jameseb

I would certainly set the day apart and not do work or unnecessary housework. I try to focus on reading Christian books and spending time with church members in the afternoon as well. It helps to focus on God.

Certainly there are commands not to covet the idols of the nations, but the verses you quoted come from Deuteronomy 7:25-26, where the context is giving instructions for when the Israelites enter the land, rather than commentary on the 10th commandment. If anything, it is more an application of the 1st and 2nd commandments. The account of the 10 commandments in Deuteronomy appears earlier, in 5:6-21, where Moses is quoting the commandments given in Exodus 20:1-17 by way of reminder to the new generation that is about to enter the promised land without him. The command not to covet is generally understood as having broader application than just not coveting idols.

That interpretation of the commandment against coveting seems very unlikely. Exodus 20:17 says:

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Nothing there mentions idols, and given the references to wives, servants and houses, it seems particularly unlikely that it is specifically referring to idols.

I agree that there is a need for oversight in churches and I think independent baptist churches are generally a bad idea due to that lack of oversight (and from what I have heard, there does seem to be a lot of them in America). However, this argument in favour of an episcopal system of church government assumes bishops are the only way to achieve this oversight.

I go to a presbyterian church, and I find the presbyterian system of church government to work well in terms of providing oversight (I also think it is closer to the system of church government we see in the New Testament). The idea is that the elders of churches oversee each other. Presbyterian churches usually have multiple elders at the local church level so they can make decisions together and keep each other accountable. At the next level up, all the elders in a region meet together in a presbytery to settle issues raised from local churches, decide if someone is suitable for ordination, and approve church plants. There are often one or two levels above this, depending on the size of a denomination, usually called "synod" or "general assembly", which includes elders from a wider area (and ultimately the whole denomination), which settles disputes between presbyteries and issues the presbytery can't handle. I think that works better because it doesn't rely on a single person having oversight over a group of people and answers the question of who oversees the bishop.

Ultimately, however, there isn't really a perfect solution to be found in a system of church government alone. It seems like problems develop in all kinds of denominations, and problems often develop slowly or secretly so that oversight doesn't come into effect until it's too late. It may be just because my denomination is relatively young that we haven't run into major problems yet. I think the most important thing is for the oversight and discipline infrastructure to be proactive in dealing with problems, rather than leaving them until they become a bigger issue. Having some system of oversight is necessary for that to happen, of course.

I assume because it is a relatively new city planned to replace Seoul as the capital city to reduce congestion. Its population would be mostly people from outside moving into the area, and elderly people tend to be more set in their ways and less willing to take risks like moving to a newly formed city.

That code point is U+0D9E SINHALA LETTER KANTAJA NAASIKYAYA. It's a letter in a writing system used in Sri Lanka.

1. Why does it say where T: Sized for references &T? A reference can definitely point to an unsized type, e.g. &str.

I think the point being made is that the layout shown only applies for Sized T. Layouts for &[T] and &dyn Trait are shown elsewhere on the sheet. &str is noted under &[T].

Edit: although, similar considerations would apply to other pointer types, but that isn't noted on the sheet except for Box<[T]>

And in case you can't find the sidebar, the relevant part is:

• Image uploads are enabled 4 weeks after account creation
• Image upload limit is 500kb per image

A cup can refer to a variety of different measurements (see Cup (unit) - Wikipedia). The cup OP referenced is a metric cup, a US customary cup is 8 US fluid ounces. Measuring cups can come labelled using cups as a unit, usually including a whole cup, and that is presumably what OP was referring to.

I'm sorry if you have encountered organisations affirming offering up children to a rape mob, but as I have explained, that isn't the usual Christian position on the matter.

There is a lot to unpack here. We are not told Lot's exact reasons for being willing to give his daughters to protect the angels, although it may be to do with customs in that society concerning the treatment of guests (and the contrasting treatment of women in that society). Nothing in scripture indicates that Lot's proposed course of action here was morally correct, and that he is flawed in this way is evidence towards the fallen nature of humans.

The only place where Lot is referred to as righteous is in 2 Peter 2:7-8, where the focus is on giving old testament examples where God judges the wicked but is able to rescue the godly, in the face of false teachers infiltrating the church. There the point that is made is not that Lot was righteous in offering up his daughters, but that during the time he lived in Sodom he had a very different moral outlook to the people among whom he lived. It is stated that he was oppressed or troubled by seeing the deeds of the people he dwelt among, and that may include the effect it has on his own soul in moving him to accept the attitudes of those around him (which we see play out in the incident where he offers up his daughters). No clear mention is made of the circumstances or reasons for Lot's being brought out of Sodom in 2 Peter.

The clearest statement we see in scripture as to why Lot was saved when Sodom was destroyed is in Genesis 19:29, where it says that God remembered Abraham. So Lot's salvation rests not on his righteousness, but on Abraham's intercession in Genesis 18:22-33 and God's mercy to him. The connection to Abraham is particularly important because Abraham is the one to whom God's promises are made, and who therefore constitutes God's covenant people at this point in biblical history. Lot's leaving Abraham in Genesis 13 is the start of a series of bad choices that separate him from God's people. Indeed, by the end of Genesis 19 we see Lot has fallen to an incident of incest with his daughters, and the descendants of this are the Ammonites and Moabites, who become significant enemies of God's people.

You should not assume that just because something is recorded in scripture (particularly in the narrative portions), that it is something that God supports. A large part of scripture is detailing the history of God's people, who are not always as righteous as they should be, and pointing to our need for a saviour, sometimes through the examples of sins from which we must be saved.

Similarly, since everyone except Jesus is sinful, we see even the most righteous people with flaws. This is particularly seen in the books of Kings and Chronicles where we see kings with the verdict that they did what was right sometimes doing bad things. To give some examples: David did what is right (1 Kings 15:5) and held up as a standard against which other kings of Judah are compared, but he sinned in committing adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). Solomon was renowned for his wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-34) and he built the temple, but he married women from the surrounding nations and ended up worshipping their gods (1 Kings 11:1-8), so we are told he did what was evil in God's sight (1 Kings 11:6). Asa did what was right (1 Kings 15:11) in removing pagan worship, but he did not do it completely (1 Kings 15:14), and he used treasures from the temple to buy the allegiance of Syria (1 Kings 15:18-19). Joash did what was right during the life of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chronicles 24:2), but turns from God after his death (2 Chronicles 24:17-19). Uzziah did what was right (2 Chronicles 26:4), but became prideful and sinned (2 Chronicles 26:16).

The bible teaches that men may never be subjugated like a woman, through a story of violence. It's also why homosexuality is considered morally wrong.

As I've explained above, that isn't what is being taught in the story of Lot, and it isn't an analysis of the event that is presented anywhere else in the Bible. I would like expand on the point about homosexuality though. The Bible's reasoning concerning homosexuality has nothing to do with any notion of "men being subjugated like women", particularly since such a line of reasoning could only really apply to male homosexuality. Rather, the reasoning is simply that it is not part God's plan for how human sexual relations should be, but that people are given over to them because of their rejection of God (Romans 1:24-27).

Not only that, women aren't allowed to reject their husbands sexual advances, rendering marital rape null. Even if the marriage was arranged outside of her say.

This is a separate point, and it doesn't come from any strict requirement in the old testament law, but from the advice given in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. There the advice is given equally to both husbands and wives, and does not licence the use of coercion or force in sexual relations with one's spouse. Here, Paul is responding to the statement in 1 Corinthians 7:1, which is that husbands should avoid all sexual relations, and Paul's response is that sexual relations within marriage are not wrong and that it is even good to have sexual relations to avoid outside temptation to sexual sin. What seems to be in view here is particularly a marriage where both spouses are Christians, and it is assumed they would both behave as expected of Christians in marriage, particularly the husband loving his wife as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33). A man not behaving in such a way towards his wife would come under church discipline. Of course, there are marriages where the husband may not be a Christian, but the same principles apply so any violence or coercion would not be right.

Rape or any other violence against women is not acceptable, certainly not in Christianity.