But I really like my right eye...

[a mere housewife]

It's useful, too; and I'll look so funny without it.
Not only is it useful, it will be downright inconvenient if I let it go...
Not only that, it will be an absolute hindrance to my doing things that are necessary, and even right.
And think what a devastating combination it would be if I got rid of the arm, as well...
Better keep 'em. It's not worth the pain or the inconvenience or the social discomfort or the downright trouble to stop sinning with them.

Fortunately, there are a lot of things that are easier to get of. Like TV.
...but it's useful, too; and the house will look so funny without it...


I am not trying to say that everyone should get rid of TV, only that there are definitely a lot of things are a lot easier to get rid of than certain body parts. But are we the kind of extremists who would rather chop off our right arm than reach it out to sin?
I don't think that I am, but I want to be.

Do others on the board feel that we need to be more extreme in our approach to leading holy lives, or do you feel that we are easily led into being too extreme, and need to loosen up a bit?

(James Ashworth: I hope you don't mind my subject. It was obviously suggested by yours, but I don't mean the post as a "reply" to yours.)

[Edited on 11-13-2003 by a mere housewife]

 

[wsw201]

[quote:3d4dfbd0d8]
Do others on the board feel that we need to be more extreme in our approach to leading holy lives, or do you feel that we are easily led into being too extreme, and need to loosen up a bit?
[/quote:3d4dfbd0d8]

Do all things in moderation. - John Calvin

 

[Gregg]

My TV is an excellent dust collector and I don't miss it much. Lately I have been listening to vintage radio programs and old music on the internet and don't waste time watching all the immorality that is portrayed on television these days.:biggrin:

 

[a mere housewife]

Gregg-- tv's definitely do a great job of collecting dust. I am not sure why this is. Probably because they have to make themselves troublesome in one way or another .

WSW: the quote from Calvin reminds me of the verse that says, "Let your moderation be known unto all men, for the Lord is at hand" (I think that is how it goes). But isn't the chopping off part supposed to come in when we realise that in certain cases, that is the only way to be moderate? Basically, if a person realises that the temptations of an All-you-can-eat-restaurant are too overwhelming for them to eat moderately, isn't it "moderate" to cut off the All-you-can-eat restaurant and go somewhere else? Isn't the extremism a tool to achieve moderation? Or do you think that the two are opposed?

If they are not, would you say that when cutting off is not achieving moderation, we are probably falling prey to legalism?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It's only legalistic if you think you merit anything from God by doing it or impose it on another's conscience without biblical warrant. If being extreme is what it takes to mortify the flesh than do it. But don't think that sin will go away just because you got rid of the TV. The sinful heart is weak and easily will replace that tv idol with another. You must attack sin at it's source, not it's symptoms.

Patrick

[Edited on 11-14-2003 by puritansailor]

 

[grace2U]

Gal 5:16-17: 'I say then, "Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." For the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit lusts against the flesh; and these things are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.'

If the Spirit is saying, "Watch less telly" or whatever, then you can be sure that your flesh will react against that, and Satan will tell you that you're being legalistic. But, 'If we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit' (v25), and if we won't walk in the Spirit, how can we be sure that we are living in Him?

BTW, it is not always necessary to throw the telly out; there is such a thing as an off switch, but that takes us back to Matt 5:29.

Every blessing,
Steve

 

[a mere housewife]

My father shot our tv when I was little, but, no I have not thrown my "telly" out.

I was not meaning to ask specifically about the television: what I am wondering about is the principle behind cutting things off: how extreme are we to be? And are we willing to be that extreme?

PuritanSailor: I agree that getting rid of the TV does not get rid of the source of sin. But what I am thinking is that this attitude of chopping things off DOES get at the source of sin. It is not that you say, "oh, look at my arm, it just sinned," and hack it off. It is an attitude that you would rather chop off a limb than use it to sin. If a person has that attitude, they will probably end up doing neither. If chopping my arm off is more of an option for me than sinning with it, then I am not going to stretch that arm out to sin any more than I am going to take a meat cleaver to it. I am going to avoid sin with that arm, even if that means doing something "extreme" like getting rid of the TV so my arm can't turn it on-- it is still less extreme than the meat cleaver. This is combat at the root of the sin level.

Because the root of the problem is that we would not rather chop off our arms than use them to sin. Sin is more of an option for us than self mutiliation.

 

[Christopher]

Well said Housewife. I haerd on the radio a couple of days ago that the average American (Kid I think) watchs 26 hours of TV per week. The guy who gave the statistic said that that means a child will spend more time in front of the tv than talking with his father. Sad.
My one year old is sitting on my lap right now in fact.
gh gg x ghbvgjhkukuytyu bn nmn
That was him.

 

[a mere housewife]

The antithesis: but I really hate my sin...

It is true that my eye is useful, and makes me look like other people. It is convenient, and helpful for doing good things. It's true that can learn a lot from my eye, because I can see a lot of things with it that I can't see without it.
But I hate my sin more than I love my eye.

I would rather lose my eye than use it to sin.

Fortunately, there are some things that are easier to excise than body parts, like TV.
My house will look funny without it, but my face will look funnier without my right eye.

I can lose the TV.

I could also just stop watching everything but that dumb cartoon my husband likes, and I Love Lucy and those history things...
There is that despairing show about those people who commit fornication and suicide, revealing their warped worldview. I can really use that to understand my culture, and witness to them.
But looking at and thinking about those unpure things might grieve the Holy Spirit.
And frankly, I would rather lose my eye than do that.
I guess I can be a witness by being different than the culture, too.

I do really like that show.
I also really like my TV.
And I really like my right eye.

But I really hate my sin more than I like any of them. I can lose the show.


aosidghasof agdsldkddh (to Christopher's baby)

 

[sastark]

[quote:1e88294e34][i:1e88294e34]Originally posted by Christopher's One Year Old[/i:1e88294e34]

gh gg x ghbvgjhkukuytyu bn nmn
[/quote:1e88294e34]

Brillant argumentation!

 

[Brohawk]

I believe the passage about plucking out one's eye is hyperbole to illustrate that we my be drastic in dealing with sin. After all, a blind man can still lust without the use of his eyes.

A couple months ago I turned off the one-eyed time thief. Now, if it's not on VHS we don't get it. There are some things I miss, such as the History and Discovery channels, but now the biggest challenge is keeping my 13 year old daughter in books! She goes through them fast.

Some things on TV are good, but it is possible to let the good rob you of the best.

 

[James Ashworth]

[quote:2418c4e3de][i:2418c4e3de]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:2418c4e3de]

PuritanSailor: I agree that getting rid of the TV does not get rid of the source of sin. But what I am thinking is that this attitude of chopping things off DOES get at the source of sin. It is not that you say, "oh, look at my arm, it just sinned," and hack it off. It is an attitude that you would rather chop off a limb than use it to sin. If a person has that attitude, they will probably end up doing neither. If chopping my arm off is more of an option for me than sinning with it, then I am not going to stretch that arm out to sin any more than I am going to take a meat cleaver to it. I am going to avoid sin with that arm, even if that means doing something "extreme" like getting rid of the TV so my arm can't turn it on-- it is still less extreme than the meat cleaver. This is combat at the root of the sin level.

Because the root of the problem is that we would not rather chop off our arms than use them to sin. Sin is more of an option for us than self mutiliation. [/quote:2418c4e3de]

Well said. Puritansailor said you must attack sin at its source, not it's symptoms. Though I believe that's true, we need to do both as well. There is no refuge in the heart from sin. If we pluck out the right eye, the left will compensate. Sin, will always be present in everything we do: "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." John Owen speaks about this well in 'Sin and temptation'...great read!
I feel you have to judge for yourself the actions you take to mortify the flesh.

Btw...[quote:2418c4e3de]
(James Ashworth: I hope you don't mind my subject. It was obviously suggested by yours, but I don't mean the post as a "reply" to yours.)
[/quote:2418c4e3de]

That's quite alright. Next time I'll remember to add my (c) at the end :wink2:

[Edited on 11/2/2004 by James Ashworth]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

So did the Gentile Christians attend the Roman/Greek theaters back in the early days of Christianity?

 

[staythecourse]

Going to hell

So I sin with my eyes till my grave. I'm supposing this is going to happen bar a miracle by God. I can't do it on my own.

Is Jesus warning me, a believer about hell or someone else. This isn't word play for me. I think about this seriously. Talk at me. Speak godly reason.

 

[a mere housewife]

STC,

Wow, I think this is the most controversial thread I ever started .

I know that there are other people on the board much better qualified to answer this, and who can say it better than I can: hopefully you'll hear from them, too (especially if I say this wrong!). But the way I understand these verses is very simple. The believer is to make no truce with sin. He is to have the attitude that he would rather lose limbs than use them to sin: this does not mean that when he sins, he "punishes" himself by chopping off his arm, or plucking out his eye: that will not change his attitude, or the danger of being cast into hell-- the danger is in not having the attitude. It does not mean that we are NOT believers if we honestly can't say we have it; but while we have any other attitude toward sin, we are in grave danger of becoming like that sow that returned to her wallowing in the mire-- proving that our professions were never sincere. God is against sin; and those who would be "on the Lord's side" must be against sin, as well.

Does that make sense?

PuritanSailor: I don't know much about early theater. I read some plays by Aristophanes, but I remember very little of them now. Perhaps they simply read the plays in the privacy of their own homes??

 

[Augusta]

You know I have the most terrible memory but I can remember when and can picture the room at church where I was taught this passage in the Bible. I was 8 years old. It wasn't taught perfectly but it obviously made an impression. I think you explained it great Housewife.

 

[pastorway]

Sin will cost you....so will following Christ!

If you are not willing to count the cost of following Christ (self-denial, the pearl of great price, the lost coin, etc) then you are holding onto a cheap grace and will pay the ultimate price with your own life!

So you either lose your life to find it, or save your life to lose it! Neither is cheap. Both will cost you everything!

Phillip