intersting article in legalism in the church

[Vickilynn]

Dear vickilynn,

You are still responsible, just as other Christians are, for condoning and promoting appropriate OR inappropriate material for television.

Shalom Suzanne,

I do not believe that is accurate. My watching a show has no impact on people I do not know or who do not know me. I'm sorry, but you are just stretching this too far. I am not promoting or condoning anything for anyone except myself and my family.

Biblically, I am responsible for not offending my brother or sister by what I watch. I lay them down so I won't offend someone.

However, MY watching a show has nothing to do with someone else making that choice. I am not in control of other people's kids. or their TVs. It's ludicrous to say that I am. My watching a show does not in any way affect someone else's kids watching a show. Nor would my turning OFF a show mean that someone else's kids would as well. Your argument is not logical, or Biblical.

You don't have to agree, but Biblically, your case that it is my fault that someone else watches violence is askew.

[Vickilynn]

The gist of what I was saying, is we should be willing to give up personal liberties if it makes it easier for a brother/sister Christ to remian pure in their walk. This is a loving selfless attitude.

Shalom Emily Anne,

And that's what I've been saying for days in several threads. :24:

[Emily~Anne]

The gist of what I was saying, is we should be willing to give up personal liberties if it makes it easier for a brother/sister Christ to remian pure in their walk. This is a loving selfless attitude.

Shalom Emily Anne,

And that's what I've been saying for days in several threads. :24:

Well Vickilynn, take heart, I fully and totally understand that you have been trying to say, and may I add, though some people have tried extremely hard to confuse the topic, you have been extremely clear.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

[Vickilynn]

The gist of what I was saying, is we should be willing to give up personal liberties if it makes it easier for a brother/sister Christ to remian pure in their walk. This is a loving selfless attitude.

Shalom Emily Anne,

And that's what I've been saying for days in several threads. :24:

Well Vickilynn, take heart, I fully and totally understand that you have been trying to say, and may I add, though some people have tried extremely hard to confuse the topic, you have been extremely clear.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Shalom Emily Anne,

Thank you. I do take heart.

Hey, I KNEW there was a reason that I liked you!

[Richard_yaash]

Red responded as if I were addressing her posts and I simply clarified that I was not. No need to make an argument based on something I never said. Not something anyone else needs to comment on. That was my point.

Yet it remains, that we are all free to comment upon any post.

There are many DISrespectful posts and personal attacks that violate Scripture as well as TOS. That is why people are on Ignore. It is the right thing to do to ignore the ones doing this.

There are many ways/levels in which to be disrespectful. Some are far more 'sophisticated' than others and are able to deliver the same level of disrepectfulness without it appearing as such. So while it does not directly violate the letter of the TOS, it does violate the 'spirit' of the TOS.

Again, I have no problem with putting someone on 'ignore'. It is when a 'show' is continually made of it that I have a problem. For it is not only rude, but it is also disrepectful IMO. It is something that can be done quietly without the need to make it public. If one feels the need to make it public, one simple statement is more than sufficient. To repeatedly make such statements: Under my watch, the mods/admin/hosts were disciplined for such for it is demeaning. So no matter how much we may think of ourselves as being 'better', we have lowered ourselves IMO to being less.

You know Richard, some might question whether the repeated use of "my weak conscience" as mocking and using the term as leverage rather than a G-dly motive.

I do understand that. However, it remains that all three in fact occurred within a short time within the same thread. Now, I have remained silent upon those to this point. Further, all three are in fact something that do deeply and sincerely bother me.

Now, I openly apologized for my misunderstanding with regard to one of those. I will not say "apparent" or "possible" misunderstanding, for that in and of itself would reveal a lack of sincerity. My apology remains sincere, as such, I will say nothing more about it, for to do so, would be to negate my apology.

[Richard_yaash]

Maybe some simple yes or no answers?

If I may:

Wearing women

[Vickilynn]

Further, all three are in fact something that do deeply and sincerely bother me.

Shalom Richard,

For which I apologized and asked for your forgiveness, [post #151] but you have continued to chastise me and did not accept my apology. Now, the Bible has quite a lot to say about forgiving as Jesus forgives.

And the Scriptures clearly state that if indeed you are offended by someone, you should follow the Biblical mandate for handling that: Matthew 18, which is in PRIVATE.

Matthew 18:15-17

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

And that Richard, is all I have to say publicly to you on this matter. It is hijacking the thread.

You are free to ignore MY posts if they cause you upset since my apology wasn't sufficient for you. Shalom.

[Vickilynn]

By the way, SOME pants are modest, SOME pants are not. Depends on the cut and the fit and etc. *I* out of love for my brothers in Christ, focus on *my* part, by checking myself in the mirror when I get dressed. Wether or not a brother is 'pervert', does not absolve me of my responsibility.

Shalom Emily Anne,

Amen. It seems the real point has been deliberately overlooked.

The issue is not whether women wearing pants is a sin.

The issue is not whether women wearing pants will cause someone to lust.

The issue is IF SOMEONE BELIEVES women wearing pants is a sin, it is wrong of US to NOT respect those convictions and to flaunt our freedoms in their face, causing them to stumble or be offended. We should be willing to lay them down if our brother/sister is offended. If we are not willing, then that might indicate the thing (attire) or whatever the freedom, has become an idol.

That is what some people will not accept, but it is pure Scripture.

[Richard_yaash]

Do you feel that what we ladies wear makes absolutely no difference at all on wether a man will be more likely to lust?

For example, is a man equally likely to lust after a lady in a string bikini as he is a lady wearing a burka?

Your example is extreme. I am speaking only of modest dress.

[Vickilynn]

Shalom,

The term "modest" is subjective. It means different things to different people.