firehill Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves? Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free. doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays? Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...) here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly. Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree? And people who criticize those who do not honor Halloween or have Christmas trees, are they perhaps being 'legalistic' by insisting these people defend their choices to them? I wouldn't criticize any who did not honor this or that holiday and espeicaly in any traditional way since that is where culture breaksdown and changes. For example, I wouldn't criticize any who celebrate Halloween and send their kids out dressed up in Jewish garb every year while theres daylight! If they insist that they must defend their choice then their attitude is wrong. Hey, no yokes, no legalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_boy_44 Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 41 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/29/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves? Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free. doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays? Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...) here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly. Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree? I'm not saying anything in either direction, I'm just saying that interpretation is not that great of a stretch and to attack a church for saying those things is just as bad, if not WORSE, than what they are doing... Glad you're not saying either...regarding the rest of what you wrote, you lost me. if you attack a group of Christians for believing that celebrating Christmas or Holloween is wrong than you are doing worse than they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves? Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free. doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays? Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...) here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly. Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree? I'm not saying anything in either direction, I'm just saying that interpretation is not that great of a stretch and to attack a church for saying those things is just as bad, if not WORSE, than what they are doing... Glad you're not saying either...regarding the rest of what you wrote, you lost me. if you attack a group of Christians for believing that celebrating Christmas or Holloween is wrong than you are doing worse than they are doing. I agree. K, gottcha, but who's attacking? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily~Anne Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 146 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,308 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I am wondering, is there any scripture that says we must exchange vows and wear rings in order to be married? Are we legalistic if we think it is a good idea? No and no. it's a great idea. Just don't tell anyone that they have to express their vows that way especialy since marriage ceremonies vary from culture to culture. The point I am making, is that many could argue that marriage ceremonies are legalistic as well and should be avoided because it is not clearly dictated in scripture. Jesus never said one word about legalism. Nowhere in scripture is legalism mentioned, so therefore the concept of 'legalism' would be legalistic in itself. In this day and age, many want to hear what their itching ears desire to hear. They want to hear things like, "God's yoke is light so don't stress yourself trying to do right, etc. etc." I know this is not what you mean when you refer to the yoke, which is why I added a bit to it, to help prevent misinterpretation. It is so easy to be misinterpreted by others out there desiring to pursue their own wills and be saved at the same time. Jesus knew people would have itching ears, and I think this is why he didn't caution against legalism, but more the other way. We are to love God with our whole heart and soul and do our best. Granted yes, we will trip and fall, thank goodness for the grace of our God, but let's not abuse God's grace. (I am not directing that to you specifically firehill, just anyone that would desire to twist your posts into something more suitable for their itching ears.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily~Anne Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 146 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,308 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves? Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free. doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays? Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...) here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly. Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree? I'm not saying anything in either direction, I'm just saying that interpretation is not that great of a stretch and to attack a church for saying those things is just as bad, if not WORSE, than what they are doing... Glad you're not saying either...regarding the rest of what you wrote, you lost me. if you attack a group of Christians for believing that celebrating Christmas or Holloween is wrong than you are doing worse than they are doing. I agree. K, gottcha, but who's attacking? Did I miss something? Oh goodness! I have been very strongly attacked for not celebrating halloween! Fellow Christians have INSISTED I defend my decision to them, and then they get all defensive and it goes on and on and on. Finally I said I stand before God, not you and therefore I do not have to defend myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Well actually this is kind of ironic. Here we are debating whether or not we should allow women to wear pants and if that is a sin, and yet we have pastors who are leading us who have non-biblical divorces, we have a major problem with adultery, we have people living together without marriage, we have pastors lining their pockets, we can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 Oh goodness! I have been very strongly attacked for not celebrating halloween! Fellow Christians have INSISTED I defend my decision to them, and then they get all defensive and it goes on and on and on. Finally I said I stand before God, not you and therefore I do not have to defend myself. Shame on them. I think at least some wanted to understand your decision, yes? That's right, you stand before God and do not HAVE to do ANYTHING, including defending yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I don't know, my point is simply when I look out at even what are seen as conservative Churches in the US in general; I see us arguing about pants and divorcing like crazy. I see us arguing about the exact details of a biblical divorce while having a higher divorce rate than even NON Christians, or allowing a divorced pastor. In some ways it does seem like the Pharisees that we have these little minor obsessions, and yet MISS the big things. But I guess that makes sense, it is a LOT easier to pick out some clothes than it is to stay married to someone your entire life. I am not saying you are doing that either, I think you are relatively consistent, it is just more of a general observation. But I thinkk that if we can grasp the little things we can ONLY then grasp the bigger things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily~Anne Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 146 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,308 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 Oh goodness! I have been very strongly attacked for not celebrating halloween! Fellow Christians have INSISTED I defend my decision to them, and then they get all defensive and it goes on and on and on. Finally I said I stand before God, not you and therefore I do not have to defend myself. Shame on them. I think at least some wanted to understand your decision, yes? That's right, you stand before God and do not HAVE to do ANYTHING, including defending yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted January 31, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 31, 2007 I am wondering, is there any scripture that says we must exchange vows and wear rings in order to be married? Are we legalistic if we think it is a good idea? No and no. it's a great idea. Just don't tell anyone that they have to express their vows that way especialy since marriage ceremonies vary from culture to culture. The point I am making, is that many could argue that marriage ceremonies are legalistic as well and should be avoided because it is not clearly dictated in scripture. And a good point too. Jesus never said one word about legalism. Nowhere in scripture is legalism mentioned, so therefore the concept of 'legalism' would be legalistic in itself. In this day and age, many want to hear what their itching ears desire to hear. True that. They want to hear things like, "God's yoke is light so don't stress yourself trying to do right, etc. etc." I know this is not what you mean when you refer to the yoke, which is why I added a bit to it, to help prevent misinterpretation. It is so easy to be misinterpreted by others out there desiring to pursue their own wills and be saved at the same time. That's the key here. The key is that there are ones out there desiring to pursue their own wills and so in turn they misinterpret what many mean by 'Paul was free' not bound to Law. In other words, it works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts