intersting article in legalism in the church

[Artemus Prime]

There seems to be a lot of thinly veiled relativism floating around this thread..."what's true for me, may not be true for you" is an incorrect assessment, especially in regards to the Christian faith.

[Artemus Prime]

"Considering one's self instead of God's wants for your life is evil. It's selfishness. Selfishness is a sin..."

This is the only point I was trying to make; the simple fact that the above quoted sentiment is a correct statement, and that it rather worried me that (unless I misunderstand your point,) you were attempting to say that here Bibs was incorrect, when in fact the opposite is true. That's all...

[Artemus Prime]

"Considering one's self instead of God's wants for your life is evil. It's selfishness. Selfishness is a sin..."

This is the only point I was trying to make; the simple fact that the above quoted sentiment is a correct statement, and that it rather worried me that (unless I misunderstand your point,) you were attempting to say that here Bibs was incorrect, when in fact the opposite is true. That's all...

it would not have been wrong for her to say that had it been in a context of taking very matter of fact principles in the bible and me disregarding them as God's will for me when they are clearly the will of Him for everyone....then she would have been right on. unfortunately that was not the case that I am aware of.....

Alright, although going by the rest of her statement (the beginning of which I quoted) it seems that is exactly what she's doing...speaking of a matter-of-fact Biblical principal...the fact that our freedom in Christ still has "limits," as it were, it is not to be used as a misinterpreted "freedom" to act however we wish (cf. Galatians 5:13-18).

[tsth]

In relation to the dressing modestly concept. I would like to give another example. Say you have a friend who battled alcoholism for a long time, and it makes it more difficult for that person to sit at a table while everyone else at the table drinks alcohol. We can have one of two attitudes:

~out of love for this brother/sister in Christ, not serve alcohol with this meal.

OR, have the attitude of-

~"he's a drunk and that ain't my problem. I'm serving the alcohol cause I don't want my personal liberties infringed upon. *hmpf*"

very well put Emily~Anne. This is how I see these issues as well. Especially with regard to the ideas I have put forth regarding violence and television and our responsiblity to the children of this society....(yes I know, another topic, but some perceive it as legalism according to the OP article definitions).

Thank you for putting it forth. (by the way, having dealt with alcoholism, I agree with the example given as well!)

We're supposed to care for the WHOLE LUMP, not just our little part of it.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Vickilynn]

It remains however an open forum. And we are each free to address each other.

Shalom Richard,

And I never said any different. Red responded as if I were addressing her posts and I simply clarified that I was not. No need to make an argument based on something I never said. Not something anyone else needs to comment on. That was my point.

I've read your posts, but I don't agree. Simple as that.

Nothing wrong with that either. Hopefully, we may each do so respectfully.

There are many DISrespectful posts and personal attacks that violate Scripture as well as TOS. That is why people are on Ignore. It is the right thing to do to ignore the ones doing this.

There's nothing wrong with differing views.

They are actually quite beneficial at times. As Paul wrote: 1 Cor 11:19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God

[~pearl]

In relation to the dressing modestly concept. I would like to give another example. Say you have a friend who battled alcoholism for a long time, and it makes it more difficult for that person to sit at a table while everyone else at the table drinks alcohol. We can have one of two attitudes:

~out of love for this brother/sister in Christ, not serve alcohol with this meal.

OR, have the attitude of-

~"he's a drunk and that ain't my problem. I'm serving the alcohol cause I don't want my personal liberties infringed upon. *hmpf*"

I don't really want to join this thread , but I have been reading it. Emily~Anne this is an excellent analogy, and when I read "personal liberties" one word immediatly came to mind "Worldly". Are we born-again Christians supposed to be of this world? I don't think so.

[Vickilynn]

In relation to the dressing modestly concept. I would like to give another example. Say you have a friend who battled alcoholism for a long time, and it makes it more difficult for that person to sit at a table while everyone else at the table drinks alcohol. We can have one of two attitudes:

~out of love for this brother/sister in Christ, not serve alcohol with this meal.

OR, have the attitude of-

~"he's a drunk and that ain't my problem. I'm serving the alcohol cause I don't want my personal liberties infringed upon. *hmpf*"

Shalom Emily Anne,

Exactly the attitude that we saw in the Women and Pants thread. And exactly why I refuted it. It is NOT a Christian attitude and it is G-d's law that we prefer the other, not stomp our feet in rebellion. That is G-d's Law, not man's. And again, if someone cares more for their freedoms than the weaker brother, I would question whether that person has made their freedom and idol.

[Vickilynn]

very well put Emily~Anne. This is how I see these issues as well. Especially with regard to the ideas I have put forth regarding violence and television and our responsiblity to the children of this society....(yes I know, another topic, but some perceive it as legalism according to the OP article definitions).

Shalom Suzanne,

I agree. Our children do not watch violence. And if anyone was at my home I would not watch CSI so as not to offend them. However, that still remains a choice for me.

Thank you for putting it forth. (by the way, having dealt with alcoholism, I agree with the example given as well!)

I agree!

We're supposed to care for the WHOLE LUMP, not just our little part of it.

Yes, exactly. Romans 14 states that very clearly and applies to our freedoms that we refuse to lay down for our brother's sake. It's very sad to witness.

[tsth]

Dear vickilynn,

You are still responsible, just as other Christians are, for condoning and promoting appropriate OR inappropriate material for television. Your kids might not watch it, but along the lines of Emily~Anne's analogy, OTHER kids DO watch it. THAT is what I am referring to. It's not just about YOUR kids or MY kids, it's about what's best for society as a whole. And if we're watching it, then so are many unsupervised children in this nation, and frankly, I think if it's not good for their eyes, why would blood and gore be good for ours? Violence is violence, no matter who is viewing it. We're watching murders for entertainment, and as a Christian, I just don't see how that is "of light".

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Emily~Anne]

In relation to the dressing modestly concept. I would like to give another example. Say you have a friend who battled alcoholism for a long time, and it makes it more difficult for that person to sit at a table while everyone else at the table drinks alcohol. We can have one of two attitudes:

~out of love for this brother/sister in Christ, not serve alcohol with this meal.

OR, have the attitude of-

~"he's a drunk and that ain't my problem. I'm serving the alcohol cause I don't want my personal liberties infringed upon. *hmpf*"

first of all...how does the admittance of being a modest dresser in anyway compare to sitting at a table drinking alcohol in front of a recovering alcoholic? by the way I am a recovered addict/alcoholic and find the comparison to be a bit off kilter.

Hmmmmn... well, I'm confused. Apparently the sight of some women in dresses is enough to put all sexual thoughts out of men