Results 101 - 120 of 465
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180585 | ||
Of course it was a miracle. That wasn't the question. Please bear with my process, there is a point to it, and its maybe not to "logically explain it away." Legalistically, since Mary was still a virgin, no sex act occurred, so technically it can't have been adultery. Yet, there are many broken people who have experienced the pain of a spouse who was for all practical purposes unfaithful, but perhaps not sexually, rather emotionally with someone else. This is perhaps even more of a betrayal than the physical. For them, the question of what constitutes infidelity is not just about whether or not intercourse occurred. Certainly what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit was intimate. In other words, does it not qualify as adultery by virture of the fact it was God who was involved, or that it was not sexual? (I think perhaps both, and seek scriptural support for the former aspect of that.) That is, if it were possible for a man to impregnate Mary without having sex with her, or even physical contact, how would it be seen and more importantly, would Joseph feel betrayed? I think we would have a problem with that scenario, and would expect no less from Joseph. So, my purpose is to illuminate why it may be different because it was God, not man. Scripture tells that Joseph, a righteous man, considered divorcing Mary because she was pregnant not by him. The angel told him not to do so because the child she carried was from God. Either this means that what happened was somehow not was not adultery, or if it was, it was somehow justified, like not all killing is murder, e.g. self-defense or execution by the state. This is exegesis, not an attempt to disparage God. |
||||||
102 | 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? |
||||||
103 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180542 | ||
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but you have not provided any scriptural references that support your points 1-5, which without specific scriptural support, appear to be conjecture or speculation. | ||||||
104 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180541 | ||
Thanks, Steve. I'm not assuming anything about God, or trying to box Him in. I'm just testing the logic that seems apparent and working to apply biblical principals to a fair question put to me by a sincere seeker. I get many questions like this working at a university as I do. |
||||||
105 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180540 | ||
Excellent citation! Thank you! | ||||||
106 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180513 | ||
Not only the Spirit's actions, but also those of Mary, who said "May it be to me as you have said." Luke 1:38 |
||||||
107 | 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. |
||||||
108 | Adultery? | Not Specified | Parable | 180496 | ||
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? |
||||||
109 | 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? |
||||||
110 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177230 | ||
I love your analogies! | ||||||
111 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177226 | ||
I must qualify my use of my pastor's quote: I use it in a slightly different context than he did, so any disagreement you have is with my application, not his. If you wish to review his message, it will soon be available as a pod-cast at "www.wordofgrace.org" To clarify Harris' thesis, he contends that faith itself is the problem, because it leads people to act on the basis of what they believe without any rational support, and historically those beliefs have been harmful because of the atrocities they have inspired. He distinguishes faith from the object of faith, because without the first, the second is impotent. Regarding your comment "the terrorist "suicide/murderer" is not showing agape love towards others". I agree, but Harris might disagree because he explains that if you truly embrace the articles of faith of Islam, killing infidels is virtually the only logical conclusion you can reach, as it is for their own good because it separates them from their Godless beliefs. Such is the reasoning that Harris is challenging. Regarding your concerns about surrendering your right to be right, my pastor also said "the power of weakness is not the powerlessness of helplessness, giving up and giving in to life. No, the power of weakness means standing in the power of God released in me when I totally trust God because I'm totally helpless" and "even if I'm right, making that the issue can make me dead wrong". I submit that loving others sometimes means not asserting our right to be right, that's all. Your comment about the benefit of faith is on point. However, I note that in his doctoral work, Harris is studying the neuralogy of the brain in order to better understand how it behaves in various states of belief and disbelief. He is very much a laboratory experimentalist in this regard. |
||||||
112 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177223 | ||
yes, my understanding of Harris' argument is: faith in propositions that cannot be tested or for which there is no objective evidence, other than mystical writings, is inherently dangerous to mankind, and even more so now in an age when weapons of mass destruction are becoming more available to those who would use them to fulfill what they believe are written instructions from God to kill heretics or wage war on infidels, for example. My pastor this weekend delivered an excellent message that relates to this. About hating your enemies, he said "The more I hate to be wrong and the more I'm sure I'm right, the more I hate others who disagree with me, who are different. When I'm totally right and you're totally wrong, that could mean we're enemies. And we might have to kill each other for that." Harris says essentially the same thing, and adds that religious articles of faith, taken as divine revelation, leave no room for anything but absolute conviction in being right, because they come from God, who is truth, or so the faithful believe. Harris also argues that the benefits of religion are available by other means, so faith and religion are not necessary. However, instead of condemning faith, my pastor proceeds from this starting point to explain the deeper truth that God's power is made complete in weakness, that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world and that if we are to become more like Jesus, we must surrender our right to be right. Clearly, if people lived like this, the world would be much more peaceful. Furthermore, in contrast to Harris' idea that the benefits of religion are available by other means, I note that the truth of this teaching about weakenss can only be understood in light of the truth of Jesus. Otherwise, turning the other cheek and yielding to each other out of reverence for Christ are indeed foolish ways to live. |
||||||
113 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177219 | ||
You have a good point. It shows the truth of the statement "If you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention." :) "religion" to me is as you suggest. my understanding of what Mr. Harris means by this term is not so clear, but I suspect his meaning might include more than mine. given the meaning you suggest, how would you answer my question? |
||||||
114 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177158 | ||
Hank, as always I respect your views and how graciously you express them. I agree that SBF is not the place to debate the existence of God, but none of my original questions were about this. I thank all those who have so far provided excellent examples from scripture in response to my first two and fourth questions about the nature of mystical faith as it may relate to Harris' concerns. However, I do believe my third question about what the bible says about religiosity being a problem is within the mission of SBF. Indeed, I feel that scripture agrees that religion is a burden to the world, and this is why Christ came, i.e. to clear the way for relationship instead. I look forward to any responses that speak to this point. Peace, Parable |
||||||
115 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177136 | ||
This is another excellent contribution to the answer I seek. Thank you. | ||||||
116 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177135 | ||
I am looking for a cogent response to a credible challenge to our faith. I accept your answer as a sincere contribution to that effort. I do believe that as christians we are accountable to each other for how we live, including the likes of Mr. Harris. I do agree that changed lives testify to the power of God, although Mr. Harris would propbably suggest that it can be explained just as well in terms of the power of the human mind in a particular state of belief or unbelief. As for Mr. Harris "asking", it may be that he has not asked, but his work inspires others to ask how the atrocities committed in accordance with the dictates of religious belief are justified, including the beliefs of christianity. As for my motivations, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." -- Proverbs 27:17 |
||||||
117 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177124 | ||
BradK, You asked "Why do we need to respond to Sam Harris?" First, because scripture commands us to always be ready to "...make a defense to EVERYONE who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you..." 1 Peter 3:15. Second, because he charges that faith itself is ultimately dangerous for humanity and lots of people are listening to him, see below. You asked "What credentials does he posses?" He is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford and is completing a doctorate in neuroscience, studying the neural basis of belief, disbelief and uncertainty. His book is an award-winning NY Times Bestseller and has received glowing endorsements from many notable figures in contemporary social dialogue. You asked "why should we listen to him?" Because he makes credible arguments that are persuasive to a vast audience. Essentially, his position is summarized on page 106, "Whenever you hear that people have begun killing noncombatants intentionally and indiscriminately, ask yourself what dogma stands at their backs. What do these freshly minted killers BELEVE? You will find that it is always -- ALWAYS - preposterous." He includes a detailed historical overview of many atrocities committed in the name of God, including by christians (the crusades, the inquisition) and by present day muslims (suicide bombings, jihad), and an analysis of the belief systems of several religions. He also describes that many of us so-called religious "moderates" have a hard time admitting that atrocities were rightly committed in the name of God because we ourselves do not actually beleive what our religions teach regarding what must be done with heretics, for example. That is, Harris charges that most of us conveniently disregard much of our own scriptures in order to live with our modern-minded selves, and we cannot honestly endorse the actions of those who do fully embrace and act on everything our scriptures command. Ignoring Harris' argument would be seen as confirming his hypothesis. So, how do we as christians give answer? |
||||||
118 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | Not Specified | Parable | 177091 | ||
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? |
||||||
119 | 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? |
||||||
120 | 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? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [24] >> |