ionlike men of Moab

every hand six fingers

Being converted into a transhuman no longer bearing God's image is the real hazard of re-engineering the human race!

But to give up the physical image is eternally damning, with no chance of salvation!

Noah and his family were spared. Why? They were perfect in their generations (Gen 6:9). They were fully human.

The larger problem of suffering remains, and the only answer to be extracted from the Book of Job is that man cannot question the majesty and wisdom of God: He is the Creator and Sustainer of all life, and His works are beyond man's knowledge.

imagine or theorize on what Christ would like or not like

Also, if you take the word CONIFER, which is the name given to the family of trees to which the Christmas (Fir) tree belongs, and split the word in two, you get: CON-IFER CON - Satan is known as the biggest con-artist ever. He invented it. IFER - The last half of Lucifer's name. HE'S LAUGHING AT ALL OF US RIGHT NOW!

I do not think it is safe to assume that, despite his arguments, Paul's real intention is merely to affirm and interpret the fashions of his day (especially in Corinth) or that he would affirm in like manner the fashions of modern women if he were writing the letter today. Rather, it seems that Paul wants Christian women to observe a churchly tradition, irrespective of what happens to be in vogue outside the church. (20) Are we really honoring Scripture if we say that, despite its conspicuous absence in the passage, the counsel of cultural conformity is the real and unspoken motive for the ordinance?

It often becomes difficult for me to hear and understand what the Bible is saying because I bring to it a host of extra-biblical assumptions. This is probably the biggest problem of "cultural conditioning" we face. No one of us ever totally escapes being a child of our age ... I am convinced that the problem of the influence of the twentieth-century secular mindset is a far more formidable obstacle to accurate biblical interpretation than is the problem of the conditioning of ancient culture.

Fashions of women's dress have changed and will continue to change, but Paul in this passage has explained very carefully that the headcovering symbolizes something which does not change.

How are we to apply this rule to ourselves as Christians in the twenty-first century? The whole passage has been treated with some uneasiness in recent times. Since about 1960, not only have hats and scarves gone out of fashion for women in Western nations, but it has become "politically incorrect" to even suggest that women ought to submit to male authority. The very idea that women should be required to wear headcoverings as a sign of their subordination is almost intolerable in the modern context.

After a few paragraphs Sproul goes on to say, "What if, after careful consideration of a biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being overscrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious."

We should not be asking how much we are allowed to ignore the literal instructions of this passage or any other passage of Scripture so long as we claim to be observing the "spirit." We should be asking how we may best obey it both in spirit and in the letter.

Symbols have a powerful effect on our lives, and it is not safe to treat them with contempt, especially when the symbol in question has been appointed in Scripture itself.