Apparently, thieves broke into the office of Bishop Eddie Long, and made off with "an iPad, iPhone, and a substantial amount of jewelry."
Why do these "men of God" need so much jewelry and electronics for? Does this jive with Jesus' message of the meek inheriting the earth? What was that about a rich man entering Heaven? Something like it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle??
Why the need to show your success with flashy clothes, jewelry and the latest electronic gadgets?
Perhaps the Bishop was a very meek iBishop who accepts jewelry in the offering plate... strictly for Jesus, of course.
Cyber-jocks wear Ad Commercial - Roller blade hi tech
Is there really anyone that interprets the Bible literally?
Many claim to interprete the Bible literally and obey yet these same Christians will ignore many of the scriptures such as - women cover your heads when praying, do not wear jewelry, do not speak in church, do not teach men, kill children that talk back to parrents, worship on Saturday, men do not shave, etc. It is not as if they simply screw up sometimes they totally ignore some scripture for convenience and swear up and down they interprete scripture literally and obey. It does not bother me they don't follow it all. What bothers me is their hyprocrisy that keeps others from becoming Christians. I believe the authors sometimes had personal agendas and were influenced by culture. But, I do believe the Bible is essential to our faith history and should be read and studied by Christians in order to know who they serve and why. Why don't we as Christians try to be honest with ourselves and others for a change?
to understand anything about the bible, you have to know the context in which any given passage is written. (both historic and literary) the book of job, for instance, is written in an obviously oratory style, common to mideastern storytelling traditions. it is unlikely that it is a blow-by-blow account of a conversation. it is using a certain style to teach a basic point. the first chapter of genesis is obviously based on a much older oral tradition. if moses wrote it, he was speaking of events far in the past, not as an eyewitness. he was passing along what had been handed down to him. then you have the accounts of ruth and esther. these ring as much more matter of fact history than poetics. is song of solomon supposed to be taken literally? i think anyone with sense would be hard pressed to do so. it poetry - and so requires a different definition of "true" than would the books of samuel or judges.
