Legalist Q & A

To unite all the social issues. :twisted:

At the Second Church of Odyssey you'll find different ways of expressing your beliefs, finding prayer support or being encouraged through regular devotionals.

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Knight Fisher » Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:19 pm

The Mysterious wrote:I think those hats are OK.
Based on what qualifiers? Is there a scale or something, or is it completely arbitrary?
Image
G'kar wrote:Not many fishies left in the sea Not many fishies, just Londo and me.
I fish in the darkness
I fish in the darkness
User avatar
Knight Fisher

 
Posts: 5235
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:09 pm
Age: 21
Gender: Male

Cash on hand: 308.75
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby SirWhit » Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:54 pm

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.
I'm finally a No0b
User avatar
SirWhit

今AIOを聞くか?

 
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 3:37 pm
Location: Buckingham Palace, Planet Mars

Cash on hand: 1,690.56
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Woody » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:42 pm

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?
Photobucket was evil and made third-party display a premium feature. Then they increased the size and obnoxiousness of the placeholder advertisement encouraging me to upgrade. Thus, this text signature.
I'll catch up to Bren!
User avatar
Woody

The man that stops the monsters

 
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:39 pm
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be
Age: 101

Cash on hand: 2,134.66
Bank: 3.96
Blog: View Blog (25)

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby The Mysterious » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:07 am

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. :x 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 guess I'll stick around
User avatar
The Mysterious
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:40 pm
Age: 100

Cash on hand: 0.00
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby John Chrysostom » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:50 am

Tiger, you should be ashamed. You need to stick to what Jesus called legalist, brood of vipers and whitewasher of tombs.
The Council isn't corrupt
User avatar
John Chrysostom

The State is a lie

 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:56 pm

Cash on hand: 1,001.97
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Woody » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:33 am

The Mysterious wrote: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:

Image
Photobucket was evil and made third-party display a premium feature. Then they increased the size and obnoxiousness of the placeholder advertisement encouraging me to upgrade. Thus, this text signature.
I'll catch up to Bren!
User avatar
Woody

The man that stops the monsters

 
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:39 pm
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be
Age: 101

Cash on hand: 2,134.66
Bank: 3.96
Blog: View Blog (25)

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Tea Ess » Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:27 pm

A normal tie is a device forced upon men to slowly choke them. Why, exactly, would you want to wear anything like that? :-s
Visit The Punctuation Shop today for all of your punctuation needs!
One. Thousand. Posts.
User avatar
Tea Ess

I don't know the muffin man

 
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:49 pm
Location: Castrima
Gender: Male

Cash on hand: 29.98
Bank: 732.44

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Knight Fisher » Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:46 pm

My question stands unanswered.
Image
G'kar wrote:Not many fishies left in the sea Not many fishies, just Londo and me.
I fish in the darkness
I fish in the darkness
User avatar
Knight Fisher

 
Posts: 5235
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:09 pm
Age: 21
Gender: Male

Cash on hand: 308.75
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby TigerintheShadows » Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:12 pm

The Mysterious wrote:Also, TigerintheShadows called legalistic ideas garbage. :x 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.
Image
"Death's got an Invisibility Cloak?" "So he can sneak up on people. Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking..."
"And now the spinning. Thank you for nothing, you useless reptile."
"It unscrews the other way."
AIO tumblr sideblog
I spam the HH. A lot
User avatar
TigerintheShadows

can I finally update my status, or...?

 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Guess. I dare you.
Age: 22
Gender: Female

Cash on hand: 4,955.99
Bank: 0.00
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby ~JCGJ~ » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:08 pm

The Mysterious wrote:I think those hats are OK.

How about a Fez?
I am Mr. Green
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Image
A helpful graphic, for those who may be confused.
Image
That is all.

Autumn is a Glorious Season
Autumn is a Glorious Season
User avatar
~JCGJ~

I am :mrgreen:

 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:37 pm
Location: Probably riding my AWESOME maxi-scooter on some back road somewhere...
Age: 22
Gender: Male

Cash on hand: 62.74
Bank: 631.96

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby The Mysterious » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:45 am

@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 :D).
@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.
I guess I'll stick around
User avatar
The Mysterious
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:40 pm
Age: 100

Cash on hand: 0.00
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby John Chrysostom » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:11 pm

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?
The Council isn't corrupt
User avatar
John Chrysostom

The State is a lie

 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:56 pm

Cash on hand: 1,001.97
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby SirWhit » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:33 pm

Well, yes I do agree with the Sabbath, even though I'm not John Henry.
I'm finally a No0b
User avatar
SirWhit

今AIOを聞くか?

 
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 3:37 pm
Location: Buckingham Palace, Planet Mars

Cash on hand: 1,690.56
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby The Mysterious » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:19 am

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)
I guess I'll stick around
User avatar
The Mysterious
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:40 pm
Age: 100

Cash on hand: 0.00
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Jehoshaphat » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:35 am

So you support Sola Scriptura which isn't in the Bible at all? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
Image
Unicorns exist... they just got fat and now we call them rhinos.
My online family
I am Monty's and thefinalhour Awesome Brother.
If you want me to be in your online family send me a PM.

Join the Bible Bowl
Jehoshaphat Rocks!
User avatar
Jehoshaphat

#snubsrocks

 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:45 am
Age: 20
Gender: Male

Cash on hand: 177.16
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby John Chrysostom » Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:03 am

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.
The Council isn't corrupt
User avatar
John Chrysostom

The State is a lie

 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:56 pm

Cash on hand: 1,001.97
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby Blitz » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:55 pm

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.
Last edited by Blitz on Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Online family
Christian's nephew
Sammy's Bro and moderator between Sammy and Woody and her partner in randomnes
Woody's younger brother and best friend And married to Joy and forgot about it Dolls third cousin
Yes, since my sweetheart lives in the clouds
I must float on them. - Limerick

Blitz....do not flirt when you have a gf already!!!! Gahhhhhh..these tweens need to learn proper gentlemanly behaviour!!!
Blitz: I am a teen
* Black_Ghost buries the two peeps...err chicks...err dude and a chick
'Here lies blitz the dude, and IT the chick.
* IrishTiger is not being buried beside Blitz.
Doll knows everything about her sweet baboo
BECAUSE SHE STALKS HIM
Woody

Check out my blog by order of the king.
http://blitzkrieglight.blogspot.com/
The Council must persist
User avatar
Blitz

Stars are only visible in darkness

 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:46 am
Age: 19

Cash on hand: 435.06
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby John Chrysostom » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:30 pm

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 Council isn't corrupt
User avatar
John Chrysostom

The State is a lie

 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:56 pm

Cash on hand: 1,001.97
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby The Mysterious » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:34 pm

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

Not anymore
John Chrysostom wrote: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.
I guess I'll stick around
User avatar
The Mysterious
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:40 pm
Age: 100

Cash on hand: 0.00
Bank: 0.00

Re: Legalist Q & A

Postby John Chrysostom » Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:02 am

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?
The Council isn't corrupt
User avatar
John Chrysostom

The State is a lie

 
Posts: 3593
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:56 pm

Cash on hand: 1,001.97
Bank: 0.00

PreviousNext

Return to Second Church of Odyssey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron