Today's Bible Verse

Acts 12:23

 

Uh Oh, let the meteor shower begin.............

 

My personal favorite

Proverbs 26:11

 

Proves what a silly little book the bible is.

Timothy 2:11-13
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Oooh, my slap detector is giving a dangerously high reading.

Or this one
Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

That's what my last girlfriend told me too.

 

Vladica, it's not meteors.

It's just insults and bigotry from Mr Engineer, who in the name of tolerance and diversity always has hate speech to employ. Really charming, in a way. When I miss the venom from the old onlinecollege and whatever the other wacko hate forum was, I've got him here to remind me.

 

Many of us don't have the Bible memorized, chapter and verse. So for the benefit of any other heathen like me that happen to read this board, here's the text of Acts 12:23:

Acts 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

I would guess that the occasion for that is Yasser Arafat's passing.

Of course, I have no way of knowing whether Arafat 'gave God the glory', or even what that means precisely.

I'm pretty sure that I haven't, at least in a hard line Biblical sense, but I trust that if there is a God (something I can't know), that deity is cool enough to know that I did what I could with the information and cognitive resources available.

Arafat certainly didn't impress me, but I'm in no position to judge him in a religious sense. Presumably that's God's job, and I might arguably be stealing God's glory by presuming to comment on the state of somebody else's salvation.

But I'll happily judge Arafat's political effectiveness, and that not very positively.

 

Why is this a bad or insulting thing? Is there something demeaning in this passage?

We follow this teaching in my church and there are no women complaining. My wife will tell you that subjection to the leadership/teaching of men does not make a woman any less than a man. The fact that God has not "chosen" women to teach men does not lessen the power and/or glory of the gifts given to her by God. How is this silly?

She will also tell you that only in the eyes of the world does subjection to spiritual leadership lessen her value. By being obedient to God's instruction, it glories God and brings about blessing -- And how can that be insulting. I may have been given sprititual leadership of my family, but I have not near the worth of my wife.

The verse and its instruction are only "silly" to those who have eyes and cannot see. It is not by the worth of the world that I judge the value of the gifts apportioned to me by God.

Me thinks your "slap detector" may be high because of the way you choose to value a women!!

Lastly, Paul didn't arbitrarily impose this restriction he had a theological reason (if you would bother to read the entire text). Here is a great explanation from "John Darby's Synopsis of the NT"

Paul has plainly now laid the foundations, and he proceeds therefore to details. Men were to pray everywhere, lifting up pure hands, without wrath, and without vain human reasonings. Women were to walk in modesty, adorned with good works, and to learn in silence. A woman was forbidden to teach or to exercise authority over men; she was to abide in quietness and silence. The reason given for this is remarkable, and shows how, in our relations with God, everything depends on the original starting-point. In innocence Adam had the first place; in sin, Eve It was she who, being deceived, brought in transgression. Adam was not deceived, guilty as he was of disobeying God. United to his wife, he followed her, not deceived by the enemy but weak through his affection. Without the weakness, it was this which the second Adam did in grace; He followed His deceived and guilty bride, but in order to redeem and deliver her by taking her faults upon Himself. Eve suffered on earth the penalty of her fault in a way which is a mark of the judgment of God; but walking in modesty, with faith and love and holiness, she shall be delivered in the hour of her trial; and that which bears the stamp of judgment shall be an occasion of the mercy and succour of God.

 

It should be!

"As the dog, after he has gained ease by vomiting that which burdened his stomach, yet goes and licks it up again, so sinners, who have been convinced only and not converted, return to sin again, forgetting how sick it made them."

 

Shouldn't this be in the politics section?

 

Yeah, they better not!

That explains it all, and all along I had a suspicion that women were evil (Y'all realize that what love spelled backwards is, right?)and that men were weak . Now I have proof. Just wait 'til I tell the guys at the bar this "good news". LOL!!!!!!!

Tony

P.S. The "Mormon's" second article of faith reads...

(italicized comments mine)

Although I am not LDS, nor am I particularly religious, I much prefer this outlook.

 

My point exactly, Unk..................

 

I remember reading about a man who managed to get the seat in the NFL endzone next to the man who holds up the "John 3:17" sign whenever the camera was pointing toward the endzone, and he simultaneously held up a Proverbs 5:19 sign.

 

For the uninitiated:

A loving doe and a graceful deer- let her breasts satisfy you at all times. Be captivated always with her love.



Tom Nixon

 

If you really want jr. high giggles try:

Ezk 23:3 who were whores in Egypt - even as young girls they were whores. There they let their breasts be caressed, and there their virgin nipples were fondled.

Ezk 23:8 She did not give up the whoring she had begun in Egypt, where men had sex with her, fondled her virgin nipples and flooded her with their fornication.

Ezk 23:21 You yearned for the lewdness of your girlhood, when the Egyptians used to fondle your nipples and caress your young breasts.

SOS 1:13 to me the man I love is a sachet of myrrh lodged between my breasts

I can provide more if that is where this exchange is going

 

Oh give it a rest. This is about reason, not hate. If you choose to believe the bible is the word of god, then that is your choice. I for one, do not think it is any more the word of god than a Time magazine.

Did I post a passage that was incorrect? No - I did not. As far as interpretation - the bible can be interpreted a million ways in a thousand languages. For anyone to say definitively that a passage means one thing or another is pure arrogance.

 

C'mon Janko. What exactly was your intent when you started this thread? Were you expecting a quiet Bible study discussion?

Tells us. What did you want to happen with this thread?

 

Proverbs, Psalms and Song of really SING in Hebrew. One Rabbi compared studying these texts in translation to kissing your bride through a handkerchief!

 

This thread has been dormant for three days. So why did you decide to push it back up to the top?

Actually, this thread was about the death of Yasser Arafat. Unk thought that he'd made a droll comment on it, using his Bible verse.

I think that Unk was using his verse kind of poetically, not literally or in its precise Biblical context.

Unfortunately, the mere fact that it was a Bible verse set knees jerking. A provocation was sensed where there wasn't any, and return fire was directed wildly at inappropriate targets. And this somehow turned into a Christianity-sucks thread.

I'm not a Christian. I don't believe that their Bible is the "word of God". (I'm not even sure what that phrase means.)

But I think that if people are going to wrap themselves the flag of "reason", they have to emote less and reason more.

Reason is something that people have to DO, it's not some blessed state of being that people can passively claim.

It's a lot like religion that way, I think.

We can't just hurl insults, safe in the faith that we are the reasonable ones. Just as they can't just hurl denunciations, safe in the faith that they are the saved ones.

 

Ah, yes, we're not giving proper glory to God. Perhaps for a little moral enlightenment, I should look to EXODUS 21:7

"And if a man sells his daughter as a
female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do."


Ahh, now I understand.

 

I appreciate the defense of Janko. I’m not sure it’s warranted, however. I don’t think anyone would argue that religion is a highly charged topic in this day and age. In fact, it always has been. Certainly this forum is no different.

Given the strife and pain that organized religion has “smitten” on this world over the centuries, I think it’s safe to say that many many people take it personally when others make strict, judgmental interpretations of the Bible (or the Koran, Talmud etc.). To many, it is the height of arrogance. At the same time, I think we all understand that there are admirable parts of religion and that many find great comfort in the teachings of whatever religion they follow.

In any case, I think it’s virtually impossible to make a “droll” reference to the Bible in regard to Arafat’s death. Even if it was intended to be droll, it would be naïve to assume that others would interpret it that way. Was Janko implying that Arafat certainly “got his” (eaten by worms or whatever) when he met his maker? Of course, no one can know this (and we are all, in a way, eaten by worms when we die). Should we infer that the mere occurrence of Arafat’s death makes this happen? We all die. How do we know what happens next, if anything?

I appreciate the call to reason, but reason doesn’t work too well when it comes to religion. Religious belief defies logical reasoning. That’s where faith must enter the equation. Where the secular get their hair in a wad is when the religious point to the Bible as “proof” of their faith. The Bible can’t be that, at least not in a logical way. Even if one attempted to break the Bible down into a logical format, like the functional calculus, it is sufficiently complex that it would not be a consistent system. There would be true statements that could not be proven true, and false statements which couldn’t be shown as such. Godel showed us that in 1931. Anyone attempting the project would die of frustration first.

I think the secular would like the non-secular to qualify their views as having to do with faith – a faith that is not for everyone, and a faith that can not, and should not, be interpreted like law, or written into law literally. As George Carlin said,

“Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”

When it comes to religion, hardly anything is droll.