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to start a thread about stealing. "I know a person who shoplifts, who claims to be a Christian. What do you think about that?" THAT is not gossiping about someone behind their back. Gossiping would be saying, "Sis. __________ shoplifts when she goes to Target every week, and I think we need to talk about that."

Hmmm... regardless of using a name or not, if you're speaking of an idividual with or without revealing the name, it's gossiping. LoL Doesn't matter if there's a name and source included ... it's about a specific individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Furthermore, when someone posts something publicly, for all the world to read, it isn't private. It's no different than taking out an ad in the newspaper, posting your opinions for all the world to see--and discuss. Is it backbiting to talk about an article in a newspaper, and what the author meant by it?

As in any blog, book or open letter, the author has no expectation of privacy, which includes both positive and negative comments about what was written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree that it's hard to discuss something effectively without being able to independently review the source. However, admin would probably remove any link because of the language, and if we start getting into specific names and churches, other problems arise.

There have been plenty of threads that name both the minister and location, so that arguement has no feet to stand on.

Magic Hair ...

Lawsuits or criminal proceedings against ministers ...

I'm sure there are other instances that could be found on AFF.

As far as what's allowed by admin, any youtube links could contain comments from individuals with swear words.

*AQuietPlace* · #8 03-23-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Is it because they never had a grounding in real godliness?

Yes, usually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

It's not a question of believing what she says. I don't doubt the post, I'm just saying that, other than therapy and a kind of her getting this off her chest, there's really not much to discuss in a forum without a source or more story to it.

Apparently there is something to discuss, since we're discussing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blubayou

I think this is a symptom of a systemic problem and goes to the root of one of the real weaknesses in our organization-or set of beliefs- We teach dos and don'ts but do not teach people about being principled Christians. Because we do not develop character in our people or teach them to question and search out their walk with God- they do not have balance in their lives. Then they do not a have an internal moral compass to direct them. There are many things that are right about the UPC and I support it, but this is something that has bothered me for years. I have seen many people come to grief because of it.

Very true.

pelathais · #9 03-23-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Since Sherri didn't link to the blog, or actually name the author, she hasn't slandered anyone, despite requests from you and at least one other person for the details.

So which is it? Do you want her to actually gossip about someone and give you the personal details? Or do you want to discuss the topic generically, without names, numbers and addresses, so as to NOT gossip, slander or backbite about anyone in particular?

It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to start a thread about stealing. "I know a person who shoplifts, who claims to be a Christian. What do you think about that?" THAT is not gossiping about someone behind their back. Gossiping would be saying, "Sis. __________ shoplifts when she goes to Target every week, and I think we need to talk about that."

1. Trusted members of this forum who have posted for a long time, and have shown integrity have the privilege of being taken at "face value."

2. Your attempt to call Sherri a backbiter is just uncalled for.

Furthermore, when someone posts something publicly, for all the world to read, it isn't private. It's no different than taking out an ad in the newspaper, posting your opinions for all the world to see--and discuss. Is it backbiting to talk about an article in a newspaper, and what the author meant by it?

As for Christians who cuss--some of you must have your heads in the sand.

I differ in my opinion here - at least a bit. Of course, Sherri is free to post whatever she feels comfortable posting. However, anyone who links to a publicly available blog can hardly be called a "gossip," so your defense of Sherri is really unneeded. Also, I haven't seen anyone call Sherri any of those things. Those were Sherri's concerns.

The blog is available publicly and the thoughts are already transmitted to an audience of "whomsoever will...". Presumably, a blogger is aware that at least one purpose of their blog is to air their thoughts. Further discussion of those thoughts might fall into a number of categories, but "gossip" and "tattle-tale" are hardly apt.

How about Sherri PM'ing the URL to me and I'll post it, if I'm comfortable doing so? Or how about some sleuths with time to burn uncovering the mystery for us? I have already found 190,000 candidates for the site Sherri mentioned. I'll let you know when I find an "ex-UPC preacher's wife" who talks like a sailor.

MissBrattified · #10 03-23-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

I differ in my opinion here - at least a bit. Of course, Sherri is free to post whatever she feels comfortable posting. However, anyone who links to a publicly available blog can hardly be called a "gossip," so your defense of Sherri is really unneeded. Also, I haven't seen anyone call Sherri any of those things. Those were Sherri's concerns.

Well, whether it was needed or not, I felt like offering it.

I felt that Dordecht's post was accusing her of backbiting.