I don't feel I'm really getting an answer here.

Quote
An ordinance is not a law. It is not even a statue. It is instead something that is ordinarily done in a culture; an ordinance—and ordinary practice.

Secondly; The practice...

The wearing of a covering was a symbol and ordinary practice in that time. It could be compared to the practice of wearing a wedding ring today.


You mean that some of the things the Bible says are applicable to the outmoded cultural practices of other people? And that it's OK for them to change as society changes? You mean you might choose not to do something the Bible tells you to do because of this? You mean you are making an interpretation and a judgement? How do you know that Paul was telling women of his own culture to simply behave themselves by following a code of decency? How do you know he was not telling everyone who reads the Bible that it is holy for a woman to cover her head in church and a sin not to? I didn't see anything in the passage quoted here that indicated anything other than the latter. I also saw some quotes from CTD that say the opposite and which also make statements about the subordination of women, which he seems to like. What system do you use to decide that this is also nothing but an outdated cultural belief? Can you apply it to the 10 Commandments to show that they were not just given to the people of Moses, but that they were also meant to apply to everyone who reads the Bible? I'd be interested to see how you can demonstrate that all of these things are crystal clear and that there is not one iota of interpretation involved -- that it's all as comfortably black-and-white as a Sunday paper.

Bex, I never had a problem with animal sacrifice or other such things in the Bible even when I was a Catholic. But I don't remember a point where Jesus or anyone else actually said, clearly and unambiguously, that old laws like this had been superseded. Can you enlighten me? So if I looked in Deuteronomy and pulled out some of the other myriad rules there, you could also show me clear and ambiguous evidence for why those rules also no longer apply?

It's also sadly predictable to see that once we turn to discussion of how you interpret the Bible, all the creationists here have loads to say. All I've heard about science here recently is Russ saying I'm wrong -- nothing more than that, just that I'm wrong. Well there you go.

Once someone has decided they'd like to do some research on hominid fossils, maybe they can explain to me how they think I'm wrong in that particular way. Homo erectus is as transitional a form as you can get. Discuss, using specific examples.