I'm kinda falling in love with the new pope.

[Imran Siddiqui]

42 youths, IIRC. You're getting them mixed up with Shadrach et al, perhaps?

For whatever reason I thought it was 3.... 42 is much worse, ain't it.

Though perhaps the author of 2 Kings was making a point about the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It may mock you and yell at you so the only thing to do with it is maul it with a bear?

[Uncle Sparky]

"Rooting Out the Gay Cabal in the Vatican" sounds like a title for a gay porno.

It would be kiddyporn.

[Dr Strangelove]

Unlike the Episcopalians, the Catholic Church still holds the Scriptures in high esteem.

The article was written by a member of a break away misogynist,homophobic sect so we'd expect him to interpret her sermon that way.

[Felch]

She was right, wasn't she? The only real explanations I can find which may justify it, is that she was attempting to be seen with them and be linked with them so it would help her owners' fortune-telling business. Or Paul was annoyed that her gift was being exploited to make others money (in which case why take it from her)? However, I think it can be read in many different ways, and it isn't like Paul was perfect (even prophets have their dark stories - ie, Elisha killing the three youths that mocked him for being bald by unleashing a bear on them).

Paul was exorcising a demonic possession. The Bible is very clear on the evils of fortune telling and divination. Technically Paul was probably supposed to bludgeon her to death with big ass rocks, but he showed her mercy instead.

Elisha was perfectly justified in summoning the bear. He could never have summoned the bear if it weren't God's will that those dozens of children be mauled to death.

[Docfeelgood]

Does he sh!t in the woods?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Paul was exorcising a demonic possession. The Bible is very clear on the evils of fortune telling and divination. Technically Paul was probably supposed to bludgeon her to death with big ass rocks, but he showed her mercy instead.

Was what she was saying not correct? Also why did Paul let her follow them around for a while before exorcising a demonic possession? And Daniel got some pretty substantial prophecies (some by angels, some by dreams).

I don't think the passage is as clear as you'd like it to be. Perhaps you may say that the gift of prophecy had the effect of making her a slave and thus Paul wanted to free her from that, but the text does indicate him to be annoyed.

I looked in my New Interpreters Study Bible and on Acts 16:16-18 says as follows: "This story differs in a number of respects of the exorcism stories in the gospel: The spirit is not said to be evil; there is no dialogue with the spirit; there is no determination of the spirit's departure of astonished reaction by onlookers; it does not lead to the spread of the gospel (cf. Luke 4:31-37). Rather, it is a story of a battle for power and the exploitation of a slave girl".

For balance, my Eerdman's Bible Commentary considers it a Satanic possession. But my point is there is more than one way to tell this story. Therefore Jeffers wasn't way out of line.

Elisha was perfectly justified in summoning the bear. He could never have summoned the bear if it weren't God's will that those dozens of children be mauled to death.

And that's the sort of view that gets people to ask how in the world a "just and loving God" could ever do such a thing.

Are all the Bible stories literally true? Or perhaps exaggerated to make an allegorical point? Or the author's bias made him take an activity and ascribe it to God, even though God had nothing to do with it (such as slaughtering folks in the early years of Israel) - ie, Elisha may have cursed the 42 young men and they may have been mauled by a bear, but they may not be directly connected. Or it was to show that even that good, Holy men can do questionable things (ie, David).

And no, saying we shouldn't question God killing people and saying we are ascribing our morality on Him doesn't work either. One can read the grand scope of Scripture and see that God is a good and merciful God, one who loves His creation. We also don't read the Bible literally (neither of us are fundamentalists). Therefore passages that go against God's character as one who is good, kind, merciful are ones which need to be read in the context of who God has shown us He is in His perfect revelation as Jesus Christ.

[regexcellent]

New pope is against gay marriage ken, might want to rethink that because that makes him literally a Nazi (just like the last one LOLOL cause he was german!)

[Felch]

Was what she was saying not correct? Also why did Paul let her follow them around for a while before exorcising a demonic possession? And Daniel got some pretty substantial prophecies (some by angels, some by dreams).

I don't think the passage is as clear as you'd like it to be. Perhaps you may say that the gift of prophecy had the effect of making her a slave and thus Paul wanted to free her from that, but the text does indicate him to be annoyed.

She was a slave who generated income for her master through divination. Either she's a witch or a simonist.

And that's the sort of view that gets people to ask how in the world a "just and loving God" could ever do such a thing.

Are all the Bible stories literally true? Or perhaps exaggerated to make an allegorical point? Or the author's bias made him take an activity and ascribe it to God, even though God had nothing to do with it (such as slaughtering folks in the early years of Israel) - ie, Elisha may have cursed the 42 young men and they may have been mauled by a bear, but they may not be directly connected. Or it was to show that even that good, Holy men can do questionable things (ie, David).

And no, saying we shouldn't question God killing people and saying we are ascribing our morality on Him doesn't work either. One can read the grand scope of Scripture and see that God is a good and merciful God, one who loves His creation. We also don't read the Bible literally (neither of us are fundamentalists). Therefore passages that go against God's character as one who is good, kind, merciful are ones which need to be read in the context of who God has shown us He is in His perfect revelation as Jesus Christ.

God is not a hippie. Smiting the wicked is like 90% of what He does. What Bible do you read?

Whenever good people do the wrong thing, there's usually an in text commentary on it. David got Uriah killed, and Nathan showed up to tell him God was pissed. There's no doubt that David was wrong. The Bible is a deeply judgmental text. We have to generally assume that prophets and evangelists are being held up as exemplars. In that sense, some make believe bishop of a fake Christian sect has absolutely no business questioning St. Paul. Nor are we supposed to question Elisha summoning bears to maul a bunch of punks. In both cases they were simply conduits for God's will (after all, God exorcised the slave's demon, and God sent the bears).

[Ben Kenobi]

Smiting the wicked is like 90% of what He does. What Bible do you read?

I'm curious as well. It appears he's got an abridged version with 100 percent less smiting.

[Hauldren Collider]

The new pope, as far as I can tell, is not particularly different from the last two popes in anything other than superficial image. Which kentonio seems to be eating right up.

[Elok]

I see Felch is having fun here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

She was a slave who generated income for her master through divination. Either she's a witch or a simonist.

I totally added more stuff, esp textual commentary showing that this isn't the discussions of demonic possession in the Gospels (inc Luke, whose author also wrote Acts).

God is not a hippie. Smiting the wicked is like 90% of what He does. What Bible do you read?

Which people exactly did Jesus smite? So when you follow the Christian life, you go around praying for folks to be smited.. smote... smoted? I'm pretty sure that a lot of Genesis narrative of God demanding killing and throwing down 'hellfire' is Israel trying to make sense of God through their early views. Obviously they had primitive views of divinity and likely ascribed acts of violence to God's rage at the "other" (mostly a Deutronomical authorship viewpoint, other writers of the Pentateuch had slight different views). How does a God who gets mad at the other civilizations jive with an incredibly inclusive Jesus?

Whenever good people do the wrong thing, there's usually an in text commentary on it. David got Uriah killed, and Nathan showed up to tell him God was pissed. There's no doubt that David was wrong. The Bible is a deeply judgmental text. We have to generally assume that prophets and evangelists are being held up as exemplars. In that sense, some make believe bishop of a fake Christian sect has absolutely no business questioning St. Paul. Nor are we supposed to question Elisha summoning bears to maul a bunch of punks. In both cases they were simply conduits for God's will (after all, God exorcised the slave's demon, and God sent the bears).

I'm sure some of Israel thought the bears were sent by God and God likes killing people, but how does that square with the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ? There has to be a better way than saying God just smites and kills and we're just ok with that - that's as not-thinking as fundamentalism. Yes, there is the lessons of Job, but I don't think the moral of Job is to be a non-question automaton (I don't think God hates the theologians ).

Remember as well that Jesus stopped his disciples from stopping someone of a 'fake Christian sect' who was proclaiming the good news but wasn't affiliated with them.

[Felch]

Which people exactly did Jesus smite?

Remember the money changers in the Temple? Jesus smote the **** out of them.

[Uncle Sparky]

That is because capitalism is sacrilege.

[Dr Strangelove]

Did you overlook this part?

Way to generalize

Some of those answers can be clicked on to access the responder's home page, and you find that most of them aren't Episcopalians.

If you're familiar with the New Testament then you probably remember the passage in which the disciples were upset that someone not of their group was running around preaching on their behalf, but Christ rebuked them saying that anyone who favors him will eventually come to him. There's also a passage that states that the Holy Spirit may confer a variety of gifts, to some preaching, to some healing and to some even the ability of prophesy.