Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I know Apostolic ministers and congregations who have a great realtionship with God. Now Mother Teresa of Calcutta is another story. I guess she would rate as a legalist?

You might not believe this, but I actually met her once. I was introduced as part of a large number of other community "ministers," so I didn't really "meet" with her, I just "met" her. As far as being a "legalist" herself, I can't say. However the Roman Catholic church in many of the ways in which it has applied it's beliefs has been legalistic.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Now this would be a cause of debate, because one would have to prove beyond the shadow of doubt what the early church thought was good behavior for a devout follower of Christ.

Yes, sadly, there you have it. We'll be at it for a while... Especially when it comes down to how to apply the teachings of the NT in today's modern world. But that's why we have these boards.

[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

[tv1a]

Legalism is the inconsistent application of Biblical principles to promote a particular agenda and expect the whole world to follow suit. There is a lack of uniformity among legalists. About the only thing they agree on is things need to be done their eay.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes, good. Thanks.

Legalism happens when the relationship with God is lost or marginalized and the person then grinds down on their own particular set of standards or rules to try and enforce their own cultural views.

Legalism is the idea that a particular set of rules of conduct must be performed in order to aquire or ensure salvation. These "rules" are understood to not be explicitly defined in the New Testament, but are added on to the New Testament's requirements for all Christians.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You might not believe this, but I actually met her once. I was introduced as part of a large number of other community "ministers," so I didn't really "meet" with her, I just "met" her. As far as being a "legalist" herself, I can't say. However the Roman Catholic church in many of the ways in which it has applied it's beliefs has been legalistic.

The new issue of Time says Mother Teresa of Calcutta didn't believe in God. She had lost her faith in God during her lifetime working in India. She had no relationship, and no belief.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yes, sadly, there you have it. We'll be at it for a while... Especially when it comes down to how to apply the teachings of the NT in today's modern world. But that's why we have these boards.

Modern world? I won't have my daughters dressing like some modern worlders dress down here in South Florida.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[tv1a]

FYI for EB,

I live in an area with more homosexuals per capita than San Franscisco. Homosexuals all over the country relocate to this area. The county I currently live in is know as the pot capital of the world. This is the area God has called me to harvest for His Kingdom.

I've worked with homosexuals. Went to lunch with them. Had them over to my house. Sat in the smoke room with them.

I've experienced enough legalism. I have observed the philosophy of legalism from the inside. I've seen the destruction it leaves in its path. Legalism is not portrayed in a favorable light in the Mew Testament.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The new issue of Time says Mother Teresa of Calcutta didn't believe in God. She had lost her faith in God during her lifetime working in India. She had no relationship, and no belief.

I'll let her nuns argue that one out. Time or the writer may also have an agenda. Dunno.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Modern world? I won't have my daughters dressing like some modern worlders dress down here in South Florida.

I was thinking more along the lines of everyone else's favorite topic of television. To advertise or not to advertise? To minister upon or not to minister upon...?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I for one think the idea that someone would rather side with someone that is a homosexual, than a person that is just too strict in his interpretation of the Holy Bible is very telling of where that person stands.

I am really finding this difficult to grasp here. One person takes the word of God, and lives it too strictly, and expects others to do the same. The other blatantly rejects nature itself, and does that which is unnatural, and an abomination to God. There is no comparison!

Bump

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

and just because one is a DS does not mean they are Apostolic. It just means they are political.

Not necessarily political at all. Very often "chosen" by his peers because .....

1) they respect the man

2) they acknowledge his leadership qualities, abilities, and ministry

3) because he's willing to serve (most of the time - sometimes conscripted ) and

4) sometimes because there's nobody else. LOL!

[tv1a]

Mother Theresa is bad because she questioned her faith at times?
Any christian who doesn't question their faith one time or the other.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'll let her nuns argue that one out. Time or the writer may also have an agenda. Dunno.


I was thinking more along the lines of everyone else's favorite topic of television. To advertise or not to advertise? To minister upon or not to minister upon...?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by tv1a

FYI for EB,

I live in an area with more homosexuals per capita than San Franscisco.

You live in Fort Lauderdale?

Originally Posted by tv1a

Homosexuals all over the country relocate to this area.

Fort Lauderdale?

Originally Posted by tv1a

The county I currently live in is know as the pot capital of the world.

The Netherlands? So now legalists are equal to dope heads? Or should I say dope heads who are perverts?

Originally Posted by tv1a

This is the area God has called me to harvest for His Kingdom.

Lord bless it and reel'em in! Remember they are to be saved from their sin, not in their sin.

Originally Posted by tv1a

I've worked with homosexuals. Went to lunch with them. Had them over to my house. Sat in the smoke room with them.

Smoke? As in? You sat with them while they smoked dope?

Originally Posted by tv1a

I've experienced enough legalism. I have observed the philosophy of legalism from the inside. I've seen the destruction it leaves in its path. Legalism is not portrayed in a favorable light in the Mew Testament.

Explain what your idea of legalism in your own words.