Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | DocTrinsograce | 207493 | ||
Hi, flinty... The Puritans used to say that showing kindness to the wolves was being cruel to the sheep. The false teaching of cults only brings harm (Jude 12-15). It is foolishness -- although a popular and common foolishness -- to speak of showing respect to ideas. You might as well respect a twig or a rock. Consequently, the presumption of your "forgiveness" warrants only a certain sadness and my own forgiveness for the false condemnation. That's not difficult, given that I have many genuine failings. Feel free to fault and forgive me for any of those things, rather than something silly like being disrespectful to heresy. Sheesh. Furthermore, I'll happily exchange an out-of-context, misapplied quote of 1 Peter 3:15 for the benefits of the verse that follows it. Nonetheless, my sympathies if you have more than a passing acquaintance with the Stone-Campbell Movement. So, let me try to ferret through the tangled posts to see how I've failed to answer your question. Uh... I don't see it... But if you want something explicit: The Bible uses the words soul and spirit interchangeably. I don't find any reason to do otherwise. However, if you are after an affirmation: I see a dichotomy in the Scripture's presentation of the nature of man. The Greek perspective of a trichotomy is a presupposition much more difficult to support Biblically. Nevertheless, our cultural perspective tends to assume the latter. My Jewish inculcation tends to more easily embrace the former. As to the other stuff: Are you asking for Bible support for annihilationism? Sorry, but it isn't possible to do that without abandoning a sound Biblical hermeneutic. In Him, Doc "In a relatively free and open society, the best forms of tolerance are those that are open to and tolerant of people, even when there are strong disagreements with their ideas. This robust toleration for people, if not always for their ideas, engenders a measure of civility in public discourse while still fostering spirited debate over the relative merits of this or that idea. Today, however, tolerance in many Western societies increasingly focuses on ideas, not on people. The result of adopting this new brand of tolerance is less discussion of the merits of competing ideas -- and less civility. There is less discussion because toleration of diverse ideas demands that we avoid criticizing the opinions of others… Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word. One cannot fail to observe a crushing irony: the gospel of relativistic tolerance is perhaps the most 'evangelistic' movement in Western culture at the moment, demanding assent and brooking no rivals." --D. A. Carson |
||||||
2 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207511 | ||
Doc There was once the concept of "the gentlemen's debate" for many centuries in which divers individuals would sit and discuss at length matters of the day and matters of depth. And in these debates there were certain rules of conduct and deportment fitting of gentlemen; The debates were polite, all veiws were to be discussed without reservation. Support for a position was to be provided using reason and logic as a means of dissembling information. The word argument referred strictly to the art of building and presenting a case of evidence for a position and had nothing whatsoever to do with being "argumentative with a disposition towards the use of words to inflict injury or insult". Men presented their arguments point by point or in sections and their opponents either agreed or refuted these arguments point by point. It was assumed that freedom of thought was to be expressed, but, no one was called upon or expected to agree, or to give creednce to, or to tolerate, the thoughts of those they disagreed with. This would have abrogated a man's right to believe as he pleased and to fully express his belief. The thoughts of others were never censured but were roundly debated. The debates often became heated over important matters but no one took it personaly per se but rather respected the right of others to express their thoughts with a certain fervor. Gentlemen would part to continue debates or arguments another day, ammicably and often resolved issues by agreeing to disagree. Hands were shook in the spirit of commararderie amongst gentlemen regarding the art of debate. Debate was not viewed as a dirty word, and was considered to be an accademic pursuit. The spirit of debate was an effort to arrive at a conclusion to a question posed, or a theory, or an hypothesis posited, in a reasonable and acceptable fashion as described here. This practice was applied to all things academic, and religion and philosophy were considered to be matters of highest accademia. The entire concept of the gentlemen's debate has been lost in a quest for "tolerance of the belief's of others" in modern society, which grew out of the secular movement, the liberation theology movement, feminism, "gay pride", and other movements both political and philosphic in nature. This is a deplorable situation in society today. And as D.A. Carson says, "Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word.". Well I seem to have gotton off on a bit of a tangent here, but I was very interested in everything you had to say. I think all Christians should stand by what they believe, whatever it is, and be ready to defend it. That should not be viewed as "debating" in the sense that modern society now views that word. The way that is viewed today is completely skewed and is slanted towards the use of insult and injury to persons. But if anyone were to look the meaning of the word up, that is before they change the dictionaries again, they might find that one meaning is a lengthy exchange of opinion on a subject. We, however are Christians and our wisdom is Christ Jesus. I like what Paul says about part of the realm of ideas - 2 Corinthians 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | DocTrinsograce | 207515 | ||
Yes, and such gentlemen debates took place between individuals. Our venue of exchange is a public one, involving an entirely different set of responsibilities. As John Calvin put it, "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's Truth was attacked and yet would remain silent." |
||||||
4 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207519 | ||
Doc I never meant to imply that those rules should be applied to this forum. Also a lot of those debates between individuals were quite public. As well, I never meant to imply that the rules of the forum should be changed (you did not say that). The one thing that those "debates" had in common with our present responsibilities is that we should indeed defend what we believe as they most certainly did, without worrying that our beliefs will offend someone, which they most certainly never worried about. That is the main reason I posted what I did, because I agree with you about your point here regarding being dogs who bark when our master is attacked. 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ cricified, to Jews a stumbling block, adn to Gentiles foolishness. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||