Secular sophistry redux

Jon Curry said:

“ Looks like you made a prophet out of Bill. You not only ignore Luke 6:30, but also Luke 6:31 with further name calling.”

I chose to ignore his appeal to Lk 6:30-31 for a couple of reasons:

1.This is a diversionary tactic. Your brother is attempting to change the subject in the middle of the debate. He was the one who brought up 1 Cor 11. I have no intention of letting him off the hook.

2. (See below).

“I suppose someone like Jason will come in and explain that "Do unto others" is really just hyperbole.”

And that’s the other reason I ignored it, for as I recall, Jason has already spend a lot of time on that issue. You and your brother are simply repeating yourselves by revisiting oft-refuted objections.

“Anyway, I notice your commentaries don't address the central problem. There may be many good reasons for thinking that Paul's demand of head covering doesn't apply today. I could have bought off on some that you offer, such as that from Keener or the others. The problem is Paul gives us the reasons why women need to wear hats and they have nothing to do with the reasons Keener offers. They have to do with the very order of creation as it occurred with Adam and Eve, how Adam was created first, then Eve, and how Eve is created for Adam, not vice versa. Paul says for this reason and because of the angels, women need head coverings. Nothing about lesbians. Nothing about homosexuals. Why are you unwilling to discuss the reasons Paul offers? Are his reasons valid in your mind?”

I see you haven’t been paying any attention to the course of this thread. I went into that question in some detail in my previous post on the subject.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/hair-raising-predicament.html

What I notice is that you are the one, along with your brother, who’s ignoring my detailed discussion of that very question.

Try rereading the extensively argued distinction between timeless, cross-cultural principles and the culturally diverse ways in which the invariant principle can be variously instantiated.

Given your studied disregard for the answers I gave to questions raised by your brother, it’s apparent that the two of you have no counterargument to offer, which is why you resort to the stance of a storefront preacher or hillbilly preacher-man: “Me and mah King James Bahble! Don’t’ go givin' me none-a yer new-fangled book larnin’ from them thar Calvinistical commen-ta-tors!”

I’m more than willing to discuss Paul’s reasons. Indeed, I’ve already done so.

You’re the one who’s unwilling to respond in kind. The ball is losing air and going flat as it sits in your court, gathering dust.