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?
I'm not saying to throw it out.
Russ said that rule is an ordinance that is no longer required, so he must mean that we no longer need 1 Cor 11:5-15.
You said (at least I think so, you weren't very clear <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />) that Paul is saying in verse 16 that if someone disagrees then the rule doesn't apply. So your church must not agree with the rule and therefore they no longer need 1 Cor 11:5-15. Is verse 16 a blanket statement or does it apply only to this one ordinance? Can I be contentious about other ordinances and have them nullified also?
Besides, in rebuttal to your belief that verse 16 allows the nullification of 5-15, the Amplified Bible states in 1Cor11:
16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
This translation supports head covering as a non-negotiable requirement and is in keeping with the tone and meaning within 1Cor11, which is instruction on proper observation of worship.
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?
Your identification of accusations as false hold no water until you can show evidence that they are false. I will fully admit that I can get frustrated in these debates and let fly with an insult or two. You have done the same. I think we are both adult enough to allow a few slip ups to pass by.
You know, insults like this:
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!
Can be ignored.
Or this:
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.
Where your declaration that there are no legit arguments is supposed to be all that is needed to make those arguments invalid. That seems to fly in the face of Peter's admonition to
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1Pet3:15-16)
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.
So, you are saying that all the rules in the Bible are still valid? Please clarify what it is you are actually trying to say.
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.
Please show me where I have slandered God or stated blasphemy. This would require you to actually quote me and then explain how my statement was blasphemy or in any way demeaned God.
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.
Which of my questions denigrates the word of God or challenges its validity and authority any more than your or Laura's decision allow women to pray without their head covered?
