Results 1 - 20 of 32
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: SpreadWord Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Bible for or against birth control? | Bible general Archive 1 | SpreadWord | 120221 | ||
Bingo! Check out www.sermonaudio.com and do a search under birth control. Click on the Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan link. He makes the same point. I enjoyed listening to this teaching. |
||||||
2 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | SpreadWord | 120213 | ||
The "farm" situation was stated to be added somewhat in "jest," yet I know of some families for whom this has been the perfect solution. There are several issues to address here. First, God has indeed created most women (and men...it takes two...) to be able to reproduce. However, the first question I would ask is this, "Are you married?" If not, then stop right there. Abstinance is the only proper policy. I would not advocate birth control for anyone. If you have have a 13 year old who is in danger of being molested, then remove the danger! Don't cover it up by giving her birth control. This will only hide the problem and allow the perpetrator to continue to abuse her at will. The "unwed pregnant teenager" has already made her "choice" when she had voluntary intercourse. Once a girl is pregnant, then the baby should be protected. We should teach our children abstinance before marriage, not to use "proper protection." You state that "if I am walking daily with God and His will for me is to have more children he will lay it on my heart." God does not speak to an individual contrary to what He has already spoken in scripture. Your original question is "How about common sense?" I ask you, "How about Scriptural Sense?" The Bible is the only standard by which we should live our lives. The Bible says that, "Children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them..." Psalm 127:3-5 Psalm 128:3 reads, "Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants about thy table." So...you may ask, what about common sense? Here is a very appropriate scripture (especially since many times birth control can lead to early abortion) "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 (repeated very similarily in Proverbs 16:25) One last thing I want to comment on...you stated, "God does not stop pregnancy because it is not the right time for someone to be pregnant." Please provide book, chapter, and verse. My Bible tells me that it is God who opens and closes the womb. (Gen 30:22, Gen 49:25, Isaiah 66:9) The question is this, "Who determines when the 'right' time to be pregnant is? God or man?" I submit to you that God will close the womb if it is not the "right" time in His eyes, regardless of whether it is convenient for us or not. God's original command, which He has never rescinded, is "Be fruitful and multiply." If we do not wish to heed this instruction, let us remain single and abstinent. |
||||||
3 | How were ancient "soundings" performed? | Acts 27:28 | SpreadWord | 82846 | ||
How did these ancient sailors take "soundings?" I was reading this chapter to my family last night, and my children asked me what "soundings" were. I told them that in modern times, it is sonar that calculates how deep the ocean is where you are. But, I could not explain how they would have done this in Bible times besides maybe letting down an anchor. But if this is true, then why does it say "soundings?" | ||||||
4 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | SpreadWord | 49255 | ||
There are very few birth control options that do not have the possibiliity of causing an early abortion. The only ones that are guaranteed not to cause early abortion are those methods that prevent the sperm from ever getting to the egg. This would include Natural Family Planning, barrier methods such as condoms or diaphrams, or sterilization. Other chemical forms work by 1)suppressing ovulation and as a "backup" measure 2) making the uterine wall unsuitable for implantation. Therefore, the "pill" and other chemical forms can not be used with a clear conscience. If you have a "health condition" that requires use of "the pill" (ovarian cancer), I'd hope that a condom would be used in addition in order to prevent the possibility of a fertilized egg from being aborted. As far as birth control is concerned, we should look at the heart, and whether we truly desire the blessings of children that God is giving us. Psalm 127 does an excellent job of describing this. To simply state that children were an asset in a farming community and a liability in an industrial society is to allow circumstances to alter our faith. Here's a new concept...maybe we should adjust *our* lifestyle if we find that the blessing of children makes our current one difficult. Move from the industrial job to the farm. Maybe this is easier said than done, but if large farming families can make it so much easier, then why not? (This is somewhat said in jest because I think there were plenty of large, poor, farming families as well - my grandfather's family in particular). The point that I make is that birth control was invented by a self-centered society and actually promoted by a woman (Margaret Sanger) who was an adamant eugenist. Birth control is an evil perpetrated upon our land by anti-Christian feminists for the purpose of blurring the lines between the traditional roles of men and women established by God, and for the purpose of eliminating "undesirables." For proof of Sanger's disdain of minorities, read her original writings. |
||||||
5 | what does Easter mean | Acts 12:4 | SpreadWord | 42845 | ||
Wow. This is a loaded question. I can find only one reference to the word "Easter" in the scripture. Even then, it appears to be only in the KJV. This passage in other translations says, "passover." In reality, Easter is celebrated by pagans in conjuction with the spring equinox. The whole holiday is loaded with symbols of paganism and fertility (the egg, the bunny, etc.) My advice is to avoid the world's celebration of Easter, and to concentrate on the true signficance of Good Friday and "Resurrection Day." While I don't agree with all the content you will find at this site, I've found the following site to be useful in gaining information such as this. Do a search on "Easter" at this site: http://www.cuttingedge.org Your original question was what "Easter" means. Here is the answer from this site: "We have just learned from the pagans that the very name of Easter is taken from the Pagan celebration of the 'Rites of Eostre'." |
||||||
6 | What did God do for Stephen when he died | Acts 7:56 | SpreadWord | 42828 | ||
Stephen was given a glipse of Heaven just before his death. It is also noteworthy that Jesus stood up for Stephen, where in other passages, Christ is referred to as "seated at the right hand of the Father." Is this what you are looking for? | ||||||
7 | RELIGION HOMEWORK HELP | Rom 12:2 | SpreadWord | 39984 | ||
So...maybe I won't see it after all! phew...talked out of another musical.... :-) | ||||||
8 | RELIGION HOMEWORK HELP | Rom 12:2 | SpreadWord | 39944 | ||
O.K....maybe I was misinformed....and should check out the DVD. Maybe you can give some pointers to the original message poster about this production since I have not seen it. I'm not a huge fan of musicals, and it doesn't take very many negative reviews for me to justify not seeing one. | ||||||
9 | can you be commited without be pre | Matt 26:34 | SpreadWord | 39900 | ||
The famous example of Peter denying the Lord shows that you can be committed to the Lord, yet still fail Him. Is this what you are asking? | ||||||
10 | Evidence that women's role has changed? | Matt 28:10 | SpreadWord | 39895 | ||
The way my pastor has explained this is that in the Corithian church the men were seated at the front and the women were way in the back. There were no sound systems like they have today, so the apostle would speak, and the women would yell up to their husbands, "What did he say?" This was disrupting the meeting, so Paul instructed for the men to relay the information to the women at home. One indication of Jesus' command to women to proclaim the Gospel is found in Matthew 28:10. It was women who met Jesus first after resurrection, and He instructed them to go tell His brethren that He was risen. Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that "in Christ" there is neither male nor female. Luke 2:36 speaks of a prophetess named Anna. One role of a prophet is to speak into the lives of other believers. It is doubtful that the apostle Paul would be saying to silence Anna, or other female believers who had something to contribute. | ||||||
11 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | SpreadWord | 39893 | ||
Mr. Hughey, Your post is confusing. How could an Old Testament believer believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, when He had not yet been sent by the Father? If, as you say, that salvation was available prior to Christ's physical coming, and if you say that it has always been by grace, then why in the world were the Old Testament believers required to sacrifice animals, and New Testament believers are not required to? I maintain that the scripture is clear that a works-based system was in place before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I will agree with you that noone was able to live up to this works-based salvation. That is precisely the reason Christ came and paid the final sacrifice for our sin. The reality of this allowed Paul to write Ephesians 2:8-9. One example of Jesus "changing the rules" so to speak and actually getting stricter is Matthew 5:27-28 when he speaks of adultery and that now if a man even lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. In my original text, I said nothing to indicate disunity between the three persons of the Godhead. Jesus, while on Earth, repeatedly stated that he could/would do nothing outside the will of the Father. I suspect we have distinct doctrinal differences, and I will allow the Holy Spirit to be my rear guard against statements that I am "unbiblical" or "anti-biblical." I gave several scriptures in my original message. I love His Word, and I will glean what I can from any believer. I will try to see their point of view, because I do make mistakes, and Proverbs is full of exhortations to learn from others. However, I do not believe I am giving bad advice to people because the advice I give is based solidly on scripture. In Him, Mike Southerland |
||||||
12 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | SpreadWord | 39890 | ||
I meant no disrespect for you in this note. I was just rather curious. Some people with impaired eyesight choose to type all in the same case for consistency. I thought this may be the case, and you chose lowercase INSTEAD OF UPPERCASE, SO IT DIDN'T APPEAR YOU WERE SHOUTING. (see what I mean! :-) ). Anyway, my honest question remains that if you are really concerned about the names of God in *English* translations of the Bible, wouldn't you want to follow standard *English* rules of capitalizing 1) preferably all proper nouns, or at least out of respect 2) the name of God? Oh...and by the way...can I assume you used no worldly education to compose your thoughts and type your replies? Was it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that you learned the English language, or were you taught somewhere down the road? To answer your question, Moses wrote Genesis as a result of speaking directly with God. |
||||||
13 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | SpreadWord | 39870 | ||
JMSCOTT, I just found this thread and read through it. I huge question I want to know is this: If you are very concerned about the name of God, why do you continue to use lower case for the words Yahweh, Jesus, God, etc.? Every Bible translation I have ever read capitalized the name of God, regardless of the name they use to describe Him. | ||||||
14 | God's law contrasted with man's law | Dan 3:18 | SpreadWord | 39868 | ||
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is just one instance of God's law superceding man's law. There are others as well. Is this what you meant to ask? | ||||||
15 | RELIGION HOMEWORK HELP | Rom 12:2 | SpreadWord | 39864 | ||
I have never seen Jesus Christ Superstar. Someone told me they thought it was sacreligious, so I didn't bother. However, for your scriptural question, I have an answer that may be different from others depending on the doctrine you adhere to. Man is a triune being. He is a spirit, soul, and body. It is my belief that a Christian's spirit has been transformed at the moment of his salvation. (Col 3:9-10) His soul (mind, will, emotions) is in the process of being transformed (Romans 12:2). His body will be transformed at the return of Christ (I Cor. 15:51-52). There may be better scriptures to explain these concepts, but I felt these were good ones that I recalled from memory and verified before posting here. | ||||||
16 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 32006 | ||
First of all, I don't believe that a lack of faith entirely means that one isn't a believer. In Luke 8:25, Jesus asks his disciples, "Where is your faith?" Apparantly His own disciples lacked faith at that point, yet they were believers. Secondly, even if he were talking to an unbeliever, Jesus would certainly not instruct or give approval to anyone to take by force what is not rightfully theirs. I can not see how your interpretation of this passage is as you say. If you find your commentary reference, let me know, and I'll try to look it up and read their comments in context. Here is a take on it from the Matthew Henry commentary: "They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves." I could buy the argument of the spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), but that still doesn't explain Jesus' response when shown the two physical swords. |
||||||
17 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31897 | ||
Then this brings us "full circle" then with your original comment on my note: "In context, Jesus was telling his disciples that if they lacked faith in His ability to provide for their needs then they should buy a sword and thus use it to take what they needed--note that none of them ever did such a thing." It appears to me that you are attempting to make the case that Jesus gave His tacit approval for them to use the sword to steal, and if need be, kill in order to obtain their necessities. If this is not what you intended to state, then I failed to see your original point. And what other legitimate purpose could these swords have served? While I could certainly be wrong on this interpretation of this particular passage, it certainly seems to me to be a good case for self-defense. And your statement about the disciples splitting up after the ascension would tend to validate one of my points that 2 swords are "enough" for an individual, not necessarily the entire group. |
||||||
18 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31731 | ||
I'm thinking we may be at an impasse here. However, I've really enjoyed the discourse, and friendly "debate" on the Word can only serve to make us stronger. It could very well be that my thoughts on this passage are "off" and I am looking for justification for self-defense in an area of scripture that was not meant for this purpose. However, I feel that taking this passage along with several others (and particularly when you do not discount the Old Testament), there is ample evidence for justified self-defense. I will remain adamant, however, that our Lord would not, and even could not, advocate the sin of breaking both the 6th and the 8th commandments in the taking of "necessities" by force with a sword. (2 Corinthians 5:21) If there is a commentary that is advocating this position, then I say we hold that commentary to the light of scripture to see whether to trust the commentary or not. This type of behaviour would be contradictory to the character and sinless nature of our Lord as is spelled out explicitly in scripture. One thought to always keep in mind....scripture is infallible and profitable for reproof and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). However, commentaries on the scripture are simply men's opinions, albeit based on other scriptures. We need to sharpen our own Word skills so as to "rightly divide the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) without relying entirely on the interpretations and opinions of other mere mortals. BTW - On the issue of the disciples hiding after the death of Jesus before the resurrection, it shows they had a fear of the government, in that the government may come after them next. I'd be the first to agree that 12 guys and two swords would be no match for the entire Roman army, headed by Ceaser himself. :-) But I think the case can be made that the common thief or criminal would have a hard time attacking a group of twelve men with two swords, especially when several of these guys were fishermen (manual, muscle building labor). Anyway, I've enjoyed this, and if you'd like to keep at a for a while, I'm game. Otherwise, we can walk away and "agree to disagree." |
||||||
19 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31385 | ||
Your question is precisely the reason I questioned whether Jesus meant two swords were enough for the group or an individual. However, if the disciples were to always be together, then two swords may be enough for the group. If I were a criminal, I wouldn't attack a group of 12 strong men, especially if two of them had swords. In any case, the most obvious purpose of them having a sword at all would be for self defense. We know from the character of Jesus, that he would not advocate his disciples using their swords in an evil manner (like using them to steal things in time of need). As Christians we can take two responses to evildoers who would kill our families and friends. We can sit idly by, unarmed, and allow a lone gunman to shoot our loved ones as happened at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. Or, we can work within the laws of the land, obtain a handgun carry permit, and keep a sidearm concealed on our person in order to protect our family and friends whether in church or in the shopping mall. I prefer the latter, and I guarantee if a criminal discharges his firearm in our church, I'll make sure he doesn't take a second shot. These are, of course, my opinions, and in keeping with rule #3 of this forum, I mean no illwill toward anyone, including those who would choose the first option above and remain unarmed in spite of evildoers who would do harm. |
||||||
20 | You shall not Murder, then told too?? | OT general | SpreadWord | 31276 | ||
I do not see how you can gather this interpretation from the context. I just went back and re-read it. I seriously doubt Jesus was instructing them to steal those things that they needed, even in the circumstances of little faith. Also, we read in v. 38 that they did indeed produce two swords. Jesus replies, "It is enough." Now, we can discuss whether that was enough for the entire group, or for an individual, because in v. 36, he seems to imply that each individual should have at least one sword. It could be that he considered an extensive "sword collection" as a bit much, but two swords for an individual would be appropriate. Maybe a short one and long one or such. The scripture is not explicit here. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |