Here here CTD. We are indeed at War.
You believe we are at war. I suppose that justifies the tactics used by CTD....avoidance of answering the questions put before him.
Just a note to Pwcca:
If you're going to get on and make an evaluation of the problems in our posts, then please do so fairly. Otherwise, it comes across as obnoxious. These posts of yours, regarding OUR need for improving our behaviours somehow omit the need for the opposition to check themselves at the sametime....... How can you honestly expect to be taken seriously when you continue to do this? It just comes across as insincere and hypocritical.
Agreed. I certainly am not innocent in regards to hurling a few barbs.
Back to the topic (if it's even possible to remain there).The hair covering by the way was NOT a commandment. Neither in the old or new testament, but was a hard statement directed at the vanity of women in the presence of God, by St Paul the apostle.Glamorous adornments and showing off could, in a sense, be so deterimental to the person that it would be better for them to cover their heads, than to expose their crowning glory.
You have some Biblical documentation that this is what Paul meant by the request(?seemed more like an order to me) to have women wear hair covering? None of the statements in 1 Corinthians say anything like that. Even if Paul says showing off is a problem somewhere else, how do you relate that to the hair covering concerns? His focus was on the subordinate status of women to men and the hair covering was required to show their obedience to that status. Your statement as to Paul's intent has little weight without Biblical support. I could say any passage in the Bible means whatever I want, but I would not expect you to take it seriously unless I provided some backup support from the Bible itself. After all, It is the ultimate authority concerning God's requirements for us.
Anybody seen women in church show off? wear provocative clothing? I have. It is truly repulsive and particularly in the presence of God. It also scandalises others too and may provoke a person to sin. Modesty is the key.
Modesty is the key everywhere for Christians, not just in the church. Besides, if Paul's focus was on modesty, why weren't the men also told to avoid "showing off"?
There are plenty of "christians" who fail at keeping commandments also (me included), does that somehow invalidate those commandments? Do you use them as a means to downgrade the bible without bothering to focus on any of the tremendous good and Christian charities/organisations out there?
You still think this is about downgrading the Bible or Christianity despite my claims otherwise. Oh, I forgot, according to you I am not a Christian because I don't believe exactly as you do.
Let me try again and this time I will capatilise and bold it and hope this time it might penetrate:
THE FAILURES OF ANYBODY, INCLUDING ANY FOLLOWERS OF GOD DO NOT INVALIDATE HIS WORD, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME OR MANY MAY HAVE LET OURSELVES DOWN BY OUR DISOBEDIENCE/SINS OR EVEN OMMISSIONS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? HOW MANY MORE TIMES DOES IT NEED POINTING OUT TO YOU? Or is this just convenient for you to keep arguing incessantly over it, going through the same stuff over and over, wearing out your opponent, so they might give up bothering to repeat themselves and you'll then accept it as a "victory" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheerleaderponytails.gif" alt="" /> Because in the end, it seems it's a case of who gets the last word doesn't it?
The commandments and expectations of God are clear, both in old and new testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, witchcraft, taking God's name in vain, lying, murder, bearing false witness, etc etc, are the KEY sins that one is to watch out for. Does it mean nobody commits them? Does it mean if someone does commit them, that it then invalidates the bible? No. The bible doesn't fail. God doesn't fail. We can fail! This is why we need to work at our salvation everyday of our lives. It is not just about confessing by mouth, but the evidence of the belief should also be in our actions. Many of fail at that (me included).
Treading into those emotional waters that you want me to avoid?
I never said this was about Christians failing to obey God's word. I expect them to...it is the nature of man. Additionally, I never stated that the failure of Christians to follow rules is an invalidation of God's word. I also never stated that the failure of Christians to recognize a necessary rule causes an invalidation of God's word.
Let me reiterate so it might penetrate:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE BIBLE. IT IS VALID REGARDLESS OF OUR INABILITY TO PROPERLY INTERPRET OR FOLLOW IT'S PRECEPTS!!!Russ stated that the hair covering requirement by Paul was an ordinance, therefore it did not have the same power as a statute or law. Therefore, according to Russ, it was allowed to be invalidated based on societal or situational changes.
This bare statement of Russ' belief concerning rules in the Bible leads to some obvious questions.
What indications in the Bible tell us which rules are ordinances, which are statutes and which are laws?
What indications in the Bible tell us that ordinances can ever be invalidated?
What indications in the Bible tell us that this particular ordinance is no longer valid?
The evidence of conversion and loyalty to God should be reflection in our own lives. Christ's blood should not be played with and used as a scapegoat to say "I can continue to sin". WRONG! God said "Not all who cry Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but they that do the will of my Father". He expects obedience. "If you love Me, keep my commandments".
He expects obedience, yet you have no method that I can see of determining which commandments, laws, ordinances or statutes are valid. What is your method?
Ok, here are quotes regarding the animal sacrifices of the old testament and the new convenent of the one Sacrifice of Christ (the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world).
Leviticus 16.19 He (Aaron) must sprinkle some of the blood on the alter 7 times....to purify it from the sins of the people of Israel and make it holy.
Leviticus 17.11 Blood, which is life, takes away sin.
Hebrews 9.22 "indeed, according to the (Moses) laws, almost everything is purified by blood and sins are forgiven only if blood is poured out".
Hebrews 10.11 Every Jewish Priest offers the same sacrifices many times, but these sacrifices can never take away sins. Christ however offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective forever, and he sat down at the right side of God".
This is why, when the lamb of God (Jesus) gave His life, there was no further need for animal sacrifice, and to continue to do them would no longer be acceptable to the Father. Futile in fact. Since, He had sent His only Son as a sacrifice. The new blood covenent. To continue sacrificing animals after this, would be like saying Christ's sacrifice is insufficient.
Does His sacrifice make those Old Testament sins into acceptable behavior now? Paul says we are no longer under the law because of Christ's sacrifice, but he also says that does not allow us to continue to sin. Paul even explicitly states some laws that no longer need to be obeyed, circumcision and avoidance of particular foods.
However, there is still that admonition that we cannot "continue to sin". Paul even mentions some sinners that won't see heaven, idolaters, fornicators (so much for PWCCA's three-way <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />), thieves and the effeminate. So, which rules require asking forgiveness when we break them and which ones are no longer sins?
Can I build a campfire on Saturday? (Exodus 35:2-4)
Can I wear a shirt made of wool and linen?(Leviticus 19:19)
Do farmers still have to leave the corners of their fields unharvested for the poor to gather?(Leviticus 19:9)
Can a man be a practicing homosexual? (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)
Most importantly, what is it in the Bible that tells us which rules are still valid?
So many people would reject this sacrifice, that I believe this was a big part of His agony. Since He shed His blood for all, not "a few" or "only those that I think are going to accept it" and being aware so many would in the end, reject it. I cannot imagine the pain of knowing how many it would be shed for in vain.
I agree there had to be more to His sacrifice than simply being beaten and killed on the cross. Since He knew that He would rise again and be second only to God, it doesn't seem like much to go through. There has to be more to it than that. It's like asking me if I would cut off my finger and have it sewn back to get 15 billion dollars. Um...yes.
I think the worst part for Him was the Father forsaking Him. After experiencing direct contact and actually being one with the Father, that had to be a horrendous loss even if only for a short time.
Linda, I hope this "somewhat" answers your question. Must I need to hunt down more chapter and verse for this?
You should always be ready to back up your statements of belief concerning your Christian faith. If the Bible is the source for your beliefs then you should be able to point to the parts of the Bible that support your beliefs.
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
