[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618899]

Quote:Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is seen both microscopically and macroscopically, is only the expectation that Man would show respect for the order of God's authority using the regard of symbols. This is seen at the Beginning, through the OT, and in 1Co11. Expected but not commanded, macroscopically and microscopically.

So the sum total of Don's doctrine is "You can basically do what you want" in regards to 1 Cor 11.

There is nothing in post 143 which would lead to a conclusion you have made, leading readers to ask why an intelligent man such as yourself should conclude so.

Another example of how Don thinks that the Bible need not actually be followed, as something to be obeyed.

Or this is a distortion of what I actually think, misrepresenting me. Some people prefer a black/white view of the world, for many reasons. The world God made is a gray world. In many things there are no clearly defined borders of right and wrong. Those 'some' who prefer a black/white world do so from being freed from the needed attention required to determine what to do in gray situations. They prefer sharply defined rules defined by others. This is a ploy used by religion to add rules when God hasn't made one. Think Pharisee about now. They thus rely on the the views of others to give them a comfort that they are doing right. What is said by the rules derived from 1Co11 offers them comfort because they are clearly defined and simple to obey, which is Esaias's word. Making rigid rules about 1Co11 is contrary to the gray the Lord would like. Looking at the Beginning, we see no rigid rules for either the symbol or even a command to keep them to show respect to God's order. At creation the Lord's method is gray, not black/white. We ought to follow the Lord's example, using it in this topic. Early Man did - in Innocence, in Conscience and in Law; particularly the long 2500 yrs of Conscience when having no Law showed God's world to be gray. 2500 years with no law! Imagine. Not until Paul is misinterpreted, do we begin to see black/white in this regard. Black/white needs to be shelved to make room for God's gray method in this regard. 1Co11 needs to be seen gray, not the black/white, as seen in the misinterpretations of both the veil view and the uncut long view. The instinct view is gray. Instincts are gray, and not sharply defined like a command.

Esaias would attempt to mislead you to believe that the instinct view does not see Man showing regard by symbols to God's order of authority. It does, but not by way of command. It comes by yielding to God-given instincts. Who installed these instincts? God. Yielding to them shows yielding to God, effectively this obeys, which is Esaias's word.

In the other thread he tried to claim that heathens didn't HAVE to become Christians in order to be saved, they could be saved by their "right living based on conscience".

What Esaias tries here to do is distract from actually addressing this thread, because he has so little to actually say in rebuttal. Notice the repeated requests of mine to rebutt the conclusions in post 47, the vast majority which he has not bothered to counter. Should anyone like to know about what Esaias refers to in his last sentence, all they need do is ask me, and the thread will be referenced for your personal viewing. Esaias's distortions will be exposed for what they are - misrepresentations of what was actually said. Or, saving the messages to me, see the thread in the Fellowship Hall started by donfriesen1, called John3 and Romans2. Lets not get distracted/side-tracked here with what should have been discussed there. Doing this reveals Esaias's favourite trick, standing on his box, saying 'wrong, Don is wrong', but not taking the time to show how it is so. Not content to only do so for this thread, he does so with an old thread in avoidence of actually tackling the subject here. Oh, well. Why does someone of your caliber use tricks like this, Esaias, wasting our time and the resouces of AFF?

(Saved by "instincts", I guess?) Now, he has Paul teaching the church that God has certain expectations about respecting His order of authority, but those expectations aren't commanded and so if anyone wants to disregard those expectations "don't make a fuss about it because we don't command anyone to do what God 'expects' people to do."

Small men slur and call names, while big men get to the business at hand. Actually show how my conclusions are wrong, by getting to the business at hand, Esaias.

So basically, it's up to you to do whatever is right in your own eyes.

It should be obvious to anyone who "respects God's order of authority" that such a doctrine is heresy, macroscopically and microscopically.

Macroscopically, you could use your own original concepts when wanting to slur someone. You're certainly smart enough.