the_cave

Oh, for crying out loud.

Ahem.

I'm confused as to exactly what it is that you have the power to do. I'm going to assume that you're not a) going to have any sort of affair with him (or perform any _other_ behavior that would be unseemly with him) nor b) going to try and woo him away from his wife. If either a) or b), you have a problem that I'm not going to deal with!

So, assuming a) and b). What do you have to do with this fellow's feelings? I assume you're going to explain whatever moral course of action you need to, if you need to, and then it's not your problem. As for matters of faith, you have the right to explain your position if he asks about it--or to tell him you don't want to talk about it anymore, if that's how you feel.

It sounds like (ahem) there is something else going on (cough) that maybe II is not qualified to adivise you on...in which case I would recommend seeking the advice of a professional trained to advise on it. But I could be imagining things.

Bree

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're alluding to.

I am trying to see things from a Christian point of view. What exactly is "causing a brother to stumble" - how does the modern, moderate Christian interpet this verse? Does it apply to non-Christians? These are questions that I, as a Christian, did not take the time to ask - I never thought critically about any Bible verse at that point in my life. I am also trying to apply this verse to the situation I find myself in, since the person in question holds the Bible to such high esteem. In other words, I'm trying to use the same yardstick, so to speak.

brighid

Bree,

You have no obligation to this man and you certainly do not need any Christian or Biblical yardstick to measure this situation. You aren't causing him to lose faith in his God, even if he sees you as the catalyst because of his lust. HE is responsible for his loss of faith, his lust and whatever actions he takes.

IMHO all you need do is follow your moral code and tell him that you simply cannot be a part of his fall from "grace" and he is the only responsible party to this place he finds himself in.

As to that verse, nothing and no one causes another to stumble in this way. It is a choice and it is no more a bottle of alcohols fault in tempting an alcoholic, as it is your fault this man allows himself to be tempted by you (or any other woman.)

Be plain and honest, stick by your laurels and advise him to seek professional help to deal with his problems - perhaps talking to his wife would be the first place to start.

Brighid

Psycho Economist

I would say you're best off by helping him become whatever it is he wants to become. (But my suggestions do not by any means make a moral imperative.)

Doubts or not, if he wants to stay a Christian and you respect that you can let him know you're not comfortable answering his questions and you can hope that maybe this verse will help him understand why. If he doesn't want to remain a Christian, you have no obligation to keep him in the dark about what you believe. If he's not sure where he wants to go, treat him like a kid... answer his questions very specifically and let him decide where to go by how he follows those questions up.

As for the lusting after you, HelenM's dead on in all respects.

the_cave

I think brighid's advice would be well-taken. Sorry for any confusion--what I meant earlier was simply, it seems like this fellow must be doing or saying something else to make your situation so uncomfortable for you--otherwise, why is it a big deal? But reading it again, I think you've explained it well enough--it does seem very uncomfortable. I'm glad you've resolved not to feel guilty about it! Don't. And my cry of despair was directed at this fellow's conflation of his religious crisis with his emotional crisis...I wish he wouldn't do so, and I'm sure you agree!

It seems to me that it's his responsibility to decide what he believes, and his emotions are likewise his responsibility, not yours. Let him worry about how to interpret it. You don't have the right to tell him what to believe, but you do have the right to tell him what _you_ believe. As for his feelings, if you'd like to maintain friendship with him, that's fine--but unfortunately, if his feelings are interfering with that friendship, you might need to step back. That's just common sense. As for the rest--getting his faith and his emotions sorted out--that is entirely his responsibility, not yours. You might want to gently suggest that they may in fact be separate issues (though they might not be) but I would not get yourself too invovled if he disagrees. My sympathies if this is becoming a more difficult situation for you.

But I'll try and answer your question anyway. If you are concerned with the standards of his tradition, I think that following the advice given here would be in conformity with it. The point is not to deliberately cause someone to do something wrong. But it seems to me that if you follow the advice given here, you would not deliberately cause any wrong. However, that does't mean that wrong might not be caused. It's a question of what the word "cause" means. I think that most Christians, even evangelicals and fundamentalists, recognize that there are limits to our intentions--we can intend the very best, and be on our very best behavior, and yet somehow or other our actions can cause inadvertant harm. It's a fallen world, and there's no escaping it. But this is true for everyone--bad things can happen, no matter what.

The question is, should we do something, even if it isn't inherently wrong, but it might cause someone else emotional confusion or harm? Assume that we know this harm may result--we're aware of the potential consequences of the action. The passage in question seems to indicate we shouldn't do it.

I think that it's a question of discretion. Let's say someone's relative recently died in a car accident, and they became upset when anyone mentioned car accidents in their presence. It would be discreet, then, not to bring up the subject in their presence--even though there's nothing inherently wrong in discussing car accidents, and you're denying yourself the freedom to do so. It's a small sacrifice, but the emotional health of another is in this case more important. You can discuss your car accidents elsewhere. So, when one is around one's "Brother in Christ", one should be discreet, if necessary, if you know that they're susceptible to influence by some behavior. You wouldn't want to offer an alcoholic a drink, would you?

Let me put it this way. I could be getting this all wrong, but it seems to me that as an atheist, either you don't really have a preference as to what he believes, or else your preference is for him to move towards atheism. But you also have a preference as to whether he messes up his emotional life, and harms others in the process, and I assume that is the difficulty for you. It's not your fault he's conflating the two; again, you can suggest he separate them, but it's not your job to make sure he does. If they remain related issues, then I can see how you might be concerned that any further conversation with him might cause him emotional harm.

I think it's a matter of discretion and prudence. You might simply want to approach this person in a different way, based on how you know they might react to what you have to say--just like the person with the relative in an accident. You might want to think about how he hears what you have to say--he may not hear it in the way you intend. I think the advice given here by others is sound--make yourself as clear as possible. Then make sure anything you say is not misinterpreted. Make it clear that when you're discussing your philosophy, it's not a commentary on his relationships--that's his emotional reaction, and his responsibility. I think that's one way to adhere well to the spirit of the passage, and maybe even the letter, in a Christian manner, if that's your concern, as seems to be. If it really becomes impossible, and you're committed to doing things according to his tradition, I guess you might want to reduce contact with him. But I think that might be common sense also--and for your benefit as well.

I think that one problem of the interpretation of the passage is, what constitutes "stumbing"? One denomination's definition of sin is different from another's. I guess it would depend on what sort of a Christian he was! Aargh.

This seems to be getting more and more complicated; I hope it isn't, for your sake! Also for mine, as I'm somewhat uncomfortable giving others emotional advice. I think I've already hit my limit...

HelenM

Christians can't expect non-Christians to care what a book says that they don't believe in. So, really, Christians can't expect non-Christians to apply anything in the Bible just because it's in there. A non-Christian who applies a Biblical principle will do so because they think it makes sense to apply it. They won't do it just because it's in the Bible. I think the wiser non-Christians wouldn't rule out doing something just because it's in the Bible . But they'd do it for other reasons.

I'm still confused why you are doing so. First, this man evidently is moving away from caring what the Bible says, if he's willing to cheat on his wife.

Second, if he knows you're an atheist he presumably won't expect you to abide by what the Bible says, as I just was saying, above.

Third, I can't imagine you'd want to imply to him that your values are shaped by the Bible, if they aren't. If you don't want to tell him you're an atheist, that's one thing and I respect that. But to have a discussion that implies you're trying to do what the Bible says, as if you believe it...I can't imagine you doing that and feeling comfortable about it.

Fourth, I'm assuming you do believe it would be wrong of him to cheat on his wife. I'm assuming you don't approve of that kind of behind-a-partner's back betrayal of a relationship.

Fifth, I'm assuming you aren't interested in him the way he's interested in you.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something?

Helen

Tarnaak

A Christian point of view:

The verse Roman 14:12 is speaking of others belief system. In the Old Testament (Jewish doctrine) pork was not to be eaten as it was believed to be unclean. After Christ, all meats including pork were "ok'd" for dining upon.
To pput it another way, "if your guest is of the Jewish faith, do not serve pork for dinner as this would offend them and may lead them astray." I only use Jewish faith because it is relative to the verse in question.

This verse has nothing to do with your situation however. A "Christian" gone astray is just that. He is giving in to the temptation of lust and using you to justify his weak faith.

I do agree with the previous posters about what you should do. I just wanted to clarifyt he verse in question.

James

yguy

I don't exactly see why you feel any particular responsibility towards this guy, nor do I see what Christianity has to do with it. If he's Christian and you're not, he's not your brother in the sense the verse appears to mean it, and in any case I don't see how you can keep him from stumbling when you don't think it would be that big a deal if he did. Sounds to me like he's making the classic mistake of blaming you for his own weakness. You'd do well to be wary of people like that.

And that "falling in lust" confession suggests that maybe keeping the relationship on a more professional level is in order.

Bree

Thanks SO much for everyone's advice. the_cave, thanks so much for your clarification - it was very helpful. HelenM, thanks for pointing out the now rather obvious flaws in my system of reasoning. It's obvious to me now that I'm taking the blame for something that isn't my fault (thank you, yguy) and I appreciate the help.

HelenM

No offense, Bree - I couldn't see the connection between understanding how Christians interpret that passage and deciding [as an atheist] how to respond to the guy at work.

If this thread has helped you clarify your thinking and decide how to respond to the guy, I'm very glad. I think I was confused because I didn't understand how your initial question would help you with that. But if you've got there anyway, that's great

Helen