David Miller wrote:
>>Are you saying that we need rules and laws but
>>that we should not have anyone who imposes
>>these rules and laws upon others?
John wrote:
>You are catching on fast.
Are you serious? You must be talking about only in religious issues but not
in life in general? Do you want to get rid of policemen and judges and the
court system?
Did you read my definition of legalism? Does it include comments about the secular world? If you think it does, I will re-post.
How do you deal with the fact that Jesus is the Judge? Isn't he going to
impose his rule upon others in the end?
What is your point, David. Did you read my post defining legalism. What in that post do you disagree with? Jesus, per my posted definition, is not a legaist. He is pretty much a grace Man.
David Miller wrote:
>>Do you consider Judges and our Judiciary
>>to be legalists? Should they be?
John wrote:
>There is no mercy in a legalistic culture,
>whether judical or otherwise.
Sure there is. What do you call a pardon? Isn't that mercy?
Perhaps I should have said "for the most part, there is no mercy in a judical legal system." In the realm of Christ's "Law," mercy is the call of the day -- UNLIKE THAT OF THE SECULAR WORLD.
John wrote:
>Societal considerations and parallels have no place
>in this discussion, IMO.
Huh? Why not? Societal considerations seem to be at the heart of this
discussion.
Because my definition does not entertain such considerations, that is why. Society is rule by an unforgiving (for the most part) legal system or a dictatorship, while "kingdom rule " is quite another matter.
John wrote:
>If we are all legalist, none of us are.
Huh? Does the parallel axiom also hold, that if we are all gracious none of
us are?
David, you really make no effort to understand another, do you? If all are legalists (these would be PEOPLE), there would be no such classification. If all are gracious, your contrast -- well, so. You got's to work on this logic thing, Daivd. Parallel axiom? My oh my !! A person compared with an activity. Let's be trying this again. And what, pray tell, is a paraleel axiom in this illustration. How are you doing with that syllogism?
David Miller.
