I'm guessing from the title the evolutionists are unable to offer
any interpretation other than deletion of I Cor. 11:16. For my part, I take it somewhat more seriously. So what are you talking about?
Very interesting observations, LinearAq.
Knowing that we're all mature adults here, I have every confidence that Bex, CTD and Russ are more than capable of responding rationally and matter-of-factly, rather than resorting to emotional outbursts, name calling and unnecessary accustations -- I'm also confident that they think posting in this manner is indeed a childish and untoward approach.
From the very first thread I participated in here, I have made it clear that false accusations are unacceptable to me. Is this why they abound? No, it's only a small part of the reason. Custom, ingrained habit, s.o.p.; these are the primary reasons. It is knee-jerk for the evolutionist to change subjects frequently, and these provide a tool for doing so.
To convince an evolutionist to abandon the false accusation is quite a difficult job. They might consider the proposition, but they must surely recoil in shock at the handicap they would incur. There goes 1/3 to 1/2 of their argument!
That being said, I wholeheartedly look forward to the creationist reply here as regards not just headscarves (because that's not really what this is about here -- that was but one example among many) but how biblical intregrity is observed and what interpretations are exactly that, interpretations, and what are clearly set in stone.
There's no mystery. The bible is true. The jokers at atheist websites list hundreds of bogus arguments against the bible, when one legit argument is all they'd need. But they don't have
one legit argument to offer.
I am unconvinced that there's any need to debunk all bunk. And that's exactly what the enemies of the bible will try to maintain. I'm content to let them have the last post, and I hope it's claiming victory on "headscarves". I'll invite my friends to come <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hehehe.gif" alt="" />
As an example, if Christians can feel free to disregards rules (ordinances, whatever) such as the wearing of headscarves, does that mean they can do away with circumcision?
...And unleavened bread, and meat sacrificed to idols, and one-by-one we need to talk about every last thing in the bible that someone pretends is a problem. Seen it before, don't you know.
...How about being faithful to one's spouse? We live in a different time period, after all -- words taken directly from the creationist side of the argument here. Wearing of headscarves isn't part of "today's society". If my wife finds the notion of a threesome appealing, can I do away with whatever part of the bible says threesomes are forbidden and happily indulge? Surely you see that this one idea (headscarves) is opening a whole can of worms. Nobody here is quibbling. We're just looking for clarification.
And for those who haven't seen it before, Pwcca <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/gunshot.gif" alt="" /> telegraphs the strategy.
In return, I'll give some advice. Displaying how little one actually knows about the bible just isn't impressive. Failing to even read a passage & verify the claims of internet atheist liars before posting them is downright unimpressive. As an evolutionologist, my best hypothesis is that repeating blasphemy & stupid slander against God and/or His people causes endorphins to fire off in the brains of some individuals.
Laura Clement wrote:
...These types of loaded questions and faulty conclusions reveal a lack of understanding of God's word and His character and are most often simply put forth to denigrate the word of God and challenge its validity and authority.
I suppose I could have saved time & just repeated this.
