Profanity at a Christian Concert?

[The MAc]

Hello to everyone, I haven't been on in a while. I went to the Third Day family picnic concert last night in Simpsonville, SC and it was great! As always Third Day did a fantastic job. But before they went on stage, Thousand Foot Krutch played. And I could have sworn I saw the lead singer mouth a curse word during one of their songs. Now he didn't say it through the microphone, it was one of those pull the mic away from your mouth so no one can hear you moments. But I was close enough to read his lips and I'm pretty sure he mouthed a pretty bad curse word. To make sure I even asked the person beside me and she said that he did. Now I don't know what the protocol on that is or if I'm even in the right to complain about it. I do know that being at a Christian concert I didn't want or expect that to happen. I would hate for Third Day to be associated with that. And even more so hate for anyone who wasn't saved that was there and saw that to be pushed in the opposite direction of Christ. But that what I saw, and I hope something can be said or done about it. Thank you.

[onesawthelight]

I guess my thought on that is a curse word would be highly inappropriate.
However...this is in no way a reflection upon ThirdDay. Not to mention there are far worse things that could happen. I don't believe the guys would associate themselves with *show* only Christians...which for the record I don't believe is the case here. We all at times do things we wish we would not have...we are after all human. I would instead walk away with the goodness of what you were blessed with by being at this place with ThirdDay....whom all love the Lord....and really care about their fans.
Just my opinion.

[g-man]

So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

[onesawthelight]

So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Perfect.....:)

[Evanescence]

You pretend like you never "cuss"...and that these slang words, often defined as bad...are actually real.
Concentrate on the poor and homeless, friend.

[The MAc]

I don't profess to be perfect or have perfect language. All I'm saying is that if a band is professing to be "Christian" then they should set a higher standard for themselves and be an example of Christ. We are to be in the world but not of the world. Even though they are real words that makes them no less worse. If I was lost and looking for something more, I would be turned away from the whole evening at that moment, even though the bands aren't a reflection of each other. Like always you are associated with the company you keep. My only concern is that a lost soul would be turned away from Jesus and see Christians as no different that the rest of the world.

[onesawthelight]

I don't profess to be perfect or have perfect language. All I'm saying is that if a band is professing to be "Christian" then they should set a higher standard for themselves and be an example of Christ. We are to be in the world but not of the world. Even though they are real words that makes them no less worse. If I was lost and looking for something more, I would be turned away from the whole evening at that moment, even though the bands aren't a reflection of each other. Like always you are associated with the company you keep. My only concern is that a lost soul would be turned away from Jesus and see Christians as no different that the rest of the world.

Sorry....but I would have to say that if that is all it takes....that person is looking for an excuse to say *I told you so* and walk away from Christ. I mean really.....cmon. Some of our troops are known to swear when they pray...do you think they really don't know God? Some of the most caring Christian people I know came from a checkered background. :)

[The MAc]

So does that mean that we just give up on that one person? If one soul matters so much to God why should it matter any less to us. If that one word turned one person away should we not feel regret or guilty for that. The fact remains that those words are wrong. No matter your background it makes no excuse for sin. When we accept Christ we should be a "new creation". If my father was a murderer and I turned out to be a Christian some day, but was still a murderer, that does not excuse me from my sin. Yes, if I ask forgiveness I am forgivin but the consequences are still there and it's still sin. I pray that no one was turned away from God for that one sin.

[Sam!]

Your desire to walk in the right way is admirable and I have no doubt your heart is in the right place.

I did, however, have a few thoughts.

First, there is no way (short of asking somebody on stage who actually heard) to know what was said. Conjecturing that a brother in Christ has sinned and then casting judgment and playing hypotheticals isn't really a great exercise!

Secondly, some will say that the word was "clearly" wrong. That depends on the culture. There are words in other countries, for example, that we would consider vulgar here but which are not considered so in those places. The word itself is not black or white sinful. Jesus taught it was what is in the heart that is subject to judgment. If he used the word and it caused harm to somebody else - he might be responsible for that carelessness as well. But I think guessing what was said by reading lips and taking offense is not a mature thing to do, imo.

I have never met somebody who turned away from Christ because of an expletive uttered by a Christian. I also think we ought not take on too great a burden for what other people think, feel, believe or do. Act responsibly, submit to our fellow brothers, be sensitive to the nonbelievers around us... those are good things. But they can become an unhealthy obsession.

Lastly, no reasonable person (though some unreasonable people might) would think anything at all about Third Day based on the story.

[Evanescence]

Give me 2 minutes with you Big Mac and I'll find soemthing that just about anyone could say you were "unchristian" about....

Into Football, hockey or boxing? We'll start there....

Sorry bro, but you need to lighten up...

[Howlin' Wolf]

I don't profess to be perfect or have perfect language. All I'm saying is that if a band is professing to be "Christian" then they should set a higher standard for themselves and be an example of Christ. We are to be in the world but not of the world. Even though they are real words that makes them no less worse. If I was lost and looking for something more, I would be turned away from the whole evening at that moment, even though the bands aren't a reflection of each other. Like always you are associated with the company you keep. My only concern is that a lost soul would be turned away from Jesus and see Christians as no different that the rest of the world.

Lost people want to see love and relevance. Not piety. Nowhere in the bible does it say that your actions affect the salvation of the lost. Salvation is a work of God and God alone. It isn't a matter of selling Christ to non-believers and hoping that they will buy in to what you're preaching. If you believe that God is in control, then He is in control of those that come to know him. Most of the people in your church and on these boards will have you believe that God is not a "hands-on" god.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Your desire to walk in the right way is admirable and I have no doubt your heart is in the right place.

I did, however, have a few thoughts.

First, there is no way (short of asking somebody on stage who actually heard) to know what was said. Conjecturing that a brother in Christ has sinned and then casting judgment and playing hypotheticals isn't really a great exercise!

Secondly, some will say that the word was "clearly" wrong. That depends on the culture. There are words in other countries, for example, that we would consider vulgar here but which are not considered so in those places. The word itself is not black or white sinful. Jesus taught it was what is in the heart that is subject to judgment. If he used the word and it caused harm to somebody else - he might be responsible for that carelessness as well. But I think guessing what was said by reading lips and taking offense is not a mature thing to do, imo.

I have never met somebody who turned away from Christ because of an expletive uttered by a Christian. I also think we ought not take on too great a burden for what other people think, feel, believe or do. Act responsibly, submit to our fellow brothers, be sensitive to the nonbelievers around us... those are good things. But they can become an unhealthy obsession.

Lastly, no reasonable person (though some unreasonable people might) would think anything at all about Third Day based on the story.
A+

[onesawthelight]

Lost people want to see love and relevance. Not piety. Nowhere in the bible does it say that your actions affect the salvation of the lost. Salvation is a work of God and God alone. It isn't a matter of selling Christ to non-believers and hoping that they will buy in to what you're preaching. If you believe that God is in control, then He is in control of those that come to know him. Most of the people in your church and on these boards will have you believe that God is not a "hands-on" god.

I can't agree with the last part of your statement. In my church...it is believed that He is a hands on God. If God wants something done...it will be.
I also think there are plenty of people here who think the same. God is still doing things here....just not like when the Apostles were here.

[HumanityisSaved]

Lost people want to see love and relevance. Not piety. Nowhere in the bible does it say that your actions affect the salvation of the lost. Salvation is a work of God and God alone. It isn't a matter of selling Christ to non-believers and hoping that they will buy in to what you're preaching. If you believe that God is in control, then He is in control of those that come to know him. Most of the people in your church and on these boards will have you believe that God is not a "hands-on" god.

Agreed most of the West is gripped by a Dualistic Newtonian/ Neo-Platonic view of God and that he is a singular being alone and distant instead of the Trinity Jesus reveals God to be and that He is Emmanuel- God with us.

Besides the Apostle Paul swore in his letters in the Bible. If I wrote what Paul wrote in his letters on these boards they'd kick me out! Its in their rules.

Don't worry about the concert dude-- skubalon happens!

[DanGross]

So does that mean that we just give up on that one person? If one soul matters so much to God why should it matter any less to us. If that one word turned one person away should we not feel regret or guilty for that. The fact remains that those words are wrong. No matter your background it makes no excuse for sin. When we accept Christ we should be a "new creation". If my father was a murderer and I turned out to be a Christian some day, but was still a murderer, that does not excuse me from my sin. Yes, if I ask forgiveness I am forgivin but the consequences are still there and it's still sin. I pray that no one was turned away from God for that one sin.

Perhaps in seeing that Christians are in fact human beings like the rest of us people could be drawn to Christ. Now I'm not saying that they should be up on stage murdering people but many are "scared" of Christianity because there's an expectation that once you're Christian you need to be perfect, and conversely you can't be a Christian if you are not perfect. I see that as a far more likely response than fleeing Christianity due to someone using a word considered a vulgarity. In fact I would posit that it would be more likely that a lost soul would get more turned away by people making a big deal about the sinfulness of that act than they would from the act itself.

[HumanityisSaved]

Perhaps in seeing that Christians are in fact human beings like the rest of us people could be drawn to Christ. Now I'm not saying that they should be up on stage murdering people but many are "scared" of Christianity because there's an expectation that once you're Christian you need to be perfect, and conversely you can't be a Christian if you are not perfect. I see that as a far more likely response than fleeing Christianity due to someone using a word considered a vulgarity. In fact I would posit that it would be more likely that a lost soul would get more turned away by people making a big deal about the sinfulness of that act than they would from the act itself.

Yes indeed a lot of people have been exposed to religion and sadly even within he Christian Church and have an idea that they must be erfect, as you say, to be a Christian when in fact the only man to ever be perfect was Jesus and He's not even a Christian.

[Evanescence]

koo-koo

[cheewiee]

Tony Campolo once said....

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a &#*$ (bad work for excriment). What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said &#*$ (bad work for excriment) than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

[Howlin' Wolf]

Tony Campolo once said....

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a &#*$ (bad work for excriment). What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said &#*$ (bad work for excriment) than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

I love it!

By the way, I am big fan of David Uth

[rossid]

Never heard of David Uth. http://www.firstorlando.com/

Do want to scream poop. :D

Actually said Vanden*rapenburg in the coffee room at church today. :eek:

He is backup Iowa quarterback.

[patnik]

Hello to everyone, I haven't been on in a while. I went to the Third Day family picnic concert last night in Simpsonville, SC and it was great! As always Third Day did a fantastic job. But before they went on stage, Thousand Foot Krutch played. And I could have sworn I saw the lead singer mouth a curse word during one of their songs. Now he didn't say it through the microphone, it was one of those pull the mic away from your mouth so no one can hear you moments. But I was close enough to read his lips and I'm pretty sure he mouthed a pretty bad curse word. To make sure I even asked the person beside me and she said that he did. Now I don't know what the protocol on that is or if I'm even in the right to complain about it. I do know that being at a Christian concert I didn't want or expect that to happen. I would hate for Third Day to be associated with that. And even more so hate for anyone who wasn't saved that was there and saw that to be pushed in the opposite direction of Christ. But that what I saw, and I hope something can be said or done about it. Thank you.

If in fact there was a wrong word mouthed at the concert I believe it was the wrong thing to do. I have to agree with The MAC on this. That band member was standing in front of a crowd of people to deliver a Christ-like message (in this case, a message in song) therefore, their words and actions should reflect that Christ-likeness, that should "set the stage" for coversation and conduct. True, we are only human, but we also have a responsability to the Lord, and our brothers and sisters, and lost souls. It's the little foxes that spoil the vine. The Bible gives directions on how to use, and not use our tongue, it's up to us to live it.

[HumanityisSaved]

If in fact there was a wrong word mouthed at the concert I believe it was the wrong thing to do. I have to agree with The MAC on this. That band member was standing in front of a crowd of people to deliver a Christ-like message (in this case, a message in song) therefore, their words and actions should reflect that Christ-likeness, that should "set the stage" for coversation and conduct. True, we are only human, but we also have a responsability to the Lord, and our brothers and sisters, and lost souls. It's the little foxes that spoil the vine. The Bible gives directions on how to use, and not use our tongue, it's up to us to live it.

And when the Apostle Paul wrote profanity to the Phillipian church was he in the wrong? Paul was human after all.

[Musicdude]

Assuming he really did say what the original poster thought he said, I would say it's completely inappropriate.

The decision to not use "curse" words is not only a Christian thing. I know plenty of unbelievers who refrain from cursing. It's a class thing to me.

And as far as other cultures not considering some words as bad isn't a good argument, because the concert was in America, and I think it's safe to bet that most of the crowd were Americans. So American culture is really the only thing in question here, and there are plenty of words considered to be "curse words" in American culture.

A Christian concert is not the place for it. I would be turned off by a pastor who cursed from the pulpit for the same reason. And believe it or not, I have attended a church in which the pastor had no qualms doing that very thing. And though it didn't stumble me in any way, it certainly could've stumbled a new believer.

Cursing as a Christian is very immature, and very careless.
We weren't chosen to act or think or even speak as the world does. We are called to be set apart.


Paul wasn't perfect. Did Jesus curse?
If anyone had cause to, He did. But He refrained. Why would He refrain? Because He cares more about others than Himself.

[Musicdude]

And when the Apostle Paul wrote profanity to the Phillipian church was he in the wrong? Paul was human after all.

You've said this twice now. Any proof?
I'm not expert, but I've been studying the bible all my life, and I've never heard any curse words in the bible, besides @ss, and b@st@rd. And neither were used as curse words in the text.
So you can't just say something like that and expect everyone to just assume it's true.

[g-man]

Ok, what next. Supposed Christian is spotted drinking a beer with his pizza.

[HumanityisSaved]

Ok, what next. Supposed Christian is spotted drinking a beer with his pizza.

I drink beer with my pizza and Martin Luther and Jesus drank alcohol too.

[HumanityisSaved]

You've said this twice now. Any proof?
I'm not expert, but I've been studying the bible all my life, and I've never heard any curse words in the bible, besides @ss, and b@st@rd. And neither were used as curse words in the text.
So you can't just say something like that and expect everyone to just assume it's true.

Phil 3:8 Dude.

[Musicdude]

Ok, what next. Supposed Christian is spotted drinking a beer with his pizza.

1Co 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

Paul was willing to give up meat if necessary.
He understood that love is more important than liberty.

[Musicdude]

I drink beer with my pizza and Martin Luther and Jesus drank alcohol too.

The fact that drinking alcohol isn't a sin and you can prove it in the bible isn't the point. I'm well aware that drinking isn't a sin (unless you over-indulge.) However, many people think it is a sin, and you don't want to stumble them. Until they've had time to learn more about God, and what He's all about, and what sin is and what sin isn't, they are weaker, and they need to be handled with care. If they look up to you as an elder (or even just a more mature believer) and they drink because they see you drinking, but they still think in their hearts that drinking is a sin (even though it really isn't) they are sinning.

Read 1Corinthians chapter 8. It's all about people being stumbled by a non-sin, and Paul telling the church that it's much more important to not stumble a weaker brother in Christ than to enjoy whatever it is you want to do that could cause them to stumble.


1Co 8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.

That verse says it all.

Knowledge without love makes arrogant:
"I will drink whatever I want to, because I know it's not sinful and if some baby believer is to ignorant to read his bible and figure that out, I'm not going to change my lifestyle to accomodate him. I'm not gonna walk around on pins and needles because some people are ignorant of God's word. I have freedom in Christ, and I'm using it."

Knowledge with love, edifies:
"I really do enjoy a margarita with my mexican food, but I am at a restraunt in the same neighborhood as my church, and it's extremely likely that a younger believer who knows me could show up. I know having this drink isn't sinful, but if there is even a remote chance that doing so could cause anyone to stumble, it's not worth it. Their spiritual growth is more important than me enjoying a drink, and I never want to be the reason anyone stumbles. I'll make myself a margarita when I get home."

[Musicdude]

Phil 3:8 Dude.

Dung? Are you serious?

That's like using the word "poop" today. It's a slang word for a real thing (fecal waste), it's not a curse.

To paraphrase Paul "All that I've lost in order to follow Christ is about as foul as dung, compared to what I have gained in Christ."
That isn't cursing. Cursing is actually more a thought that any particular word, though words are used often.

If Paul had said "Timothy is being such a dung-for-brains" now that would've been cursing.
If he had stubbed his toe and said "DUNG!!!" That would've been cursing.

But using a word that is slang for fecal matter to get a doctrinal point accross is not cursing, sorry.

[HumanityisSaved]

Dung? Are you serious?

That's like using the word "poop" today. It's a slang word for a real thing (fecal waste), it's not a curse.

To paraphrase Paul "All that I've lost in order to follow Christ is about as foul as dung, compared to what I have gained in Christ."
That isn't cursing. Cursing is actually more a thought that any particular word, though words are used often.

If Paul had said "Timothy is being such a dung-for-brains" now that would've been cursing.
If he had stubbed his toe and said "DUNG!!!" That would've been cursing.

But using a word that is slang for fecal matter to get a doctrinal point accross is not cursing, sorry.

The Greek word there is Skubalon it is a VULGAR reference for animal feces.
Our uptight and religious translators put "dung" there as to not offend their religious fellows. Also go look up "me genoito" Whew!

Christians are far to uptight about language. In other countries its okay to say certain things that are not "okay" here. In fact 60 years ago it was "vulgar" to say leg when referring to a woman's body. It was acceptable to say "limb" but not leg.

Crap was a serious curse word 40 years ago and now it is uttered from *gasp* PULPITS! Freaking, Frickin, Fargin, were all BIG no no's long ago but are acceptable to most Christians now.

Religious sucks.... oops I mean religion pulls a strong vacuum.:)

[Musicdude]

The Greek word there is Skubalon it is a VULGAR reference for animal feces.
Our uptight and religious translators put "dung" there as to not offend their religious fellows. Also go look up "me genoito" Whew!

Christians are far to uptight about language. In other countries its okay to say certain things that are not "okay" here. In fact 60 years ago it was "vulgar" to say leg when referring to a woman's body. It was acceptable to say "limb" but not leg.

Crap was a serious curse word 40 years ago and now it is uttered from *gasp* PULPITS! Freaking, Frickin, Fargin, were all BIG no no's long ago but are acceptable to most Christians now.

Religious sucks.... oops I mean religion pulls a strong vacuum.:)

I am not talking about religion. I'm talking about love.
Read my other posts.

If a word used to be a curse word, but is no longer considered as such, then by all means use it to your hearts content. Just be aware of who you are using it around (maybe an older person is still offended by it.) Unless of course you just don't care if your words edify others and bring glory to God.


Do you think maybe the translaters used "dung" because the direct translation might've been an antiquated word?
For example I just about never hear the word "dung" unless I'm watching a thing about beetles on the discovery channel. And modern bible translations don't use "dung" for that reason. Not because it's a bad word, but because it's an outdated word. Modern translations use "refuse" or "rubbish" which mean the same thing (though rubbish is a little obscure.)

You can't read 1Corinthians chapter 8 (which shows Paul is greatly concerned with the edification of his weaker brothers in Christ, and being very careful not to stumble them), and then take one word out of Phillipians 3:8 and tell me that Paul just used whatever words he wanted without consideration as to whether or not he was possibly stumbling anyone.

[g-man]

I drink beer with my pizza and Martin Luther and Jesus drank alcohol too.

Actually I have beer with my pizza as well. Even in public. :eek: And it's near my church. I'm fine with the impressionable seeing that I'm "real".

[Musicdude]

Actually I have beer with my pizza as well. Even in public. :eek: And it's near my church. I'm fine with the impressionable seeing that I'm "real".

So if I choose not to drink I'm not "real." Hogwash.

That is such a load. There are a buzillion people in this world (believers and unbelievers) who don't drink for many various reasons. My mother, for example chooses not to drink because her father was an abusive drunk and she hated him for it.

I don't have to down a shot of tequila to prove to anyone that I'm not a "better than thou," judgmental hyporcrite Christian. My actions prove it.


But if somehow when you read 1Corinthians chapter 8 (and really chapter 10 as well) you get some other message than what I'm talking about, can you please explain it to me?

Because to me they are both clearly screaming out this message:
Phi 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

[HumanityisSaved]

So if I choose not to drink I'm not "real." Hogwash.

That is such a load. There are a buzillion people in this world (believers and unbelievers) who don't drink for many various reasons. My mother, for example chooses not to drink because her father was an abusive drunk and she hated him for it.

I don't have to down a shot of tequila to prove to anyone that I'm not a "better than thou," judgmental hyporcrite Christian. My actions prove it.


But if somehow when you read 1Corinthians chapter 8 (and really chapter 10 as well) you get some other message than what I'm talking about, can you please explain it to me?

Because to me they are both clearly screaming out this message:
Phi 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

Chillax man, Being yourself is being real. I think that is what g-man was on about. If you try to live so you won't offend anyone you're going to find yourself imprisoned by the whimsy of every weaker brother or sister. Jesus OFFENDED big time. Paul even says the Gospel is an offense to many.

Just be yourself Dude and don't worry about so many others.

[Musicdude]

Chillax man, Being yourself is being real. I think that is what g-man was on about. If you try to live so you won't offend anyone you're going to find yourself imprisoned by the whimsy of every weaker brother or sister. Jesus OFFENDED big time. Paul even says the Gospel is an offense to many.

Just be yourself Dude and don't worry about so many others.

Paul didn't say don't offend anyone. He said don't stumble them.

Jesus stumbled no one.

Stumble = causing them to sin by your actions or words.
If they sin, it's their choice but you can encourage them to sin, sometimes without even knowing it.

[g-man]

Let me clarify. What I think is unreal is your statement about going to a Mexican restaurant and not having a Margarita and then going home and having one there. Your choice obviously. Cheaper for sure. :)

[Musicdude]

Let me clarify. What I think is unreal is your statement about going to a Mexican restaurant and not having a Margarita and then going home and having one there. Your choice obviously. Cheaper for sure. :)

But why is that unreal? I've explained from scripture why I think that is the loving and edifying thing to do. Can you explain to me why it's not?
How is me giving up a margarita any different than Paul giving up a steak from a pagan temple? Both are not sinful, and both could cause someone to stumble.

It gets back to the sin of the conscience. If I do something intentionally that I believe to be sinful, then it's sinful. Whether God has a law against it or not, it's sinful, because I am intentionally doing something I believe to be wrong. It's my attitude of rebellion that is the sin, not the drinking or whatever the thing may be. And new believers are more suceptable to that because they haven't learned much about sin, so they have a lot of false preconceptions. And many things they believe to be sinful, really aren't. But to them they are sinful. If you encourage them to do something that goes against their conscience, then you are encouraging them to sin. And you don't have to be like "hey man, have a drink with me." The fact that they like you and see you doing it could be encouragement enough for them.

[mcgreen311]

And many things they believe to be sinful, really aren't. But to them they are sinful. If you encourage them to do something that goes against their conscience, then you are encouraging them to sin. And you don't have to be like "hey man, have a drink with me." The fact that they like you and see you doing it could be encouragement enough for them.

That's between them and God though. And if it's not sin, and seeing you drinking makes them think, huh, it might be ok, then where's the problem? You cannot stop anyone from rebelling in their hearts, and in fact, you may be liberating them from their legalism. I used to think that drinking was straight wrong until a friend of mine in college that I respected as a Christian mentioned he was celebrating his 21st with a brew. That made me start questioning the erroneous interpretation I had been taught, and that is a good thing.

Now if the person about which you are worried is an alcoholic, that is a different story. He/She should either stay out of contexts where they might see alcohol or you might humbly ask the waitress to take your drink back if the person decides to join you. You can make your beverage choices based on who you might see when out, but that seems extreme to me. It's certainly not wrong. Just know that you might actually do a fellow Christian some good if you decided to.

And if you don't like alcohol, which I'm not a huge fan of either, then you don't have to worry about it. Of course, I can always pass off my mojito as a club soda with lime and mint. :)

[mcgreen311]

Dung? Are you serious?

That's like using the word "poop" today. It's a slang word for a real thing (fecal waste), it's not a curse.

To paraphrase Paul "All that I've lost in order to follow Christ is about as foul as dung, compared to what I have gained in Christ."
That isn't cursing. Cursing is actually more a thought that any particular word, though words are used often.

If Paul had said "Timothy is being such a dung-for-brains" now that would've been cursing.
If he had stubbed his toe and said "DUNG!!!" That would've been cursing.

But using a word that is slang for fecal matter to get a doctrinal point accross is not cursing, sorry.

Bear with me now, so would dropping an f-bomb to carry across a theological point be cursing?

If I say "Oh Sparkles" when I stub my toe is that cursing? Am I expressing a curse or pain? I think there is a difference.

One of my favorite expressions is that a well-placed "curse word" serves as an exclamation point. Note that that is not cursing all the time, for then it would lose the effect. It seems that perhaps Paul was embodying this phrase.

If a word used to be a curse word, but is no longer considered as such, then by all means use it to your hearts content. Just be aware of who you are using it around (maybe an older person is still offended by it.) Unless of course you just don't care if your words edify others and bring glory to God.

But how does it stop becoming a curse word except by more frequent usage?

[Valpo]

Dung works as a translation. It is definitely not as strong a translation as it could be, but let's be honest, would Bible translators have the guy who wrote the majority of the New Testament saying Sh!t? Probably not. Dung works fine, it isn't really a pleasant word either and gets the point across.

MH GENWITO probably means something like "hell no" if we were looking for an equivalent to todays standards. Again I think the translation we work with gets the point across.

I find the two sides to this argument funny. One side wants to say Christians can't and don't and shouldn't curse, and the other side really wants Christians to curse? Because St. Paul used strong language? Until I deal with what St. Paul dealt with I probably won't be writing Skubalon in church reports any time soon. That being said, Christians curse. And as long as you're not being a classless jerk about it, it's probably fine.

People who fling around the F word come off as idiots in my mind. People who have said it before are not in danger of losing their salvation though.

[mac_mcdoodle]

I've read on here a couple times that "people need to realize that Christians are human too" and other phrases like that. I totally agree. My pastor did a series of messages on grace this past month and he talks about how when Jesus came He did away with the Law. That doesn't mean that we don't try to follow the commandments God's given us, but we don't have to constantly say, "Crap, I just said... I sinned" and looking over our shoulder. We are forgiven for any and all sins when we accept what Jesus did for us. For more info please visit my church's site and request a copy of these messages: www.alckokomo.com

[VerbumReale]

Tony Campolo once said....

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a &#*$ (bad work for excriment). What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said &#*$ (bad work for excriment) than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

Campolo is great at trying to expose people's greed and selfishness, but that is about all his "teaching" is good for. Theologically he is a complete and utter hack. He is one of the primary purveyors of the liberal mainline notion that we have moved beyond concnerns for orthodoxy and that the church should focus all of it's efforts on social causes. Now, before I get labeled as uptight let me say, of course we need to put a great deal of focus on feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, clothing the naked etc. Jesus calls us to those very tasks. But our focus is always to be on the making of the disicples, which is accomplished not by how much or little we cuss, or by the degree to which we are attending to people's physical needs. That said, we should be mindful of how our (not focusing on other people who may or may not have "mouthed" a swear word) actions represent the Body of Christ. Certainly we don't want to be swearing for the sake of swearing, but I don't think we do the Body of Christ any favors by nit-picking when we might have seen someone swear.

But again we are primarily called to adress our neighbor's spiritual needs, and this is done only with God's Word, not with our piety, but with the truth. Howlin Wolf is right, the lost don't want false-piety, they want love and relevance, and we need to remember that. But we also need to remember that what they need is the truth. Hacks like Campolo and Brian McLaren think we have moved beyond truth.

[Musicdude]

I've read on here a couple times that "people need to realize that Christians are human too" and other phrases like that. I totally agree. My pastor did a series of messages on grace this past month and he talks about how when Jesus came He did away with the Law. That doesn't mean that we don't try to follow the commandments God's given us, but we don't have to constantly say, "Crap, I just said... I sinned" and looking over our shoulder. We are forgiven for any and all sins when we accept what Jesus did for us. For more info please visit my church's site and request a copy of these messages: www.alckokomo.com

Of course we are forgiven when we sin as believers. And of course we aren't going to hell for saying the f-bomb. lol

[Musicdude]

For all these replies, no one has yet address the scriptures I have based this idea on. I didn't just pull this out of my rear-end. I'm not saying we should watch our behavior when around weaker believers just because that's my personal conviction. I'm saying it because I believe Paul said it.

Can someone who disagrees with my view, explain to me their interpretation of 1Corinthians chapters 8 and 10?

And I'm not talking about the strawmen, but the ones who actually understand what I'm saying and disagree with it.

By strawmen I mean those arguing against points I never made, like cursing can cause you to lose your salvation, or how it's ok to offend people sometimes, which I never said it wasn't. I am talking about stumbling here, not offending.

This is how Jesus views it when we stumble weaker/younger believers.

Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Mat 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
Mat 18:9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.


Now you can stumble yourself (i.e. your eyes can cause you to stumble), or others can cause you to stumble as it says in verses 6 -7.


So clearly this is a serious issue and should be taken as such.

[middletree]

I'm saying it because I believe Paul said it.

Can someone who disagrees with my view, explain to me their interpretation of 1Corinthians chapters 8 and 10?

This is how Jesus views it when we stumble weaker/younger believers.

Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Mat 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
Mat 18:9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.


Now you can stumble yourself (i.e. your eyes can cause you to stumble), or others can cause you to stumble as it says in verses 6 -7.


I think it comes down to what it means to cause someone to stumble. The way I read that, it means to lead someone into sin. If you offer a beer to someone who cannot handle it, for example.

Based on that criteria, I'd say that saying a word that is rude but not a sin (F-word, S-bomb, A-word, D-word, H-word, etc.) doesn't fall into this category unless it causes someone else to sin. And I don't see how it could.

[Valpo]

Campolo is great at trying to expose people's greed and selfishness, but that is about all his "teaching" is good for. Theologically he is a complete and utter hack. He is one of the primary purveyors of the liberal mainline notion that we have moved beyond concnerns for orthodoxy and that the church should focus all of it's efforts on social causes. Now, before I get labeled as uptight let me say, of course we need to put a great deal of focus on feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, clothing the naked etc. Jesus calls us to those very tasks. But our focus is always to be on the making of the disicples, which is accomplished not by how much or little we cuss, or by the degree to which we are attending to people's physical needs. That said, we should be mindful of how our (not focusing on other people who may or may not have "mouthed" a swear word) actions represent the Body of Christ. Certainly we don't want to be swearing for the sake of swearing, but I don't think we do the Body of Christ any favors by nit-picking when we might have seen someone swear.

But again we are primarily called to adress our neighbor's spiritual needs, and this is done only with God's Word, not with our piety, but with the truth. Howlin Wolf is right, the lost don't want false-piety, they want love and relevance, and we need to remember that. But we also need to remember that what they need is the truth. Hacks like Campolo and Brian McLaren think we have moved beyond truth.

I gotta disagree with you on Campolo. I've learned a lot for that guy. I don't think him and McLaren should be in the same camp. Campolo thinks homosexuality is a sin.

[middletree]

Campolo is great at trying to expose people's greed and selfishness, but that is about all his "teaching" is good for. Theologically he is a complete and utter hack. He is one of the primary purveyors of the liberal mainline notion that we have moved beyond concnerns for orthodoxy and that the church should focus all of it's efforts on social causes. Now, before I get labeled as uptight let me say, of course we need to put a great deal of focus on feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, clothing the naked etc.

Steve, as often as I disagree with you, I think it's only fair that I offer a little encouragement by saying I agree with your assessment of Campolo.

Of course, Campolo's point that Christians get more upset at the use of the S-word than more important things is a valid one, but because his theology is so bad in other areas, it's hard to take him too seriously when he makes this one salient point.



I don't think we do the Body of Christ any favors by nit-picking when we might have seen someone swear.

Agreed.

[middletree]

I gotta disagree with you on Campolo. I've learned a lot for that guy. I don't think him and McLaren should be in the same camp. Campolo thinks homosexuality is a sin.

Campolo has been quoted as saying other religions are valid ways to God for those who don't choose Jesus. I haven't verified those quotes, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[middletree]

(maybe an older person is still offended by it.)

....without consideration as to whether or not he was possibly stumbling anyone.

Wayne, help me out, here. If I am reading you correctly, you equated offending someone with causing them to stumble. As I said in a previous post, I believe these are two different things. Getting these definitions right is crucial, I believe, to understanding this issue.

[Musicdude]

I think it comes down to what it means to cause someone to stumble. The way I read that, it means to lead someone into sin. If you offer a beer to someone who cannot handle it, for example.

Based on that criteria, I'd say that saying a word that is rude but not a sin (F-word, S-bomb, A-word, D-word, H-word, etc.) doesn't fall into this category unless it causes someone else to sin. And I don't see how it could.

Let me just throw out an example of how I think it could.


This is much more true for young people, as they are more impressionable than adults anyway, but especially a young person who is also a new Christian.

Let's say a friend of mine is such a person. And I have other friends who are unbelievers and believers mixed. And let's say my impressionable young friend's name is Sam. Some of my other friends curse often. The unbelievers do it without regard for whether it's a sin or not. And the believers do it because they have knowledge of God's word and believe it's not a sin. And I invite Sam to hang out with myself and my other friends. Now I could go either way. I know it's not a sin, but I am also sensitive to Sam being a new believer and I don't want to stumble him.

So we're hanging out and my other friends (whom Sam doesn't really know) are cursing like it's no big deal. And Sam (though was quite a curser prior to being saved) is convinced that cursing is a sin, because a lot of legalistic believers have told him that in the past, but prior to his salvation he just didn't care. But now that he's saved, he cares are trying to avoid sin, so he is trying to avoid cursing.

So he hasn't given in yet to cursing even though it's tempting cause everyone else is. But then I start to curse. And Sam thinks to himself, now I'm the only one here not cursing. I don't want these guys to think I'm a prude or dork, so I'll join in, even though I know it's wrong.

Now Sam has sinned, and even though he is the one responsible for his sin, I had a part to play in it.

As MCGreen said earlier, I cannot prevent someone from violating their own conscience. And that is true, I can't. But I can at least try not to encourage them to do so with my behavior.

[middletree]

I think your scenario would be valid if Sam was convicted by the Spirit that it's a sin, and that's different from merely thinking it's a sin because legalists told him so.

Plus, it's a rare scenario. I can't eat bacon in a public place if I am worried that a 7th-day Adventist might be around and be tempted.

[Musicdude]

Wayne, help me out, here. If I am reading you correctly, you equated offending someone with causing them to stumble. As I said in a previous post, I believe these are two different things. Getting these definitions right is crucial, I believe, to understanding this issue.

I used the wrong word there.

As I've pointed out a few times since that post, I too look at offending and stumbling as completely different things.

What I meant by that post, was that an older person might consider an outdated curse word still a curse word, and so you need to consider not only the word but the audience.

[Musicdude]

I think your scenario would be valid if Sam was convicted by the Spirit that it's a sin, and that's different from merely thinking it's a sin because legalists told him so.

Plus, it's a rare scenario. I can't eat bacon in a public place if I am worried that a 7th-day Adventist might be around and be tempted.

Are 7th-day Adventists saved?

If not, they are not "in Christ" and this doesn't apply to them.

[Musicdude]

I think your scenario would be valid if Sam was convicted by the Spirit that it's a sin, and that's different from merely thinking it's a sin because legalists told him so.

Plus, it's a rare scenario. I can't eat bacon in a public place if I am worried that a 7th-day Adventist might be around and be tempted.

If he was convicted by the Holy Spirit that it was a sin, then it probably really is a sin. I am talking (as was Paul in 1Cor 8) about things that are not sinful, but younger believers mistakenly believe they are sinful.

The only way a new believer would be mistaken about a sin is if he had misinterpreted the bible, or learned about it from someone else who had misinterpreted the bible, or just threw an opinion out there and called it God's word.


I am amazed how many people think drinking is a sin. Especially unbelievers.
The unbelievers don't care that it's a sin, but the first thing they think when someone is preaching the gospel to them, is how they are gonna have to give up drinking if they accept this Jesus guy. Which isn't even true, but satan has used that false notion to keep many people away from salvation.

[middletree]

It is my opinion that one can be a 7th-day adventist (or any other denomination which thinks we are to follow the Mosiac Law) and be a Christian.


I am amazed how many people think drinking is a sin. Especially unbelievers.

I am amazed, but then again, I am not. Because I grew up with it.

At any rate, I respect your view on this, and am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational (this time). But I'm saying why I don't see it the same way you do. Not trying to sway you or anyone else.

For the record, I don't think anyone can prove that the F, S, H, D-words are sin. At least, they haven't proven it to me.

[Musicdude]

It is my opinion that one can be a 7th-day adventist (or any other denomination which thinks we are to follow the Mosiac Law) and be a Christian.
Well you could write a book about what I don't know about 7DA's. So I didn't know if "faith in Christ as savior" was one of their main doctrines they ascribe to or not. Of course in any denomination there are variables, and different beliefs. But like with Mormons for example, I usually assume they aren't saved, even though I know it's possible they could be. With 7DA's I don't know enough about them to make an opinion.


I am amazed, but then again, I am not. Because I grew up with it.

At any rate, I respect your view on this, and am not trying to be argumentative or confrontational (this time). But I'm saying why I don't see it the same way you do. Not trying to sway you or anyone else.

For the record, I don't think anyone can prove that the F, S, H, D-words are sin. At least, they haven't proven it to me.

Thanks for being respectful. I am not 100% convinced those words are sinful either. But as I said, they can become sinful under the right circumstances.

[middletree]

On a related note, I wonder if Jesus ever made a fart joke with His friends.

Now, that's a comment that will get you some mean looks from some Christians!

[Musicdude]

On a related note, I wonder if Jesus ever made a fart joke with His friends.

Now, that's a comment that will get you some mean looks from some Christians!

I'll bet His farts didn't stink though. :)

[Musicdude]

I don't think we do the Body of Christ any favors by nit-picking when we might have seen someone swear.
Agreed.

I agree with that too. I am not judging whoever spoke a bad word at some concert. I am merely trying to say that I believe if I were in his shoes (which I would love to be in his shoes opening for 3D, that would be AWESOME!) I would not have done that because I believe it could cause other believers to stumble.

[middletree]

I'll bet His farts didn't stink though. :)

Hard to argue with that great bit of theology.

[Musicdude]

Hard to argue with that great bit of theology.

If they only had TupperWare back then, maybe we could know for certain. Oh well.

[VerbumReale]

I gotta disagree with you on Campolo. I've learned a lot for that guy. I don't think him and McLaren should be in the same camp. Campolo thinks homosexuality is a sin.

He's at best wishy washy on homosexuality. In one brief conversation he will say that "same-gendered erotic behavior" is inconsistent with his understanding of scripture (notice he doesn't say it's a violation of God's Word but inconsistent with his understanding of scripture) and then say that the only way for conservatives to show that they love homosexuals is to support gay-rights. He doesn't come right out and say gay-marriage but what else would he be talking about??

From the language he uses it's clear to me that if he were ELCA he wouldn't be among those who are vocally expressing opposition to the decisions made at churchwide assembly, but would be among those who are just apathetically not saying anything.

I am not saying there is nothing to be learned from him and maybe he's not as bad as McLaren. In the conversation that I am referring he brought up the very valid point that a lot of the conservatives who will say that they care for the GLBT community but believe homosexual relationships to be sinful, rarely if ever actually dialogue with anyone in the GLBT community; and I have to admit I was challeged by that. So sure, on a practical, relational level Campolo has some wisdom to offfer. But theologically, he is a hack.

[Valpo]

Campolo has been quoted as saying other religions are valid ways to God for those who don't choose Jesus. I haven't verified those quotes, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anytime I've seen Campolo speak he talks about Christ crucified. I've personally never heard him say other religions are valid ways to God.

I'll have to look into that.

[VerbumReale]

Campolo has been quoted as saying other religions are valid ways to God for those who don't choose Jesus. I haven't verified those quotes, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I believe I have seen him say this also in a debate with John McCarthur.

[Valpo]

He's at best wishy washy on homosexuality. In one brief conversation he will say that "same-gendered erotic behavior" is inconsistent with his understanding of scripture (notice he doesn't say it's a violation of God's Word but inconsistent with his understanding of scripture) and then say that the only way for conservatives to show that they love homosexuals is to support gay-rights. He doesn't come right out and say gay-marriage but what else would he be talking about??

From the language he uses it's clear to me that if he were ELCA he wouldn't be among those who are vocally expressing opposition to the decisions made at churchwide assembly, but would be among those who are just apathetically not saying anything.

I am not saying there is nothing to be learned from him and maybe he's not as bad as McLaren. In the conversation that I am referring he brought up the very valid point that a lot of the conservatives who will say that they care for the GLBT community but believe homosexual relationships to be sinful, rarely if ever actually dialogue with anyone in the GLBT community; and I have to admit I was challeged by that. So sure, on a practical, relational level Campolo has some wisdom to offfer. But theologically, he is a hack.

In person I saw him talk about how he supports "civil unions" on a civil side of understanding things but that he actually actively opposes "gay marriage." He has been invited to speak at gay rights things where he upfront tells them he is against marriage for them and why (citing biblical evidence) but that in a civil, secular, realm he is in support of "unions" for the purposes/benefits of "rights."

[VerbumReale]

In person I saw him talk about how he supports "civil unions" on a civil side of understanding things but that he actually actively opposes "gay marriage." He has been invited to speak at gay rights things where he upfront tells them he is against marriage for them and why (citing biblical evidence) but that in a civil, secular, realm he is in support of "unions" for the purposes/benefits of "rights."


Fine, that's good that he was up front with them about his biblical convictions but I am familiar with the language he uses. I see the subtleties among my liberal colleagues. Something tells me that at a gay-rights rally they probably wouldn't have been to concerned with his biblical convictions, but rather that he would support them on a civil level. I think this is where being in a liberal mainline denomination gives me some insight here. I have seen him say that Jesus' central message was to feed the poor; which as I said is of course important, but again we are also called to address people's spiritual needs, and we do that with law and Gospel. He tosses around phrases like "We spend too much time talking about homosexuality" (An ironic statement coming from someone who agreed to speak at a gay-rights rally) or "We spend too much time talking about whether a woman should be ordained as a bishop." These are the exact type of phrases that hear from liberal ELCA pastors who just use those phrases as excises hide their heads in the sand in regards to the decisions made at churchwide assembly. There is no doubt in my mind, if he were ELCA he would be doing the same thing.

He doesn't seem to grasp that Christians can be concerned about orthodoxy and feeding the poor at the same time.

[Bengals_Mama]

I'm afraid this very thread proves we are living in the "lukewarm" church age, and a lot of people are going to burn in hell when they think they will actually go to Heaven. If any kind of minister (yes a Christian band is a ministry) should do anything that leads a person astray they WILL be held accountable for it on Judgement Day. However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though! I have NEVER heard a preacher cuss at the pulpit, and that's probably because he would be chased off. I go to a Holiness church, & that's just not acceptable here. If he has an issue with cussing (even I do at times, and I'm under convoction for it) he needs to take a break & pray about it. We should pray for him. We also need to realize that just because a band claims to be Christian & right with God doesn't mean they are. That's just how it is. Have you ever heard the song "Not For Sale" by Michael Combs? Maybe you should go listen to it. There's a lot of people in it just for the money. Oh yeah, & Jesus didn't drink beer. They had wine. The wine they had then was not the alcohol we have today. They also didn't have an epidemic of acoholism & drug use like we do today. That's why it's best to stay away from it. If you want the health benefits of wine then drink juice! We are Witnesses, people watch every single thing we do. The Bible says if your eye offends you it's better to poke it out! I look at alcohol the same way.

[Grank]

pretty sure the intent of the word means more than the word itself... words are nothing but our thoughts or feelings made audible. people are stupid...

[Musicdude]

I'm afraid this very thread proves we are living in the "lukewarm" church age, and a lot of people are going to burn in hell when they think they will actually go to Heaven. If any kind of minister (yes a Christian band is a ministry) should do anything that leads a person astray they WILL be held accountable for it on Judgement Day. However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though! I have NEVER heard a preacher cuss at the pulpit, and that's probably because he would be chased off. I go to a Holiness church, & that's just not acceptable here. If he has an issue with cussing (even I do at times, and I'm under convoction for it) he needs to take a break & pray about it. We should pray for him. We also need to realize that just because a band claims to be Christian & right with God doesn't mean they are. That's just how it is. Have you ever heard the song "Not For Sale" by Michael Combs? Maybe you should go listen to it. There's a lot of people in it just for the money. Oh yeah, & Jesus didn't drink beer. They had wine. The wine they had then was not the alcohol we have today. They also didn't have an epidemic of acoholism & drug use like we do today. That's why it's best to stay away from it. If you want the health benefits of wine then drink juice! We are Witnesses, people watch every single thing we do. The Bible says if your eye offends you it's better to poke it out! I look at alcohol the same way.

Wow. I agree 100%

I want to comment on this part of your post.

However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though!

Yes, we are humans, and we are not perfect.

But...

As I think the Word of God makes painfully clear, there is a very big difference between someone who is obedient to God but occaisionally messes up, and then confesses it and get's back on track, versus someone who justifies his sins instead of confessing and repenting. If he was the first type, I would expect an apology at some point.

[middletree]

I'm afraid this very thread proves we are living in the "lukewarm" church age, and a lot of people are going to burn in hell when they think they will actually go to Heaven. If any kind of minister (yes a Christian band is a ministry) should do anything that leads a person astray they WILL be held accountable for it on Judgement Day. However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though! I have NEVER heard a preacher cuss at the pulpit, and that's probably because he would be chased off. I go to a Holiness church, & that's just not acceptable here. If he has an issue with cussing (even I do at times, and I'm under convoction for it) he needs to take a break & pray about it. We should pray for him. We also need to realize that just because a band claims to be Christian & right with God doesn't mean they are.

What is cussing? Which words of the usual list (D, S, H, SOB, F) are actually sinful? I'd submit to you that no bible verse says any of the words that modern Americans consider to be cuss words are actually sinful. By focusing on such things, we are taking our eyes off of the real sins in our nation: greed, covetousness, acceptance of sexual sins, materialism, selfishness, etc.
Making up sins that aren't sins is no different from the Pharisees getting on Jesus' case for healing on the Sabbath.


Oh yeah, & Jesus didn't drink beer. They had wine. The wine they had then was not the alcohol we have today.

This is just not true. The wine that Jesus drank, and made from water, was alcoholic.

[onesawthelight]

What is cussing? Which words of the usual list (D, S, H, SOB, F) are actually sinful? I'd submit to you that no bible verse says any of the words that modern Americans consider to be cuss words are actually sinful. By focusing on such things, we are taking our eyes off of the real sins in our nation: greed, covetousness, acceptance of sexual sins, materialism, selfishness, etc.
Making up sins that aren't sins is no different from the Pharisees getting on Jesus' case for healing on the Sabbath.




This is just not true. The wine that Jesus drank, and made from water, was alcoholic.

Ephesians 5:4

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

The words you refer to are not in the bible of course. But Paul says we are not to use obscenity. These words are considered in todays society to be obscene, so we should not use them.
But I agree the sins you listed are worse and are more of a concern.

[middletree]

Ephesians 5:4

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

The words you refer to are not in the bible of course. But Paul says we are not to use obscenity. These words are considered in todays society to be obscene, so we should not use them.

Sorry, not buying it. There is no other sin that I know of where the bible says we can leave it up to society or culture to decide what's a sin and what's not. If this were true of cussing, then it'd be a sin to say "bloody" in England, but not in the US. And the F-word carries no meaning in 95% of the nations of the world, so it's a sin in, say, El Paso, but then you walk across a river into Mexico, and the same word is no longer a sin? That's ridiculous.

Yes, Paul said in Ephesians not to use "filthiness" (the actual Greek word there), but in order to know what that words is referring to, we must let the rest of the bible interpret itself, and the rest of the bible says

-don't use God's name in vain


And that pretty much completes the list as far as exact words we are to be careful with. Note that Paul himself used the equivalent of S--T in another verse.

There are enough actual sins that we commit to keep us from making new ones up.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I'm afraid this very thread proves we are living in the "lukewarm" church age, and a lot of people are going to burn in hell when they think they will actually go to Heaven. If any kind of minister (yes a Christian band is a ministry) should do anything that leads a person astray they WILL be held accountable for it on Judgement Day. However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though! I have NEVER heard a preacher cuss at the pulpit, and that's probably because he would be chased off. I go to a Holiness church, & that's just not acceptable here. If he has an issue with cussing (even I do at times, and I'm under convoction for it) he needs to take a break & pray about it. We should pray for him. We also need to realize that just because a band claims to be Christian & right with God doesn't mean they are. That's just how it is. Have you ever heard the song "Not For Sale" by Michael Combs? Maybe you should go listen to it. There's a lot of people in it just for the money. Oh yeah, & Jesus didn't drink beer. They had wine. The wine they had then was not the alcohol we have today. They also didn't have an epidemic of acoholism & drug use like we do today. That's why it's best to stay away from it. If you want the health benefits of wine then drink juice! We are Witnesses, people watch every single thing we do. The Bible says if your eye offends you it's better to poke it out! I look at alcohol the same way.

There was no epidemic of alcoholism and there still isnt in Israel, because it is permitted. Jews grow up understanding moderation. To say that Jesus never drank alcohol is 100% incorrect. Notice from the text that when he turns water into wine, that it was the GOOD wine. the strong wine. That was when the party started. In addition, if consuming alcohol is sinful, then why would Paul warn elders about sitting too long at the wine table? Because they were getting smashed! He doesnt forbid it!

In addition to the other points of your post, you will also be hard pressed to find where cuss words are sinful. Society does not determine what is naughty for the christian. And I would say that if we are in the lukewarm age of the church it is directly correlated with a lack of sound doctrine and theology in churches, which is the case in America, and not with the lead singer of a rockband saying a cuss word.

[Valpo]

I'm afraid this very thread proves we are living in the "lukewarm" church age, and a lot of people are going to burn in hell when they think they will actually go to Heaven. If any kind of minister (yes a Christian band is a ministry) should do anything that leads a person astray they WILL be held accountable for it on Judgement Day. However, we do have to realize people are only human. We will make mistakes. I don't believe anyone has the right to get up on stage & preach or sing the Gospel and not have control of their own mouth though! I have NEVER heard a preacher cuss at the pulpit, and that's probably because he would be chased off. I go to a Holiness church, & that's just not acceptable here. If he has an issue with cussing (even I do at times, and I'm under convoction for it) he needs to take a break & pray about it. We should pray for him. We also need to realize that just because a band claims to be Christian & right with God doesn't mean they are. That's just how it is. Have you ever heard the song "Not For Sale" by Michael Combs? Maybe you should go listen to it. There's a lot of people in it just for the money. Oh yeah, & Jesus didn't drink beer. They had wine. The wine they had then was not the alcohol we have today. They also didn't have an epidemic of acoholism & drug use like we do today. That's why it's best to stay away from it. If you want the health benefits of wine then drink juice! We are Witnesses, people watch every single thing we do. The Bible says if your eye offends you it's better to poke it out! I look at alcohol the same way.


Not sure who you get your exegetical pointers from but I'd be asking for a refund.

[DareDevil]

Avoiding swear words is a matter of courtesy we should aspire to, but I do not think that we are obliged to feel offended by them. Besides, the intention that is standing behind what a person is saying is considerably more important than the actual words being used. I mean seriously, what is worse: A person who mutters a swear word for some silly reason or a person who is using a combination of 'clean' language and intonation to make it clear that he means exactly the opposite of every *compliment* he is making?

[middletree]

Avoiding swear words is a matter of courtesy

Exactly. I don't want my kids saying the F-word not because it's sin (it isn't), bt because it's rude. Like telling a fart joke.

Besides, the intention that is standing behind what a person is saying is considerably more important than the actual words being used.

Exactly! This is what actually IS addressed in Scripture.

[Musicdude]

What is cussing? Which words of the usual list (D, S, H, SOB, F) are actually sinful? I'd submit to you that no bible verse says any of the words that modern Americans consider to be cuss words are actually sinful.

It's not about the specific word. It's about the mental-attitude behind it.

[Musicdude]

And that pretty much completes the list as far as exact words we are to be careful with. Note that Paul himself used the equivalent of S--T in another verse.

No he didn't. He used a word equivalent to "poop."

The S-word is used in countless ways, whereas "dung" only ever means one thing. Excrement.
"Dung" has never and probably will never be used as an explative.

[middletree]

No he didn't. He used a word equivalent to "poop."
Agree to disagree. I'm no Greek expert but I have read in countless sources that the word he used was not polite, and was in fact used as an expletive.

None of which actually backs up my main point: we cannot let culture determine what is sin and what isn't. If the bible says it's sin, it is. If the bible doesn't say something is sin, then we have no right adding to it and declaring that S-word or F-word is sin. It's rude, but it's not sin.

[middletree]

It's not about the specific word. It's about the mental-attitude behind it.

Then someone should start a thread declaring that when a singer is onstage and something goes wrong and he says "dang!", that it is a sign of the carnality creeping into ministry, and that people are going to hell because of it (I didn't make those two points up: they came from the opening post of this thread, and from Bengalsmama's post)

[Musicdude]

Agree to disagree. I'm no Greek expert but I have read in countless sources that the word he used was not polite, and was in fact used as an expletive.

None of which actually backs up my main point: we cannot let culture determine what is sin and what isn't. If the bible says it's sin, it is. If the bible doesn't say something is sin, then we have no right adding to it and declaring that S-word or F-word is sin. It's rude, but it's not sin.

Poop is not a polite word, but it's far from a curse word.

Could cursing cause a weaker believer to stumble? Yes.
Then it most certainly can be a sin, and often is, according to the bible not society.

Besides just because Paul did it doesn't make it right.
Moses was a good servant of God, and he lost his temper one day. Should we go strike a rock while we are cursing?

[Musicdude]

Then someone should start a thread declaring that when a singer is onstage and something goes wrong and he says "dang!", that it is a sign of the carnality creeping into ministry, and that people are going to hell because of it (I didn't make those two points up: they came from the opening post of this thread, and from Bengalsmama's post)

Nobody said anyone was going to hell over it. I'll re-read the OP, but I do not remember anything that extreme.

Why can't someone just say something isn't right, without being accused of saying that someone is going to hell over it?
I know Christians who have blown their testimonies with certain people by smoking a cigarette. Was it worth it?

What are we about as Christians? Love for our neighbor? Or love for our own personal freedoms?

[middletree]

Poop is not a polite word, but it's far from a curse word.

Poop is an English word. My understanding from people who know linguistics much better than me say that the word Paul used is not simply "poop."

Could cursing cause a weaker believer to stumble? Yes.
Then it most certainly can be a sin, and often is, according to the bible not society.

I have no idea what this means. Seriously.

Besides just because Paul did it doesn't make it right.


No, but Paul used it in the Word of God, while inspired by the Holy Spirit. Would you be uncomfortable if a pastor, leading a group of people, said the following in a prayer?:

"Jesus, we just want, You; we don't want any more bull-s--t, just You."

I was there when a pastor did say that, and it was one of the most meaningful, passionate prayers I have ever heard. And it didn't bother me a bit.


But all this talk about whether Paul was out of line is kind of tangent to the original point about judging whether a Christian event is marred by the use of words which some people consider to be sin, but which isn't sin in the eyes of Scripture.

[middletree]

Nobody said anyone was going to hell over it.


Bengals mama did. Go back a page or two from here. Post #68.


Why can't someone just say something isn't right, without being accused of saying that someone is going to hell over it?
If she hadn't said it, I wouldn't have said she did.

[Musicdude]

Poop is an English word. My understanding from people who know linguistics much better than me say that the word Paul used is not simply "poop."
Ok, Dung is a little more graphic than poop. But neither are curse words.
Better translators than you or I have translated the word as "Dung."


I have no idea what this means. Seriously.
Give 1Corinthians chapters 8 and 10 a read, and it will make perfect sense.
Just because something isn't a sin in and of it'self, doesn't mean that it is not sin in certain cicrumstances.


No, but Paul used it in the Word of God, while inspired by the Holy Spirit.
So I can disobey God then, because Moses did so, and his words were also inspired by the Holy Spirit?
David was a man after God's own heart, so let me go rape a woman and have her husband killed so I can be like David.
The point I'm trying to make with the sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious, is that just because a man is a man of God doesn't mean everything he does is Godly.
Jesus Christ is the only person in history that you can truthfully make the claim that "if He did it, it must be right."


Would you be uncomfortable if a pastor, leading a group of people, said the following in a prayer?:

"Jesus, we just want, You; we don't want any more bull-s--t, just You."

Whether I felt comfortable or not, has no bearing on whether or not it was right for him to say it that way. And I really have attended a church where the pastor didn't shy away from "hell" and "damn" and even "SOB" (he used the letters SOB, he didn't say the words) during sunday morning sermons.

And at the time I had an attitude about it similar to yours. But now I see that he was wrong. Does that make him a terrible pastor? No. He was a good pastor for the most part. But he was certainly wrong about that. But most people don't want to apply the doctrinal principles in 1Corinthians chapter 8, because they don't want to have to make sacrifices.

I was there when a pastor did say that, and it was one of the most meaningful, passionate prayers I have ever heard. And it didn't bother me a bit. I am positive he could've been just as meaningful and passioniate without stumbling anyone in the process, by swapping out one word.


But all this talk about whether Paul was out of line is kind of tangent to the original point about judging whether a Christian event is marred by the use of words which some people consider to be sin, but which isn't sin in the eyes of Scripture.
But what about the people who don't know the scriptures? Too bad for them?
Let them be encouraged to sin? No skin off your back? That's not what the bible says at all.

Your buddy Paul makes it pretty clear that we should be ready and willing to give up all of our freedoms if there is even a chance that it could cause a weaker brother or sister to stumble.

[middletree]

Ok, Dung is a little more graphic than poop. But neither are curse words.
Better translators than you or I have translated the word as "Dung."


I wonder if those translators were being unintentionally influenced by a modern Christian version of PC speech.

Just because something isn't a sin in and of it'self, doesn't mean that it is not sin in certain cicrumstances.

I never said different. I said I didn't understand what your sentence meant. But "in certain circumstances" is a far cry from what this thread is about. The tone of the OP, and the Bengals Mama post which drew my focus was not about certain circumstances, but about something being a sin in general, across the board. That's what my stance has been all about throughout this thread: that one cannot say that the bible supports the idea of the S,F-, SOB words being sin across the board.


So I can disobey God then, because Moses did so, and his words were also inspired by the Holy Spirit? David was a man after God's own heart, so let me go rape a woman and have her husband killed so I can be like David.
The point I'm trying to make with the sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious, is that just because a man is a man of God doesn't mean everything he does is Godly.

If Paul were describing an action, that would be one thing. But he was making a godly statement, in the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, when he used that phrase.



But he was certainly wrong about that.


Using hell and damn? By your own convictions he might have been. But you don't have a verse to support the notion that he was wrong. Just your own culture-influenced idea of what words constitute sin.

[Musicdude]

I wonder if those translators were being unintentionally influenced by a modern Christian version of PC speech.
In the year 1611? I doubt it. Was "dung" an explative in the year 1611?

I never said different. I said I didn't understand what your sentence meant. But "in certain circumstances" is a far cry from what this thread is about. The tone of the OP, and the Bengals Mama post which drew my focus was not about certain circumstances, but about something being a sin in general, across the board. That's what my stance has been all about throughout this thread: that one cannot say that the bible supports the idea of the S,F-, SOB words being sin across the board.
But the problem is when speaking or performing in front of large crowds, you don't know where everyone is at spiritually, and so you have to assume there are some weaker believers in the crowd and erre on the side of caution, if you have any compassion.


If Paul were describing an action, that would be one thing. But he was making a godly statement, in the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, when he used that phrase.
And the word that was communicated was absolutely the truth, no doubt about it. Just like your pastor's prayer was absolutely a sincere, good prayer. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have phrased it a little differently and got the same point accross, minus the chance of stumbling.

That being said, I do not believe what Paul did here is at all like what this pastor you described did, because I do not believe "σκυβαλα" was a curse word.

Using hell and damn? By your own convictions he might have been. But you don't have a verse to support the notion that he was wrong. Just your own culture-influenced idea of what words constitute sin.
Using Hell as a name of a place or torment is not a sin. Using it as an explative in front of a congregation of people is very risky. Same goes for damn.

[middletree]

Risky, maybe. But that's a far cry from the attitude of in the OP and in the BengalsMama post, to which I have been replying. Your points are pretty much not directly related to that.

On your points, I pretty much see all your points completely differently than you, and find your arguments very unconvincing, as I assume you find my points unconvincing. Peace.

[DareDevil]

May I make a couple of suggestions?

1. Do not feel offended by default when you hear other people using swear words.
2. Try to avoid using swear words yourself.


Issue solved.

[onesawthelight]

Sorry, not buying it. There is no other sin that I know of where the bible says we can leave it up to society or culture to decide what's a sin and what's not. If this were true of cussing, then it'd be a sin to say "bloody" in England, but not in the US. And the F-word carries no meaning in 95% of the nations of the world, so it's a sin in, say, El Paso, but then you walk across a river into Mexico, and the same word is no longer a sin? That's ridiculous.

Yes, Paul said in Ephesians not to use "filthiness" (the actual Greek word there), but in order to know what that words is referring to, we must let the rest of the bible interpret itself, and the rest of the bible says

-don't use God's name in vain


And that pretty much completes the list as far as exact words we are to be careful with. Note that Paul himself used the equivalent of S--T in another verse.

There are enough actual sins that we commit to keep us from making new ones up.


If the words you are using are thought to be sinful by someone else, then it is sinful to use them is it not?
Paul spells this out clearly in Romans, that we should not do anything that causes another to stumble.
I'll grant you that these words may not always be sinful.
Forget about society, I don't think you will find many Christian people that think swearing is ok.

[Pouye]

In the year 1611? I doubt it. Was "dung" an expletive in the year 1611?

Actually, translators throughout the centuries have had a tendency to "tone down" what is in the "original" manuscripts. These are godly people translating, and they know their translations will be read publicly and do not want to embarrass anyone.

A good example is Genesis 26:8 with the Hebrew rootword "sahaq", which sometimes translates like this:

"And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac [was] sporting with Rebekah his wife. And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she [is] thy wife: and how saidst thou, She [is] my sister?" (KJV)

"When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” (NIV)

"But some time later, Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked out a window and saw Isaac fondling Rebekah. Abimelech called for Isaac and exclaimed, “She is obviously your wife! Why did you say she was your sister?” (NLT)

The word in the Hebrew has several meanings, but in this context the obvious meaning is "playing with" in a sexual sort of way, like our term for "foreplay". "Sporting with" tones it way down, and "caressing" doesn't quite do it justice, either (since a brother could caress his sister, probably). "Fondling" is close, but still lacking in the "play" department. Granted that the meaning is sufficient in English that whatever Abimelech saw out the window was more than just what two playful siblings would engage in.

This is just one example. There are many more. The 1611 English translators were prudes, really. ;0)

Rock

[middletree]

If the words you are using are thought to be sinful by someone else, then it is sinful to use them is it not?


Wrong. The Pharisees thought Jesus was sinning by healing on the Sabbath. The fact that someone thinks something is sin does not make it sin. Scripture tells us what is sin.

Paul spells this out clearly in Romans, that we should not do anything that causes another to stumble.

What does that phrase mean: to cause someone to stumble?

I'll grant you that these words may not always be sinful.
Forget about society, I don't think you will find many Christian people that think swearing is ok.

So what? I cannot use what others think as the standard of what's sin and what's not. There was a time when most Christians thought the sun circled around the earth.

[Musicdude]

Risky, maybe. But that's a far cry from the attitude of in the OP and in the BengalsMama post, to which I have been replying. Your points are pretty much not directly related to that.

On your points, I pretty much see all your points completely differently than you, and find your arguments very unconvincing, as I assume you find my points unconvincing. Peace.

Myself and the original poster are agreed that it was inappropriate and most likely sinful.
I just didn't get all worked up about it like they did.

You can think what you like about my points, but I don't see how you can possibly read 1 Corinthians chapter 8 and not see at least that point I am making. I don't know how you could take that chapter to mean anything else. But if you do, I'd like to hear it.

[Musicdude]

Actually, translators throughout the centuries have had a tendency to "tone down" what is in the "original" manuscripts. These are godly people translating, and they know their translations will be read publicly and do not want to embarrass anyone.
If they were Godly people they wouldn't translated as accurately as possible, without regard to how people would react to it. Whether they did this or not, I don't know. I'll defer to your knowledge and experience on this.

A good example is Genesis 26:8 with the Hebrew rootword "sahaq", which sometimes translates like this:

"And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac [was] sporting with Rebekah his wife. And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she [is] thy wife: and how saidst thou, She [is] my sister?" (KJV)

"When Isaac had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah. So Abimelech summoned Isaac and said, “She is really your wife! Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’?” (NIV)

"But some time later, Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked out a window and saw Isaac fondling Rebekah. Abimelech called for Isaac and exclaimed, “She is obviously your wife! Why did you say she was your sister?” (NLT)

The word in the Hebrew has several meanings, but in this context the obvious meaning is "playing with" in a sexual sort of way, like our term for "foreplay". "Sporting with" tones it way down, and "caressing" doesn't quite do it justice, either (since a brother could caress his sister, probably). "Fondling" is close, but still lacking in the "play" department. Granted that the meaning is sufficient in English that whatever Abimelech saw out the window was more than just what two playful siblings would engage in.

This is just one example. There are many more. The 1611 English translators were prudes, really. ;0)

Rock

I think the point gets accross pretty clearly what Isaac was doing with Rebekah with any of those words. Especially when taken in context. So I don't know if I agree that this is the same thing as the verse in Phillipians we are discussing.

I get what you are saying though.

That's too bad if that really did happen often though. Because I would certainly prefer the full impact of the raw word of God, as it was originally. I don't know if I can ever get that short of learning the original languages.

[Musicdude]

Wrong. The Pharisees thought Jesus was sinning by healing on the Sabbath. The fact that someone thinks something is sin does not make it sin. Scripture tells us what is sin.
Jesus always knows when it's appropriate and when it's not. He doesn't have to erre on the side of caution, because He's omniscient.

What does that phrase mean: to cause someone to stumble?
1Co 8:9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
1Co 8:10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
1Co 8:11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
1Co 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

So what? I cannot use what others think as the standard of what's sin and what's not. There was a time when most Christians thought the sun circled around the earth.
No, but if you care about them, you will take their feelings into consideration.

Stop arguing with me and the others here. Argue with 1Corinthians 8:9-13 quoted above. Tell me that Paul is wrong for giving up meat alltogether if it stumbles his brother.
Tell me that Paul should just do what he knows is right, and ignore how it affects others. Paul knows that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful, but yet he gives it up. And he explains why in these verses.
And I think it's a given that we should do the same in those circumstances.

[middletree]

Jesus always knows when it's appropriate and when it's not. He doesn't have to erre on the side of caution, because He's omniscient.


That has nothing to do with what I said in the quote that you quote here. I was specifically responding to onesawthelight's assertion that if others think it's a sin, it's sin.

[middletree]

And I think it's a given that we should do the same in those circumstances.

And there's where we disagree. And I'm comfortable with disagreeing. Not a big deal to me. I wasn't so much arguing the point about whether cussing is sin (I've explained my stance on that already), but arguing with what I believe to be nonsensical arguments, mostly from BengalsMama and onesawthelight.

[mcgreen311]

1Co 8:9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
1Co 8:10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
1Co 8:11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
1Co 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

For my own curiosity, how does cussing* then cause them to stumble? I am having trouble visualizing this, so please give me a step by step of what you think could happen if someone cusses in front of a weaker brother.

*I am using cussing as a general equivalent for blanket use of "four letter" words (f, s, b, a, etc.) You'll also notice, that in polite deference to the board I am not spelling them out, but do not have a problem doing so if the situation warrants.

No, but if you care about them, you will take their feelings into consideration.

Stop arguing with me and the others here. Argue with 1Corinthians 8:9-13 quoted above. Tell me that Paul is wrong for giving up meat alltogether if it stumbles his brother.
Tell me that Paul should just do what he knows is right, and ignore how it affects others. Paul knows that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful, but yet he gives it up. And he explains why in these verses.
And I think it's a given that we should do the same in those circumstances.

I don't think it's a question of not taking feelings into consideration, however. I doubt middletree would unleash a firestorm of expletives in your company. However, we are arguing against the idea that it is sin. Offending is not the same as causing to stumble, after all the gospel is offensive no?

A personal example from me: I don't think the f-word is wrong, however, I am not a huge fan of it. If someone says it in my presence a lot, I will kindly ask them to stop, not because I think it is sinful but because it grates on my ears. If they do not stop, they are not guilty by saying a random set of phonemes. They may accidentally say it again or they may be antagonistic and deliberately keep saying it. Completely different heart issues, however.

[middletree]

For my own curiosity, how does cussing* then cause them to stumble?

Thank you. I thought I was the only one.

I doubt middletree would unleash a firestorm of expletives in your company.


Don't be so sure.....

;)

[Musicdude]

That has nothing to do with what I said in the quote that you quote here. I was specifically responding to onesawthelight's assertion that if others think it's a sin, it's sin.

Maybe you misunderstood me then. I think it's got a lot to do with what you said.

The way I took it was you were asserting that because Jesus just did whatever He knew was right without regard to whether the Pharisees thought it was sinful, proved that we should do the same.

And I was pointing out, that Jesus was in a little different position than us, being Deity and all. And so not everything that applied to Him also applies to us. Whereas Paul, was just like you and me, and also since we know the bible does not contradict it'self, you must assume that since Paul is saying clearly that what other people think about sin (right or wrong) absolutely does matter, then maybe you are misinterpreting why Jesus did what He did in that situation, or maybe He was able to discern whether or not it was ok because He was omniscient, and so He didn't have to be as careful about that as we do, because we don't know.

[Musicdude]

And there's where we disagree. And I'm comfortable with disagreeing. Not a big deal to me.

And on what basis do you disagree? We aren't talking about my opinion here, but God's word. Can you explain why if God was telling the Corinthians (through Paul) to do this, why you are somehow exempt?

I wasn't so much arguing the point about whether cussing is sin (I've explained my stance on that already), but arguing with what I believe to be nonsensical arguments, mostly from BengalsMama and onesawthelight.
Fair enough. I'll stay out of your argument with them.

[middletree]

And on what basis do you disagree? We aren't talking about my opinion here, but God's word. Can you explain why if God was telling the Corinthians (through Paul) to do this, why you are somehow exempt?


Because I don't agree with your assessment of the term "cause someone to stumble" among other things. Plus, this whole thing smacks of Phariseeism, to be honest, with you. It is all through the American Church.

Don't take my silence the wrong way, but I am about to go into a couple of meetings that will take me away from the PC for several hours.

[Musicdude]

For my own curiosity, how does cussing* then cause them to stumble? I am having trouble visualizing this, so please give me a step by step of what you think could happen if someone cusses in front of a weaker brother.

*I am using cussing as a general equivalent for blanket use of "four letter" words (f, s, b, a, etc.) You'll also notice, that in polite deference to the board I am not spelling them out, but do not have a problem doing so if the situation warrants.

In the exact same way that eating meat sacrificed to idols caused some weaker believers to stumble in Paul's example. I can't explain it better than Paul does in those verses I quoted. I can give you my personal explanation of it if you like, but if Paul didn't make it clear to you, I doubt I'll be able to.

I will say this though. The issue was activities which are thought to be sinful by weaker believers, but truly are not sinful in God's eyes. And how that activity (though not inherently sinful) can become sinful if it causes said weaker believer to stumble. And why we should avoid said activities unless we are with mature believers who understand the truth about it, and are not going to be stumbled. And you must not assume the people you are with are mature in that area. If you aren't certain, don't chance it. Whatever thing it is you are wanting to do is not worth risking stumbling someone.


I don't think it's a question of not taking feelings into consideration, however. I doubt middletree would unleash a firestorm of expletives in your company.
I would not be stumbled if he did. And I use explatives on occaision too, but I am careful to only do so when I am alone. If I hit my finger with a hammer accidentally in the company of people I'm not certain are mature believer, I'll bite my tongue. If I'm alone I might say the S word or something worse.

However, we are arguing against the idea that it is sin. Offending is not the same as causing to stumble, after all the gospel is offensive no?
Have I used the word "offending" one single time in this thread? No. I am not talking about offending, but rather causing to stumble. I know the difference.

A personal example from me: I don't think the f-word is wrong, however, I am not a huge fan of it. If someone says it in my presence a lot, I will kindly ask them to stop, not because I think it is sinful but because it grates on my ears. If they do not stop, they are not guilty by saying a random set of phonemes. They may accidentally say it again or they may be antagonistic and deliberately keep saying it. Completely different heart issues, however.

I agree with that. But that is you. There are people who would be caused to stumble by it, even if you aren't one of those people.

[Musicdude]

Because I don't agree with your assessment of the term "cause someone to stumble" among other things. Plus, this whole thing smacks of Phariseeism, to be honest, with you. It is all through the American Church.

Don't take my silence the wrong way, but I am about to go into a couple of meetings that will take me away from the PC for several hours.

It's not my assesment. I'm not twisting Paul's words here. I quoted them, so you know I am not altering them in any way. I'm not interpreting here. I'm just taking what he said at face value.

And I've already said, that if you read that passage and get something different from what I'm saying, then please tell me what you get from it. But you have thus far only told me that I'm wrong, but you haven't told me what is right.

[Valpo]

I'm thinking there is some sort of "happy" middle here. On the one hand we don't want to look/act/behave/seem like "prudes" in our language where we're the clean mouth police (or else you get soap!!) but on the other hand, words are not islands unto themselves. When the F word, and its other 4 letter buddies, are used it is mostly meant in an derogatory manner. If words were just words and were not used in context I can safely say they are not sins. But words are always used in some sort of a context. When that context is used to express something derogatory I would say that four letter words are sinful.

Signed,

Someone who uses a few of these 4 letter words more than he should

[mcgreen311]

I'm going to post my response so as not to leave you hanging, but I'll probably stay out of the discussion after that unless you have questions about my stance. I think everyone's made their points and further discussion is fruitless. As long as no one says salvation hinges on a "clean mouth," abstaining from societal four letter words hurts no one. In practice, I deliberately abstain from them anyway. If I utter one, there is a deliberate and thoughtful purpose for it within a context. I admit to uttering British swear words, so the UK Gomers can call me out if need be. :)

In the exact same way that eating meat sacrificed to idols caused some weaker believers to stumble in Paul's example. I can't explain it better than Paul does in those verses I quoted. I can give you my personal explanation of it if you like, but if Paul didn't make it clear to you, I doubt I'll be able to.

The passages you quoted dealt specifically with meat sacrificed to idols, and I don't know that the two are entirely comparable. The consquence Paul states is (from your post):

1Co 8:10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

So Paul is saying that consequence of someone eating meat sacrificed to idols in full knowledge that idols have no power might cause a weaker brother to think eating idol meat is ok and also do it. I think the distinction between these two situations is the issue of idolatry. My take is that a weaker believer might see Paul as participating in the idolatry rather than just sating his hunger. Is there a congruent to swearing making you look as if you participate in an idolatrous ceremony? I suppose one could argue that you might look like you are participating in some sort of "sinful culture" but I do not think it is as clear as the idolatry example. In my mind, it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Eating idol meat might take someone down the road to thinking that idolatry is ok. Cussing might lead someone down the road to thinking that saying @#$% is ok, which it is.


I will say this though. The issue was activities which are thought to be sinful by weaker believers, but truly are not sinful in God's eyes. And how that activity (though not inherently sinful) can become sinful if it causes said weaker believer to stumble. And why we should avoid said activities unless we are with mature believers who understand the truth about it, and are not going to be stumbled. And you must not assume the people you are with are mature in that area. If you aren't certain, don't chance it. Whatever thing it is you are wanting to do is not worth risking stumbling someone.

I'm not going to argue with the general principle here. Obviously we differ on how it should be applied. If someone thinks that women wearing pants is sinful, should I take care to only wear skirts in that person's presence in the avoidance of causing them to stumble? I think not. It's harder for me to argue cussing from my personal experience since it's not part of my regular vocabulary, but I think it fits with the pants analogy better. Am I going to deliberately offend someone? No. Will I ever unknowingly offend someone? Probably.

I would not be stumbled if he did. And I use explatives on occaision too, but I am careful to only do so when I am alone. If I hit my finger with a hammer accidentally in the company of people I'm not certain are mature believer, I'll bite my tongue. If I'm alone I might say the S word or something worse.

And I think that is more about politeness/rudeness rather than it is a mature believer or not. If @#$% comes out accidentally, that can be an opportunity to either apologize (if the mature or non-mature beleiver is offended), or as an opportunity for discipleship to the non-mature beleiver about grace and matters of the heart. Why continue to perpetuate that something is wrong when it isn't? Of course context is everything; you judge the situation as it comes.

Have I used the word "offending" one single time in this thread? No. I am not talking about offending, but rather causing to stumble. I know the difference.

I wasn't trying to attribute it you. I was going by what I think was middletree's definition earlier in the thread. I think it might offend, but not necessarily cause to stumble. You disagree.

I agree with that. But that is you. There are people who would be caused to stumble by it, even if you aren't one of those people.

And we are still disagreeing on what stumbling means. From the Corinthians quote you to which you referred I get that it might mean someone may utter a four letter word, which is not a sin. Saying a four letter word is not, to me, stumbling. I was looking for a specific timeline/snowball effect on what happens after a Christian utters @#$%. But like I said earlier, I think we are arguing at crosspurposes at this juncture.

[Musicdude]

I'm going to post my response so as not to leave you hanging, but I'll probably stay out of the discussion after that unless you have questions about my stance. I think everyone's made their points and further discussion is fruitless. As long as no one says salvation hinges on a "clean mouth," abstaining from societal four letter words hurts no one. In practice, I deliberately abstain from them anyway. If I utter one, there is a deliberate and thoughtful purpose for it within a context. I admit to uttering British swear words, so the UK Gomers can call me out if need be. :)



The passages you quoted dealt specifically with meat sacrificed to idols, and I don't know that the two are entirely comparable. The consquence Paul states is (from your post):

1Co 8:10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

So Paul is saying that consequence of someone eating meat sacrificed to idols in full knowledge that idols have no power might cause a weaker brother to think eating idol meat is ok and also do it. I think the distinction between these two situations is the issue of idolatry. My take is that a weaker believer might see Paul as participating in the idolatry rather than just sating his hunger. Is there a congruent to swearing making you look as if you participate in an idolatrous ceremony? I suppose one could argue that you might look like you are participating in some sort of "sinful culture" but I do not think it is as clear as the idolatry example. In my mind, it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Eating idol meat might take someone down the road to thinking that idolatry is ok. Cussing might lead someone down the road to thinking that saying @#$% is ok, which it is.




I'm not going to argue with the general principle here. Obviously we differ on how it should be applied. If someone thinks that women wearing pants is sinful, should I take care to only wear skirts in that person's presence in the avoidance of causing them to stumble? I think not. It's harder for me to argue cussing from my personal experience since it's not part of my regular vocabulary, but I think it fits with the pants analogy better. Am I going to deliberately offend someone? No. Will I ever unknowingly offend someone? Probably.



And I think that is more about politeness/rudeness rather than it is a mature believer or not. If @#$% comes out accidentally, that can be an opportunity to either apologize (if the mature or non-mature beleiver is offended), or as an opportunity for discipleship to the non-mature beleiver about grace and matters of the heart. Why continue to perpetuate that something is wrong when it isn't? Of course context is everything; you judge the situation as it comes.



I wasn't trying to attribute it you. I was going by what I think was middletree's definition earlier in the thread. I think it might offend, but not necessarily cause to stumble. You disagree.



And we are still disagreeing on what stumbling means. From the Corinthians quote you to which you referred I get that it might mean someone may utter a four letter word, which is not a sin. Saying a four letter word is not, to me, stumbling. I was looking for a specific timeline/snowball effect on what happens after a Christian utters @#$%. But like I said earlier, I think we are arguing at crosspurposes at this juncture.

I see your perspective and respect it.


I guess, to me it is an association with the world.
Profanity is worldly. People who are lost, speak anger and hate all the time without hesitation. Children of God are supposed to make every effort to glorify God with their words.

So a person is saved, and they are expecting some changes, as well they should. Their life should be different from that point forward. They should go from justifying sin to repenting of it. From craving the worldly things to craving the righteous things. And so let's just say I share the gospel with my sister-in-law (which just so happens I did last week at our church group at home) and she recieves salvation (which she did, YAY!!). And she is a big user of profanity (which she is.)

She does not use profanity around me or my wife, or anyone else at our church home group, except for the rare occaision when she'll accidentally let one slip out. And when she does, no one even acknowledges that it happened, because we are not stumbled by that, or even offended for that matter.

But the reason she refrains in our presence to me is obviously because she thinks that she is wrong for using profanity, and probably even thinks she is sinning.

You and I know that she isn't sinning. But she doesn't know that.

I've spent enough time with her and her husband away from church to know that she curses a lot. But even before she was saved, she would try to avoid it around me. Like if she didn't know I was there, I would hear her.

So what happens if now that she is saved, she overhears me having a coversation with a friend maybe behind a closed door and I am dropping f-bombs, etc. ?

I think more than anything, she is going to lose respect for me as a Christian. As hypocritical as that sounds, I still think it would happen. And what if, she just starts cursing around me now because she knows I'm cool with it, even though in her heart she still feels that it's wrong? At that point she is sinning, because she is violating her own conscience (i.e. intentionally doing something she believes to be sinful), and I unintentionally (because of carelessness on my part) encouraged her to do so. So I am guilty of sin too.
Thus I have cause her to stumble.

Is this the end of the world as we know it? No.
Is this going to make her reject the gospel, and runaway from God? Probably not.

But it's a problem that a new believer is better off not having to deal with. She's got enough to deal with at that point in her life, and she doesn't need me stifling her at all. I should be encouraging her in a good way, not a negative way.


About the dress thing. I am not judging you personally, I swear. But just as a rhetorical question, how much do you love your neighbor? Do you consider their needs higher than your own? If so, would the inconvenience or discomfort or whatever it is, of wearing dresses on your part be worth helping them advance in the spiritual life, with as few stumbling blocks as possible?

Do I do this perfectly? Absolutely not.
I'm sure I am a stumbling block to many new believers on a daily basis. And I'm sure at some point I will be to my sister-in-law. But my point is, I should try not to. I should try hard not to. That's not always what I do. But that is what's right, in my understanding.


New believers, and younger believers need to be handled with love and care more than anything.
This attitude (not saying you have this attitude) of oh well, I'm not going to give up what I know is ok because of their ignorance of the Word, just reeks of arrogance.
There was a point in all of our lives when we were ignorant of the Word, and we needed time to grow. And I'm sure some people had to have love and patience toward us.

Just one more perspective on the importance of not being a stumbling block.
This is how serious Jesus was about the issue.

Mat 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;
Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
Mat 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
Mat 18:9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

This is not talking only about children as many misinterpret it. It is obviously talking about new believers, who are children spiritually.
Stumbling blocks are inevitable, as Jesus says, but you really do not want to be the one who causes them.

And unlike Paul, Jesus made no mention of idolatry here, so this further proves the point that the idolatry example in 1Corinthians was just that, just an example. It was not saying that idolatry is the only way someone can be stumbled. And idolatry is not the only situation in which the general principle in 1Corinthians chapter 8 (of making sacrifices so as not to risk being a stumbling block) can be applied.

[onesawthelight]

And there's where we disagree. And I'm comfortable with disagreeing. Not a big deal to me. I wasn't so much arguing the point about whether cussing is sin (I've explained my stance on that already), but arguing with what I believe to be nonsensical arguments, mostly from BengalsMama and onesawthelight.

As far as stumbling, Musicdude's post on that explains what I think better then I can.

I really can't see that it is ok with God if I go through life using four letter words. I don't think He wants us to speak that way, I really don't. If I believe it to be sinful to use those words, then it is. This is clearly spelled out in Romans, so I am not making it up as I go along.

Nonsensical? I doubt it. I respect your position on this and maybe you are right. You might not be though.

[pamcharlie]

What the lead singer of thousand foot krutch using a swear word YIPES my boys would never use swear words in songs no way

[pamcharlie]

When i say my boys i mean family force five

[Howlin' Wolf]

Legalists have used the "causing one to stumble" argument to legislate all sorts of non-sinful behaviors and then through the christian subculture, ingrain the action as sinful into people's heads.

To assume that random sins such as cussing and drinking can cause someone to stumble implies that you portray a legalistic lifestyle in front of them and the shock of you committing such acts causes them to sin against their own legalistic conscience that you have helped prop up. In reality, unless you are in public ministry, can you really cause a total stranger to stumble?

Furthermore, If we are referring to people that you know personally, this issue becomes a complete non-issue when you remove your mask in front of them and allow people to see you live out your faith as a miserable sinner saved by grace.

Of course, it's easier to forgo the teaching of moderation and just give the sheep a shot of grape juice.

[middletree]

If I believe it to be sinful to use those words, then it is..

I don't see how we get to decide what's sinful, but OK.

[pamcharlie]

I have been thinking about this and we live in a society where "swear words" are everywhere in movies , songs, etc and as christians we need to remember that we are in the world but not of the world and swearing is a part of the culture we live in , we must not be legalistic just be aware of our cultural surroundings so to speak may be it was just a slip of the tongue

[Musicdude]

I don't see how we get to decide what's sinful, but OK.

He meant that if if he thinks it's sinful then it is sinful to him. (not to everyone)
And that is true, because anytime we intentionally do something we believe to be wrong, we are sinning, regardless of whether the act it'self was inherently sinful or not.

[Musicdude]

I have been thinking about this and we live in a society where "swear words" are everywhere in movies , songs, etc and as christians we need to remember that we are in the world but not of the world and swearing is a part of the culture we live in , we must not be legalistic just be aware of our cultural surroundings so to speak may be it was just a slip of the tongue

You know the majority of Christians who preach against cursing, and drinking and smoking, etc. are doing so for legalistic reasons. But hopefully I've explained clearly enough that that is absolutely not where I'm coming from.
I have never told a single person in my life that cursing is a sin, because I don't believe it is.

[Bengals_Mama]

I did not say the wine wasn't alcohol I said beer. The reason Israel doesn't have the same alcoholism problems as regular Americans is because they tend to have more conviction, & discipline than us. Also, no sin is greater than another. If you know something is wrong, it is a sin..period.

[middletree]

I did not say the wine wasn't alcohol

That's not the way I read your post.

no sin is greater than another.

I've heard this all my life and am waiting for someone to prove it scripturally. Note that I know that any sin will separate you from God; that's a different point, so don't throw that at me. But when I read Scripture, it indicates that some sins are, in fact, worse than others. And I reiterate, I'm not talking about salvation.

If you know something is wrong, it is a sin..period.

Yep, and I know that cussing (other than using God's name in vain) is not sin. Glad we got that settled.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I did not say the wine wasn't alcohol I said beer. The reason Israel doesn't have the same alcoholism problems as regular Americans is because they tend to have more conviction, & discipline than us. Also, no sin is greater than another. If you know something is wrong, it is a sin..period.
Why does Israel have more discipline than Americans? Tel Aviv is one of the most hedonistic cities in the eastern hemisphere. Female Israeli soldiers can have 2 free abortions, paid for by the state.

The reason alcoholism is lower in Israel than America is because of the stigma attached to it. It has never been viewed as some forbidden fruit, like the christian subculture has ingrained into American Christians.

[Pouye]

There are people who would be caused to stumble by it, even if you aren't one of those people.

There is a difference. The context of eating meat sacrificed to idols was quite different than simply saying a word that might make another believer feel uncomfortable. The reason you could actually stumble another Christian brother or sister by eating meat sacrificed to idols is because that weaker Christian brother or sister still actually believed that there were gods associated with the meat you were eating. By you eating it, you would be consenting to worshiping those other gods (because eating it was part of the worship). In this way you would be showing them it is okay to worship God AND those other gods (Zeus or Hermes or whoever).

By saying a word like "sh**", you aren't saying to another believer that it is okay to worship another god besides the King of Kings. Paul said he would give up eating meat permanently (even though he was free to eat it because he knew that there was only one God and the rest were false) if by his eating others might think it is okay to worship other gods. But we are talking about things on that level here. Jesus drank wine and they called Him a drunkard. Why didn't he simply not drink wine so that those who were prudes had nothing to accuse Him of? Couldn't Jesus drinking wine actually cause someone who struggled with alcohol to stumble? After all, is that the ultimate excuse: If Jesus is doing it, why can't I do it? Paul said that drinking wine could possible stumble another believer. Why did Jesus drink it, then? Why did He MAKE wine via a miracle!? Again, the context is that what Paul was talking about was drinking wine as a possible drink offering to a false god. Since Jesus wasn't drinking wine in that context He was free to do so. But if Jesus had traveled out of Israel and drank wine near a pagan alter, someone (a new Christian, perhaps) might have thought that Jesus was worshiping another god by drinking wine near the alter and then presumed that Jesus was actually a polytheistic Rabbi (and therefore he/she could justify doing the same thing).

So to me, what does it mean to "stumble" another brother or sister? Does it mean that I can't do anything in their presence that might offend them? Jesus did that all the time. He touched people He wasn't supposed to touch (lepers, dead people, etc.), said things He wasn't supposed to say, ("your father is the Devil, the Father of Lies), did things He wasn't supposed to do (overturned the money changer's tables, etc.), and even broke customary taboos like talking to women who weren't accompanied by their husband or a relative, and talking to foreign women. All of those things were offensive to the Jews, but Jesus did those kinds of things all of the time.

Now some have already mentioned that Jesus could do those sorts of things and get away with it because He was deity and we are not. But I don't completely buy that argument. We are to emulate Christ, and we shouldn't have to second guess our mission to do as Jesus did and walk as Jesus walked. Since I have Christ's Spirit in me, I could also potentially talk with a woman in a country that has taboos against such a thing and offend others, too. Or I could be seen drinking wine at a restaurant and yet be accused of being a drunkard by a legalistic pastor in the USA. If the term "offend a brother or sister" is the same as "cause a brother or sister to stumble", then Jesus was guilty of stumbling many of disciples when He offended them so badly that many of them deserted Him and left the faith!

So if a weak Christian brother or sister hears me, an experienced missionary and now pastor (I'm actually ordained) use a foul word, I don't think such a thing would cause them to think that worshiping other gods is okay. It might offend them, or cause them to wonder how I'm doing in my faith, but it also might have another affect on them. It could show them I'm human and make mistakes. Or it could show them, depending on the context and my heart at the time, my real feelings about an issue (especially if I were under great stress or duress). The Bible is clear that unwholesome speech shouldn't be a part of my lifestyle; I'm not talking about a habit of having a potty-mouth. What I'm talking about is that I shouldn't feel guilty for offending another believer if they need to be offended so that they can see past their legalism. Jesus and the disciples often offended others for the purpose of exposing legalistic mindsets. For this reason I have no problem walking into a bar and ordering a glass of wine to this day. I'm not an alcoholic, I've never been drunk in my life, and I don't think that such behavior is going to stumble anyone because if it could, Jesus should have refrained from making wine at a wedding or drinking in public.

So I guess it comes down to the definition of "stumbling another Christian". I would actually side probably more closely with Middletree on this one, it appears.

Rock

[Musicdude]

There is a difference. The context of eating meat sacrificed to idols was quite different than simply saying a word that might make another believer feel uncomfortable. The reason you could actually stumble another Christian brother or sister by eating meat sacrificed to idols is because that weaker Christian brother or sister still actually believed that there were gods associated with the meat you were eating. By you eating it, you would be consenting to worshiping those other gods (because eating it was part of the worship). In this way you would be showing them it is okay to worship God AND those other gods (Zeus or Hermes or whoever).

By saying a word like "sh**", you aren't saying to another believer that it is okay to worship another god besides the King of Kings. Paul said he would give up eating meat permanently (even though he was free to eat it because he knew that there was only one God and the rest were false) if by his eating others might think it is okay to worship other gods. But we are talking about things on that level here. Jesus drank wine and they called Him a drunkard. Why didn't he simply not drink wine so that those who were prudes had nothing to accuse Him of? Couldn't Jesus drinking wine actually cause someone who struggled with alcohol to stumble? After all, is that the ultimate excuse: If Jesus is doing it, why can't I do it? Paul said that drinking wine could possible stumble another believer. Why did Jesus drink it, then? Why did He MAKE wine via a miracle!? Again, the context is that what Paul was talking about was drinking wine as a possible drink offering to a false god. Since Jesus wasn't drinking wine in that context He was free to do so. But if Jesus had traveled out of Israel and drank wine near a pagan alter, someone (a new Christian, perhaps) might have thought that Jesus was worshiping another god by drinking wine near the alter and then presumed that Jesus was actually a polytheistic Rabbi (and therefore he/she could justify doing the same thing).

So to me, what does it mean to "stumble" another brother or sister? Does it mean that I can't do anything in their presence that might offend them? Jesus did that all the time. He touched people He wasn't supposed to touch (lepers, dead people, etc.), said things He wasn't supposed to say, ("your father is the Devil, the Father of Lies), did things He wasn't supposed to do (overturned the money changer's tables, etc.), and even broke customary taboos like talking to women who weren't accompanied by their husband or a relative, and talking to foreign women. All of those things were offensive to the Jews, but Jesus did those kinds of things all of the time.

Now some have already mentioned that Jesus could do those sorts of things and get away with it because He was deity and we are not. But I don't completely buy that argument. We are to emulate Christ, and we shouldn't have to second guess our mission to do as Jesus did and walk as Jesus walked. Since I have Christ's Spirit in me, I could also potentially talk with a woman in a country that has taboos against such a thing and offend others, too. Or I could be seen drinking wine at a restaurant and yet be accused of being a drunkard by a legalistic pastor in the USA. If the term "offend a brother or sister" is the same as "cause a brother or sister to stumble", then Jesus was guilty of stumbling many of disciples when He offended them so badly that many of them deserted Him and left the faith!

So if a weak Christian brother or sister hears me, an experienced missionary and now pastor (I'm actually ordained) use a foul word, I don't think such a thing would cause them to think that worshiping other gods is okay. It might offend them, or cause them to wonder how I'm doing in my faith, but it also might have another affect on them. It could show them I'm human and make mistakes. Or it could show them, depending on the context and my heart at the time, my real feelings about an issue (especially if I were under great stress or duress). The Bible is clear that unwholesome speech shouldn't be a part of my lifestyle; I'm not talking about a habit of having a potty-mouth. What I'm talking about is that I shouldn't feel guilty for offending another believer if they need to be offended so that they can see past their legalism. Jesus and the disciples often offended others for the purpose of exposing legalistic mindsets. For this reason I have no problem walking into a bar and ordering a glass of wine to this day. I'm not an alcoholic, I've never been drunk in my life, and I don't think that such behavior is going to stumble anyone because if it could, Jesus should have refrained from making wine at a wedding or drinking in public.

So I guess it comes down to the definition of "stumbling another Christian". I would actually side probably more closely with Middletree on this one, it appears.

Rock

First of all, I do not think "causing to stumble" is limited to idolatry. If it were, Paul would've made that clear. And as I showed, there are verses where Jesus warns against becoming a stumbling block to spiritual children, and there is no mention of idolatry anywhere in that context. Anytime you either intentionally or unintentionally encourage a weaker believer to sin in any way, you have become a stumbling block to them. And Jesus gave a servere warning against that.

Second, Jesus did a lot of things during His life on earth. But we aren't commanded to emulate every single one of them. Now when He gives a teaching to his disciples or to other people, and tells them the way to behave or think, then yes we are absolutely to follow that instruction. But just because Jesus did something doesn't mean we should necessarily do the same thing.

But when Paul gives a message to the church, clearly defining the way they should act and think according to God's work, it carries just as much weight as if Jesus had told them. Not because Paul has as much authority as Jesus, but becuase His words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as were Jesus'. But in the same way, you can't say that "if Paul did something I should do it too." Because we aren't Paul.

So we should follow the teachings of Jesus and Paul (which by the way, do not contradict each other at all) and not necessarily try and walk in their footsteps.

Does that make sense?

And again, you mention "offending" and almost equate it to "stumbling." And the way I understand it, they are not even close to being the same thing. Now someone may be offended and stumbled at the same time, but not necessarily so. The gospel often offends, as you and I both know. I've had strangers get mad at me just because they thought I was gonna share the gospel with them, I hadn't even brought it up yet. But the gospel never causes anyone to stumble, because stumbling is sinning. How could the gospel which is the truth of God cause someone to sin? It can't.




Just wanted to throw this passage out there too. The part I highlighted, seems to be the question that some are asking. Paul gives the answer right here.

1Co 10:28 But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;
1Co 10:29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?
1Co 10:30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
1Co 10:31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;
1Co 10:33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.



I just have to throw this in here as well, because it explains in one chapter so perfectly the concept that I'm trying to get accross, and it isn't about idolatry either, but very much about stumbling.

Rom 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Rom 14:7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
Rom 14:8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
Rom 14:12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
Rom 14:17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom 14:18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
Rom 14:19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
Rom 14:20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
Rom 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
Rom 14:22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
Rom 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.



There is so much evidence in scriptures for the idea I'm talking about, giving up certain freedoms in certain circumstances (or even alltogether) in an effort to ensure you will not be a stumbling block to weaker believers, because you love them, and care about them more than yourself. So why do some still ask that question underlined in red up above? When I ask that question (and I have before, and still do sometimes) it's because I'm being selfish, but I can't speak for anyone else.

[middletree]

So I guess it comes down to the definition of "stumbling another Christian".

That's what I have been saying all along.



I would actually side probably more closely with Middletree on this one, it appears.

Umm, you don't have to sound so apologetic about it. People have been known to agree with me and live to tell about it. ;)

[Pouye]

First of all, I do not think "causing to stumble" is limited to idolatry. If it were, Paul would've made that clear. And as I showed, there are verses where Jesus warns against becoming a stumbling block to spiritual children, and there is no mention of idolatry anywhere in that context. Anytime you either intentionally or unintentionally encourage a weaker believer to sin in any way, you have become a stumbling block to them. And Jesus gave a servere warning against that.


I do not agree with everything above you just said, especially the part I underlined. Did Jesus intentionally or unintentionally cause others to stumble? It appears He did, since there were some who were so offended by what He said or did they quit following Him. Even Jesus said this: "Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” Matthew 11:6. The phrase "fall away" can mean "be offended to the point of turning away, cause to stumble beyond recovery."

I refuse to walk around on eggshells, always worried that I might intentionally or even unintentionally uncourage a weaker believer to sin in any way. If that is what you think Jesus and Paul were saying, then I will just have to disagree with you and let you do that kind of eggshell-walking for me. Like I said, Jesus drank wine in public, went to wild parties, and hung out with prostitutes. That, according to your definition, was a sin for Him to do, and it frankly wreaks of legalism to my ears to say that we are to do better than that. Again, I'm not buying the argument that Jesus could get away with doing those things because He was divine, but we can't do those things because we aren't.

So did Jesus sin? Never. Did he unintentionally or intentially become a stumbling block? Yes He did!:
"“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in Him will never be put to shame.”
Romans 9:33

The same verses are for us:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18-

Now I realise this regarding salvation:
"For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life."
2 Corinthians 2:15-


Second, Jesus did a lot of things during His life on earth. But we aren't commanded to emulate every single one of them. Now when He gives a teaching to his disciples or to other people, and tells them the way to behave or think, then yes we are absolutely to follow that instruction. But just because Jesus did something doesn't mean we should necessarily do the same thing.


We are actually supposed to do "greater things" than these... ;0).


But when Paul gives a message to the church, clearly defining the way they should act and think according to God's work, it carries just as much weight as if Jesus had told them. Not because Paul has as much authority as Jesus, but becuase His words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as were Jesus'. But in the same way, you can't say that "if Paul did something I should do it too." Because we aren't Paul.


We can't do the same exact things that Jesus and Paul did because we don't live in the same place and time. But wisdom is proven right by her actions.


So we should follow the teachings of Jesus and Paul (which by the way, do not contradict each other at all) and not necessarily try and walk in their footsteps.

Does that make sense?


That depends. If it means that we are to tiptoe around always fearing that we might offend a weaker brother or sister or cause them to stumble, then no. If it is walking in freedom and sometimes reliquishing those freedoms for the sake of a weaker brother or sister, then sure.


There is so much evidence in scriptures for the idea I'm talking about, giving up certain freedoms in certain circumstances (or even alltogether) in an effort to ensure you will not be a stumbling block to weaker believers, because you love them, and care about them more than yourself.


Sure, there are lots of verses that talk about giving up freedoms so that others won't stumble. But if they are understood to mean that I have to constantly be walking on eggshells and looking over my shoulder, afraid that I might cause a weaker believer to stumble unintentionally or intentionally, I don't see how I could be a missionary to the lost like Jesus was. Jesus stumbled people (even believers) all the time -- so badly in fact that many deserted Him and left the faith over some of the things He did and said, including those who He hung out with.


So why do some still ask that question underlined in red up above? When I ask that question (and I have before, and still do sometimes) it's because I'm being selfish, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Did Jesus ask that question? Did He ask that question when He was partying at a sinners house with prostitutes and drinking wine?

Rock

[Musicdude]

I do not agree with everything above you just said, especially the part I underlined. Did Jesus intentionally or unintentionally cause others to stumble? It appears He did, since there were some who were so offended by what He said or did they quit following Him. Even Jesus said this: "Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” Matthew 11:6. The phrase "fall away" can mean "be offended to the point of turning away, cause to stumble beyond recovery."
Just because someone was physically following Jesus around doesn't mean that they had faith in Him. You seem to be assuming that those who literally quit following Him around physically, were ever truly following Him in the spiritual sense.

I refuse to walk around on eggshells, always worried that I might intentionally or even unintentionally uncourage a weaker believer to sin in any way. If that is what you think Jesus and Paul were saying, then I will just have to disagree with you and let you do that kind of eggshell-walking for me. Like I said, Jesus drank wine in public, went to wild parties, and hung out with prostitutes. That, according to your definition, was a sin for Him to do, and it frankly wreaks of legalism to my ears to say that we are to do better than that. Again, I'm not buying the argument that Jesus could get away with doing those things because He was divine, but we can't do those things because we aren't.

Prove to me that Jesus went to wild parties. I've never read that in any bible I own. Did He associate with prostitutes? Yes. But those prostitutes needed salvation. And never said in order to not stumble anyone we should shun sinners. Did I? And drinking did not have the stigma back then that it does now. Everyone drank wine back then, and I doubt anyone considered it a sin. That changes things. It's about the conscience of the weaker believer, and what would cause them to stumble. If drinking isn't one of those things, then there's no reason to avoid it.

So did Jesus sin? Never.

Did he unintentionally or intentially become a stumbling block? Yes He did!:
"“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in Him will never be put to shame.”
Romans 9:33
I can't explain that one.
But if it truly means what you are implying (that Jesus was the cause of stumbling) then doesn't that blatently contradict His own warning in Matt 18:7?

The same verses are for us:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18-

Now I realise this regarding salvation:
"For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life."
2 Corinthians 2:15-
But does Jesus or Paul warn against stumbling non-believers? Or is it just weaker believers in Christ? All I've seen is with regard to believers, so this wouldn't apply if that's correct. And possibly the same goes for Romans 9:33 too.


We are actually supposed to do "greater things" than these... ;0).
Well, of course we aren't capable of being "greater" than Jesus. That's not what I'm saying. I don't believe Jesus stumbled anyone, and I'm trying to prove that.

We can't do the same exact things that Jesus and Paul did because we don't live in the same place and time. But wisdom is proven right by her actions.
True.

That depends. If it means that we are to tiptoe around always fearing that we might offend a weaker brother or sister or cause them to stumble, then no. If it is walking in freedom and sometimes reliquishing those freedoms for the sake of a weaker brother or sister, then sure.
I'm not suggesting anyone tip-toe, and certainly not worry. Worrying is a sin as I understand it.

Sure, there are lots of verses that talk about giving up freedoms so that others won't stumble. But if they are understood to mean that I have to constantly be walking on eggshells and looking over my shoulder, afraid that I might cause a weaker believer to stumble unintentionally or intentionally, I don't see how I could be a missionary to the lost like Jesus was. Jesus stumbled people (even believers) all the time -- so badly in fact that many deserted Him and left the faith over some of the things He did and said, including those who He hung out with.
Is it possible some of those guys just couldn't hang with Jesus? And He isn't really to blame for their dessertion?

Did Jesus ask that question? Did He ask that question when He was partying at a sinners house with prostitutes and drinking wine?

Rock

You are intentionally making what He did sound more liscentious than it actually was. He associated and preached to and ate with sinners. Nothing more. He drank wine because that is what they had to drink. And I don't think anyone was stumbled by that. What was the legal drinking age in Jerusalem at that time anyway? 5?

[Gandalf]

I agree with Pouye. (Shocking, I know.)

If you look at the context of Paul's statement about causing others to stumble, he's just finished coming down hard on the legalists who try to impose their rules on others, and saying that if you're not intentionally worshiping the idols, you won't accidentally do so by eating a meal regardless of how the meat was prepared. He then turns around and says essentially, "and you others who aren't 'weak' like that shouldn't be trying to tempt those who are into violating their consciences." It's not a matter of avoiding anything that might "offend" someone, but a matter of being generous and loving towards our weaker brothers who are trapped in legalism and, while standing strong for the truth that we are not under the law and such things are not truly idolatrous, also at the same time not trying to encourage them to violate their consciences.

The idea isn't our postmodern American ideal of being politically correct and not "offending" anyone. The idea is to avoid willfully tempting others to violate their consciences.

[Musicdude]

I agree with Pouye. (Shocking, I know.)

If you look at the context of Paul's statement about causing others to stumble, he's just finished coming down hard on the legalists who try to impose their rules on others, and saying that if you're not intentionally worshiping the idols, you won't accidentally do so by eating a meal regardless of how the meat was prepared. He then turns around and says essentially, "and you others who aren't 'weak' like that shouldn't be trying to tempt those who are into violating their consciences." It's not a matter of avoiding anything that might "offend" someone, but a matter of being generous and loving towards our weaker brothers who are trapped in legalism and, while standing strong for the truth that we are not under the law and such things are not truly idolatrous, also at the same time not trying to encourage them to violate their consciences.

The idea isn't our postmodern American ideal of being politically correct and not "offending" anyone. The idea is to avoid willfully tempting others to violate their consciences.

I don't know how much of that was in response to what I said, or just a general statement of where you stand on the issue.

But I completely agree with that. And I would like to note that I never once said or even implied that we should attempt to not ever offend anyone, as if that were even possible.

[Gandalf]

And I would like to note that I never once said or even implied that we should attempt to not ever offend anyone, as if that were even possible.
Your working definition of "causing someone to stumble" sounds awfully close to that to me, if you're applying it to this situation.

Doing something that someone else incorrectly thinks is immoral is not wrong. Even knowingly doing it in front of him is not what Paul meant by causing him to stumble. Arrogantly treating him as an idiot and pressuring him to join you in doing so even though he has a weak conscience would be. In the situation Paul was talking about, the "weaker" brother would be between a rock and a hard place if a fellow Christian invited him to dinner and served him meat sacrificed to idols. He couldn't eat it without violating his conscience, and couldn't refrain without appearing rude and ungrateful. There's specific pressure for him to personally participate in something he believes to be wrong.

I'm not sure I can imagine a realistic situation in which using four-letter words around someone could be analogous to that. The intense pressure to make someone else participate simply doesn't exist. Even a person with a weak conscience on the matter doesn't think that hearing such words is a sin, only using them. I suppose maybe if the lead singer or the concert's MC asks people to join him in repeating a prayer that includes such words, that could be close. But regular use of them by an individual is a different matter altogether, whether or not people find them offensive.

I'm not saying that using such language is polite or cultured or doesn't make one come across as an uneducated boor in many situations, but it isn't "causing a brother to stumble."

[Musicdude]

Your working definition of "causing someone to stumble" sounds awfully close to that to me, if you're applying it to this situation.
If you say so. To me, offending someone is to do or say something they don't like or approve of. There are other ways to offend, but that is the basic idea. But to stumble is to do something that they take as you sinning against God, not them.

Doing something that someone else incorrectly thinks is immoral is not wrong. Even knowingly doing it in front of him is not what Paul meant by causing him to stumble.
Really?
1Co 8:10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

To me that sounds exactly like what he meant. Because right here, Paul is talking about mature believers doing nothing more than eating meat in an idol temple. Not having an arrogant attitude, or anything else. Just eating in that temple. And if the weaker believer just so happens to see them doing so, he is encouraged to do the same. And even though to you it isn't sin, to him it is, because it is a violation of his conscience.
Paul says that the weaker believer is encouraged by merely seeing you (a mature christian) doing it. That's all it takes. It doesn't take a personal invitation from the mature believer.

Arrogantly treating him as an idiot and pressuring him to join you in doing so even though he has a weak conscience would be.
That very well may be a stumbling block as well, if they were to act that way, but 1 Corinthians says no such thing. In the example Paul gives, the people who are a stumbling block are doing nothing more than eating in an idol temple.

In the situation Paul was talking about, the "weaker" brother would be between a rock and a hard place if a fellow Christian invited him to dinner and served him meat sacrificed to idols.
There was no invitation in Paul's example.

He couldn't eat it without violating his conscience, and couldn't refrain without appearing rude and ungrateful. There's specific pressure for him to personally participate in something he believes to be wrong.
Like I said, I agree that would be stumbling him. But that was not Paul's example. You are reading a lot into it example that Paul simply did not say at all.

I'm not sure I can imagine a realistic situation in which using four-letter words around someone could be analogous to that. The intense pressure to make someone else participate simply doesn't exist.
Peer pressure, especially among younger people is a very real thing.

Even a person with a weak conscience on the matter doesn't think that hearing such words is a sin, only using them. I suppose maybe if the lead singer or the concert's MC asks people to join him in repeating a prayer that includes such words, that could be close. But regular use of them by an individual is a different matter altogether, whether or not people find them offensive.
Going by your definition of stumbling, then no, I guess cursing would be a stretch. But I do not think your definition lines up with 1Corinthians chapter 8.

I'm not saying that using such language is polite or cultured or doesn't make one come across as an uneducated boor in many situations, but it isn't "causing a brother to stumble."
Whether it's polite or classy is truly not the issue here. No, it is not always a stumbling block to everyone in every situation. But it certainly has the potential to be.

[Gandalf]

If you say so. To me, offending someone is to do or say something they don't like or approve of. There are other ways to offend, but that is the basic idea. But to stumble is to do something that they take as you sinning against God, not them.
That definition leads to absurdity. Someone, somewhere might think that it's sinful to wear blue jeans, or read a book, or smoke a pipe, or drive a car, or play a musical instrument, or own a dog, or eat a cow, or not eat a cow, or not play an instrument, or not ... etc. You don't cause someone to stumble by doing something they think is wrong. It would be impossible to avoid doing so with much of what you do in any case. You cause someone to stumble by encouraging them to disregard their conscience and choose to sin.
Paul says that the weaker believer is encouraged by merely seeing you (a mature christian) doing it. That's all it takes. It doesn't take a personal invitation from the mature believer.
In a culture where pagan temple feasts were important social events, then yeah, seeing fellow Christians still participating in some manner probably would tempt those whose consciences were weaker to join in when they couldn't do so in good conscience. Again, it's difficult to imagine an analogous scenario that involves four-letter words.

My reference to a dinner invitation was regarding Paul's admonition that it wasn't necessary to ask everyone who invited them to dinner whether the meat they would be serving was from temple sacrifices.

[mcgreen311]

Going by your definition of stumbling, then no, I guess cursing would be a stretch. But I do not think your definition lines up with 1Corinthians chapter 8.


Whether it's polite or classy is truly not the issue here. No, it is not always a stumbling block to everyone in every situation. But it certainly has the potential to be.

Ack, I know I said I was going to stay away, but will you please provide a concrete example of how you see someone saying a curse word in front of someone who thinks it wrong can lead someone away from the faith? I have not seen that answered, at least to my satisfaction. I'll start it for you: I say @#$% it, and a new believer hears me say it and is astounded because s/he thinks it is a sin. What happens next?

And, to corroborate what Gandalf said earlier, you say that you are not equating stumbling and offending, but the way you argue conflates the two. I think if you can answer my question, it will go a long way towards your explaining your position to us and clarifying that offending/stumbling distinction.

The majority of us oldtimers on the board are arguing very cogently against cursing being a stumblingblock. Both Rock and Gandalf have argued the same points I was arguing, although much more in depth than I have. Can you really not see how a tie to idol worship is different than a tie to swearing?

[Pouye]

That definition leads to absurdity. Someone, somewhere might think that it's sinful to wear blue jeans, or read a book, or smoke a pipe, or drive a car, or play a musical instrument, or own a dog, or eat a cow, or not eat a cow, or not play an instrument, or not ... etc. You don't cause someone to stumble by doing something they think is wrong. It would be impossible to avoid doing so with much of what you do in any case. You cause someone to stumble by encouraging them to disregard their conscience and choose to sin.

Musicdude is right that simply participating in an event could cause a believer to stumble if the event has to do with idolatry. But aside from idolatry, I don't see how else it would work. Jesus speaks of not doing things that would "cause one of these "little ones" to sin". But this to me must imply more than what Gandalf is saying above; "That you don't cause someone to stumble by doing something they think is wrong." As I said, Jesus would have been guilty of doing so then, since He was accused of being a drunkard and associating with scumbags and prostitutes (both considered wrong by the observers).

My "eggshells" example is akin to this statement of Gandalf's:
"It would be impossible to avoid doing so with much of what you do in any case."

I would find it impossible not to stumble others if the definition of stumbling another believer means that I have to never do anything that might in some way be perceived by another believer as a violation of THEIR conscience. For instance, I have long hair. I don't believe it is a sin to have long hair, but some believers might be of the opinion (based on Scripture verses) that males should not have long hair. (Many of these same people have representations of Jesus in their homes, all of which have long hair ;0)). So could I stumble a weaker brother or sister by having long hair?

I think what is difficult to define is just what lines are to be drawn in our behavior. It is a continuum that swings from "liberal" to "conservative". For some Christians, a woman should never wear jeans. I knew of a church where there was an middle-aged man who once spoke up in the church (of about 70 people) and said that he believed women in the church were dressing immodestly and it was causing him to stumble. He suggested that all of the women should wear long dresses that covered even their ankles.

Should that whole congregation honor this "weak" believer's conscience by placing a strict dress code on all female members? What if he said he would be satisfied with nothing less than full Burkas for all of the females as to keep him from lusting (which could conceivably happen since the man was from the Middle East)? Should the Body of Christ always adjust itself to accommodate the weakest member's conscience?

To answer this, I must look to Jesus as my example. The Pharisees had very weak and sensitive consciences that Jesus trampled on daily. Sometimes Jesus trampled on the consciences of the disciples, too (like when He was seen speaking alone with a Samaritan woman with a bad reputation. The Scriptures declare that the disciples were so shocked that they were afraid to ask Him about it). Jesus had a bad reputation with the "church" or the holy assembly at the time. He excerised many freedoms that were radical to the eyes of onlookers.

By the way, wine drinking did come with a stigmatism if it was done outside the context of the home (especially at parties with "sinners", which Jesus did attend.)

So there is a double-edged sword here. We are to abstain from the appearance of evil, and yet we are to "be all things to all people". We are to act in such as way as to show others we are different than the world, but at the same time we are to be change agents who might appear like we are participating in sin when we really aren't. A friend of mine has a ministry to prostitutes, for example -- and believe me, some have taken his lingering on a street corner to meet with scantily-clad women the wrong way!

I have a feeling that "in practice" Musicdude, myself, or Gandalf would probably not act all that differently in a given situation. Each one of us has a conscience, and the Holy Spirit to guide us. What we are dealing with here is trying to "draw lines" where there are simply too many variables to account for if we try to draw those lines. A general rule isn't going to cover every case.

Rock

[mcgreen311]

Like I said, I agree that would be stumbling him. But that was not Paul's example. You are reading a lot into it example that Paul simply did not say at all.

And what's funny is, that is exactly how your argument looks from my perspective.


Going by your definition of stumbling, then no, I guess cursing would be a stretch. But I do not think your definition lines up with 1Corinthians chapter 8.


I'll be honest here. I don't hear you dealing with the passage on the level of what stumbling actually is. I hear you talking about what might cause stumbling in Paul's passage. In the passages you quote, what constitutes stumbling does not even seem to be the main emphasis.

[mcgreen311]

Legalists have used the "causing one to stumble" argument to legislate all sorts of non-sinful behaviors and then through the christian subculture, ingrain the action as sinful into people's heads.

To assume that random sins such as cussing and drinking can cause someone to stumble implies that you portray a legalistic lifestyle in front of them and the shock of you committing such acts causes them to sin against their own legalistic conscience that you have helped prop up. In reality, unless you are in public ministry, can you really cause a total stranger to stumble?

Furthermore, If we are referring to people that you know personally, this issue becomes a complete non-issue when you remove your mask in front of them and allow people to see you live out your faith as a miserable sinner saved by grace.

Of course, it's easier to forgo the teaching of moderation and just give the sheep a shot of grape juice.

I just noticed this. This is pretty much what I was saying when I asked why we should continue to perpetuate things as sin when they are not. I'm glad that I've been around people who didn't hold up the whitewashed legalistic version of themselves so that I now I have a fuller knowledge of grace.

[pamcharlie]

Legalism UGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's not be legalistic i have an ex friend who is so legalistic. i would rather enjoy the freedom that jesus died to give me instead of being legalistic

[Musicdude]

Ack, I know I said I was going to stay away, but will you please provide a concrete example of how you see someone saying a curse word in front of someone who thinks it wrong can lead someone away from the faith? I have not seen that answered, at least to my satisfaction. I'll start it for you: I say @#$% it, and a new believer hears me say it and is astounded because s/he thinks it is a sin. What happens next?]
I did actually give such an example just for you.

And, to corroborate what Gandalf said earlier, you say that you are not equating stumbling and offending, but the way you argue conflates the two. I think if you can answer my question, it will go a long way towards your explaining your position to us and clarifying that offending/stumbling distinction.
I made it very clear what the difference was.
Offending means doing something that is a personal affront to someone. Stumbling is doing something that some other person believes is a personal affront to God.

The majority of us oldtimers on the board are arguing very cogently against cursing being a stumblingblock. Both Rock and Gandalf have argued the same points I was arguing, although much more in depth than I have. Can you really not see how a tie to idol worship is different than a tie to swearing?

Of course there is a difference. But the way I read it, the example in 1Corinthians chapter 8 is not wrong because it's tied to idol worship. It's wrong because a mature believer is being selfish, and in turn encouraging a weaker believer to sin. Now if that sin is idolatry, lust, hate, lying, or whatever doesn't really change the general principle being taught here. The message of 1Corinthians chapter 8 is not "do not practice idolatry." The message is "do not be a stumbling block to your weaker brothers in Christ." Idolatry was just the example used to get the point accross. Why idolatry, and not something else? Maybe because idolatry was something they all understood, because they were all involved in it before hearing of Christ.

[Musicdude]

Musicdude is right that simply participating in an event could cause a believer to stumble if the event has to do with idolatry. But aside from idolatry, I don't see how else it would work. Jesus speaks of not doing things that would "cause one of these "little ones" to sin". But this to me must imply more than what Gandalf is saying above; "That you don't cause someone to stumble by doing something they think is wrong." As I said, Jesus would have been guilty of doing so then, since He was accused of being a drunkard and associating with scumbags and prostitutes (both considered wrong by the observers).

My "eggshells" example is akin to this statement of Gandalf's:
"It would be impossible to avoid doing so with much of what you do in any case."

I would find it impossible not to stumble others if the definition of stumbling another believer means that I have to never do anything that might in some way be perceived by another believer as a violation of THEIR conscience. For instance, I have long hair. I don't believe it is a sin to have long hair, but some believers might be of the opinion (based on Scripture verses) that males should not have long hair. (Many of these same people have representations of Jesus in their homes, all of which have long hair ;0)). So could I stumble a weaker brother or sister by having long hair?

I think what is difficult to define is just what lines are to be drawn in our behavior. It is a continuum that swings from "liberal" to "conservative". For some Christians, a woman should never wear jeans. I knew of a church where there was an middle-aged man who once spoke up in the church (of about 70 people) and said that he believed women in the church were dressing immodestly and it was causing him to stumble. He suggested that all of the women should wear long dresses that covered even their ankles.

Should that whole congregation honor this "weak" believer's conscience by placing a strict dress code on all female members? What if he said he would be satisfied with nothing less than full Burkas for all of the females as to keep him from lusting (which could conceivably happen since the man was from the Middle East)? Should the Body of Christ always adjust itself to accommodate the weakest member's conscience?

To answer this, I must look to Jesus as my example. The Pharisees had very weak and sensitive consciences that Jesus trampled on daily. Sometimes Jesus trampled on the consciences of the disciples, too (like when He was seen speaking alone with a Samaritan woman with a bad reputation. The Scriptures declare that the disciples were so shocked that they were afraid to ask Him about it). Jesus had a bad reputation with the "church" or the holy assembly at the time. He excerised many freedoms that were radical to the eyes of onlookers.
Did the Pharisees qualify as "weaker believers?" Or were they unbelievers?

I agree we should look at Christ's example, but not to the exclusion of Paul's.

By the way, wine drinking did come with a stigmatism if it was done outside the context of the home (especially at parties with "sinners", which Jesus did attend.)
What do you call a party? Having dinner at someone's house?

So there is a double-edged sword here. We are to abstain from the appearance of evil, and yet we are to "be all things to all people". We are to act in such as way as to show others we are different than the world, but at the same time we are to be change agents who might appear like we are participating in sin when we really aren't. A friend of mine has a ministry to prostitutes, for example -- and believe me, some have taken his lingering on a street corner to meet with scantily-clad women the wrong way!

Then what is the correct way? Because Jesus and Paul are not in disagreement, I can assure you of that.

I have a feeling that "in practice" Musicdude, myself, or Gandalf would probably not act all that differently in a given situation. Each one of us has a conscience, and the Holy Spirit to guide us. What we are dealing with here is trying to "draw lines" where there are simply too many variables to account for if we try to draw those lines. A general rule isn't going to cover every case.

Rock

I think we should try within reason to not stumble. Like even Paul said, you don't have to ask someone everytime you eat at their house if the meat was sacrificed to idols or not. But if you know for a fact that it was, then for the sake of their consciences, you should decline it.


If me and my wife were visiting a church and we knew that all the women there wore dresses. My wife would wear a dress, as not to be a stumbling block to them. Not because we think it's a sin for her to wear pants, but becuase we don't want to stumble. Now in situtations where you don't know the crowd, then do whatever you think is right, but even then I would say she should dress modestly, regardless of the crowd.

But applying this to the original post. I think they should've been careful not to curse on stage. I think it probably did stumble some people, maybe just a few. But it was a few that could've been easily avoided.

[Bengals_Mama]

I bet satan is sitting back eating popcorn & drinking a beer having a good 'ole time watching this right now...he loves nothing more than to see Christians disagree & argue. I'm learning that the hard way & believe me it's not easy for me to shut my mouth either..lol

[Valpo]

I bet satan is sitting back eating popcorn & drinking a beer having a good 'ole time watching this right now...he loves nothing more than to see Christians disagree & argue. I'm learning that the hard way & believe me it's not easy for me to shut my mouth either..lol

Probably not. The arguing and disagreeing here is for a deeper understanding of God, not a shallower or a disavowal.

[Pouye]

I bet satan is sitting back eating popcorn & drinking a beer having a good 'ole time watching this right now...he loves nothing more than to see Christians disagree & argue. I'm learning that the hard way & believe me it's not easy for me to shut my mouth either..lol

I would agree if I had any animosity toward my brothers and sisters here in Christ. As it turns out, I have a high respect for Musicdude, who I enjoy very much on the boards and consider a friend. The same is true for Middletree, Valpo and many others who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with. Even when you are sensing that we are frustrated with the opinions/viewpoints of others, I assure you that we are mature enough to handle it, and at the end of the day we could all (if we were near each other and not scattered around the world) go somewhere, hang out, and have a good time with each other.

Forums fill a unique gap for me. I don't often discuss these sorts of things outside of such a forum. Most people who know me wouldn't know I'm even thinking about such things, let alone have an opinion about them.

It is a strange thing to actually meet someone who you have only gotten to know on a forum. You suddenly realise that they are just normal folks; often married, with kids, etc. They do regular things and have a real life. They often are well respected and have leadership responsibilities in their church, community or wherever. And they often don't talk much about hot topics or doctrinal nuances in general. This has helped me to realise that such a forum is often an outlet for people, and it is only a tiny window into the real person behind the screen. We all have only a microscopic view of each other if we only "see" each other when we log onto Third Day's message boards.

Like for you, Bengals_Mama. This is an outlet for you - a place to share some of what you are feeling and why. If you have strong opinions (which it appears that you do), you will be challenged here and some might take offense at what you say. But outside of this forum you are a mom, a wife, probably active in your church, etc. You are probably well liked and have many interests. But all it would take is for someone here to get bent out of shape over something you said here and you might find yourself confined in that person's narrow window because they don't really know you well enough to cut you some slack.

It is good to remember that people here have a life outside the forum, and to remember that most of us, even the most opinionated of us, really do have people's best interests in mind. We should all expect that our viewpoints and world views could be challenged and that people will not always see things the same way. We should always consider that other viewpoints could have merit and not excuse them outright because they are different from our own. This is difficult, but it is the best way to grow and to offer respect to others. Sometimes we cannot reconcile opinions, but in that case our goal should be to do our best to understand the position of the other person and try to understand why they hold that position, even if we cannot hold it ourselves.

Rambling,

Rock

[Pouye]

Probably not. The arguing and disagreeing here is for a deeper understanding of God, not a shallower or a disavowal.

True. You have taught me many things, brother!

Rock

[mcgreen311]

I did actually give such an example just for you.

At one point you told me to go to I Cor 8 because you didn't know how it could be any clearer. Is that the example you mean or did I miss another one? If there was another one, please point me to it. If not, the idolatry example was not what I meant.

I made it very clear what the difference was.
Offending means doing something that is a personal affront to someone. Stumbling is doing something that some other person believes is a personal affront to God.

Hmm...I see why we are having problems now. I knew our definitions weren't lining up, but now that your definition is stated explicitly, I understand why I disagree.

You're looking at the cause and calling it stumbling, and I am wanting to know what the effect is that is a person actually stumbling, i.e. turning away from God. I am really at a loss, because we are speaking at cross-purposes. I am doing my best to try to get us on the same page, but it's not working.


Of course there is a difference. But the way I read it, the example in 1Corinthians chapter 8 is not wrong because it's tied to idol worship. It's wrong because a mature believer is being selfish, and in turn encouraging a weaker believer to sin. Now if that sin is idolatry, lust, hate, lying, or whatever doesn't really change the general principle being taught here. The message of 1Corinthians chapter 8 is not "do not practice idolatry." The message is "do not be a stumbling block to your weaker brothers in Christ." Idolatry was just the example used to get the point accross. Why idolatry, and not something else? Maybe because idolatry was something they all understood, because they were all involved in it before hearing of Christ.

And...I still don't understand how causing someone to cuss is a sin if cussing is not a sin. It smacks of legalism to me. Here's my logic, you tell me where I am wrong:

Saint A thinks cussing is a sin.
Saint A cusses.
Saint A may commit sin, but the sin of rebellion, not the sin of cussing. God does not have a different standard of sin for different people. To admit that is to admit to relativism. It is a heart issue.

Saint A thinks cussing is a sin.
Saint B cusses.
Saint A thinks, "maybe cussing isn't a sin."
Saint A cusses. Saint A is not rebelling, hence, no sin as we have already established that cussing is not a sin.

Please pick my argument apart, to pieces if you think it is wrong.

[mcgreen311]

Even when you are sensing that we are frustrated with the opinions/viewpoints of others, I assure you that we are mature enough to handle it, and at the end of the day we could all (if we were near each other and not scattered around the world) go somewhere, hang out, and have a good time with each other.

I am tempted to start singing "We Are the World." :)

[Musicdude]

At one point you told me to go to I Cor 8 because you didn't know how it could be any clearer. Is that the example you mean or did I miss another one? If there was another one, please point me to it. If not, the idolatry example was not what I meant.
No, it wasn't my reference to 1Cor 8, I gave a specific play by play hypothetical example. But I'll have to go back and find it.

edit: Here it is. It was in response to Middletree's post, but it was to you too.
Let me just throw out an example of how I think it could.


This is much more true for young people, as they are more impressionable than adults anyway, but especially a young person who is also a new Christian.

Let's say a friend of mine is such a person. And I have other friends who are unbelievers and believers mixed. And let's say my impressionable young friend's name is Sam. Some of my other friends curse often. The unbelievers do it without regard for whether it's a sin or not. And the believers do it because they have knowledge of God's word and believe it's not a sin. And I invite Sam to hang out with myself and my other friends. Now I could go either way. I know it's not a sin, but I am also sensitive to Sam being a new believer and I don't want to stumble him.

So we're hanging out and my other friends (whom Sam doesn't really know) are cursing like it's no big deal. And Sam (though was quite a curser prior to being saved) is convinced that cursing is a sin, because a lot of legalistic believers have told him that in the past, but prior to his salvation he just didn't care. But now that he's saved, he cares about trying to avoid sin, so he is trying to avoid cursing.

So he hasn't given in yet to cursing even though it's tempting cause everyone else is. But then I start to curse. And Sam thinks to himself, now I'm the only one here not cursing. I don't want these guys to think I'm a prude or dork, so I'll join in, even though I know it's wrong.

Now Sam has sinned, and even though he is the one responsible for his sin, I had a part to play in it.

As MCGreen said earlier, I cannot prevent someone from violating their own conscience. And that is true, I can't. But I can at least try not to encourage them to do so with my behavior.


Hmm...I see why we are having problems now. I knew our definitions weren't lining up, but now that your definition is stated explicitly, I understand why I disagree.

You're looking at the cause and calling it stumbling, and I am wanting to know what the effect is that is a person actually stumbling, i.e. turning away from God. I am really at a loss, because we are speaking at cross-purposes. I am doing my best to try to get us on the same page, but it's not working.
The result is a weaker believer being encouraged to sin. In most cases it's not something that would drive them away from God altogether, or anything that severe. And I could try to explain it, but it's just easier to use examples. Think of a baby trying to learn how to walk. And if that baby is in a safe area where it can fall down a lot without hurting himself, that is a big advantage for him. But then say you drop a bunch of marbles in the area where he is trying to learn to walk. Are you preventing him from learning to walk? Probably not. He'll probably learn still. But you have made it much more difficult than it needed to be. That's what stumbling does to newborn believers in Christ.

And...I still don't understand how causing someone to cuss is a sin if cussing is not a sin. It smacks of legalism to me. Here's my logic, you tell me where I am wrong:

Saint A thinks cussing is a sin.
Saint A cusses.
Saint A may commit sin, but the sin of rebellion, not the sin of cussing. God does not have a different standard of sin for different people. To admit that is to admit to relativism. It is a heart issue.
You nailed it right there. No cussing doesn't become sinful just because someone thinks it is. Sins are sins, and our opinions of them doesn't change that. But you nailed it when you said rebellion. I would call it sinning against your own conscience, but it means the same thing. You are intentionally doing something that you believe God does not approve of, and that rebellion against God is the sin here. Not the cussing itself. Not to split hairs here, but everytime I made this example earlier in this thread, I always said that the cursing was not "inherently" sinful, or that it's not a sin "in and of it'self." I tried to make it clear that the cursing it'self was not the sin, but the rebellion.

Saint A thinks cussing is a sin.
Saint B cusses.
Saint A thinks, "maybe cussing isn't a sin."
Saint A cusses. Saint A is not rebelling, hence, no sin as we have already established that cussing is not a sin.

Please pick my argument apart, to pieces if you think it is wrong.
Maybe it could play out that way. But the thing is, legalism is so engrained into us from all angles, that it's usually not that easy for someone to change his mind about an action believed to be sinful.

Most people come to Christ with many preconcieved ideas about what a good Christian should act like. And most of them are wrong. But in that time while they are learning what is right, they need lots of grace.
And that is what I believe Paul is saying in 1Corinthians chapter 8, how we need to help these babies learn to walk, and try to never impede them in any way.

[Musicdude]

I would agree if I had any animosity toward my brothers and sisters here in Christ. As it turns out, I have a high respect for Musicdude, who I enjoy very much on the boards and consider a friend. The same is true for Middletree, Valpo and many others who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with. Even when you are sensing that we are frustrated with the opinions/viewpoints of others, I assure you that we are mature enough to handle it, and at the end of the day we could all (if we were near each other and not scattered around the world) go somewhere, hang out, and have a good time with each other.

Forums fill a unique gap for me. I don't often discuss these sorts of things outside of such a forum. Most people who know me wouldn't know I'm even thinking about such things, let alone have an opinion about them.

It is a strange thing to actually meet someone who you have only gotten to know on a forum. You suddenly realise that they are just normal folks; often married, with kids, etc. They do regular things and have a real life. They often are well respected and have leadership responsibilities in their church, community or wherever. And they often don't talk much about hot topics or doctrinal nuances in general. This has helped me to realise that such a forum is often an outlet for people, and it is only a tiny window into the real person behind the screen. We all have only a microscopic view of each other if we only "see" each other when we log onto Third Day's message boards.

Like for you, Bengals_Mama. This is an outlet for you - a place to share some of what you are feeling and why. If you have strong opinions (which it appears that you do), you will be challenged here and some might take offense at what you say. But outside of this forum you are a mom, a wife, probably active in your church, etc. You are probably well liked and have many interests. But all it would take is for someone here to get bent out of shape over something you said here and you might find yourself confined in that person's narrow window because they don't really know you well enough to cut you some slack.

It is good to remember that people here have a life outside the forum, and to remember that most of us, even the most opinionated of us, really do have people's best interests in mind. We should all expect that our viewpoints and world views could be challenged and that people will not always see things the same way. We should always consider that other viewpoints could have merit and not excuse them outright because they are different from our own. This is difficult, but it is the best way to grow and to offer respect to others. Sometimes we cannot reconcile opinions, but in that case our goal should be to do our best to understand the position of the other person and try to understand why they hold that position, even if we cannot hold it ourselves.

Rambling,

Rock

Very good post, from one of the few on these boards who is very respectful of everyone, even in the midst of a heated debate (I'm talking about Rock here, not me, in case that wasn't clear.)

Probably if we all would realize what you are saying, we would all treat each other with more respect as a result. We are not just opposing opinions here, as you said. We are people, and our thoughts on a particular subject is only a small part of who we are.

[Valpo]

True. You have taught me many things, brother!

Rock

I like what you said about outlets, definitely an outlet. We need to wrestle things out too, sometimes that gets "heated," or as heated as it can online. But I would suspect we're not all rabid or blood thirsty in real life as we are online. This is a good place for discussion, forces people to dig into scripture. That's a good thing!

[Musicdude]

I like what you said about outlets, definitely an outlet. We need to wrestle things out too, sometimes that gets "heated," or as heated as it can online. But I would suspect we're not all rabid or blood thirsty in real life as we are online. This is a good place for discussion, forces people to dig into scripture. That's a good thing!

I am very appreciative of you and the others here, who have challenged me over the past few years. When no one challenges you, you can just believe whatever you have been told. But when someone challenges you in a place like this, suddenly "because my pastor said so" is not good enough anymore, and you must go to the scriptures. And the scriptures will either confirm what you believed, or correct you. Either way, it's a good thing. And even with Howlin wolf, I've learned a lot arguing with him. So even though I don't like his attitude sometimes, I do appreciate where he has challenged me.

[mcgreen311]

MD,

I did miss your example, so thanks for humoring me and reposting it. I still disagree that you are at fault if he happens to rebel in his heart, and think that would be a great opportunity to combat legalism and have a heart to heart with him. (I'm reminded of the website posted here a few years ago regarding a guy who was embroiled in the hard core rock and roll lifestyle, and thus equated Third Day with Satan and proselytized in that manner). It's certainly your prerogative to refrain from anything you want to, but "Sam" is willingly engaging in what he thinks is in. You are not party to it.

In any case, I think we are officially at an impasse.

[Musicdude]

MD,

I did miss your example, so thanks for humoring me and reposting it. I still disagree that you are at fault if he happens to rebel in his heart, and think that would be a great opportunity to combat legalism and have a heart to heart with him. (I'm reminded of the website posted here a few years ago regarding a guy who was embroiled in the hard core rock and roll lifestyle, and thus equated Third Day with Satan and proselytized in that manner). It's certainly your prerogative to refrain from anything you want to, but "Sam" is willingly engaging in what he thinks is in. You are not party to it.

In any case, I think we are officially at an impasse.

I think you're right, about the impasse.

In closing, I would say, I agree that we are ultimately responsible for our own sins, and no one can be blamed for them but the sinner himself or herself. However, we can be an influence on other believers in a positive or negative way. And we have a responsibility to not be a negative influence when it's within our power to do so. And I think God does hold us responsible for our influence on other Christians. "To whom much is given, much is required" so to speak.