LinearAQ...
You really crack me up. You seem so caught up with this business of understanding the difference between law, statute, and ordinance.
Do you really think I don't know you're real motives for your "interest"?
If you're truly interested in knowing the Bible, then study it. I'll tell you a little more about how in a minute.
Where you're getting confused here is that there are many different words in the original language that have been translated into the English "ordinance". Therefore, you have to sort out which are cultural practices and which are statutes and which are laws.
Agreed. I asked you to show me how you do this.
I use Strongs, and Interlinear Bible, and the King James.
For help on your first time through the good Book, I would suggest the Bullinger Companion Bible.
That's how.
You state that it is not difficult to determine what rule is to be obeyed and what is to be ignored without risk of sinning. However, a simple search on the internet provides a number of differing views concerning the validity of this simple ordinance. Some provide great detail as to why it should be strictly obeyed and others provide detail into why it can be tossed aside. I find the toss-it-aside arguments to be less well supported.
So, you have an opinion. Good.
Take the verses in question.
If Paul only meant that women should display their subservience to men during the worship service, does categorizing it as a "tradition" mean women don't have to be subservient to men any more?
When did the head covering become a tradition that no longer held authority? Right away? Within a year? Within 1000 years?
You are very confused.
You are doing what Linda Lou commonly does. You are making inappropriate associations between concepts. This leads you to draw errant conclusions.
For example, you associate that the act is not required with the belief that woman are no longer under authority. That's a huge leap you are making, yet a simple mistake.
Secondly, I would also explore the statements made by Paul that tell women to respect their husbands and for husbands to love their wives.
You're staring so intently at an ordinance that you're missing the nature of the law. Unfortunately, there is so much background information missing that you are not even asking the right questions.
If you really want to make the point that Christians pick-and-choose what they want to obey today, that's fine. They most certainly do, but you could have done a much better job of pointing out where they err.
My question to you is: Why do you care about the errors of Christians? Is it to ease your own conscience, or will you prove a more noble endeavor?
