@john_darksoul Supposedly he was more devout as an Anglican towards the end of his life, but I've also heard he was pro-gay. On that latter part, I have to wonder how much of that was other people managing his social media and money. Either way, likely a case of felicitous inconsistency
Solomon tells us the consequences, that sexual sin (and adultery in particular) destroys a man. Living in the modern era tells us this in graphic detail. The rotten fruit of the sexual revolution is everywhere, shoved in our faces every day. We have to confront the destruction of the married estate, the whelping of children, and the self-denigration of men and women as they begin to see themselves as little more than pleasure-meat for others to enjoy.
But people still do it. They see the consequences of sexual sin every day, but still engage in it. Why would they listen to Solomon? Heck, even theologians sometimes don't listen, like karl barth - who tormented his wife by having his mistress live with them.
I think the cause of this abject failure is that we have been seeing Solomon's wisdom as mere counsel. Solomon tells us it is a matter of life or death; you don't argue with your passions, you flee temptation when you can't force them to obey your will. But the Church began to see this as a matter of mere advice, as though Solomon were telling us that by human reason, merely knowing the consequences, would stop it. What a dour mistake we made. Sexual urges are not a matter of arguments; you cannot defeat your lust with facts and logic. With real wisdom, one acts. Truth be told, it is that way with all matters of wisdom. Simply knowing will do nothing, acting on knowing will accomplish everything.
This passage is surprising in a number of ways. First, Solomon repeats his father David's assertion that God hates certain people for what they do: David proclaims that God hates the bloodthirsty and deceitful man (Psalm 5:6), while Solomon notes God's hatred for the false witness. Remember that we worship God who calls Himself Love (1 John 4), but He can hate and love a man at the same time.
Another surprise, at least for the theology brained reductionist dorks out there: Solomon says there is innocent blood out there. If that is the case, then conceptions regarding total depravity must be adjusted. It is not blood that man says is innocent but-is-ackshually-guilty-because-original-sin: God is the One declaring this blood innocent. It seems most reasonable to me that Solomon refers here to children, but also those who earnestly seek God may be counted innocent here as well.
Third surprising thing here: God calls the one who does discord between brothers abomination. Six things God hates, seven are an abomination to Him - but that seventh is not necessarily hated by God. Why is this the case? Because the prophets sowed discord by refusing to go along with the crowd when Israel went off into idolatry. Because Christ came to bring a sword of division (Matthew 10:34-36). Because the Apostles proclaimed a message that split the jews in twain and set them against each other. Though Christ, the prophets and the Apostles all received an abomination's reward - death - none of them were hated by God, especially not His only Son! There is never a time to shed innocent blood, to have haughty eyes, to bear false witness, etc. But there is a time to sow discord between brothers, when it is done by proclaiming the truth and calling men to salvation.
Embed this noticeSuperLutheran (kicky half) (superlutheran@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 19-Jul-2025 22:24:12 JST
SuperLutheran (kicky half)1 My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor, have given your pledge for a stranger, 2 if you are snared in the words of your mouth, caught in the words of your mouth, 3 then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into the hand of your neighbor: go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor. 4 Give your eyes no sleep and your eyelids no slumber; 5 save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler. -Proverbs 6:1-5
A common objection among the enemies of Christianity is that our faith would turn us into self-sacrificing slaves. They believe that being a Christian means willingly offering up whatever anyone wants for any reason whatsoever so long as it isn't sin.
But here, Solomon emphasizes that rational self interest plays a role in our lives. If someone asks for you to co-sign a loan, solely for their benefit, the answer is no! They might say "ah but you must love your neighbor, so become my collateral." Your answer must be "my life is worth more than the loan you think you need." Solomon says that if you *do* find yourself pledged like that, then you must do everything in your power to regain your freedom.
Christians must have an attitude of selflessness and generosity. We aren't hustlers and we aren't allowed to be greedy. But Scripture teaches that your life itself, which is precious to God, must also be precious to you. We are told love our neighbors as ourselves: if we do not love ourselves we cannot love our neighbors!
This is why Solomon says what he says. Your life is too valuable to sacrifice to frivolity or someone else's selfish desires. He urges his readers to maintain personal freedom as much as they can, and to keep from entering foolish obligations. After all, being broke or enslaved or disabled because of frivolities or scams hurts our ability to love our neighbors!
Embed this noticeSuperLutheran (kicky half) (superlutheran@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 18-Jul-2025 22:26:35 JST
SuperLutheran (kicky half)15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. -Proverbs 5:15-19
Remember that Proverbs doesn't just help us learn wisdom. It also teaches us wisdom from Solomon's experience. Remember that Solomon did not rejoice in the wife of his youth. Instead, he collected wives, 700 of them in fact, with 300 concubines as well.
The king invites us to compare what he did to what he teaches. He can speak from experience when it comes to polygamy, and what is is answer when meditating on it? He does not tell his son to do as he did and collect multiple women. Instead he praises the man who has ONE wife and is satisfied with her alone.
Not only satisfied, but intoxicated; Solomon will hear none of the nonsense objections that men bring up about getting bored, needing variety, dead bedrooms, etc. Having experienced more women than any man could dream of, he upholds that an exclusive marriage between a single man and woman is BETTER than what he has.
@Robert_Edwardly@harrypotter@reallyangry@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat Here's what that would look like, so you don't have to wonder about it. -My opening statement: "Here's my evidence that Christianity is true and why it doesn't have to be shackled to 20th century scofield zionism." -Mike: "jews bad" -My response: "Here's further evidence that Christianity is true and why it doesn't have to be zionist, why it's OK to be pro-White, etc." -Mike: "jews bad." [Cross-examination would be cut short due to constant interruptions]
TRS audience response: "SL lost because jews bad." Outside audience: either "SL won but jews bad" or "SL lost because jews bad."
There you have it, there's the debate summary, now you don't have to push for it lol
@reallyangry@harrypotter@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat The Lutheran Study Bible? That's typically in the English Standard version, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had some in the NIV - which is fine for people just getting into study.
@reallyangry@harrypotter@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat I respect the use of formal equivalence (that is, approaching word-for-word) far more than dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought). The KJV does its best to reflect *what* the Biblical authors are saying, not what they thought the authors meant. This honest translation strategy gave it much more staying power than modern translations like the NIV ever will.
@harrypotter@reallyangry@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat Ammon hillman is a nutjob with no backing in the classicist community. Seriously, find me one qualified classicist in history other than hillman who believed Jesus was a child trafficking drug dealer like hillman claims. Find *one.*
You also linked to pryse, whose laughable hermeneutic goes like this: >True doctrine lies withing Greek mystery schools >Greek mystery schools are ackshually theosophist like meeeeee yippee >The Bible should teach what I teach >:( >Whenever the Bible disagrees with me, it must be an interpolation by other authors, b-because it just is, OK???
I went to seminary, learned Koine, got my master's degree, and have laid eyes on the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT and OT. I've also been going through the Church Fathers, especially the earliest of them who personally knew the Apostles. Guess what? Those same Church Fathers reproduce the NT both doctrinally and by quotes with no disagreement whatsoever as to the doctrinal content we see in our Bibles today.
@reallyangry@harrypotter@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat No lol from my understanding the original translators were fluent in Koine. The KJV does have some issues with its utilization of Elizabethan English, which leads to difficulties with modern audiences, but it is upheld as close to a word-for-word translation of the Textus Receptus.
@harrypotter@reallyangry@tyler@GoyGirl@lord_nougat >you can say you don't like hillman, but you can't say he is wrong. Actually, yes I can, having read the New Testament Greek and also having learned Hebrew - but that's beside the point.
Anyone claiming that Hebrew is some primitive monkey language or whatever simply doesn't know enough about it to have an informed opinion. You are neither philologist nor hebraist: you can't tell me the difference between an aleph and an ayin without looking it up, and nor would you understand what the matres lectiones were. Yet somehow you think surface level details someone else told you about, like "8000 words" and "no vowels," means you're able to make judgment calls on this sort of thing. It's pretty clear to me that you didn't do the legwork of investigating hillman's claims, you just believe him because you *want* him to be correct. Get started here and do your homework kid: https://dailydoseofhebrew.com/hebrew-resources/
Crying and peeing and pooping myself because other people are doing deep dives into gnosticism. Just kidding.
I think the interesting thing about this video is, she covers how hollywood is presenting a kind of dumbed down gnosticism that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Where gnosticism used to be part of a self-proclaimed elite, high IQ and extremely manipulative class (as we've covered in my series), these days it's flattened out to be accessible to smart and dumb alike.
Apparently the transgender individual who bridged himself was sixteen years old. This tells me that he was groomed by evil people, and the process must have been psychological torture. I'm not going to say that every crossdresser is a victim, especially when they go out of their way to victimize others so often. But let us never forget that the process that produces these people is just as evil as the result.
One day, assuming you continue on living (you most likely will), you will look back on this "cry for help" with embarrassment. You see, no one looks at a 46 year old woman with self-harm scars and thinks "oh she's so alt" or "wow that's actually kinda cute what a goth" or "I want to help her." Nope, that's just not going to happen. Instead, they will likely just avoid you - even your former peers who were part of your "alternative" social circle.
The thing about the emo crowd is that they all grew up and got jobs. Dudes grew up unable to pull off the sensitive-emo-boy look, so they eventually just gave in and started dressing normal. The women who were part of that are now desperately trying to hide the scars that they used to show off.
"I cut because the external pain makes the internal pain feel better." No, you don't. You know darn well that there are tons of resources and communities and churches out there that would love to help you out - and whatever bad example you have in your mind that somehow cancels out what I'm saying doesn't count. You know that. Quit it.
The Greek oracles stopped their fortune telling after Christianity spread through the Roman empire. Missionaries to Africa recount various shamans no longer being able to do their magic, and haunted places no longer being haunted. The Spanish conquest of South America had accounts of Aztec and Inca shamans being unable to stop the invasion with their rituals - which had previously been effective on other tribes. And over the history of the Church, believers have slain dragons in both the physical sense (e.g., St. George) and the spiritual sense (casting out demons).
Fact is, modern materialistic man disbelieves in the supernatural because Christ has taken the time to remove supernatural threats to His people. God ensured our safety, and mankind has responded with an idiotic presumption that it's always been this way.