Is frequent the theatre Sin?

[superdave]

frequent: v 1: do one's shopping at; do business with; be a customer or client of

Its all relative. But if you want to go down that road, how often is frequent, so if I only attend 3 movies a year, I guess thats OK, since its not frequent.

Why don't we write some explanatory reference materials to explain what the Bible actually says, since obviously the plain text isn't sufficient to keep us holy, we could call it the Talmud. After all, Jesus seemed to think that the Jewish religious leaders had it right in their day.

Please make sure you include how many times I can attend the theatre a year without sinning. I want to stay as far away from that line as I can.

Seriously, but setting up such extreme boundaries for yourselves, are you not abandoning true heart change, and opportunity to strenghten your ability to respond to situations in a Christlike manner, in favor of behaviorism and a reactionary isolationist view of separation?

 

[superdave]

Your pastor clearly sinned by attending the theatre if he really feels it is wrong. No matter what the content of the film itself. And I would argue that the content of the Passion is more vile and Satanic than almost any other movie released this past year. Biblical Truth mixed with the drug induced psychotic dreams of a Nun aren't my idea of a good portrayal of scripture, and have been embraced by many who clearly lack discernment.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Aaron:
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake.

For his sake, the one who said so to you. We are not allowed the freedom to let unbelievers think we are partakers in their idolatry.

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other:

Not the unbeliever who goaded you or invited you, but the brother who is not there, who might hear of your boldness (or brazenness rather in this case) and be emboldened himself to violate his conscience.

There is nothing in this passage about an unbeliever "goading" anyone. He simply invites a believer to a feast.

First in verse 25 (1 Corinthians 10) Paul says

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"

Paul is telling Christians to buy meat for their own meals in the market and ask no questions or worry about its origins. This seems to be a direct contradition to your theory that Paul never ate meat again because some brothers were offended. You still have yet to explain this verse.

Then Paul goes on to say in verses 27:

"27If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake."

So not only did Paul tell believers they could buy meat for themselves without worry about its origins, he tells them if a unbeliever invites them to a feast they do not have to worry about its origins there either. This is not looking good for those who think Paul never ate meat again so he would not offend any brothers who thought it was wrong.

Then verse 28 Paul gives us a "But...", so in the first two case eating meat was fine, regardless of its origins. Then Paul tells us:

"28But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:"

So who is the "any man" in this passage, is it the unbeliever, or another believer who is with you at the feast - we are not sure. I have read some commentators who believe this would be another Christian brother who is present. And that we should not offend his conscience by eating it in front of him. Could it be the same unbelieving brother who invited you telling you this? Sure. But Paul's whole point is that even if they are sacrificed to idols, we know these idols are not real, for there is only one God as he says in other passages.

"29Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?"

I am glad Paul added this explanation of conscience, its not my conscience that would be violated by eating the meat at that place, but the other person. He then asks why his liberty(freedom) should be judged by another's conscience? A question that still holds true today.

Aaron, Paul says nothing about "the brother who is not there" - in fact you can find no where in the New Testament that says we should not do something that some brother might find offensive even when he is not around.

Aaron the fact is this

The same Paul who said:

"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
1 Corinthians 8:13

Also said:

"25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake...for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
"
1 Corinthians 10:25 & 29

The Paul who wrote in Romans 14:21:

"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

Also wrote in Romans 14:2-3 & 6:

"2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him... He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

This same Paul also said:

Colossians 2:16
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

Paul encourages brothers to eat meat in some places and not to in others. It is clear when we put all the passages together that Paul is saying exactly what I and many other Christians see him saying - do not do things in your brothers presense that would offend his conscience - its that simple. Yet my liberty or freedom of action, is not bound by someone else's conscience.

Notice Paul did not say - my coscience is not bound my someone's elses, but my freedom or liberty(action) is not bound by someone elses.

I am enjoying this discussion as I believe as Paul wrote that each man should be fully convinced in his own mind.(Romans 14)

As I pondered on several passages this weekend, I saw the biggest problem with your argument is that it makes Christian liberty only theoretical and not real.

While we might have freedom in our mind to think a certain way on issues, we have no real freedom to act on those beliefs(that is in essense what you are saying). Paul's whole admonition to the weaker brother not to judge the stronger brother is pointless, because the stronger brother should never ever, even outside the direct presense of the weaker brother, do something he disagrees with(according to your take on this).

So I say for myself and all those brothers and sisters in Christ who agree with me, that we believe our freedom in Christ is not only theoretical, it is real. But it must be practiced with responsiblity, as we have stated time and time again.

IFBReformer

 

[av1611jim]

IFB;
On page 8 you listed the rating system as a "tool" for using discernment. To a certain point I would agree that perhaps for some movies you MIGHT be secure and comfortable trusting such a system. I, however am not about to trust Hellywood's rating system.
As a teenager, I remember that rating system. It has been around for at least 30 years. But it has not been what we have today. For example, MANY of the movies today which are rated 'R' were once rated 'X'. MANY of the movies rated pg-13 used to be rated 'R' and so on down the list. Even SOME of the plain old 'G' movies of today would NEVER have passed muster for 'family friendly' in days gone by.
If you are older than 40, you should know this. For that reason alone it is best, IMHO, to err on the side of caution and just stay OUT of Hellywood's traps. For traps they are. And traps they will remain. I can't count the times I have passed the Audio/Video section of a large super store which had dozens of "Brain Drains" turned on to various TV stations with added various movies also playing (all at the same time) and have been bombarded by junk that no child should see. In fact, if you were to admit the truth, no child should see MANY of the advertisements that get tossed out on the air waves of TV land.
I dare say, that what goes on TV is mild in comparisson to the theatres. Why, even the billboard posters are full of junk I don't want my grandkids to see, and the movie houses are full of them.
How can you go into those places without being bombarded by these images? Ok, here is a good place to mention that one can get assaulted by those same ( and worse) images at the check-out lane at your grocer. The difference is obvious. One NEEDS groceries and cannot avoid those magazine covers at check-out, but one does not NEED to be in a movie house lobby.
Anyhow, my point is overstated at this juncture.

The rating system cannot be reliably trusted.

Discernment would mean exercising skill and accuracy in reading character or appreciating art. With a rating system which cannot be trusted one cannot exercise either skill or accuracy since the very system one would rely on is faulty.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by superdave:
Your pastor clearly sinned by attending the theatre if he really feels it is wrong. No matter what the content of the film itself. And I would argue that the content of the Passion is more vile and Satanic than almost any other movie released this past year. Biblical Truth mixed with the drug induced psychotic dreams of a Nun aren't my idea of a good portrayal of scripture, and have been embraced by many who clearly lack discernment.

The question was, would you say he frequents the theatre?

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:
There is nothing in this passage about an unbeliever "goading" anyone. He simply invites a believer to a feast.

He said, "But if ANY man say to you..."

You won't go to many feasts invited by an unbeliever where someone who knows your faith won't try to goad you. The one who invited you, or someone else, may warn you it was offered to idols because he knows your faith and is practicing common courtesy. Someone else may be goading you. "Hey, Christian. Don't you know that's been offered to our idol? Haw! Haw!" In either case, do not eat.

First in verse 25 (1 Corinthians 10) Paul says

*snip verbage*

After your exposition, regardless of the disagreement over the fine points, you should be able to see that 1 Cor. 10 et al have no bearing on pleasure-seeking.

And my explanation of Paul's statement is closer to the truth than yours. Even if you don't believe he became a vegetarian, it rules out your view that the limit on freedom is only in the physical presence of the one with a conscience toward something as an evil thing.

Nature itself teaches you that. Would you say your wife loved you if she did things that grieved you, even though she was careful to keep them out of your sight?

What of your children?

We're to walk in love, not mere common courtesy. If one ate meat though no necessity or service demanded it, knowing that his brother would be offended, he would not be walking in love.

That's the point.

You're the one who appealed to Rom. 14 to justify the practice of going to the theatre despite the conscience of your brother.

I don't think it applies. Matters of service to Christ, and buying the necessities of life are not to be compared to pleasure-seeking.

But even if it did, you don't get the rights you mistakenly derive from that passage.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Aaron:
After your exposition, regardless of the disagreement over the fine points, you should be able to see that 1 Cor. 10 et al have no bearing on pleasure-seeking.

Is it wrong for a Christian to seek pleasure in those things which God has given him in creation?

You see this is something many fundamentalists miss(and I consider myself a reformed one).

I would beg to differ that that Romans 14 or other similar passages have nothing to do with pleasure seeking. The ones who did not eat the meat I am sure could accuse those who did of seeking that pleasure of eating meat, they did not have to eat meat - the could eat only vegetables.

I am sure anyone who has been to a good steak house could agree that a good steak can be quite pleasurable(ha ha)

But is it wrong to take pleasure in that steak? Has God not created it to be received with thanks giving?


It is wrong to seek after those pleasures which are wicked and evil and would violate God's laws or principles.

And even good pleasures can become wrong if they are out of balance.

For instance God created the pleasure of physical intimacy between a man and women in marriage. Is it wrong for me to seek this pleasure with my wife - to look forward to it?(Notice I am being very careful with language, lets keep it that way so it does not get kicked out here).

It can become wrong, if it becomes the center of my life and causes me to stop reading my Bible and spending time alone with the Lord.

It is pleasurable for me to spend time with my children, I enjoy the time I spend, whether it was watching a movie with them Friday night, or the great time we spent tonight going through some passages in the Gospel of Matthew.

These are pleasures that do not violate God's laws or principles and it is not wrong to seek them.

It is also pleasurable for me to read and study God's Word - but event that can become wrong if I am doing this every hour of the day and neglect the needs of my family or even of myself to rest.

You see it is not a sin for a Christian to rest, to relax or to do something recreational. After all God rested on the 7th day, and he did not even have to, he just did it as an example for us.

I know that you are not saying relaxing is a sin, but you are saying certain forms of recreation are a sin - which we would agree is true. I simply do not believe renting a movie or going to show as a recreational activity is a sin.

And if my brother believes it is sin, I will not bring it up to him or rub it in his face.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Nature itself teaches you that. Would you say your wife loved you if she did things that grieved you, even though she was careful to keep them out of your sight?

What of your children?

We're to walk in love, not mere common courtesy. If one ate meat though no necessity or service demanded it, knowing that his brother would be offended, he would not be walking in love.

That's the point.

Aaron,

The two examples you site of my wife or children are not even close to the relationship of myself to another brother in Christ who is not under my authority(as my wife and children are).

As the head of my home, I may designate standards on issues and my wife and children have the Biblical obligation to obey those standards.

Another believer though, does not have that authority over me. Yes, in his presense I must respect his position, but he cannot legislate his standards for me.

Once again, your position makes our freedom in Christ, only theoretical, and not a real freedom that we may practice with responsbility(as I have stated often).

This is a point you have yet to contend with why would Paul speak of brothers believing differently on disputable issues and actually encourage them to act in their new found faith(for instance to by meat in the market) but then rip that freedom away. That is not at all what he his doing.

He is telling them to use there freedom in a responsible manner - but he is not saying that can never exercise that freedom.

You still have not answered, why would Paul tell them to but meat in the market if your theory is correct that we are not only to respect our weaker brothers position in his presense but we are actually to incorporate it into our complete lifestyle at all times regardless of whether he is present or not.


"...for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? "(1 Corinthians 10:29-30)

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days..."
Colossians 2:16

IFBReformer

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Repent_and_Believe:
Why dont Christians start cultivating their own literature that our next generation should read. I would much rather read a book on a missionary than one on Aristotle!

...

The worst memory I have as a Christian is visiting with a preacher's family with a relative of his. They had the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie. I had to leave the room. Then when I came back from a short rest in my room the scene was one of where the woman was being raped by one of the bad guys. The preacher didnt advance the film! I had to leave the room again. I hate it when a host will do something like that let alone what impact it had on his kids. The man told his kids "Dont look." So do we buy the video but then just advance the movie! C'mon folks - take a stand for God's sake. Lets get the DVDs out of the house if they have offensive language or violence.

Instead of desiring to go to the theater how about helping an elderly lady out by painting her fence (by day of course!) or helping her hang some curtains or perhaps being a companion for her or some elderly fellow.

I would completely disagree with what this Pastor did. That rape scene was completely inappropriate for children and would spoil their innocennce in the matter of physical intimacy.

However I have scene that Robin Hood movie several times believe the scene was done in much better taste than what many hollywood movies would have done with that part of the story.

They were fully clothed in this scene, and yes it is an attempted rape, which is unpleasant but it was a part of the story. Can a rape scene go to far, I think yes. But in this case it did not.

It was fully in context with the story.

Here is a beautiful story of a man who comes home from war only to find his nobel father has been murdered.

He sees the same man who did this evil thing is also crushing the peasants and practically starving them to death for his own greed.

He decides to stand up for the people, and unite the people against this evil oppressor and those who stand with him because of their greed.

We may argue the point of whether it was right for Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor, but if the rich have stolen from the poor and he simply takes it back and gives the poor back what was really theirs - is that stealing?

I remember watching those awsome arrow scenes for the first. I remember my heart pounding as those men stood on the gallows awaiting execution only to be saved at the last momment.

Certainly we could agree their may be some parts of the story that would be in contradiction to Gods ways and principles. But does this make this excellant story of the struggle for freedom from tyranny useless to us? Can we not gleen the good from bad? Can we not redeem the good from this?

How can Christians do as you say and start"cultivating their own literature that our next generation should read" or watch for that matter if Christians dismiss any literature or story because there is something in it that does not match with God's ways and principles?

We live in a sin-cursed world, why should I be suprised that a story or movie produced by unbelievers might promote a philosophy or action that stands in contradiction to God's Word?

The question then becomes, if the main thrust of the book or movie is a principle that a Biblical world view can agree with why must we toss it out because of a few things that would contradict Biblical teaching? Can we not discern the good from the bad?

Is this how we handle other matters in life?

If I pick up the Washington Post and read it and come across an article with an unbiblical view point do I toss the paper? Or do I discern the good from the bad?

If I go to the grocery store and see some magazines that have no redeemable value on their shelves must I stop going to this store? Or do I discern the good from the bad?

When I attended Community College and my Creative writing professor was espousing her liberal views did I quit the class? Or did I discern the good from the bad?

And the notion that - well some things are necessities so different rules apply to those things than others which some deem as lesser things - simply has no Biblical backing.

Romance, Courage in combat or other danger, the pains of raising children, pursuit of human freedom from tryanny, the pursuit of evil doers by law enforcers - these are many of the things that provide the seed for literature.

None of these in and of themselves are wrong, and actually can be quite wonderful when potrayed in the right way.

How inspiring it is to see an solider give his life for another fellow soilder in a war movie - does this not remind us all of Christ's sacrifice for us?

I could think of other examples but you get the point.

Now fire away - because I know its coming.

IFBReformer

[ March 08, 2005, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: IfbReformer ]

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
After your exposition, regardless of the disagreement over the fine points, you should be able to see that 1 Cor. 10 et al have no bearing on pleasure-seeking.

Is it wrong for a Christian to seek pleasure in those things which God has given him in creation?</font>[/QUOTE]I think you meant to ask is it wrong for a Christion to enjoy the things God has created to be received with thanksgiving?

Of course not. On what day did God create the theatre?

Is it wrong to seek pleasure in anything? The Scriptures say we're to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Since we're speaking of meats, it is wrong to eat meat for the mere pleasure of eating meat. It was this lust which enticed the Isrealites to loathe the manna and ask for meat. They weren't hungry.

Ecclesiastes 10:17 Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Nature itself teaches you that. Would you say your wife loved you if she did things that grieved you, even though she was careful to keep them out of your sight?

What of your children?

We're to walk in love, not mere common courtesy. If one ate meat though no necessity or service demanded it, knowing that his brother would be offended, he would not be walking in love.

That's the point.

Aaron,

The two examples you site of my wife or children are not even close to the relationship of myself to another brother in Christ...</font>[/QUOTE]That's right. Your natural relations are lesser.

To sin against a brother and wound his weak conscience is to sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12) who we are to love more than our natural relations (Luke 14:26).

But the question was, could you say she loved you if she persisted in things that grieved you, though never in your presence? The answer is obvious. No.

But since you're hung up on the authority angle, let's turn the question around. I know a man who was going through marriage counselling. One of the things that grieved his wife was his occassional beer. He was not willing to give up his beer, but he did say he would be willing not to bring it in the house and only drink it when she wasn't around.

This is real. I work with the sot.

Would you say he loved his wife?

You still have not answered, why would Paul tell them to but meat in the market if your theory is correct that we are not only to respect our weaker brothers position in his presense but we are actually to incorporate it into our complete lifestyle at all times regardless of whether he is present or not.

Why, when we're buying meat in the shambles, are we instructed by Paul not to ask of its origin if the conscience of the weaker brother is not to be considered in our everyday lives?

Again, what are we told to do when "any man" says to us this is offered to an idol?

Explain to me how one lays down his life for his friends, if he lives his life the way he wants to when they're not around.

Paul explained quite clearly how love is manifested. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

[superdave]

I dare say, that what goes on TV is mild in comparisson to the theatres. Why, even the billboard posters are full of junk I don't want my grandkids to see, and the movie houses are full of them.

Apparently you don't frequent the TV either. I am much much much more concerned about what comes across the TV screen 24/7 than the posters that might be on the wall of a theatre. Plus, Last week at the mall, I noticed that the advertising in the mall proper were worse than any movie poster I have ever seen, and most of those were for teen shows on the disney channel or the WB

That is why my kids aren't allowed to channel surf even to go to the stations that they are allowed to watch, and I have a TV guardian on the TV that even filters out TV preachers many times (which is usually a good thing)

 

[superdave]

The question was, would you say he frequents the theatre?

By this Definition that I posted earlier, yes.

frequent: v 1: do one's shopping at; do business with; be a customer or client of

Again, there is no magic number of times that it takes to be a customer of the theatre. If its wrong, its wrong. My contention is that it has nothing to do with the venue. If the content of the movie would be appropriate to view in your home on TV or on DVD, etc, its appropriate to view in the theatre as well, just with better popcorn.

 

[Aaron]

Dave, Dave, Dave.

I took the kids to the Henry Doorley Zoo in Omaha, Neb. last summer. Do we frequent the Henry Doorley Zoo?

Nope. Not even by "your" definition. I could never say I frequent the Henry Doorley Zoo. I've been, but I don't frequent it. It means "to be" a customer or "to do" business with. Present tense, continuos action. Now we do frequent the St. Louis Zoo.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Aaron:
On what day did God create the theatre?

On what day did God create the Computer?
On what day did God create the automobile?
On what day did God create the printing press
to make books?

Yet you use all these things, which in and of themselves are not wrong. But these man-made objects can be used for wrong(Computers - pornography, automobiles - hit and run, books - filthly language or topics)

All these objects(including the theater) can be used to Glory of God or the glory of Satan. The key is the choice in how we use these man-made objects.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Is it wrong to seek pleasure in anything? The Scriptures say we're to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Since we're speaking of meats, it is wrong to eat meat for the mere pleasure of eating meat. It was this lust which enticed the Isrealites to loathe the manna and ask for meat. They weren't hungry.

Ecclesiastes 10:17 Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

If I "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness"(Matthew 6:33) does this mean
I cannot engage in any pleasurable experiances after that?

We would agree as Christians it is clear from the Scriptures that God is be at the center of our life. He is to be first place, but being first does not mean being only - otherwise we could all lock ourselves up in monistaries.

Yes the scriptures tell us to love God first, but they also tell us to love our brethren, and the first way we put our relgion into practice is by caring for our family.(1 Timothy 5:4) We are not to love anyone more than God(Matthew 10:37) but that does not mean we do not love anyone after God.

In the area of pleasures or desires as they often called, it is evil desires("James 1:14") or the disproportiante pursuit of good pleasures that we are to avoid. Yes even a good desire, such as a man's natural desire for his wife, or a wife's for her husband, can become bad if it takes the place of God in their life. Yet a husband and wife are commanded to not deprive eachother of their bodies(1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

Is Ecclesiastes 10:17 teaching that it is wrong to eat for pleasure? Or is it teaching it is wrong to be a glutton? I can enjoy food I am eating without becoming a glutton.

Deuteronomy 12:20(NIV)
20 When the LORD your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat [“longeth to eat flesh” KJV] and say, "I would like some meat," then you may eat as much of it as you want [“whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” KJV].

Originally posted by Aaron:
That's right. Your natural relations are lesser.

To sin against a brother and wound his weak conscience is to sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12) who we are to love more than our natural relations (Luke 14:26).

Luke 14:26(NIV)
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.

parallels to

Matthew 10:37
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;


Is this saying we are to love our Christian brothers more than our wifes and children? Sorry - don't see that anywhere in the passage. This and the parallel accounts of it in other Gospels is talking about allowing an unbelieving relative to seperate us from Christ - if my wife or children say I must choose between them and Christ, then I choose Christ. If they choose to leave me because of it, then so be it.

So you say the natural relations(speaking of my wife and children) are a 'lesser' relationship? They are different, but certainly not lesser.

Am I commanded to give my body to fellow believers in the same way as I am to my wife? Do I become one flesh with other believers as I do with my wife? Are other believers to obey me in the same sense as my children are? I don't think you can blur these lines and have scriptural backing.

What is the first way I put my religion into practice according to 1 Timothy 5:4? Is it by caring for someone at church or is it by caring for my family(natural relations)?

Originally posted by Aaron:
But the question was, could you say she loved you if she persisted in things that grieved you, though never in your presence? The answer is obvious. No.

But since you're hung up on the authority angle, let's turn the question around. I know a man who was going through marriage counselling. One of the things that grieved his wife was his occassional beer. He was not willing to give up his beer, but he did say he would be willing not to bring it in the house and only drink it when she wasn't around.

This is real. I work with the sot.

Would you say he loved his wife?

Again there is a large difference between my wife or children not obeying my standards for my family outside my presense and me not observing the standards of my weaker brother outside his presense - it is worlds apart.

I am obligated not to offend(cause him to fall away or sin) my brother in his presense, but I am not obligated to obey my brother outside his presense(as my wife and children are obligated to do towards me).

To answer your question, no my wife would not be loving me if she disobeyed outside me my presense.

On the issue of the man having the beer and his wife not liking it, again the relationship between a husband and wife is unique as I have pointed out and the husband should be "considerate" of his wife as he lives with her as husband and wife.

I Peter 3:7
7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Why, when we're buying meat in the shambles, are we instructed by Paul not to ask of its origin if the conscience of the weaker brother is not to be considered in our everyday lives?

I don't see anything in that verses 25 & 26 of I Corinthians 10 about the weaker brother"

"25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

In fact Paul tells us why we should not ask questions of conscience - because "earth is the Lord's, and everything in it" - nothing to do with the weaker brother.

So again why does Paul tell the believers to buy meat in the market if it might offend some other brother and if your interpretation is correct this would be a contradiction for Paul to tell them to eat meat, and then tell them they should never eat meat because it might offend a brother.

Since we know the scriptures never contradict, and the scriptures intrepret the scriptures, the only possible correct intrepretation is that we should not eat meat(or do any other disputable activity) in front of a weaker brother.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Explain to me how one lays down his life for his friends, if he lives his life the way he wants to when they're not around.

Thats easy, we lay down our life for our brothers by eachother, providing physical, spiritual and emotional support. We lay down our life for our brother by not doing things in his presense which would cause him to fall away or sin. We also lay down our life for our brothers when we do not look down on them not doing things we believe we have the freedom to do and we lay down our lives for our brethren when we do not judge our brethren for doing disputable things we ourselves feel we do not have the freedom to do.

But laying down our lives does not mean what you read into, in essense laying down our freedom in Christ. As Paul said:

"...for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? "(1 Corinthians 10:29-30)

I will leave you with a question that I have often repeated but you have not answered:

Is our Christian liberty only theoretical? Can it actually never be practiced because some other Christian might have a different view on that issue?

Or is Paul actually arguing for the real, but responsible practice of Christian liberty as I and many other Christians contend?

Why tell weaker brothers not to judge the stronger brothers(as Paul does in Romans 14) if what you say is correct and the stronger brother would never act on his freedom?

You keep saying that it is only common courtesy to not do something in our weaker brothers presense, but real love is actually take on his standards for ourselves - but you have failed to produce scriptural support for such an idea.

The ball is in your court...

IFBReformer

 

[James_Newman]

IFB, you keep insisting that the theater can be used to the glory of God or the glory of Satan. How do you use the theater to the glory of God? If you say that you and your family can go watch a worldly film and God is glorified by it, how is this so?

Luke 17
14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.
15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,
16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.
17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.

I think the other nine went to the movies.

I can use this computer to glorify God right here in this forum. If I were to glorify God in the theater, I would be ejected.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
[qb] Is it wrong to seek pleasure in anything? The Scriptures say we're to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Since we're speaking of meats, it is wrong to eat meat for the mere pleasure of eating meat. It was this lust which enticed the Isrealites to loathe the manna and ask for meat. They weren't hungry.

Ecclesiastes 10:17 Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

If I "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness"(Matthew 6:33) does this mean
I cannot engage in any pleasurable experiances after that?</font>[/QUOTE]Try to follow the arguments, IFB. Rom. 14 and related passages are speaking of service to Christ and the necessities of life. If in these necessities and duties we're to keep the consciences of our brothers and sisters in view, and therefore the glory of Christ, how much more when seeking pleasure? Besides, pleasure is never the goal of the Christian. We're to follow after love and earnestly desire the best gifts. We're to set our affections on things above, not on things on the earth. The highest pleasure and fulfillment of a Christian is to do God's will. As Christ said, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

We would agree as Christians it is clear from the Scriptures that God is be at the center of our life. He is to be first place, but being first does not mean being only -

Yes, it does. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. In all we do, we do because it is God's will and to further His Kingdom, whether it's eat or drink or whatever we do. Again, that's our highest pleasure. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.

Through the way where hope is guiding,
Hark, what peaceful music rings!
Where the flock, in Thee confiding,
Drink of joy from deathless springs.

Theirs is beauty's fairest pleasure,
Theirs is wisdom's holiest treasure.
Thou dost ever lead Thine own,
In the love of joys unknown.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
That's right. Your natural relations are lesser.

To sin against a brother and wound his weak conscience is to sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12) who we are to love more than our natural relations (Luke 14:26).

Is this saying we are to love our Christian brothers more than our wifes and children? Sorry - don't see that anywhere in the passage. This and the parallel accounts of it in other Gospels is talking about allowing an unbelieving relative to seperate us from Christ - </font>[/QUOTE]Watch, you'll answer your own question and contradict yourself with the next phrase...

if my wife or children say I must choose between them and Christ, then I choose Christ. If they choose to leave me because of it, then so be it.

There you go. Who commanded you to love your brothers as Christ has loved you? Is there a higher or more demanding love than that? But they're not demanding you love them more than Christ, you're saying you must since you have a higher obligation to live according to their consciences than to another for whom Christ died.

So you say the natural relations(speaking of my wife and children) are a 'lesser' relationship? They are different, but certainly not lesser.

If they're not Christ's, then your ties to them are lesser than to the family of God.

Am I commanded to give my body to fellow believers in the same way as I am to my wife? Do I become one flesh with other believers as I do with my wife?

Christ prayed that all His disciples would be one as He and the Father are one. Are you saying your physical union with your wife is on par with this?

Your marriage is a temporal, earthly arrangement, given to you by God for the furtherance of His Kingdom. However, in the Resurrection, there is no marriage or giving in marriage. But the union with our brothers and sisters in Christ is heavenly and eternal.

In all ways, the relationship between brothers in Christ is higher and closer than our earthly ties. How else could Paul of said that if the unbeliever depart (because of the Gospel), the brother or sister is not under the bonds of that marriage?

Are other believers to obey me in the same sense as my children are?

Puh-leeze!

I don't think you can blur these lines and have scriptural backing.

Not blurred at all. I set them very much in stark contrast.

What is the first way I put my religion into practice according to 1 Timothy 5:4? Is it by caring for someone at church or is it by caring for my family(natural relations)?

Again, try to follow the discussion here. If your natural relations got all pouty because you refused to do something that would wound your Christian brother's weak conscience, then Christ would have you let your wife and kids get all pouty and support your brother.

Let them leave you if they are so disposed.

The scope of your earthly responsibilities in no way elevates your natural, earthly ties to the level of the covenant relationship of the children of God.

To answer your question, no my wife would not be loving me if she disobeyed outside me my presense.

I rest my case. And neither are you walking in love to behave in a manner destructive to the conscience of your brother even if he's not around.

Love is love.

How is a man to love his wife? As Christ loved the church.

How is a man to love his brother in Christ? As Christ loved us.

The love between a man and wife is merely an earthly picture of the love of Christ for his Church, which is the very love we're to have for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We're to love one another and submit one to another.

 

[IfbReformer]

Aaron,

You have a talent for only answering what you want to - before I respond to you last posting please respond to this section I asked you to at the end of my post:

I will leave you with a question that I have often repeated but you have not answered:

Is our Christian liberty only theoretical? Can it actually never be practiced because some other Christian might have a different view on that issue?

Or is Paul actually arguing for the real, but responsible practice of Christian liberty as I and many other Christians contend?

Why tell weaker brothers not to judge the stronger brothers(as Paul does in Romans 14) if what you say is correct and the stronger brother would never act on his freedom?

You keep saying that it is only common courtesy to not do something in our weaker brothers presense, but real love is actually take on his standards for ourselves - but you have failed to produce scriptural support for such an idea.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
IFB, you keep insisting that the theater can be used to the glory of God or the glory of Satan. How do you use the theater to the glory of God? If you say that you and your family can go watch a worldly film and God is glorified by it, how is this so?

Lets define 'worldly film' - does this mean something the world produces? In this case yes we can give glory to God with many things the world produces like pianos, organs, keyboards, violins,books on Mathmatics, history(if it is accurate),computers,tape players, oh yes and films - provided that they basis of the movie is one that is in agreement with a Biblical view point.

So when I take my kids to say Finding Nemo - that brought glory to God - heres how:

1.We were spending time together
2.We laughed together
3.You see, the very process of choosing the right movies from the wrong movies bring glory to God. So there are many ways, going to a theater can bring glory to God.

The story was one of a fish being lost and his father searching for him(hmm, reminds of a lost sheep and the shepard searching for him) at any rate it was a great story for the kids.

Now if you only meant by "worldly film" movies that are filled with profanity and nudity, then I would agree you that you would not be bringing glory to God in these cases.

IFBReformer

 

[James_Newman]

So the very act of spending time with your family brings glory to God? Do the heathen bring glory to God when they laugh with their children? Don't get me wrong, I see these as worthy pursuits, better to spend time with your family than to work yourself to death for mammon so they can grow up and go to college and work themselves to death for mammon... but is this what brings glory to God? Or is it rather the manner in which we spend time with our children, raising them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, which brings Him the glory. When we release our 'arrows' into the world and they hit their mark?

I'll be honest, I thought Finding Nemo was very cute and mostly harmless. I saw it and many other much more disgusting movies when I was backslidden and eating my vomit. I wouldn't go overboard comparing Marlin to the Lord Allmighty, and I wouldn't pretend that God is honored in the movie (why doesn't Nemo pray to be delivered? Nobody wants to watch a movie about a fish with faith!) but it was generally lacking in crude humor and sexual inuendo (although they did make Nemo 'touch the butt'). But it is an exception. Should I suppose it is a good idea to go to the bar because I went once and they were out of beer?

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:
Aaron,

You have a talent for only answering what you want to - before I respond to you last posting please respond to this section I asked you to at the end of my post:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I will leave you with a question that I have often repeated but you have not answered:

Is our Christian liberty only theoretical? Can it actually never be practiced because some other Christian might have a different view on that issue?

Or is Paul actually arguing for the real, but responsible practice of Christian liberty as I and many other Christians contend?

Why tell weaker brothers not to judge the stronger brothers(as Paul does in Romans 14) if what you say is correct and the stronger brother would never act on his freedom?

You keep saying that it is only common courtesy to not do something in our weaker brothers presense, but real love is actually take on his standards for ourselves - but you have failed to produce scriptural support for such an idea.

</font>[/QUOTE]This has already been answered. Love requires that you live in a manner void of offense to God and the conscience of your brothers.

You said yourself that a husband is not loving his spouse if he does things—that he may have perfect liberty to do otherwise—that would grieve her whether under her nose or not.

I've shown you, with the Scriptures, that it's the same with your brothers in Christ.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
So the very act of spending time with your family brings glory to God? Do the heathen bring glory to God when they laugh with their children?

Yes brother James,

I firmly believe spending time with my family does bring glory to God. When the heathen do this same activity, they are not doing it in faith, as I do as a Christian.

Yes things need to be balanced, and if the only way I spent time with my kids was taking them to a movie or watching TV then I would be out of balance and those things could become wrong. But if spend time teaching the Bible, and teaching them about history, and playing with them, and yes even taking them to the movies a few times a year and watching movies with them once a week I see that as balanced - you may not.

IFBReformer