A common bond between a legalist and a homosexual is the blatent redefinition of terms and principles to fit their agenda. A homsexual's definition of a monogamous relationship is having intimate relations with one person at a time. It could be three or four a week, but one at a time.
The easiest example for the legalist is television/internet debate. The principle against televisions are not applied to internet. A legalist has a sliding scale for principle.
Legalism and homosexuality are built on shakey foundations.
Legalists and homosexuals live by their own set of rules and expect everyone else to do the same.
Homosexuals call it gay bashing when someone disagrees with their philosophy. Legalists cry persecution if someone disagrees with their philosophy.
As indicated earlier leglaists and homosexual are selective with applying principle. Both are abominations to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
I got the definition from the dictionary. The one you propose is not in there. Someone that thinks TV is evil is not necessarily then a legalist. There might be another word for it. A legalist could see it that way though, but not necessarily because they are legalists.
I have even known Atheists that refuse to have TVs in their home and yet used a computer to access the internet.
I don't see the similarities. However it's not to hard to find similarities between many things.
One person feels they can find similarities between Mithra and Christianity and makes a big deal out of that
|
Threaded Mode
