Results 1 - 20 of 57
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Scripture alone? | James 1:5 | Parable | 191871 | ||
I propose the following to those who would willingly undertake an experiment here, to explore a different way of interacting: Instead of answering a question with a combination of scripture verses and commentary, either one's own or from other sources, answer in verse only. That is, nothing but scripture would appear in your response, period. This should be sufficient, since "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work". (1Tim3:16,17), and in Luke 24:45, Jesus "...opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures", and in James 1:5, we are instructed "if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." We need not interject our limited understandings, personal insights and experiences, historical analyses or applications….that is, God will take of what we might otherwise presume to undertake. So, if you are willing to try something different, for this thread and only this thread, either 1) ask a question, or 2) post a response containing scripture and nothing but scripture. Of course, a response to a response would likewise follow this pattern. When asking a question, try to limit the setup for the question so as not to introducde too many ideas at once. For example, if you have concerns about this approach, please demonstrate it rather than explain it by quoting a verse that supports your concern, but let the verse speak for itself without extraneous input or explanation. You got game? Parable |
||||||
2 | ... | Eccl 3:21 | Parable | 191607 | ||
... | ||||||
3 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Matt 5:44 | Parable | 191433 | ||
According to the bible, what does it mean to hate? What is hatred? When is hatred righteous, and when is it sinful? Please be specific with verses that support your answers. |
||||||
4 | 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? |
||||||
5 | 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. |
||||||
6 | 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? |
||||||
7 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177095 | ||
In his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason", author Sam Harris suggests faith itself is understood as belief that transcends reason, yet at the same time is justified by appealing to physical evidence, such as the miracles described in scripture. (my paraphrase) Of course, Harris questions the historicity of miracles and suggests that the idea scripture is the inerrant word of God is merely because scripture says so, which he suggests is circular reasoning and therefore invalid. What does the bible teach about the nature of faith itself? And given this nature, what does the bible say about why God values faith, perhaps even more than love? (because it seems faith is a prerequisite to love) Finally, what does the bible say about Harris' suggestion that religion is the bane of mankind? Didn't Jesus also criticize religiosity in favor of relationship? Harris' book is a direct challenge to the most cherished tenets of christianity, indeed all religions, in that he is challenging all beliefs that depend on mystical faith. As per 1 Peter 3:15, how would the bible have us respond to this most fundamental objection to faith itself? |
||||||
8 | how to rightly divide the Word? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175259 | ||
Regarding the expectation on boys that was not the same as for girls, you said "This was simply the cultural norm." This implies that cultural expectations influenced the decision to kill the boys and spare the girls. This implies that in a different culture, with different expectations, the outcome might be different. For example, if this were to occur in a society in which the girls would grow into women who feel empowered to act, they too might desire to exact revenge upon the Israelites and therefore would also be killed. Of course, this is speculation. However, if the expectation on the boys is the justification, then this is an example of pre-emptive self-defense, is it not? My point is that while cultural norms are always important to consider in attempting to understand what people do in the Name of God, how does one rightly divide the Word in order to distinguish actions in the context of cultural norms and those that transcend culture and are appropriate in every circumstance? |
||||||
9 | guiding principles? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175251 | ||
So, are you suggesting this is an example of "situational ethics" based on "cultural relativity"? | ||||||
10 | scriptural evidence? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175248 | ||
That's a good working hypothesis. What scriptural evidence might you suggest to support this idea? |
||||||
11 | 2 Tim 3:16 | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175216 | ||
Thank you for sharing your opinions about the purpose of this scripture and the interesting commentaries along those lines. My only concern, though, with the ideas that 1) its none of our business, 2) we're not smart enough to understand or 3) we're not interested and just want to complain, comes in light of 2 Tim 3:16 "Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, for training in righteousness" If the purpose of this scripture is not to be explained in the terms I have put the question, and that is certainly possible, then what purpose does Numbers 31:17-18 serve, among those listed by Paul to Timothy? |
||||||
12 | what purpose served by this distinction? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175200 | ||
Respectfully, I don't see how v15 addresses the question of distinction. Perhaps my question can be reformulated....was what happened full and correct obedience to God? If yes, what is God trying to do by having the boys (who by definition are not of the age of responsibility) killed, while having the virgin females spared and given to the officers? What purpose is served by eliminating the boys that would not have also been served by eliminating the virgin females? And conversely, what purpose is served by sparing the virgin females that would not have also been served by sparing the boys? Peace, Parable |
||||||
13 | 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? |
||||||
14 | 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? |
||||||
15 | 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? |
||||||
16 | prescription for living, rephrased? | Ps 14:1 | Parable | 142594 | ||
Yes, of course. I agree that respect for God is the beginning of wisdom. But the existence of God is not the question, but rather it concerns the manner of living that is demanded by the requirement that it not matter if a God exists or not. That is (for the sake of communicating with my secular friend) if a God exists, how we live would be acceptable to that God, and if not, that also would be acceptable to everyone else. Or, another way to phrase it, is there any way of living that meets this requirement and would this in fact be compatible with how the bible says we should live? Does the biblical approach to life meet this requirement? I hope this clarifies my question. |
||||||
17 | Prescription for living? | Ps 14:1 | Parable | 142592 | ||
A secular friend has suggested that the world would be a better place if we would just live such that it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. What does the bible say about this approach to life, pro or con? I'm interested to know if this principle for living is compatible with a biblical worldview or not. Thanks |
||||||
18 | 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 |
||||||
19 | 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. |
||||||
20 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | Parable | 98979 | ||
"Nothing happens that God did not intend to happen" is a good summary of Augustine's theology, but not scripture. Did God intend for man to disobey and fall into sin? NO. He intended that man would enjoy harmonious fellowship with Him. Man freely chose to disobey, God did not make this choice for us. Does God intend for children to be kidnapped, raped and killed? Please say no. Stop ascribing to God what can only be explained as moral free agents acting in opposition to God's will. God is not the author of evil. Read Boyd's books "Satan and the Problem of Evil", "God at War" and "God of the Possible". |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |