Why Is The "Christmas Spirit" So Different?

[Digging4Truth]

This time of year has what is referred to as the "Christmas Spirit".

That spirit requires it's own set of music that is not played in other parts of the year.

It requires it's own set of decorations that are not up other times of the year.

Why does this "remembrance" require such a complete regearing of the worship we give to God the other 11 months out of the year?

[Cindy]

This time of year has what is referred to as the "Christmas Spirit".

That spirit requires it's own set of music that is not played in other parts of the year.

It requires it's own set of decorations that are not up other times of the year.

Why does this "remembrance" require such a complete regearing of the worship we give to God the other 11 months out of the year?

It also brings with it, most people trying to be kinder and more giving. You know, the way we are SUPPOSE to be all year long.

More than that, it is because our SAVIOR was born, our redemption has come.

[Digging4Truth]

It also brings with it, most people trying to be kinder and more giving. You know, the way we are SUPPOSE to be all year long.

More than that, it is because our SAVIOR was born, our redemption has come.

Those are two good statements but they are true (or should be) all year long and yet we must completely change gears this time of year.

We remember his death and yet, while we may choose songs in keeping with the theme, they are songs we sing all year around. No special tree... it doesn't require this annual reconstruction of our worship that Christmas does.

[Cindy]

Those are two good statements but they are true (or should be) all year long and yet we must completely change gears this time of year.

We remember his death and yet, while we may choose songs in keeping with the theme, they are songs we sing all year around. No special tree... it doesn't require this annual reconstruction of our worship that Christmas does.

I don't think I can answer the question, except His birth was the Promise fulfilled. The long awaited Messiah for the Jews, and yet He adopted the whole world.

[missourimary]

The decorations are part of a long series of traditions from various parts of the world. For instance, evergreens were brought indoors during the season during the Middle Ages in Europe to lessen the stench associated with too many unwashed bodies and too-long closed windows. (Brides originally carried a bouquet to cover foul scents too.) Some of the older songs were used to teach the Bible story of Christmas at a time when many people couldn't read, too.

Over the years, Christmas has kept it's traditions and songs and become romanticized. So has Easter, but Easter tends to decorate itself with fresh flowers and such, and we tend to use and remember it's tree (the cross) all year. In Europe, where there is no Thanksgiving celebration, Christmas was a day of feasting, warmth and visiting, of thinking of others, and of having a holiday during the long, cold, dark winter.

My guess is that there are more decorations, romanticization, and sentimentalism because Christmas falls in one of the harshest months of the year. It's decorations are brought indoors and crafted, rather than being natural like Easter's, and we've used more and more of them in our celebrations to brighten what used to otherwise be a cold, dreary season. The decorations, stories, songs, gifts and family time have helped to make it a more sentimental and romantic holiday.

[sandie]

The decorations are part of a long series of traditions from various parts of the world. For instance, evergreens were brought indoors during the season during the Middle Ages in Europe to lessen the stench associated with too many unwashed bodies and too-long closed windows. (Brides originally carried a bouquet to cover foul scents too.) Some of the older songs were used to teach the Bible story of Christmas at a time when many people couldn't read, too.

Over the years, Christmas has kept it's traditions and songs and become romanticized. So has Easter, but Easter tends to decorate itself with fresh flowers and such, and we tend to use and remember it's tree (the cross) all year. In Europe, where there is no Thanksgiving celebration, Christmas was a day of feasting, warmth and visiting, of thinking of others, and of having a holiday during the long, cold, dark winter.

My guess is that there are more decorations, romanticization, and sentimentalism because Christmas falls in one of the harshest months of the year. It's decorations are brought indoors and crafted, rather than being natural like Easter's, and we've used more and more of them in our celebrations to brighten what used to otherwise be a cold, dreary season. The decorations, stories, songs, gifts and family time have helped to make it a more sentimental and romantic holiday.

That's probably as good an explanation as I've ever read.

The only down side I see to this celebration is that it can exaggerate difficult times. If you can't afford all the trimmings it can be very painful.

[Timmy]

This time of year has what is referred to as the "Christmas Spirit".

That spirit requires it's own set of music that is not played in other parts of the year.

It requires it's own set of decorations that are not up other times of the year.

Why does this "remembrance" require such a complete regearing of the worship we give to God the other 11 months out of the year?

Because we've always done it that way! :grumpy

[missourimary]

That's probably as good an explanation as I've ever read.

The only down side I see to this celebration is that it can exaggerate difficult times. If you can't afford all the trimmings it can be very painful.

Thanks.

The commercialism is hard to avoid. That's true of other holidays too, but it's especially true of Christmas, and that's sad.

Guess that's part of what I like the best about Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and "The Gift of the Magi". I relate. The Cratchets and the couple in "Magi" seem to have nothing, yet what they have is priceless.

[sandie]

Thanks.

The commercialism is hard to avoid. That's true of other holidays too, but it's especially true of Christmas, and that's sad.

Guess that's part of what I like the best about Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and "The Gift of the Magi". I relate. The Cratchets and the couple in "Magi" seem to have nothing, yet what they have is priceless.

YW.

I love those two stories. I just wish it could be understood what truly is priceless. But, then what would we do on "black friday". LOL

[Sam]

...
My guess is that there are more decorations, romanticization, and sentimentalism because Christmas falls in one of the harshest months of the year. It's decorations are brought indoors and crafted, rather than being natural like Easter's, and we've used more and more of them in our celebrations to brighten what used to otherwise be a cold, dreary season. The decorations, stories, songs, gifts and family time have helped to make it a more sentimental and romantic holiday.

It is my understanding that the December 25 date is three days after the solstice which is the shortest day of the year in Europe. The day represented the birth of the sun god and was transferred over to apply to the birth of the Son of God.

I remember hearing somewhere of a missionary, I think it was St. Boniface, who told the druids that their god was like the oak tree which died but the Christian God was like the evergreen which was always alive/green.

[Sam]

God’s Christmas Gift

It’s that time of the year again when we in North America celebrate the biggest winter celebration of all. We call it Christmas. It is a great time of the year and we celebrate it in various ways. We celebrate with religious observances with Church services and programs. We celebrate in a secular way with gifts to each other and with food and parties and family get togethers. We celebrate with giving to others and to charitable agencies more than we do all year. And we celebrate socially by spending time with family and friends.

Christmas has it detractors. The name “Christmas” comes from a Roman Catholic celebration called “Christ’s Mass.” The date on which we celebrate probably comes from the time of the winter solstice when the birth of the “sun god” was celebrated centuries ago. Many years ago pagan customs came into the church as the church was elevated to a place of prominence in the Roman Empire and some of those customs are still part of our culture today like in the names we use for the months and for the days on our calendars and for some of our holidays and religious festivals.

I like Christmas. I like the way the attitudes of many people change to become more caring and more generous. I know it’s easy to get carried away with the many activities and some times we stretch our budgets and stretch our physical and emotional strength beyond what we should, but we often wind up with fond memories of the season.

We don’t know for sure when Jesus was born. Folks who work with the old Jewish calendar and the cycle of the priesthood and service of the Temple have come up with a date which would fall some time in our autumn time frame. The actual day is not important. What is important is that our God sent us a special gift over 2000 years ago. That gift arrived in a stable or animal shelter in Bethlehem in the form of a child given to a Jewish couple. The baby was different from all others before or since. He had a Jewish mother but God Himself was the Father. The baby was wrapped in “swaddling clothes” instead of bright gift wrap. The baby was the Word made flesh. God, the eternal Spirit, wrapped Himself in a body of flesh. God, all the while remaining God and not losing His Deity, took on a human nature and the person we know as Jesus Christ is Emmanuel --God with us.

Some 33 years after that birth, the Son of God was crucified. God’s special gift was hung on a tree. So when you look at your Christmas tree and admire the lights and ornaments, think of a rugged cross on a hill outside Jerusalem thousands of years ago where our special Christmas Gift was nailed to a tree to bring salvation to you and to me. When you exchange gifts with one another think of the gift of eternal life which our God has given us. And when you wonder what you might give Him, remember His request in Proverbs 23:26 where He says, “My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.”

[*AQuietPlace*]

I don't reconstruct the way I worship. Christmas is just a time of celebration and feasting. It's good to take some time in life to have special celebrations.

[Digging4Truth]

I don't reconstruct the way I worship. Christmas is just a time of celebration and feasting. It's good to take some time in life to have special celebrations.

No change in songs?
No tree?
No change in giving?

[houston]

No change in songs?
No tree?
No change in giving?

NO!

[Digging4Truth]

NO!

Goodness.

How emphatic.

Are houston & AQuietPlace one and the same?

[Cindy]

Goodness.

How emphatic.

Are houston & AQuietPlace one and the same?

No!

[houston]

Goodness.

How emphatic.

Are houston & AQuietPlace one and the same?

See post #14.

[missourimary]

No change in songs?
No tree?
No change in giving?

I sing Christmas songs. They remind me of Jesus' birth and the gift He gave us.
This is the first Christmas in my adult life that I'll have a tree. The tree for me symbolizes life, renewal, and peace, but I never had one before because I didn't want to offend. This year I don't have any friends who'd be offended.
My family searches out gifts for each other-intended to be given at Christmas-throughout the year. So although we give them at this time of year, we consider each other throughout the year as a result of a simple Christmas tradition.

[*AQuietPlace*]

No change in songs?
No tree?
No change in giving?
I'm really not getting your connection between these things and a change in worship. My worship to God is the same year round. But, at certain times of the year we take the time to really celebrate.

I love my husband year round, but on our anniversary we do something really special to celebrate our love.

I love my kids year round, but on their birthdays we do something really special to celebrate them.

I'm thankful year round, but on Thanksgiving it's a day that is especially set aside to stop and reflect on my many blessings.

Just because we ramp it up for a special occasion doesn't make the events or feelings meaningless the rest of the year. There is nothing at all wrong with celebrations. They're a good thing. :)

[Digging4Truth]

See post #14.

That just seemed like quite an emphatic answer for someone who had not made a post in the thread up to that point.

[Praxeas]

It also brings with it, most people trying to be kinder and more giving. You know, the way we are SUPPOSE to be all year long.

More than that, it is because our SAVIOR was born, our redemption has come.
Kinder to their families and friends?

[*AQuietPlace*]

That just seemed like quite an emphatic answer for someone who had not made a post in the thread up to that point.
If I'm going to be emphatic, I'll do it under my own screen name. :D

[Digging4Truth]

If I'm going to be emphatic, I'll do it under my own screen name. :D

I have no doubt. :)

[Cindy]

Kinder to their families and friends?

Sometimes to strangers.

[houston]

If I'm going to be emphatic, I'll do it under my own screen name. :D

:ursofunny

[houston]

Everyday is Christmas..

[Pilgrum]

Bah humbug! :) Christmas is all about $$$$$$$$$$$. :bargain

Actually,
"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."(Rom 14:5)

[*AQuietPlace*]

Actually,
"One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."(Rom 14:5)


:thumbsup

[houston]

christmas... when christians everywhere become catholic for a season...

[Truthseeker]

This time of year has what is referred to as the "Christmas Spirit".

That spirit requires it's own set of music that is not played in other parts of the year.

It requires it's own set of decorations that are not up other times of the year.

Why does this "remembrance" require such a complete regearing of the worship we give to God the other 11 months out of the year?

It's a superficial fakelike spirit.

[*AQuietPlace*]

It's a superficial fakelike spirit.
Mine's not. ;)

I genuinely feel extremely joyful and happy this time of year. Not the presents - don't care about those, we even talked about not doing them this year - but the bright colors, beautiful lights, happy music, wonderful smells... it just makes me cheerful and happy.

[Digging4Truth]

christmas... when christians everywhere become catholic for a season...

:thumbsup

[Cindy]

I don't fake anything about Christmas, nor am I Catholic. We do read scripture, and not just Luke 2. I love getting together with my family, loving, sharing gifts, feasting, laughing, singing, etc.

[Truthseeker]

Denial first sign of fakeness. :)

[Digging4Truth]

Denial first sign of fakeness. :)

:ursofunny:spit:ursofunny

[Cindy]

Denial first sign of fakeness. :)

Shup!!! :ursofunny

[Cindy]

The only problem I have with it, is that football always interferes with the celebration. :foottap

[Digging4Truth]

The only problem I have with it, is that football always interferes with the celebration. :foottap

Well... since we haven't celebrated Christmas since 1994 football isn't much of a factor for us there.

But... I never caught the football bug. My dad & brothers are all into it. I never cared much for it. If I have a "dog in the race" such as the local football team in the playoffs... or someone I know is involved etc... I can get into a game. But it has to be something that draws me to it. I don't have any interest beyond that.

[mfblume]

I used to be in the not-celebrate-Christmas thing, but realized it was somewhat hooey. No offence intended. All these pagan accusations are really moot today. No one views Christmas as a pagan act in honouring false gods. When the heart intends nothing towards any false god, but simply having a fun time with friends and family, God does not judge us for worshiping false gods by having fun. He knows the intents of the heart.

Y'all who refuse to celebrate Christmas need to leave that concept and simply enjoy the time as a time with family and friends and presents!

My two cents' worth. lol

[sandie]

I used to be in the not-celebrate-Christmas thing, but realized it was somewhat hooey. No offence intended. All these pagan accusations are really moot today. No one views Christmas as a pagan act in honouring false gods. When the heart intends nothing towards any false god, but simply having a fun time with friends and family, God does not judge us for worshiping false gods by having fun. He knows the intents of the heart.

Y'all who refuse to celebrate Christmas need to leave that concept and simply enjoy the time as a time with family and friends and presents!

My two cents' worth. lol

:thumbsup

[Digging4Truth]

I used to be in the not-celebrate-Christmas thing, but realized it was somewhat hooey. No offence intended. All these pagan accusations are really moot today. No one views Christmas as a pagan act in honouring false gods. When the heart intends nothing towards any false god, but simply having a fun time with friends and family, God does not judge us for worshiping false gods by having fun. He knows the intents of the heart.

Y'all who refuse to celebrate Christmas need to leave that concept and simply enjoy the time as a time with family and friends and presents!

My two cents' worth. lol

You are saying that those of us who do not celebrate the holiday need to no longer hold to... or leave... the concept? We need to cease our refraining from the holiday?

It seems that is what you are saying but I want to clarify.

[Truthseeker]

Its' fleshly fun that makes folks feel fuzzy inside.

[mfblume]

You are saying that those of us who do not celebrate the holiday need to no longer hold to... or leave... the concept? We need to cease our refraining from the holiday?

It seems that is what you are saying but I want to clarify.

I am just saying that if one is refraining from it due to pagan origins, one should not refrain since the pagan origin is not an issue when the intentions of people enjoying the day are simply to have fun with family and friends. I am saying if people think God is looking down on them for christmas trees and gifts, because some ancient rites started that trend, when in reality the people today are not intending any worship to any false god, they are wrong in thinking God is looking down on them for this.

It is not a holy-day (holiday), but simply a time of gifts and fun with my family. I think it's a shame people rob their families of this. I think it is extreme legalism to say we should not reach down and put a gift beneath a christmas tree, when all we are intending is to leave a gift for someone, just because it looks like we're bowing down to an idol. If I speak the word "Monday" on the second day of the week, and do not intend to be honouring any moon god on that day, but just entitling that twenty four hour period by the common title, that is no different than reaching down and putting a gift beneath a christmas tree and not intended any sacrifice to any tree idol. God sees the intents of the heart and knows if it is false worship or not.

How more legalistic can one get than by saying the outward similarity of an action of worship, done without an ounce of intention for any such worship, is judged by God as false worship?

If that is not your concept, then my thoughts do not apply to you. :D

[mfblume]

Its' fleshly fun that makes folks feel fuzzy inside.

What's wrong with that? :D

I like the fuzzy feeling with throwing a frisbee in the air with my son!

This no-Christmas deal is just another legalism that needs to be dropped like some of the unbiblical standards people abide by.

[Truthseeker]

What's wrong with that? :D

I like the fuzzy feeling with throwing a frisbee in the air with my son!

This no-Christmas deal is just another legalism that needs to be dropped like some of the unbiblical standards people abide by.

Not partaking with pagan customs is legalism??? Wow. I"M A LEGALIST!!! OH praise him!:thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

I am just saying that if one is refraining from it due to pagan origins, one should not refrain since the pagan origin is not an issue when the intentions of people enjoying the day are simply to have fun with family and friends. I am saying if people think God is looking down on them for christmas trees and gifts, because some ancient rites started that trend, when in reality the people today are not intending any worship to any false god, they are wrong in thinking God is looking down on them for this.

It is not a holy-day (holiday), but simply a time of gifts and fun with my family. I think it's a shame people rob their families of this. I think it is extreme legalism to say we should not reach down and put a gift beneath a christmas tree, when all we are intending is to leave a gift for someone, just because it looks like we're bowing down to an idol. If I speak the word "Monday" on the second day of the week, and do not intend to be honouring any moon god on that day, but just entitling that twenty four hour period by the common title, that is no different than reaching down and putting a gift beneath a christmas tree and not intended any sacrifice to any tree idol. God sees the intents of the heart and knows if it is false worship or not.

How more legalistic can one get than by saying the outward similarity of an action of worship, done without an ounce of intention for any such worship, is judged by God as false worship?

If that is not your concept, then my thoughts do not apply to you. :D

One can have idolatry without conscious intent. Ever met someone whose car was their idol? They never bow to it saying oh car i worship thee.

[mfblume]

Not partaking with pagan customs is legalism??? Wow. I"M A LEGALIST!!! OH praise him!:thumbsup

Now THAT is twisting what I said. Legalism is not the lack of partaking of anything, but the accusation against others of false worship when they intended no worship to anything.

You totally missed my point! It is not an affront to God to do things WITH NO INTENTION OF PAGAN WORSHIP or unbalanced adoration. It is legalistic to say God judges a person for false worship when the person did an action SIMILAR in appearance to ancient false worship without any intention to worship any false god.

[mfblume]

One can have idolatry without conscious intent. Ever met someone whose car was their idol? They never bow to it saying oh car i worship thee.

Making a car an idol is consciously adoring something. That is apples and oranges to enjoying gift giving. No one is worshiping anything when they give gifts at Christmas and decorate their homes, compared to idolizing a car. Putting a gift beneath a tree is nothing like worship. It is placing a box where people expect to retrieve them and open them. lol How is THAT anything similar to idolizing a car?

[mfblume]

I said, "If I speak the word "Monday" on the second day of the week, and do not intend to be honouring any moon god on that day, but just entitling that twenty four hour period by the common title, that is no different than reaching down and putting a gift beneath a christmas tree and not intended any sacrifice to any tree idol. God sees the intents of the heart and knows if it is false worship or not." Let me clarify that. Hollering the name of the MOON on the second day of the week was honouring the moon god in ancient times on MONDAY. Does that mean hollering the word "MONDAY" on Monday means we are worshiping the moon god simply because we are doing something SIMILAR to what they did in false worship? No. By the same token it is not bowing in worship of an idol just because we lean down and put a gift beneath a decorated tree. What's the difference?

Anyway, y'all can think what you want. :thumbsup

[Digging4Truth]

If that is not your concept, then my thoughts do not apply to you. :D


Okay... thanks.

I am an odd cookie in the realm of non christmas practicing Christians. I have never attended a church that preached against christmas in my life and I participated in the holiday until my early 30's. My eldest daughter had her last christmas when she was 2 years old. My other 2 have never participated in the holiday.

The interesting thing, to me, is that when my daughter was 2 and Christmas was nearing my wife and I had been so busy writing, producing & putting on the Christmas play at the church that we had not found the time to buy a tree and it was December 24th. We finally decided that, even at that late hour, we would see if we could find a tree.

We did... and we decorated it etc and at the behest of my MIL who told us we'd better go out and get that baby some presents... we did so. (She didn't show much interest in the presents but she did LOVE the cardboard boxes they came in. :) )

As I stated I had never been in a church that preached against christmas. I had always celebrated christmas and had never had a thought in my mind that we should do anything but celebrate christmas.

That evening as we sat in our living room with the lights out, music playing and the christmas lights blinking I uttered a phrase so matter of factly that it really escaped our notice at that time. I sat there and said "Someday this will be as wrong for us as halloween is today."

That was our last Christmas. A series of circumstances began to come into motion beginning in February of the next year that led to us never picking up the practice again. I have to admit that in the infancy of my conviction the pagan origins were the basis that I focused on. There was a need built in that it be a sin... and wrong... because in Christianity we don't hold convictions that won't send us to hell. We do everything that doesn't send us to hell.

But over the years my conviction and love for the conviction has grown, deepened and centered itself to where I am today.

I am free. (Please... no one need to make a comment on that... this is just a statement of how I feel)

When I watch the chaos and madness of the season I am increasingly glad the hold on me is no longer there. It is frustrating that you can't go buy a wrench because of the huge masses of people and I can't even listen to good ole contemporary christian music on the way there.

My parents fought me tooth & toe nail but now state that I couldn't drag them back kicking and screaming. I am thankful for the freedom we have from the craziness that is inherent with the celebration. I get together with my family because we all have time off. I also get together with them in the summer some time and we always have fun... it's just the result of family getting together.

Some people used to smoke cigarettes and if they say "I am free" it isn't because they don't smoke anymore. It is because they don't smoke anymore AND they don't want to smoke anymore.

If one doesn't smoke anymore and yet still want to smoke... they are smoke free... but they aren't yet free. People who refrain from celebrating and yet still yearn to celebrate will seldom ever be free.

They may be free from certain practices.
They may be free from created unnecessary debt.
They may be free from a list of required gift giving.

But until one is free from the desire... one is never free.

I repeat... I am free. And it is a wonderful feeling.

I don't require anyone else follow in my footsteps and I don't condemn those who don't follow in my footsteps. God led me here. Not man... not condemnation... not even hell, fire & brimstone preaching.

And as I look around I have to give Him thanks because this is a beautiful place where I reside and I could have never, ever found it on my own.

[Sam]

It's a superficial fakelike spirit.

not always.

I think you are painting with too broad a brush.

:grampa

[Sam]

The only problem I have with it, is that football always interferes with the celebration. :foottap

some people think that the celebration interferes with football

[Sam]

Our church auditorium has been decorated for Christmas with greenery, etc. and a Christmas tree on the platform. I have no problem with that. Actually, I like it.

I believe that things like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Birthdays, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, etc fall into the Romans chapter 14 category.

[Digging4Truth]

Our church auditorium has been decorated for Christmas with greenery, etc. and a Christmas tree on the platform. I have no problem with that. Actually, I like it.

I believe that things like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Birthdays, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, etc fall into the Romans chapter 14 category.

What decorations would you like if they decorated the platform for halloween next year.

[mfblume]

...fall into the Romans chapter 14 category.

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 got me, as well. If Paul ate meat offered to idols, and it was only eating food to him... go figure.

[Sam]

What decorations would you like if they decorated the platform for halloween next year.

good question.
Our church does "Trunk of Treat" on Halloween.
My wife and I stay home and give out candy to the neighborhood kids.
We don't include tracts in goodie bags but I would have no problem with it.

Some churches have like a "haunted house" to try to scare the hell out of people.

[missourimary]

My church recreated Narnia this Halloween and had a special night for children in the area in a safe setting. Each game they played had a Biblical emphasis, as well as a treat. Sam, there are three trees on our platform right now. I got to help decorate them.

[Digging4Truth]

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 got me, as well. If Paul ate meat offered to idols, and it was only eating food to him... go figure.

I will comment on this. I'm not looking for an argument but I see this applied often and I don't think that the application is true to the intent of the scripture nor to the point being made.

The scripture speaks of eating meat offered to idols and that it isn't a problem but if someone is weak then we should refrain from it for their sakes... in so many words.

Now I am aware of Brother Blume's notion that these practices have been in christianity so long that their pagan origins are no longer an issue but I am simply speaking to the inference that was made by him on these scriptures.

So... let's label a few things.

Meat offered to idols... this is a by product of a pagan practice... a food product which is solely there because of a pagan practice.

Offerings to idols... these are ACTUAL pagan practices.

I can go into this deeper but I am going to try and keep this short. So lets get straight to the point and I'll see if I can bypass lengthy discussion.

Paul is not saying taking part in pagan rituals or practices is okay. Paul would never say... if we worship God by making sacrifices like the pagans do that's okay unless your weaker brother has a problem with it then you should refrain. He is making that statement at all.

And yet the things we discuss along the lines of christmas are discussions of actual pagan practices that were "converted" to christianity.

If we were to take what Paul said and apply it to something that we could relate to today it would be this...

It's okay to buy halloween candy as long as it isn't an offense to your weaker brother. We all know that it's nothing but candy and there is no harm in eating it... it even goes on sale REAL cheap right after halloween. But if your brother is offended then you would do well to refrain.

This is in direct keeping with what Paul was saying. He is saying this is a byproduct of a pagan practice. You aren't taking part in the practice you are just taking part in the great food prices brought about by said paganism.

To say that Paul was saying that the practice itself is okay is beyond the scope, intent and purpose of the statement Paul was making.

[Sam]

...
It's okay to buy halloween candy as long as it isn't an offense to your weaker brother. We all know that it's nothing but candy and there is no harm in eating it... it even goes on sale REAL cheap right after halloween. But if your brother is offended then you would do well to refrain.

This is in direct keeping with what Paul was saying. He is saying this is a byproduct of a pagan practice. You aren't taking part in the practice you are just taking part in the great food prices brought about by said paganism.

To say that Paul was saying that the practice itself is okay is beyond the scope, intent and purpose of the statement Paul was making.

I struggle with how to practice that because some Christians are offended by just about everything. For a while I took off my wedding ring and would not look at the television in my own home for fear of offending people. The only person who was offended was my wife and she was offended because I quit wearing my ring. I don't know how to practice that in a "moderate" way because I know Christians who will not go to doctors or take medicine; will not watch tv; will not wear jewelry; believe baptism should be done outside in running water; believe "Jesus Christ" (nothing more nor nothing less) should be spoken at baptism; plus other stuff.

A few months ago I traveled three hours to a hospital in another state to meet some brethren and pray for someone. All of us are Apostolic and go to different churches. I wear shorts in the summer time but I wore long pants that day. Before a couple of the others arrived I mentioned to a young man there (Bill) that I had just met there for the first time that since I was coming to pray in a hospital and since a Bishop (Kennie) would be there I did not wear shorts because I did not want to offend anyone. This young man (Bill) later mentioned what I had told him about the shorts when he (Bill), the Bishop (Kennie), the young man we came to pray for, (Chuck) and I were all together in the hospital chapel. I had only met the Bishop once and had only met the young man we were praying for once. The young man that mentioned my not wearing shorts did it in a kidding way to sort of embarrass me. The Bishop said, "Well, my girlfriend does not want me to wear shorts." This Bishop is 62 years old. He is Oneness Apostolic. His wife died and he is now going with a woman who it trinity. I was kinda glad to hear that he has worn shorts but doesn't now because his girl friend doesn't like it. I have taught Wednesday night Bible study at our home church while wearing shorts, sandals, and a tee shirt but when I went to an OP church in August to preach I wore long pants. Some may think this is hypocritical but I'm not sure just how to apply the principal of not offending.

[missourimary]

D4T, following through with what you've said, taking the day off is acknowledgement of a pagan holiday. Those who don't celebrate such holidays surely shouldn't take the day off, since the holiday is not a by-product of the idolatry, but is part of the idolatry itself.

[missourimary]

Sam, I would offend some people just by breathing. I try not to cause offense to reasonable people, or by pushing what I believe off onto others, whether they are reasonable or not.

[Digging4Truth]

D4T, following through with what you've said, taking the day off is acknowledgment of a pagan holiday. Those who don't celebrate such holidays surely shouldn't take the day off, since the holiday is not a by-product of the idolatry, but is part of the idolatry itself.

And I even sense that you are serious. Amazing.

No ma'am.

The offices to where I work are closed and locked and no one is there. I would be risking jail to go to work on that day.

The suggestion in this post is reminiscent of the people you speak of in the post below.

Sam, I would offend some people just by breathing. I try not to cause offense to reasonable people, or by pushing what I believe off onto others, whether they are reasonable or not.


If my office closes on halloween and calls it Samhain that has nothing to do with what I practice and recognize. The offices are closed.

Now... if I go home and set up an altar to Samhain... at that point... you are right. But don't worry. It ain't happening.

[missourimary]

And I even sense that you are serious. Amazing.


I wasn't serious about not taking the holiday off. It was TIC. However, it does follow fairly well with some lines of thinking that I've been exposed to.
There really are people who are offended by my existence though. I won't stop existing because they take offense that I do.

[Digging4Truth]

I wasn't serious about not taking the holiday off. It was TIC. However, it does follow fairly well with some lines of thinking that I've been exposed to.
There really are people who are offended by my existence though. I won't stop existing because they take offense that I do.

Yes ma'am.

I would hope that this does not follow with my line of thinking.

[missourimary]

I don't think it does, D4T. Your reasons for not celebrating are a lot different than theirs.

[Sabby]

I am just saying that if one is refraining from it due to pagan origins, one should not refrain since the pagan origin is not an issue when the intentions of people enjoying the day are simply to have fun with family and friends. I am saying if people think God is looking down on them for christmas trees and gifts, because some ancient rites started that trend, when in reality the people today are not intending any worship to any false god, they are wrong in thinking God is looking down on them for this.

It is not a holy-day (holiday), but simply a time of gifts and fun with my family. I think it's a shame people rob their families of this. I think it is extreme legalism to say we should not reach down and put a gift beneath a christmas tree, when all we are intending is to leave a gift for someone, just because it looks like we're bowing down to an idol. If I speak the word "Monday" on the second day of the week, and do not intend to be honouring any moon god on that day, but just entitling that twenty four hour period by the common title, that is no different than reaching down and putting a gift beneath a christmas tree and not intended any sacrifice to any tree idol. God sees the intents of the heart and knows if it is false worship or not.

How more legalistic can one get than by saying the outward similarity of an action of worship, done without an ounce of intention for any such worship, is judged by God as false worship?

If that is not your concept, then my thoughts do not apply to you. :D

When I was in Bible college a well-known preacher was added to the college staff to correct (his words)some doctrinal problems the school was accused of having.
One day in the cafeteria, I was twisting the stem off an apple saying the letters of the alphabet after each turn. Completely innocent. This spiritual giant made it a point to tell me that "In Kenya, this is occultic". My response to him was I wasn't in Kenya and to lighten up.
Sometimes people just have to give unsolicited opinions when they'd be better off keeping to themselves.


Now I'm going to go to the Mt Hood Forest and chop down a tree for Christmas! The bigger the better. (and hopefully has a spotted owl or two in it! lol)

[Timmy]

. . .
There really are people who are offended by my existence though. . . .

I know the feeling. :toofunny

[missourimary]

I know the feeling. :toofunny

:spit

[Truthseeker]

Making a car an idol is consciously adoring something. That is apples and oranges to enjoying gift giving. No one is worshiping anything when they give gifts at Christmas and decorate their homes, compared to idolizing a car. Putting a gift beneath a tree is nothing like worship. It is placing a box where people expect to retrieve them and open them. lol How is THAT anything similar to idolizing a car?

Point being there's no intent to worshop the car. Remember, it's not idolatory if no intent as you say.

[Truthseeker]

I said, "If I speak the word "Monday" on the second day of the week, and do not intend to be honouring any moon god on that day, but just entitling that twenty four hour period by the common title, that is no different than reaching down and putting a gift beneath a christmas tree and not intended any sacrifice to any tree idol. God sees the intents of the heart and knows if it is false worship or not." Let me clarify that. Hollering the name of the MOON on the second day of the week was honouring the moon god in ancient times on MONDAY. Does that mean hollering the word "MONDAY" on Monday means we are worshiping the moon god simply because we are doing something SIMILAR to what they did in false worship? No. By the same token it is not bowing in worship of an idol just because we lean down and put a gift beneath a decorated tree. What's the difference?

Anyway, y'all can think what you want. :thumbsup

Days of the weak is such a weak defense, we can't help the name of the days of the week, but we don't have to partake of pagan customs.

[Truthseeker]

Okay... thanks.

I am an odd cookie in the realm of non christmas practicing Christians. I have never attended a church that preached against christmas in my life and I participated in the holiday until my early 30's. My eldest daughter had her last christmas when she was 2 years old. My other 2 have never participated in the holiday.

The interesting thing, to me, is that when my daughter was 2 and Christmas was nearing my wife and I had been so busy writing, producing & putting on the Christmas play at the church that we had not found the time to buy a tree and it was December 24th. We finally decided that, even at that late hour, we would see if we could find a tree.

We did... and we decorated it etc and at the behest of my MIL who told us we'd better go out and get that baby some presents... we did so. (She didn't show much interest in the presents but she did LOVE the cardboard boxes they came in. :) )

As I stated I had never been in a church that preached against christmas. I had always celebrated christmas and had never had a thought in my mind that we should do anything but celebrate christmas.

That evening as we sat in our living room with the lights out, music playing and the christmas lights blinking I uttered a phrase so matter of factly that it really escaped our notice at that time. I sat there and said "Someday this will be as wrong for us as halloween is today."

That was our last Christmas. A series of circumstances began to come into motion beginning in February of the next year that led to us never picking up the practice again. I have to admit that in the infancy of my conviction the pagan origins were the basis that I focused on. There was a need built in that it be a sin... and wrong... because in Christianity we don't hold convictions that won't send us to hell. We do everything that doesn't send us to hell.

But over the years my conviction and love for the conviction has grown, deepened and centered itself to where I am today.

I am free. (Please... no one need to make a comment on that... this is just a statement of how I feel)

When I watch the chaos and madness of the season I am increasingly glad the hold on me is no longer there. It is frustrating that you can't go buy a wrench because of the huge masses of people and I can't even listen to good ole contemporary christian music on the way there.

My parents fought me tooth & toe nail but now state that I couldn't drag them back kicking and screaming. I am thankful for the freedom we have from the craziness that is inherent with the celebration. I get together with my family because we all have time off. I also get together with them in the summer some time and we always have fun... it's just the result of family getting together.

Some people used to smoke cigarettes and if they say "I am free" it isn't because they don't smoke anymore. It is because they don't smoke anymore AND they don't want to smoke anymore.

If one doesn't smoke anymore and yet still want to smoke... they are smoke free... but they aren't yet free. People who refrain from celebrating and yet still yearn to celebrate will seldom ever be free.

They may be free from certain practices.
They may be free from created unnecessary debt.
They may be free from a list of required gift giving.

But until one is free from the desire... one is never free.

I repeat... I am free. And it is a wonderful feeling.

I don't require anyone else follow in my footsteps and I don't condemn those who don't follow in my footsteps. God led me here. Not man... not condemnation... not even hell, fire & brimstone preaching.

And as I look around I have to give Him thanks because this is a beautiful place where I reside and I could have never, ever found it on my own.

Great post. It is interesting some will stand against halloween but celebrate christmas.

[Truthseeker]

Our church auditorium has been decorated for Christmas with greenery, etc. and a Christmas tree on the platform. I have no problem with that. Actually, I like it.

I believe that things like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Birthdays, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, etc fall into the Romans chapter 14 category.

I don't remember none of that ion romans 14. Isn't talking about meats.

[Truthseeker]

Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 got me, as well. If Paul ate meat offered to idols, and it was only eating food to him... go figure.

Eating meats and pagan worship customs are not in the same boat.

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Since you guys want to compare christmas to meats would you stop celebrating it if I was part of your church if it offended me?


21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

[Truthseeker]

D4T, following through with what you've said, taking the day off is acknowledgement of a pagan holiday. Those who don't celebrate such holidays surely shouldn't take the day off, since the holiday is not a by-product of the idolatry, but is part of the idolatry itself.

I usually work. Some have no choice but to take off.

[RandyWayne]

Eating meats and pagan worship customs are not in the same boat.

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Since you guys want to compare christmas to meats would you stop celebrating it if I was part of your church if it offended me?


21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Interesting question. If we went to the same church and I was single, I would certainly not be in your face about it, nor invite you over to my house (since it would be decorated) since I knew it would offend you, but I would not stop celebrating. (Actually, the "single" part is somewhat irrelevant since I was going to make a point about my wife and kids celebrating takes precedent over you not celebrating. See example of the wedding ring below. But since I would celebrate regardless of whether I had a family or was single it doesn't matter my marital state. Either way I would not be "in YOUR face!" about it, as long as you weren't in mine.)

Likewise if you were offended by my wedding ring I would NOT take it off because my wife would be even more offended if I did so, and she takes precedent. (Just an example since I think I know your view on jewelry based on on the jewelry thread.)

[Truthseeker]

I will comment on this. I'm not looking for an argument but I see this applied often and I don't think that the application is true to the intent of the scripture nor to the point being made.

The scripture speaks of eating meat offered to idols and that it isn't a problem but if someone is weak then we should refrain from it for their sakes... in so many words.

Now I am aware of Brother Blume's notion that these practices have been in christianity so long that their pagan origins are no longer an issue but I am simply speaking to the inference that was made by him on these scriptures.

So... let's label a few things.

Meat offered to idols... this is a by product of a pagan practice... a food product which is solely there because of a pagan practice.

Offerings to idols... these are ACTUAL pagan practices.

I can go into this deeper but I am going to try and keep this short. So lets get straight to the point and I'll see if I can bypass lengthy discussion.

Paul is not saying taking part in pagan rituals or practices is okay. Paul would never say... if we worship God by making sacrifices like the pagans do that's okay unless your weaker brother has a problem with it then you should refrain. He is making that statement at all.

And yet the things we discuss along the lines of christmas are discussions of actual pagan practices that were "converted" to christianity.

If we were to take what Paul said and apply it to something that we could relate to today it would be this...

It's okay to buy halloween candy as long as it isn't an offense to your weaker brother. We all know that it's nothing but candy and there is no harm in eating it... it even goes on sale REAL cheap right after halloween. But if your brother is offended then you would do well to refrain.

This is in direct keeping with what Paul was saying. He is saying this is a byproduct of a pagan practice. You aren't taking part in the practice you are just taking part in the great food prices brought about by said paganism.

To say that Paul was saying that the practice itself is okay is beyond the scope, intent and purpose of the statement Paul was making.

Another great post. I wonder if it would be ok for those past pagans to keep preparing/offering up the meats as along as it's to honor Christ??? Kinda like how christmas was pagans bringing their customs over into the church.

[Truthseeker]

Interesting question. If we went to the same church and I was single, I would certainly not be in your face about it, nor invite you over to my house (since it would be decorated) since I knew it would offend you, but I would not stop celebrating. (Actually, the "single" part is somewhat irrelevant since I was going to make a point about my wife and kids celebrating takes precedent over you not celebrating. See example of the wedding ring below.)

Likewise if you were offended by my wedding ring I would NOT take it off because my wife would be even more offended if I did so, and she takes precedent. (Just an example since I think I know your view on jewelry based on on the jewelry thread.)

I just bring that out because they want to use the "meat" scriptures to compare to christmas, but if they're going to do that then they should go all the way with the scriptures by not partaking if one is offended like the scriptures state.

[mfblume]

Eating meats and pagan worship customs are not in the same boat.

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Since you guys want to compare christmas to meats would you stop celebrating it if I was part of your church if it offended me?

21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

I do not celebrate christmas in church.

But the issue is not different from eating meats offered to idols, because the reason people were offended was because eating it was in honour of the idol in pagan circles! And offences derived due to eating the meat showed a weakness in the one offended. So the stronger "conscienced" person is told to not offend such a person. In other words, do nothing in front of a weak-conscienced person, but do it when you are not around them. Those who claim they are offended are admitting they are weak and cannot serve God if they see someone offending them. I think it is not so much offense that is the issue but rather dealing with folks who cannot stand to think someone disagrees with them.

[mfblume]

I just bring that out because they want to use the "meat" scriptures to compare to christmas, but if they're going to do that then they should go all the way with the scriptures by not partaking if one is offended like the scriptures state.

Right. They should! And I stand by my statement. But is it really offense or just frustration due to disagreement?

[Truthseeker]

What is this saying:


That ye abstain from meats offered to idols

[RandyWayne]

I do not celebrate christmas in church.

But the issue is not different from eating meats offered to idols, because the reason people were offended was because eating it was in honour of the idol in pagan circles! And offences derived due to eating the meat showed a weakness in the one offended. So the stronger "conscienced" person is told to not offend such a person. In other words, do nothing in front of a weak-conscienced person, but do it when you are not around them. Those who claim they are offended are admitting they are weak and cannot serve God if they see someone offending them. I think it is not so much offense that is the issue but rather dealing with folks who cannot stand to think someone disagrees with them.

Bingo! Huge difference between someone who finds someone elses liberties an actual stumbling block to their walk with God versus a person who simply disagrees with another persons liberties and wants to set them straight.

[Truthseeker]

I do not celebrate christmas in church.

But the issue is not different from eating meats offered to idols, because the reason people were offended was because eating it was in honour of the idol in pagan circles! And offences derived due to eating the meat showed a weakness in the one offended. So the stronger "conscienced" person is told to not offend such a person. In other words, do nothing in front of a weak-conscienced person, but do it when you are not around them. Those who claim they are offended are admitting they are weak and cannot serve God if they see someone offending them. I think it is not so much offense that is the issue but rather dealing with folks who cannot stand to think someone disagrees with them.

Why wouldn't you celebrate CHRISTmas in church?

[mfblume]

What is this saying:


That ye abstain from meats offered to idols

This brings up an incredibly important point.

To whom is it referring? Gentiles.

Acts 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


And what did Paul later say?

1 Corinthians 8:4-7 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. (5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.


See verse 7? THAT is why Acts 15 forbade meats offered to idols because these newly saved Gentiles did not have the knowledge that meat is just meat, and they did not know that there is intrinsically nothing wrong with eating it, whether it is offered to an idol or not.

Once again, according to the context of Paul, the people offended by ANYTHING are weak in conscience and spiritually immature. The stronger in conscience and faith have to bear their infirmities and simply not do those things that offend the weak, but only when the weak are around. Otherwise we can have liberty to ourselves and do what we feel is not wrong to do while apart from the weak.

Are you saying you are weak and that someone else's liberty trips you up spiritually?

[mfblume]

Why wouldn't you celebrate CHRISTmas in church?

The question is actually why would I?

[mfblume]

Days of the weak is such a weak defense, we can't help the name of the days of the week, but we don't have to partake of pagan customs.

Same principle all around. So you are saying that what we cannot help, we do not have to deal with, despite identical pagan origins? THAT is inconsistent, I think.

[mfblume]

Bingo! Huge difference between someone who finds someone elses liberties an actual stumbling block to their walk with God versus a person who simply disagrees with another persons liberties and wants to set them straight.

That is the whole point! :thumbsup

[missourimary]

I see Christmas in two ways:
As a Christian holiday, remembering Jesus birth and the gift He gave us, and setting aside special time to give to others and consider them.
As a cultural holiday complete with reindeer and snowmen and elves.

I celebrate the Christian holiday at church. I celebrate the cultural holiday to some degree on my own. I'm not against either, but for me it wouldn't be much of a holiday if it didn't celebrate Jesus. Refusing to celebrate the cultural part isn't difficult for me. Refusing to celebrate the Christian part is.

[sandie]

Well, celebrating Christmas sure gets the secular athiest up in arms!
To even say Merry Christmas is this side of a four letter word.

So, I like to say it all the more. :heeheehee

[Sabby]

What is this saying:


That ye abstain from meats offered to idols

MB, it could be frustration due to disagreement.

The key to that scripture is "offered to idols"

What I do at Christmas time is not offered to idols, though I will confess to mailing cards, preparing a celebratory meal (in honor of the Lord Jesus) that my WHOLE family can partake of, and even wanting to bless my loved ones with gifts. My tree or stepping on a crack playing hopscotch, or twisting the stem off an apple...are not offered to idols.

I seem to recall a few years ago the doctrine of "offenses" being preached where standards and convictions such as these were preached, and those that were offended by them were considered the "weaker" brethren. One PK told me that "offenses will come" in the sense that it's inevitable that people will "fall away" due to the strong preaching of the word.

You've got a right to your opinion...and I have the right to my liberty in Christ. My liberty in Christ does not make me a "weaker" brother, btw, and neither does your conviction about Christmas make you the "stronger". It is simply your conviction. What you seem to be generalizing about is other people's MOTIVES for celebrating Christmas.

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. Romans 14:4

[mfblume]

Well, celebrating Christmas sure gets the secular athiest up in arms!
To even say Merry Christmas is this side of a four letter word.

So, I like to say it all the more. :heeheehee

Amen. The enemy is trying to eradicate Jesus from Christmas, so we need to push Jesus more and more at Christmastime.

[mfblume]

MB, it could be frustration due to disagreement.

The key to that scripture is "offered to idols"

What I do at Christmas time is not offered to idols, though I will confess to mailing cards, preparing a celebratory meal (in honor of the Lord Jesus) that my WHOLE family can partake of, and even wanting to bless my loved ones with gifts. My tree or stepping on a crack playing hopscotch, or twisting the stem off an apple...are not offered to idols.

Right.

[Sabby]

Amen. The enemy is trying to eradicate Jesus from Christmas, so we need to push Jesus more and more at Christmastime.

:thumbsup

[Sam]

I don't remember none of that ion romans 14. Isn't talking about meats.

food and days

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 got me, as well. If Paul ate meat offered to idols, and it was only eating food to him... go figure.

I will comment on this. I'm not looking for an argument but I see this applied often and I don't think that the application is true to the intent of the scripture nor to the point being made.

The scripture speaks of eating meat offered to idols and that it isn't a problem but if someone is weak then we should refrain from it for their sakes... in so many words.

Now I am aware of Brother Blume's notion that these practices have been in christianity so long that their pagan origins are no longer an issue but I am simply speaking to the inference that was made by him on these scriptures.

So... let's label a few things.

Meat offered to idols... this is a by product of a pagan practice... a food product which is solely there because of a pagan practice.

Offerings to idols... these are ACTUAL pagan practices.

I can go into this deeper but I am going to try and keep this short. So lets get straight to the point and I'll see if I can bypass lengthy discussion.

Paul is not saying taking part in pagan rituals or practices is okay. Paul would never say... if we worship God by making sacrifices like the pagans do that's okay unless your weaker brother has a problem with it then you should refrain. He is making that statement at all.

And yet the things we discuss along the lines of christmas are discussions of actual pagan practices that were "converted" to christianity.

If we were to take what Paul said and apply it to something that we could relate to today it would be this...

It's okay to buy halloween candy as long as it isn't an offense to your weaker brother. We all know that it's nothing but candy and there is no harm in eating it... it even goes on sale REAL cheap right after halloween. But if your brother is offended then you would do well to refrain.

This is in direct keeping with what Paul was saying. He is saying this is a byproduct of a pagan practice. You aren't taking part in the practice you are just taking part in the great food prices brought about by said paganism.

To say that Paul was saying that the practice itself is okay is beyond the scope, intent and purpose of the statement Paul was making.

Bumping for MB...

[Sam]

Let's remember that whether we are Grinches or Scrooges or pagans or heathens (heatherns?) here, we are all brothers and sisters who love the Lord and are doing our best to serve Him and lighten up on each other where we disagree.

[mfblume]

Meat offered to idols... this is a by product of a pagan practice... a food product which is solely there because of a pagan practice.

Offerings to idols... these are ACTUAL pagan practices.


Paul's point was that eating meats offered to idols was simply eating meats. In reality, there is one God, and for the person who knows that, eating the mets has no bearing on anything done wrong. Holidays are the same. Nothing is done in intending actual pagan worship.

[Digging4Truth]

Paul's point was that eating meats offered to idols was simply eating meats. In reality, there is one God, and for the person who knows that, eating the mets has no bearing on anything done wrong.

This is indeed what Paul was saying.

Holidays are the same. Nothing is done in intending actual pagan worship.

I don't see Paul saying this.

I don't see where he ever gave an okay concerning actual practices & rituals. Only to the use of the byproducts. This seems as clear as day.

But... you don't see it that way and that isn't going to change.

Dead subject.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Okay... thanks.

I am an odd cookie in the realm of non christmas practicing Christians. I have never attended a church that preached against christmas in my life and I participated in the holiday until my early 30's. My eldest daughter had her last christmas when she was 2 years old. My other 2 have never participated in the holiday.

The interesting thing, to me, is that when my daughter was 2 and Christmas was nearing my wife and I had been so busy writing, producing & putting on the Christmas play at the church that we had not found the time to buy a tree and it was December 24th. We finally decided that, even at that late hour, we would see if we could find a tree.

We did... and we decorated it etc and at the behest of my MIL who told us we'd better go out and get that baby some presents... we did so. (She didn't show much interest in the presents but she did LOVE the cardboard boxes they came in. :) )

As I stated I had never been in a church that preached against christmas. I had always celebrated christmas and had never had a thought in my mind that we should do anything but celebrate christmas.

That evening as we sat in our living room with the lights out, music playing and the christmas lights blinking I uttered a phrase so matter of factly that it really escaped our notice at that time. I sat there and said "Someday this will be as wrong for us as halloween is today."

That was our last Christmas. A series of circumstances began to come into motion beginning in February of the next year that led to us never picking up the practice again. I have to admit that in the infancy of my conviction the pagan origins were the basis that I focused on. There was a need built in that it be a sin... and wrong... because in Christianity we don't hold convictions that won't send us to hell. We do everything that doesn't send us to hell.

But over the years my conviction and love for the conviction has grown, deepened and centered itself to where I am today.

I am free. (Please... no one need to make a comment on that... this is just a statement of how I feel)

When I watch the chaos and madness of the season I am increasingly glad the hold on me is no longer there. It is frustrating that you can't go buy a wrench because of the huge masses of people and I can't even listen to good ole contemporary christian music on the way there.

My parents fought me tooth & toe nail but now state that I couldn't drag them back kicking and screaming. I am thankful for the freedom we have from the craziness that is inherent with the celebration. I get together with my family because we all have time off. I also get together with them in the summer some time and we always have fun... it's just the result of family getting together.

Some people used to smoke cigarettes and if they say "I am free" it isn't because they don't smoke anymore. It is because they don't smoke anymore AND they don't want to smoke anymore.

If one doesn't smoke anymore and yet still want to smoke... they are smoke free... but they aren't yet free. People who refrain from celebrating and yet still yearn to celebrate will seldom ever be free.

They may be free from certain practices.
They may be free from created unnecessary debt.
They may be free from a list of required gift giving.

But until one is free from the desire... one is never free.

I repeat... I am free. And it is a wonderful feeling.

I don't require anyone else follow in my footsteps and I don't condemn those who don't follow in my footsteps. God led me here. Not man... not condemnation... not even hell, fire & brimstone preaching.

And as I look around I have to give Him thanks because this is a beautiful place where I reside and I could have never, ever found it on my own.


I can respect this.

The thing that bothers me though (and not saying this necessarily applies to you D4T) is that it seems that people can't just feel that way about Christmas for themselves. They generally feel the need to belittle everyone else for partaking in, and enjoying, Christmas.

[Truthseeker]

food and days

We are not discussing days

[Cindy]

D4T, I have decided the answer to your question, it just is.

[houston]

I used to be in the not-celebrate-Christmas thing, but realized it was somewhat hooey. No offence intended. All these pagan accusations are really moot today. No one views Christmas as a pagan act in honouring false gods. When the heart intends nothing towards any false god, but simply having a fun time with friends and family, God does not judge us for worshiping false gods by having fun. He knows the intents of the heart.

Y'all who refuse to celebrate Christmas need to leave that concept and simply enjoy the time as a time with family and friends and presents!

My two cents' worth. lol

Well, as looong as it's fun! All that matters, right? Let's apply the bolded statement across the board.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[houston]

What decorations would you like if they decorated the platform for halloween next year.

jack o' lanterns on the altar!

[houston]

My church recreated Narnia this Halloween and had a special night for children in the area in a safe setting. Each game they played had a Biblical emphasis, as well as a treat. Sam, there are three trees on our platform right now. I got to help decorate them.

Ohhhhh!!!! the future of pentecost!!!!!!!!!!

[houston]

D4T, following through with what you've said, taking the day off is acknowledgement of a pagan holiday. Those who don't celebrate such holidays surely shouldn't take the day off, since the holiday is not a by-product of the idolatry, but is part of the idolatry itself.

Stupid thought... and show up to work at an empty building?

[Truthseeker]

Let's remember that whether we are Grinches or Scrooges or pagans or heathens (heatherns?) here, we are all brothers and sisters who love the Lord and are doing our best to serve Him and lighten up on each other where we disagree.

Can a heathen be a brother?

[mfblume]

Well, as looong as it's fun! All that matters, right? Let's apply the bolded statement across the board.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's a far cry from intending to serve God and never doing it, and intending not to worship a false god by putting a mere gift beneath a decorated tree. lol

Even cliches can be taken out of context.

[mfblume]

This is indeed what Paul was saying.



I don't see Paul saying this.

I don't see where he ever gave an okay concerning actual practices & rituals. Only to the use of the byproducts. This seems as clear as day.

But... you don't see it that way and that isn't going to change.

Dead subject.

D4T, you spoke of actual practices and mentioned worship in an actual ceremony. In such activities there is conscious effort to participate in religious ceremonies that are pagan. Every one involved in such ceremonies in the temples are there for the purposed reason of worship. How can that be applied to gift giving at Christmas? Rituals with long lost intent and purpose are not the same as you are trying to make them. There is no concerted conscious effort nor intention to worship anything. Paul spoke against any activity in a pagan temple, but aside from that, meats offered to idols are free to be eaten.

Anyway, like you said, you don't see it that way and that is not going to change.

[Sam]

We are not discussing days

Easter, Halloween, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. are days

[Sam]

Can a heathen be a brother?

I was using the terms Grinches and Scrooges for those who do not celebrate Christmas and I was using the words pagans and heathens for those who do celebrate Christmas.

[Truthseeker]

Easter, Halloween, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. are days

Yeah, but the customs/celebration is what being discussed not observing days.

[Truthseeker]

I was using the terms Grinches and Scrooges for those who do not celebrate Christmas and I was using the words pagans and heathens for those who do celebrate Christmas.

I know was just funnin around

[*AQuietPlace*]

Yeah, but the customs/celebration is what being discussed not observing days.
What does "observing days" mean? When you 'observe' a day, there is usually some type of custom or celebration involved.

[Digging4Truth]

I decided last night that I was finished with this thread but I have to chime in on this one.

The scripture that is being discussed mentions that some people esteem one day over another while others don't.

Now... please... surely none of us are of the opine that what is being said here is that... some of you keep pagan worship days and that's just okay with me.

You can all decide that once paganism has been a part of christianity for such a length of time it gets grandfathered in because people no longer "mean it" in a pagan way... but surely nobody in this forum is suggesting that Paul is saying... some people keep pagan days... some don't... but that is just beautiful.

Paul is the apostle to the gentile and what is being discussed is surely that some are judging the gentiles because they don't keep the Jewish holy days.

Please don't tell me that people are actually feeling that Paul is saying... hey... if those people do pagan rituals... don't go judgin'.

[missourimary]

I haven't kept up on the thread, but it seems the main underlying issue here is that some of us don't consider Christmas a pagan holiday and others do. Therefore, when verses are used that talk about "observing days" some say they didn't observe pagan days and others say it's widely known as a Christian holiday or that they are celebrating or commemorating Jesus' birth.

I don't think that, with that difference of opinion underlying the discussion, that everyone will ever come to agreement on this topic. It may be one of those things that we should agree to disagree on. :friend

[Digging4Truth]

I haven't kept up on the thread, but it seems the main underlying issue here is that some of us don't consider Christmas a pagan holiday and others do. Therefore, when verses are used that talk about "observing days" some say they didn't observe pagan days and others say it's widely known as a Christian holiday or that they are celebrating or commemorating Jesus' birth.

I don't think that, with that difference of opinion underlying the discussion, that everyone will ever come to agreement on this topic. It may be one of those things that we should agree to disagree on. :friend

I don't think that some consider christmas a pagan holiday is specifically correct. It is that we understand that the date, traditions etc of christmas were adapted from ancient pagan customs such as Saturnalia.

This includes the date... evergreen trees... yule logs... etc. These things were adapted from pagan worship.

[missourimary]

You can all decide that once paganism has been a part of christianity for such a length of time it gets grandfathered in because people no longer "mean it" in a pagan way... but surely nobody in this forum is suggesting that Paul is saying... some people keep pagan days... some don't... but that is just beautiful.

Paul is the apostle to the gentile and what is being discussed is surely that some are judging the gentiles because they don't keep the Jewish holy days.

Please don't tell me that people are actually feeling that Paul is saying... hey... if those people do pagan rituals... don't go judgin'.

I don't think that some consider christmas a pagan holiday is specifically correct.

:dunno

[Digging4Truth]

:dunno

What is your question?

The conclusion that the holiday is adapted paganism is foregone.

But some, apparently, feel that after a certain amount of time is past then this is no longer an issue.

Is there more info you need beyond that?

[mfblume]

What is your question?

The conclusion that the holiday is adapted paganism is foregone.

But some, apparently, feel that after a certain amount of time is past then this is no longer an issue.

Is there more info you need beyond that?

I think missourimary thought you contradicted yourself in the two quotes she made from you that she emboldened.

I thought your response to me earlier, saying you thanked me for my point that if the accusatory demeanor against those who have no intention of worshiping a false god is not in your assessment of us, then our words against such legalism did not apply to you. But now you mistaken our point with a strawman argument and claim we believe pagan practices are fine after a few centuries, when that is not our point at all.

It is not a matter of time passing that makes the activity moot in our minds. If that was true, then we are taking conscious effort to worship a false god and think we can still worship this false god after so many centuries, but not when the false worship was new, which is not what we are doing. This clearly shows you miss our point entirely.

It is the intentions of the people involved that make it moot when there is no inkling of worship or honour of false gods. Why does the Lord discern our thoughts and intents if He could care less what we intend, and judges us as pagans when we do something similar in activity for which we have no intention of honouring any false god?

The common denominator between Paul's allowance for eating meats offered to idols and it being a moot point when people have Christmas is the intention towards any false god is fully absent, and our hearts are solely focused on pleasing the one true God alone while we simply enjoy giving gifts, which is not even worshiping Jesus by doing so! How can it be false worship to a false god when the heart absolutely sees no such thing in it?

It is the same thing as speaking "MONDAY" on the second day of the week, when such a thing ORIGINATED in paganism. Try as one might, they cannot make any difference between christmas and the days of the week. (But I guess we can excuse things like that since it is allegedly impossible to avoid. So when it is impossible to not worship a false god, you folks claim it is okay to do so, for there is no difference in the lack of intention towards idols in speaking the days of the week any more than involvement in activities at Christmas, but you claim such activities at Christmas make us heathens.)

Refraining from holidays is not legalism, but declaring that one is worshiping a false god when the heart has simply no intention towards such a thing is indeed extreme legalism. What could be more extremely legalistic than accusing someone of idol worship when one's heart has been fully directed towards the one true God but did something physically, without intent to do so, that looked similar to what pagans did to their false gods, and equating them as one and the same with that pagan worshiper? Hooboy!

How many other things do we do on a daily basis, without any intention to worship a false god, that are reminiscent of activities from pagan worship? Maybe waving a hand on Thursday at 3pm was done in honour to the god thor. We better find out! Otherwise we could be judged for honouring thor when we wave at someone on a Thursday afternoon at 3pm, whether we only waved at John Doe or not. Oh, and we better change the names of the planets, for they're named after false gods as well. Then there's the months! False god names as well!

If these myriad of other things we do unconsciously, that are reminiscent of false god worship, will not see us judged for idolatry, then what is the difference between that and giving gifts under a decorated tree without any intention whatsoever of worshiping any god?

There's still some more legalism some folks need to come out of.

'Nuff said. No sense saying any more.

[Digging4Truth]

I think missourimary thought you contradicted yourself in the two quotes she made from you that she emboldened.

I don't see the statements as contradictory. I am stating that there is a difference between saying that christmas is a pagan holiday and saying that christmas has a pagan origin. A small but relevant difference.

The reason I stick with the origins side is that one can make the statement "Christmas is a pagan holiday" and people can just say "No it's not" because the answer to that question is a matter of opinion in many minds.

But... I can say "The traditions of Christmas are adapted from pagan traditions that predate Christ" and when someone says "No they aren't" we have moved from opinion versus opinion to arguing against fact.

It is a more stable position to take as it is centered less on opinion and more on fact.

Therefore, even though they mean the same thing, I remove myself from the "Christmas is pagan" camp and pitch my tent in the "The practices, dates etc of Christmas are adapted from pagan rituals that predate Christ".

While those stances are, essentially, the same statements one is viewed more as opinion based and is therefore more open to personal interpretation while the other is viewed more often as a statement of fact and is not as widely viewed as something someone can just disagree with because they disagree with it.

[missourimary]

Therefore, even though they mean the same thing, I remove myself from the "Christmas is pagan" camp and pitch my tent in the "The practices, dates etc of Christmas are adapted from pagan rituals that predate Christ".

While those stances are, essentially, the same statements one is viewed more as opinion based and is therefore more open to personal interpretation while the other is viewed more often as a statement of fact and is not as widely viewed as something someone can just disagree with because they disagree with it.

D4T, it appears that you are trying to extricate yourself from an ideology by a nuance. Yet you still (bolded) admit that one is the same as the other. Though I understand the historical argument for the origins of certain seasonal decorations, to say that Christmas itself is not pagan while asserting that most everything about Christmas is pagan and that therefore it should not be celebrated at all due to it's pagan origins is a circular argument. If you were to argue that you don't want a tree in your home due to the historic pagan origin involved with trees I could understand that. To argue against Christmas completely because certain aspects have a historically pagan origin doesn't work, IMO.

MBlume is right about my " :dunno". What you said appeared extremely contradictory to me, and rather than continuing a confusing, circular argument, I simply quoted you and shrugged. Celebrate or don't. It's up to you. And I will celebrate fully and in a Christian manner. That is my choice as well. :star

[Sabby]

Can a heathen be a brother?

that depends....nyuk, nyuk

[mfblume]

I don't see the statements as contradictory. I am stating that there is a difference between saying that christmas is a pagan holiday and saying that christmas has a pagan origin. A small but relevant difference.

The reason I stick with the origins side is that one can make the statement "Christmas is a pagan holiday" and people can just say "No it's not" because the answer to that question is a matter of opinion in many minds.

But... I can say "The traditions of Christmas are adapted from pagan traditions that predate Christ" and when someone says "No they aren't" we have moved from opinion versus opinion to arguing against fact.

It is a more stable position to take as it is centered less on opinion and more on fact.

Therefore, even though they mean the same thing, I remove myself from the "Christmas is pagan" camp and pitch my tent in the "The practices, dates etc of Christmas are adapted from pagan rituals that predate Christ".

While those stances are, essentially, the same statements one is viewed more as opinion based and is therefore more open to personal interpretation while the other is viewed more often as a statement of fact and is not as widely viewed as something someone can just disagree with because they disagree with it.

I think that is more wise than saying it is pagan. And I agree "The practices, dates etc of Christmas are adapted from pagan rituals that predate Christ". But when the heart intends no such pagan concern nor worship, I see it as innocent as calling a name of the week. Again, it all boils down to WHY we do things.

[Sam]

Over the years I've belonged to several different organizations. Back in the early 1960's I was licensed with a group called The Church of Jesus Christ, Pentecostal Faith (CoJCPF). Our Presiding Bishop was G.R. Brock. He has been dead since 1968. I only belonged to that organization a couple of years and let my license lapse when I started going to an ALJC Church. In 1971 the CoJCPF merged with the CoJC (the original group chartered in 1927 by Mark Lawson).

Bishop Brock had some things he took a "strong" stand on. One was that he would never ordain a minister who "looked at tv" but I got a license and I preached for him at his church and I had a tv in my home. One was the idea that communion wasn't really communion unless fermented wine was used. To him, grape juice was just a substitute for the real thing. I remember him telling me about a church in our organization down in SE Kentucky that was in a "dry" county and he was going to bring them some home made wine so they could do communion properly. I told him they would arrest him for "rum running." He said, "I'll just tell them it's the blood of Jesus." I told him, "Then they'll lock you up in an asylum." I don't know if he ever followed through on this or not.

Another thing he felt very strongly about was Christmas Trees. He believed that Jeremiah chapter 10 was talking about Christmas trees. The church was pastored by an older man and his son was also a preacher. There were several family members in the church there in Corbin, KY. They went without a Christmas Tree for some time, then one year the one son (who was also a preacher) decided they were going to have a Christmas tree that year. So, he and several family members went out into the woods to find a tree and bring it home. They found a good one, brought it home, and set it up. The elder preacher condemned them as heathens for violating the Scriptures. The younger preacher had a good answer from the Scriptures. He pointed out that the Scripture says,

1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

He said, "Look what the Bible says there in verse 3. It says, 'ONE cutteth a tree out of the forest... with an axe.'" He went on to say, "There wasn't just ONE person here that went into the woods and cut down that tree. SEVERAL of us went out there and cut it down and brought it here."

[Truthseeker]

I think that is more wise than saying it is pagan. And I agree "The practices, dates etc of Christmas are adapted from pagan rituals that predate Christ". But when the heart intends no such pagan concern nor worship, I see it as innocent as calling a name of the week. Again, it all boils down to WHY we do things.

One big difference is that we can't control name of a day, but we can control what customs/practices we partake of.

[Truthseeker]

I haven't kept up on the thread, but it seems the main underlying issue here is that some of us don't consider Christmas a pagan holiday and others do. Therefore, when verses are used that talk about "observing days" some say they didn't observe pagan days and others say it's widely known as a Christian holiday or that they are celebrating or commemorating Jesus' birth.

I don't think that, with that difference of opinion underlying the discussion, that everyone will ever come to agreement on this topic. It may be one of those things that we should agree to disagree on. :friend

Yeah, but it's a forum annual decembers tradition. :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Is there other pagan customs we can christianize as long as we don't intend to worship a false God?

Can a converted buddhist continue with buddhist customs as long as his heart is not worshipping buddha?

How long out from pagan intent is a custom harmless? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?

[*AQuietPlace*]

See, I just don't buy the argument that because something at one time had a pagan root that we can't participate in the current incarnation of the event. I don't have a problem with taking something bad and making something good out of it. Life is continually evolving and changing. Always. Time changes, culture changes, styles change, traditions change. Even Christmas as we know it now will probably be completely different in 100 years. We have so many traditions that had 'pagan' roots. The way we do funerals, funeral wreaths and flowers, the calendar, etc. etc. etc. It's not whether or not something at some point in time crossed paths with a pagan. It's why are WE doing it?

[houston]

Feel inspired to wear feathers in my hair and chant as I hop around in a circle... ...at church. All for the glory of the Lord!!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Is there other pagan customs we can christianize as long as we don't intend to worship a false God?

Can a converted buddhist continue with buddhist customs as long as his heart is not worshipping buddha?

How long out from pagan intent is a custom harmless? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?
I don't know many buddhist customs..... but let's say that he sat cross-legged to meditate, and that was part of his custom. If he can, as a Christian, sit that same way and pray to GOD.... yeah, no harm in that custom.

If a custom isn't in and of itself sinful, I don't see why it can't be transformed into worship for God.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Feel inspired to wear feathers in my hair and chant as I hop around in a circle... ...at church. All for the glory of the Lord!!
I've seen that in church a hundred times! Been to a conference lately?? :D :D

[houston]

I've seen that in church a hundred times! Been to a conference lately?? :D :D

:bliss I got a visual now. LOL. Guess I shouldn't wear the feathers.

[*AQuietPlace*]

More on the taking something bad and making something good out of it... what about music? Most of our Christian music has 'pagan' roots. Some of the songs that we consider classic hymns were taking directly from 'pagan' music and Christianized.

Why is it bad to go into a culture that doesn't honor God, convert them, and then help them to turn some of their traditions into traditions that honor God? (again, as long as the traditions aren't sinful acts) Do we expect other cultures to completely and totally change everything about themselves?

How many times have we heard people say 'I used to dance for the devil, but now I dance for the Lord!' Do we ban dancing because it's done in bars and pagans do it?

[*AQuietPlace*]

I decided last night that I was finished with this thread but I have to chime in on this one.

.


You started the thread, you're not allowed to bow out. :)

[sandie]

More on the taking something bad and making something good out of it... what about music? Most of our Christian music has 'pagan' roots. Some of the songs that we consider classic hymns were taking directly from 'pagan' music and Christianized.

Why is it bad to go into a culture that doesn't honor God, convert them, and then help them to turn some of their traditions into traditions that honor God? (again, as long as the traditions aren't sinful acts) Do we expect other cultures to completely and totally change everything about themselves?

How many times have we heard people say 'I used to dance for the devil, but now I dance for the Lord!' Do we ban dancing because it's done in bars and pagans do it?

If O Holy Night has pagan roots, God put it to good use with me.
It was thru that song, I as a Jew, first felt the presence of the Lord.
That experience differs little from any experience I've had since becoming His own. :)

[mfblume]

Is there other pagan customs we can christianize as long as we don't intend to worship a false God?

I do not even see it as christianizing anything. It's giving gifts beneath a decorated tree.

Can a converted buddhist continue with buddhist customs as long as his heart is not worshipping buddha?

If buddhists waved their hands to buddha on Saturday afternoon at 1:46am in some form of worship, that does not mean former buddhists cannot wave at a friend at 1:46am on saturday Morning. That is really all it amounts to.

How long out from pagan intent is a custom harmless? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?

It has nothing to do with time. If someone worshiped a pagan tree god by putting sacrifices beneath a decorated tree, then left that false faith, and two hours later put a gift beneath a decorated tree for a friend, there is nothing wrong with that second act. All anyone can do is distort the point we are making and change it into some strawman like time passing to condone a ritual used in worship.

[mfblume]

One big difference is that we can't control name of a day, but we can control what customs/practices we partake of.

There is no big difference. You are actually saying SOME instances of pagan worship are fine while others are not, depending on what we can control? You see no error in that reasoning? And yet you say we are wrong since we allow some things and not others?

[Truthseeker]

More on the taking something bad and making something good out of it... what about music? Most of our Christian music has 'pagan' roots. Some of the songs that we consider classic hymns were taking directly from 'pagan' music and Christianized.


What songs would that be?


Why is it bad to go into a culture that doesn't honor God, convert them, and then help them to turn some of their traditions into traditions that honor God? (again, as long as the traditions aren't sinful acts) Do we expect other cultures to completely and totally change everything about themselves?


It's not culture that's an issue but pagan practices, no sin in culture such as mexican, asian etc.... but the customs adopted to celebrate his birth did not come from culture but pagan worship


How many times have we heard people say 'I used to dance for the devil, but now I dance for the Lord!' Do we ban dancing because it's done in bars and pagans do it?



dancing is a poor comparison. Dancing unto the lord is scriptural while pagan customs are not.

[Timmy]

. . .

If buddhists waved their hands to buddha on Saturday afternoon at 1:46am in some form of worship, that does not mean former buddhists cannot wave at a friend at 1:46am on saturday Morning. That is really all it amounts to.

. . .

And that about sums it up! :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

I do not even see it as christianizing anything. It's giving gifts beneath a decorated tree.



If buddhists waved their hands to buddha on Saturday afternoon at 1:46am in some form of worship, that does not mean former buddhists cannot wave at a friend at 1:46am on saturday Morning. That is really all it amounts to.



It has nothing to do with time. If someone worshiped a pagan tree god by putting sacrifices beneath a decorated tree, then left that false faith, and two hours later put a gift beneath a decorated tree for a friend, there is nothing wrong with that second act. All anyone can do is distort the point we are making and change it into some strawman like time passing to condone a ritual used in worship.


I know we can go down alot of rabbit trails of what if's, but what if one burnt an incense unto buddha today got coverted tonight but tomorrow say they burning it unto Christ?


Most truely converted pagan person would hold unto their idolatrous ways. Something about abstain from idols would mean something to them.




19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


What would such like mean? I have no doubts a true converted pagan would not want anything to do with "such like" their past pagan customs.

[Truthseeker]

And that about sums it up! :thumbsup

no it don't :razz waving hands does not compare to pagan customs

[Truthseeker]

There is no big difference. You are actually saying SOME instances of pagan worship are fine while others are not, depending on what we can control? You see no error in that reasoning? And yet you say we are wrong since we allow some things and not others?

You only don't see it as big difference because you celebrate it.

It's true we can't isolate ourselves from all pagan symbols and such, but to use days of the week, which we have no control over it being named, to justify partaking of past pagan customs/celebrations/practices that we can control is not the same. Only works for them who like christmas:thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Old quote from diggin4truth:


If I were an enemy of the church I have learned enough to know that all I would need to do is make something fun, cute, heart warming or touchy feely tingly with emotion and I'm in like Flynn.



This the main reason folks will not see the arguement about christmas. You know it also so magical for the kids.

[Truthseeker]

BTW appreciate the manner we all good folks are discussing the subject. Every church I've attended has celebrated to some degree. My current church goes full swing with holidays even valentines with cupid and all, but that's another thread.:) Most in my church don't even know my stance, I don't rip others over it. Will discuss why I don't if asked.

[missourimary]

It has nothing to do with time. If someone worshiped a pagan tree god by putting sacrifices beneath a decorated tree, then left that false faith, and two hours later put a gift beneath a decorated tree for a friend, there is nothing wrong with that second act. All anyone can do is distort the point we are making and change it into some strawman like time passing to condone a ritual used in worship.

...and if the new brother was reminded of his idolatry by putting a gift under a decorated tree, he could and should be all means refrain for conscience's sake. Yet he shouldn't look down on those who have no such memory or intent. That's my understanding of what Paul was writing.

Someone asked, inside another quote, what songs came from pagan roots. Almost all the songs we sing in Apostolic churches... and not too long ago at that. Any song we sing using drums and electric guitars would turn some little old lady's hair blue in a number of other churches, because we "bring the world into the church" with it. Because that little old lady is remembering Elvis's debut or some of the Beatles' songs... My own mother thinks if a song has a beat other than the left hand part in a hymn, it borders on sin when performed in church. Tamborines? Holdover from hippies. Guitars, drums, and electric keyboards? Rock. Stages and stage lights? Outrage! Heresy! That's straight out of rock and roll. Who popularized fog machines or light shows? Rock musicians? That's how I learned about them. Seeing them used at youth convention seemed a little worldly even to me.

[Sam]

Feel inspired to wear feathers in my hair and chant as I hop around in a circle... ...at church. All for the glory of the Lord!!

feathers in your hair are OK. So is jewelry in your hair or on your clothes or on your eyeglass frames or on your watch. Just don't wear jewelry in your nose, or ears, or on your toes or fingers.

[mfblume]

...and if the new brother was reminded of his idolatry by putting a gift under a decorated tree, he could and should be all means refrain for conscience's sake. Yet he shouldn't look down on those who have no such memory or intent. That's my understanding of what Paul was writing.

Right. The weak conscience is with the one offended. And we are not to cause people to lose out with the Lord by offending them. It is more important to promote righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost than to be correct and yet offend a brother. DO it away from those of weak conscience. Rom 14 in a nutshell.

[mfblume]

You only don't see it as big difference because you celebrate it.

It's true we can't isolate ourselves from all pagan symbols and such, but to use days of the week, which we have no control over it being named, to justify partaking of past pagan customs/celebrations/practices that we can control is not the same. Only works for them who like christmas:thumbsup

It really cannot matter if it is something we can control or not. It is either wrong or it is not wrong. I never heard of anything in the Bible being allowed due to impossible situations that would not be wrong otherwise. I have to have scripture fort that kind of distinction to allow for your reaosning. Sounds like "situation ethics" -- a wrong is okay in the right situations.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[mfblume]

I know we can go down alot of rabbit trails of what if's, but what if one burnt an incense unto buddha today got coverted tonight but tomorrow say they burning it unto Christ?

I never said anything about burning incense to Christ. In fact, I have emphasized all along the concept of simply giving gifts to each other beneath a decorated tree. No worship to God involved. The more correct comparison you should make is that if a former buddhist liked the smell of the incense, and simply burned it for the sake of the aroma, without any reference to Christ at all.

Most truely converted pagan person would hold unto their idolatrous ways. Something about abstain from idols would mean something to them.

Only because of a weak conscience.

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

What would such like mean? I have no doubts a true converted pagan would not want anything to do with "such like" their past pagan customs.

If they had a weak conscience, sure. :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

It really cannot matter if it is something we can control or not. It is either wrong or it is not wrong. I never heard of anything in the Bible being allowed due to impossible situations that would not be wrong otherwise. I have to have scripture fort that kind of distinction to allow for your reaosning. Sounds like "situation ethics" -- a wrong is okay in the right situations.

Thanks for your thoughts!

That's because you celebrate it. Bias situational blindness. :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

I never said anything about burning incense to Christ. In fact, I have emphasized all along the concept of simply giving gifts to each other beneath a decorated tree. No worship to God involved. The more correct comparison you should make is that if a former buddhist liked the smell of the incense, and simply burned it for the sake of the aroma, without any reference to Christ at all.



Only because of a weak conscience.



If they had a weak conscience, sure. :thumbsup

So one who gives up his pagan customs has a weak conscious? Oh the poer of the christmas spirit and the length gone to misapply scripture for that magical time of year. :pullhair

I think diggin4truth gave a great post regarding romans 14. see if I can find it.

[Truthseeker]

Pagan man gets saved, but has a strong enough conscious to continue his pagan ways. make sense?

[Truthseeker]

Amazing Romans 14 can be twisted to justify pagan cutoms, amazing.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Bottom line.... what is wrong with a pagan custom? It's because it is done in worship to a false god. Take away that element, and it's nothing. I can jump up and down 10 times in praise to the god Blakado. What's wrong with what I'm doing? The praise in my heart for the god Blakado. Take that away, and I'm just jumping up and down. Nothing wrong with jumping up and down. People the world over don't have to stop jumping up and down. Only something wrong with worshiping another god.

If I was converted and decided that I was going to start jumping up and down for Jesus..... well, go me. It's the worship in my heart that's right or wrong. Not the activity I associate with it.

It's really that simple.

[*AQuietPlace*]

That's because you celebrate it. Bias situational blindness. :thumbsup
I went for six years without celebrating it. Didn't change my opinion one bit.

(and Bro. Blume has stated that he used to be anti-Christmas also)

[*AQuietPlace*]

To carry my thought a little further, if my neighbor sees me jumping up and down for Jesus, and says - 'Hey, I want to worship Jesus like that, too!' So he starts jumping up and down, worshiping Jesus. Another neighbor sees it, and just likes the jumping up and down, so he just starts jumping up and down. Neither of these people are doing anything in worship to a false god, either, even though their first neighbor used to jump up and down for Blakado.

It's the intent of the heart.

[Digging4Truth]

You started the thread, you're not allowed to bow out. :)

Well the difficult part of discussing this subject is this. Just because I voice the reasoning behind my thinking people take it as legalistic and judgmental. The reason being is if I am voicing why I live the way I live then they feel I am voicing why they are wrong and going to hell.

But... without voicing my reasoning there is no discussion and I am relegated to sitting here and saying nothing.

As with most subjects it is hard to discuss things with people who disagree with you because they, so often, take one voicing their side of the equation as a condemnation of the other participants.

I found, at one time in my life, a friend who with whom I could discuss things which we vehemently disagreed and we both simply discussed the facts on an intellectual level and sensed no condemnation of one another in our exchange of ideas.

I must admit that the man has been a great blessing in my life but I often forget what a rare jewel he was. I learned much by our discussions. I hope we both learned much.

I miss him sometimes. :)

[Truthseeker]

Bottom line.... what is wrong with a pagan custom? It's because it is done in worship to a false god. Take away that element, and it's nothing. I can jump up and down 10 times in praise to the god Blakado. What's wrong with what I'm doing? The praise in my heart for the god Blakado. Take that away, and I'm just jumping up and down. Nothing wrong with jumping up and down. People the world over don't have to stop jumping up and down. Only something wrong with worshiping another god.

If I was converted and decided that I was going to start jumping up and down for Jesus..... well, go me. It's the worship in my heart that's right or wrong. Not the activity I associate with it.

It's really that simple.

poor comparison

[mfblume]

That's because you celebrate it. Bias situational blindness. :thumbsup

That is not it at all since I came into this realization when I was still refraining from it. The idea Paul related in Romans 14 about meats convinced me I was mistaken.

[mfblume]

Amazing Romans 14 can be twisted to justify pagan cutoms, amazing.

It does not justify pagan customs, but points out that the intention of looking at it as nothing to do with false gods in reality is the key point to be understood, and the key difference. There is no justification for conscious worship of a false god in a pagan activity. The intention to NOT WORSHIP ANYTHING is why 1 Cor 10 says to not do anything in a pagan temple because temple activity is for nothing but worship. There's no condoning false gods at all when we are saying THEY DO NOT EXIST and any activity done in identical manners that are used to honour such non-entities is just activity. If the heart is not honouring a false god, then whatever activity is involved is simply activity as much as eating meat offered to idols is JUST EATING MEAT.

Why can't you see that?

Speaking of twisting, you have not yet represented our view correctly without twisting it and proposing things we are not saying at all. We understand your reasoning, but why can you not understand ours?

[mfblume]

Bottom line.... what is wrong with a pagan custom? It's because it is done in worship to a false god. Take away that element, and it's nothing. I can jump up and down 10 times in praise to the god Blakado. What's wrong with what I'm doing? The praise in my heart for the god Blakado. Take that away, and I'm just jumping up and down.

EXACTLY! THAT is what Paul was saying about meats offered to idols. IT IS JUST EATING MEAT! Now, if that was done with a person who could not pull himself away from the concept of honouring a false god, thereby killing his conscience, then the guy has to refrain and nobody should do it around him. But that is due to his WEAK CONSCIENCE. He is incorrect, but knwoledge (being correct) is not as important as love for the person, so we cannot shove this down their throats.

So I will refrain from wounding the weak consciences of my good brethren here lest I take my correct knowledge and hurt their weak consciences. ;)

:thumbsup

[mfblume]

So one who gives up his pagan customs has a weak conscious? Oh the poer of the christmas spirit and the length gone to misapply scripture for that magical time of year. :pullhair

No. You consistently mix up what we are saying. The newly saved pagan only has a weak conscience (not conscious, btw) when they do something that was associated with a false god, though an innocent act in and of itself without the element of intention towards worshiping the false god, and it is too much for the memory of the weak believer. They are so pulled away from the Lord with guilt and condemnation that they must totally refrain from such a thing. The activity cannot be separated from the false god worship in such a weak conscience, so they sin against their own conscience.

A conscience tells what is right or wrong. And a weak one is not "educated" enough to know the true difference, and memories and emotional ties cannot be broken from it, so the weak have to stay away from it altogether.

Someone who KNOWS it is a pagan rite, but no more believes the false god exists than a hippo has fifteen elephant trunks, and does an activity for the pure purpose of giving gifts (since gift giving is a perfect example) alone, has a strong conscience. He knows the activity is innocent IN AND OF ITSELF APART FROM ANY INTENT TO WORSHIP.

Again, it is extreme legalism to tell someone they are worshiping a false god when they are putting gifts under a decorated tree for the sole purpose of giving gifts, just because IT APPEARS like a pagan bowing down to a tree and sacrificing a gift to it. When we judge someone for a purposed act of false worship when the person has absolutely no conscious intention of honouring any such non-existent god, WE ARE THE WORST OF LEGALISTS.

[Truthseeker]

That's it, Im done, I go unto the gentiles!!:grampa

[Truthseeker]

No. You consistently mix up what we are saying. The newly saved pagan only has a weak conscience (not conscious, btw) when they do something that was associated with a false god, though an innocent act in and of itself without the element of intention towards worshiping the false god, and it is too much for the memory of the weak believer. They are so pulled away from the Lord with guilt and condemnation that they must totally refrain from such a thing. The activity cannot be separated from the false god worship in such a weak conscience, so they sin against their own conscience.

A conscience tells what is right or wrong. And a weak one is not "educated" enough to know the true difference, and memories and emotional ties cannot be broken from it, so the weak have to stay away from it altogether.

Someone who KNOWS it is a pagan rite, but no more believes the false god exists than a hippo has fifteen elephant trunks, and does an activity for the pure purpose of giving gifts (since gift giving is a perfect example) alone, has a strong conscience. He knows the activity is innocent IN AND OF ITSELF APART FROM ANY INTENT TO WORSHIP.

Again, it is extreme legalism to tell someone they are worshiping a false god when they are putting gifts under a decorated tree for the sole purpose of giving gifts, just because IT APPEARS like a pagan bowing down to a tree and sacrificing a gift to it. When we judge someone for a purposed act of false worship when the person has absolutely no conscious intention of honouring any such non-existent god, WE ARE THE WORST OF LEGALISTS.

I don't charge one is actually worshiping a false God with christmas, although it could be idolatry because of a persons attitude or unhealthy importance placed on it, but that can be with anything.

[Truthseeker]

That is not it at all since I came into this realization when I was still refraining from it. The idea Paul related in Romans 14 about meats convinced me I was mistaken.

Why would some in romans be refraining from meats? Was because of OT law?

[Truthseeker]

It does not justify pagan customs, but points out that the intention of looking at it as nothing to do with false gods in reality is the key point to be understood, and the key difference. There is no justification for conscious worship of a false god in a pagan activity. The intention to NOT WORSHIP ANYTHING is why 1 Cor 10 says to not do anything in a pagan temple because temple activity is for nothing but worship. There's no condoning false gods at all when we are saying THEY DO NOT EXIST and any activity done in identical manners that are used to honour such non-entities is just activity. If the heart is not honouring a false god, then whatever activity is involved is simply activity as much as eating meat offered to idols is JUST EATING MEAT.

Why can't you see that?

Speaking of twisting, you have not yet represented our view correctly without twisting it and proposing things we are not saying at all. We understand your reasoning, but why can you not understand ours?

What about when it says to not eat meats offered to idols. I posted that a while back but no one answered that one.

If meats offered to a nonexisted false god then why not eat if not in heart to worship false god.

[Truthseeker]

Folks on both sides of the issues have weak/strong arguements. I asked an anticristmas preacher this: If christmas is idolatry then shouldn't fellowship be withdrawn from those who do it? Man talked about those he was in fellowship with that celebrated it, but then talk about it being idolatry. So if it is really idolatry bible says to withdraw fellowship to not even eat with them. I don't think I ever got an answer from him, just kinda of dodged it.

If us anti folks really think it's idolatry then we are being inconsistent to keep fellowship with those who do.

If it's not idolatry, then what is it?

[missourimary]

If it's not idolatry, then what is it?

A difference of opinion?

[mfblume]

Why would some in romans be refraining from meats? Was because of OT law?

Yes, but Paul also had 1 Cor 8 and 10 in mind where meats offered to idols was involved.

[Truthseeker]

3.Acts 15:29 (Whole Chapter)
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well

[Truthseeker]

OK you guys win, I'm going to get a tree today!:toofunny :ursofunny


I'm free:bliss

[mfblume]

What about when it says to not eat meats offered to idols. I posted that a while back but no one answered that one.

I answered it.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=996130&postcount=83

If meats offered to a nonexisted false god then why not eat if not in heart to worship false god.

I explained this. A person who has a weak conscience, is one who DOES NOT KNOW the truth and actually acknowledges the existence of a false god when in reality it does not exist.

This explains it well:

CLARKE:
1Co 8:7
There is not in every man that knowledge - This is spoken in reference to what is said, 1Co_8:4 : We know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some with a conscience of the idol, viz. that it is something, eat it - the flesh that was offered to the idol, as a thing thus offered, considering the feast as a sacred banquet, by which they have fellowship with the idol. And their conscience being weak - not properly instructed in Divine things, is defiled - he performs what he does as an act of religious worship, and thus his conscience contracts guilt through this idolatry.


BARNES:
1Co 8:7
Howbeit - But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians - that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain; see 1Co_8:11-13.

There is not ... - There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of pagan opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge - That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol - From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favor should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted people would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favor or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the pagan were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it as a thing ... - As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak - Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject, they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled - Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened; 1Co_8:11, 1Co_8:13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favor of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

[Truthseeker]

thanks, I missed that.

[mfblume]

thanks, I missed that.

:thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Think I'm put mistletoes all over the house too. :)

[Sabby]

I was using the terms Grinches and Scrooges for those who do not celebrate Christmas and I was using the words pagans and heathens for those who do celebrate Christmas.

"Why YOU!" (Moe of the Three Stooges)

[Sabby]

...and if the new brother was reminded of his idolatry by putting a gift under a decorated tree, he could and should be all means refrain for conscience's sake. Yet he shouldn't look down on those who have no such memory or intent. That's my understanding of what Paul was writing.

Someone asked, inside another quote, what songs came from pagan roots. Almost all the songs we sing in Apostolic churches... and not too long ago at that. Any song we sing using drums and electric guitars would turn some little old lady's hair blue in a number of other churches, because we "bring the world into the church" with it. Because that little old lady is remembering Elvis's debut or some of the Beatles' songs... My own mother thinks if a song has a beat other than the left hand part in a hymn, it borders on sin when performed in church. Tamborines? Holdover from hippies. Guitars, drums, and electric keyboards? Rock. Stages and stage lights? Outrage! Heresy! That's straight out of rock and roll. Who popularized fog machines or light shows? Rock musicians? That's how I learned about them. Seeing them used at youth convention seemed a little worldly even to me.

Boothe-Clibborn wrote the wonderful hymn Down From His Glory with Elvis' tune, It's Now or Never

Oh great reluctance
flesh and blood His substance
He took the form of man
revealed the hidden plan
oh glorious mystery
precious lamb of calvary
and now I know Thou art the great I AM.

Oh how I love Him
How I adore Him
My breath, my sunshine
My All in all
The great Creator
became my Savior
and all the fulness
dwelleth in Him!

What a Great Hymn of the Church!

[mfblume]

Albert Barnes has some of the best explanations of this issue.


1Co 8:1
Now as touching - In regard to; in answer to your inquiry whether it is right or not to partake of those things.

Things offered unto idols - Sacrifices unto idols. Meat that had been offered in sacrifice, and then either exposed to sale in the market, or served up at the feasts held in honor of idols, at their temples, or at the houses of their devotees. The priests, who were entitled to a part of the meat that was offered in sacrifice, would expose it to sale in the market; and it was a custom with the Gentiles to make feasts in honor of the idol gods on the meat that was offered in sacrifice; see 1Co_8:10, of this chapter, and 1Co_10:20-21. Some Christians would hold that there could be no harm in partaking of this meat any more than any other meat, since an idol was nothing; and others would have many scruples in regard to it, since it would seem to countenance idol worship. The request made of Paul was, that he should settle some “general principle” which they might all safely follow.

We know - We admit; we cannot dispute; it is so plain a case that no one can be ignorant on this point. Probably these are the words of the Corinthians, and perhaps they were contained in the letter which was sent to Paul. They would affirm that they were not ignorant in regard to the nature of idols; they were well assured that they were nothing at all; and hence, they seemed to infer that it might be right and proper to partake of this food anywhere and everywhere, even in the idol temples themselves; see 1Co_8:10. To this Paul replies in the course of the chapter, and particularly in 1Co_8:7.

That we all have knowledge - That is, on this subject; we are acquainted with the true nature of idols, and of idol worship; we all esteem an idol to be nothing, and cannot be in danger of being led into idolatry, or into any improper views in regard to this subject by participating of the food and feasts connected with idol worship This is the statement and argument of the Corinthians. To this Paul makes two answers:

(1) In a “parenthesis” in 1Co_8:1-3, to wit, that it was not safe to rely on mere knowledge in such a case, since the effect of mere knowledge was often to puff people up and to make them proud, but that they ought to act rather from “charity,” or love; and,

(2) That though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet that all did not possess it, and they might be injured, 1Co_8:7.

Having stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in 1Co_8:1, Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of knowledge, and shows that it is not a safe guide, 1Co_8:1-3. In 1Co_8:4, he “resumes” the statement (commenced in 1Co_8:1) of the Corinthians, but which, in a mode quite frequent in his writings, he had broken off by his parenthesis on the subject of knowledge; and in 1Co_8:4-6, he states the argument more at length; concedes that there was to them but one God, and that the majority of them must know that; but states in 1Co_8:7, that all had not this knowledge, and that those who had knowledge ought to act so as not to injure those who had not.

Knowledge puffeth up - This is the beginning of the parenthesis. It is the reply of Paul to the statement of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge. The sense is, “Admitting that you all have knowledge; that you know what is the nature of an idol, and of idol worship; yet mere knowledge in this case is not a safe guide; its effect may be to puff up, to fill with pride and self-sufficiency, and to lead you astray. charity or love, as well as knowledge, should be allowed to come in as a guide in such cases, and will be a safer guide than mere knowledge.” There had been some remarkable proofs of the impropriety of relying on mere knowledge as a guide in religious matters among the Corinthians, and it was well for Paul to remind them of it. These pretenders to uncommon wisdom had given rise to their factions, disputes, and parties, (see 1 Cor. 1; 2; 3); and Paul now reminds them that it was not safe to rely on such a guide. And it is no more safe now than it was then. Mere knowledge, or science, when the heart is not right, fills with pride; swells a man with vain self-confidence and reliance in his own powers, and very often leads him entirely astray. Knowledge combined with right feelings, with pure principles, with a heart filled with love to God and human beings, may be trusted: but not mere intellectual attainments; mere abstract science; the mere cultivation of the intellect. Unless the heart is cultivated with that, the effect of knowledge is to make a man a pedant; and to fill him with vain ideas of his own importance; and thus to lead him into error and to sin.

But charity edifieth - Love (ἡ ἀγάπη hē agapē); so the word means; and so it would be well to translate it. Our word “charity” we now apply almost exclusively to alms-giving, or to the favorable opinion which we entertain of others when they seem to be in error or fault. The word in the Scripture means simply “love.” See the notes on 1 Cor. 13. The sense here is, “Knowledge is not a safe guide, and should not be trusted. love to each other and to God, true Christian affection, will be a safer guide than mere knowledge, Your conclusion on this question should not be formed from mere abstract knowledge; but you should ask what love to others - to the peace, purity, happiness, and salvation of your brethren - would demand. If love to them would prompt to this course, and permit you to partake of this food, it should be done; if not, if it would injure them, whatever mere knowledge would dictate, it should not be done.” The doctrine is, that love to God and to each other is a better guide in determining what to do than mere knowledge. And it is so. It will prompt us to seek the welfare of others, and to avoid what would injure them. It will make us tender, affectionate, and kind; and will better tell us what to do, and how to do it in the best way, than all the abstract knowledge that is conceivable. The man who is influenced by love, ever pure and ever glowing, is not in much danger of going astray, or of doing injury to the cause of God. The man who relies on his knowledge is heady, high-minded, obstinate, contentious, vexatious, perverse, opinionated; and most of the difficulties in the church arise from such people. Love makes no difficulty, but heals and allays all; mere knowledge heals or allays none, but is often the occasion of most bitter strife and contention. Paul was wise in recommending that the question should be settled by love; and it would be wise if all Christians would follow his instructions.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:4
As concerning therefore ... - The parenthesis closes with 1Co_8:3. The apostle now proceeds to the real question in debate, and repeats in this verse the question, and the admission that all had knowledge. The admission that all had knowledge proceeds through 1Co_8:4-6; and in 1Co_8:7 he gives the answer to it. In 1Co_8:4-6 everything is admitted by Paul which they asked in regard to the real extent of their knowledge on this subject; and in 1Co_8:7 he shows that even on the ground of this admission, the conclusion would not follow that it was right to partake of the food offered in sacrifice in the temple of an idol.

The eating of those things ... - Whether it is right to eat them. Here the question is varied somewhat from what it was in 1Co_8:1, but substantially the same inquiry is stated. The question was, whether it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals that had been slain in sacrifice to idols.

We know - 1Co_8:1. We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, 1Co_8:7. But his object was to show that even admitting that, it would not follow that it would be right to partake of that meat. It is well to bear in mind that the object of their statement in regard to knowledge was, to show that there could be no impropriety in partaking of the food. This argument the apostle answers in 1Co_8:7.

That an idol is nothing - Is not the true God; is not a proper object of worship. We are not so stupid as to suppose that the block of wood, or the carved image, or the chiseled marble is a real intelligence and is conscious and capable of receiving worship, or benefiting its volaries. We fully admit, and know, that the whole thing is delusive; and there can be no danger that, by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to them, we should ever be brought to a belief of the stupendous falsehood that they are true objects of worship, or to deny the true God. There is no doubt that the more intelligent pagan had this knowledge; and doubtless nearly all Christians possessed it, though a few who had been educated in the grosser views of paganism might still have regarded the idol with a superstitious reverence, For whatever might have been the knowledge of statesmen and philosophers on the subject, it was still doubtless true that the great mass of the pagan world did regard the dumb idols as the proper objects of worship, and supposed that they were inhabited by invisible spirits - the gods. For purposes of state, and policy, and imposition, the lawgivers and priests of the pagan world were careful to cherish this delusion; see 1Co_8:7.

Is nothing - Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of an idol among the Hebrews. They called idols אלילים 'ĕlı̂yliym (Elilim), or in the singular אליל 'ĕlı̂yl (Elil}, vain, null, nothingworth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness; Lev_26:1; 1Ch_16:26; Isa_2:8; Isa_10:10; Isa_19:11, Isa_19:13, Isa_19:20; Isa_31:7; Psa_90:5; Eze_30:13; Hab_2:18; Zec_11:17, etc.

In the world - It is nothing at all; it has no power over the world; no real existence anywhere. There are no such gods as the pagans pretend to worship. There is but one God; and that fact is known to us all. The phrase “in the world” seems to be added by way of emphasis, to show the utter nothingness of idols; to explain in the most emphatic manner the belief that they had no real existence.

And that there is none other God but one - This was a great cardinal truth of religion; see the note at Mar_12:29; compare Deu_6:4-5. To keep this great truth in mind was the grand object of the Jewish economy; and this was so plain, and important, that the Corinthians supposed that it must be admitted by all. Even though they should partake of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols, yet they supposed it was not possible that any of them could forget the great cardinal truth that there was but one God.

1Co 8:5
That are called gods - Gods so called. The pagans everywhere worshipped multitudes, and gave to them the name of gods.

Whether in heaven - Residing in heaven, as a part of the gods were supposed to do. Perhaps, there may be allusion here to the sun, moon, and stars; but I rather suppose that reference is made to the celestial deities, or to those who were supposed to reside in heaven, though they were supposed occasionally to visit the earth, as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, etc.

Or in earth - Upon the earth; or that reigned particularly ever the earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient pagans worshipped some gods that were supposed to dwell in heaven; others that were supposed to reside on earth; and others that presided over the inferior regions, as Pluto, etc.

As there be gods many - ὥσπερ hōsper, etc. As there are, in fact, many which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the pagans worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to he worshipped; but it is a declaration that they esteemed them to be such, or that a large number of imaginary beings were thus adored. The emphasis should be placed on the word “many;” and the design of the parenthesis is, to show that the number of these that were worshipped was not a few, but was immense; and that they were in fact worshipped as gods, and allowed to have the influence over their minds and lives which they would have if they were real; that is, that the effect of this popular belief was to produce just as much fear, alarm, superstition, and corruption, as though these imaginary gods had a real existence. So that though the more intelligent of the pagan put no confidence in them, yet the effect on the great mass was the same as if they had had a real existence, and exerted over them a real control.

And lords many - (κύριοι πολλοὶ kurioi polloi). Those who had a “rule” over them; to whom they submitted themselves; and whose laws they obeyed. This name “lord” was often given to their idol gods. Thus, among the nations of Canaan their idols was called בּצל Ba‛al, (“Baal, or lord”), the tutelary god of the Phoenicians and Syrians; Jdg_8:33; Jdg_9:4, Jdg_9:46. It is used here with reference to the IdoLS, and means that the laws which they were supposed to give in regard to their worship had control over the minds of their worshippers.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:6
But to us - Christians. We acknowledge but one God, Whatever the pagan worship, we know that there is but one God; and he alone has a right to rule over us.

One God, the Father - Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a father. The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. This is manifest:

(1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and,

(2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa_103:13; Jer_31:9; Mal_1:6; Mal_2:10; Mat_6:9; Luk_11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative “Son” is used, Luk_10:22; Luk_22:42; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:35; Joh_5:19-23, Joh_5:26, Joh_5:30, Joh_5:36; Heb_1:5; 2Pe_1:17, etc.

Of whom - ἐξ οὗ ex hou. From whom as a fountain and source; by whose counsel, plan, and purpose. He is the great source of all; and all depend on him. It was by his purpose and power that all things were formed, and to all he sustains the relation of a Father. The agent in producing all things, however, was the Son, Col_1:16; see the note at Joh_1:3.

Are all things - These words evidently refer to the whole work of creation, as deriving their origin from God, Gen_1:1. Everything has thus been formed in accordance with his plan; and all things now depend on him as their Father.

And we - We Christians. We are what we are by him. We owe our existence to him; and by him we have been regenerated and saved. It is owing to his counsel, purpose, agency, that we have an existence; and owing to him that we have the hope of eternal life. The leading idea here is, probably, that to God Christians owe their hopes and happiness.

In him - (εἰς αὐτόν eis auton); or rather unto him: that is, we are formed for him, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as Christians, that we may promote his honor and glory.

And one Lord ... - One Lord in contradistinction from the “many lords” whom the pagans worshipped. The word “Lord” here is used in the sense of proprietor, ruler, governor, or king; and the idea is, that Christians acknowledge subjection to Him alone, and not to many sovereigns, as the pagans did. Jesus Christ is the Ruler and Lord of his people. They acknowledge their allegiance to him as their supreme Lawgiver and King. They do not acknowledge subjection to many rulers, whether imaginary gods or human beings; but receive their laws from him alone. The word “Lord” here does not imply of necessity any inferiority to God; since it is a term which is frequently applied to God himself. The idea in the passage is, that from God, the Father of all, we derive our existence, and all that we have; and that we acknowledge “immediate and direct” subjection to the Lord Jesus as our Lawgiver and Sovereign. From him Christians receive their laws, and to him they submit their lives. And this idea is so far from supposing inferiority in the Lord Jesus to God, that it rather supposes equality; since a right to give laws to people, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious opinions and their lives, can appropriately pertain only to one who has equality with God.

1Co 8:7
Howbeit - But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians - that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain; see 1Co_8:11-13.

There is not ... - There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of pagan opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge - That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol - From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favor should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted people would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favor or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the pagan were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it as a thing ... - As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak - Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject, they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled - Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened; 1Co_8:11, 1Co_8:13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favor of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

1Co 8:8
But meat commendeth us not to God - This is to be regarded as the view presented by the Corinthian Christians, or by the advocates for partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. The sense is, “Religion is of a deeper and more spiritual nature than a mere regard to circumstances like these. God looks at the heart. He regards the motives, the thoughts, the moral actions of people. The mere circumstance of eating ‘meat,’ or abstaining from it, cannot make a man better or worse in the sight of a holy God. The acceptable worship of God is not placed in such things. It is more spiritual; more deep; more important. And therefore, the inference is, “it cannot be a matter of much importance whether a man eats the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, or abstains.” To this argument the apostle replies 1Co_8:9-13, that, although this might be true in itself, yet it might be the occasion of leading others into sin, and it would then become a matter of great importance in the sight of God, and should be in the sight of all true Christians. The word “commendeth” παράστησι parastēsi means properly to introduce to the favor of anyone, as a king or ruler; and here means to recommend to the favor of God. God does not regard this as a matter of importance. He does not make his favor depend on unimportant circumstances like this.

Neither if we eat - If we partake of the meat offered to idols.

Are we the better - Margin, “Have we the more.” Greek Do we abound περισσεύομεν perisseuomen; that is, in moral worth or excellence of character; see the note at Rev_14:17.

Are we the worse - Margin, “Have we the less.” Greek, Do we lack or want (ὑστερούμεθα husteroumetha); that is, in moral worth or excellence.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:9
But take heed - This is the reply of Paul to the argument of the Corinthians in 1Co_8:8. “Though all that you say should be admitted to be true, as it must be; though a man is neither morally better nor worse for partaking of meat or abstaining from it; yet the grand principle to be observed is, so to act as not to injure your brethren. Though you may be no better or worse for eating or not eating, yet if your conduct shall injure others, and lead them into sin, that is a sufficient guide to determine you what to do in the case. You should abstain entirely. It is of far more importance that your brother should not be led into sin, than it is that you should partake of meat which you acknowledge 1Co_8:8 is in itself of no importance.”

Lest by any means - μή πως mē pōs. You should be careful that by no conduct of yours your brother be led into sin. This is a general principle that is to regulate Christian conduct in all matters that are in themselves indifferent.

This liberty of yours - This which you claim as a right; this power which you have, and the exercise of which is in itself lawful. The “liberty” or power ἐξουσία exousia here referred to was that of partaking of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; 1Co_8:8. A man may have a right abstractly to do a thing, but it may not be prudent or wise to exercise it.

Become a stumbling-block - An occasion of sin; see the note at Mat_5:29; also see the note at Rom_14:13. See that it be not the occasion of leading others to sin, and to abandon their Christian profession; 1Co_8:10.

To them that are weak - To those professing Christians who are not fully informed or instructed in regard to the true nature of idolatry, and who still may have a superstitious regard for the gods whom their fathers worshipped.


1Co 8:10
For if any man - Any Christian brother who is ignorant, or anyone who might otherwise become a Christian.

Which hast knowledge - Who are fully informed in regard to the real nature of idol worship. You will be looked up to as an example. You will be presumed to be partaking of this feast in honor of the idol. You will thus encourage him, and he will partake of it with a conscientious regard to the idol.

Sit at meat - Sitting down to an entertainment in the temple of the idol. Feasts were often celebrated, as they are now among the pagan, in honor of idols. Those entertainments were either in the temple of the idol, or at the house of him who gave it.
Shall not the conscience of him which is weak - Of the man who is not fully informed, or who still regards the idol with superstitious feelings; see 1Co_8:7.

Be emboldened - Margin, “Edified” οἰκοδομηθήσεται oikodomēthēsetai. Confirmed; established. So the word “edify” is commonly used in the New Testament; Act_9:31; Rom_14:19; Eph_4:12; 1Th_5:11. The sense here is, “Before this he had a superstitious regard for idols. He had the remains of his former feelings and opinions. But he was not established in the belief that an idol was anything; and his superstitious feelings were fast giving way to the better Christian doctrine that they were nothing. But now, by your example, he will be fully confirmed in the belief that an idol is to be regarded with respect and homage. He will see you in the very temple, partaking of a feast in honor of the idol; and he will infer not only that it is right, but that it is a matter of conscience with you, and will follow your example.”


1Co 8:11
And through thy knowledge - Because you knew that an idol was nothing, and that there could be really no danger of falling into idolatry from partaking of these entertainments. You will thus be the means of deceiving and destroying him. The argument of the apostle here is, that if This was to be the result, the duty of those who had this knowledge was plain.

Shall the weak brother - The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means real Christian there can be no doubt. Because:

(1) It is the usual term by which Christians are designated - the endearing name of “brother;” and,

(2) The scope of the passage requires it so to be understood; see the note at Rom_14:20.

Perish - Be destroyed; ruined; lost; see the note at Joh_10:28. So the word ἀπολεῖται apoleitai properly and usually signifies. The sense is, that the tendency of this course would be to lead the weak brother into sin, to apostasy, and to ruin. But this does not prove that any who were truly converted should apostatize and be lost; for:
(1) There may be a tendency to a thing, and yet that thing may never happen. It may be arrested, and the event not occur.

(2) the warning designed to prevent it may be effectual, and be the means of saving. A man in a canoe floating down the Niagara river may have a tendency to go over the falls; but he may be hailed from the shore, and the hailing may be effectual, and he may be saved. The call to him was designed to save him, and actually had that effect. So it may be in the warnings to Christians.

(3) the apostle does not say that any true Christian would be lost. He puts a question; and affirms that if “one” thing was done, “another might” follow. But this is not affirming that anyone would be lost. So I might say that if the man continued to float on toward the falls of Niagara, he would be destroyed. If one thing was done, the other would be a consequence. But this would be very different from a statement that a man “had actually”
gone over the falls, and been lost.

(4) it is elsewhere abundantly proved that no one who has been truly converted will apostatize and be destroyed; see the notes at Joh_10:28; compare the note at Rom_8:29-30.

For whom Christ died - This is urged as an argument why we should not do anything that would tend to destroy the souls of people. And no stronger argument could be used. The argument is, that we should not do anything that would tend to frustrate the work of Christ, that would render the shedding of his blood vain. The possibility of doing this is urged; and that bare possibility should deter us from a course of conduct that might have this tendency. It is an appeal drawn from the deep and tender love, the sufferings, and the dying groans of the Son of God. If He endured so much to save the soul, assuredly we should not pursue a course that would tend to destroy it. If he denied himself so much to redeem, we should not, assuredly, be so fond of self-gratification as to be unwilling to abandon anything that would tend to destroy.

[MissBrattified]

This time of year has what is referred to as the "Christmas Spirit".

That spirit requires it's own set of music that is not played in other parts of the year.

It requires it's own set of decorations that are not up other times of the year.

Why does this "remembrance" require such a complete regearing of the worship we give to God the other 11 months out of the year?

"Regearing of the worship?" I don't regear or redirect ANY worship. The worship I give to God remains the same as always.

[mfblume]

1Co 10:25
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles - In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honor of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it.

Asking no question for conscience’ sake - Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But:

(1) That which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because people offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell.

(2) there are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e. g. is it right to use the productions of slave-labor, the sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on Sunday; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty and crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us:

(a) If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawfill, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct as not to hesitate.

(b) If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of Sunday, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery, and violations of Sunday, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations?

(c) If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain; see 1Co_10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery, Sunday violations, dishonesty, or licentiousness, in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good people to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.

1Co 10:26
For the earth is the Lord’s - This is quoted from Psa_24:1. The same sentiment is also found in Psa_50:11, and in Deu_10:14. It is here urged as a reason why it; is right to partake of the meat offered in the market. It all belongs to the Lord. It does not really belong to the idol, even though it has been offered to it. It may, therefore, be partaken of as his gift, and should be received with gratitude.

And the fulness thereof - All that the earth produces belongs to Him. He causes if to grow; and He has given it to be food for man; and though it may have been devoted to an idol, yet its nature is not changed. It is still the gift of God; still the production of His hand; still the fruit of His goodness and love.

1Co 10:27
If any of them that believe not - That are not Christians; that are still pagans.

Bid you to a feast - Evidently not a feast in the temple of an idol, but at his own house. If he asks you to partake of his hospitality.

And ye be disposed to go - Greek, “And you will to go.” It is evidently implied here that it would be not improper to go. The Saviour accepted such invitations to dine with the Pharisees (see the note at Luk_11:37); and Christianity is not designed to abolish the courtesies of social life; or to break the bonds of contact; or to make people misanthropes or hermits. It allows and cultivates, under proper Christian restraints, the contact in society which will promote the comfort of people, and especially that which may extend the usefulness of Christians. It does not require, therefore, that we should withdraw from social life, or regard as improper the courtesies of society; see the note at 1Co_5:10.
Whatsoever is set before you ... - Whether it has been offered in sacrifice or not; for so the connection requires us to understand it.

Eat - This should be interpreted strictly. The apostle says “eat,” not “drink;” and the principle will not authorize us to “drink” whatever is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake; for while it was matter of indifference in regard to eating, whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, it is not a matter of indifference whether a man may drink intoxicating liquor. That is a point on which the “conscience” should have much to do; and on which its honest decisions, and the will of the Lord, should be faithfully and honestly regarded.

1Co 10:28
But if any man - If any fellow guest; any scrupulous fellow Christian who may be present. That the word “any” (τις tis) refers to a fellow guest seems evident; for it is not probable that the host would point out any part of the food on his own table, of the lawfulness of eating which he would suppose there was any doubt. Yet there might be present some scrupulous fellow Christian who would have strong doubts of the propriety of partaking of the food, and who would indicate it to the other guests.

For his sake that showed it - Do not offend him; do not lead him into sin;, do not pain and wound his feelings.

And for conscience’ sake - Eat not, out of respect to the conscientious scruples of him that told thee that it had been offered to idols. The word “conscience” refers to the conscience of the informer 1Co_10:29; still he should make it a matter of conscience not to wound his weak brethren, or lead them into sin.

For the earth is the Lord’s ... - See 1Co_10:26. These words are missing in many mss. (see Mill’s Greek Testament), and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions; and are omitted by Griesbach. Grotius says that they should be omitted. There might easily have been a mistake in transcribing them from 1Co_10:26. The authority of the mss., however, is in favor of retaining them; and they are quoted by the Greek fathers and commentators. If they are to be retained, they are to be interpreted, probably, in this sense; “There is no “necessity” that you should partake of this food. All things belong to God; and he has made ample provision for your needs without subjecting you to the necessity of eating this. Since this is the case, it is best to regard the scruples of those who have doubts of the propriety of eating this food, and to abstain.”

[mfblume]

1Co 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own - I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that; ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.

For why is my liberty ... - There is much difficulty in this clause; for as it now stands, it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect to other people’s consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an objection: “Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by another man’s conscience?” Doddridge supposes that this and 1Co_10:30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their extending his former caution beyond what he designed. “I speak only of acts obvious to human observation: for as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned, condemned at the bar of another man’s conscience?” But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be thus expressed: “I am free; I have “liberty” to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty - the right which I exercise - will be “misconstrued, misjudged, condemned” (for so the word κρίνεται krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but to deny myself for the sake of others.”


1Co 10:30
For if I by grace be a partaker - Or rather, “If I partake by grace; if by the grace and mercy of God, I have a right to partake of this; yet why should I so conduct as to expose myself to the reproaches and evil surmises of others? Why should I lay myself open to be blamed on the subject of eating, when there are so many bounties of Providence for which I may be thankful, and which I may partake of without doing injury, or exposing myself in any manner to be blamed?”

Why am I evil spoken of - Why should I pursue such a course as to expose myself to blame or censure?

For that for which I give thanks - For my food. The phrase “for which I give thanks” seems to be a periphrasis for “food,” or for that of which he partook to nourish life. It is implied that he always gave thanks for his food; and that this was with him such a universal custom, that the phrase “for which I give thanks” might be used as convenient and appropriate phraseology to denote his ordinary food. The idea in the verse, then, is this: “By the favor of God, I have a right to partake of this food. But if I did, I should be evil spoken of, and do injury. And it is unnecessary. God has made ample provision elsewhere for my support, for which I may be thankful. I will not therefore expose myself to calumny and reproach, or be the occasion of injury to others by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to idols.”


1Co 10:31
Whether therefore ye eat or drink - This direction should be strictly and properly applied to the case in hand; that is, to the question about eating and drinking the things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. Still, however, it contains a general direction that is applicable to eating and drinking at all times; and the phrase “whatsoever ye do” is evidently designed by the apostle to make the direction universal.

Or whatsoever ye do - In all the actions and plans of life; whatever he your schemes, your desires, your doings, let all be done to the glory of God.

Do all to the glory of God - The phrase “the glory of God” is equivalent to the honor of God; and the direction is, that we should so act in all things as to “honor” him as our Lawgiver, our Creator, our Redeemer; and so as to lead others by our example to praise him and to embrace His gospel. A child acts so as to honor a father when he always cherishes reverential and proper thoughts of him; when he is thankful for his favors; when he keeps his laws; when he endeavors to advance his plans and his interests; and when he so acts as to lead all around him to cherish elevated opinions of the character of a father. He “dishonorers” him when he has no respect to his authority; when he breaks his laws; when he leads others to treat him with disrespect. In like manner, we live to the glory of God when we honor him in all the relations which he sustains to us; when we keep his laws; when we partake of his favors with thankfulness, and with a deep sense of our dependence; when we pray unto him; and when we so live as to lead those around us to cherish elevated conceptions of his goodness, and mercy, and holiness. Whatever plan or purpose will tend to advance His kingdom, and to make him better known and loved, will be to His glory. We may observe in regard to this:
(1) That the rule is “universal.” It extends to everything. If in so small matters as eating and drinking we should seek to honor God, assuredly we should in all other things.

(2) it is designed that this should be the constant rule of conduct, and that we should be often reminded of it. The acts of eating and drinking must be performed often; and the command is attached to that which must often occur, that we may be often reminded of it, and that we may be kept from forgetting it.

(3) it is intended that we should honor God in our families and among our friends. We eat with them; we share together the bounties of Providence; and God designs that we should honor Him when we partake of His mercies, and that thus our daily enjoyments should be sanctified by a constant effort to glorify Him.

(4) we should devote the strength which we derive from the bounties of His hand to His honor and in His service. He gives us food; He makes it nourishing; He invigorates our frame; and that strength should not be devoted to purposes of sin, and profligacy, and corruption. it is an act of high dishonor to God, when he gives us strength, that we should at once devote that strength to pollution and to sin.

(5) this rule is designed to be one of the chief directors of our lives. It is to guide all our conduct, and to constitute a “test” by which to try our actions. Whatever can be done to advance the honor of God is right; whatever cannot be done with that end is wrong. Whatever plan a man can form that will have this end is a good plan; whatever cannot be made to have this tendency, and that cannot be commended, continued, and ended with a distinct and definite desire to promote His honor, is wrong, and should be immediately abandoned.

(6) what a change would it make in the world if this rule were every where followed! How differently would even professing Christians live! How many of their plans would they be constrained at once to abandon! And what a mighty revolution would it at once make on earth should all the actions of people begin to be performed to promote the glory of God!

(7) it may be added that sentiments like that of the apostle were found among the Jews, and even among pagans. Thus, Maimonides, as cited by Grotius, says, “Let everything be in the name of Heaven,” that is, in the name of God. Capellus cites several of the rabbinical writers who say that all actions, even eating and drinking, should be done “in the name of God.” See the “Critici Sacri.” Even the pagan writers have something that resembles this. Thus, Arrian Eph_1:19 says, “Looking unto God in all things small and great.’ Epictetus, too, on being asked how anyone may eat so as to please God, answered, “By eating justly, temperately, and thankfully.”

[mfblume]

1Co 10:32
Give none offence - Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so as to lead others into sin; see the note at Rom_14:13.

Neither to the Jews ... - To no one, though they are the foes of God or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship, and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion, and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not attend the feasts in honor of idols.

Nor to the Gentiles - Greek “Greeks.” To the pagans who are unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead them into the sin of idolatry.

Nor to the church of God - To Christians. Many of them are weak. They may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in themselves strictly “lawful,” may yet be the occasion of leading others into sin, and endangering their salvation.


1Co 10:33
Even as I ... - Paul here proposes his own example as their guide. The example which he refers to is that which he had exhibited as described in this and the preceding chapters. His main object had been to please all people; that is, not to alarm their prejudices, or needlessly to excite their opposition (see the note at 1Co_9:19-23), while he made known to them the truth, and sought their salvation - It is well when a minister can without ostentation appeal to his own example, and urge others to a life of self-denial and holiness, by his own manner of living, and by what he is himself in his daily walk and conversation.

[mfblume]

Rom 14:22
Hast thou faith? - The word “faith” here refers only to the subject under discussion - to the subject of meats, drinks, etc. Do you believe that it is right to eat all kinds of food, etc. The apostle had admitted that this was the true doctrine; but he maintains that it should be so held as not to give offence.

Have it to thyself - Do not obtrude your faith or opinion on others. Be satisfied with cherishing the opinion, and acting on it in private, without bringing it forward to produce disturbance in the church.

Before God - Where God only is the witness. God sees your sincerity, and will approve your opinion. That opinion cherish and act on, yet so as not to give offence, and to produce disturbance in the church. God sees your sincerity; he sees that you are right; and you will not offend him. Your brethren do “not” see that you are right, and they will be offended.

Happy is he ... - This state of mind, the apostle says, is one that is attended with peace and happiness; and this is a “further” reason why they should indulge their opinion in private, without obtruding it on others. They were conscious of doing right, and that consciousness was attended with peace. This fact he states in the form of a universal proposition, as applicable not only to “this” case, but to “all” cases; compare 1Jo_3:21.

Condemneth not himself - Whose conscience does not reprove him.

In that which he alloweth - Which he “approves,” or which he “does.” Who has a clear conscience in his opinions and conduct. Many people indulge in practices which their consciences condemn, many in practices of which they are in doubt. But the way to be happy is to have a “clear conscience” in what we do; or in other words, if we have “doubts” about a course of conduct, it is not safe to indulge in that course, but it should be at once abandoned. Many people are engaged in “business” about which they have many doubts; many Christians are in doubt about certain courses of life. But they can have “no doubt” about the propriety of abstaining from them. They who are engaged in the slave-trade; or they who are engaged in the manufacture or sale of ardent spirits; or they who frequent the theater or the ball-room, or who run the round of fashionable amusements, if professing Christians, must often be troubled with “many” doubts about the propriety of their manner of life. But they can have no doubt about the propriety of an “opposite” course. Perhaps a single inquiry would settle all debate in regard to these things: “Did anyone ever become a slave-dealer, or a dealer in ardent spirits, or go to the theater, for engage in scenes of splendid amusements, with any belief that he was imitating the Lord Jesus Christ, or with any desire to honor him or his religion?” But one answer would be given to this question; and in view of it, how striking is the remark of Paul, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in what he alloweth.”

Rom 14:23
He that doubteth - He that is not fully satisfied in his mind; who does not do it with a clear conscience. The margin has it rendered correctly, “He that discerneth and putteth a difference between meats.” He that conscientiously believes, as the Jew did, that the Levitical law respecting the difference between meats was binding on Christians.

Is damned - We apply this word almost exclusively to the future punishment of the wicked in hell. But it is of importance to remember, in reading the Bible, that this is not of necessity its meaning. It means properly to “condemn;” and here it means only that the person who should thus violate the dictates of his conscience would incur guilt, and would be blameworthy in doing it. But it does not affirm that he would inevitably sink to hell. The same construction is to be put on the expression in 1Co_11:29, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

For whatsoever ... - “Whatever is not done with a full conviction that it is right, is sinful; whatever is done when a man doubts whether it is right, is sin.” This is evidently the fair interpretation of this place. Such the connection requires. It does not affirm that all or any of the actions of impenitent and unbelieving people are sinful, which is true, but not the truth taught here; nor does it affirm that all acts which are not performed by those who have faith in the Lord Jesus, are sinful; but the discussion pertains to Christians; and the whole scope of the passage requires us to understand the apostle as simply saying that a man should not do a thing doubting its correctness; that he should have a strong conviction that what he does is right; and that if he has “not” this conviction, it is sinful. The rule is of universal application. In all cases, if a man does a thing which he does not “believe” to be right, it is a sin, and his conscience will condemn him for it. It may be proper, however, to observe that the converse of this is not always true, that if a man believes a thing to be right, that therefore it is not sin. For many of the persecutors were conscientious Joh_16:2; Act_26:9; and the murderers of the Son of God did it ignorantly Act_3:17; 1Co_2:8; and yet were adjudged as guilty of enormous crimes; compare Luk_11:50-51; Act_2:23, Act_2:37.

In this chapter we have a remarkably fine discussion of the nature of Christian charity. Differences of “opinion” will arise, and people will be divided into various sects; but if the rules which are laid down in this chapter were followed, the contentions, and altercations, and strifes among Christians would cease. Had these rules been applied to the controversies about rites, and forms, and festivals, that have arisen, peace might have been preserved. Amid all such differences, the great question is, whether there is true love to the Lord Jesus. If there is, the apostle teaches us that we have no right to judge a brother, or despise him, or contend harshly with him. Our object should be to promote peace, to aid him in his efforts to become holy, and to seek to build him up in holy faith.

[mfblume]

Now, that should help us all understand the issue much better. :thumbsup

[MissBrattified]

Good stuff, mfblume! :thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Now, that should help us all understand the issue much better. :thumbsup

who got time to read all that?:toofunny

[mfblume]

who got time to read all that?:toofunny

I guarantee you will be glad you did. :D

[Truthseeker]

I guarantee you will be glad you did. :D

I don't need all that to know I can eat pork.:bliss

[mfblume]

I don't need all that to know I can eat pork.:bliss

:lol

[DAII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE

[Timmy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE

Oh man, I want to see one of these! Need to spend more time in malls and train stations, I guess. ;)

[mfblume]

I had tears of praise when I first saw that video! Awesome!