| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
03-21-2008, 10:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Folk dance
What do you, folks, think of folk dancing? Is it okay for Christians? Should it be taught in the Christian school? Are all dances bad for Christians? If not, which ones are good and which ones are bad?
|
|
#2
03-30-2008, 06:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
2Sa*6:14 - And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. There is nothing wrong with a Christian dancing. As for the type of dance, that is not the issue. The real issue is the PURPOSE of the dance. |
|
#3
03-30-2008, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think both would be important. David wasn't doing the Watusi nor boogeying down at the local bar. He was leaping and jumping for joy (which is what the word signifies). It was by himself - he wasn't dancing in a quartet, nor dancing cheek-to-cheek and up close with a woman in public (what a husband and wife do in private is their business) - nor was he wildly flailing around "in the Spirit" looking like he was demon-possessed (yes, I have seen some people supposedly "dancing in the Spirit" and that is exactly what it looked like - it gave me the chills).
|
|
#4
03-30-2008, 02:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Too often, a lot of baptist churches stick to their traditions, rather than the Bible.
Dancing, for enjoyment, is now an action that has been claimed by the world for it's own devices. The worldly dancing we see today is ungodly and sick, appealing only to the flesh. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a pastor (especially a pastor's wife) that would condemn the kind of dancing we read about in a Jane Austin novel (or watch in one of the movies based off her books). *P.S. I am a man, I don't read Austin novels :P But my wife does, and my pastors wife, and his daughters :P |
|
#5
03-30-2008, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curious - what's wrong with guys reading Jane Austen's books? They used to be read by both sexes in schools, as they were considered classics. I have not read any of her writings, but flipped through one and she clearly presented the Gospel near the end of the book.
|
|
#6
03-30-2008, 03:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was just joking :P (generally guys don't read them because they are all about women talking about Mr Darcy and Mr Nicholby and Mr Ericcson and Mr Dumpling, and then getting married in the end - not typical bloke literature).
Although, I must admit, my wife rented the movie "Nicholas Nicholby" from the video store the other day, and I loved it. It's not based on an Austen novel, but it is another classic (Dickens I think), where everyone gets married in the end after some major turmoil. |
|
#8
03-30-2008, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know Hollywood has probably ruined any of her books - We can see the previews with all the immorality portrayed - yet I seriously doubt a woman who clearly presents the Gospel in at least one of her books would have been immoral herself (at least after salvation) or write junk in her books. They came out with a movie about Jane Austin last year that portrayed her as a woman that fooled around WHILE she was writing her books.
If her books are just sappy romance novels, I am sure I wouldn't like any of them. The majority of novels out there - even by Louis Lamour, the Western writer - have elements of romance in them (I do not have any stomach for a book which has romance as the main focus of it though). |
|
#9
03-30-2008, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WOW! This is one of those subjects I hate. There was a time I wished I could dance, but do chance, I would fall and get hurt, and look real stupid, I never could dance, and I have no plans to dance, so when a fellow brother preaches against it, I take no offense, and when a Sister I have pays tithes from her ernings from her Square Dancing School I take no offense.
But Unholywood and all within are offensive to me. |
|
|
Nor do I really care for the "chick flicks" they turn them into... but that is just me...
Linear Mode
