Results 101 - 120 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104904 | ||
Hi, Leo; "God is not the author of confusion... but boy oh boy man sure is." You got that right. - Indy |
||||||
102 | Sexual orientation determined at birth | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104899 | ||
Hi, Pastor Glenn; I appreciate your comments and, no, I don't think you're picking nits. You're right, science (properly, in my opinion) does not take man's sinful nature into account. In the long run, that's why science will never discover the ultimate source (the "first cause") of homosexual behavior. But let's be clear about the term "sexual orientation". Before anyone claimed that homosexuality was simply an "alternate lifestyle", there was no such thing as "sexual orientation". It was only when a handful of psychologists decided that homosexual acts were "normal" for some people that the need arose to find an explanation other than psychological disorder. This change took place in the 1970s. After all, there never was a need to explain heterosexual acts - they were just normal, expected human behavior. The liberals, of course, claim that the Biblical prohibitions ignore sexual orientation. They say that Paul didn't know about sexual orientation because it was just "discovered" in the last century. They say that the prohibitions only apply to heterosexuals actimg in a way contrary to their nature. They say that the prohibitions don't apply to "natural" homosexuals (i.e. men and women whose sexual orientation leads them toward sex with people of the same gender). In an odd way the liberals have part of it right: The Bible doesn't specifically address sexual orientation because it didn't exist in the first century. Nor does it exist in the 21st. "Homosexual orientation" is nothing more than a particular person's prediliction for a particular kind of sin. So I think the passage in Romans describes homosexual behavior, not sexual orientation. The lust is just plain old lust. God wouldn't be any more pleased if the men burned with lust for the women instead of for each other. Sexual orientation goes deeper than acts or even lusts. It goes to the fundamental nature of the person. It says that even if a person remains utterly chaste in both thought and deed, he or she would still have an inborn tendency to prefer either same- or opposite-gender sex. Or both. Don't underestimate the liberals on this one. They have worked very hard to hide their distortions of Scripture in exotic interpretations of ancient Greek and plausible scientific theories. Theirs is a clever decepion. By coming up with an explanation ("sexual orientation") that the Bible does not address, they have fooled many people into believing that the Bible doens't really say what it clearly says. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
103 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104881 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; This is purely my opinion, not without basis in Scripture, but nothing I believe I can "prove". I think God allows us to do things so we can learn about him and about ourselves. Speaking as a father, there were certainly plenty of times when my kids were younger that I just knew one of them was going to disobey. Rather than stand guard and force them to obey, I sometimes left the room, allowing them to choose to turn on the light after bedtime or snatch a cookie when I wasn't looking. They needed to learn about consequences. It's a lot easier to internalize a rule when you break it and pay the penalty. These lessons must be learned in order to handle freedom responsibly - i.e. when the kids go off to college. God warned Adam and Eve; indeed Eve admitted that "God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3) But knowing a rule - and even knowing the consequences of breaking it - don't necessarily produce an obedient heart. I think the New Covenant shows that God values an obedient heart over mere observance of rules. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
104 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104879 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I could have assumed Lucifer, but given some of the weird ideas that turn up here from time to time ... well, you never know. - Indy |
||||||
105 | Sexual orientation determined at birth | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104873 | ||
Hi, kalos; Disagree. But not on any Scriptural basis. I have to agree with the liberals who say that the Bible does not specifically address sexual orientation. Scientists have studied this question, however. Despite the best efforts of some to spin it otherwise, science has shown that sexual orientation is not genetically determined. Note that I am citing science rather than Scripture only because the Bible does not specifically address sexual orientation. Don't get me wrong - homosexual behavior is specifically forbidden in the passages you cited. The prohibition is real; the Bible's silence on sexual orientation in particular provides no excuse. Scripture does deal with sinful desires in general - they are the result of our fallen nature and our inclination toward sin. Since homosexual behavior is a sin, we can safely say that the desire to indulge in it is a consequence of the sinful nature. Whether or not sexual orientation is determined genetically at birth is an interestinq question, but the answer doesn't lead to the acceptance of homosexual behavior by the church. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
106 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104872 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; I can only find two mentions of Gabriel in the Bible - helping Daniel interpret visions in chapters 8 and 9 and announcing Jesus' birth to Zacharias and Mary in Luke 1. Where does it say that Gabriel is now opposed to God? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
107 | Why Is Leviticus11 Ignored by Christians | Rom 10:4 | stjones | 104871 | ||
Hi, TomBrooklyn; I think that Christians don't abide by the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 for the same reason that Christian women don't present themselves for purification after giving birth (Leviticus 12) or go to a priest instead of a dermatologist when they have a skin disorder (Leviticus 13). For a discussion of this topic search for ID# 103732 in the "Quick Search" box. I think the passages referenced in that thread make it pretty clear that for the Christian, there is no longer a distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals. For those who choose to live under the Law, of course, the distinction is critical. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
108 | Was Judas truly repentent? | Matt 27:3 | stjones | 104686 | ||
Greetings, Chusarcik I think he might have been; I don't know for sure. If you have LOTS of time on your hands, search for message # 3132. You will find a long, often impassioned discussion on this subject. Happy reading! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
109 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104607 | ||
Hi, Leox; No, Jesus was not created by God. As the Amplified passage shows, Jesus was referring to himself as the one who originated creation (see John 1:3). He preceded creation (John 1:1-2); he was not a part of it. Jesus was begotten of God - God's son. God didn't create his son any more than I created my children. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
110 | Isa. 7:14 -- "virgin" or "young woman"? | Is 7:14 | stjones | 104519 | ||
Hi, kalos; Thanks for the kind words. I run into that attitude a lot - sometimes in myself. - Indy |
||||||
111 | Isa. 7:14 -- "virgin" or "young woman"? | Is 7:14 | stjones | 104487 | ||
Hi, kalos; I posted a few messages about the relationship between the virgins in Isaiah and Matthew some time ago. You participated early in the thread, but you may not have seen any of the later stuff since at some point it was removed from the home page. Anyway, I provided some information from a class I was taking. You may find it relevant to the interpretation of the NET Bible. I have to say that rendering the woman in question in Isaiah a "young woman" rather than a "virgin" would probably make my comments more palatable to some forum members. If you're interested, search for message #71993. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
112 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104399 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Don't get too puffed up; I only meant to thank you once. ;-) ;-) ;-) But thanks again. - Indy |
||||||
113 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104398 | ||
Hi, wordoer; I'd be willing to discuss this further but I'm afraid I've shot my bolt. I've explained why I believe all the passages cited (in Mark 7, 1 Timothy 4, 1 Corinthians 10 and Acts 10), taken as a whole, convey the same message: ": Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" (Mark 7:19) I know I'm repeating myself, but Jesus stated unequivocally: "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him." (Mark 7:15) What effect does eating a pork chop have one me? But to address your questions: 1) "Where does the Word of God teach 'unclean animals' are for 'food'?" a) Assuming that "food" is what I eat, the above passages make it clear an unclean animal can be eaten. b) Acts 10:9-16 includes examples of "unclean" animals that Peter is told to eat (make them "food"), together with this admonition: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 10:15) 2) "What leads you to believe there are no unclean animals?" See 1b above. There may be a sense in which an animal is still unclean but can nonetheless be eaten (because all can be eaten), but I don't think it would be relevant to a discussion that started with a question about eating pork. As I've explained, I can find nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating pork, even if swine are still unclean under the Law of Moses. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
114 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104395 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I always appreciate encouragement from one of the forum's stalwarts. - Indy |
||||||
115 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | stjones | 104394 | ||
Hi, Ray; Thanks for the reply. You always seem to come at things from a new direction - new to me anyway. I'll have to contemplate what you've said. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
116 | Is lifting His name related to this vs? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104392 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; Well said. Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
117 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104262 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I appreciate your taking the time to say so. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
118 | Is lifting His name related to this vs? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104090 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; No blasting. I have developed an aversion to generalities, especially blanket condemnations of "the modern church" or "most Christians", etc. But I see that you didn't intend anything of the kind and I apologize if I blasted you earlier. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
119 | Kathy, Is "Lifting His name" Biblical? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104088 | ||
Searcher; I'm afraid you are flirting with an intellectual fraud called deconstructionism. You keep bringing up John 12:32. I don't know if the songwriters who have expressed the idea of "lifting up" Jesus' name relied on John 12:32 or not. You haven't shown that they did, so I suspect you don't know either. Certainly nothing in the context of the two songs I've posted remotely suggests anything beyond simply exalting or praising Jesus. But deconstructionism comes to your rescue. The theory is that words have no intrinsic meaning and they cannot reliably convey what was in the author's mind when the song was written. Therefore the critic can ignore the author's intent and attach any motive and meaming he likes to the words. The writer can now be condemned for saying something he didn't say, or, conversely, what he did say can now be twisted to mean what the critic wants it to mean. Did Pastor Jack Hayford have John 12:32 in mind when he wrote "So exalt, lift up on high the name of Jesus. Magnify, come glorify Christ Jesus the King."? Did Rick Founds when he wrote "Lord, I lift your name on high"? Who cares? You have imposed your meaning on the words and now you can comfortably judge the songwriters and those who sing the songs and find them guilty of eisegesis. I can't understand why anyone would be so unwilling to simply read the songs that these two brothers in Christ have written and partake of the joy and gratitude and love of the Lord that they have expressed. Must everything be a hunt for little heresies? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3-4) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
120 | Kathy, Is "Lifting His name" Biblical? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104084 | ||
Kathy; I've tried to make that point; perhaps you'll have a better result. I give up. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [33] >> |