Results 261 - 280 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | IN PSALMS 37:4 | Psalm | stjones | 20054 | ||
Hi, Charlotte; I think I would say "holy happiness" - happiness that comes not from the world and its pleasures and wickedness but from the joy of God's grace. More specific to this context, Psalms 1 (1-3)and 119 (69-71, 76-78, 91-93, 173-175) talk about delighting in the law. Taken as a whole, these passages convey the idea that the law provides access to God's love, providence, protection, and salvation. So I think it would be safe to say that "delight" means to find satisfaction or joy in these things. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
262 | IN PSALMS 37:4 | Psalm | stjones | 20211 | ||
Hi, Searcher; Thanks for the info. I don't know if you read the ancient biblical languages but I don't read either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek. So I run hot and cold on using a lexicon. Since I can't put the word into its original context anyway, I don't always find a lexicon helpful for interpreting specific words. I usually rely instead on different translations, trusting that their choice of a word - "delight", for example - is based on both an understanding of the ancient context and the usage of the modern word. Where I do find a lexicon helpful is in identifying different thoughts in seemingly similar passages. I suppose the classic example is discovering the Greek words rendered as "love" in Jesus' dialog with Peter in John 21. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
263 | IN PSALMS 37:4 | Psalm | stjones | 20308 | ||
Very cool. Many thanks. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
264 | The Forum Continues To Grow | Ps 119:105 | stjones | 103042 | ||
Hi, Hank; I drop by less frequently because of the strident messages that seem to dominate so many of the threads. This saddens me because I have been truly blessed and instructed by the sometimes impassioned but always civil discussions that I have had with many people here. I have participated in thoughtful, sometimes lengthy threads on such topics as the historicity of Geneses 1, the fate of Judas, baptism, praise music, and others. In those discussions I often proposed a distinctly minority view. None of you whose opinions and teaching I respect (I hope you know who you are!) ever called a traditional doctrine I defended "Satanic" or tried to intimidate or insult me into submission. None of you ever suggested that I was too "stupid" to understand your brilliant (or divinely delivered, or "obvious") explanation. None of you suggested that I wasn't saved because I disagreed with you. None of you offered blanket condemnations of "most Christians", or "the modern church", or whatever part of the Body of Christ you might disapprove of. Most importantly, none of you who display true wisdom, humility, and grace ever seemed to think that God was so tiny he could be stuffed into a box of your own mind's making. But more and more it seems your voices of sweet reason, speaking the truth in love, are drowned out by other voices. Shrill accusations, verbal intimidation, pompous pronouncements, pride of self, and outright heresy darken the discussion. Jesus said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35) Jesus' disciples can disagree. When we disagree lovingly, we show the world Jesus. I won't presume to question whether this form member or that is a believer. But I will say unequivocally that some here show the world Jesus while others show only themselves. I pray that I have more often been one of the former. Just my two cents' worth, although that valuation may be inflated. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
265 | The Forum Continues To Grow | Ps 119:105 | stjones | 103702 | ||
Hank and BradK; Thanks for the encouragement. Perhaps I won't let myself get chased just yet. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
266 | The Forum Continues To Grow | Ps 119:105 | stjones | 103829 | ||
Why, thanks, Ma'am. You've been a welcome (and prolific!) addition to our little free-for-all. Indy |
||||||
267 | People want answers! | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107724 | ||
If I may be so bold.... Perhaps this is not the place to find definitive answers. This forum encourages the exchange of ideas - good, bad, foolish, insightful, even evil perhaps. As soon as you have a panel of "experts", you kill the interchange of ideas. Once the "expert" provides the "correct" interpretation, the dialog ends. No thanks. I have learned from most of the old hands around here. And I have disagreed with every one of them at one time or another. I don't consider any of them - or all of them - qualified to answer every question. I'm sure they all agree that I'm not qualified either. I promise that if the Holy Spirit starts posting answers here, I'll re-think my position. Anyone care to stake that claim? Worse, your proposal relieves all participants of the obligation to be good Bereans and to question every word posted here. The Lockman Foundation does a decent job of sending most of the kooks and whackos packing. They warn visitors that the opinions expressed may not represent commonly-held views. But iron doesn't sharpen iron without friction, heat, and sparks. You can't do serious Bible study by asking questions and passively accepting the answers. The Bereans didn't; I won't either. I commend the Lockman Foundation for having the courage and the faith to make this forum available. You folks are asking for a different web site with a different purpose. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
268 | Is it true? | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107733 | ||
Hi, Aixen7z4; You can't have it both ways. You say that the questioners "could be aggressive in expressing their thoughts", yet you object to that very behavior today. How will you compel questioners to end by "asking the 'experts' how those thoughts squared with Scripture"? As for the Bereans, they were indeed exceptional. So was Jesus. Should Christians not strive to be exceptional? We would do better to encourage all visitors to test every word rather than spoon feed them with "expert" answers. You said "I do fear that if we abridge the freedom of the participants to come on and pontificate, that they may not come at all." I wonder if you can make the same statement reversing the "we" and "they": "I do fear that if they abridge the freedom of the participants to come on and pontificate, we may not come at all." Are you among those who pontificate? Do you see yourself as a questioner or an "expert"? Indeed, I would like everyone who is calling for "experts" to state unequivocally that they would submit to the judgment of the "experts" if they were not among the chosen few. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
269 | Would I submit? | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107777 | ||
Fair enough. Probably time to let it go. - Indy |
||||||
270 | 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 |
||||||
271 | 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 |
||||||
272 | The Bible the only guide for USA law | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104984 | ||
Hi, kalos; Disagree. The Mosaic Law was given to a nation chosen by God with a king of God's choosing (Deut 17:14-15). The laws of that nation were to be adjudicated by judges chosen for each tribe (Deut 16:18) in courts that included the Levitical priesthood (Deut. 17:8-9). That nation no longer exists as a political entity, so there is no longer a civil society for it to govern. Jesus distinguished between the Kingdom of God and the civil authorities (Matthew 22:16-21), as did Paul (Romans 13:1-6). Paul wrote that the civil authorities were God's servants and exercised power instituted by God, but neither Jesus nor Paul asserted that the Roman Senate or Emperor were subject to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 1, Paul condemned the pagan religion of Rome, but not the exercise of political power by the Roman civil authorities, pagan or otherwise. I think American Christians should accept the historical reality that ours is a secular nation established by the Constitution. The Constitution reflects the values and beliefs primarily of Christians, Deists, and a handful of Enlightenment philosophers. It is a political document with no mention of Jesus or even God. There is a great deal that could be said about the role of religion - any religion - in American society and politics and about what part Christians should play. But that's a different discussion. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
273 | The Bible the only guide for USA law | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104999 | ||
And thank you, kalos. I hope you get some more takers. And I'll be interested in your take. - Indy |
||||||
274 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105009 | ||
Hi, Kathy; Traditionally, an act of civil disobedience has involved two things, (1) publicly violating a law perceived to be unjust and (2) publicly accepting the correspondingly unjust punishment. The intent is to change the law. A modern variant (60s and 70s) is to violate a law in order to call public attention to some other injustice. An example of the more tradional form was 42-year-old Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus (as the law in Montgomery, Alabama required all blacks to do) in 1955. She was subsequently arrested and the resulting publicity eventually produced a change in the law. This kind of civil disobedience is nearly always peaceful - at least on the part of the protester. Probably the most famous practitioner of non-violent civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi, who almost single-handedly broke British rule of India by doing nothing more than sit quietly and refuse to obey a particular law. An example of the modern variant was the Berrigan brothers (Phillip and Daniel, both Catholic priests) who occupied or vandalized government property to protest the war in Vietnam. It is important to note that the Berrigans were not protesting the trespassing and vandalism laws they broke; they broke the laws to call attention to their views on the war. This form of civil disobedience is also more prone to violence on the part of the protester. The key, of course, is determining whether or not a law is so unjust that obedience to it is unconscionable. The protesters I mentioned believed that to leave such laws intact was to stand by and see fellow citizens suffer intolerable treatment. To remain passive in the face of oppression was to participate in the oppression. Gandhi's conscience was shaped by his Hindu beliefs. Most of the early Civil Rights leaders' consciences were shaped by the Bible and Christianity. Anti-war protesters' consciences were shaped by many things - Christianity, universal human rights, pacifism, hatred of Richard Nixon, and popular culture. For the Christian, the heart of the matter is probably Romans 13:5 and 7: "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." "Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." My follow-up to kalos' question is this: When one breaks a law and waits quietly for the authorities, offers no resistance to arrest, offers no defense other than conscience, and accepts the punishment, has one submitted to the authorities as Paul admonished us to do? Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
275 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105123 | ||
Hi, Kathy; Thanks for your kind words. You've already received other responses, but I'll follow up anyway. I described what I think is one form of "violation of conscience" - when to accept the current situation is to stand by and see fellow citizens suffer intolerable treatment. To remain passive in the face of oppression is to participate in the oppression, especially if one has the power to oppose or alter it. The second kind of "violation of conscience" is when the civil authorities compel one to act in a way contrary to one's own consience. Graduating from high school in 1963, I knew many young men who evaded or resisted the draft out of fear or pure selfishness. I knew a few who evaded the draft because their consciences would not allow them to kill somebody or help another to do the killing. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
276 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105124 | ||
Hi, kalos; A follow-up question: When one breaks a law which causes no damage or harm to another, waits quietly for the authorities, offers no resistance to arrest, offers no defense other than conscience, and accepts the punishment prescribed by law, has one submitted to the authorities as Paul admonished us to do? Is this not very similar to what Jesus did? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
277 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105132 | ||
Hi, Ed; Very good points, but I see one problem in your approach (which I'll express in the first person just because it's easier to say): I'm not Jesus. I don't have his earthly ministry and I can't carry out his mission of establishing his church on earth. Jesus is my spiritual role model and goal, but I can't live his life. Like most Christians, I don't have a full-time ministry; I'm not a full-time missionary. Unlike Jesus, I have a job, a family, and a daughter to put through college. The Bible tells us about Jesus and the leaders of the early church. But what about the thousands of converts in Acts 2? There's nary a word about how they lived out their lives as faithful disciples of Christ while earning a living and raising a family. Once again, I'll flirt with what some folks will consider blasphemy - I don't find the Bible to be a very practical guide to life. Is it a sin to drive an SUV? Is it Ok for my daughter to attend a secular university? How much should I give the United Way? We celebrated my older daughter's birthday at a moderately expensive restaurant last night; should we have eaten rice and given the money to the Salvation Army instead? These are all comfortable middle-class questions; is it a sin to be middle-class? The Bible has no concrete advice. No, what the Bible does, in conjuction with the Holy Spirit, is to change me from the inside out. The Bible and Holy Spirit help me to abide by Paul's admonition: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2) They don't tell me what to do in routine, every-day circumstances; they give me the "mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) so that I can make these choices myself. I believe this is what it means to have God's law placed in my mind and written on my heart (Jeremiah 31:33). And there is another difference with respect to the question at hand. Unlike Jesus, I live in a society where citizens can participate in government at every level. The Bible and the Holy Spirit give Christians our consciences; in this way, they equip Christian citizens to act in societies and situations unlike any described in the Bible. While ours is a secular society, I would prefer to have people in office who share my values if not every one of my beliefs. Finally, I agree with you that "persistent and fervent prayer of righteous men and women against social injustice is the most effective and most unused tool in Christendom today. If more people would pray and trust God, the wrong would be righted and an a new social injustice would not be created." But I am not convinced that Rosa Parks and Dr. King were not God's instruments, used by him to answer such prayers. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
278 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105135 | ||
Hi, searcher; "The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.'" (John 19:7) But I am not equating Jesus' actions leading to his arrest with civil disobedience. Obviously no protester has ever acted with the authority that Jesus did, no protester's motive has ever been as pure as Jesus' was, and no protester has ever acted with the wisdom and understanding that Jesus did. Unlike Jesus, no protester has ever been entitled to simply refuse to be bound by the laws of men when he chose not to be. That said, Jesus did break a number of the laws of men and responded to his arrest in much the way that I described. But of course the question was, when a person other than Jesus breaks a law and cooperates fully with the civil authorites in his arrest, conviction, and punishment, has he submitted to the civil authorities? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
279 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105140 | ||
Hi, searcher; I think the meaning of "submission" is still an open question. For example, if your child left the yard to tackle the toddler next door who was about to wander into traffic, then came home and said "I know, Dad, I left the yard; no TV for a week." Did he submit? Maybe so. None of the translations I looked at used the word "obey" in Romans 13:1-7; they all used "submit" or "be subject to" (or some form thereof). So I think there's something beyond mere obedience in Paul's admonition. I don't claim that either my hypothetical protester or your child in this hypothetical situation obeyed. But I think, based on motive and acceptance of consequences, that they both may have submitted to or been subject to the relevant authority. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
280 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105213 | ||
Hi, Ed; Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think the two statements harmonize in this way: If my children constantly ask me what they should do, they'll soon find an area where I can't help. My goal as a father is to equip them to make good decisions on their own in whatever circumstance they find themselves in. Such is the effect of renewing the Christian's mind and writing God's law on the Christian's heart. I think what Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and others did helped, but you're right that the resultant flood of legislation fell far short of its intentions. Good institutions can't make bad people good but good people can make bad institutions good. We are in complete agreement about coed dorms! There are many bad ideas in modern higher education, but that is one of the worst. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [33] >> |