>>This is my problem with Doug's comments previously. When replying to a post earlier from Steven Bennett, he used what I consider a very strict interpretation of Scripture, specifically the sacrifice at the Temple. I believe Doug's argument was that since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, there is nothing you can do. That was my point, that Doug was arguing for a strict interpretation.
>
>You do not have the right to insert your interpretation and call it mine though Chris. That's what you are doing here. I also have said on more occassions than I think I should have to (as I have found others need to be reminded all the time to pay attention) also use my mind.

I am just going to put down what you wrote:

"Secondly, if you are Jewish and you do wish to place yourself under those laws the second question I'm going to ask is this: The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and no sacrifices have been done there since. How do you cover your sins without sacrifices? You cannot according to the Mosaic Law."

Now, exactly what part of what you wrote is not a strict interpretation?

>I also went on to explain that the keeping of the law was now moot as grace trumps the law. (in so many words) My assertion was that the Jewish worshipper had this problem, not the Christian. Get your facts straight, ok? <g>

Yes, you argued that the Jewish worshipper had this problem, acording to your strict interpretation of Jewish law.

>It's painfully obvious to me that your understanding of the Bible is woeful at best - and yet you think you're smart enough to criticize those of us who have spent many years reading and studying it so easily... ?? <g>

I'll grant you that, and that is why I am asking these questions. Your replies have been unenlightening. For your years of reading and studying, you have not provided any answers. I found what I consider to be very coherent arguments on the web site I mentioned over a month ago. I would like to see them refudiated. Yet, I am still waiting for your reply.

Someone's years of reading and studying don't carry a lot of weight with me, whether it be the Bible or programming. Their answers do.

>Tom was absolutely correct in with his mention that you need to read/study these works IN CONTEXT. Another issue is that you also need to remember that 'IN CONTEXT' also means cultural, social, political and other areas as well. How's your understanding of Biblical History these days? <g> There are a lot of passages that make huge sense once you understand the local customs.

I have given my source. I have asked both you and Tom to point out where it was incorrect. So far, you haven't done that.

>Two come to mind:
>
>1) Women shouldn't speak in church.
>
>This is really simple to understand when you learn that synagogues made men and women to sit on opposite sides of the building and Paul was simply attempting to make sure that services were conducted decently and in order. IOW, keep the ladies from shouting across the room to their husbands to have them explain something.

Does not the reverse hold true?

>2) Women should cover their heads.
>
>Again, in Corinth, where this was written to, the Temple Priestesses (about 1,000 of them +/-) of Diana (?) performed their 'services' via sexual acts and the 'donation' would go to the Temple. They indicated their 'position' by having uncovered heads. So.. Paul was simply wanting to avoid confusing Christians with Temple prostitutes. He (Paul) also went on to say that this custom was essentially localized.

I have no argument with this.

>Gotta read in context and use your brain. Tough to do if you have a pre-conceived notion of things, don't you think? <g>

I think if I wasn't using my brain, I would not be looking into this matter. Again, I asked you for you opinion on the slavery issue sometime ago. In a post to Tom, I expressed my hope that what I read at the web site was not true. I'll express it again here: I do hope that the bible did not condone slavery, and explicitly condemned it. The people on that site claim that the Bible does condone slavery, and does not condemn it. I would like to see them proven wrong.