Search results

You're trying to conflate a distinctly moral issue with a moral non-issue. Can a society of strict homosexuals reproduce itself? No. Nature prohibits it. On the contrary, nature does not prohibit long hair on men.

Exactly, so the whole "does not nature teach" argument fails. Even most long-haired women eventually get haircuts. There's no objective standard of "short" or "long", "nature" does not actually teach any such thing, and Paul was speaking from a cultural perspective, not an eternal truth-standard.

Easily, for all of them. You provided one or two sentences from each letter, without the preceding or following sentences. For the quotations not to be out of context, you would need to provide the letters in their entirety. They may be consistent or inconsistent with their context, but in this...

Remove the plank from your eye first, newbie.

You claim to be sent by “Father” but use that kind of language? That tells me who your “father” really is.

Blah blah blah. I reject your arrogance and ignorance; that has nothing to do with who you claim sent you. Learn what words mean before you use them.

You’re sidestepping the issue on behalf of another person. Don’t interfere. Does the man feel shame for having long hair BEFORE he reads the verse in question? That is the key question. If he does not, then “nature” does not teach him as Paul claims. What he feels AFTER reading the verse is in...

Or neither, and he simply hasn’t had a haircut recently. Your false dichotomy is silly.

A small handful of out-of-context comments from private letters, while marginally interesting, are not evidence that Hort’s work is flawed.

You are, however, qualified to read a dictionary. Some people seem to think they aren’t.

Given the context, both versions have strengths and flaws. “Considerate” fits better than “reasonable”, but “teachable” fits better than “submissive”. “Full of… good fruit” makes more sense to me than “divine good production”. I’d check the Greek to determine which is the better translation.

Your wording is awkward. Paul wasn’t “making a 1st-century misunderstanding”; he wrote from a 1st-century perspective, which was apparently quite incorrect regarding biology.

That is another Catholic falsehood, by the way. ;)

Yes... Matchbox currently has a line called "Moving Parts". On a recent trip to Ohio, I was able to acquire several of those, and a few older models from the era when such parts were common. There are many such in my collection.

Unfortunately, this is typical self-righteous false prophet behaviour on display. Methinks your time here will be short.

It's not so urgent that you can't slow down and check your spelling. Most of the people here are Christians already. Don't 'make the mistake of judging the Father's servants.

What, exactly, makes you think that anyone here is in need of the turning you offer? Frankly, you sound a bit arrogant. Having been around here a few years, I've seen many like you come... and go quickly, usually having had their false martyr complex reinforced and their hard heart hardened...

You seem to think that your narrow experience is normative. It isn't. I've seen many pictures of Christians from that period... longer hair was normal on the men.

Which question, exactly? I don't see one in your post, other than in the quotation from Scripture. To that, no, it doesn't.

Since there is again a “live chat” forum on CC, that’s a possibility, at least for those with the time and inclination.