http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/virginia/bible-verse-on-truck-sparks-outrage/438619141
Attachments:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/bible-verse-about-silencing-women-on-va-pickup-sparks-outrage/438629072



A bible verse painted on the back of a pickup truck is drawing outrage in Northern Virginia.

The verse is from One Corinthians, and talks about women being silent and submissive.

A woman who spotted the truck on Route 15 in Leesburg Tuesday morning took a picture and posted it on her Facebook page.

"It quoted a verse from Corinthians saying that women shall be silent and submissive and read your bible," said the woman, who did not want her name used out of fear of retribution.

She did a double take.

"It as so outrageous and so offensive," she said.

"As for women being any less than men, even in the Corinth church, that's not what they intended, " says Reverend James Sprouse of Trinity United Methodist Church in McLean.

Paul who wrote one and two Corinthians was speaking directly to the people of Corinth.

"Although women weren't supposed to speak in the contest of teaching, (they were uneducated) they were allowed to prophesied. And evidently, they were getting so loud, so boisterous, it's almost like listening to one of the talking head shows on TV where everyone's talking over top of each other," said Rev. Sprouse.

He says the verse does not mean women need to be silent.

"What they were trying to do was get some kind of order and structure to their assemblies together," he said.

The women says she drove before the black pickup and glanced at the driver, who put his finger to his lips as if to tell her "be silent."

"It concerns me that something like this has become accepted in some ways. And that it's OK for folks to feel free to share such hateful and misogynistic thoughts," she said.

Fox News Wrote:
--
>
> "It concerns me that something like this has
> become accepted in some ways. And that it's OK for
> folks to feel free to share such hateful and
> misogynistic thoughts," she said.



^^^^^^^^^^^.....and people wonder why some of us always say that liberals, and, especially Hillary Clinton, HATE the Constitution of the United States of America.

And God loved us so much that he gave us Fairfax Underground, where we can read this drivel on Sunday mornings.

#notrealnews

Hust wait till the this lady gets a load of the Quran.

This woman must be living a very boring life and has nothing else to do.

Just wait until women find out what Sharia is like!

grophusharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^^^^^^^^.....and people wonder why some of us
> always say that liberals, and, especially Hillary
> Clinton, HATE the Constitution of the United
> States of America.

Au contraire, you're the one who's missing the point of the Constitution. The right to express oneself may not be stifled by the government. Nor is this woman even stifling it: she's heaping opprobrium on someone with a non-mainstream view. Doing that is also protected by the Constitution.

Amazing how so may on the right can't even understand the document they claim to be protecting. It's not that tricky, eh?

One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Au contraire, you're the one who's missing the
> point of the Constitution. The right to express
> oneself may not be stifled by the government. Nor
> is this woman even stifling it: she's heaping
> opprobrium on someone with a non-mainstream view.
> Doing that is also protected by the Constitution.
>
> Amazing how so may on the right can't even
> understand the document they claim to be
> protecting. It's not that tricky, eh?

They're trumptard morons. To them, the constitution means guns and bullying people who aren't white christian.

One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Au contraire, you're the one who's missing the
> point of the Constitution. The right to express
> oneself may not be stifled by the government. Nor
> is this woman even stifling it: she's heaping
> opprobrium on someone with a non-mainstream view.
> Doing that is also protected by the Constitution.
>
> Amazing how so may on the right can't even
> understand the document they claim to be
> protecting. It's not that tricky, eh?


How about you on the Left actually read what the woman posted to her face book page: "It concerns me that.....it's OK for folks feel free to share such hateful and misogynistic thoughts"


Since you on the Left obviously agree with this woman, anything that she posts is automatically in the right. What her statement implies, if it does not come right out and state it, is that she does not think that people should feel free to express thoughts that do not agree with what she thinks. She is "concerned" that people would "feel free" to put opinions with which she does not agree, in public view. In other words, she feels that there should be something that stops people from putting out there opinions with which she does not agree.

To be sure, she is free to have that opinion. She is free to express that opinion. That does not change the anti-First Amendment nature of her opinion. I am far from "being on the Right", but it seems that I can read and I understand the Constitution. Too bad for some people that the public schools no longer require that anyone demonstrate an ability to read, write and COMPREHEND the English Language.

I never stated that this woman was "stifling" the Constitution. I DID imply that she hates it. The anti-First Amendment nature of her statement supports my implication.

You, and the poster who follows you, fall into the trap that is oh-so-common on the Left. You characterise anyone who disagrees with you on even the smallest point as being in lockstep with the extreme Right. One description of this is "profiling", something that you on the Left so roundly damn. Much of this is due to the Lockstep mentality of the Left. Some of this is due to the Left's leadership's discouraging its followers from thinking. This is one reason why the Left hates people like me who actually CAN and DO think for ourselves. In fact, they hate us more than they hate anyone on the extreme Right. The last thing that the Left's leadership wants anyone to do is actually think.

As for the subsequent poster's namecalling and profiling, that is a combination of hypocrisy and the last resort of someone who has no argument of any substance.

It is truly sad that the public schools no longer require that their "graduates" demonstrate an ability to read, write and comprehend the English language. The predictable result is a nation of programmed robots and dupes.

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/virginia/bible-ver
> se-on-truck-sparks-outrage/438619141


I'm ok with this

Ban the bible now before it poisons anyone else.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of the basis of the United States. It means just exactly that. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. The bigger problem here isn't what's on a bumper sticker. It's the reaction to it. That is the true definition of intolerance. If you disagree, ignore it. Or print your own views on your car or truck. Acting intolerant to end intolerance and demanding censorship to promote freedom of speech is ridiculous. And yet, here we are.

just saying Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a
> fundamental principle of the basis of the United
> States. It means just exactly that. Whether or not
> you agree with it is irrelevant. The bigger
> problem here isn't what's on a bumper sticker.
> It's the reaction to it. That is the true
> definition of intolerance. If you disagree, ignore
> it. Or print your own views on your car or truck.
> Acting intolerant to end intolerance and demanding
> censorship to promote freedom of speech is
> ridiculous. And yet, here we are.
Absolutely spot on. The irony is the left talks about how much they hate fascists, but they are the first ones to try to censor any type of speech that they don't agree with...

My favorite saying on the back of a commercial truck...

Don't like trucks?
Stop buying shit
Problem solved!

grophusharris Wrote:
> How about you on the Left actually read what the
> woman posted to her face book page: "It concerns
> me that.....it's OK for folks feel free to share
> such hateful and misogynistic thoughts"
>
>
> Since you on the Left obviously agree with this
> woman, anything that she posts is automatically in
> the right. What her statement implies, if it does
> not come right out and state it, is that she does
> not think that people should feel free to express
> thoughts that do not agree with what she thinks.
> She is "concerned" that people would "feel free"
> to put opinions with which she does not agree, in
> public view. In other words, she feels that there
> should be something that stops people from putting
> out there opinions with which she does not agree.
>
> To be sure, she is free to have that opinion. She
> is free to express that opinion. That does not
> change the anti-First Amendment nature of her
> opinion. I am far from "being on the Right", but
> it seems that I can read and I understand the
> Constitution. Too bad for some people that the
> public schools no longer require that anyone
> demonstrate an ability to read, write and
> COMPREHEND the English Language.
>
> I never stated that this woman was "stifling" the
> Constitution. I DID imply that she hates it. The
> anti-First Amendment nature of her statement
> supports my implication.
>
> You, and the poster who follows you, fall into the
> trap that is oh-so-common on the Left. You
> characterise anyone who disagrees with you on even
> the smallest point as being in lockstep with the
> extreme Right. One description of this is
> "profiling", something that you on the Left so
> roundly damn. Much of this is due to the Lockstep
> mentality of the Left. Some of this is due to the
> Left's leadership's discouraging its followers
> from thinking. This is one reason why the Left
> hates people like me who actually CAN and DO think
> for ourselves. In fact, they hate us more than
> they hate anyone on the extreme Right. The last
> thing that the Left's leadership wants anyone to
> do is actually think.
>
> As for the subsequent poster's namecalling and
> profiling, that is a combination of hypocrisy and
> the last resort of someone who has no argument of
> any substance.
>
> It is truly sad that the public schools no longer
> require that their "graduates" demonstrate an
> ability to read, write and comprehend the English
> language. The predictable result is a nation of
> programmed robots and dupes.

Nope, straw man. I never said I agreed with her apparent (if so badly written that her intent is arguably unclear!) desire to somehow legally (illegally!) stifle the moron with the pickup (yes, I'm showing my opinion here).

What you said was:
>...some of us always say that liberals, and, especially Hillary Clinton, HATE the Constitution of the United States of America.

So who started the name-calling here? And how did Hillary Clinton get into this discussion??

But backing off the flamage, you're being rational about it now. Clearly you don't belong here! :)

i can't wait until target goes out of business

whom has the best veggie burger around Fairfax?

At a recent chamber of commerce get together a woman speaker made a condescending remark about men and everyone chuckled. It a good be that if a guy speaker had said something similar about women an angry Facebook post would have been the least of his worries.

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He says the verse does not mean women need to be
> silent.
>
> "What they were trying to do was get some kind of
> order and structure to their assemblies together,"
> he said.

Hahaha. If that's not a condemnation of religion itself I don't know what is.

basically:

"If you don't agree with us, shut up. Or we'll change our stance, and say it's YOU who needs to shut up".

Not Like Liberals..SUPPRESSING FREE SPEACH at UC Berkeley..AND TRYING LIKE HELL BUT FAILING TO GRAB GUNS..!

DAJAX..Wore Out By The Rant..LOL..UC Berkeley Was Where the Folks Came From That Tested me ..on Many days...Many Moons ago. And I Became a ..."999"..LOL..!

Spark Outrage..!! With Millions..! Yes Trump Won..!! LOL

DAJAX.. Mark Warner on Fox tonight..Is he retarded ?? Hes slipping..Vote Him and Fat Tim the hell out..!

Man, Peggy Fox has got to come up with some better stories.

Pretty frickin lame stuff, falls in the who gives a sh** category.

It's like, "Man sees huge pile of dogsh** on the street corner...details at 5:30!"

Have you ever noticed that bible scholars, thumpers, etc will quote the bible literally...except when it comes to weird sheet in it, like "women should shut up", then they have some kind of weird explanation for it.

Like Dueteronomy 23.1, if your pecker has been cut off, or your nuts crushed you ain't getting into heaven...and no illegitimate birth, their ancestors to the tenth generation of an illegitimate birth can't get into heaven. Quote than one to a priest, they're like, no, what is meant by that is blah, blah, blah, blah


Women should shut up...no, what is meant by that is blah blah blah blah

>Pretty frickin lame stuff, falls in the who gives a sh** category.

DAJAX Like My Cooking School..LOL! Not Much happing here nowdays..

> Nope, straw man.


I never said I agreed with her
> apparent (if so badly written that her intent is
> arguably unclear!) desire to somehow legally
> (illegally!) stifle the moron with the pickup
> (yes, I'm showing my opinion here).
>


> What you said was:
> >...some of us always say that liberals, and,
> especially Hillary Clinton, HATE the Constitution
> of the United States of America.
>> So who started the name-calling here? And how did
> Hillary Clinton get into this discussion??
>


> But backing off the flamage, you're being rational
> about it now. Clearly you don't belong here! :)


The first quoted words are name calling.

The second group gets you the "HUH?" button. Try grammatically correct, coherent English. This is why I complain about the public schools' failure to require that their "graduates" demonstrate an ability to read, WRITE and comprehend the English language.

On the third group of words: "Liberal" is a political designation. "Hillary Clinton" is the name of the wife of the Forty-Second President of the United States and was twice a candidate for President of the United States. "Straw man" is name calling. Thus, in answer to your question about "name calling" it would be you and the other one who called me a "Trumptard".

Yes, considering that Fairfax Underground is a Trollwars battlefield, there is little, if any, place for rationality.

grophusharris Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> The first quoted words are name calling.

We call that a "sentence" or a "paragraph", fwiw. And no, it's not name-calling: look up "straw man" and you'll learn. I'm guessing you're in high school, so don't be embarrassed.

> The second group gets you the "HUH?" button. Try
> grammatically correct, coherent English. This is
> why I complain about the public schools' failure
> to require that their "graduates" demonstrate an
> ability to read, WRITE and comprehend the English
> language.

Perfectly grammatical and coherent. I'ts conversational. And it uses parenthetical remarks a lot. That was deliberate. BUt it is grammatical and coherent. You'll note that I'm using short, simple sentences here. That's so you don't get confused on this go-round.

> On the third group of words: "Liberal" is a
> political designation. "Hillary Clinton" is the
> name of the wife of the Forty-Second President of
> the United States and was twice a candidate for
> President of the United States. "Straw man" is
> name calling. Thus, in answer to your question
> about "name calling" it would be you and the other
> one who called me a "Trumptard".

Again, I did no such thing. And yes, I knew what those were. You're the one who made a wild generalization, and you failed to answer the simple question: what does Hillary Clinton have to do with this?

> Yes, considering that Fairfax Underground is a
> Trollwars battlefield, there is little, if any,
> place for rationality.

QED. (Google it.)

Bible doesnt have much regard for women in general - at best they are property. If they go astray (in the mans opinion) they get burned to death, or dismembered or cast out. If the man screws around its bad but no punishment is allowed to be measured out by women on men no matter what. Man is the master, women obey and shut up.

Praise God this is the Word of the Holy Bible. Go ahead and pretend you can 'interpret' some language but not other language. Amusingly the Bible hardly speaks of Homosexuality or Abortion but lots of burning up your daughter if she has sex out of wedlock.

7 JOHN, 12:00 "not it bed, he meant during arguments!"

One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grophusharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > The first quoted words are name calling.
>
> We call that a "sentence" or a "paragraph", fwiw.
> And no, it's not name-calling: look up "straw man"
> and you'll learn. I'm guessing you're in high
> school, so don't be embarrassed.
>
> > The second group gets you the "HUH?" button.
> Try
> > grammatically correct, coherent English. This
> is
> > why I complain about the public schools'
> failure
> > to require that their "graduates" demonstrate
> an
> > ability to read, WRITE and comprehend the
> English
> > language.
>
> Perfectly grammatical and coherent. I'ts
> conversational. And it uses parenthetical remarks
> a lot. That was deliberate. BUt it is grammatical
> and coherent. You'll note that I'm using short,
> simple sentences here. That's so you don't get
> confused on this go-round.
>
> > On the third group of words: "Liberal" is a
> > political designation. "Hillary Clinton" is
> the
> > name of the wife of the Forty-Second President
> of
> > the United States and was twice a candidate for
> > President of the United States. "Straw man" is
> > name calling. Thus, in answer to your question
> > about "name calling" it would be you and the
> other
> > one who called me a "Trumptard".
>
> Again, I did no such thing. And yes, I knew what
> those were. You're the one who made a wild
> generalization, and you failed to answer the
> simple question: what does Hillary Clinton have to
> do with this?
>
> > Yes, considering that Fairfax Underground is a
> > Trollwars battlefield, there is little, if any,
> > place for rationality.
>
> QED. (Google it.)


"Nope, straw man" is neither a sentence nor a paragraph. It is, at best, an exclamatory phrase or an interjection. The way that you phrased it, "straw man" is used in direct address. If you want to get across a point, you might try using a complete sentence. While I am aware that they no longer teach grammar in the public schools, perhaps there is an on line guide that might be helpful in the construction a complete sentence. This, of course, assumes an ability to read and COMPREHEND the English language, something else no longer taught in public schools.


The second alleged "paragraph" is neither coherent nor makes any sense. It is about what I expect from a "graduate" of public schools. Not that it is the fault of said "graduate", mind you, as YA' KAIN'T LURN WHUTCHA' AIN'T DONE BEEN TEACHED! You might want to confine yourself to short, simple sentences, as you are unable to construct anything beyond that. That way, you might stop embarrassing yourself. Your assertions that it is coherent and makes sense don't change the fact that it AIN'T. Remember, as well, that it is the task of the person making the statement, assertion or claim to get across his point. It is not the task of the reader (or hearer) to attempt to decipher groups of disconnected words. The cited group of words (and that one, decidedly AIN'T NO PARRY-GRAFF), fail epically.


Again, in your turn of phrase, "straw man" is direct address. DIPSO FACTO, it is namecalling. (Oh, and be aware that I butchered the Latin deliberately. My butchered English is also deliberate).

Your question on Hillary Clinton is irrelevant and a feeble attempt to deflect. In the latter, it is not just a standard failure, marry, Sirrah, it is a failure of positively epic proportions.

QED is the commonly accepted abbreviation for the Latin phrase, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM, literally translated "That which was to be demonstrated", "that which was to be shown" or "that which was to be proved". It is a common Latin grammatical construction commonly called the "passive periphrastic". It employs a future passive participle, which has the same form as a gerund (in the neuter gender) in the Latin language and, as a gerundive in masculine, feminine and neuter genders in agreement in gender, number and case with the noun with which it modifies. Sometimes this construction is called the "passive of obligation" or the "future of obligation". When combined with a form of the verb "to be" (in Latin, ESSE, in this case, "erat"), it implies obligation.

Written English has an equivalent construction, but avoids the future tense, preferring past or present tenses. Thus, "This is to be done", or "this was to be done" denotes obligation. In spoken English, however, the speaker can use the future with a vocal stress: 'This WILL be done".

"Erat" is the third person singular of the imperfect indicative of the verb ESSE; "to be". English usually renders the imperfect tense as "It was being" or "It used to be". Indeed, the imperfect in Latin (as well as in its descendant languages) carries those meanings, but, one should be aware that the imperfect in Latin (as in its descendant languages) also carries meanings that would require the use of the compound past or simple past tense in English. While Classical Latin has a simple past, it lacks a compound past. Vulgar Latin, however, did have a compound past. Testimony of it exists to the time of Sulla (139-78 B.C.).

"Demonstrandum" is the future passive participle of the Latin verb "Demonstrare", a compound of the preposition "de" and the verb "monstrare", which translates as "to show", "to expose", "to prove" or even "to demonstrate". "Demonstrandum" agrees with the relative pronoun "quod", which is the neuter form of a Latin pronoun that most Latin grammarians classify as a relative, although it has functions in the Latin language that go beyond that of a relative pronoun, Its masculine form is "Qui"; its feminine "quae". It declines in a fashion that is slightly different in that it shows some first/second declension forms, but also shows some third declension/dual forms in its plural, especially. The interrogatives, which have forms similar to the relative in Latin, and often appear interchangeably, especially in poetry.

Hos it THAT for a "google"?


I will pass over the question of "If that was your point, why the rest of the verbiage?", for now. (there is a Latin name for that, too: PRAETERITIO; Google it)

grophusharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


Son, when you've published successful books, magazine articles, and been a professional writer, then you can opine. Until then, you're clearly out of your league. I'm not even going to bother any more.

Plonk.

HEY............My name is on the window!!!

One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grophusharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Son, when you've published successful books,
> magazine articles, and been a professional writer,
> then you can opine. Until then, you're clearly out
> of your league.
>


^^^^^ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Quoted poster is embarrassed that he has been shown up as totally off base on all of his assumptions. Quoted poster has been shown up as incapable of making any logical arguments. Quoted poster has been shown up as being incapable of writing, reading and comprehending the English Language. Quoted poster has had what he uses for arguments turned against him and thrown right back at him.

Quoted poster thought that he was up against a pushover but wound up planting his face on the Virtual Sidewalk.

Therefore, quoted poster takes a cop-out.

Have a nice day!

One more time... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grophusharris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Son, when you've published successful books,
> magazine articles, and been a professional writer,
> then you can opine. Until then, you're clearly out
> of your league. I'm not even going to bother any
> more.
>


Yes, right, sure; published "successful" books, magazine articles, r-i-i-i-i-i-ghttt!

Yup, yup, yup, everybody on the internet:

1. Has an annual income in at least the high six figures, but more likely in the mid seven.

2. Owns a large home in an exclusive neighbourhood or gated community.

3. Owns vacation homes in popular European and American resorts.

4. Takes three months worth of vacations every year.

5. Is on a first name basis with at least four prominent national politicians as well as several local officials.

6. Has a supermodel/A list actress wife/GF or a rock star/star athlete husband/BF.

7. Drives an overpriced German sedan and another overpriced imported sports car.

8. Takes a minimum of six Uber Black rides daily.

9. Has the private cell phone numbers of several prominent journalists.

10. Is a frequently cited source for several large financial publications.


Yup, yup . yup......................

34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]

These were rules during assemblies for worship.
Apparently things don't go well with disorderly worship gathering.
Also, women in Corinth at the time could have had a problem in being disruptive.
Also a wife asking scriptural questions of a male religious leader with her husband standing next to her (without asking him first) is kind of a slap in the face to the husband (a disgrace not to ask him first). hence the part of "asking their own husbands at home"

So the black pickup driver didn't provide any context which made his comment on the verse more offensive than it would normally be.


Also, the following from I Timothy chapter 2 -- is about order and I am sure the feminists of today must love this passage!


9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I'm grophusharris and I'm totally butthurt.

It would be a cool experiment if you could somehow "erase" people's memories of growing up with religion, going to church, believing in the Easter bunny and Santa Claus, church picnics, etc, you know, all the stuff associated with growing up in a particular christian religion.

And then, give them the Bible, the Qoran, some Spider man and Superman comics, some philosophy books, maybe some books on other religions, and books on atheism.

And then say, you have a year to read them, do research. Then, pick one. One is real.

On one hand, they may pick the bible, because they hadn't been tricked before with Easter Bunnies and Sandy Claus. On the other hand, they might pick Spiderman.

It would be a neat experiment, seeing what religion they would pick without the social reinforcement of having grown up with it.

Would they look at the bible and say this stuff is crazy?

Good idea. Why don’t you start today. Why must the results of the experiment be determined by what the researcher has in his memory. Everyone has a memory and yet, many experiments are conducted with conclusive results. As an excuse, this one fails. Just get started and let us know what you decide.

Why don't you come up to my parlor, Son Caucasion CauseIcant, and talk to me about your memories?

grophusharris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm grophusharris and I'm totally butthurt.


Imposter