bartmac123

From my perspective, as I read the aforementioned bible passage, the Jeremiah 12:16-17 verses brings to my mind, a metaphorical pendulum regarding the the relationship between 1) Israelites ( reflective in today's world as Christians ) 2) Gentiles ( NonChristians ) The reason why I think the relationship is like a pendulum is because it can swing either way. In other words, either the desirable outcome prevails which involves Christians bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to the NonChristians so that they can sincerely accept Jesus Christ. Or the pernicious outcome prevails which is that Christians stray away from the True Lord by following the ways of NonChristians. That is the main point behind my original posting.

Jeremiah 12:14-17 is an obscure passage in the bible. However, it does a really good job of explaining the Complex dynamic relationship between God, Israelites ( also reflective in today's world as Christians ) and Gentiles ( NonChristians ). Jeremiah 12:16(a) is particularly interesting because it suggests the possibility of NonChristians finding salvation in God by learning the ways of Christians. Conversely, Jeremiah 12:16(b) indicates that Christians fell into sin by learning the ways of NonChristians. Jeremiah 12:16 reflects a "pendulum"-like nature of the dynamic relationship between Christaians & NonChristians-- it could go either way. Incidentally, one should mention that Jeremiah 12:16 evokes the following verses of warning : Furthermore, Jeremiah 12:14-17 also evokes & gives credibility to the bible verses, John 17:11 & John 17:14-16. The reason being is that God views understandably as a premise that Christians will be "in the world" with NonChristians but are warned to be "Not of the world"

Ok, let's just agree to disagree on whether we are free to speculate. However, Do you agree with the following point? Regardless of who was a fault( i.e., Queen Vashti or King Ahasuerus or maybe both ), one point is certain. Esther 1's sub-narrative does mention the banishment of Queen Vashti forever from the presence of King Ahasuerus allowed for God's providence of Esther becoming the queen, and that is the most important aspect of the aforementioned sub-narrative which matters, and Not the debate about who was a fault.

But it's Still to Difficult to say because Esther 1 does Not give us enough information. Esther 1:7 does mention that there was royal wine present during the celebration. Esther 1:8 seems to suggest that the celebration was Not an out-of-control party of drunks because it states that: However, It's a bit difficult to conduct the exegesis of the verses, Esther 1:10-11: Esther 1:10 mentions that "the heart of the king was merry with wine" when he commanded his eunuchs to bring Queen Vashti out. However, how drunk was King Ahasuerus when he uttered his command? Was he out-of-control drunk Or just a little tipsy? Exegesis of Esther 1:11 is where the real controversy comes about. Was King Ahasuerus just commanding Queen Vashti to come before his party's attendees merely so that they can appreciate her beauty in positive light? Or Was King Ahasuerus trying to objectify his Queen like some kind of trophy wife in front of others in order to behave like an ostentatious showboat who played excessively to the gallery which is bad? It's really difficult to say if it were a wild drunken party or just a good-natured party where people were drinking and having reasonably respectful jovial fun.

@other one

I've searched the internet for commentaries, and I've heard both sides of the argument. The narrative is difficult to evaluate. ( Please continue to read my freewriting after the bible passage excerpt below ) Esther 1:7 does mention that there was royal wine present during the celebration. Esther 1:8 seems to suggest that the celebration was Not an out-of-control party of drunks because it states that: However, It's a bit difficult to conduct the exegesis of the verses, Esther 1:10-11: Esther 1:10 mentions that "the heart of the king was merry with wine" when he commanded his eunuchs to bring Queen Vashti out. However, how drunk was King Ahasuerus when he uttered his command? Was he out-of-control drunk Or just a little tipsy? Exegesis of Esther 1:11 is where the real controversy comes about. Was King Ahasuerus just commanding Queen Vashti to come before his party's attendees merely so that they can appreciate her beauty in positive light? Or Was King Ahasuerus trying to objectify his Queen like some kind of trophy wife in front of others in order to behave like an ostentatious showboat who played excessively to the gallery which is bad? To add to the controversy of behind Esther 1:11, some commentators suggested that the King may have wanted her to come out naked because his command mentions Queen Vashti to come to his party with the royal crown, but does Not mention anything about her wearing clothes. However, just because said verse does Not mention clothes does Not mean he wanted her to come naked but it could be-- we just do Not know. In Esther 1:12, it does Not say that Queen Vashti the reasons behind her refusal, therefore, it's difficult to say if she based her decision on honor or dishonor. However, to side with King Ahasuerus, Esther 1:13 does say that he did seek the counsel with "the wise men who understood the times" regarding how he should respond to his wife's refusal. Esther 1:13 would suggest that King Ahasuerus was Not so foolishly drunk because he at the very least sought advice from wise men who understood the times. Could someone please provide their interpretation/exegesis of this episode of dispute between the King and his Queen?

( Related Posting: Was the use of a measuring line literal or symbolic in 2 Samuel 8:2? Related Posting: What deeper understanding can the bible reader get from the 2 Samuel 8:2's account of how David killed off the defeated people of Moab? ) David can be seen as a warrior-King chosen by God to lead Israel. In 2 Samuel 8, we see David bringing judgment upon the enemies of Israel in a playful arbitrary manner like a vigilante does in comic books. ( Extrajudicial actions ) Psalm 109 which is well-known for it's imprecatory nature was either directly/indirectly authored by David himself. Psalm 109's verses are very aggressively judgemental and cursing in nature: David declares judgment upon the Amalekite who (despite falsely) claiming that he himself killed Saul Here is the irony, David even at first unknowingly declares judgment upon himself after Nathan talks about the Traveller's parable to David: What are the Dangers of the Judgemental side of David's life in the Bible?

( Related Posting: Was the use of a measuring line literal or symbolic in 2 Samuel 8:2? Related Posting: What deeper understanding can the bible reader get from the 2 Samuel 8:2's account of how David killed off the defeated people of Moab? ) David can be seen as a warrior-King chosen by God to lead Israel. In 2 Samuel 8, we see David bringing judgment upon the enemies of Israel in a playful arbitrary manner like a vigilante does in comic books. ( Extrajudicial actions ) Psalm 109 which is well-known for it's imprecatory nature was either directly/indirectly authored by David himself. Psalm 109's verses are very aggressively judgemental and cursing in nature: David declares judgment upon the Amalekite who (despite falsely) claiming that he himself killed Saul Here is the irony, David even at first unknowingly declares judgment upon himself after Nathan talks about the Traveller's parable to David: What are the Dangers of the Judgemental side of David's life in the Bible?

It might be a bit of a stretch, but I sometimes meditate on the following passage in order to seek guidance from The Holy Spirit so that I do Not sound Overly Sanctimonious/Preachy/Lofty/Holier-Than-Art-Thou: In other words, If I am trying to correct someone whom I think is doing wrong, I do Not want to sound Overly Sanctimonious/Preachy/Lofty/Holier-Than-Art-Thou. The point is to correct others but Not inflate my own ego. Could someone please also mention some other Bible verses/passages/stories/parables that would emphasize the same?

Other than Genesis 19:4-38’s account of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction due to sinful homosexuality, I Personally do Not know of any other society that was destroyed or fell into decay due to homosexuality. What other societies in the world fell due to the tolerance and embracing of the Homosexual/LGBTQ+ lifestyle? I want to give credit to @AnOrangeCat who responded with the following in a post: Furthermore, I would like start off by describing to supporters of the LGBTQ+ rights "what it is supposed to be" , and only secondarily tell them "what it's Not supposed to be" To elaborate, if a LGBTQ+ rights supporter ask me why I Disagree with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, I would start off by saying "what it is supposed to be" which can be described in the Ephesians 5:25-27 In Ephesians 5:25-27, the bible describes to us that Husbands(being the males) should Love their Wives(being the females) just like Jesus Christ(being the male) Loved the church( being the female). Essentially, I would tell the LGBTQ+ supporter that the biblical passage of Ephesians 5:25-27 describes what the proper marriage life is supposed to be like which is between a male and a female. As time goes by, and my debate with the LGBTQ+ supporter progressively continues, I can secondarily tell them that the Leviticus 18:22 bible verse and the narrative in the Genesis 19:4-38 bible passage describe "what it's Not supposed to be". In other words, my biblical reasons as to why I believe LGBTQ+ lifestyle is sinful: It's a lot better to start off with "what it is supposed to be", and then go on to secondarily mention "what it's Not supposed to be"

A while back, I was debating with a nominal Catholic relative of mine about why same-sex marriage was sinful. My nominal Catholic relative said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian. She essentially felt that homosexuals' rights should be respected, and Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians. My immediate response was more aligned with "fire and brimstone preaching" by passionately criticizing the LGBTQ+ culture by using the following scriptures: Even though the aforementioned bible verses and passages are correct in condemning LGBTQ+ culture, I was Not satisfied with how I debated with my relative. The reason being is that I was quick to condemn by resorting to "fire and brimstone preaching" It made me think by asking the following question: "How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?" Please do Not misunderstand me. The use of "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses certainly have their place in defending Christian values. However, "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses should Not be the sole approach, and in many cases Not the first step in arguing against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction. "How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?"

(Photo credited to: https://people.com/all-about-john-f-kennedy-jackie-kennedy-children-7969931 ) John F Kennedy(JFK) and Jackie Kennedy were a good-looking couple with beautiful children. Even though JFK was in many respects honorable as evidenced by his World War 2 heroism, and his Presidency's support for US Civil Rights, sadly things are Not always as they appear to be. To elaborate, JFK was a womanizer, and addicted to painkillers. Therefore, to reiterate, "(Proverbs 31:30) Charm is deceptive..." Furthermore, Jackie Kennedy was good-looking But JFK still chased after other women. Therefore, in regard to Jackie Kennedy, this other verse is relevant: "(Ecclesiastes 9:11)...the race is Not to the swift..."

Pray Pakistan's voters are guided by The Holy Spirit to elect politicians who see Christians in favorable light: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68178513

King Saul had a toxic personality who had erratic mood swings especially when it came to how he treated David. To elaborate, at certain times he would be nice to King David, and other times, he would become cruel. For example, 1 Samuel 19:7-10 & 1 Samuel 24:8-22 are biblical passages that show how King Saul's treatment of David was erratic. Therefore, King Saul's reconciliations with David ultimately failed because of King Saul own actions. Finally, in 1 Samuel 26:20-25 bible passage, there is another chance for King Saul to reconcile with David. The 1 Samuel 26:21 verse quotes Saul request to David to return which is an attempt to reconcile. However, David knows from his past experience that King Saul will go back to treating David badly again. Therefore, in in 1 Samuel 26:20-25, David ultimately quietly and subtly just avoids having any sort of relationship with King Saul. Essentially, David decides to Avoid having a relationship with a toxic personality like King Saul. David experiences with a toxic personality like King Saul, and David ultimate decision to end his relationship with King Saul should serve as a good example for us Christians. In other words, David does Not take revenge by vengefully attacking King Saul due to his poor treatment of David Instead, David wisely (Matthew 5:39) turns the other cheek by just deciding to end his relationship with King Saul by avoiding him.

You are totally Misconstruing what I stated previously. I Never used any kind of "force". I was very gentle and polite towards her( Psalm 69:20).....I looked for sympathy but there was none. I looked for comfort but I found none. ....

Yeah, but one does Not want to hurt people. It's Not like I'm a stalker or anything. In this #metoo world, men can easily be falsely or mistakenly accused. It's crazy. Psalm 69:20 New American Standard Bible 1995 20 Reproach has broken my heart and I am so sick. And I looked for sympathy, but there was none, And for comforters, but I found none.

Yeah, but she is Not gracious and Not compassionate at all. She is way too short-tempered. She immediately started yelling at me the first time that I communicated with her. It's Not like every guy on the planet is a Jeffry Epstein or a Harvey Weinstein. The bible does say emphasizes the following: (Exodus 34:6) 6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and [a]truth;

@Starise +1 on "the package and labeling can be very deceiving". Please do pray for me.

There is a young lady at my church. She has a Phd in Engineering, and teaches at a University. Gorgeous & Really brilliant. Brains & Beauty. She knows scripture and Christian doctrine really well. However, she is really contentious and short-tempered. It's really difficult to tell who is a sincere Christian, who is a fake Christian. So confusing.

There is a young lady at my church. She has a Phd in Engineering, and teaches at a University. Gorgeous & Really brilliant. Brains & Beauty. She knows scripture and Christian doctrine really well. However, she is really contentious and short-tempered. It's really difficult to tell who is a sincere Christian, who is a fake Christian. So confusing.

Thanks, In the bad side list, I would like to add the following: - contentious (Proverbs 21:9 It is better to live in a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman. ) -vexing (Proverbs 21:19 It is better to live in a desert land Than with a contentious and vexing woman. ) -quarrelsome Thanks

You are correct. However, there is more to it. One has to avoid a lot of people who just -fake their Christian walk at church ( i.e., have a lot of head knowledge about scripture, and then go about blurting out memorized scripture in church , raise their hands during worship for everyone to see—sanctimonious ostentatious showmanship ) -contentious/quarrelsome people, and there are a lot of contentious/quarrelsome congregation members ((Proverbs 25:24) It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman. ) Essentially, temperament is important. -Also, sincere Christians can have different outlook towards life. One could have a calling for Christian ministry, and other does Not. Therefore, it Might Not be a good mach. -Wealth gaps can also cause problems even if both are sincere Christians.

When one has a love-interest, and is interested in courtship/marriage, it is important for one to be vigilant about certain character traits of the love-interest/significant other in question. Some major character traits that are of concern have to deal with whether the love-interest/significant other is: -apathetic -offhanded -indifferent I mention the aforementioned character traits because they can easily be overlooked or difficult to see. Posted just now When one has a love-interest, and is interested in courtship/marriage, it is important for one to be vigilant about certain character traits of the love-interest/significant other in question. Some major character traits that are of concern have to deal with whether the love-interest/significant other is: -apathetic -offhanded -indifferent I mention the aforementioned character traits because they can easily be overlooked or difficult to see. I believe Michal was behaving like a insultingly apathetic/offhanded/indifferent ice cold queen. To elaborate, (2 Samuel 3:16) mentions that Paltiel the son of Laish, Michal's 2nd husband, would weep and follow her but it surprisingly does Not mention any sort of reciprocal mourning/weeping by Michal. We human beings can easily and mistakenly overlook said character traits when we are blinded by infatuation for a love-interest. The bible is interesting because it can suggest/hint a lot to the biblical readers by what it does Not mention. In the aforementioned case of Michal, the bible suggests to us that Michal is insultingly apathetic, offhanded and indifferent by the fact that there is No mention of any kind of response from her to Paltiel the son of Laish's weeping and mourning when Michal is taken away from him. Samson is another example of one who is blinded by infatuation/love for a love-interest. Judges 16:1 mentions that Samson had sex with a harlot, therefore, it is true that Samson was a man with strong sinful sexually lustful urges. However, Samson can also be faulted with being blinded by infatuation/love for a love-interest. It is important to note that in Judges 16:4, the bible mentions that Samson loved Delilah. Therefore, the bible reader should Not oversimplify the relationship between Samson and Delilah by boiling it down to merely lust because Judges 16:4 states that he loved her. Let's get back to the apathetic character traits that one should be vigilant about. Deliah is only mentioned in the Judges 16:4-18 biblical passage. Judges 16:4-18 starts off with the premise that Samson loved Delilah. It then subsequently mentions that the Philistines encouraged Delilah to be a honeytrap for Samson, and in return they would grant her materialistic financial benefits. Again, the bible reader make note of the fact that Judges 16:18 was the very last verse in the bible that mentions Delilah. More importantly , Judges 16:18 mentions that the Philistines financially reward Delilah for her wicked trickery, and then the bible Never mentions Delilah again the in rest of the biblical scriptures that come afterwards. Again, the bible is interesting because it can suggest/hint a lot to the biblical readers by what it does Not mention. Not Only is Delilah greedy, but the fact that she is Not mentioned ever again after Judges 16:18 tells us that she is insultingly apathetic, offhanded and indifferent to Samson's dreadful fate in the hands of the Philistines later on. Therefore, to conclude, when one has a love-interest, and is looking for courtship/marriage then one should be vigilant in order to avoid people who are insultingly apathetic/offhanded/indifferent.

When one has a love-interest, and is interested in courtship/marriage, it is important for one to be vigilant about certain character traits of the love-interest/significant other in question. Some major character traits that are of concern have to deal with whether the love-interest/significant other is: -apathetic -offhanded -indifferent I mention the aforementioned character traits because they can easily be overlooked or difficult to see. I believe Michal was behaving like a insultingly apathetic/offhanded/indifferent ice cold queen. To elaborate, (2 Samuel 3:16) mentions that Paltiel the son of Laish, Michal's 2nd husband, would weep and follow her but it surprisingly does Not mention any sort of reciprocal mourning/weeping by Michal. We human beings can easily and mistakenly overlook said character traits when we are blinded by infatuation for a love-interest. The bible is interesting because it can suggest/hint a lot to the biblical readers by what it does Not mention. In the aforementioned case of Michal, the bible suggests to us that Michal is insultingly apathetic, offhanded and indifferent by the fact that there is No mention of any kind of response from her to Paltiel the son of Laish's weeping and mourning when Michal is taken away from him. Samson is another example of one who is blinded by infatuation/love for a love-interest. Judges 16:1 mentions that Samson had sex with a harlot, therefore, it is true that Samson was a man with strong sinful sexually lustful urges. However, Samson can also be faulted with being blinded by infatuation/love for a love-interest. It is important to note that in Judges 16:4, the bible mentions that Samson loved Delilah. Therefore, the bible reader should Not oversimplify the relationship between Samson and Delilah by boiling it down to merely sinful sexual lust because Judges 16:4 states that he loved her. Let's get back to the apathetic character traits that one should be vigilant about. Delilah is only mentioned in the Judges 16:4-18 biblical passage. Judges 16:4-18 starts off with the premise that Samson loved Delilah. It then subsequently mentions that the Philistines enticed Delilah to be a honeytrap for Samson, and in return they would grant her materialistic financial benefits. Again, the bible reader should make note of the fact that Judges 16:18 was the very last verse in the bible that mentions Delilah. More importantly , Judges 16:18 ends with mentioning that the Philistines financially reward Delilah for her wicked trickery, and then the bible Never mentions Delilah again. Again, the bible is interesting because it can suggest/hint a lot to the biblical readers by what it does Not mention. Not Only is Delilah greedy, but the fact that she is Not mentioned ever again after Judges 16:18 tells us that she is insultingly apathetic, offhanded and indifferent to Samson's dreadful fate in the hands of the Philistines later on. Even Judas had remorse after he betrayed Jesus Christ for money. Therefore, to conclude, when one has a love-interest, and is looking for courtship/marriage then one should be vigilant by avoiding people who are insultingly apathetic/offhanded/indifferent.

A visiting pastor who came to our church today said that if the bible repeatedly mentions a particular message numerous times then the repetition indicates the extreme importance of said message. Essentially, importance proportionally correlates with repetition. The dangers of a contentious/quarrelsome spouse immediately came to my mind because it is mentioned at least 4 different times in the book of proverbs in the bible.