Results 1 - 20 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208068 | ||
John Okay John I will be quiet. I will sit back and rest while everyone else continues on asking their questions okay? I will just rest in Jesus for a while. See you around. blessings abound, bowler blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Why are some gifts of God not wanted? | 1 Cor 12:4 | bowler | 208061 | ||
hopalong Yes that can be regrettable. My wife and I have one child for the same reasons and now we also regret it. I am well past my child rearing years and I hope one day my only child who is what, wife and I jokingly call grown, will raise a family. To answer your question, I think we often do not want the gifts, whatever they are, of God, because as you so wisely point out, we think it will cost us more than we could afford to bear. Sometimes finacially and sometimes spiritually or emotionally. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208060 | ||
Tim Moran Yes those things had not been written yet. Sin is sin, it was before those things had been written whether they had the law or not, although God may not have imputed any punishment to them until the law actually came in. So was Abraham sinning by laying with Hagar? I think we could safely say yes, adultery is adultery even though the law had not yet been written. But let me understand you correctly here - is a sin not truly a sin until the law came in? That would be important for me to know... It definitely would change how I might look at things. But that would also mean that no one who had not been given the law was guilty of any wrong thing they did, but we know that God did not condone any sin even before He gave the law and imputed punishment on the wicked before the law. Or am I wrong about that part, as I am thinking that God says the life blood will be required? One thing is coming clearer from talking back and forth with you - not what you are saying, but something else - God forgave all those wrong things all those people did in gaining their titles of FAITH because one cannot be said to have faith through works. Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question... blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
4 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208059 | ||
Doc You are completely ignoring that I said that God does not break the commandments! I gave Him the credit that He has the right to dispose of His creation right there as He chooses! Is it that I honestly did not see the difference Doc? Or is it that I wanted to hear what others think which is why we post questions? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
5 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208058 | ||
Tim Moran I can agree with all that you have said here in how you laid it all out with those scriptures there. Define murder and define killing please, using scriptures. Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
6 | What is Right Someone Has to Die? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208057 | ||
Tim Moran There are indeed cases where it is medically true that there is the option of seeing what will actually happen, and then there is what I posed, where it has been medically shown that a decision needs to be made, or both will die; therefore one must be choosen. There is no reason why "either or questions" are not valid questions, they are just "problematic" questions, which is exactly my point. The entire matter of Christians ethics is of great interest to me and was of course sparked by recent posts, but I am not posting to push my views on old posts in making new posts. I am truly interested in difficult situations and problematic scripture interpretations as that is part of valid Bible study. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
7 | Does God Condone War Now? | Heb 11:33 | bowler | 208056 | ||
Doc Post number 192637 - Okay Doc I will drop it. I really was not interested in making others feel that there service to their country was or is not appreciated. Other people's way of life seems to get to be the point of every thing discussed here lately. What happened to Bible study for the sake of understanding the Bible? I am not suggesting that you are trying to put me in my place. What I am suggesting is that people step back and stop assuming that every single question has been asked on the basis of WHAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE DOING. There are other focuses to have as a reason to study the Bible, like what the Bible is saying on its own before we derive an interpretation of what to do, like what the Bible means in its parts on a given subject as separate from arguments that one or the other part is "right", or Biblical passages that are in them selves theologically or grammatically "problematic". The Bible was not just given to us to know what to do, that is a narrow view of the Bible and Bible study. When others, not saying you, decide that the only thing a person should be doing is to find out what the applicaiton of a given text is, they are limiting the participation of others by pushing their view that that is all the Bible is for. As well the gracious hosts of this forum describe it as an "expository repository". I don't think that everyone is aware from the tone of their posts, not in refuting "erroneous" views, but in "ignoring the context of questions", that "expository" means to study the Bible line by line to get at the author's intent in writing his audience. The author having an intent in writing comes before that author's intent of "what people should do" they are not the same thing. It is not right that we cannot all disccus every aspect of the Bible in all its complexity. The Bible is not a simple child's primer with instructions on how to live - there are treasures there, depths to plumb, mysteries to unfold, things to understand by the grace of God to uplift the soul and to bring men to the repentance of Jesus Christ. I will leave off the question I had since your post at the end, although I do not presuppose that is all you meant for me to get out of it, tells the other person you posted to cease and desist (paraphrasing). blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
8 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208055 | ||
Tim Moran Esther chapter one - her husband's advisors had him put out an edict to make sure all wives would obey their husbands. The concept of scripture applying to a Persian is not even worth considering. And yes there were scriptures showing, not the didactic direct teaching of obdience to husbands but the narrative example of women doing so in ancient Biblical times. The Old Testament cannot be applied forwards as didactic teachings because they are narratives so the principle of adhereing to a literary form that says you cannot apply the OT to interpreting the New Testament in many instances applies. The same cannot be said of the New Testament in its didactic portions in that it definitely can be used to interpret parts of Old Testament narrative to deduce whether or not the actions of the participants was correct or right. Not based off whether or not they knew New Testament teachings in the OT, but on whether or not God has decreed for all time in the NT what is correct and right and good. On that basis, if it is right to obey your husband now, it was always right whether Vashti new it was right or not, and her not knowing it was right would not excuse her of sin in regard to that, it just shows what a pagan she was. We don't need to speculate, but we can take what the whole counsel of scripture teaches about obeying your husband, or obeying God and apply it to an understanding about whether or not Vashti was wrong or right. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
9 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208051 | ||
Tim Moran I agree and am aware with the princple that the Old Testament "narratives" are not to be taken as Christian "normative" behavior for today. I will stick strictly to this post please, I am not trying to redress another post, although I understand you transferring an applicatoin principle from one to the other.:-) My question not to center around WHAT CORRECT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE. My question centers around WHAT CONSTITUTES FAITH seeing as how sins were committed in gaining that title of having had FAITH. Question for you; how does saving a life by the mid-wives become obeying God rather than men? What command did God give the mid-wives that they were to do? By applying your principle that God has forbidden murder how does saving a life by the same means as those mid-wives, which included disobeying the king's edicts and ostensibly lying to anyone who would ask if they were hiding babies, not apply to us now? Ps. I do understand the difference between a narrative passage and a didactic passage, I want to know, not what to do, but how to view everything in the process of what ends up getting declared as "having been done right" by those in the Bible. What I do with the answer is up to me, and is not why I want to know about it or discuss it. blessings abound, bolwer |
||||||
10 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208047 | ||
We all know murdering, killing is wrong that is not even much of a discussion. Murdering is killing someone. God said the life blood will be required of all those who kill someone. He never said there was a right reason for killing someone. Then God commanded Irael to go commit mass genocide in going about gettig rid of the pagan nations who were in the way of Israel gaining the promised land and in other situations. How is it that killing anyone for any reason is wrong, but then God says to go do it? Isn't this an expample of God being outside the Ten Commandments in terms of that He does not have to obey it, as in it does not apply to Him, but not as that He is somehow breaking it? What do you think? blessigs abound, bowler |
||||||
11 | What is Right Someone Has to Die? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208043 | ||
How should we view saving a pregnant woman's life when it is either save her, or save the baby, as that means we have to kill one to save the other? Killing is always wrong. In this case God is not providing an option, it is either one, or the other. Question; how is doing anything one way or the other right in the sight of God and which one based on scriptures would you choose? I can't decide. Ps, this is not to debate Catholicism with Protestantism. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
12 | Does God Condone War Now? | Heb 11:33 | bowler | 208041 | ||
Seeing as how these men all qonquered kingdoms at either the commands of God, or in an effort to keep Israel intact as the choosen people of God, how is it that we are saying that war is all right today? God has not come and commanded us directly to fight anyone now? I see a lot of "problems" all ready with what I have asked, but that is okay, because the whole thing is a "problematic". Some don't see it that way, they see it as cut and dry - as that God allows or endorses war to save countries from destruction today, they use Romans 13, they use a lot of scriptures, many of which have more to do with submitting to evil governments than the "preservation" of "good ones", as if there are any nations that God does not now consider to be evil. The New Jerusalem is not here yet, the millenium has not come yet, there are no "good nations" yet in my estimation, there are worse ones and better ones, but not "good ones". blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
13 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208039 | ||
I have heard different takes on the story of Esther when it comes to the conduct of Queen Vashti. I can't decide what to think one way or the other. There may be other views than the two I present here - One Queen Vashti was wrong and should have obeyed her husband no matter what and "displayed her beauty" whatever that really means she was suppossed to do? Two Queen Vashti was right and was honoring God somehow by refusing to "display her beauty" whatever that really means because her beauty was not for public show but only for her husband the king? There are a lot of problems with either view as far as I am concerned and the answer would affect whether or not to obey one's husband no matter what - this goes into the area of obeying your husband no matter what being more important that doing what it right according to God, sort of. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
14 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208037 | ||
This is not an attempt to start a debate. I am struggling to understand something. Please consider the following and see if you can help me understand better your view on this issue. In Hebrews 10:23 it says that by FAITH when Moses was born he was hidden for three months because they were not afraid of the king's edict. They disobeyed the king and therefore are guilty of the sin of not obeying every authority as all of Romans chapter 13 states and as 1 Peter 2:13-20. These passages by the apostles were written to people being persecuted for beleiving in God and they were instructed to submit, not to save lives. How then are we to understand this concept that the hiding of Moses, which included sinnnig to do it, was of FAITH? Next part of this "problem". Hebrews 10:13 By FAITH Rahab welcomed the spies in peace. That included both lying to the kings men and going against the same scriptures that apply to saving Moses. How are we to understand the concept of FAITH seeing as how the actions that led up to the result included sinning? Next part of the "problem". Sin is always wrong, lying is always wrong, I do not deny that, I don't know any Christian that denies that fact. Here is the crux, not of my arugment, because I am not posting with that I have an agenda to proove in mind, but to understand what I do not understand, the crux - How is it wrong for David to do what was necessary to save lives, both genocide, and lying as if he had no faith, but Rahab and the Exodus mid-wives are considered to have had FAITH even though they broke two of God's statutes and commandments in the process of earning that FAITH? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
15 | What does 'key' mean? | Rev 9:1 | bowler | 208036 | ||
Thomas The angel in 9:1 is Satan, the angel in 20:1 an angel of God. The first reference seems to be to that Satan is given the power to go unloose demonic forces to inflict harm for six months but not to kill as demons acting under the authority of Satan - but what is so interesting about that is that Satan is "given" the keys by somebody from God to go do evil! The referrence in 20:1 is to an angel in God's camp who is given the power to go get Satan and to remove him where ever he was and locked him in the abyss for a millenium. Some believe the key is symbolic of power, some like myself believe there is an actual key because the Bible does not say it is a symbol or indicate that it was a symbol. But it could just mean power, I could be wrong. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
16 | Why are some gifts of God not wanted? | 1 Cor 12:4 | bowler | 208027 | ||
hopalong Could you please explain how it is that some Christians treat a gift of God is an inconvenient imposition? Not saying you have a wrong concept, just wondering exactly what you mean. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
17 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208024 | ||
Tim Moran I appreciate your concerns and am a little concerned that we all got off onto something the original questioner was not quite talking about, or asking about in the way we are pursuing this. In light of that, I myself will follow suit and leave off the subject. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
18 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208018 | ||
... | ||||||
19 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208015 | ||
Tim Moran I wish I could find, and I keep on trying to find some of Doc's older posts on this issue, but I lost the sticky. You said the following - The author claims that God is the first cause of everything, but He is not the author of sin. This statement doesn't even make logical sense, let alone Scriptural sense. :-) How can someone be the first cause of 'everything', but at the same time, not be responsible for 'something'? Here is how this works as it was explained to me that I cannot now find the post number to - God is the first cause of everything, He created everything. Sin is not something that was ever created by God or any one else, sin is the absence of God's righteousness in created beings, much in the way that the absence of health is sickness. God never caused sin, He allowed it. Whatever God allows He has ordained, although He may not have created sin, or evil, He allows them as part of plan A. God is not the author of sin, God never sins, He is holy, but He allows others to sin. God allowed Adam to sin, but why? If Adam had been allowed to be righteous by his own abiblity to be righteous, that would have been salvation by works. Adam being made righteous by works, would have resulted in Adam having salvation apart from the gift of the grace of God. Allowing Adam salvation apart from God results in idol worship, resulting again in the fall with no recourse for repentance to the faith of the grace of salvation if salvation is only by works. God had to allow Adam to sin and fall in order to be able to give Adam's race the free gift of the grace of salvation so that salvation would not rest in works. Therefore God allowing sin is God ordained to outwork God's total plan for humanity although God never does sin. This is the concept that God does the primary Causes and that man does the secondary Causes and that God is not the author of secondary Causes but that He does ordain them and use them to further and complete His plan. This explains David and Bathsheba as adulterers having Solomon as God's plan A, it explains David and Jonathon lying to Saul with a plot to save David's life as God's plan A, it explains Rahab lying to save the spies and Israel as God's plan A, it explains the Hebrew mid-wives lying to protect the babies and Moses from Pharaoh as God's plan A, it explains David killing whole towns to save the lives of his troup and lying about it as God's plan A. How can the Ten Commandments be binding on God as the Law is given to those who sin? The do not apply to God becuase He will never ever break them. I agree however that the premise as described by the author in that link regarding Isaiah is faulty becuase the text does not say that God causes evil, it says He causes "calamity", which is like saying He causes Typhoons or earthquakes, or plagues - but all those things do take place to fulfill His purposes although many are killed by them. I wil attempt to check out your book there as I am always willing to remain open to further examination of things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
20 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208012 | ||
Tim Moran You and perhaps others would not, but I would separate dying for Christ for the sake of saying "I am a Christian", from making sure someone else did not die for other reasons. What I keep seeing here is that a lot of folks are trying to take what I have been saying and to apply it accross the board to all Christian issues as if I am trying to make a new "normative" for all Christians to now follow, as that "it is all right to lie if the situation warrants it whatever situation that is". That is not something I am trying to do, make an new Christian normative. I am trying to say something about the concept of higher goods and lesser sins in an application "only to the saving of another human life in circumstances for which God is not supplying an alternative". The expamples I keep using are of David lying to his enemies and killing whole towns when he went to Ziklag, David and his men eating consecrated bread, Rahab lying to save the spies and by attrition all of Israel, the midwives in Exodus, Moses mother and father in Exodus - in all of these cases there were lies or sins of ommission or commission and it was withing God's plan A that these things were done, or else we are rewritting the Bible and what happened in it. As I keep on saying the Bible is strangely silent about these sins that were committed, or if you like these "good deeds" were committed in order to save lives. I never said that God never says sin is sin, I said He did allow it and therefore ordained it as part of His plan A, and that if we are to say that He did not ordain it, then we are saying that someone else has more power to affect, or effect something, and thereby would be more powerful than God, and that tramples on the sovereignty of God. I did not say in my post to Steve that Jesus condoned "sin" to save a life, I said that technically to exert oneself on the Sabbath is breaking it. Your statement that the Sabbath was created for man is true, Jesus said it, that does not abbrogate Moses understanding from God that absolutely no work was to be done on the Sabbath - I would call what Jesus did progressive revelation about the meaning of the Sabbath. But I also believe that Jesus was doing more than just declaring the Sabbath to be for man, He was also saying, "look your measuring stick of righteousness is wrong, you keeping the law is not the point, doing what is right in a given situation is the point - saving a life is a higher notch on that measuring stick than keeping laws." I may be very wrong about that, but that is the whole crux of what I keep saying. In looking at the following which you said, I got to thinking some more - Our lives are His bowler, not ours! I have no right to sin to protect myself, or others, based on the notion that God might not deliver. Then how come we have David, Jonathon, Rahab, Exodus mid-wives in the Bible doing what had to be done and God never addressed it, never condemned it, but said some of it were acts of faith? We can't rewrite the Bible, I agree with Val, we should not try to go beyond the Bible, if it does not explain it or condemn it why are we? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |