Started By
Message

re: Since Mayor Pete loves quoting scriptures, what's the chance he quotes this one?

Posted on 8/1/19 at 5:45 pm to
Posted by SOSFAN
Blythewood
Member since Jun 2018
12169 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 5:45 pm to
1Samuel Saul admonishes Jonathan for picking David for unnatural relations. " confusion meant unnatural relations at the time it was written. Don't make the mistake of using todays terminology)
2nd Samuel shows David grieving over the death of Jonathan like a lover would. He even states his love surpased that of a woman.
Twisting the words to fit your false narrative doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
Leading others away from the true meanings, such as you're doing, is called false teaching which the Bible warns about. I will pray for you.
This post was edited on 8/1/19 at 5:54 pm
Posted by TigerBandTuba
Member since Sep 2006
2541 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 5:45 pm to
quote:



For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 5:50 pm to
quote:

A paradox is not the same as a contradiction, and there aren't contradictions in the Bible


womp womp

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33
This post was edited on 8/1/19 at 5:53 pm
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41648 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 6:12 pm to
quote:

1Samuel Saul admonishes Jonathan for picking David for unnatural relations. " confusion meant unnatural relations at the time it was written. Don't make the mistake of using todays terminology)
Please provide the chapter and verse for this one.

quote:

2nd Samuel shows David grieving over the death of Jonathan like a lover would. He even states his love surpased that of a woman.
Actually David grieved over the deaths of both Saul and Jonathan at that time. And the comment about love surpassing that of a woman was about a close-knit friendship and kinship that David didn't have even with the women he married. David and Jonathan bonded over their love for the Lord and became as one soul in that relationship. It wasn't sexual.

The Bible isn't shy about displaying improper sexual relationships. David got in trouble by having an affair with Bathsheba and sinning against God in the process. If he had a sinful sexual affair with Jonathan (as it would have been considering God's law specifically condemning it), it would have likely been described as such, but there's no evidence of a sexual relationship at all. Any sexual undertones must be inserted into the text due to the bias of the reader.

quote:

Twisting the words to fit your false narrative doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
I don't have to twist or change anything. There is no evidence for a sexual relationship in the text without reading into it like you're doing. You are the one having to twist the plain reading of the text to pervert it or to make it support your own perverse viewpoint.

quote:

Leading others away from the true meanings, such as you're doing, is called false teaching which the Bible warns about. I will pray for you.
You should pray for increased patience for me if you're going to pray, because I'm not leading anyone away from anything. I'm providing a plain-text interpretation of the Bible that is supported by 2,000+ years of orthodoxy. You are inserting your own sinful desires into the Bible in an attempt to make it say whatever you want it to say. I hope you repent.
Posted by GeorgeWest
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2013
13069 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 6:14 pm to
The Holy Spirit convicts the Christian of that person's sins. Then the Christian repents.

Our churches are full of people who continue in adultery, in their greed and selfishness, in their lies, in their robbing God of His tithes. I have no problem with any Christian pointing out Mayor Pete's sins, but don't forget to point out the sins of all the others in both parties who either lead or aspire to lead.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41648 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 6:15 pm to
quote:

womp womp

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33
Examine the context. Jesus was foretelling the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem and the war that would soon come. It happened in 70 A.D. when Rome sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
23024 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 6:48 pm to
quote:

Examine the context.


You only want to look at context when it fits your argument. Other times its "plain text".
Posted by SOSFAN
Blythewood
Member since Jun 2018
12169 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 7:07 pm to
1Samuel 20:30-34

LINK
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41648 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 8:09 pm to
quote:

You only want to look at context when it fits your argument. Other times its "plain text".
Conservative and orthodox hermeneutical practice is to seek to understanding the meaning of the text by first reading a verse or passage by itself, then within the context of the full passage or chapter, then within the context of its surrounding chapters, then within the context of the book, and then finally within the context of the Bible as a whole. Yes, historical context can help flesh out some understanding of places, people, or events within the scriptures but should not take the place of or supersede scripture within the interpretive framework.

Much of the Bible is very clear to read and understand without much effort. This is known as the perspicuity of the scriptures. At times there are verses or passages that are more difficult to understand the meaning of, which is why you do go through the progression of reading the text within the biblical context; you interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear ones.

So yes, examine the context.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41648 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 8:24 pm to
quote:

1Samuel 20:30-34

LINK
This is what you were referring to?

OK, so context here is that Saul is jealous for the praise and favor David is getting and Saul is being driven mad by a demon and is wanting to kill David. David knows this and is trying to avoid being killed by not eating at Saul's table like he normally does. He develops a plan with Jonathan to come up with an excuse why David can't eat with them for a few days and that Jonathan is to tell David whether or not Saul is still angry at David or if he's gotten over everything and David's life will be safe.

After the second night of David being away, Saul asks Jonathan what's going on. Jonathan tells the story and Saul sees right through it. He knows Jonathan is covering for David, Saul's most hated enemy in this moment, and Saul lashes out against his own son. He thinks his son is a traitor for protecting David instead of siding with him, his own father, so he basically calls him a traitorous bastard. He's saying "you're a son of a whore and no son of mine for choosing your friend and my enemy over me".

So let's read those verses again:

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” Then Jonathan answered Saul his father, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” But Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him. So Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death. And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him.” 1 Samuel 20:30-34

Saul is saying he's going to cut off this son of a whore from his inheritance until he brings in David because he (Saul) hated David and wanted him dead. Just the chapter before this one Saul tried to kill David twice and have him captured once. This wasn't about homosexuality but perceived treason.

Try again.
This post was edited on 8/1/19 at 8:35 pm
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 8:32 pm to
quote:

1Samuel Saul admonishes Jonathan for picking David for unnatural relations. " confusion meant unnatural relations at the time it was written. Don't make the mistake of using todays terminology)
2nd Samuel shows David grieving over the death of Jonathan like a lover would. He even states his love surpased that of a woman.
Twisting the words to fit your false narrative doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.
Leading others away from the true meanings, such as you're doing, is called false teaching which the Bible warns about. I will pray for you.



I am not religious.

Dudes sucking each other off is gross.

That is what I said.
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
21687 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 8:34 pm to


Did you really just link to Quora to make your argument for you?
Posted by SOSFAN
Blythewood
Member since Jun 2018
12169 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 8:43 pm to
As Trump says " WRONG". Twisting the meaning from the time it was written to todays meanings is still spreading factual inaccuracies and just WRONG.
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41648 posts
Posted on 8/1/19 at 9:02 pm to
quote:

As Trump says " WRONG". Twisting the meaning from the time it was written to todays meanings is still spreading factual inaccuracies and just WRONG.
You've got to be trolling at this point, or too prideful to admit you are wrong and refuse to give up.

Pardon the vulgarity but...

Jump to page
Page First 12 13 14
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 14 of 14Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram