Homosexuality Or Legalism--Which Is Worse?

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Okay, point taken. Perhaps the crusade analogy isn't the best but the one you used seemed quite extreme and very graphic to me and one that I can't identify with and really don't want to have to even think about it in order to try and identify with the comparison you're making.

Anyhow ....

Sometimes we have to be abased. It's part of the human experience. Certainly Jesus was and certainly Paul was and he testified to it too.

We survive these things and come out better for it if we're committed to keeping our heart and spirit right.

The voice of common sense at last.

[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

["GL"]

Originally Posted by Felicity

...We survive these things and come out better for it if we're committed to keeping our heart and spirit right.

And if not we become obsessed. We become accusers. We become motivated by wounds and hurts - something very different from love.

Eventually, we ourselves end up as the spear throwers.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The voice of common sense at last.

"At last...?" I think you've just fallen into this thread. (Or been enmired, ensnared?)

Felicity has been here with her wisdom and Christian witness throughout. I feel like I'm a better person just listening to her.

[berkeley]

What a ridiculous thread!!

[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 Amos

On another thread, tv1a and RandyWayne are promoting the idea that legalism is worse and more difficult to overcome than homosexuality.

What say ye?

Why did they do that? First off what did they define as a legalist? Are they legalists?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I experienced the darkside of legalism.

Was this only in one area of the world or are you speaking from a view point of having experienced "legalism" across the globe in many different areas.
Would you say that you are an expert on the darkside of legalism or just an expert on the "darkside," period?

Originally Posted by tv1a

I've seen it destroy many good men.

How many "good" men? Did you know these "good" men personally; if so how many of these "good" men did you personally know get destroyed?

Originally Posted by tv1a

They either became the monster legalism creates

Becoming a monster? Like Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn? Is that what you call legalist?

Originally Posted by tv1a

or they walk away from God.

Can you define walking away from God?

Originally Posted by tv1a

Legalism is a spirit of oppression.

Would you say a well-known ex-Pentecostal music teacher who exposes himself to a young person in a public restroom under a spirit of oppression?
Would you consider an individual like that a legalist?

Originally Posted by tv1a

That's why Jesus was harder on the pharisees than the prostitutes.

Jesus was hard on un-repentant religious hypocrites.

Originally Posted by tv1a

He realized the oppressive nature of legalism.

More like Jesus understood a hypocrite when he saw one. One who claimed to love God and knew all the jargon (Jesus looked just like a Pharisee so clothes weren't the problem in the first century) but denied God by their actions.

Originally Posted by tv1a

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.

Remember the ones who brought the woman (we are never told she was a prostitute) they told Jesus she was caught in the very act of adultery.
This is important because a true witness (according to the Jewish Sages) had to be a witness who caught the accused in the "very act" of the crime.
These witnesses had to be at least two and a third would make the testimony fully established. Those who caught the person in the "very act" had to be the first one to cast the stone, or put the accused to death. Jesus asking for the first stone to be cast by he who is without sin is calling on those who caught the woman in the "very act" to make their judgment of execution. Where was the man who (by Torah law) needed to be present?
Remember this woman was caught in the "very act" and yet we have no man? Could it be that Jesus was writing down the name of that man? The man who was in the "act" with the woman? The man who was the second witness? What this example shows us is a hypocrite’s zeal to go to any length to trip up a son of God.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[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