God Quote Billboards

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

msq2

Banned
Banned
Aug 27, 2009
13,110
6,001
743
#3
I'm not religious and I certainly agree with your and their rights to publish and post these but I just gotta ask...why?

Nothing touchs a nerve like religion bashing...

I'm out of this one.
They looked photoshopped.
 

PokealypseNow

You Can Dere-Lick My Footballs, Cap-E-Tan
Oct 15, 2008
6,802
6,069
1,743
Gundy's Rattlesnake Hunting Lease
#7
Oh, they are certainly Photoshopped, but I think they are hilarious and provocative - hopefully provocative enough to make a believer think a little bit about Scripture. Of course, most folks will ignore it or automatically get defensive, and that's fine, too.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,855
41,697
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#9
Oh, they are certainly Photoshopped, but I think they are hilarious and provocative - hopefully provocative enough to make a believer think a little bit about Scripture. Of course, most folks will ignore it or automatically get defensive, and that's fine, too.
So, it's purposefully provocative, but people will ... get defensive (i.e. be provoked). That's a tautology. LOLz.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,705
16,506
1,743
Close, very close
#10
Oh, they are certainly Photoshopped, but I think they are hilarious and provocative - hopefully provocative enough to make a believer think a little bit about Scripture. Of course, most folks will ignore it or automatically get defensive, and that's fine, too.
Uncharacteristically low brow and pointless post from someone so astute. Hope it helped you.
 
Apr 16, 2008
11,673
6,195
1,743
#11
Oh, they are certainly Photoshopped, but I think they are hilarious and provocative - hopefully provocative enough to make a believer think a little bit about Scripture. Of course, most folks will ignore it or automatically get defensive, and that's fine, too.
Right now it doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus because he believes in you.
 
Sep 22, 2011
4,313
2,997
1,743
34
#12
This is one of a great many things that drove me from religion, I was listening to preacher Bob one day, having a nice laugh between classes, and on top of his usual fire and brimstone he talked about all of the laws in the Old Testament that Christians don't follow. It eventually led me to the hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christianity, taking the bible as literal when they want to but figuratively when they don't like what it calls for.

Also, this does show how the bible and the Quran share a lot of similarities, luckily even the most bible literalist Christians have emerged from the dark ages and no longer put action to the more violent teachings, hopefully radical Muslims will come along soon
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,855
41,697
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#13
This is one of a great many things that drove me from religion, I was listening to preacher Bob one day, having a nice laugh between classes, and on top of his usual fire and brimstone he talked about all of the laws in the Old Testament that Christians don't follow. It eventually led me to the hypocrisy of fundamentalist Christianity, taking the bible as literal when they want to but figuratively when they don't like what it calls for.
It's much more complex than that. But, yeah, we're all hypocrites. None of us can live up to the commandments perfectly, and we all justify the commandments we break. In fact, the Bible itself is pretty clear about that truth. Read it for yourself and you'll see that.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,855
41,697
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#15
Don't get the whole reason you threw this rock out there. Just gonna upset people for no real reason.
That's what "provocative" means, to provoke. But I'm certainly not upset. In fact, I'm a bit amused. The Bible actually says those things. We as believers have to know how to deal with it.

In their book "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," Douglas Stuart and Gordon Fee teach people how to read the Bible in context. Not everything in it means the same to us as it does to the people it was originally given to because our historical context is not the same as theirs. Also, the Bible is a progressive revelation, which means older scripture has to be interpreted in light of newer scripture and vice versa.

I've wrangled with the 1 Tim 2 passage for a long time. I belong to an SBC church now which, of course, interprets it conservatively. "I suffer not..." however, has always seemed to me to be a personal directive, something that Paul prefers and works well in his situation, and not necessarily something he was commanding to all churches and all cultures to the end of time. His use of the term "usurp" is interesting. It suggests that when a woman is not usurping then he would allow her to speak. But I just don't think it works in our culture.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,705
16,506
1,743
Close, very close
#16
Don't get the whole reason you threw this rock out there. Just gonna upset people for no real reason.
Most believers won't get too upset, the quoted text is in the Bible but must be reconciled with the teachings of Christ. I hope no one gets aggravated or angry over the post, that would be contrary to Christ's teachings.

There is usually a reason for this type of provocation that is not about anyone but the person doing it. His (and others) motives are his own. Prayers are better than anger or reproof when our faith is challenged.
 
Nov 8, 2007
3,634
1,181
1,743
Bartlesville
#17
Psalm 137:9 - Not a quote from God, rather a quote from David. David was discussing a war with Babylon.

Ezekiel 9 - Ezekiel is providing a history lesson. This is not a command for current Christians. Nor was it a widespread command back then. God was cleaning house in Jerusalem, and used men to carry out his justice. The good thing about Christianity, we live in God's grace now. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice so that we no longer face instant death for our sins.

Numbers 25 - Moses is providing a history lesson. his is not a command for current Christians. Nor was it a widespread command back then. God was cleaning house in Israel, and used men to carry out his justice. The good thing about Christianity, we live in God's grace now. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice so that we no longer face instant death for our sins.

Leviticus 25 - God is setting out rules for slaves and servants. He is explaining that it is against His will for Israelites to be bought and sold as slaves/servants. If you come across an Israelite being sold as a slave, you are to "be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property.42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves." However, if they are not Israelites, they don't get the benefits of being a hired worker.

Exodus 21 - That is a terrible "translation". Here are the actual set of verses:
"7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."
So, while she doesn't get to go free at the end of the 7 years as a male slave would, a female slave is granted a certain set of rights/benefits according to the rest of the verses here. Not quite the picture that the "quote" paints.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - The second half of the verse provides a little context. If a man is caught doing that, he is now responsible for her. He must take care of this woman for the rest of her life.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

1 Timothy 2:12 - Again, out of context. In this passage we are learning the rules for worship. It is God's plan for the husband to be the spiritual leader/teacher in the family. This verse, specifically, is saying that the woman should not be the leader/teacher, rather she should be the one learning from her husband.

While I don't think context will convince anyone of anything, I hope this at least clears things up for some. I would love to continue this conversation with anyone interested.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,456
7,962
1,743
#18
Most believers won't get too upset, the quoted text is in the Bible but must be reconciled with the teachings of Christ. I hope no one gets aggravated or angry over the post, that would be contrary to Christ's teachings.

There is usually a reason for this type of provocation that is not about anyone but the person doing it. His (and others) motives are his own. Prayers are better than anger or reproof when our faith is challenged.
Exactly... All the photoshop and misrepresentations in the world won't sway my faith.
 
Nov 8, 2007
3,634
1,181
1,743
Bartlesville
#19
I've wrangled with the 1 Tim 2 passage for a long time. I belong to an SBC church now which, of course, interprets it conservatively. "I suffer not..." however, has always seemed to me to be a personal directive, something that Paul prefers and works well in his situation, and not necessarily something he was commanding to all churches and all cultures to the end of time. His use of the term "usurp" is interesting. It suggests that when a woman is not usurping then he would allow her to speak. But I just don't think it works in our culture.
I actually take this verse as more of a command to men, even though Paul talks about women. I take it as more of "Men should not pass the role of teacher/leader off." It is a recurring theme that men should love their wife like God loves the church. I would be in direct contradiction to that order if I were to let my wife take over the spiritual leadership role in our family.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,855
41,697
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#20
I actually take this verse as more of a command to men, even though Paul talks about women. I take it as more of "Men should not pass the role of teacher/leader off." It is a recurring theme that men should love their wife like God loves the church. I would be in direct contradiction to that order if I were to let my wife take over the spiritual leadership role in our family.
It says "women should not usurp" and not "men should not abdicate."