bartmac123

Ok, let's just agree to disagree on whether we are free to speculate. However, Do you agree with the following point? Regardless of who was a fault( i.e., Queen Vashti or King Ahasuerus or maybe both ), one point is certain. Esther 1's sub-narrative does mention the banishment of Queen Vashti forever from the presence of King Ahasuerus allowed for God's providence of Esther becoming the queen, and that is the most important aspect of the aforementioned sub-narrative which matters, and Not the debate about who was a fault.

But it's Still to Difficult to say because Esther 1 does Not give us enough information. Esther 1:7 does mention that there was royal wine present during the celebration. Esther 1:8 seems to suggest that the celebration was Not an out-of-control party of drunks because it states that: However, It's a bit difficult to conduct the exegesis of the verses, Esther 1:10-11: Esther 1:10 mentions that "the heart of the king was merry with wine" when he commanded his eunuchs to bring Queen Vashti out. However, how drunk was King Ahasuerus when he uttered his command? Was he out-of-control drunk Or just a little tipsy? Exegesis of Esther 1:11 is where the real controversy comes about. Was King Ahasuerus just commanding Queen Vashti to come before his party's attendees merely so that they can appreciate her beauty in positive light? Or Was King Ahasuerus trying to objectify his Queen like some kind of trophy wife in front of others in order to behave like an ostentatious showboat who played excessively to the gallery which is bad? It's really difficult to say if it were a wild drunken party or just a good-natured party where people were drinking and having reasonably respectful jovial fun.

@other one

I've searched the internet for commentaries, and I've heard both sides of the argument. The narrative is difficult to evaluate. ( Please continue to read my freewriting after the bible passage excerpt below ) Esther 1:7 does mention that there was royal wine present during the celebration. Esther 1:8 seems to suggest that the celebration was Not an out-of-control party of drunks because it states that: However, It's a bit difficult to conduct the exegesis of the verses, Esther 1:10-11: Esther 1:10 mentions that "the heart of the king was merry with wine" when he commanded his eunuchs to bring Queen Vashti out. However, how drunk was King Ahasuerus when he uttered his command? Was he out-of-control drunk Or just a little tipsy? Exegesis of Esther 1:11 is where the real controversy comes about. Was King Ahasuerus just commanding Queen Vashti to come before his party's attendees merely so that they can appreciate her beauty in positive light? Or Was King Ahasuerus trying to objectify his Queen like some kind of trophy wife in front of others in order to behave like an ostentatious showboat who played excessively to the gallery which is bad? To add to the controversy of behind Esther 1:11, some commentators suggested that the King may have wanted her to come out naked because his command mentions Queen Vashti to come to his party with the royal crown, but does Not mention anything about her wearing clothes. However, just because said verse does Not mention clothes does Not mean he wanted her to come naked but it could be-- we just do Not know. In Esther 1:12, it does Not say that Queen Vashti the reasons behind her refusal, therefore, it's difficult to say if she based her decision on honor or dishonor. However, to side with King Ahasuerus, Esther 1:13 does say that he did seek the counsel with "the wise men who understood the times" regarding how he should respond to his wife's refusal. Esther 1:13 would suggest that King Ahasuerus was Not so foolishly drunk because he at the very least sought advice from wise men who understood the times. Could someone please provide their interpretation/exegesis of this episode of dispute between the King and his Queen?

( Related Posting: Was the use of a measuring line literal or symbolic in 2 Samuel 8:2? Related Posting: What deeper understanding can the bible reader get from the 2 Samuel 8:2's account of how David killed off the defeated people of Moab? ) David can be seen as a warrior-King chosen by God to lead Israel. In 2 Samuel 8, we see David bringing judgment upon the enemies of Israel in a playful arbitrary manner like a vigilante does in comic books. ( Extrajudicial actions ) Psalm 109 which is well-known for it's imprecatory nature was either directly/indirectly authored by David himself. Psalm 109's verses are very aggressively judgemental and cursing in nature: David declares judgment upon the Amalekite who (despite falsely) claiming that he himself killed Saul Here is the irony, David even at first unknowingly declares judgment upon himself after Nathan talks about the Traveller's parable to David: What are the Dangers of the Judgemental side of David's life in the Bible?

( Related Posting: Was the use of a measuring line literal or symbolic in 2 Samuel 8:2? Related Posting: What deeper understanding can the bible reader get from the 2 Samuel 8:2's account of how David killed off the defeated people of Moab? ) David can be seen as a warrior-King chosen by God to lead Israel. In 2 Samuel 8, we see David bringing judgment upon the enemies of Israel in a playful arbitrary manner like a vigilante does in comic books. ( Extrajudicial actions ) Psalm 109 which is well-known for it's imprecatory nature was either directly/indirectly authored by David himself. Psalm 109's verses are very aggressively judgemental and cursing in nature: David declares judgment upon the Amalekite who (despite falsely) claiming that he himself killed Saul Here is the irony, David even at first unknowingly declares judgment upon himself after Nathan talks about the Traveller's parable to David: What are the Dangers of the Judgemental side of David's life in the Bible?

It might be a bit of a stretch, but I sometimes meditate on the following passage in order to seek guidance from The Holy Spirit so that I do Not sound Overly Sanctimonious/Preachy/Lofty/Holier-Than-Art-Thou: In other words, If I am trying to correct someone whom I think is doing wrong, I do Not want to sound Overly Sanctimonious/Preachy/Lofty/Holier-Than-Art-Thou. The point is to correct others but Not inflate my own ego. Could someone please also mention some other Bible verses/passages/stories/parables that would emphasize the same?

Other than Genesis 19:4-38’s account of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction due to sinful homosexuality, I Personally do Not know of any other society that was destroyed or fell into decay due to homosexuality. What other societies in the world fell due to the tolerance and embracing of the Homosexual/LGBTQ+ lifestyle? I want to give credit to @AnOrangeCat who responded with the following in a post: Furthermore, I would like start off by describing to supporters of the LGBTQ+ rights "what it is supposed to be" , and only secondarily tell them "what it's Not supposed to be" To elaborate, if a LGBTQ+ rights supporter ask me why I Disagree with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, I would start off by saying "what it is supposed to be" which can be described in the Ephesians 5:25-27 In Ephesians 5:25-27, the bible describes to us that Husbands(being the males) should Love their Wives(being the females) just like Jesus Christ(being the male) Loved the church( being the female). Essentially, I would tell the LGBTQ+ supporter that the biblical passage of Ephesians 5:25-27 describes what the proper marriage life is supposed to be like which is between a male and a female. As time goes by, and my debate with the LGBTQ+ supporter progressively continues, I can secondarily tell them that the Leviticus 18:22 bible verse and the narrative in the Genesis 19:4-38 bible passage describe "what it's Not supposed to be". In other words, my biblical reasons as to why I believe LGBTQ+ lifestyle is sinful: It's a lot better to start off with "what it is supposed to be", and then go on to secondarily mention "what it's Not supposed to be"

A while back, I was debating with a nominal Catholic relative of mine about why same-sex marriage was sinful. My nominal Catholic relative said that she felt that it was wrong to reject same-sex marriage because Christian can Not enforce their Christian view of marriage on others who are Not Christian. She essentially felt that homosexuals' rights should be respected, and Christians can Not criticize the LGBTQ+ approval and acceptance of same-sex marriage because their perspectives are Not the same as Christians. My immediate response was more aligned with "fire and brimstone preaching" by passionately criticizing the LGBTQ+ culture by using the following scriptures: Even though the aforementioned bible verses and passages are correct in condemning LGBTQ+ culture, I was Not satisfied with how I debated with my relative. The reason being is that I was quick to condemn by resorting to "fire and brimstone preaching" It made me think by asking the following question: "How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?" Please do Not misunderstand me. The use of "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses certainly have their place in defending Christian values. However, "fire and brimstone" biblical passages and verses should Not be the sole approach, and in many cases Not the first step in arguing against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction. "How can Christians graciously & compassionately argue against homosexuality, adultery, perversion, sexual assualt, rape, abortion alcohol and/or drug addiction?"

(Photo credited to: https://people.com/all-about-john-f-kennedy-jackie-kennedy-children-7969931 ) John F Kennedy(JFK) and Jackie Kennedy were a good-looking couple with beautiful children. Even though JFK was in many respects honorable as evidenced by his World War 2 heroism, and his Presidency's support for US Civil Rights, sadly things are Not always as they appear to be. To elaborate, JFK was a womanizer, and addicted to painkillers. Therefore, to reiterate, "(Proverbs 31:30) Charm is deceptive..." Furthermore, Jackie Kennedy was good-looking But JFK still chased after other women. Therefore, in regard to Jackie Kennedy, this other verse is relevant: "(Ecclesiastes 9:11)...the race is Not to the swift..."

Pray Pakistan's voters are guided by The Holy Spirit to elect politicians who see Christians in favorable light: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68178513

King Saul had a toxic personality who had erratic mood swings especially when it came to how he treated David. To elaborate, at certain times he would be nice to King David, and other times, he would become cruel. For example, 1 Samuel 19:7-10 & 1 Samuel 24:8-22 are biblical passages that show how King Saul's treatment of David was erratic. Therefore, King Saul's reconciliations with David ultimately failed because of King Saul own actions. Finally, in 1 Samuel 26:20-25 bible passage, there is another chance for King Saul to reconcile with David. The 1 Samuel 26:21 verse quotes Saul request to David to return which is an attempt to reconcile. However, David knows from his past experience that King Saul will go back to treating David badly again. Therefore, in in 1 Samuel 26:20-25, David ultimately quietly and subtly just avoids having any sort of relationship with King Saul. Essentially, David decides to Avoid having a relationship with a toxic personality like King Saul. David experiences with a toxic personality like King Saul, and David ultimate decision to end his relationship with King Saul should serve as a good example for us Christians. In other words, David does Not take revenge by vengefully attacking King Saul due to his poor treatment of David Instead, David wisely (Matthew 5:39) turns the other cheek by just deciding to end his relationship with King Saul by avoiding him.

You are totally Misconstruing what I stated previously. I Never used any kind of "force". I was very gentle and polite towards her( Psalm 69:20).....I looked for sympathy but there was none. I looked for comfort but I found none. ....

Yeah, but one does Not want to hurt people. It's Not like I'm a stalker or anything. In this #metoo world, men can easily be falsely or mistakenly accused. It's crazy. Psalm 69:20 New American Standard Bible 1995 20 Reproach has broken my heart and I am so sick. And I looked for sympathy, but there was none, And for comforters, but I found none.

Yeah, but she is Not gracious and Not compassionate at all. She is way too short-tempered. She immediately started yelling at me the first time that I communicated with her. It's Not like every guy on the planet is a Jeffry Epstein or a Harvey Weinstein. The bible does say emphasizes the following: (Exodus 34:6) 6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and [a]truth;