Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[tv1a]

Legalism is the spiritual equivelent of situational ethics. Legalists consistently look for loopholes when an application of principle rules out participating in an activity near and dear to them. Legalists look down on others for not holding the similar opinions. A legalist denies conflicting principles and makes up new principles to justify an position. Legalists live off another generation's principles as long as it falls within the realm of their agenda.

People who take offense to the term legalism automatically assume it is an attack on standards. That is not the case. Legalism is a definition coined by others to describe rules based salvation combined with selectively applying principles when one wants a certain rule to change.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It sounds as though you are saying "if a legalist does it, it must be unique to a legalist and defines someone else as a legalist"...

Are Homosexuals legalists then? It really does sound like you are being subjective and equivocating. Do homosexuals adhere to the letter of the law?

strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.

2.Theology. a.the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. b.the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.

Forgive my bluntness, but it really sounds like you are just adding to the term Legalism and then drawing a biased comparison. Even a non-legalist can by hypocritical or hold to a double standard or just be inconsistant...in this case it's inconsistant to say No to TV and Yes to Internet. Anyone can do that and NOT be a legalist according to the dictionary definition of legalism.

What you have done was not really even define. You gave an example and then in essence said "Legalists do this, well so do homosexuals", but you have not proven that this thing of TV and Internet is something ONLY a legalist would do or that it's a trademark of a legalist. Can heterosexuals do that too?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Legalism is the spiritual equivelent of situational ethics. Legalists consistently look for loopholes when an application of principle rules out participating in an activity near and dear to them.

That's not legalism. That's an inconsistancy, or a double standard or hypocrisy. Again what you are doing is not giving a definition. You are giving an example, but even a non-legalist can look for loopholes under the same circumstances. A Legalist by definition is a strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works

Legalists look down on others for not holding the similar opinions.

Again a non-legalist can do that too. This is not a definition of a legalist. This just tells me what a legalist or any person can do. Heterosexuals can do this. Liberals can do this.

A legalist denies conflicting principles and makes up new principles to justify an position. Legalists live off another generation's principles as long as it falls within the realm of their agenda.

Again you are not giving a definition, you certainly aren't using the dictionary definition of the word. Really what you have been doing is ignoring my points and just listing more examples.

People who take offense to the term legalism automatically assume it is an attack on standards. That is not the case. Legalism is a definition coined by others to describe rules based salvation combined with selectively applying principles when one wants a certain rule to change.

Wrong. Legalism is a word that signifies a strict adherence to the letter of the law AND that one can be justfied by their works. All the other stuff you seem to be adding. Anyone can selectively apply principles and not be a legalist (strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works)

[tv1a]

Very few people would disagree the pharisees represents legalism. Jesus talked many times about their inconsistencies. The woman caught in adultery was the prime example of the incosistency of legalism. Legalism is consistent in lack of applying principle...

It's ironic how you are insistent on using the dictionary to define legalism. Want to try to use the diction on defining apostolic? Webster's New World Dictionary second edition defines apostolic as 1. of the apostles and their teachings, work, etc.. 2. of the pope; so Webster has a catholic leaning towards defining apostolic. (Thrown in at no extra charge)...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's not legalism. That's an inconsistancy, or a double standard or hypocrisy. Again what you are doing is not giving a definition. You are giving an example, but even a non-legalist can look for loopholes under the same circumstances. A Legalist by definition is a strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works


Again a non-legalist can do that too. This is not a definition of a legalist. This just tells me what a legalist or any person can do. Heterosexuals can do this. Liberals can do this.


Again you are not giving a definition, you certainly aren't using the dictionary definition of the word. Really what you have been doing is ignoring my points and just listing more examples.


Wrong. Legalism is a word that signifies a strict adherence to the letter of the law AND that one can be justfied by their works. All the other stuff you seem to be adding. Anyone can selectively apply principles and not be a legalist (strict adherence to the letter of the law and salvation by works)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Very few people would disagree the pharisees represents legalism. Jesus talked many times about their inconsistencies. The woman caught in adultery was the prime example of the incosistency of legalism. Legalism is consistent in lack of applying principle...

ANYONE, Legalist or NON legalist, can be inconsistant. That is NOT THE definition of a legalist and if it is then you should be comparing a legalist to everyone or everyone is a legalist because I have rarely seen a person that was never NOT inconsistant at any time in their lives. Just showing an example does not mean definition. The Pharisees also ate beef, does that make all beef eaters legalists?

It's ironic how you are insistent on using the dictionary to define legalism.

Are you sure that is irony?

Want to try to use the diction on defining apostolic?

It's fine with me. I NEVER disputed the dictionary definition of the word Apostolic. I admitted Oneness Pentecostals have their OWN definition.

Webster's New World Dictionary second edition defines apostolic as 1. of the apostles and their teachings, work, etc.. 2. of the pope; so Webster has a catholic leaning towards defining apostolic. (Thrown in at no extra charge)...

Well here is an interesting conundrum....do you agree with that definition or do you have your own here too?

[tv1a]

You may have missed an earlier point when I stated legalists consistently change principles to fit their dogma. See how they compare with leglists today. Not much difference. And the homosexual operates the same way the pharisees did but with a lot less religion. Even that may be debatable.


I am not an apostolic by anyone's definition. There are more definitions of apostolics than nekkid elbows on the beach. The word apostolic is a term man made so they have something to brag about. I'd rather make my boast in the Lord and not in a self grandoising word.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

ANYONE, Legalist or NON legalist, can be inconsistant. That is NOT THE definition of a legalist and if it is then you should be comparing a legalist to everyone or everyone is a legalist because I have rarely seen a person that was never NOT inconsistant at any time in their lives. Just showing an example does not mean definition. The Pharisees also ate beef, does that make all beef eaters legalists?

Are you sure that is irony?

It's fine with me. I NEVER disputed the dictionary definition of the word Apostolic. I admitted Oneness Pentecostals have their OWN definition.

Well here is an interesting conundrum....do you agree with that definition or do you have your own here too?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

You may have missed an earlier point when I stated legalists consistently change principles to fit their dogma. See how they compare with leglists today. Not much difference. And the homosexual operates the same way the pharisees did but with a lot less religion. Even that may be debatable.

You're just ignoring my points lol. All you have done is post "examples" that anyone can do, things that are NOT exclusive to legalists nor fit the definition found in the dictionary. It really seems more like an attack on your part than anything else.

[tv1a]

Maybe its you don't accept my answers. I did one better and referred to the Bible and gave New Testament Examples. What is the reason you defend a spirit that is obvious contrary to scripture.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You're just ignoring my points lol. All you have done is post "examples" that anyone can do, things that are NOT exclusive to legalists nor fit the definition found in the dictionary. It really seems more like an attack on your part than anything else.