Originally posted by leehljp
<br />I had a friend once who was a writer and also in the ministry. I remember a discussion with him about his writing. He told me that it was Christians that limited his writing skills. There was some argument over this. He said the Christians were too offended by how he really wanted to write, and were too quick to censor, styfling his personal creativity.
I asked him that since he was a Christian and in the ministry on top of that, why he did not have a committment to God more so than his desire for writing. He looked at me and asked me to explain. I told him that just because he had a creative writing streak (ability), that didn't give him a license to do what would offend many people, even if some were not offended.
Then I told him what he did not want to hear: Paul said it like this - It is perfectly OK before God to eat meat, but if eating meat offended someone, then he would not. (My paraphraze) Most people do not realize this but taking God's name in vain is not about profanity but taking on the name of God and letting people that they are on the side of God (believing in God/Christ) but at the same time being offensive, demanding personal rights, doing things that does not glorify God, and in a manner that will drive people to not want his God. (The short message) This is the real meaning of taking God's name in vain. Being offensive, demanding personal rights and then claiming that they are on God's side - colloquially speaking.
As to the art, what will simple art like that do to a 15 year old boy? Why don't someone tell that 15 year old boy that he should not be aroused by looking at a piece of wood that just happens to look like a woman's breast. Is it OK to show that to your own 16 year old daughter with her date is standing there - just before they go out on a date? Or to the ladies at the church social - would that be OK since the creator is a Christian?
Too many Christians today want the freedom but not the responsibility. Too many Americans want the freedom to do what they want but not the responsibility that goes with it. 99 out of a 100 on this forum may not be offended by the picture. However, for the creator of the "art" to call oneself a Christian and not abide by the spirit of the scriptures and then demand personal rights in the name of creative license is pushing real truth out the window.
The greater a person's creative ability, the greater he should show restraint and the more reponsibilty he should display. To say that we are not responsible for another person's thoughts and feelings on things that we create which might be controversial - is to shirk this very responsibility that goes with creative license in a true "Christrian" context.
]
