Food offered to idols

[st. Worm]

You can eat whatever you want unless that food is specifically an offering to an idol. 1 Corinthians 10:27-28

That's a complete misreading of the text. The qualification about eating is related to partaking in the presence of those who are weak in faith whose conscience might be disturbed about it.

sw

[sweetycakes]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

[st. Worm]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

Yes, unless it might offend a brother who is weak in the faith. Then Paul advises abstaining so as not to damage the weaker brother's conscience.

sw

[sweetycakes]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

Yes, unless it might offend a brother who is weak in the faith. Then Paul advises abstaining so as not to damage the weaker brother's conscience.

sw

St. Worm: but what, then, of my daughter? Should I make her aware that it might be wrong to eat if it is 'personally' against your conscience, or should I leave her blissfully ignorant?

[st. Worm]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

Yes, unless it might offend a brother who is weak in the faith. Then Paul advises abstaining so as not to damage the weaker brother's conscience.

sw

St. Worm: but what, then, of my daughter? Should I make her aware that it might be wrong to eat if it is 'personally' against your conscience, or should I leave her blissfully ignorant?

I think you should teach her from Scripture what Paul says about the freedom to partake. She seems still in bondage by not understanding her liberty in Christ. May she be teachable!

sw

[sweetycakes]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

Yes, unless it might offend a brother who is weak in the faith. Then Paul advises abstaining so as not to damage the weaker brother's conscience.

sw

St. Worm: but what, then, of my daughter? Should I make her aware that it might be wrong to eat if it is 'personally' against your conscience, or should I leave her blissfully ignorant?

I think you should teach her from Scripture what Paul says about the freedom to partake. She seems still in bondage by not understanding her liberty in Christ. May she be teachable!

sw

St. Worm: I think she is certainly teachable. It's me that needs teaching. But what should I teach her? To eat, or not to eat? She is 25. And what of myself? Should I eat, or not eat? Great to hear that you responded to my post, by the way, St. Worm. Just trying to figure things out, that's all.

[st. Worm]

Eat man, eat. That was Paul's whole point. Food is neither good nor bad. But, if a weaker brother/sister is nearby, and they think it is wrong, then you as the stronger brother should just eat something else so that your action won't cause them to sin against their conscience.

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

The only limitation Paul places on it is as a consideration for a weaker brother whose weak faith does not understand his freedom to eat. Its not a question of private vs. public.

sw

Ah ha, St.Worm, I think you may have hit upon something there that I hadn't even thought about.

i.e. freedom to EAT, not freedom NOT to eat.

So we are free to eat, right?

Yes, unless it might offend a brother who is weak in the faith. Then Paul advises abstaining so as not to damage the weaker brother's conscience.

sw

St. Worm: but what, then, of my daughter? Should I make her aware that it might be wrong to eat if it is 'personally' against your conscience, or should I leave her blissfully ignorant?

I think you should teach her from Scripture what Paul says about the freedom to partake. She seems still in bondage by not understanding her liberty in Christ. May she be teachable!

sw

St. Worm: I think she is certainly teachable. It's me that needs teaching. But what should I teach her? To eat, or not to eat? She is 25. And what of myself? Should I eat, or not eat? Great to hear that you responded to my post, by the way, St. Worm. Just trying to figure things out, that's all.

In summation, it is appropriate and acceptable for all believers to eat. If you can convince her of that then there is no reason you can't eat in her presence. However, if she cannot be convinced that the Bible teaches that its fine for her to eat and her weak faith causes her conscience to still be bothered, then you should probably not partake in her presence until she can be convinced that its appropriate. That is what Paul is saying. We should not damage a weak believer's conscience in such matters but we should always teach them the truth.

sw

[Marnie]

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

Don't you ever do things in pivate you wouldn't do in public?? I mean, you should see what I am wearing right now...I look like a total slob. I would never dress like this in public. Same concept with many things in the Christian life.

[sweetycakes]

But this is exactly one of my points. I know I didn't state it, but why should I be allowed to eat something in private, but not in public (in the presence of a brother or sister?). If it is bad in public, is it not also bad in private? I don't know.

Don't you ever do things in pivate you wouldn't do in public?? I mean, you should see what I am wearing right now...I look like a total slob. I would never dress like this in public. Same concept with many things in the Christian life.

Marnie! And I thought I was the only one!

My faith in humanity has been restored. At least, partially.

I am not such a strange fellow, then, after all, eh?

[KeilanS]

I think that you should act the same in public and private in terms of Christianity. Like dressing poorly when nobody can see you is one thing. But would you blasphemy God in private but not in public? Thats is either hypocrisy or just straight out being a phoney.

I'm not sure which point we're arguing on, but if it's immoral in public, it's probably immoral in private too. There are exceptions, but what you eat isn't one.