VANITY:Just Fired Wrongly IMHO (need Christian input)

self | 5-10-10 | self

[dasboot]

...that is: God knows better than a thousand, thousand sage Freepers.

[Just mythoughts]

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

This guy is not your 'brother'. He is a cheat and a thief and a hypocrite given what you have described. What makes you think he is even aware of Matthew 18, him or even his preacher... surely you are not the first that this old grubber has enslaved.

Kick the dust off your feet, and be on your way, fill out the applicable unemployment forms, and be very detailed why you are having to apply for unemployment.... My guess is this old Pharaoh is not paying taxes on the rest of his slaves.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of the house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

You were fired because of your words..... and just like that symbolic rich man in .ell because of his deeds, this old geezer is not going to take one red cent of his ill gotten gains when he returns to his Maker...

Now if you can find a Christian lawyer seek legal counsel in what your 'just' recourse is, make sure the Christian lawyer does not attend this old geezer's church.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Very well put.

You have given the birds’eye view of learning the lessons of life.

It all comes down to validating the person’s hurt ( ‘yeah, that must feel awful”) and then just being there in compassion “with “ them. I am always amazed at how Freeper is so often able to do that for someone.

[OneWingedShark]

>A person designing a reaction to circumstances, where the divination of others’ hearts, minds, and motives are guessed at, is something very much more, no?

It would be, yes; but didn’t Jesus also say “by their fruits you shall know them” & “it is not what goes into a man which defiled him but what comes out, for out of the abundance of his heart he speaks”?

Man is a moral being, and as such must exercise moral judgment; this is referred to in the bible as discernment. {To use the portion of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says “Judge not [lest you be judged]” as argument against discernment is to take it out of context.}

>If I believe, and I know angels surround me, is it not better, in uncertain circumstances, to trust God to goad my conscience; the Spirit to impel my action; to allow God’s timetable, purpose, and will to assemble themselves with certainty in my mind, and, thereafter, direct my response?

How have I been saying anything that could be construed to NOT listen to conscience or the Holy Spirit?

>The view to right action should appear like an opening in a defensive line... through which I, the running back, may carry the ball to the end-zone. No?

Sometimes. But where in the bible does it condemn someone for trying to do right but being mistaken about it? {You could say that the guy who died for touching the Ark in an effort to keep it from falling was; but wasn’t he, as an Israelite, aware that you weren’t to touch the Ark?}

David wanted to build God a Temple, but was unable to do so; his son carried out the execution thereof. Yet, despite being forbidden by God from building the Temple, David prepared materials for the work; how was that condemned?

[egfowler3]

Great argument, but it only works if all are living the Law. Clearly his former boss was not living under the same Law as LowOil is trying to live under. Also, this type of judgment is not unrighteous judgment. I think we can all agree his old boss is doing something wrong not just to LowOil but to the poor souls he "hires" to work in his mill!!

• His former boss breaks civil law by knowingly employing individuals in our country illegally (Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness)
• His former boss knowingly pays those same employees substandard wages (Ex 20:15 Thou shall not steal)
• His former boss forces his employees to work during lunch breaks without pay ("he did not want 'little Mexico' outside his doors and that they were in the mill and he could be fined XXX amount of dollars. They were not in the mill, but they could be he reasoned. I was flabbergassed, I couldn't believe he was doing this. He often ran the air system so the illegals could run their machines during their 'lunchtime' but any work they did was not time and a half pay like the law requires. Also us fixers (me and another fellow) were expected to repair the machines during our 'lunchtime' and not being paid for it.") (Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not bear false witness)
• His former boss covers his butt by insisting those employees remain hidden, out of sight, so no one knows he is breaking the law (see quotation and commandments above)
• His former boss is probably breaking many more commandments we are not even aware of

Although LowOil wanted something more christian to do to him, it will not stop his old employer's breaking of the law of the land nor replace his lost wages nor help the souls being abused in the mill.

This is not about revenge, but about doing what is right. What is right in this case is to turn the old employer over to those who have the responsibility to deal with him. Although both are Baptists, they do not belong to the same congregation so there is no emphasis to cooperate between the two councils of elders. Even if there were, there is no mechanism in place to provide a punishment to the offender for what he is doing wrong. But the secular authorities do have such a process in place. His old boss has committed wrongs both temporal and spiritual. The council of elders can only fix the spiritual, not the temporal. The secular authorities can provide the temporal fix because that is their role.

I hope that answers your question properly.

[dasboot]

Can we simply stipulate that consultation in prayer is the first right action?

[OneWingedShark]

>I hope that answers your question properly.

Partially; the context of the given passage is Paul’s urging of excommunication of a member for practicing sexual immorality. In that regard I do not see there as being the strict division of Church and State punishments; but rather that both [organizations] should mete out punishments as appropriate.

[egfowler3]

You're right about that (I did notice what he [Paul] was talking about since I always ready what begins and follows scripture) but this scripture is also relevant for other parts of our lives. I believe that we should, when possible, take our grievances to one another, then the church if we cannot resolve them ourselves. If all are truly following the Law and desire to do what is right, then this process can bring about resolution. BUT, when only one is trying to follow the Law and the other is just giving lip service to it, all involved are wasting their collective breath.

I believe the whole intent of this scriptural reference is to let the members of the Lord's church know how to deal with a sinner with the hope that that sinner will turn their life around in repentance and make up for what harm was caused. By going through the church we can more easily deal with the outcomes of the conflict resolution process.

BUT some wrongs are so bad and so extensive that the church cannot resolve the problem. For LowOil's situation, if we try to extrapolate what could be desired the outcome--the Old Boss changes his ways, dumps the illegal/undocumented employees, and pays his employees a fair wage--we see that such an outcome is not very likely. His Old Boss will likely laugh at the elders if an hearing could be obtained.

So the best course of action would be to go the secular route, detestable as it would be.

[OneWingedShark]

>So the best course of action would be to go the secular route, detestable as it would be.

But what makes “going the secular route” and “taking it up with the church” mutually exclusive?

Is it an either-or?

[Cindy]

“Are you looking for a job?”

This thread is updated on a regular basis.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2441076/posts

[Soothesayer9]

"I argued that he was not "Christian" what he was doing and that I would bring up the subject to his church on Sunday."

He isn't a Christian. He goes to church to speak to friends and expand his business (and maintain his business ties). He is like those whom the Lord drove out of the temple with a whip.