Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[berkeley]

is
this
thread
for
real????

[Ferd]

Good grief.

[Sister Alvear]

abuse has always existed and always will until the Better Day...

[Praxeas]

le·gal·ism
–noun 1.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.

I fail to see the comparison with homosexuality

[tv1a]

The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.

THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

le·gal·ism
–noun 1.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.

I fail to see the comparison with homosexuality

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.

THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.

I think we can see that its very human for us to try and protect and justify ourselves and our behaviors. I've known gays who were tormented by the need to justify themselves.

Is this "self justification" something you see also in "legalists?" (I tried to show that possible link earlier). Maybe the real link is that both are human beings. Perhaps both groups include people that we've cared for and who have hurt us.

We all have practiced the "love the sinner but hate the sin" with gays, alcoholics, drug addicts and 'garden variety sinners.' We know what the tension is like when you open yourself and make yourself vulnerable to someone who will probably dissappoint you and all of your prayers for them.

Can you translate that experience into one in which you are dealing with a "legalist?" It's difficult because they profess to be "saved." You must make yourself just as vulnerable and be ready to be just as hurt. Only difference is that after they have trode upon you, the legalist will then often climb into a pulpit or into some other place of authority and announce how that it was "God" who just walked all over you.

I think a religious movement has matured when the greatest number of its adherents recognize this kind of error when it happens; and they stop supporting the structures that abuse.

[tv1a]

I experienced the darkside of legalism. I've seen it destroy many good men. They either became the monster legalism creates or they walk away from God.

Legalism is a spirit of oppression. That's why Jesus was harder on the pharisees than the prostitutes. He realized the oppressive nature of legalism. That's why he told the prostitue to sin no more. He couldn't find a pharisee to accuse her once the tables were turned.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think we can see that its very human for us to try and protect and justify ourselves and our behaviors. I've known gays who were tormented by the need to justify themselves.

Is this "self justification" something you see also in "legalists?" (I tried to show that possible link earlier). Maybe the real link is that both are human beings. Perhaps both groups include people that we've cared for and who have hurt us.

We all have practiced the "love the sinner but hate the sin" with gays, alcoholics, drug addicts and 'garden variety sinners.' We know what the tension is like when you open yourself and make yourself vulnerable to someone who will probably dissappoint you and all of your prayers for them.

Can you translate that experience into one in which you are dealing with a "legalist?" It's difficult because they profess to be "saved." You must make yourself just as vulnerable and be ready to be just as hurt. Only difference is that after they have trode upon you, the legalist will then often climb into a pulpit or into some other place of authority and announce how that it was "God" who just walked all over you.

I think a religious movement has matured when the greatest number of its adherents recognize this kind of error when it happens; and they stop supporting the structures that abuse.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven.

Where did you find your definition of legalism? One needs to watch carefully to how they interpret because if one doesn't seek a balance they can go into Antinomianism.

Originally Posted by tv1a

A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.

I don't watch television so I don't know what's on it anymore. I am told that Pentecostals who own televisions only watch the news and animal planet.

Have you ever been in Barnes and Noble book store?

Originally Posted by tv1a

THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism.

Since you have claimed expertise with Legalism, what is your expertise with homosexuality? How do sexual perverts and pedophiles resemble legalists?

Originally Posted by tv1a

The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.

Could you explain this though further?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The definition is faulty because legalism is event driven not principle driven. A legalist thinks it's television is pure evil, but the internet is okay even though pornography is easier to get on the internet than on television.

THere are similarities between homosexuality and legalism. The definition you propose is a lofty ideal which will never be acheived because there is always a human element involved.

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

[tv1a]

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.

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