And they end up looking foolish for doing so.
He might have gotten beaten to pulp there also, so he came here hoping his tactic would fair better here.
Hasn't worked out for him.
ECT The Broken Record of MAD
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Hasn't worked out for him.
No we don't.
Just more skip skip skip of the broken record of Dodge.
How creative, copying after the OP
Don't you have hair to dye and people to protest :chuckle:
Again, dodge; quit lumping all MADs into a one size fits all.
Most MADs believe that Paul was water baptized.
And most MADs observe the Lord's Supper.
And some MADs are KJVO and some are not...
And some this, and some that, amd some the other...
Even SimpleMan77, has begun to acknowledge that MADs may or may not be on a same page on one thing or another.
As is the case not only within any school of thought within Christianity, but within any school of thought within any area of life in general.
He likes to "Dodge" the issue.
So says the "Catholic/Calvinist."
Amen!
He didn't have to say it, Jesus said it and it was Jesus who revealed truth to Paul.
Get baptized and join a real church.
How's the Pope doing?
Why not throw yourself at a wall and see if you stick?
Interplanner
Well-known member
No doubt because he believes in discussing ideas, not people, which you do not.
Name one single MAD who has said Paul was not baptized with water in this verse.
You're missing the point. Par for the course with you.
musterion
Well-known member
Can't recall who said it but I've heard some MADs believe that it was not water baptism, but no one on TOL believes that as far as I've seen. He's just making stuff up again. Flailing.
Exactly
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
When people you're talking to, such as yourself, have NO idea what they're talking about, then, desperate measures are called for.
What's the matter "Man of Extremely Long Hair", have you nothing of worth, to say?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I tend to agree. My understanding of the word translated "long" in the passage from 1 Cor. 11 condemning men having long hair would be more accurately translated as "fixed".
Thus, the actual point of condemnation for men is having elaborate hairdos. Sampson and in general the Nazirites shows that it is not length of a man's hair, but ornateness that is in view. A man's hair is not his glory, while a woman's hair is. A woman can cover her glory as a sign of submission, or she can remove her glory. To remove her glory (her hair) would be dishonorable and shaming, which most women would not want.
For men, it is against nature to focus on what is women's glory, but it is perfectly natural for women to be concerned about it.
Paul gave these commands about head coverings and long hair because the way people wore their hair indicated whether one was behaving as a man or a woman. In other words, Paul wanted to retain the distinctions between the sexes. This is a powerful word to our culture where differences between the sexes are routinely denied, and we commonly have gender-blending and gender confusion.
The issue Paul addresses isn’t really head-coverings and length of hair in and of themselves. What matters in the passage are not local customs, as some often appeal to in denying Paul's teachings herein, but the principle or truth communicated in the text. The principle Paul teaches in 1 Cor 11:3 is male headship. Men have a unique God-given authority in the family and the church for leadership. Men are responsible to protect and provide for women, and women are to humbly submit to their leadership and to assist men in their leadership roles. Such differences in role don’t indicate lack of equality, for Our Lord submitted to the Father but was equal to Him (1 Cor 15:28). Men appearing as women rebelliously denies male headship.
AMR