Results 1 - 20 of 57
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Parable Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Adultery? | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180499 | ||
I have not found any postings on this topic, but if there are some, please refer me. The topic is divorce. Jesus expressly states that divorce is not legitimate unless adultery is involved. When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he considered divorcing her, but the angel encouraged him not to do this on the grounds that Mary's baby was from God. It is also stated that Joseph was a righteous man, so divorcing Mary would have been righteous, on the grounds that she must have committed adultery. The bible does describes that the Holy Spirit came upon her and impregnated her. If this is not adultery, why not? If it is adultery, what is the significance of this? |
||||||
2 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180511 | ||
My summary of the circumstances was perhaps too cursory; it was to provide context rather than prove anything. The core of my question is this: does what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit constitute adultery? Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which in those days was part of marriage. Adultery is defined as illicit sexual relations with a person other than the marriage partner. The Holy Spirit is a person, and impregnation is about as sexual as it gets. I'm asking for the biblical basis that this act, committed by a willing Mary and God, is not adultery. Either it is by virtue of the fact the law does not apply to God or what happened was somehow not illicit, sexual or both. I favor the latter, because Mary's virginity remained intact, at least until after the birth of Jesus, when Mary had children by Joseph. |
||||||
3 | A stone so heavy He can't lift it? | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180562 | ||
I don't disagree. Yet I seek scriptural suppport for this position. Also, sin means to miss the mark set by God. In this context, whatever God does is consistent with his own standards, so defacto it is not possible for him to miss. Some could take this logic to mean that anything God does is not sinful, by definition, rather than that He is holy. How do you respond? |
||||||
4 | Lord, let us always be your remnant. | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105650 | ||
Not really a question, but an observation on the dangers of doctrinism. "Arminius himself was not a man of extreme views, but those he held, and those of Calvin, have been taken to extreme measures by those who follow them. Maybe were they alive today neither Calvin would be a calvinist nor Arminius an arminian... That this (calvinism, arminianism, and other doctinal positions) should result in the formation of groups of Christians based upon their allegiance to one particular doctrinal emphasis was almost inevitable if none the less regrettable. The establishment of the earliest independent congregations was generally on a much more sure foundation. Their basic objection to a State Church was that it did not allow for the scriptural conception of a church based on a purely spiritual unity. In this way, they recognized that believers must gather only because of their relationship to Christ, and that matters of spiritual understanding are secondary to spiritual fellowship. It was not long, however, before the order was being changed. Churches were being formed because of doctrinal affiliations, and others were being split because of doctrinal differences. In doing so, spiritual life began to fade. Sectarianism became the order of the day. The ground of the church was deserted by all but the remnant whom the Lord has always preserved from the earliest times." -- John W. Kennedy, Torch of the Testimony, SeedSowers Publishing, 1965, p179. |
||||||
5 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105863 | ||
In response to the "under God" controversy, Christians who object to the recent challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance might want to consider the question, What Would Jesus Do? Scripture (e.g. Romans 13) informs that all authority is ordained by God and that believers are to submit to civil authority as part of their submission to God. In the US, that civil authority ultimately is the Constitution, which precludes the establishment any official state religion. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the brutal persecution of independent groups of believers by powerful sectarian state churches. The Pledge is not law and therefore has no authority under the Constitution, yet it remains a nationwide daily ritual in public schools, imposed through the force of tradition. Of course, children and teachers can opt to remain silent during the Pledge, but such civil disobedience, with its associated personal costs, clearly should not be the expected norm for any student or teacher at any public school. Furthermore, for anyone in public schools to be required to recite an oath of allegience to "one nation under god" is to require them to swear an oath to that god, or at least to acknowledge that god. Consider how would you feel if the pledge were to say "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Buddha" or "one nation under Cosmic Consciousness"? How can we be so sure that the pledge is not simply religious indoctrination imposed by the might of the majority? Is this how God operates in our lives? As Christians, are we not called to embrace the oppressed, weak and powerless, even if, especially if, we disagree with them? If the Supreme Court upholds the Pledge, it will be all too easy to gloat that justice, and God, have been served. But, the real test of moral conviction will be if "under God" gets struck down and it is Christians, not atheists, who must choose submission or disobedience. So, with all due respect I ask, what would Jesus do, submit or disobey? Please support your response with specific verses or generally accepted biblical principles. Parable |
||||||
6 | please clarify | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 45964 | ||
True enough, so long as we rightly divide the Word, i.e. understand the meaning of the term LUST, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if masturbation, which is never expressly mentioned in the Bible, "is sin because it is an expression of lust", as you suggest. My inspiration here is from 1Thess5:21, where we are instructed to test everything and hold onto the good. Thus, I have two questions: 1. how does the Bible define or otherwise explain the meaning of LUST itself? and 2. what is the scriptural basis for the idea that masturbation is "an expression" of this sin? I think we agree that where the Bible speaks, we stand firm, but where the Bible is silent, we have liberty to live according the principles revealed in God's Word. To me, the fundamental principles include grace, love, forgiveness, redemption, sanctification, mercy, compassion, truth, righteousness, justice and peace. Please don't misunderstand my intent, which is not to encourage or defend masturbation, but rather to understand clearly what the Bible does and does not say. Finally, to know more about my perspective on this topic, see my answer given on 4/3/02. Sincerely, Parable |
||||||
7 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46161 | ||
Of course, James is right, and this is why all of us continue to sin each day. We fail to act according to love for the good we know we should do. Unfortunately, this verse doesn't help someone if they are in fact looking to the Bible to understand what is the good they ought to do, as is the point of the original question about masturbation. My questions merely illustrate that, to the best of my knowlege, the Bible has not established that masturbation, in itself, is necessarily sin, yet the first answer seemed to suggest this is the case. My concern lies with how this conclusion was reached, i.e. what are the assumptions and inferences used to interpret God's intent with this matter. Remarkably, your question about how I "honestly feel" makes my point for me. We are not to interpret scripture in terms of our feelings, rather we are to interpret our feelings in terms of scripture. To answer your questions, I "feel" we are blessed by God and one of his many gifts to us is our sexuality. Others include the enjoyment of food and drink. For the details of my position on the topic of masturbation perse, see my posting of 4/3/02. I'm not saying God blesses acts of masturbation, and I'm not saying he curses them either. Its just that I don't see any biblical basis for cursing ourselves if we do it, unless of course it leads to sexual immorality or overwhelming guilt. I have two points to address this possible risk. First, is it a sin, if when I am far from home for a long time, I masturbate and I think only of my wife, whom I love dearly? In light of what Paul suggests in 1Cor7, I can't see why this would be sinful. 1Cor7:2-5 "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." Is Paul suggesting that marriage is an acceptable way to indulge the fleshly desire for sex? Is he suggesting that the fleshly desire for sex is a legitimate reason to marry? Second, isn't verse 5 saying that release of sexual tension with the spouse is preferable to becoming so frustrated that the person falls prey to temptation? If so, then might Paul not also suggest that masturbation, while unseemly, might actually be a way to avoid falling into temptations that are most definitely sin, such as adultery or fornication? I have read many of your postings and I have come to respect your insights and bible knowledge. If I come across as argumentative, I am, but in the classical sense of the word and not in the sense of bickering or quarreling. Thanks, Parable |
||||||
8 | Send in the Clones? | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 47209 | ||
As I have said previously, I'm not a specialist on the theory of evolution. Yet, I believe that for whatever utility it may have in modelling the variations within a species, e.g. through the process of natural selection, the theory has been extrapolated way beyond what the biological evidence supports. This theory attempts to explain a narrowly defined set of observations and cannot be reasonably generalized to the whole of Creation. Perhaps more important, biotechnology, i.e. genetic engineering, is creating far more urgent challenges to our ethics and morality. For example: 1. Is a clone of a human really a person? This demands that we clarify how we define a person, and many will look to the Word for this. Some may say that because clones are not conceived in the traditional way, i.e. sperm/egg, they are not human because that experience is a fundamental part of what makes us human, and the content of our DNA is only part of being human. 2. Do clones have rights or can they be considered property, perhaps to be used for spare organs that won't be rejected by the "original" person? What does the Bible say about using clones in this way, or for that matter, organs that have been grown from donor DNA artificially, but not taken from a cloned human? 3. Fetal stem cell research, a major area of development, requires the removal of cells from a zygote such that it "dies". I use quotes here because some people debate whether or not such are "alive". Is it wrong for people to harvest stem cells in this way, even if those cells were artificially produced in a dish by injecting sperm DNA into an ovum? If we believe the Word speaks to these issues, and I believe God has very definite opinions about how we manipulate life, the time has come for us to give account for the faith that we have on this kind of question. Failure to do so will inspire many to mock the Bible as out-dated, obsolete and inadequate to address the issues of modern technology. On the other hand, if it can be shown that Word offers clear guidance, that might bring many people to faith, but again, only if it convicts them of their sin. Parable |
||||||
9 | What does God accomplish in us? | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 48134 | ||
I ask three questions, in reverse order, that you may see the logic I am suggesting. 3. What NT ideas must we hold before we can accept, serve and abide in Christ? 2. Since the OT points to Christ, what OT ideas must we hold before we can accept NT ideas? 1. What ideas must we hold before we can accept Scripture as the Word of God? For the sake of illustrating what I'm asking for, I suggest that before we can accept the Bible as the Word of God, we must accept that God exists and can speak to us through the inspired writings of others. Then, we must accept that He actually did so and the books of the Bible are indeed inspired by Him. My interest is to describe in bullet points what the Bible says is our path as we move from unbelief to abiding in Christ. Also, perhaps there are some conditions that must be in place, but are understood rather than explicity described in Scripture. I acknowledge it may not be a stepwise process, as the Holy Spirit may bring us to Christ in any way He chooses; my thought is to express in brief terms what is accomplished in us by Him. Parable |
||||||
10 | Let's explore this in more detail. | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 48155 | ||
Searcher, you have a knack for getting to the heart of the issue! Excellent citation! Regarding #3, about which NT ideas are necessary, you said "all of them" and I totally agree. Of course, as we often see in this forum, there are diverse opinions about what those ideas are and how they influence us. 3a. Can you list a few that you feel are central to our relationship with Christ and/or are generally accepted as uniquely definitive of Christianity? Regarding #2, about which OT ideas are necessary, you said "we need to understand how the OT points to Christ". Again, an excellent answer. 2a. Can you describe a few ways how the OT does this? Regarding #1, about which ideas are necessary to accept the authority of Scripture, you said "because one accepts Scripture as the Word of God does not mean one is saved" and "without the Spirit, His Word is confounding". How true! 1a. Is there any hope for those who do not have the Spirit? In other words, is there anything they can/must do so that He may/will reside in them? Your Brother in Christ, Parable |
||||||
11 | Is Quakerism valid? | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 80286 | ||
Some scholars hold that Quakerism is a third form of Christianity, distinct from catholicism and protestantism. Yet, Quakers have also been persecuted as heretics. Is Quakerism a legitimate form of Christianity? Please support thine answer with scripture. |
||||||
12 | What does scripture say about Quakerism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 80344 | ||
Thank you, Emmaus. I am especially interested in any scriptures that support or counter Quaker views on issues such as: The "Inner Light", especially in relation to the authority of Scripture. This seems to be a defining feature of Quakerism. Predestination. Quakerism rejects this in favor of the idea that salvation is available to all. Silence. Only in silence can the voice of God within be heard. Conscience and action. Only by doing the truth can it be fully understood. Parable |
||||||
13 | is closed communion hypocritical? | NT general Archive 1 | Parable | 51838 | ||
Furthermore, isn't unrepentant sin always present, e.g.1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." even though those in Christ are no longer condemned for it, e.g. Romans 8:1"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus? Doesn't it follow then that closed communion, as you have described, can never achieve what it sets out to accomplish. Finally, because there is no scriptural basis for it, spiritual pride is a likely outcome, e.g. 1 Cor 4:6 "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. Parable |
||||||
14 | Yes, but are we to judge others in this? | NT general Archive 1 | Parable | 51901 | ||
Communion that is closed to us hardly seems like communion at all. In the preceding verses, Paul describes that the practice of the Lord's supper had become irreverant and self-serving, i.e. a dinner party instead of a solemn remembrance, with gluttony and drunkeness. How do we go from rebuking that practice to excluding people who want to come to the Lord's table but have not proven their righteousness to the local elders and so are excluded? As Paul says in 11:28, "But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup." Examine himself, not be examined by others, right? Isn't this a matter of personal conscience, like when we are to reconcile our disputes before offering our worship, i.e. Matthew 5:23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." Parable |
||||||
15 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 54980 | ||
I'm confused. What exactly are you suggesting is the biblical position as to smoking pot? | ||||||
16 | friends with weed are friends indeed? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55108 | ||
You said "I have tight friends who have known me for years and would do anything for me...they just happen to be ocasional pot smokers.." Sounds great! But, I wonder, will these friends quit smoking pot for you? Parable |
||||||
17 | How do we interpret scripture? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47218 | ||
That, of course, is the real trick, isn't it? I think perhaps Dr. Ross' argument is best left to him in his book, but I'll offer the following comments and questions to help me identify specific points in Dr. Ross' book that I can cite later. Regarding a "straight-forward" reading, accepted methods in biblical hermeneutics incorporate a variety of factors to interpret scripture. Such include: historical context, language (e.g. idiomatic expression, hyperbole), literary style (narrative, parable, metaphor, apocalyptic), cultural traditions, issues of translation vs transliteration and perhaps most importantly, the understanding that communication involves not just the source material but also the many issues associated with the reader. Q: Is this what you meant by "straight-forward" reading? Regarding "non-biblical" premises, by definition a premise is the start of a line of reasoning, rather than something we conclude, although a conclusion of one argument often becomes a premise for the next. I believe the premise we work from is that the Bible is the Word of God. But after that, I'm not qualified to articulate what other, if any, premises may be involved in interpreting God's Word to us. Q: Can you give me one or more examples of "non-biblical" premises? I suppose you need not mention the obvious "there is no God" because one cannot assume something that is mutually exclusive to the whole meaning. Parable |
||||||
18 | kill all the boys and take the virgins? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175114 | ||
In this verse (and the next) Moses is speaking to his military officers after they returned from war with the Midianites. He was angry that they had not killed ALL the Midianites, but instead had brought back the boys, girls and women, along with all the other spoils of war. I have two questions: 1. how is Moses justified in ordering the murder of innocent male children and encouraging the officers to take the young virgin women for themselves? 2. in what capacity are the officers to "take" the young virgins "for themselves"? As wives, as mistresses, as concubines, what? |
||||||
19 | why the distinction btw girls and boys? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175143 | ||
Some verses in the bible are hard to accept because we don't understand them, while others are hard to accept precisely because we do. If I may put your response into my own words.... While justified in terms of past experience at the hands of the Midianites, the executions were pre-emptive self-defense in order to preserve the line that would later produce the Messiah. Do you concur? Also, you quote Walvoord as saying "The virgins were spared because they obviously had had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples." The young boys likely were also not responsible, and they too could not perpetuate the Midianite people BY THEMSELVES. Why is there a distiction between young virgin girls and young boys, who likely are virgins also, regarding their ability to procreate? Finally, its still not clear to me how the young virgin girls were to be "taken". Does the bible give details on this practice? |
||||||
20 | why kill boys yet spare girls? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175172 | ||
Your commment about progressive revelation is on point. As for justification from God, that too is on point, yet its not clear to me where God instructed Moses to kill male children, yet spare virgin females for the purpose of having them as slaves. Boys can just as easily be taken as slaves, no? I'm interested in the reason why boys were distinguished from girls in this instance. Was it because sexual congress with the girls and/or procreation with them was implied, but this could not be the case with boys? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |