Moral Absolutes vs. Legalism

[lpetrich]

I've seen many people claim to believe in "moral absolutes" while rejecting "legalism". Like claiming that the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes, while forbidding working on one day out of seven is legalism.

Where do the moral absolutes end and where does the legalism begin?

Is it anything more than "if I like it, it's a moral absolute, while if I don't like it, it's legalism"?

This would be in character with "if I like it, it's literal, while if I don't like it, it's allegorical" and "if I like it, I don't care about its context, while if I don't like it, it's out of context" and "if I like it, it's a straight statement, while if I don't like it, it was exaggerated for effect" and similar sorts of selective interpretation.

[seebs]

In general, legalism has to do with how a given rule is interpreted, not whether or not it's absolute. For instance, some people would argue that some Orthodox Jews engage in legalism when they tape over the door sensor for their refrigerator so they can open and close it without activating the light, and thus, so they are not doing something which has been determined to be equivalent to lighting a fire.