Originally posted by Nemesio
So you pick and choose which parts of Divine Revelation are amenable to
you, right? Your opinion is that St Paul's testimony regarding head-
coverings is not a reflection of God's attitude.

That is, the Holy Spirit failed to intervene on St Paul's false assertion,
that it is unnatural for a woman to have short or uncovered hair when she
prays. ...[text shortened]... y select the portions that
are convenient to you (like you do with St Paul)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Look, Satan is the master at counterfeit. Everything God calls good, Satan perverts. The covering of the hair, etc. is more symbolic and does not deal with immorality. Homosexuality goes back to the beginning when God said no, Satan says "did he really say no?" He plays with words with the intent of twisting the scriptures and promoting sin. Sin is disob ...[text shortened]... purpose. If sin is permissable, then the sacrafice of His Son was in vain and we are all lost.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, I guess you just want to pick and choose which parts of Scripture you follow, which parts you
think are 'Divine' and which you think can be dismissed.

I dare say that by ignoring St Paul's admonition regarding hair, it is you who are twisting the words
of Scripture, you who are promoting unnaturalness in God's churches, you wh ...[text shortened]... ith a ponytail or for women to preach and have spiritual authority over men.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, I guess you just want to pick and choose which parts of Scripture you follow, which parts you
think are 'Divine' and which you think can be dismissed.

I dare say that by ignoring St Paul's admonition regarding hair, it is you who are twisting the words
of Scripture, you who are promoting unnaturalness in God's churches, you wh ...[text shortened]... ith a ponytail or for women to preach and have spiritual authority over men.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nice try.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You did not answer my questions either. You seem to be on a quest to ridicule the bible and Christianity. This coversation is headed nowhere and I am done with this thread.....later....

Originally posted by Nemesio
So all of your women cover their heads when they pray?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Amazing. You are the one discarding Scripture but I'm the one ridiculing Christianity! You are the one
saying that St Paul was wrong in his insisting that women wear head coverings, but I'm the one
ridiculing the Bible.

This conversation is headed nowhere because you refuse to address your hypocrisy. You want your cake
and eat it, too. You ...[text shortened]... g not to follow it.

You are a fraud, like every other Pharisee on this site.

Nemesio

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Does this mean you no longer consider homosexual sex a sin? Or are you just changing the subject to avoid having to think about it?

Originally posted by whodey
If I honesly thought that God wanted me to wear my hair a certain way or dress a certain way then I would do it.

Originally posted by whodey
Now in terms of interpreting this scripture via people like Nemesio, one would have to sell all they had and give it to the poor to have eternal life.

Straw man. I don't interpret this Scripture this way. Even a literalist realizes that Jesus was addressing
this specific man's case and not making a general commandment about possessions.

That having been said, a person who wants to be a good Christian ought to be very wary about
excessive wealth for the many reasons advised in Scripture. Jesus never said it was impossible for
a rich man to enter heaven, but that it was extraordinarily difficult because of the temptation that
riches offers. Largely, I agree with your exegesis of the Scripture passage, though I think we could
flesh it out some more than you have.

This is very different than St Paul's statement which is a universal one, that the churches of God
will never have such a custom.

Now what does this have to do with homosexuality you may ask? This topic is nothing more than a long litany of topics in which people ask, "Am I going to have to give up X,Y, or Z to serve my God?" What if the answer is yes? What if he asks you to give it up? Will you walk away?

Precisely. St Paul makes clear that his proclamation against short-haired women or long-haired men
is a profession of faith. Do you and your colleagues give up your worldly perspectives about hair and
submit to the will of God as proclaimed in Divine Scripture by St Paul?

If I honesly thought that God wanted me to wear my hair a certain way or dress a certain way then I would do it. I care little as to the apperal I wear. In fact, my wife can attest to this fact with great frustration. However, my cloths/hair don't have me, so to speak. God comes before my cloths/hair. Now in terms of social convention, this may have been an issue back in Pual's day and indeed, it seems to have been. I can only assume this because he is the only one who talks about it briefly.

And yet you don't proclaim against Christian churches which blatantly tolerate 'so-called Christians'
which allow these deviant and unnatural hairstyles. It is your ambivalence towards a person's 'tonsural
status' that makes your stance on homosexuality hypocritical.

Paul was the type to avoid disputes such as hair/clothing in favor of simply proclaiming the good news without further hinderance that we see Nemesio bring up. However, to say that homosexuality is a social convention, I think this hardly the case.

So? Like I said earlier, the issue of woman's hair is a cultural one stemming far back and wider than
the Jews. View on homoerotic expression vary by culture, and the way in which it is viewed today is
very different than the way it was viewed in 1st-century Palestine. Homoeroticism was accepted as
normative behavior in some cultures, frowned upon in others, just like views on hair.

I mean, no matter the society in which you live you either are or are not inclined toward that behavoir.

You'll notice that this statement says absolutely nothing. Either you do or you do not like pizza. Either
you do or do not regard hairstyles as important. This is a vacuous tautology.

Now this bring us to teachings in the Bible about sex. What are they? In the chaper in question Jesus tod his disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, Jesus outlines what God had originally intended for sexual relations. "Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and will cleave to his wife; and they twain will be one flesh?"

So, you protest against Christian communities which permit the remarriage of divorced individuals?
That's all Jesus is talking about here. He is not making a comment whatsoever on homoeroticism;
it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Good question, Whodey: Do you protest against those heterosexual individuals who are living in
sin by committing adultery against their first spouses?

Granted, Jesus does not mention the issue of homosexuality but at the same time is deferring to the Mosaic law on the issue in terms of what is proper sexual conduct. So what does the Mosaic law say in regards to homosexual conduct? I think we all know the answer to this question. In fact, in more than one place in the OT and NT such behavoir is condemned. It seems to transcend every society in which it is adressed in the Bible going back hundreds and hundreds of years.

That's right. But Jesus also dismissed the Mosaic law, so appeals to it hardly merit any attention,
unless you are also going to assert that eating abominable animals is also a grievous sin.

So going back to the question of whether or not a homosexual can enter the kingdom of heaven I will say that with God ALL things are possible. That is, if you defer to him in regards to the issue and do not raise it above your love for him than you can be saved. However, if you come to Christ and tell him how it's going to be or I'm not following you then I guess you will walk away just as the young rich man who encountered Jesus. Is it hard? Yes. Is it painful? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I understand you correctly, you're admitting that God can be present in a homosexual partnership,
that as long as their love of God is greater than their love of each other, as long as they confess Jesus
Christ as Lord and so forth, they should be a-okay.

If you aren't saying that, then you need to address:
1) Ignoring a patent command by St Paul regarding hairstyles;
2) Ignoring divorced 'adulterers' who sin by virtue of remarriage.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
[b]Now in terms of interpreting this scripture via people like Nemesio, one would have to sell all they had and give it to the poor to have eternal life.

Straw man. I don't interpret this Scripture this way. Even a literalist realizes that Jesus was addressing
this specific man's case and not making a general commandment about possessions.

Originally posted by Nemesio
That's right. But Jesus also dismissed the Mosaic law, so appeals to it hardly merit any attention,
unless you are also going to assert that eating abominable animals is also a grievous sin.

Originally posted by whodey
After all, I thought you were into Biblical literalism.

I am utterly opposed to Biblical literalism for it turns the Bible into an idol.

So if Christ was only talking to a specific person or persons and adressing their personal situation, why can't Paul be doing the same?

Because St Paul was testifying to the nature of things; that is, he was speaking as to the
natures of men and women, not specific individuals. Note he says that people with the inappropriate
hairstyles would not be found in the 'churches of God.'

So, after pages of dodging, you still haven't confessed whether you find this part of Scripture to be
God-breathed or not.

Christ made the statement that one must sell all that they have and give to the poor did he not?

Jesus' statement about richness in general was one to be applied generally, naturally. Jesus' statement
for this one individual is one to be applied specifically to the one individual. This exegesis is supported
by the text.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
WRONG!!!!!!!!

Christ said that he had come to FULFILL the law, not to throw it away. For example, the woman caught in adultery, she was to be stoned via Mosaic law. Did he turn to them and say they had no right? Did he turn to them and say that adultery was now OK? No, in fact, he did not! Actually, at the end of the story and the accusers of the woma ...[text shortened]... telling her not to comit adultery any more and not that the Mosaic law is of no effect any more.