Legalist Q & A

[Knight Fisher]

I think those hats are OK.

Based on what qualifiers? Is there a scale or something, or is it completely arbitrary?

[SirWhit]

Didn't you know? Fedoras rank a 3 on the official Legalistic Society scale of appropriateness, where 1 is appropriate and 10 is absolutely inappropriate.

[Woody]

How about bowties? Are bowties okay, or are they deemed too cool?

For that matter, what about Doctor Who? Is it morally unjust to watch madmen in boxes fight aliens?

[The Mysterious]

Sorry, I'm not the expert of hats, so I really don't know about that.
What are bowties?
I don't watch alien movies or such war movies because that kind of image can enter into your head, and that's not good for you. Really, I never seen Dr.Who so I don't know what you mean.

Also, TigerintheShadows called legalistic ideas garbage. Listen, even if I'm wrong - calling what I believe to be garbage is a very rude thing to do. (Yes, I admit I was rude before, but I'm trying not to).

[John Chrysostom]

Tiger, you should be ashamed. You need to stick to what Jesus called legalist, brood of vipers and whitewasher of tombs.

[Woody]

Sorry, I'm not the expert of hats, so I really don't know about that.
What are bowties?
I don't watch alien movies or such war movies because that kind of image can enter into your head, and that's not good for you. Really, I never seen Dr.Who so I don't know what you mean.

You have never seen a bowtie? You poor, poor child.

This, my friend, is a bowtie:

[Tea Ess]

A normal tie is a device forced upon men to slowly choke them. Why, exactly, would you want to wear anything like that?

[Knight Fisher]

My question stands unanswered.

[TigerintheShadows]

Also, TigerintheShadows called legalistic ideas garbage. Listen, even if I'm wrong - calling what I believe to be garbage is a very rude thing to do. (Yes, I admit I was rude before, but I'm trying not to).

I've posted once in this entire thread. Once. And it was to ask you to elaborate on a particular point. More than likely, whatever I posted was posted a long time ago, and I've done this thing called "maturing" since then, so that probably doesn't speak to who I am now. As a matter of fact, I searched through my old posts and found nothing that sounded like I called legalism "garbage". I'm scared to ask, knowing how my old posts used to read, but in the interest of full disclosure, what did I even say?

Speaking of which, the fact that I had to search through my own posts to find what you were even talking about says a lot more about how much time you have on your hands than it ever could have about my perspective or my form of expressing it. Seriously, I looked through past posts down to about 2011 in which I used the word "garbage", and it was, if I recall correctly, used to describe certain situations in which I was placed, content of secular media, and some specific arguments against Harry Potter that I thought were utter nonsense. JH, I don't know what makes you think that it is good form when debating someone to bring up incidents that happened months or even years ago that more than likely do not define them or their current viewpoint, but it seriously needs to stop.

[~JCGJ~]

I think those hats are OK.

How about a Fez?

[The Mysterious]

@Eleventh. Yes, I know that famous idea of legalists - Pharisees. The Pharisees were even worse than me. I admit I have Pharasaical tendencies - talking about rules too much (my parents say so). Christianity is not rules, anymore than the Bible is a rule book. No. The Bible is not a law-book (unless, you're talking about the law of Moses). But, the problem with the Pharisees, Scribes, and others like them:
1. They were extremely strict. Too Strict.
2. Their laws were so strict they could not keep them themselves.
3. They were hypocritical always trying to be a show-off.
4. They wore beautiful long robes, but their inside...corrupted. That's why the were white-washed tombs with dead man's bones.
5. They added to Scripture. They made their own rules and advice. Advice is good, but using advice like Scripture is wrong.
6. Matthew 23 shows the evils of Pharisees.

OK, just because a person has strict ideas does not make him a Pharisee. Both the outward and inward are important. True, our inward is more important. Jewelry itself is not bad. (I don't believe those people who wore a wedding ring or class ring sinned) But, the pride or show that accompanies wearing jewelry is the problem. In 1 Peter 3:3 shows that our adornment should not be outward, but inward showing that inward is more important. You say I'm obcessed with the outside. Maybe I am. But, many women are as well. They put on make-up, jewelry, etc. to look attractive. That is not true beauty, but true beauty rests in the inside. The Pharisees wore long robes, prayed long prayers, etc. to be seen by men, and please them, but our focus is to please God, not man. Indeed, which is better? Pharisee or Publican in their prayer? Therefore, it's not right to show ourselves (for pride). Then, we come to extremeity. People call such people that are strict "Pharisees". The Pharisees added to God's Word with their own rules (Adding to God's Word is a very bad thing to do) - so they're claiming their rules are Scripture. No. We must be based Sola Scriptera. I believe also that there are exceptions to the rules when there are emergencies. e.g. The Sabbath. I believe that firemen, policemen, doctors, etc. must work only if there is an emergency like a fire or car-accident. In fact, if they don't do it that is sin. Also, if you must go home, and there is no gas in your car - what would you do? Sleep on the ground? No! In that case you must buy the gas. Besides, I understand that the Talmud teaches that you can heal people on the Sabbath. The Pharisees saved their animals's lives, but they did not allow human's lives to be saved? Hypocrisy, and self-contradictory I call it. (But, if your animal falls into a pit every Sabbath, you must either sell the animal or fill the pit ).
@Woody, Ah ha! Now, I know what you're talking about. Looking cool? I don't really think that is wrong, but if it's for pride and show, yes.
@Knight Fisher, no it's not based on a scale.
@TigerShadow, OK, I see.
@JCGJ, Sorry, I have no ideas about hats. Hats are not that common in Korea.

[John Chrysostom]

I have never once heard you talk first about the importance of the inner life, you focus on outward appearances. You are focusing on the white washed tombs and somehow thing that will fix the dead bones inside.

You make up your own rules, you have arbitrarily decided that 1910 Western European woman's fashion is what is modest for all time.

1 Peter says that our adornment should not just be outward, it is not a commandment against outward beauty but one without the other. You keep making the assumption that women wear makeup or jewelry because they are prideful, you can wear makeup and jewelry without being prideful.

Where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura found?

Are you really suggesting that we should still be following the Sabbath rules for not working?

[SirWhit]

Well, yes I do agree with the Sabbath, even though I'm not John Henry.

[The Mysterious]

1. Sir, I think I should make my beliefs plainer. Sorry, I made some misleading statements. It's not the 1910s that's the issue. It's What is men's clothes, and what is woman's clothes. I do not support a culture in which men and women wear identical clothes. I believe that there must be a clear distinction between men and women's clothes, and must not cause confusion. God does not hate a woman putting on a pair of pants, but God hates a confusion between the sexes. I would believe it's OK for women to wear pants if she can be distinguished from a man by her clothing.
2. Okay, Sola Scriptera is not in the Bible. Well and Good. However, Sir, most versions do not have "merely" or "just" in 1 Peter 3:3. The ones I know so far, that add this word are the NKJV, AMP, and WEB. However the NKJV puts this in italics, and the AMP in brackets showing that these words were not in the original Greek. Neither are they found whether it's the Textus Receptus, Wescott-Hort Text, or Majority Text.
3. So do you say that the Sabbath is not to be kept? I do not believe we must keep the Jewish Sabbath (some people do), that one can be saved by keeping the Sabbath (some Seventh-Day Adventists), that one should not travel at all in the Sabbath (Seventh-Day Adventists), that you must not look in your mirror on the Sabbath (Jews), or that you must not turn on your lights in the Sabbath (Jews believe this because God forbade lighting a fire in the Sabbath). No. However, I believe that this day (not this day really. It can be Monday, Wednesday, any day in fact - if we works 6 days, and rest on the Seventh) must be set aside for rest not because of Exodus 20, but because God rested after creating the world in 6 days. I saw the discussion on the Sabbath on page 10 of this forum. While Jeremy is good at debating I daresay he seems to believe that the OT is useless. I say no. True, all ceremonial and civil laws are of no use for today (unless perhaps we understand them allegorically) - also, the Jewish Sabbath was partly if not fully a ceremonial law. However, it has been replaced by the Christian Sabbath.

(If you wonder why I say "I believe so-and-so" it's because I'm not God, so I just show what I believe)

[Jehoshaphat]

So you support Sola Scriptura which isn't in the Bible at all? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

[John Chrysostom]

So you'd be fine with a society where men only wore dresses and woman only wore pants?

So you're interpreting the Old Testament command for a woman to not wear a man's clothes as a command against confusion of the sexes? I think that's stretching the interpretation, does that mean if a man and woman are some place very cold they can't wear similar cold weather gear that would make them appear similar?

Also, God's never confused about who is who, this mostly seems like you wanting to be able to tell who is a woman and who is a man. But as others have told you before, women and mens clothes are different it's just you who has the trouble telling them apart. But why is it important to be able to tell from a distance without talking to someone whether they're a man or woman? I have a solution for you, talk to people.

[Blitz]

One interesting thing about the OT, is that it emphasized separation. Not talked about much in the NT was separation.
I have rarely if ever confused a male and a female and the only reason I have is because here in Ghana, they cut the hair of any girl going to school supposedly to help curb teacher's lust. (We have had problem with teacher overly interested in girls.) Even with man sized hair, I do not confuse them.

[John Chrysostom]

Blitz can you clear up several things, are you talking about schools in general or one specific school? And do you support the cutting of hair to curb lust?

[The Mysterious]

So you support Sola Scriptura which isn't in the Bible at all? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Not anymore

So you'd be fine with a society where men only wore dresses and woman only wore pants?

So you're interpreting the Old Testament command for a woman to not wear a man's clothes as a command against confusion of the sexes? I think that's stretching the interpretation, does that mean if a man and woman are some place very cold they can't wear similar cold weather gear that would make them appear similar?

Also, God's never confused about who is who, this mostly seems like you wanting to be able to tell who is a woman and who is a man. But as others have told you before, women and mens clothes are different it's just you who has the trouble telling them apart. But why is it important to be able to tell from a distance without talking to someone whether they're a man or woman? I have a solution for you, talk to people.

1. Yes.
2. Cold weather gear? Sorry, is this talking about inner clothing or is this talking about what people wear when they go to cold places like the mountains or Antarctica, etc.?
3. That is not the point. Since men and women wear pants there is no distinction which sex is which in today's culture.

[John Chrysostom]

So if you don't support Sola Scriptura then what is the highest authority in your life on matter of doctrine and theology?

I wasn't aware we were making a distinction between inner clothing and outer clothing. I was asking this question to clarify because it seems like you don't actually care what men and women wear as long as it is different and unique to the sexes.

Of course the problem with this is that different cultures around the world have different fashions so how people dress here in America can be very different than how you dress in Korea and I wonder, why does it matter that much?