Results 221 - 240 of 281
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Parable | 48861 | ||
Lionstrong, perhaps this will clarify my meaning. Consider: 1. Something is true because I believe it. 2. I believe something because it is true. To me, #2 is the Christian world view. From what you have said, I think we agree. Yet, #1 is important to understand, for the world thinks this way. For believers, our faith confirms truth, and as a result, we make it the basis for our decisions and actions. Unbelievers lack faith because, in their estimation, there is nothing to believe in. As a result, they have no basis for their decisions, so instead, they live unto to themselves. After considering what you have said, I am drawn to Romans 10:17, which says "....faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Clearly, as you have said, without logic, we cannot understand the word and without this understanding, we cannot come to faith in Christ. I realize this sounds contrary to what I have tried to express, but I was not referring to faith in Christ. I was talking about faith in logic, e.g. without the belief that language carries meaning and meaning can be rightly understood through logic, logic becomes little more than an intellectual exercise with no bearing on our decisions. Parable |
||||||
222 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Parable | 48796 | ||
I'm struggling to see where we disagree. You make excellent points. You asked "2 Cor 5:7, do you quote this verse to mean that Scripture teaches that faith is irrational?" Quite the contrary. I'm just suggesting that faith is the first premise in any line of reasoning, even if we are not aware of this crucial first step. My point is people depend on faith, in one form or another, even when they argue against it. I agree that our faith in things unseen is not irrational. For example, in science, we have faith in things unseen, such as magnetic fields, which are well established, but no one has or will ever see one directly, yet we see how they exert their influence. It is no different for our faith in Christ. He is well established and we who see and understand His influence have faith in Him. You said "Phil 4:7 says the peace of God transcends OUR understanding, not logic. It does not teach that God's peace transcends logic; it transcends the limits of our ability to understand it." As I read it, the verse says "all" understanding, not "our", but this is hardly the point and in fact I may agree with you. However, I'm not sure logic exists without us to think it, so I'm not sure what you have said makes any real sense. That is, if we can't understand logic at some point, it might as well be gibberish, so all we have at that point is faith in God's providence. You said "Logic is the structure of God's mind. God did not create it and then gift man with it. It is eternal because God is eternal." These statements seem like a good summary of your opinion. Clearly, you have strong faith in the divine nature and integrity of logic. I'm with you. "We are rational because we are created as the image of a rational God." That we are rational is debatable. :) Finally, the centurion's very logical request followed from His faith in Christ's authority. Parable. |
||||||
223 | "This subject of election...." | 1 Tim 2:4 | Parable | 48437 | ||
Perhaps this analogy illustrates what you have said: Imagine that we are a crop grown by God. He prepares the soil, plants the seeds, waters them and warms them with the light of His love. Some of the seeds open to germanate. Some that germanate send out roots to take in water and food. Some that establish roots grow enough to break through the soil to the surface, where the light can shine directly on the seedling. Some of those seedlings survive to maturity. Then God harvests them. The question of election is, did God decide which to harvest only after they were mature, or, before, at the time of planting did he select which ones would reach maturity? If the former, our freedom to choose God out of love is real and meaningful. If the latter, we have no real choice and as a result, we do not have what God wants from us. The parables in which the Kingdom is described as a crop or fruit harvest depend on the idea that it is up to the crop or fruit to grow, albeit not on its own. How can we justify the idea that the work of sowing is just a formality? What is the point of sowing if the harvest is already established? I have no problem accepting that God can make these arrangements for us, even if He knows and/or somehow determines in advance who of us will choose Him. After all, in Christ He was able to become fully human yet retain His divine nature; this is one of the great mysteries of our faith, that He could experience every temptation and have each of them be as real for Him as they are for us. Yet, He did not fall into even the smallest one. Finally, election becomes relevant only if we think it matters to how we should respond to God's call. Do we believe that it is right for people to think that their rejection of God can be justified by the belief they are not among the elect? Or, that to justify unbelief, faith is a gift and God has not given it to them? I see no love nor justice in either of these. Parable |
||||||
224 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Parable | 48432 | ||
"If you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention!" Forgive me if I have appeared to suggest that logic should be discarded or is in any way less than trustworthy. Indeed, I agree logic is a fundamental part of productive thought, as is imagination. Without imagination, "if" has no meaning. Rather, my point is that logic itself cannot be derived logically or logically proven to be valid. You said "To proceed rationally (i.e. logically) is the ONLY way to proceed." I disagree, we are to proceed by faith. "We live by faith, not by sight." -- 2 Corinthians 5:7 Let me "prove" my point: You presented the notion that any attempt to refute the fundamental laws of logic fails because that refutation makes use of them. I submit that in like manner, any attempt to establish those laws also fails because that derivation must also make use of them. What comforts me is knowing logic is a gift from God, yet it is surpassed by the peace of God. "And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." -- Philippians 4:7 |
||||||
225 | A Christian View of Science | Acts 17:28 | Parable | 48413 | ||
This Christian's view of Science: There is no logical reason logic is valid, i.e. to use logic as a means of making decisions or deriving understanding, yet we seem to think that in many areas, logic is the best way to proceed. Obviously, there are things to which logic is not so quickly applied, e.g. art, music, culture, fashion, relationships. I hesitate to say this about faith, for we are called to love God with all our mind, meaning with the fullest conviction of our intellectual capabilities, and this no doubt includes that part of our mind that depends on logic. truth (small t) and falsehood are fundamental elements of logic, not derivable from the rules that govern analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction. They are assumed, not proven. Such is not the case for faith, except these basic elements are not merely assumed, with all the potential for error that assumption entails, but rather they are recognized when we encounter them. When God shows us Himself, through His Creation, His Word, His Incarnation as Jesus and His Presence as the Holy Spirit, He show us absolute Truth. Jesus said "I am the truth." Hence, it's only logical to conclude that if it's not of God, its not true. We need God to show Himself to us because we live in a fallen world that can be described thus: all experience is understood in terms of theory and all theory is derived from experience! Without God, there is no firm ground on which to stand, we are just vapors. Science is a human endeavor, a process based in experience, built with logic. Remarkably, it serves us well so long as we are mindful of its fundamental limitations, which are a direct consequence of our human condition. Science has only recently come to understand the profound implications of this. On its own, science is just as lost as we are without God. With God, we use science to reveal His Creation in ever more profound ways, and thereby glorify Him. That is this Christian's view of science. Parable |
||||||
226 | The Bible and Science, #1 | Gen 1:1 | Parable | 48402 | ||
p.s. Lionstrong, I intend to answer your earlier question about Dr. Ross' method, but I need to get that book back from a friend | ||||||
227 | The Bible and Science, #1 | Gen 1:1 | Parable | 48400 | ||
Depending on the overall mass of the universe, either 1). if the mass is low, the current expansion of space-time will continue indefinitely or 2). if the mass is high, the current expansion will slow down and then the universe will begin to contract, presumably back into the infinitely dense, zero-dimensional singularity from whence it came. If 1), the universe will simply unwind, like a clock-spring, eventually reaching what has been termed "heat death", when everything cools to absolute zero and its all over. However, this presumes the universe is closed, i.e. that there are no external energy supplies feeding the system. If 2), either the Big Crunch will be followed by another Big-Band or the resulting singularity will simply disappear into nothingness. So, Cosmology suggests the fate of the universe is either "heat death", oscillations of Bang/Crunch, or a one-time sequence of Bang/Crunch/goodbye. The mass question is why so many people are interested in the so-called "dark matter" currently topical in the field. Estimating the mass of the universe with what we can see results in a mass that is low, but if we can estimate how much matter exists that we cannot see directly, then we have a better idea of what direction the theories should go. Parable |
||||||
228 | The Bible and Science, #1 | Gen 1:1 | Parable | 48366 | ||
The Bible teaches that there was a beginning of the Universe (i.e. the heavens and the earth). One theory in the science of Cosmology suggests that Matter, Space, Energy and Time all had a beginning and they are all derived from the same ultimate primordial "stuff". Furthermore, we cannot derive anything whatsoever about the nature of the universe before the beginning of Matter, Space, Energy and Time because those four fundamental building blocks are what we use to describe everything that we can test with the scientific method. Parable |
||||||
229 | Can anyone answer these simple questions | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 48348 | ||
I'll try. Your question: "If a stranger invades your home and beats, rapes, mutilated, brainwashed, and/or kills your family, can these type of demons be trusted?" My answer: You can trust them to remain true to their nature. If they are alive to sin, you can trust them to be sinful. However, with God all things are possible, so if they die to sin and are born again, the old nature dies and God gives them a new nature in Him. So long as they abide in Christ and obey His commandments, you can trust that they will live according to His nature. Your question: "How or why would we think that The True Loving God would allow his name to be defiled by having such DECEIVERS BRING THE WORD OF GOD TO THE WORLD." My answer: God gives us our freewill so that we may freely accept Him. Some choose other than His ways, including what you have described. If He did not allow this, our choice to be with Him would have no meaning. People defile the Name of God in many ways, including the one you describe. Yet, God can turn every curse into a blessing; I note how persecution of the Jerusalem church caused the church to grow. Had the first Christians not been persecuted for their faith, it is doubtful they would have ever left Jerusalem. Did God persecute the church to make this happen? All that we beleive tells us the answer is "NO". Rather, we believe He did find a way to use that wickedness for His purposes. Unfortunately, the rest of your post seems to violate term #2 of this forum not to attack "the authority of the Bible". However, at the risk of promoting further violations, I respond: You said: "in order to spread the WORD OF GOD, you first have to mentally destroy an individual and then try and rebuild planting a whole new way in their head." My response: Ironically, you have described a perversion of what the Bible teaches, i.e. that we must die on the cross with Christ, then be resurrected to new life. You said: "The Truth is so powerful that all you have to do is speak it!" My response: A liar will not be believed even if he is telling the truth. I'm not sure if this statement, or anything like it is in the Bible, but it seems true enough. You said: "we don't have to pray to a priest, or minister in order to get to God." My response: True. However, we have access to God the Father only through Christ. Without the righteousness bestowed upon us by Him, we cannot enter the presence of the Father. You said: "Your spirit is your real truth, for it is God speaking to you." Jesus said: "I am the truth." You said: "No book in this world can limit, or DEFINE GOD." The Bible does neither, rather it teaches that God is real, loves us and wants to have a relationship with us. Indeed, the Bible teaches that God is limitless and cannot be defined. Parable |
||||||
230 | another hypothetical, applied ethics | James 4:7 | Parable | 47992 | ||
Your objection is noted and illustrates why considering hypotheticals can be instructive. I did not intend to imply that Satan was the source of evil, I meant only to offer an incentive for selfishness, which is always present in every situation we face. I agree that our disobedience is the reason for the Fall, yet in order for our choice to have meaning, there must be a real alternative for us to choose over God. We can choose life with God or without Him and by definition, life without God is evil and wicked. In line with your position, in Matthew 15:19, Jesus said evil deeds spring from our hearts. Yet, from whence that evil came to be in us is a mystery. We acknowledge that God's nature is not compatible with evil, yet also we acknowledge He is supreme. Fortunately, the origin of evil is irrelevant to its reality for us and to the fact we must reject it. Finally, while heaping insults upon his head is biblical, Proverbs 25:22, I submit that is not only reason to render aid. I cite Exodus 21:24, which limits revenge to be proportionate to the offense. Yet, in Matthew 5:39, Jesus tells us to submit to the offense and not retaliate at all and in 5:44, He instructs us to love our enemies. In the case of rendering aid to enemies, the OT would have us do kind deeds so that we may heap burning coals upon their heads, but Christ updates that by having us act out of love for them. Parable |
||||||
231 | another hypothetical, applied ethics | James 4:7 | Parable | 47917 | ||
Your point has merit; if we are to apply Biblical teachings, we must consider only situations the Bible would grant as possible for us to experience. In that light, we recognize that parables and allegories in Scripture cannot be taken too far beyond the main point(s) they intend to teach. If we do, we create the problems you have described. For example, we could debate the meaning of the oil in the lamps of the 10 virgins in the night. The point of the parable is "watch!" and the oil is incidental. Given that, in my opinion, Chynna's scenario, hypothetical as it was, is similar to a situation we often face, i.e. when we must "shake the dust off our sandals" and move on to the next town, knowing the people have rejected the Lord and what the consequences will be for them. In that situation, we are powerless to intervene directly on behalf of the unbeliever. I felt Chynna's scenario was designed to give us that chance. This is not necessarily unbiblical in that the Lord sometimes offers the opportunity to die for the sake of the Kingdom. Chynna's question asks us what would we do if given that chance and perhaps more profoundly, what would we want the believer to do if we were the unbeliever on trial? Regarding MY hypothetical, of course literally it too is "impossible", yet don't we face similar situations when we are in a position to help a stranger or enemy who is down and there are tangible benefits for us if we don't help them? My point in choosing the injured party to be Satan and the removal of evil as a benefit, was that the lesson of the Good Samaritan, like all God's truths to us, are not defined by circumstances but rather true for all circumstances, even the impossible ones. |
||||||
232 | The Genealogy of Jesus? | Matt 1:1 | Parable | 47832 | ||
The question of Christ's lineage is not foolish, but rather established in scripture that we might see yet another prophecy fulfilled in Him. Teengurl, the verse you cite relates to the false pride of jews who felt they were of God by virtue of their geneological charts connecting them to Abraham and that anyone without such a chart was not truly a jew. By the way, why did you change your user name? Parable |
||||||
233 | another hypothetical, applied ethics | James 4:7 | Parable | 47823 | ||
Yes, but perhaps this is for God to do, not us, because He alone is righteous. As I see it, my question relates more to the path of the paramedic than to the fate of Satan. I suggest the only option for a believer is to render aid without regard to consequences. This is consistent with Jesus' command to love our enemies, and Satan is THE Enemy. If we do nothing, we have not acted with love. In that case, we are no better than those who avoided the injured man in the story of the Good Samaritan. Also, if we let him die so present evil can be removed, I submit that present evil will be replaced with the evil that was done by us in letting him suffer and die. If we kill him, so much the more. |
||||||
234 | How to explain Jesus' exclusive claim? | John 14:6 | Parable | 47744 | ||
Excellent response! Clearly, you have the kind of insight that comes from practical experience. We should highlight this response somehow for those who later do a search on this topic. Thank you! |
||||||
235 | MASTURBATORY PROCLAMATION | 2 Cor 12:20 | Parable | 47671 | ||
Amen! Blessed are the peacemakers! Parable |
||||||
236 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | John 15:2 | Parable | 47659 | ||
In v2, Jesus says "every branch of mine". In v6, He says "if a man does not abide in me". There seems to be a distinction between branches that are in Christ and those that are not. To me, it seems reasonable that they would not be treated in the same way. |
||||||
237 | the barren branch never was a branch? | John 15:2 | Parable | 47658 | ||
I rather like Boice's view that "airo" means to "lift up" off the ground rather than "take away". To me, it is more consistent with the idea of branches actually being in Christ and His intention of making them fruitful. Otherwise, we must read into His words that some branches He referred to as "in Him" really were not or that barreness really means "dead", requiring us to explain how branches once alive in Him actually died or finally that He is expecting US, and not the Holy Spirit, to be the agent of our fruitfulness. Thanks for the commentary notes! Parable |
||||||
238 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 47656 | ||
I am dismayed that you have resorted to invective. Specifically, I object to your use of the following phrases: "If there is anyone out there who is truly a Christian or who honestly wants to follow in a Lord/discipleship relationship with Jesus Christ" and "the spiritual status of this Forum is about as vibrant as a cold dead corpse. Is there ANYONE out there that is seeking a close relationship to Jesus Christ? Do all want to justify sin in wake of what the Bible and what our consciences clearly tell us?" These remarks are not consistent with the second rule governing posts to this forum, found in the green box after you hit "preview". It reads "This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum." Furthermore, Matthew 7:1-2 instructs "1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Regarding Mark 9:43, Jesus did not talk about "doing away" with "thoughts", he said to "cut off" "hand" or "foot" or to "pluck out" the "eye" if they cause you to sin. Yet, I acknowledge that it would violate Matthew 7:1-2 if I said that because you soften Jesus' words that you don't want to be a "real Christian" or that your spiritual status is "cold" and "dead". Regarding Matthew 19:12, you say "Jesus clearly led them to believe that it was a reachable or attainable goal, by giving them some examples in verse 12. The examples Jesus gave in verse 12 are eunuchs; "12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." The footnote [3], at biblegateway.com, says the word translated "renounced marriage" can be translated "have made themselves eunuchs". As I understand the term eunuch, that is a male who is castrated. Is this what you meant by "attainable goal"? Is this how we can handle our "sex drive AND be able to remain pure and undefiled in both a marriage relationship and as a single person without a "necessity" to masturbate"? I submit Jesus discussion rather demonstrates that it takes EXCEPTIONAL circumstances to maintain continence and He only expects some to be able to accept this, yet He does not hold it against those who cannot. Parable |
||||||
239 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 47622 | ||
Once again, my intent is not to justify masturbation, but rather give account for my belief the Bible does not speak to it. This is indeed the point of your remark "...warn us against those who use Scripture or teach against what has been clearly revealed to us as the Truth". This whole discussion is about what it is that has been CLEARLY revealed as the Truth. With regard to my wife, I am not seeking the counsel of anyone on this or any other internet forum. I shared a personal example from my life in the hope that it might comfort others who may be struggling with excessive guilt over their own practices and to offer a suggestion as to how to manage themselves with a balance between discipline and compassion. "Just Say No", although a great idea, never was very effective for people struggling with drug addiction and in my experience, it's not much use for those who have normal, healthy sexual drive but who don't wish to fornicate or be adulterous. This is especially true for adolescents dealing with the powerful hormones driving their development. Teens please note: sexual energy is powerful and it must be respected with the utmost seriousness; do not think that masturbation cannot become a serious problem physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. If I have misquoted you, I sincerly apologize. So that I won't misunderstand you, as you suggest, please clarify what you mean by "You can misquote or misunderstand me to any degree that you prefer." Finally, I note that you did not respond to my questions about Mark 9:43 and Matthew 19:11. I can see how my asking might be contrued as insincere, but I genuinely am interested in how you apply or do not apply them to this topic. Thanks for your patience with me. Parable |
||||||
240 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 47617 | ||
My purpose was to consider the verses you suggested. So, I presented them in full and noted how in the discussion of sexual sin, each emphasized conduct with another person. Parable |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |