Quote
Quote
I'd be curious what your take on the question is. It's a very valid question, and I have no doubt that you, Russ, have a very valid answer.

Here is the breakdown of the subject...

First of all, this statement falls under the category of an ordinance...

[color:"brown"]"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."[/color]
(1 Corinthians 11:2)

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.
I hope you will forgive me if I don't take your definition as gospel. Could you support this conclusion with some sort of definition or law reference?

I'll help a little. From dictionary.com:
Quote
or·di·nance
1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.
2. a public injunction or regulation: a city ordinance against excessive horn blowing.
3. something believed to have been ordained, as by a deity or destiny.
4. Ecclesiastical.
a. an established rite or ceremony.
b. a sacrament.
c. the communion.

The etymology of the word ordinance supports your contention that an ordinance carries less weight than a law.
Quote
ordinance
1303, "an authoritative direction, decree, or command" (narrower or more transitory than a law)
It does not support your contention that ordinances are statements of "ordinary practices". Even law books don't support that. City ordinances carry punishments if violated. Try renovating your house and violating the local building codes. I guarantee the punishment is quite severe.

In fact, Paul, and thus the Bible, seems to believe that ordinances should be taken seriously.

From Romans Chapter 1 (New American Standard Version):
Quote

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


Looks like God takes his ordinances quite seriously. However, He may not count them against us in modern times since society has changed.

Is this an ordinance or a law? Leviticus 20:
Quote
13'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
In verse 22, God says:
Quote
22'You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not spew you out.
However, He does not classify the above statement.

Quote
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.
Except the ordinance applied to both single and married women. So, the hair covering was not a symbol of the subordinate position of the wife to the husband.

You seem to be saying that ordinances in the Bible can be done away with if the societal context changes. I guess, then, we should have a way of determining which rules are ordinances and which are laws. How, exactly, is that done?

Let's take Lev 20:13 as an example. Law, statute or ordinance? I can't really tell. What is your Biblical evidence to support your conclusion concerning this rule? Society today says that it is not wrong...even the law says so. Is this one of those ordinances which can be allowed today or a law which cannot be changed? Actually, since my Bible (New American Standard) doesn't mention the word "law" anywhere near this passage, it must be a statute or ordinance. You haven't defined the nature of statutes so I am not sure of the circumstances under which they may be thrown out. However, if Lev 20:13 is an ordinance, perhaps it is time to accept the practice within the Christian Church.

Quote
Very simple really.
Doesn't look all that simple to me. It looks like we have been given no method of determining what rules to follow.

I have not been able to tell which rules are ordinances, laws or statutes.

I have not been able to determine the parameters under which a particular ordinance or statute may be ignored, because, in every case, God seems to be quite serious about our obeying them.

Do you have a method for determining which rules are inviolate and which are not? Additionally, what do you use to determine when a particular ordinance or statute is no longer valid?

This is not about whether we can be forgiven for breaking a law, ordinance or statute. It is about whether doing something counter to a particular rule in the Bible is a sin or not.

Quote
What is also shameful is when people defame the Bible when they have no knowledge of it. When that type of blind slander is levied against the evolution myth, people are called hypocrites.
You have no idea what my knowledge of the Bible is, so you speak from ignorance. I don't call you a hypocrite for not knowing about evolution and speaking against it. From your point of view, you do know enough to levy criticism. You are not a hypocrite in that case....just incorrect.

Quote
Let me ask, is is unreasonable to call a person a hypocrite for calling someone else a hypocrite for something the person themselves are doing?
Let's see. I don't take the Bible literally, so my interpretation that allows women to pray without hair covering is not hypocritical.
I didn't call Bex a hypocrite. He (and you) say you take the Bible literally, so I asked him to Biblically support his reasoning for believing that the hair covering rule no longer applied. My intent was to show him that every denomination makes judgment calls on the rules of the Bible. Mine are just different judgment calls based on my agreement with the validity of certain evidence within science.

Quote
By the way, the wearing of a ring used to be a symbol of slavery, as was the piercing of the ears.
Some men still think the wearing of a ring is a symbol of slavery<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The peace sign used to be a symbol of a broken cross (according to some Christian historians). That doesn't mean those hippies wearing the sign during the Vietnam war intended to demean Christ or the Cross.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke