Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    The minister would be in the wrong if the unpriced meat was not his
    to give.  He would be stealing from his employer.

    On the other hand, if the family weren't well off and he put the money
    for the extra meat in the till himself, I'd call him kindhearted and
    compassionate.
    A grocer near us often does the same thing and there are probably a
    number of families who bless her for it.

 There's a lot here we don't know.  If one were to go by appearance 
 it would appear that he is stealing from the employer.  However, as 
 stated, perhaps what we don't see is perhaps he is putting money in
 the till to cover the difference.  Based on what was presented, I believe
 he is indeed stealing from his employer.  I would tell my kids that the man
 was wrong, in fact I believe the proper thing to do would be to right then
 and there either ask the employee to take the extra out, or, re-weigh the
 product and charge for the full amount.




Jim

Hi Greg,

I'm very surpised that someone in a position of spiritual responsibility 
should make a mistake like that.  Possibly the extra he put in the bag 
was reject for some reason, but in that case he should have made it clear 
to the recipient.  As it was, he at least gave the appearence of stealing
from his employer.   Contrary to the injunction to avoid every appearence 
of evil.

If *he* wanted to benefit the child's family, he should have bought the 
meat from his employer (possibly with employee discoubnt available) before 
giving it to them in a discretely unambiguous / uncompromising way.

Even if his employer had chosen that he should make certain donations to
needy families, it should still be conducted in an unambiguous way which
did not compromise by appearence. 

As it is, the family has been left in a very anomalous position.  Do they 
return the 'gift', possibly costing the employee his job?  Do they make an 
anonymous donation to the store, which they possibly cannot afford?  They 
don't want to participate in the guilt of taking the meat.  I have come 
across some similar examples of this sort of thing - like when someone was
sold a box of items at the price quoted for a single item.  They didn't
point it out, but acted as though it was a bonus.... 


							Andrew

Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is 
starving.  Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him 
all the wealth of his house.

    
    It sounds like to me, without knowing more, this person is taking
    advantage of the situation.  The this particular church have an
    assistance fund for the needy?

    
    Re: -1 The man is a panderer(sp) in disguise.  He is not being honest
    with himself or you.  I would recommend staying away from him.
    
    Besides, how can you buy blessings from God?  Thier is somethin
    spiritually wrong with this man and his wife.

 Wellsir, I hesitate to judge, but I have to wonder about this man, based 
on what has been posted here, being in a position of "prayer minister".  The
sort of behavior that I've read here, assuming I read it correctly, is just
the sort of thing the world looks to find in Christians in order to expose
us as "crooks" or something to that effect.

The testimony of the man and the church are in serious trouble, in my opinion.





Jim

    How does a Christian Judge without being Judgemental or taking God's
    place?  The question Greg poses is one that many Christian's confront. 
    Do we resort to situation ethics or does God give us clear commandments
    on how we should handle these matters?
    
    Nancy
    

Being provided for by faith, the way he talks about, is an entirely different
thing than what he seems to be doing.  There are two legitimate ways that I
know about of doing that:

First, is the the standard and above-board way that is done by missionaries,
and also by pastors.  It is open and up-front, "I need this much money to
support the work I am doing.  If the Lord leads, could you help with it."  This
is modelled after the Levites, who were supported by the tithes of the people. 
Any time that turns into a demand *by the people being supported* it becomes
somewhat suspect.  The third-party demand of a prophet calling people to
support the Lord's work, is different.  A prophet in this context is one of the
*supporters,* not one of the *supportees*.  Our general inability to
consistently distinguish our own self-interest from God's leading makes it
unwise for us to demand that people support God in a way which also supports us.

The other is the way of a total faith walk, as exemplified by a George Muller
or a Brother Andrew, modelled after Christ telling the disciples not even to
take a purse, but trusting the Lord to provide.  George Muller depended
entirely on faith for the provision of his orphanages, and he had a simple rule
for how gifts were to be accepted - he would not accept any money from anyone
he told that he was in need.  The people he told of his needs were only allowed
to pray for him, he would not accept their money under the duress of knowing
what his needs were.  And he and his orphanages were always provided for,
though more than once they sat down to the dinner table, without a scrap of
food or a dime in the house, and began to thank the Lord for the dinner He was
to provide, which arrived before the prayer was completed.

Brother Andrew talks of taking a two-week missionary tour through Scotland,
without once even taking an offering or mentioning they needed money,
immediately giving away a tithe of everything that was given to them, and
arriving home with more money than they started with.  His entire ministry
behind the iron curtain was supplied without his ever asking for money or
taking an offering.

If you want to live as a person supported by the church, then do so openly. 
Tell the church what you need, and ask people directly to provide that for you
to support your ministry.  Or if you want to live being provided for fully by
faith, then do that, but walk in it humbly and completely, allowing it to be
between you and God.  But to take a middle road, claiming you are living by
faith, while constantly fishing to get people to provide for you in "crisis,"
and laying guilt on them if they con't provide for you, is neither Godly nor
Biblical.

Paul

    Re: George Mueller
    
    Not only did his faith provide for the work of the ophanages, but he
    was able to support others of God's servants who were trusting Him for
    provision.  I know that Hudson Taylor was one of them.
    
    I know someone who says, "God's work, done in God's way, will never
    lack God's supply."  (He may be quoting Mueller.)
    
    Mark L.

	Greg, what the man did was wrong. Even though it was for a good cause,
then ends don't justify the means. If he owned the place then what he did would
have been wonderful. But he doesn't. Therefor what he did was wrong. He was
immoral. Plain and simple.



Glen

    >Greg, what the man did was wrong.
    
    Glen, your too hasty in judgement here... you don't know that he did
    not put the money in the till for the meat.
    
    

    Without knowing what actually took place (i.e., if the "extra" was
    something he paid for himself, or other possibilities that have been
    discussed), it is *not* "plain and simple" to say that what this man
    did was "immoral".  We just don't know.  At best, it was probably
    unwise (having the appearance of evil.)  At worst, it was dishonest,
    theft, etc.
    
    Mark L.

	My husband and I have discussed something similar.

	Twice when I've been to the grocery store, the deli clerk
	has handed Emily a piece of cheese off the top of the order.

	The first time, I assumed he'd recorded the wieght prior 
	to giving her the cheese.  The second time, I noticed he did not -
	he gave me a slice, then weighed the remainder.  

	I didn't say anything, then realized I probably should have.  He
	may feel he's being kind, but probably doesn't realize he's 
	jeapordizing his job.
	
	If it happens again, I'll ask him to weigh the whole order first,
	then give me a slice for Emily.

	Karen

    Karen,
    
    Or at least ask the clerk, "Is that ok with your management?"  It's
    possible that employees are trained to *do* some things like that for
    the sake of public relations.  Sometimes, little extras help build
    customer loyalty.
    
    Mark L.

    Karen,
    
    In most delis, there are previsions made for giving samples to
    customers.... So, in your case, the clerk may not be harming his job,
    but in fact enhancing his career....!
    
    The other incident is different... That is a crime, unless prearranged
    between the manager and he!
    
    Bob
    

Greg,

Your responsibility is to be right before God, not before this
man.  Don't you dare write out a check!  I know we only have
one sides of the facts, but that's enough for me to form a
strong opinion.  You may confront him if you wish, but you
may *NOT* contribute to him for the *WRONG* reasons.  That
only continues this pattern of what is apparently destructive
behavior for you both.

Collis

    
    Re: -1 Agree.  Under these conditions do not give this person one
    more thing.  Most importantly, don't feel guilty by ignoring this
    person.
    
    KenT

    Re: .0
    
    (I haven't read all the replies yet, but my answer is "yes, there is
    wrong", because he should have measured the mass of the extra portion
    so that he could reimburse his employer.  On the other hand, if he had
    been granted delegated authority to provide tips to customers, then
    there is no issue.)
    
    James

    Re: .6
    
    What is a C-note?

    Well, James
    
    There's ones,
    Then there's fins
    Then there's sawbucks
    Then there's double sawbucks
    Then there's <probably some term for this one>
    Then there's C-notes
    
    Mark

    
.    What is a C-note?



   Comes right after B and right before C#

 :-)

    Well, Jim, that depends if you're talking a C-note, or a high C note. 
    Of course, if we're talking about Hi-C, we also need to consider
    Hawaiian Punch.
    
    Markel

RE:            <<< Note 310.32 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>

   .    Of course, if we're talking about Hi-C, we also need to consider
   . Hawaiian Punch.
    
    
     Sock it to me :-)

    >Sock it to me
    
    Baby, let it all hang out! :-) :-)

>    	hey, Mark...
>    
>    		    	You want me to ask him to pray for you?
    
    Greg,
    
    Was this directed to me?
    
    No, thanks, I think I can do without the nightmares. :-)
    
    Mark L.

    Re: Note 310.33 by YIELD::GRIFFIS
    
    (Finally, a useful answer!)
    
>   			A C-Note is 523 cps 
    
    Tempered or absolute scale?  And do you guys use 440Hz for the standard
    concert pitch for the A below middle-C?
    
    Ka,es  (James with right hand offset by one key position...)
    
    ;-)

    I thought 440 was G.

    Re: Note 310.39 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK
    
>   I thought 440 was G.
    
    No way.  If you do think that you're in *big* trouble with the
    choir-master...
    
    Time for another move to Chit-chat?? ;-)
    
    James

	Nancy, based on what was given for information, he was morally wrong.
Plain and simple. He never weighed the rest of it so how much would he put into
the till? Remember, to be immoral all one has to do is be in contrast with thy
moral principles. Now, if we knew he put the money in the till upfront, then we
would know he was doing a very good deed. But we don't know this. 

	It's so easy to pass judgement of sin on someone when they don't have 
all the facts and it's very easy to imagine a person is a certain way when in 
all actuality they may not be, but while without all the facts we convict
anyway. This runs rampid in this file and thank you Nancy for helping me show 
that.



Glen

    Glen,
    
>	Nancy, based on what was given for information, he was morally wrong.
>Plain and simple. He never weighed the rest of it so how much would he put into
>the till? Remember, to be immoral all one has to do is be in contrast with thy
>moral principles. Now, if we knew he put the money in the till upfront, then we
>would know he was doing a very good deed. But we don't know this. 

    Your assertions are self-contradictory.  You start out saying "based on
    the information given...", yet you go on to say "but we don't know
    this".  That's it.  We don't know all the facts.  We were told he
    grabbed a pile of meat.  Hmm.  Don't they usually slice that stuff to
    order?  Maybe he had it there waiting to "do a good deed -- "practice
    random acts of kindness and senseless beauty" kind of stuff.  Maybe it
    had been some kind of mistake, which would otherwise be thrown away. 
    Maybe he was giving away the store.  Based on the information given, WE
    CAN FORM NO CONCLUSION as to whether the act was immoral or not.
    
>	It's so easy to pass judgement of sin on someone when they don't have 
>all the facts and it's very easy to imagine a person is a certain way when in 
>all actuality they may not be, but while without all the facts we convict
>anyway. This runs rampid in this file and thank you Nancy for helping me show 
>that.
    
    On the other hand, there *are* things which, according to the Bible,
    *are* inherently immoral.  In those cases, there is little need for
    question.  What is *your* moral standard?
    
    Mark L.

| <<< Note 310.42 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>


| Your assertions are self-contradictory.  You start out saying "based on
| the information given...", yet you go on to say "but we don't know
| this".  That's it.  We don't know all the facts.  

	Exactly Mark. But look at the responses to this note. He's been
convicted by most. But are they right? Maybe. But we really don't know. 
I can no more convict him of this than anyone else can. I did put the
note in, and I thank Nancy for pointing out what she did. But look at
the responses. Judging is not something that should be done by humans. 
As this note string showed we could/can be screwing it up. 

| Based on the information given, WE CAN FORM NO CONCLUSION as to whether the 
| act was immoral or not.

	Exactly. How many responses said the person was wrong? Many. Can you
see why we humans should not be judged? Why is it though, until the word 
immoral was used no one even bothered to look at it? 

| On the other hand, there *are* things which, according to the Bible, *are* 
| inherently immoral. In those cases, there is little need for question. What 
| is *your* moral standard?

	I'm going to ask you a question. I will not talk about the subject but
would like a yes or no answer. Were you refering to the "H" word? The reason I
ask is this. I was refering to something totally different. That many in here
have been wrongly judged. That is why I want to make sure you know what I was
talking about up front. So were you refering to the "H" word?



Glen

    Glen,
    
    As you know, I believe Christians are called to judge behaviors,
    actions and attitudes.  God has given us a rule book, which you you
    choose to not except as inerrant.  As a Christian we can say that
    stealing is wrong because God says so.  
    
    As Mark has asked and as I am curious, by what do you base your morals?
    It has nothing to do with the "h" word.
    
    Nancy

    Warning: we must not discuss this "H" word.

| <<< Note 310.44 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| As you know, I believe Christians are called to judge behaviors, actions and 
| attitudes. God has given us a rule book, which you you choose to not except 
| as inerrant.  

	Nancy, why is the inerrancy issue brought into this discussion? We were
talking about how wrong it is for people to judge this guy based on the
information given. This is a given just for basic law of the land and the
inerrancy issue shouldn't even come into play. But thanks for proving something 
else for me, something that I would never of thought would be in this topic. 

| As Mark has asked and as I am curious, by what do you base your morals?

	We've been through this one before Nancy. I refuse to get into this
again. I'm not going to spend endless notes explaining something AGAIN that
will be torn down by many people. Suffice to say that it has been discussed 
in various notes in this conference.

| It has nothing to do with the "h" word.

	Good thang. We couldn't talk about it here. :-)



Glen

 Glen, you do understand that we are told to avoid all appearances of
evil, don't you?  Would you agree that what is described in the basenote
has the *appearance* of evil (stealing)?  As Christians we are to point
out to our brother/sister those *appearances* of evil, as they hinder their
testimony and that of their church, and of Christians in general.  It is
not a matter of judging.




Jim

| <<< Note 310.48 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| Glen, you do understand that we are told to avoid all appearances of
| evil, don't you?  

	Yup.

| Would you agree that what is described in the basenote has the *appearance* 
| of evil (stealing)?  

	Jim, there isn't enough information in the note to say that. If we
start accusing people or even just implying this person did this or that then
we are giving an appearance that this person is questionable. But we really
don't know that. Isn't this bearing false witness? After all, we don't KNOW he
is guilty of anything, yet even by your note (towards the begining) you have
said based on what was given as facts he looks guilty. There really isn't
enough eveidence to even say that. Can you see how this looks like he has
already been judged? 

	Put yourself in his position Jim. Would this make you feel good if you
saw the notes in this string? Some would, but others would really make you
think why are people thinking this way, wouldn't it? Until the facts are known,
NO ONE should even use the guilty verdict. But it has been used. I can't help
but think of all the people who have been found guilty in the name of Christ
when all the facts weren't entered.

| As Christians we are to point out to our brother/sister those *appearances* 
| of evil, 

	Jim, how can you do this based on APPEARANCES? If someone is evil, you
had better KNOW that and not convict on appearance.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    "It's pure and simple."
    
    Mark

Pass.  Next unseen.

RE:               <<< Note 310.49 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>






.| Would you agree that what is described in the basenote has the *appearance* 
.| of evil (stealing)?  

.	Jim, there isn't enough information in the note to say that. If we
.start accusing people or even just implying this person did this or that then
.we are giving an appearance that this person is questionable. But we really


 There is plenty there to give the appearance that something is wrong.


.said based on what was given as facts he looks guilty. There really isn't
.enough eveidence to even say that. Can you see how this looks like he has
.already been judged? 

   There is enough evidence to give the *appearance* that something is 
   wrong.  Do you understand what I mean by *appearance*?


.	Put yourself in his position Jim. Would this make you feel good if you
.saw the notes in this string? Some would, but others would really make you
.think why are people thinking this way, wouldn't it? Until the facts are known,
.NO ONE should even use the guilty verdict. But it has been used. I can't help
.but think of all the people who have been found guilty in the name of Christ
.when all the facts weren't entered.


 In my position as a Christian, I would hope that I would not do such a
 thing as described in the base note. And no it would not make me feel good
 if I were he and saw the notes in this string.  I would hope that would be
 because I've been convicted of giving the appearance of evil and that my
 actions were questionable.



.| As Christians we are to point out to our brother/sister those *appearances* 
.| of evil, 

.	Jim, how can you do this based on APPEARANCES? If someone is evil, you
.had better KNOW that and not convict on appearance.


 Lets say I am out one day handing out tracts..and I wander into a porn shop
 to hand one to the patrons and dash back out.  As I am heading out the door,
 you happen to drive by and see me coming out the door.  What are you going to
 think of me as a Christian?  What are you going to think of Christians in 
 general, and what are you going to think about the church I attend, based
 on what you see?

 Another example...I'm on my way to the grocery store and I stop by to pick up
 John Doe's wife, as John is out of town and she needed to go to the store.
 After shopping, we stop at my favorite coffee and donut place and have a cup
 of coffee and donut (or 2), and you wander in...what are you going to think
 about me as a Christian, Christians in general, or the church I attend, based
 on what you see (in this scenario you are vaguely familiar with Mr and Mrs
 Doe).


 I used to think this whole thing of appearance of evil was silly..however, 
 the deeper I get into my relationship with the Lord, and the more I realize
 the importance of my testimony and that of my church, the more I see the 
 importance of that one piece of scripture.



 Jim

Reply .15, by Glen Silva:

> Greg, what the man did was wrong. Even though it was for a good cause, the 
> ends don't justify the means. If he owned the place then what he did would 
> have been wonderful. But he doesn't. Therefore what he did was wrong. He was
> immoral. Plain and simple.

Reply .49, by Glen Silva (emphasis ** added)

> **Jim,** there isn't enough information in the note to say that [there was
> the appearance of stealing]. 

> If we
> start accusing people or even just implying this person did this or that then
> we are giving an appearance that this person is questionable. But we really
> don't know that. Isn't this bearing false witness?After all, we don't KNOW he
> is guilty of anything, yet even by **your** note (towards the begining)  
> **you** have said based on what was given as facts he looks guilty. There 
> really isn't enough eveidence to even say that. Can **you** see how this  
> looks like he has already been judged? 

> Until the facts are known,
> **NO ONE** should even use the guilty verdict. But it **has been used.** I 
> can't help but think of all the people who have been found guilty in the name 
> of Christ when all the facts weren't entered.

> | As Christians we are to point out to our brother/sister those *appearances* 
> | of evil, 

> **Jim,** how can **you** do this based on APPEARANCES? If someone is evil, 
> **you** had better KNOW that and not convict on appearance.


Glen, you are now singing the tune of "we shouldn't judge."  To look at your
last entry, one would think that you had always taken that stand in this note,
and are greived at the judging attitude that other people have.  But your
original entry in this note (reply .15) was one of the MOST judging entries
here.  "He was immoral.  Plain and simple" is an exact quote.  Why are you
picking on Jim, when all he is saying is "His action appeared immoral, and thus
should not have been done even if it was moral?"  He's not being nearly so
judging as you were.  Why doesn't your note say "How could **I** do this based
on APPEARANCES? If someone is evil, **I** had better KNOW that and not convict
on appearance."?

Paul

| <<< Note 310.52 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| Lets say I am out one day handing out tracts..and I wander into a porn shop
| to hand one to the patrons and dash back out.  As I am heading out the door,
| you happen to drive by and see me coming out the door.  What are you going to
| think of me as a Christian?  

	No different Jim. I have no clue as to why you were in there. I could
jump to a million different conclusions, but they're all useless. What I would
do is to stop the car and see what you were up to. Not in a convicting sort of
way, but to just see what was happening. 

| What are you going to think of Christians in general, and what are you going 
| to think about the church I attend, based on what you see?

	Now, based on what I saw only. If I went to any church or anybody and
said so and so is a Christian and I saw him come out of a porn shop! With no
evidence of what it was you were doing in there I would be implying you were
looking at the mags or something. Based on what I had for information, isn't
that bearing false witness? Making you out to be something you're not or at
least I have no proof that you are.

	Now, as far as what I would think of Christians as a whole goes, no
different. How can you, one individual, make me think any differently about
Christians? The same goes for the church you attend as well. Jim, can't you see
that convicting you, Christians and the church you go to based on the
information I had is not only wrong, but dumb for me to do?

	Let me ask you something. Is this something that you see being done and
so you thought I would do the same?

| Another example...I'm on my way to the grocery store and I stop by to pick up
| John Doe's wife, as John is out of town and she needed to go to the store.
| After shopping, we stop at my favorite coffee and donut place and have a cup
| of coffee and donut (or 2), and you wander in...what are you going to think
| about me as a Christian, Christians in general, or the church I attend, based
| on what you see (in this scenario you are vaguely familiar with Mr and Mrs
| Doe).

	What I will think of you Jim is you're having a cup of coffee with Mrs.
Doe. Nothing more. Can friends get together? Yup. Can only same sex friends get
together? I don't think so. A friend, whether a woman or man, are just that, a
friend. I guess I have a hard time understanding where you're going with this
Jim. 

| I used to think this whole thing of appearance of evil was silly..however,
| the deeper I get into my relationship with the Lord, and the more I realize
| the importance of my testimony and that of my church, the more I see the
| importance of that one piece of scripture.

	But based on what you wrote Jim it doesn't seem that I am getting your
point. :-(  


Glen

| <<< Note 310.53 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| Glen, you are now singing the tune of "we shouldn't judge."  To look at your
| last entry, one would think that you had always taken that stand in this note,
| and are greived at the judging attitude that other people have.  But your
| original entry in this note (reply .15) was one of the MOST judging entries
| here.  

	I know what I wrote Paul. And I know why I wrote it. The notes before
it were passing judgement on this person without all of the facts in. So I took
it one step further to prove a point. What I wrote was not what I felt, but it
was the general theme others seemed to have. Nancy saw it for what it was and
said something about it. So yes, I have always taken the stand of not judging
in this note. But it took judging in a harsh level to allow anyone to see just
how wrong it was to do in the first place.

| "He was immoral.  Plain and simple" is an exact quote.  Why are you
| picking on Jim, when all he is saying is "His action appeared immoral, and thus
| should not have been done even if it was moral?"  He's not being nearly so
| judging as you were.  

	This is a great note Paul. :-) Yeah, he wasn't being nearly so judging,
but the fact that not just Jim, but many others also judged this person without
all of the facts. This to me is wrong. Like I said, it took a harsher judging
to bring it out, but the end result is even you see that both judged. If one is
wrong, both are. Being nicer about the judging doesn't make it any less wrong.



Glen

    
    Re: previous entries..
    
    Where is the line drawn between judging attitude and discerning an
    attitude in a person?
    
    What is really meant by God when it comes to not judging each other.
    Situations arise when you must discern (make a judgement) about 
    whether you should be with a particular group or not.  
    
    Are you not always in a continous state of discerning (judging)
    events, people day in and day out. Once again I ask, where is the
    line drawn.  
    
    Any ideas?
    

.| Lets say I am out one day handing out tracts..and I wander into a porn shop
.| to hand one to the patrons and dash back out.  As I am heading out the door,
.| you happen to drive by and see me coming out the door.  What are you going to
.| think of me as a Christian?  

.	No different Jim. I have no clue as to why you were in there. I could
.jump to a million different conclusions, but they're all useless. What I would
.do is to stop the car and see what you were up to. Not in a convicting sort of
.way, but to just see what was happening. 


 Well, Glen, you're a better man than I, and most other humans that I know of.
 I believe many, if not most, would see me coming out of that shop and say "Hey,
 that guy says he's a Christian and he's hanging out in a porn shop!..all that
 stuff he says about God straightening out his life is a bunch of baloney..those
 Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites.  Why should I become a Christian
 when he's doing that stuff?"  Its the appearance thang, Glen.




.| What are you going to think of Christians in general, and what are you going 
.| to think about the church I attend, based on what you see?

.	Now, based on what I saw only. If I went to any church or anybody and
.said so and so is a Christian and I saw him come out of a porn shop! With no
.evidence of what it was you were doing in there I would be implying you were

  It would simply be enough saying you saw me coming out of a porn shop, just
 like if we saw that guy put the extra meat in the bag..we don't know what is
 going on, but the *appearance* is enough to bring about question.


.looking at the mags or something. Based on what I had for information, isn't
.that bearing false witness? Making you out to be something you're not or at
.least I have no proof that you are.


 Could be bearing false witness, however, humans are known to jump to 
 conclusions.  It would be enough to say that you saw me coming out of
 a porn shop..the people would run with that..that's why we should 
 avoid appearances (there's that word again) of evil.



.	Now, as far as what I would think of Christians as a whole goes, no
.different. How can you, one individual, make me think any differently about
.Christians? The same goes for the church you attend as well. Jim, can't you see
.that convicting you, Christians and the church you go to based on the
.information I had is not only wrong, but dumb for me to do?


Of course its dumb, but you are human and humans do dumb things, do they not.
The Bible says "let your light shine before men that they should see your
good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven."  Kinda says that me,
one individual CAN make a difference in how one feels about Christians.  If
the person who saw me coming out of a porn shop that day, happened to be a 
visitor at my church the next day, and there I was as an usher greeting them
as they walked in, what do you suppose they would think of me and my church?





.	Let me ask you something. Is this something that you see being done and
.so you thought I would do the same?


 Sure, I see it done.  You do the same?  Nah, of course not.

.| I used to think this whole thing of appearance of evil was silly..however,
.| the deeper I get into my relationship with the Lord, and the more I realize
.| the importance of my testimony and that of my church, the more I see the
.| importance of that one piece of scripture.

.	But based on what you wrote Jim it doesn't seem that I am getting your
.point. :-(  


 See 1 Corinthians 2:14




Jim

Sorry, Glen.  I didn't realize you were playing silly games with us.


I'll bow out now.

Paul

| <<< Note 310.57 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| Well, Glen, you're a better man than I, and most other humans that I know of.
| I believe many, if not most, would see me coming out of that shop and say "Hey,
| that guy says he's a Christian and he's hanging out in a porn shop!..all that
| stuff he says about God straightening out his life is a bunch of baloney..those
| Christians are just a bunch of hypocrites.  Why should I become a Christian
| when he's doing that stuff?"  Its the appearance thang, Glen.

	Then doesn't this alone tell you something Jim? You can't go by
appearances. If I did what you think most other people would do then I have
done you a disservice. That shouldn't happen. Can't you see this?

| It would simply be enough saying you saw me coming out of a porn shop, just
| like if we saw that guy put the extra meat in the bag..we don't know what is
| going on, but the *appearance* is enough to bring about question.

	One which could be wrong Jim. If people would spend more time finding
out the truth and stop assuming then there would be far less accusations made
about others.

| Could be bearing false witness, however, humans are known to jump to
| conclusions.  

	So that is a good enough excuse for doing it? I would think that would
be the reason to TRY and NOT do it.

| It would be enough to say that you saw me coming out of a porn shop..the 
| people would run with that..

	That is why if someone is going to say they saw you coming out of a
porn shop they had better know the reason why up front. Doesn't that make
sense? Wouldn't that kill any chance of someone being falsely accused?

| .	Now, as far as what I would think of Christians as a whole goes, no
| .different. How can you, one individual, make me think any differently about
| .Christians? The same goes for the church you attend as well. Jim, can't you see
| .that convicting you, Christians and the church you go to based on the
| .information I had is not only wrong, but dumb for me to do?


| Of course its dumb, but you are human and humans do dumb things, do they not.

	But that should not be an excuse. Yes, it is a REASON, but we should
try and avoid these situations by finding out the whole story, not just a
partial one.



Glen

	No silly games Paul. Just pointing something out that even you thought 
was wrong.


Glen

 Okee doke, Glen...thanks






Jim

        I believe scripturally you should speak to the pastor of the church, let
    him know what position this has put you in, and let him approach this
    person in love and get the whole story, and let him know the position
    he put you in.  There is no reason to involve the employer at this
    point.

    As for the other story line, all benevolence should go through the
    church benevolence office.  Our church has a very active benevolence
    program for both members and off the street persons.  Each person is
    counseled, job skills are recorded, any known jobs are referred to them
    and what given and when.  When people come back for more, they may or
    may not get what they ask determined by the benevolence counselor who
    has the most difficult volunteer job in the church.
    
    This may seem hard, but we have limited funds, and are on a major
    freeway with many travelers that stop for help, along with a large
    apartment complex behind the church that has usually low income people. 
    A person who lives wholly from donations from the church reduces the
    amount of help you can give to many who really need it.
    
    I look at the mess the welfare system in this country is in, and wonder
    what the change in the country would be if the churches would have
    taken this as their task rather than the goverment.  Of course hindsite
    is always 20-20.
    
    Glenn