Results 121 - 140 of 465
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | question to smoke pot or not | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 54872 | ||
The big picture is a mosaic made from our individual lives and what affects us individually affects the big picture. You said "I will smoke it whether or not it is illegal" then said the point is "what is the motivation?" For Christians, our motivation is for everything we think, say, do and become to reflect the life of Jesus Christ in us and through us. You have said "there remains a choice". I agree, but the choice is not between smoking pot or not smoking pot. It's about choosing between life and death, i.e. continuing in sin or dying to your old nature and being raised in Christ. The pot question is just a distraction, an indirect attack on your spirit. Drug abuse is a sign of a spiritual illness. The answer you want lies in recognizing and accepting your guilt before God, i.e. conviction by the Spirit, and by accepting His forgiveness and grace through what Jesus did for you on the cross. |
||||||
122 | question to smoke pot or not | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 54955 | ||
The summary of Christian liberty you cite is reasonable, yet I question its application in this case. Consider the potential consequences of using liberty in Christ to justify our actions, thereby setting an example for others to follow: Matt 18:6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Of course, the problem comes only if the actions are sinful. I understand that this is precisely the question you're asking in regard to smoking pot, and my point is that experience shows time after time that drug abuse interferes with one's relationship with God, even to the point of getting the person to think they are immune from such influence. It reminds me of a line from the movie "The Usual Suspects", when Kevin Spacey's character says "The best trick the devil ever pulled was getting people to believe he didn't exist." (my paraphrase) Also, consider Paul's admonition about our liberty in Christ: Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" Again, the problem comes when the actions are sinful. Of course, the final authority for such personal decisions is the Holy Spirit, yet He does not force anyone to follow or even to hear. While He has given His Word in Scripture, He also leads us in our daily lives, when we attempt to apply His Word to specific circumstances unique to our times. A person who is spiritually lost must recognize that fact and then sincerely admit the need for guidance. Then, when He speaks, to listen and obey. But you already knew this. As a follower of Christ, you stand ready to do or not do as He commands. So rather than attempt to validate your decision by intricate debate, ask Him his will in this. But don't ask until you are as ready to stop smoking pot as you are to continue. Until you are ready to obey, asking is not meaningful and no amount of logical analysis will persuade you to abandon your selfish desires. Parable. p.s. in an earlier note, you said that you have access and don't support the illegal drug trade. I presume this is because you are smoking your father's pot that was prescribed to him by a doctor. Offering prescribed medications to others and taking another person's prescription are violations of federal law. So, for you to smoke pot in this way implies that you and possibly your father are committing a crime. In this specific case, scripture is clear that you must stop. Forget the idealistic arguement about what it would mean if this were not the case. The fact is, this is the case and this is the situation in which you are called to apply scripture. Hypothetical situations, by definition, do not exist. |
||||||
123 | 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? | ||||||
124 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55029 | ||
OK. Praise God that you have made this decision. Believe it or not, this is probably the easiest part. I suggest you get started by getting substance abuse education in concert with group fellowship for life recovery. There's a lot going on with getting away from pot, don't underestimate how hard it's going to be and don't beat yourself up if you can't make a clean break on your own, which is usually not how it works. Stay in touch, I'm interested to know how things go and to support you. Parable |
||||||
125 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55086 | ||
No, you can only quit once. Temporarily not using is not the same thing as quitting. Your inablility to quit shows that you are exactly the personality that cannot do it on your own, which is everyone. Your pridefullness is showing that you have not yet admitted you are powerless over your addiction and realized that the only way to be free of it is to give it and yourself over to God. That you become legalistic and judgemental shows you are still looking outward instead of at yourself and that you do not yet understand the dynamics of this spiritual illness. You are correct that you must leave behind your old life, especially your party friends, not because of your harsh judgement of that lifestyle and those you share it with, but rather because you see that you cannot survive their company nor withstand the forces that drive their using. You must not think that you can help them while you are still in bondage to this. Yes, we are salt and light, but don't deceive yourself into believing you are either until the Lord delivers you from this. Many have fallen because they underestimated how deeply the hook is set. Parable |
||||||
126 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55090 | ||
I meant no disrespect, but rather to speak the truth in love and sometimes, the truth is not always "uplifting" nor "attractive". What I said applies to one degree or another, regardless your circumstances. The dynamics of drug abuse are well understood; they don't change much from person to person, although they do vary in intensity and consequences. The point is, your chances of conquering this on your own are slim and worse if you remain around those who are content to continue with pot. There is a reason good people spend years in graduate school to learn how to help others deal with problems like this. If you think you can make it alone, you have not reached even the first step in your recovery, i.e. humble acceptance that you are not in control. | ||||||
127 | 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 |
||||||
128 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55177 | ||
Yes, support from others is a good thing. However, your wife and friends are not professionals qualified to help you confront your deeper issues in a meaningful way. This takes special training. I've read some of your other posts and from what you describe, you are in deep and long. Don't be offended at what I'm about to say, but in all probability, your wife may be enabling your addiction and she may need counseling to understand how this could be possible. NA is good, if you sincerely work the program with a mature sponsor and don't just attend meetings and listen. But more importantly, you really need to have your program under the supervision of a qualified professional substance abuse counselor that you meet with in addition to your sponsor. Once you have completed the program, then you will be ready to be salt and light for others, perhaps by being a sponsor to them. Stop putting it off. Make an appointment. Go. Maybe even take your wife. How many reasons can you list not to do this? If you're like most addicts, you can find lots of reasons not to. This is the one reason you must. Its clear you have submitted yourself to Christ, now submit yourself to another person who can hold you accountable and help you constructively overcome what you have not yet dealt with. Clearly, you are highly intelligent, but this can be a stumbling block. There is such a thing as being too smart for your own good. I'm a good example :) Parable |
||||||
129 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55561 | ||
I can understand your distaste for "new age funk". It sounds like the NA group has departed significantly from the original 12-step design of AA, which is faith oriented, but does not adopt any particular belief system so as to avoid keeping people away. There are some who interpret the 12-step approach as incompatible with Christianity, but according to a friend of mine, who is a mature sponsor and very faithful Christian, this is an unfortunate misperception and does not acknoweldge the many lives that have been saved and many addicts who have become born again. Overcomers sounds good, being Christian, yet my recommendation to enlist the services of a qualified substance abuse professional still stands. Finally, sin IS slippery, but don't dismiss secular counselors entirely. I'm all for Christian fellowship and pastoral care, but a there are non-religious issues that a well qualified professional counselor is well suited to address. |
||||||
130 | what is your point? | Gen 1:12 | Parable | 55568 | ||
May your recovery glorify God and serve His Will in the lives of all you meet! Amen. |
||||||
131 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46773 | ||
See "The Genesis Question" by Dr. Hugh Ross. Therein, he explains that current scientific understanding is consistent with the Genesis account of the creation of Earth. His argument is based on the premises that the initial conditions of the earth and perspective of the observer must be understood in a way that he supports well in his treatment. To summarize his thesis: 1. the perspective of the Genesis account is that of an observer on Earth, not someone viewing the creation of the entire cosmos from some astronomical location. 2. the initial conditions of the Genesis account are not the first stages of cosmic or even planetary formation, but rather when the opacity of the atmosphere prevents anyone from seeing the stars, and not that light or the stars were created then. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross says later in the book, but I find his treatment of Genesis 1 to be quite reasonable. Furthermore, he espouses that ultimately, there will be no conflict with our scientific understanding of creation and what the Bible teaches and we must work to remove the supposed conflict between science and faith, surely an artificial stumbling block, from the paths of those who might otherwise come to faith in Christ. Parable |
||||||
132 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46796 | ||
Your points are well taken. Dr. Ross founded "Reasons to Believe" and more about his ministry is available at www.reasons.org He takes great pains to explain the biblical basis for his views, and he would be the first to agree with you that we must not impose our preferences on the Bible and that Moses was indeed inspired by God. Yet also, I think he would suggest that we must not impose our prejudices on the Bible either. He examines the original language in light of the best OT scholarship and goes from there, leading us along a "straight forward" reading, as you suggest, a reading based on detailed study of the original words used. He does not take current science and mold Genesis to make it agree. Your assertion that his conclusions are unbiblical is ironic in that he concludes Genesis is accurate! If you're not willing to accept his argument, how do you answer the original question about how plants were created before the stars? Kudos to Dr. Ross for demonstrating that the Bible is accurate! |
||||||
133 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46864 | ||
My apologies if I put words in your mouth or twisted your meaning. The two statements you did make, "it sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine" and "if one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions" logically imply Dr. Ross's conclusions are unbiblical. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. Also, I was not challenging your second premise, in fact I concur. But, I submit your first premise does not hold, therefore the inference about Dr. Ross' work does not follow. On your other point, showing the Bible to be accurate or otherwise consistent with our understanding of God's creation does NOT render the Word subordinate to anything. In fact, it does just the opposite. I grant that some may try to justify their unbelief in this way, but for Christians, this is not a problem, for they know Creation is God's most basic revelation of Himself to us, see Romans 1:20, we are called to "test everything", see 1 Thess 5:21, and to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and MIND, see Luke 10:27. The point is not that science proves the Bible, but rather that science, when done properly, as a means of looking at God's creation, cannot be contrary to the Word and in fact must agree. In the end, when all is known, we will see that there is no discrepancy between Creation and the Word, for such would imply a schism between what God does and what He says. Finally, I acknowledge the ultimate authority of the Word, yet I question your idea that the Bible alone is to be the rule of our faith and practice. The Bible itself tells us that the Holy Spirit is the agent of our faith and practice, see Luke 12:12, John 14:26, John 20:22. Perhaps the place we agree is seen in the old saying "Put your trust in the Lord, but always cut the cards!" That is, as a scientist, I am most skeptical of science in order that I can understand it and its fruit for what it is, a human attempt to see Creation. As a believer, I trust Christ completely because He is the Truth. Nothing science does can ever change that. |
||||||
134 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46865 | ||
Evolution is not a prerequisite to Dr. Ross' thesis. However, I'm not a life scientist, so I don't know the details of that THEORY. However, I do know that the theory of evolution, for whatever utility it may have in modelling the process of speciation, 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. What I do know is, as we learn more about Creation, we learn more about ourselves, for we are part of Creation, and these things can only confirm what God reveals in His Word. I agree God does as He wills, so we cannot impose constraints on Him, except of course that He is Holy and does not lie to us in His Creation, Word, Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension, Glorification, Indwelling, Outpouring or Return. |
||||||
135 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46876 | ||
As they say, "if you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention!" You have described the problem accurately. I will add to your point with my view of science in general in my next post to this thread. |
||||||
136 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46906 | ||
This followup is not intended to address biblical matters, but rather explain my perspective on science in general in light of my faith in Christ. Science addresses our knowledge of the universe. As a human endeavor, science is subject to both the constraints and the liberties afforded by the human condition. Thus, the structure and meaning of science give insight to both the universe in general, and the human condition in particular. If this were not true, science would not have meaning for us as we strive to build a world view in which we make sense of what we experience and observe. In other words, science can help us to understand ourselves as part of the universe. And, perhaps more profoundly, because the human condition shapes how we practice science, the structure and content of science inherently imply something about the human condition that we cannot elucidate directly. So, in effect we get two jewels for the price of one, if we are able to see the human condition reflected in our knowledge system called science. Perhaps most importantly, in the limitations of science, we see the limitations of ourselves. Ultimately, according to the purely scientific approach, all observable phenomena are explainable in terms of fundamental physical processes alone. These phenomena include not only the processes of physics, chemistry and biology, but also the processes of psychology, sociology, history, religion and art, to name a few. Perhaps the most elegant accomplishment of science will be the understanding of consciousness, self-awareness, emotion, logic, mathematics, language, memory and imagination. I suspect these latter phenomena may be understood by induction from the human condition as reflected in science rather than through deduction from the data per se, yet this understanding is no less valid for being gained in this way. In science, the universe is not defined, but its properties are modeled in terms of four fundamental elements, i.e. matter, space, energy and time. The ultimate goal of science is to develop an understanding of how matter, space, time and energy can be explained in terms of each other, or as diverse manifestations of one ultimate fundamental reality, such that all observable phenomena can be understood, including the origin of the universe and its ultimate destiny. For example, a central question is how matter and energy can be equivalent, as inspired by the observation that matter can be converted entirely into energy, according to Einstein's famous equivalence, as in nuclear fission, for example. Another is how the force of gravity can be communicated between masses and how gravity is somehow equivalent to the other three fundamental forces, i.e. electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Yet another is how the entirety of the universe can be accounted for in an infinitely dense, dimensionless singularity at the start of space-time, as hypothesized in the cosmological theory of the Big Bang. Finally, given what we believe from science, what will happen at the end of time? The Big Crunch, the infinite expansion of the universe until it gets spread so thin as to be reduced to nothing, or some other possibility we have yet to imagine? To me, faith in Christ liberates us from the hopelessness and tyranny imposed by a purely scientific world view and nothing in science, when done properly, can ever contradict the Word of God. |
||||||
137 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46923 | ||
I agree with you, Hank. There is an old saying, "the truth that needs to be proven is only half-true". To me, it means we trust "obvious" truths and we are always suspicious of those that need to be "proven", especially when the derivations depend on questionable assumptions and complicated reasoning. The idea that truth is relative comes from the idea that our standard of reference for comparison cannot be defined absolutely. In science, this most definitely true, because we have no way to determine that a location is absolutely fixed, so there is no way to establish a reference frame that is completely non-inertial, a fundamental requirement for absolute measurements. And, even if the speed of light may be the upper limit on velocity, it is not clear that this limit is fixed, especially in the vicinity of a black hole, because velocity refers to location and space itself becomes warped near black holes. Furthermore, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle establishes limits on how precisely we can know position and momentum or energy and time for a given system. This implies that science itself has established that it is not possible to measure absolutely precise values for anything. In other words, it simply is not possible to eliminate uncertainty from any measurement. Your point about arithmetic is different and it is because arithmetic is counting and that seems to be one of those "obvious" truths we accept. Despite our other problems, we seem to be able to count things very well. In fact, all branches of mathematics can be related back to the simple act of counting, which is not the same as taking a measurement, and this is why we put such stock in mathematics. Of all the sciences, math is the only one where we say the answer is right or wrong, but even this is subject to the qualification that the fundamental axioms apply. The bottom line is, science explores the wonder and beauty of Creation, but it cannot speak directly to issues that are best addressed through faith. |
||||||
138 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46952 | ||
And that more scientists will come to faith! I specialize in chemistry, physics and materials science/engineering. Grace and Peace My Brother, Parable |
||||||
139 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46953 | ||
We seem to know, without anyone telling us, right from wrong, real from imaginary and true from false. Yet how often we choose wrong, imaginary and false over right, real and true. The knowledge of good and evil is indeed dangerous if all you have is a fallen nature! I have come to a point in my life where the "line and rule", although useful for the world, is more like a shimmering mirage, and the truth of faith, although unmeasureable, is the oasis in the desert. |
||||||
140 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47084 | ||
Sharonrose, I once read that the first rule of consulting is that the problem is always with the people, not the equipment, policies, software, infrastructure or anything else the people use. In the case of the "science vs faith" conflict, the problem is with people. To address the needs of people, then, I recommend the following approach. Regarding faith, I believe the facts of our faith are best understood in light of the Godly principles they demonstrate. I think we agree that knowing all of "what" the Bible says and having it at your fingertips is no small task, but knowing the "how" and "why" of the Bible is much more feasible and fruitful; when we understand the lesson God wants us to know, we can better understand the details he uses to teach that lesson and we can apply those lessons in the circumstances of our lives. Of course, learning both the lesson and the facts happens together. Likewise for science, no one can know all of what science has to say. I've heard physicists talk about biology and biologists talk about astronomy and when they do, they reveal how even learned scholars can be like novices in another field. So, rather than learn the "what" of science, i.e. science facts, which are static, I suggest you learn the "how" of science, which is dynamic, so you can apply proper scientific method to any subject or line of reasoning you face. For me, I have to remind myself that sometimes, no matter what I say, people will continue to believe what they want, perhaps in order to justify what they want to do. As a friend of mine once said about those who raise objections to faith, "if you yank those objections out of the ground like a weed, what you find clinging to the roots is sin." So, what people need is to be convicted of their sin, rather than intellectually convinced that, without God, science is empty and dead. Indeed, conviction is the first step in understanding this; science can do nothing for the fundamental condition of human depravity. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [24] >> |