Is Legalism a "Higher" Standard?

As a person who is part asian myself, I concur. And he would have given us hair on our chests, too

 

I grew up in Southern Baptist Cburches that frowned on women's wearing britches. I remember when that changed. In the 70s, when mini-skirts were popular. My church pleaded with women to wear pants instead! Well, that's actually an overstatement, but it did seem that the opposition to slacks just sort of melted away. Maybe it was because we has so exhausted ourselves arguing over long hair and short skirts, that we just were too pooped to fight any more.

 

Let's ask it this way: If God were writing the Bible today, would he say something about watching movies with sexual nudity in them? I think he would. That is why it is not a "man made" application, IMO.

I wonder if there is not a reverse kind of legalism here, a legalism that says the explicit Bible statements are the only things that are really mandated. Everything else depends on personal preference. That seems equally troubling. </font>[/QUOTE]You presume to tell us what God would put in the Bible if it were written today? You think because YOU think something would be included then it is "not a "man made" application"? If this were a Jewish website I would be tearing my clothes.

You don't think for God and you don't speak for God, no matter how strongly you believe you do. He spoke for Himself via scripture and he continues to speak for Himself via Spirit-conviction. You have no right to condemn the convictions of others just because they do not agree exactly with yours.

Yes. There is a reverse legalism here. Better said, a reversal of legalism. Your legalism. If the statement "explicit Bible statements are the only things that are really mandated" is not true then who has the authority to add more? The answer, Larry, is nobody. And that includes you.