> But if an unsaved person sees him eat it, he may feel that the rightous man is a hypocrit since he says one thing (his witness for God) and outwardly shows something else (eating meat sacrificed to an idol.)

Granted. That principle carries over to our every action. The Romans passage Grishny pointed out warns against something similar -- don't throw a "stumblingblock" in front of someone else. From context, I gathered this would be another saved person. We do have to be careful about how our actions might be interpreted.

But in this respect, too, there is a gray area. I once went to church with a woman who was brought up with such a restrictive standard for what kind of language was acceptable and what was not that the words "downright oppressive" were offensive to her, presumably on the grounds that that expression was an unnecessarily grisly way to say what could have been said with a more delicate euphemism. I can think of still harsher language than that that I'd never even think could possibly be offensive to anyone. Am I to blame for saying "downright oppressive" in front of this woman and causing her to stumble? You could make a case for it if I knew at the time, I guess, but if I didn't, I simply can't believe it is the least bit rational to expect me or anyone else to avoid using language as harsh as "downright oppressive" until we are positive the people in our presence will not be caused to stumble.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this instance is as easily discerned as that one, but merely establishing that there is a gray area here, too, where causing others to stumble may not be something we can be blamed for. As Romans says, we must draw our own lines and live with other people's choices for themselves. For my part, I don't see what's wrong with pretending to be drunk in an exaggerated enough fashion that the charade should have been seen through.