Bible verses you won't hear at Church

Must start goin to church to hear the speel. Hard to believe people still buy this crack

I thought Mount Carmel was closed?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Mark 11:12-14 showing us Jesus is a diva if he doesnt get his figs.

That is by far my most quoted line from the Bible. There are plenty of passages that show it up for being misogynistic, violent, racist etc. but this one just underlines the absurdity of it all

shruikan2553 wrote: »

God can turn water into wine, walk on water, bring back the dead, kill anyone on a whim, turn bread and wine into flesh and blood but alter the growing of fruit on a tree? Thats impossible.

You left out the Hovis and the Donegal Catch.

Didn't Joseph get some action later on? Or is it only protestants who don't claim hayzoos was an only child?

"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Always have this one handy for people who say the prohibitions in the OT don't apply to Christians.

Ironically that's the exact same quote that they use to JUSTIFY not following the prohibitions in the OT. So that passage clearly won't challenge a Christian theologists mind at all since it is the main reason that they don't follow the OT laws.

Lucifer MorningStar wrote: »

Psalm 137:9 - Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Basically killing children is good according to the all mighty lord.

If you think you won't hear these verses at Church then it might be because you're going to the wrong churches.

Interestingly enough (or not, depending on your opinion) the verse you cite was used as a text at the launch of Evangelism Alliance Ireland ten years ago. Sean Mullan, one of my predecessors as Executive Director of EAI, pointed out how many people know the earlier verses in that Psalm well (By the rivers of Babylon ...) perhaps more so because of the song by Boney M than because of any knowledge of Scripture.

The Psalm expresses the despair and bitterness of Jewish exiles who had seen their loved ones slaughtered, their city and temple destroyed, and had been carried into Babylon as slaves. That's sort of the point of the Psalms. They aren't supposed to paint a nice happy clappy picture of life. They express the doubt, pain and anguish of struggling to live a life of faith in a brutal world - including when you have feelings that aren't religiously correct or proper.

Then Sean went on to contrast that with Jeremiah 29:7 where the same exiled slaves are encouraged to pray for the prosperity of Babylon - blessing the same people who had butchered their loved ones and towards whom they harbored natural human desires for revenge.

The overall message was that Christians, even though we are frail humans who are prone to the same doubts, fears and anger issues as everyone else, should seek to rise above that and be a positive influence on our society - even if we sometimes don't agree with some of the directions that society is going.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with our interpretation of these Scriptures. After all, you would be letting your side down if you ever portrayed us as anything other than a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites (just look at the opprobrium heaping on Matthew Parris when he betrayed the atheist cause by suggesting that Christianity might be doing some good in Africa). Nevertheless, I am an incurable optimist and cherish the hope, quite possibly misguided, that you might rethink your original claim and consider that some churches make honest attempts to look at 'difficult' passages of Scripture and incorporate them into teaching people to behave decently and humanely rather than ignoring them or explaining them away.

Nick Park
Executive Director
Evangelical Alliance Ireland

Hermeneutics.

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting,
So we should endevour to have a positive influence on our society, then why do this then?

URL REMOVED AS I AM A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN ON BOARDS AND AM NOT ALLOWED TO INCLUDE URL'S IN MY POST

Because we don't believe that artificially redefining the word 'marriage' is a positive step. Instead I advocate a more radical, less intrusive, and more equal approach to marriage.

Hard to take your seriously as an organization when you claim you want postie things for our society based on scripture but are at the same time happy to treat our fellow human beings as "second class".

I am not happy to see anyone treated as second class. That is why, on Wednesday night on TV3's 'People's Debate with Vincent Brown' I stated that I want to see same sex couples and heterosexual couples have exactly the same legal recognition and rights under Irish law.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

My suggestion was that the concept of Civil Partnership (EAI publicly spoke out in support of the CP Bill) can fully meet the State's interests in dealing with issues of property, taxation, inheritance etc. There is no logical reason why the State should regulate marriage at all. Indeed, removal of all references to marriage in Irish law would enhance the status, of unmarried couples (who otherwise may remain as second class citizens under the proposed redefinition of marriage.

The Church does not own marriage. Neither does the State. For most of western history marriage was a community event that required no state license and no priest. Returning marriage to the community will allow for greater equality than the referendum currently being envisaged. The State does not regulate how families mark other major rites of passage, and there is no reason for it to regulate marriage either.

Under my proposals, anyone could celebrate marriage as they see fit. Muslims could hold a ceremony in a mosque and declare two people married. A church could hold a ceremony and declare two people married. A local LGBT group could hold a ceremony and declare two people married. We would be free to define marriage differently if we choose, so no-one rams their definition of marriage down anyone else's throat, and all our 'marriages' have exactly the same standing in law - just as currently applies to other rites of passage such as christenings, bar mitzvah's, or a group of humanists conducting a ceremony to celebrate the birth of a child. Of course, if we want the government to put its seal of approval on our 'marriages' then we are all free to enter a Civil Partnership, heterosexual couples and same sex couples alike on an equal footing.

Now, I am offering a solution that means the government does not have to artificially redefine language, but neither does anyone force their religious (or non-religious) views on anyone else. Can you please explain how I am treating anyone as a second-class citizen? Otherwise I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that untrue accusation.

Doesn't this translate to picking and choosing what you want from "difficult" passages, so gays are bad still but women wearing pants and eating shelfish is just dandy these days!

If you're honest you'll admit that everyone picks and chooses their interpretations of anything to fit their worldview. Don't you think other posters in this thread are deliberately looking for the worst possible interpretations of Bible verses and picking and choosing accordingly?

By the way, I don't think gays are any more bad than I am, but I don't like shellfish.