Results 281 - 300 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232785 | ||
EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 21:20,21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |
||||||
282 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232786 | ||
EdB, After rereading your earlier post I fear I might have put words into your mouth with regards to something. I said: Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Now you did state the property part and the being beaten part but you did not connect the two explicitly in your post. So if that was an unfair reading of your view point forgive me. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
283 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232787 | ||
Dear Jenny, It has occured to me that perhaps instead of discussing slavery with those who have attempted to answer you, perhaps I should give you my own thoughts on God's view of slavery. I pray you excuse the length, but a simple answer probably wouldn't ease your mind even if it was accurate. First, you ask does God "approve" slavery. Now that is quite a hard phrasing to answer. You might perhaps mean does he think it is a good thing. I'm not sure how I would answer that. However, let's begin with that when we look to scripture, God "permits" slavery in Old Testament Israel. He gives multiple guidelines concerning it, but at the end of the day we must acknowledge that he does permit it. Now if I understand EdB correctly (I may not) the thrust of his arguement is that we must not take God's permitting slavery and import all the horrible ideas of slavery which we have seen outside the biblical picture of it. If that is his thrust then he is quite right. That is exactly how we must approach this. We admit that God permitted slavery and then we must make sure we understand the exact nature of the slavery which God permitted. If we do not carefully do that we will end up saying that God permitted horrible things such as murder, rape, maiming, and other attrocities that have gone hand in hand with wicked instances of slavery in history. However, as we begin to seperate these wicked things from the biblical picture of slavery we must be careful that we don't rule out some of the things which biblical slavery does permit. For example. I do think in scripture that there is a clear notion of owndership over the slave. I do think that Exodus 21:20 is getting at the idea of the slave being property. There is owndership that does actually seem to alter some of the slaves rights. What I mean is, a normal Israelite would have to be brought before a judge, an elder, a king, or something in order to be beaten. Why? Because no offended man had the right to simply assert himself as the judge, jury, and executioner of the one who offended him. It would be sin to simply say to another Israelite, "You have offended me and now I will punish you for it." With slaves we see a different picture. In Exodus 21:20,21 we see that there is no grounds to punish a master who has beaten his slave. I believe what we are seeing here is that there is a clear recognition that the master DOES have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner over the slave. And it seems to me that verse 21 says that the grounds for his right to do so is that he is the authority over his slave based upon the fact that he owns the slave. Now, before anybody accuses me of something I don't affirm. We must acknowledge that scripture sets very specific limits on this. Should he even cause the slave to loose a tooth in disciplining him then the slave becomes a free man on account of it. This is in the same passage! Exodus 21:27. Other similiar statements are made. So we see it is simply permission to have his slave punished in a similiar way the elders would punish another Israelite. Not license for whatever cruel torture he desires. I would articulate it like this. "While biblical slavery acknowledges the ownership of the slave and affirms him as the property of the master, it constantly remembers that what is owned is a human being with a certain God-given dignity." As we protect the scriptural notion of slavery from wicked practices that has accompanied worldly slavery, we must still be carefull not to misrepresent it as something better than it actually was. I will address this further in a second post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
284 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232788 | ||
Dear Jenny, This is part two of my reply. I hope that all will read part 1 first. I would like to answer the natural question of, "Why would God permit slavery?" We have seen that he does permit it, but now I ask WHY. Now the most common answer I have heard regarding this is to point to the social function of slavery as ultimately something needed and good. What I mean is that the natural way in which one became a slave was extreme poverty. The slave was going to starve to death due to poverty and as a result the choice was between death and slavery. Slavery is surely a mercy compared with death. God's appointment of such a system provided people with an opportunity to live and one day be free again standing on their own two feet. I think we are right to say these things. I do not think it goes far enough in explaining the good intentions which God had with regards to slavery. Slavery served a gospel purpose. Almost everything in their culture was designed by God to prepare for and point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The priesthood is one example. Through being very familiar with the priesthood, the jewish people were able to easily understand the notions of Christ coming and functioning as a priest to attone for their sins by sacrifice. Now I would argue that slavery also formed a similiar function. I believe that God allowed slavery not merely for some social good, but so that Israel could understand what it meant to be enslaved, to long for freedom, to emotionally and mentally grasp the notion of a redeemer, to long for the seventh year when they would be set free, and to look forward to the day of Jubilee when all captives would be set free from their bonds and receive an inheritance and a place in the people of God. These are gospel hopes! All of these things which could not have been taught so clearly without slavery, served to teach what was coming on a spiritual level. I think that is why God "permited" what he was ultimately going deliver from. For all things are from Him, and through Him, and for Him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
285 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232794 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. You definitely have a persecution complex and I feel very confident that any review of any of our exchanges by any authority figure would come to the same conclusion. However, if it lets you rest easier, you may be assured that I don't intend to exchange posts with you in the future if at all possible. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
286 | SEEMS CONTRADICTION IN NUM 20:21-22. | Numbers | Beja | 229820 | ||
donaldb, I do not know that I can answer perfectly to your satisfaction, but let me give you some pointers on reading the story as a whole, because it is wonderful. Read it from the perspective of the peopleof Israel concerning God's faithfulness to His people. The story begins with individuals plotting the destruction of God's people in secret with the people of Israel completely unaware, and therefore unable to defend themselves in any way from this threat. Scripture itself seems to take the threat seriously. The point of the story is God faithfully standing between harm and his people. What at the beginning of the story is a secret threat which could possibly destroy the people is through the corse of the story made into something so foolish it is being rebuked by a donkey and ultimately ends with God turning the entire event to a blessing being pronounced over his people by their enemies. Read the story with that in mind and see if it is not wonderful to you as you consider the faithfulness of God watching over the saints from threats we would never even suspect! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
287 | questions on Numbers 5 | Num 5:5 | Beja | 227017 | ||
Azure, I will not suggest that I've mastered all those passages. In fact, I am a bit hesitant to answer since I have spent so little time meditating on the texts you are asking about. But seeing as an answer to your question has been slow incoming I'll make a few points. First, you asked, "In V5, what does it mean by "commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the LORD" If that sin was an act unfaithful against the Lord, then why that restitution be made to the one whom wronged? and why to the relative in V8?" We have to understand that there is a sense in which when we wrong man, the chief person offended is God. Pro 14:31 He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him. So we see that after David was guilty of both murder and adultery he is still able to say in Psalm 51 Psa 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Now I do not believe for a moment that David truely thought he hadn't sinned against Bathsheba and her husband. But even when sinning against another person, there is a sense in which the most offended party is God. So we see a command that restitution is to be made to the people whom we wrong and God both. Should I steal from somebody, I can repay it to the man I stole from and bring reconciliation between us, but then I must still have reconcilliation between me and God. Which is found in Christ alone. Now concerning the relative. This is for clarification should the one sinned against be dead. In that case the restituion was to go to the nearest relative. And should that be lacking, it was to go to the LORD, but it had to be paid. All this is "besides the ram of attonement" which was to be the reconcilliation between the sinner and God (verse 8). Second, you ask how such a discussion fits within a section of scripture which is primarilly military. Now here is where I have not done due dilligence in digging through the context myself. I have of course read numbers, just not recently. However, let me ask a question. Do you suppose after the battle of Ai, when a man named Achan had defiled the people of Israel by sinning and the results of sin undealt with found its fruition in the people of Israel being defeated in battle, do you suppose that Israel saw an intimate connection between sin, restitution, cleansing and holiness, and victory in battle? I hope this has helped. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
288 | ... | Num 12:7 | Beja | 227240 | ||
Vicki Tracy, I have one major problem with what you are saying. You are saying that they are able to take shape for us "like Jesus did." This is a major error. Jesus did not take human shape for our sakes. He actually took on humanity, became an actual human being. If you wish to speculate that the Father or the Holy Spirit has at some time taken the shape of a human being for us then that is fine. I think it is incorrect but that is still, imo, within bounds. But we must always keep a distinction between what goes onthere and what went on in the incarnation. When they Holy Spirit decended in the likeness of a dove, it did not actually become a flesh and blood dove to live and die as a dove. It simply took the appearance of one. Christ did not simply take the appearance of a human being. He actually became one in order to live and die as one for our sakes. So if you wish to say that the Father took human shape or form to walk with any given Old Testament saint then fine. But please do not confuse that with what Christ did in actually becoming human. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
289 | High handed sins | Num 15:30 | Beja | 226946 | ||
In the course of studying my attention was brought to Numbers 15:30 Num 15:30 'But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. I have quite a few thoughts on how it is to be understood. However, when I began to do some research to see how other men of God have viewed this, I have found myself unable to even find a single instance of a commentator dealing with this verse. Not one! I even finally typed in the verse in google. It is as if this passage were the plague. So my question is not so much for this verse to be explained by those reading this question, but rather can you point me to some good commentary or discussion on this verse? I'm wanting to get a feel of how this verse has been dealt with by past Christians. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
290 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224840 | ||
Inquisitor, How then do you explain these passages? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniqEph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. uity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (emphasis mine to show which part I want you to explain.) Rom 5:16-19 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. We must be very careful with this doctrine, because at the heart of Christianity lies this presupposition: A man can be judged by the merits or failures of another. If we take away that concept we have taken away the very gospel we preach. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
291 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224841 | ||
I have no idea how my cut and paisting smudged my first two verses together so allow me to repost them. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. (emphasis mine to draw attention to the part I want you to explain.) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. |
||||||
292 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224843 | ||
Inquisitor, So you agree that our basic nature is to rebel? That means the problem is not at the level of our actions, but of our very nature or disposition which then leads to our actions. Children have this flaw as much as any man does. As the father of a 3 year old I can assure you of that. I deny that adam and eve had this same flaw. I could not tell from your post if you agree with that point. However, if that also is granted then what shall we say? Every one with us are born with the natural inclination to sin and rebel, and that we inherit from Adam. And when did Adam obtain this flaw? When he first chose to sin. How can we but say that each and every one of us are cursed with this rebelious and sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin? So the end result is that even a newborn infant, because of the sin of Adam is a little sin factory. By nature even that infant is deep down inclined to sin. They don't have to wait and make a choice to have that inclination. And is that inclination itself not sinful? Our very disposition is sinful, not merely our actions. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
293 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224846 | ||
Inquisitor, The reason I so often neglect your verses is because you just post a great many with no explination of what you intend to show by them. I really don't know what you are trying to prove by the verses you used. Second, you greatly missunderstood my reply by breaking it up as you did. Many of those questions were meant to be rhetorical. Not really asking you. Also I would suggest you are saying two conflicting things in your post. On one hand you say, "As a father and grandfather, I can agree that our kids can be a major pain when they don't get their way. But don't you see, they don't see anything wrong with that screaming, hollering and misbehaving. All they know they're not getting what they consider they gotta have." You are suggesting that their ignorance makes them innocent. But I'm pointing out what it is that they do in their ignorance. They do not do "right" up until the point they learn enough to be tempted. My point is that in their ignorance they do "wrong" up to the point they can be taught to do right. This shows what they are by nature. Their natural born tendency is to do things that are wrong. So on one hand you affirm that in their ignorance they do things that they ought not do, and on the other you say they are not by nature sinful. I suggest that is contradictory. As another note, in no relation to this discussion, I can very seldom follow any of your posts. Very often you wonder at my not replying to things you say, but the honest truth is I dont' reply because I don't understand you. Could you help me by maybe at the end of your post clearly stating in a concise sentence or two what you feel your post has shown and what I should respond to? I don't say this to be mean. I've simply tried to not mention it several times but it keep impairing our communication on these forums. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
294 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224848 | ||
Inquisitor, I've spent more time reading this post of yours, 224842. To your question, "Please explain as thoroughly as you can why this concept is so important to the very gospel we preach." And that was refering to my notion that being judged based on the merits or failures of another is central to the gospel. This is why: 1.) Jesus was condemned for our failures, not His. 2.) We are blessed and rewarded for His righteousness, not ours. That is the gospel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
295 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224851 | ||
Inquisitor, (I received an error first time I tried to post this, forgive me if it double posts.) Here is some further posts from some saints wiser than I. The Belgic Confession The Doctrine of Original Sin (Article 15) We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race. It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy - not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death." 1689 Baptist Confession Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof (Chapter 6) 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (end quotes) On that last line when he says, "yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin" what that is saying is that not only is the actions we take sin, but also this defiled nature that prompts us on and causes us to long for sin is itself sin and therefore worthy of condemnation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
296 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224852 | ||
I'll reply to my own post to save annoyance. Here is something Calvin wrote in the Intitutes of the Christian Religion. Book 2, Chapter 8, section 2. He speaks here concerning the ideas of our own inability from whatever reason being an inadiquate defense against judgement from God. "And we cannot pretend the excuse that we lack ability and, like impoverished debtors, are unable to pay. It is not fitting for us to measure God's glory according to our ability; for whatever we may be, he remains always like himself: the friend of righteousness, the foe of iniquity. Whatever he requires of us (because he can require only what is right), we must obey out of natural obligation. But what we cannot do is our own fault. If our lust in which sin reigns so holds us bound that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no reason why we should claim necessity as a defense, for the evil of that necessity is both within us and to be imputed to us." The idea here is that somebody might say that if we are unable to obey then we can not be blamed. Calvin's response is to say that the very fact that you are so wicked that you are incapable of obeying is not reason for your pardon, but reason for your destruction. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
297 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224857 | ||
Ariel and thread, Just as a point of clarification where I stand, I don't actually think that infants who die are without hope. I do believe there is such a thing as an age of accountability even though I can't prove it conclusively through scripture. However, the main point I want to get across is this: If infants who die are indeed saved, even then it is because of GRACE, not because they are righteous. Anyways, I don't put that forward to disagree with you but rather to make sure I haven't mislead the readers as to where I stand. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
298 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224885 | ||
Inquisitor, The verses you posted in 224842 don't actually say anything regarding the innocence of children. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
299 | The Scripture | Deuteronomy | Beja | 232080 | ||
RondiaD, What initial thoughts/questions do you have when you prayerfully read it? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
300 | Searching for the truth | Deut 6:5 | Beja | 222468 | ||
FytRobert, The intended function of the human body, soul, and spirit is to, "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut 6:5.) You are entirely purposed for the glory of the Lord. "the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (1 Cor 6:13.) Also, "you were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Cor 6:20.) All of your body, soul, mind, spirit, strength, will, whatever, is all for one function, the glory of God! Therefore, "whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 cor 10:31) This is for both now, and while you are in heaven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [40] >> |