Many strong conscience Christians often wonder why some Christians seem to demonstrate illogical reasoning by believing some non-sinful things are sin in themselves (doubtful things) when the Bible does not refer to them as sin. Through studying the Bible, I found out why these Christians are illogical on doubtful items is given in 1 Corinthian 8:7,12 where God refers to these Christians as Christians that have weak consciences (weak conscience Christians). Their weak conscience (overly sensitive conscience) is the thing that causes them to be illogical.

Modern day strong conscience Christians also display much illogical reasoning when they try to justify their despite for weak conscience Christians and their refusal to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians by calling them legalists and Pharisees.

When I was a kid living on a farm in Oklahoma, we kids used to use illogical reasoning just for making jokes to laugh at and have fun. We used to have fun mentally creating nonexistent critters by taking selected characteristics of existing critters and mentally attributing them to a nonexistent make-believe critter. We had many laughs doing that while we were young.

On one vacation trip we took to Colorado, our folks stopped at a tourist shop to look around and let us buy some junk. That is when we kids first saw our first jackelope; someone had taken a large stuffed jackrabbit and glued some small antelope horns to the top of its head. As kids, that was really funny to us. The shop sold pictures of the jackelope; of course, we all had to buy a picture.

Also, we kids had to extend that illogical reasoning even farther. We would see an antelope grazing in the fields along the road; and we would call it a jackelope because it had horns like the imaginary jackelope. When we saw a jackrabbit, we would call it a jackelope because it had the body of the imaginary jackelope. The extended illogical reasoning we used concluded that any critter that had at least one to a few characteristics of the imaginary jackelope was a jackelope. We kids had a lot of fun with that type illogical reasoning. Also, when we saw a horse in the field, we would call it a thousand-pound jackrabbit because it had fur, a tail and four long legs like a jackrabbit.

Many years later, I now like to refer to that childish illogical reasoning as "Forward-Jackelope-logic" and "Reverse-Jackelope-Logic". Forward-jackelope-logic is being used when a person mentally creates nonexistent critters by taking selected characteristics of existing critters and mentally attributing them to a nonexistent make-believe critter. Reverse-jackelope-logic is being used when a person reclassifies a critter as some other type critter because it has at least one to a few characteristics of the other critter. Now I am an adult, and I have found that many adults still use forward-jackelope-logic and reverse-jackelope-logic. One area where forward-jackelope-logic is used extensively is in the supporting of atheistic and theistic macroevolution. Here, the forward-jackelope-logic is used to create imaginary critters, affectionately known as missing links, to fill in for the missing fossils in the many non-fossil bearing geological sedimentary layers that occur between fossil bearing geological sedimentary layers. This is done by taking some characteristics from the fossils in the fossil bearing layers above and below the non-fossil bearing layers and creating imaginary in-between critters (the supposed missing links) with those characteristics. They do this even though the majority of the evidence in fossil bearing sedimentary layers display obvious rapid catastrophic aqueous sedimentary burial of critters and plant life mostly from different ecological zones than those buried in the layers above or below them. However, often there are sedimentary layers where critters and plants from widely separated ecological zones are mixed together, which also displays evidence of rapid catastrophic aqueous sedimentary burial. The vast majority of sedimentary layers do not show evidence of having laid around for very long before the next layers were deposited on top of them, certainly not enough time for any supposed goo-to-you type of evolution to occur that supposedly changed one kind of critter and plant into another kind.

I have also noticed that many Christians use forward-jackelope-logic and reverse-jackelope-logic when dealing with selected Biblical topics. The most obvious use occurs where Christians deal with the Bible topic of weak conscience Christians. Forward-jackelope-logic is the primary logic used to create the so-called Biblical concept called legalism and the so-called Biblical critter called a legalist. This forward-jackelope-logic takes the characteristics of the Pharisees, the false gospel teachers described in Galatians (the Galatianists), the false gospel teachers described in Colossians (the Colossianists) and weak conscience Christians described in Romans 14:1-15:7 & 1 Corinthian chapter 8 and assigns those characteristics to the so-called Biblical critter called a legalist and the so-called Biblical concept called legalism. Next, reverse-jackelope-logic is used to reclassify Pharisees, the false gospel teaches described in Galatians, the false gospel teachers described in Colossians and the weak conscience Christians described in Romans and 1 Corinthians as the so-called Biblical critters called legalists. I believe the primary motive for this use of forward-jackelope-logic and reverse-jackelope-logic, that to creates this so-called Biblical critter called a legalist, is for the purpose of justifying despite for weak conscience Christians and refusal to follow the Biblical command to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians. Selective forward-jackelope-logic is then used to determine the response a strong conscience Christian should have toward the illogically created legalist. Usually, this selective forward-jackelope-logic selects only the responses that God instructed Christians to have toward the Pharisees and the false gospel teachers in Galatians and Colossians. This selective forward-jackelope-logic usually ignores the God given Biblical response to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians that is given in Romans 14:1-15:7 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8. Many Christians will also often shorten the illogical reasoning path, use only the reverse-jackelope-logic, and bypass the forward-jackelope-logic to reclassify weak conscience Christians as Pharisees. Then they apply the Biblical response that a Christians should have toward false gospel teachers, like the Pharisees, Galatianists and Colossianists, instead of following the Biblical principle to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians. Very often, they fall into the sin of despising weak conscience Christians, as the strong conscience Christians described in Romans 14:1-15:7 did.

A very popular illogical argument that I get from many Christian brothers and sisters that try to prove that legalists are really found and described in the Bible appears to be equivalent to the following type of argument that tries to prove that jackelopes really exist in nature. Since there are critters in nature (the Bible) that have at least one to a few of the characteristics of the so-called jackelope (legalist), there must exist in nature (the Bible) a real live "jackelope" (legalist).

Let me describe some reasoning process that I use when I evaluate whether or not theological buzz-terms and buzz-phrases, not found in the Bible, are theologically acceptable from a Biblical perspective. The first step that gives me a clue as to whether a buzz-term or buzz-phrase may possibly be logically unacceptable theologically is to determine if it or an equivalent term is used in the Bible. Obviously, the fact that a term or phrase or an equivalent term or phrase are not found in the Bible is not enough to logically determine if the term or phrase is not logically acceptable, theologically, from a Biblical perspective. Therefore, the second step in my reasoning process is to determine if the definitions assigned to the terms or phrases were derived by the use of illogical reasoning or not.

Through studying some logicians lists of different logic fallacies I found that academia calls what I call reverse-jackelope-logic as being the logic fallacy of undistributed middle. So far, in my studies of fallacies I have not found a formal academic fallacy definition that describes what I call forward-jackelope-logic; however, I am still searching. Maybe academia should call forward-jackelope-logic "the definition fallacy of forward-jackelope-logic"(SMILE)?

Example of fallacious logic of Undistributed Middle in short form:
1) Pharisees believe some non-sinful things are sin.
2) Weak conscience Christians believe some non-sinful things are sin.
3) Therefore weak conscience Christians are Pharisees.

Example of fallacious logic of Undistributed Middle in short form:
1) Legalists believe some non-sinful things are sin.
2) Weak conscience Christians believe some non-sinful things are sin.
3) Therefore weak conscience Christians are legalists.

I believe that it is important that I should make some comments about the definitions that are found in English dictionaries. Most modern dictionaries usually give two definitions for the word legalism. The first is a non-theological definition that defines legalism as "strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code." The second is a theological definition that defines legalism as "the doctrine of salvation by good works - a reliance on works for salvation." It has always intrigued me as why they give two definitions, one a theological definition and the other a non-theological definition. The first definition "strict, often too strict and literal, adherence to law or to a code", being a non-theological definition, is a very interesting one, since it does not give any detailed explanation (interpretation) of what the phrase "strict, often to strict and literal, adherence" means. By not giving a detailed explanation of the phrase "strict, often to strict and literal, adherence", they have left the determination of the exact meaning of that phrase up the whim of each individual person who is judging someone else as to whether or not that person is a legalist guilty of legalism. Because of this very broad, relative, variable and adaptable definition, some folk actually judge everyone else, except themselves, to be legalists since everyone else is stricter than himself or herself. This is often the case for many hardened criminals. Non-Christians, especially atheists, agnostics and irreligious people usually with much despite apply this first non-theological definition to true faithful Christians, which in their eyes are always strict and too strict compared to themselves, and call them legalists. Modern day Christians have followed their example and combined the same broad, relative, variable and adaptable idea of "strict and often too strict and literal, adherence" to the defining of the theological definitions of a legalist and legalism. Some of the modern authors of modern English dictionaries have been so heavily influenced by this wholesale redefinition of the theological definition of a legalist and legalism by modern Christians that they no longer have two definitions of legalism (a theological and a non-theological), but have actually replaced the two definitions in their dictionaries with one very broad, relative, variable and adaptable definition of a legalist and legalism. This combined definition usually is as follows: "strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral Code." Modern Christians lap up this definition "like flies to cow manure", and use it in a circular reasoning fashion to help justify their illogical, broad, relative, variable and adaptable definition of a legalist and legalism, which they originally developed using illogical reason, of the variety that I referred to previously as forward-jackelope-logic.


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net
050203 061503

"The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians"
and
"Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

So, you are saying the concept of a Pharisee in Scripture is some figmant of imagination like the Jackalope?

So, what opinion are you wanting to espouse that most people will accuse of legalism whereby you can presuppositionally dismiss them as "weak conscience Christians" that have improperly handled the Bible and created this charge falsely?

Apparantly, he wants to claim the title "weak conscience Christian" so he can impose his own rules on everyone else without the repercussion of being called a "legalist".

It is, however, a lovely strawman. Did you rent the tux?

Michael

That was a great article. Thanks for posting it. I get called that and I have yet to really understand what they mean. Your diagnosis is magnificent. They'll yell strawman, but you'll probably get no serious argument against this. They tend to hide behind mockery and cute phrases, like the tux joke.

Some of us want to obey all the commandments of the New Testament and understand how the Old Testament commandments apply to us. We get called legalist for it.

I keep my hair short, abstain from blood and strangled things, ask that women in my care not speak in church, refuse to indulge in sexual immorality, don't lie with a man as I would with a woman... I'm your wooden-headed legalist.

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here
Thomas2003:

So, you are saying the concept of a Pharisee in Scripture is some figmant of imagination like the Jackalope?

So, what opinion are you wanting to espouse that most people will accuse of legalism whereby you can presuppositionally dismiss them as "weak conscience Christians" that have improperly handled the Bible and created this charge falsely?

You're usually much smarter and considerate than this, Thomas. What's up?

David,

If you want to obey all the commands of the old and new testment as a law for today, go for it. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether you can cry "weak conscience" and force the rest of us to follow your law.

Michael

Have I ever imposed anything on you?

You personally? No. My apologies for using the hypothetical "you" rather than the more proper "one" or "someone". I wasn't intending to mean you personally.

Have folks that fit into the "legalist" category ever done so? Yes.

I have had people tell me that I'm going to hell for playing wiffle ball on Sundays. I've had people tell me that all dancing is of the devil. I've had people tell me that rock music is evil, even if it worships God.

If they don't want to play on sunday, or dance, or listen to rock music, that's fine. When they tell me that I'm evil or sinning by doing so, then they've crossed the line.

Michael

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here
David O:

That was a great article. Thanks for posting it. I get called that and I have yet to really understand what they mean. Your diagnosis is magnificent. They'll yell strawman, but you'll probably get no serious argument against this. They tend to hide behind mockery and cute phrases, like the tux joke.

Some of us want to obey all the commandments of the New Testament and understand how the Old Testament commandments apply to us. We get called legalist for it.

I keep my hair short, abstain from blood and strangled things, ask that women in my care not speak in church, refuse to indulge in sexual immorality, don't lie with a man as I would with a woman... I'm your wooden-headed legalist.

Then you don't understand what he is saying - you are a "weak conscience Christian" because you want to obey the Bible.

Thomas

The implication of the article is that "weak conscience Christians" are superior because they have a weak conscience, and everyone else should want to be like them, especially because they are "attacked" by those who use "illogical" rationalle.

My conscience used to let me do a lot of stuff. I don't trust it as far as I can throw it. I have decided to go just by what the Bible says. If I get called a legalist for asking women in my care to not speak in church, I'll take it. I'm not going to hold a gun to anyone's head and make them tell their wife to be quiet in church or even to stop being gay. If they ask me what I think, I'll tell them that I think it's a disgrace, because that is what it says in the Bible. Drinking wine is good in the Bible so I'm not worried when someone tells me it's a sin. Jimmy Swaggart himself told me rock music was the Devil's. He used it to turn my own Father against me. It sucks that he did that, but he gets to have his opinion about the Bible. God will deal with him for being hateful to me, but I'll defend his right to say that he believes something to be a sin. If I get called weak-conscienced because I want to obey the New Testament commandments, it won't kill me either.

As for the case he made against the word "Legalism," I think it's solid. There is no such thing.

Hi Thomas2003,

You Wrote:
<<<< So, you are saying the concept of a Pharisee in Scripture is some figmant of imagination like the Jackalope?>>>>

My Response:
I did not say Pharisees were a figment of the imagination. I said that the legalist, as defined by modern Christians, is the imaginary jackelope of modern Christians. Did you really read my post?

You Wrote:
<<<So, what opinion are you wanting to espouse that most people will accuse of legalism whereby you can presuppositionally dismiss them as "weak conscience Christians" that have improperly handled the Bible and created this charge falsely>>>

My Response:
???????? What are you asking? I am unable to interpret the above sentence. I thought I stated my opinion in my post. Reread my post.

A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians
and
Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

Hi Michael (themuzicman),

You Wrote:
<<< Apparantly, he wants to claim the title "weak conscience Christian" so he can impose his own rules on everyone else without the repercussion of being called a "legalist".>>>

My Response:
Did you really read my post? I did not claim to be a "weak conscience Christian". I am a strong conscience Christian that is pointing out the illogical reasoning used by weak conscience Christians and by strong conscience Christians that despise weak conscience Christians.

You Wrote:
<<< It is, however, a lovely strawman. Did you rent the tux?>>>

My Response:
Would you do a critical analysis of my post and describe to me in detail the strawman that you claim that I created.


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians
and
Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

Hi Thomas (Thomas2003),

You wrote to David O:
<<< Then you don't understand what he is saying - you are a "weak conscience Christian" because you want to obey the Bible. >>>

My Response:
Did you really read my post? I did not say a Christian is a weak conscience Christian because they want to obey the Bible. You are putting words in my mouth that are really your words.


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians
and
Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

Hi Michael (themuzicman),

You Wrote:
<<< The implication of the article is that "weak conscience Christians" are superior because they have a weak conscience, and everyone else should want to be like them, especially because they are "attacked" by those who use "illogical" rationalle. >>>

My Response:
I am now convinced that you are a professional at putting your words in other people's mouths. I did not claim that weak conscience Christians are superior because they have a weak conscience. In fact, I did not even claim that weak conscience Christians are superior.

A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians
and
Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html

Hi David O,

Your Wrote:
<<< My conscience used to let me do a lot of stuff. I don't trust it as far as I can throw it. I have decided to go just by what the Bible says. If I get called a legalist for asking women in my care to not speak in church, I'll take it. I'm not going to hold a gun to anyone's head and make them tell their wife to be quiet in church or even to stop being gay. If they ask me what I think, I'll tell them that I think it's a disgrace, because that is what it says in the Bible. Drinking wine is good in the Bible so I'm not worried when someone tells me it's a sin. Jimmy Swaggart himself told me rock music was the Devil's. He used it to turn my own Father against me. It sucks that he did that, but he gets to have his opinion about the Bible. God will deal with him for being hateful to me, but I'll defend his right to say that he believes something to be a sin. If I get called weak-conscienced because I want to obey the New Testament commandments, it won't kill me either.

As for the case he made against the word "Legalism," I think it's solid. There is no such thing. >>>

My Response:
Maybe I should say something about how I apply the principle of bearing the burden of weak conscience Christians in my everyday Christian life. Years ago, one of the first things that I discovered was that the Bible only listed about four doubtful things that the weak and strong conscience Christians were quarreling about in that era: leftover meat from pagan sacrificial animals, certain days, certain foods and alcoholic beverages (Romans 14). My common sense reasoning keep telling me that there should be some sort of information in the Bible that indicates a differentiation between extremely doubtful things that almost all weak conscience Christians will have a weak conscience about and the "not-so-extremely-doubtful-things" or "petty doubtful things" that only a small percentage of weak conscience Christians have a weak conscience about. However, I found that the Bible did not explicitly refer to extremely doubtful things and to petty doubtful things. That baffled me for a little while. Why didn't God give us clear and obvious information like that? The biggest reason why that baffled me was because a person could then easily claim that a Christians should abstain 100% from any doubtful thing even if only 1 person in 1,000,000 had a weak conscience about it and even if you lived 1000 miles away from that 1 person. Therefore, I started looking for information in the Bible that would indirectly indicate logically a differentiation between extremely doubtful things and not-so-extremely-doubtful things. My own personal experience with modern weak conscience Christians clearly revealed that there were some doubtful things, that I called extremely doubtful things, that almost all weak conscience Christians have a weak conscience about, and that there were some doubtful things that only a small percentage of weak conscience Christians have a weak conscience about, which I called petty doubtful things. My experience with modern weak conscience Christians also revealed that it was the extremely doubtful things that most often caused the hottest battles between weak conscience Christians and strong conscience Christians that practiced or partook of those extremely doubtful things. I felt that surely the same thing must have been happening during the era that Paul lived in, since Christians in his time had the same human nature that modern Christians have. Finally, it dawned on me that the examples that Paul listed in his epistles could be just the extremely doubtful things in his era that weak conscience Christians and strong conscience Christians were fighting over. It was those extremely doubtful things that Paul listed that were causing the weak conscience Christians to speak evil judgments (blasphemous judgments, Romans 14:16) of the strong conscience Christians who exercised their freedom in those things. Therefore, I concluded that God could be telling strong conscience Christians that the extremely doubtful things are the only doubtful things where near 100% abstinence from was necessary. However, this also meant that God did not explicitly list any petty doubtful things and give explicit instructions on how to handle the petty doubtful things. Therefore, I concluded that God is expecting strong conscience Christians to use their common sense logic in determining how often, when and where to exercise our freedom in the area of petty doubtful things. Even though 100% abstinence from the petty doubtful things is not necessary, the exercising of our freedom in these areas should not be done in a way that will encourage those few weak conscience Christians that have weak consciences about the petty doubtful things to become bold enough to act against their weak conscience (1 Cor. 8:9-13).

I will present another line of reasoning that leads me to similar conclusions. The Bible tell us that a husband and wife are to love each other, but leaves out a lot of fine detail, such as: how often to have sexual intercourse, how often to buy flowers for my wife, do I buy her flowers or something else, how often to tell my wife how much I love her, should I take my wife out to dinner, how often should I take her out to dinner, etc. Obviously, God is expecting husbands and wives to use their common sense that is guided by biblical principles. Since the Bible does not explicitly tell strong conscience Christians how many Christians have to have a weak conscience about an item to warrant 100% abstinence from that item, God is expecting us to use our common sense guided by the biblical principle of bearing the burden of weak conscience Christians. According to Rom. 14:1-15:7, 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 1 Cor. 10:23-33, following the principle of bearing the burden of weak conscience Christians should accomplish several things. According to my comprehension, the following is a list of those things:

1) (Romans 14:1) -- It should prevent bitter disputes with weak conscience Christians over doubtful things; thus, keeping peace in the church.

2) (Romans 14:1-12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21; 15:1 and 1Cor. 10:23-33) -- It should prevent weak conscience Christians, as well as weak conscience non-Christians, from stumbling to where their judging is slanderous, blasphemous, evil speaking of our good and us. We should walk charitably for the purpose of maintaining peace, causing edification and not pleasing ourselves.

3) (1 Cor. 8:9-13) -- It should prevent weak conscience Christians from becoming bold enough to partake of the doubtful items that they believe are sin. Because, if the actions of a strong conscience Christian causes weak conscience Christians to partake of things that they believe are sin, he has caused those weak conscience Christians to be become guilty of sin; and now that strong conscience Christian is guilty of sin since his actions caused the weak conscience Christians to go against their weak conscience.

Common sense reveals that, as near as possible, 100% abstinence from a doubtful item is necessary to accomplish the first two results when the percentage of Christians and/or non-Christians that have a weak conscience about an item is high. The Scriptures reveal only a few extremely doubtful things that the majority of weak conscience Christians during Paul's lifetime had weak consciences about: leftover meat from pagan sacrificial animals, non-vegetarian diets, not esteeming of certain days above another and alcoholic beverages (Romans 14:21). Today the majority of modern weak conscience Christians that have weak consciences have weak consciences about some of the same extremely doubtful things as well as new and different extremely doubtful things such things as: alcoholic beverages, tobacco, certain musical rhythms (rock, country and western, jazz, rap, and new age) and etc---. Also, today a small percentage of the weak conscience Christians that have a weak conscience about the extremely doubtful things, will also have weak conscience about some not-so-extremely-doubtful items (petty doubtful things): movie theater, pants on women, guitars, saxophones, electronic keyboard musical instruments, video rental stores, holding a microphone while singing or preaching, ear rings larger than a quarter, regular deck of playing cards, and etc---. There is a very interesting thing happening today in modern fundamentalism. There is a significant percentage of weak conscience Christians in fundamentalism today that have weak consciences only about some or all of the extremely doubtful things but not about the petty doubtful things. Their numbers in any given community is sufficient enough that there are fundamental churches today that contain primarily only those weak conscience Christians that have weak consciences about the extremely doubtful things and not the petty doubtful things, who I often refer to as "hybrid" or "half-and-half" weak conscience Christians. It seems like these individual Christians are half weak conscience Christian and half strong conscience Christian (hybrids). A very perplexing thing about a significant percentage of the "half-and-half" weak conscience Christians is that out of one corner of their mouth they are blasphemously judging Christians that don't have a weak conscience about the extremely doubtful items that they have a weak conscience about and out of the other corner of their mouth, with much despite, judge Christians as being legalists that have weak consciences about the petty doubtful items that they don't have a weak conscience about.

I endeavor to do 100% abstinence from the extremely doubtful things, such as the ones that I listed previous (alcoholic beverages, tobacco, certain musical rhythms (rock, country and western, jazz, rap and new age). Well, almost 100% on the doubtful musical rhythms since I do not always turn off the TV and radio during commercials or turn off the sound system in stores when I am shopping. If I am visiting unsaved friends, neighbors and relatives, I usually do not ask them to turnoff the music they are listening to. A very high percentage of Christians that have weak consciences will have a weak conscience about most of those extremely doubtful things if not all of those items, so I endeavor to do, well --- let me say, 98% (smile) abstinence. I have also found that most Churches that prefer to call themselves Fundamental Churches rather than Evangelical Churches do not use the above five musical rhythms in their music. An interesting thing that I have notice over the years is that the extremely doubtful things that the majority of weak conscience Christians have a weak conscience about turn out to be the doubtful things that weak conscience non-Christians are most likely to have a weak conscience about also.

Also, common sense reveals that 100% abstinence from a doubtful item is not necessary to accomplish the first two results when the percentage of Christians and/or non-Christians that have a weak conscience about an item is small. Since their number is small, the non-proud weak conscience Christians usually will not speak evil of the strong conscience Christians. Thus, there usually will not be any bitter disputes occur in the church over such things; those few weak conscience Christians will only do Biblically proper judging that is not of a sinful slanderous, blasphemous, evil speaking nature. Even though 100% abstinence is not necessary under this condition, the exercising of our freedom should not be done in a way that will encourage those few weak conscience Christians to become bold enough to act against their weak conscience (1 Cor. 8:9-13).

Well, a little more detail about the not-so-extremely-doubtful items: movie theater, pants on women, guitars, saxophones, electronic keyboard musical instruments, video rental stores, holding a microphone while singing or preaching, ear rings larger than a quarter, regular deck of playing cards, and etc---. The percentage of Fundamentalists that have a weak conscience about the petty doubtful things is significantly smaller than for those that have a weak conscience about extremely doubtful things. Therefore, I do not endeavor to do 100% abstinence from them. However, I do use my God given common sense wisdom and courtesy guided by the Biblical principle of bearing the burden of weak conscience Christians to determine when, how often and where to use or partake of the petty doubtful things. As an example, I do not use a regular deck of cards at Sunday school class fellowships. However, I do use them at home and when I am having fellowship (not a Church sponsored fellowship) with Christians that do not have a weak conscience about them. I will also use them when I am visiting with unsaved friends, neighbors and relatives that do not have a weak conscience about them.

Many years back (in the mid-1970's) I concluded concerning doubtful things that the majority of Christians in the Fundamental group of Christians were equivalent to the group of weak conscience Christians that God through Paul was admonishing in Romans chapter 14 and that the majority of Christians in the Evangelical group of Christians were equivalent to the group of strong conscience Christians that God through Paul was admonishing in Romans chapter 14 and 15. Yes, modern Christianity is one-big-time repeat of Romans 14:1 through 15:7. Also, in the early 1980's I stopped believing that the broad, relative, variable and adaptable concept of legalism could have ever been a valid Biblical concept and that a legalist could have ever been valid Biblical critter. I also rejected the older and narrower definition for legalism and a legalist where the definition referred only to "a reliance on works to earn or help earn salvation." Because I found that, very few modern Christians held to this older and narrower definition of a legalist and legalism any more. And I found that when I used the terms legalism and legalist most Christians always thought that I was referring to a weak conscience Christian that believed some non-sinful things were sin in themselves. Since these two groups of Christians are large in number, it is easy for each to fall into the sins described in Romans chapter 14. The weak conscience Christians will speak evil, blasphemous judgments of the strong conscience Christians. The strong conscience Christians with much despite refuse to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians and with much despite accuse the weak conscience Christians of being legalists and Pharisees. Both the modern day strong conscience Christians that despise the weak conscience Christians and the modern day weak conscience Christians that are speaking evil, blasphemous judgments of strong conscience Christians display more human intellectual brilliance than their counterparts in Paul's day by having developed the illogical, very broad, relative, variable and adaptable concepts called a legalist and legalism.


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden
davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

The Legalist, The Imaginary Jackelope of Modern Christians
and
Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html