WHAT IS CONSIDERED GOSSIP?

Why did you post this same thread three times?

 

1 Tim. 5:13 provide us with a clear example what who is considered a gossip and how the engage in this sin.

According to the text one that gossips is one that says thing that they should not say. Likewise, a gossip is associated with a busybody (one who noses into other people's affairs and then goes around talking about what they have learned in secret or in private).

Then it is important to note the follow verse:

Here we see that when the young widows remarry and are busy with their own concerns they do not have time to do the things listed in verse 13 and therefore do not give the adversary occasion to slander. Basically, the Bible is teaching us to mind our own business, keep our mouths closed and not run around talking about other people's business or concerns.

[ May 04, 2006, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

That is not what the text says. You added the idea of not providing names etc. to force your presupposition upon the text. That is called eisegesis and it leads to flawed interpretation and false teachings. The application of the text is that we are not to go around talking about people behind their backs period. It says nothing about whether or not we provide their names or if other people know who we are talking about.

[ May 04, 2006, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

What in the world does Sue have to do with this discussion? She has not even been involved. If you can not see that the clear teaching of the Scripture (1 Tim. 5:13-14) is that we are not to go around talking about people behind their backs (especially things that we have learned in confidence) then I can not help you and we may as well end the discussion right here and now.

 

The first problem you have in this line of argumentation is that the other poster is not the standard for determining right and wrong behavior in a Christian. Jesus and the Word God (the Bible) form that standard.

The parables of Christ are just that... parables. They are not to be taken and interpreted literally. Jesus may have used the parables as teaching examples but He never said that the people in His parables were real people living in Israel during His time.

1 Tim. 5:13-14 clearly teach us that we are not to go around talking about people behind their backs. It makes no reference to the names and/or other details being left out. The text just teaches us that we are not engage in that behavior.

Likewise, authors are not the standard that Christians are to use in determining right behavior.

 

Parables are not true, they are stories that teach a spiritual truth. No where in scripture do we see someone who is a counselor revealing to others what they were trusted with.
In this case, gossip is telling about people what they would not want you talking about to others, what they entrusted to you as secret.
As christians we have standards, and this violates the trust you are to have with the that person.
Would they contntinue to trust you and confide in you if they knew you were telling people all about it?

 

Actually, I can see a difference in the two examples that were given.

Carolina told about something that happened to herself and Frenchy told about an incident that happened to someone else.

Carolina had first hand knowledge and Frenchy's was second hand knowledge.

Just my opinion.

 

Thats a very good comparison Thankful.

 

Exactly what I was thinking, Thankful.

It's gossip when we don't have first hand, personal experience with the event. Hearsay is what the courts call it.

Even when we have firsthand knowledge of an event concerning another individual, it might still be gossip if the information is spread around with the intent purpose of causing trouble.

Another difference in the two posts is this: Carolina didn't identify the denomination of the church involved and Frenchy made a point of it. The type of church had no bearing on either example. Leads me to wonder if Frenchy was intentionally trying to point out that there are more controlling pastors in the IFB than other groups? I don't believe this was her intent, but still, things like this are why we are warned to control our tongues.

 

I stated this elsewhere and will state it here as there seems to be a dual thread going. It is unethical to discuss or share information from a counciling session without the permission of those involved, whether or not their names are used. Some people should not be counciling others, it is not a small matter dealing with peoples issues.

Bro Tony

 

Frenchy said:

I am being told that when i gave an example (in another thread) of a situation where no NAMES were mentioned. no PLACE was named and no nothing was given to give anyone the abilty to EVER know who the parties were that were involved in the story.

What Carolina posted may or may not have been gossip. But neither she nor the hypothetical "author" you suggested claim to be counseling people they use as an example on this board.

What you posted goes beyond mere gossip; it is a breach of trust. If I Ran Things, you would never be allowed to "counsel" anyone in my church if I got wind of it.

 

Frenchy,

why did you ask the question and place it in the debate forum if you were not open to differing opinions? If you already have your opinion formed then just leave it at that. Why feel the need to justify yourself by asking these questions and then defending yourself to the nth degree?

People will disagree with you, it does not mean they are "after you", nor does it mean they are ignorant.

 

AMEN Bro Tony!
A breech of trust, and some should not be counseling if they can not keep their mouths shut about the people they counsel