Results 141 - 160 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | do piercing | Ex 21:6 | Sir Pent | 113036 | ||
You're saying the same thing........................... Hello EdB and Sang, You are both seem to be saying the same thing here, and I would hope that you could realize that and end this thread. You both believe that getting a tattoo or piercing is not a sin, in and of itself. You both believe that we should not reject any person based solely on exterior appearances. You both believe that people could get piercings or tattoos for reasons that are contrary to God's will. You both believe that we should encourage people to allign their motivations with God's heart. It seems that the only disagreement is that Sang thinks it is possible to get a tattoo or piercing for a good reason, and EdB thinks that there are no good reasons to do either of those things. I think that you've both made your points, which are both good. Can we leave it at that? |
||||||
142 | I would like more information | Heb 13:4 | Sir Pent | 112880 | ||
Personal note................................. Monkman, I am glad that you consider yourself a Christian, and the Bible to be authoritative. Feel free to click on my user name to learn more about me. Since we have some common ground, hopefully, we can discuss what God's Word has to say about your situation. |
||||||
143 | I would like more information | Heb 13:4 | Sir Pent | 112879 | ||
It seems that you are saying that having sex outside of marriage is not adultery, and that only adultery is sin. I would ask you to think about the following question. Is having sex the same as getting married in the eyes of God? There are multiple passages of scripture that seem to indicate that the act of sex between a man and a woman is a God designed way of uniting them into one, just like marriage. For instance, in Exodus (22:16) and Deutoronomy (22:28-29), it says that once a couple has had sex they must marry. This process of joining a man and woman together was part of God’s plan from the beginning when he made Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24). This idea is not limited to the Old Testament either. Jesus even refers to it in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8. Therefore, it seems that the act of sex is not limited to just the physical body, but also contains a deeper element that unites the spirit of two people in marriage. Therefore, all scripture passages that apply to marriage would also apply to having sex with someone. So if the Bible says that it is adultery to marry a person who has been divorced (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), then it would also mean that it is adultery to have sex with a person who has been divorced. |
||||||
144 | I would like more information | Heb 13:4 | Sir Pent | 112522 | ||
Personal Note.................................... Nsparkman, Thanks for answering my question. I was actually hoping that "Monkman" would give a little more information about himself so that I could help him more. As for you, I am glad that you have a good relationship with God, and have chosen to allow scripture to be authoritative in your life. I would suggest that you put that information in your "user profile" on this site. That way, when you ask future questions or give answers, people can click on your name and know where you are coming from. In fact, I would encourage all new people on the forum to use this feature. |
||||||
145 | I would like more information | Heb 13:4 | Sir Pent | 112521 | ||
Personal Note.................................... Newg86, Thanks for answering my question. I was actually hoping that "Monkman" would give a little more information about himself so that I could help him more. As for you, I am glad that you have a good relationship with God, and your responses in this thread indicate that you have a teachable spirit (Psalm 143:10). They also indicate that you are searching for the truth in the Word of God, which is the best place to find it. Keep pressing on towards the goal (Phil 3:12) |
||||||
146 | I'm still looking for the answer | Phil 1:14 | Sir Pent | 86414 | ||
I think that is a good answer ................ Dear Scribe, Thanks for your response. That sounds very reasonable. Paul's example of sharing his faith while in prison would be very inspriring to the people around him. Hopefully, Christians today find it equally inspiring. |
||||||
147 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 66347 | ||
Final response to this thread ............................................. Dear John, As you know this thread is being shut down by the authorities who control this site. They have requested that this be the last post made to the thread. I regret this decision, as it means that any future consensus that we are able to come to on this issue will be missed by anyone who has read this far. However, we have both decided to abide by their decision in this matter. .................................................................... I was glad that you decided to respond to the analogy. Basically you said that a boy with no legs actually has a choice whether to walk to the store or not. You said that he had “liberty” or was free, but just lacked the “ability”. I suppose we just have a different definition of freedom. According to my thinking if a person does not have the ability to do something, then they are not “free” to do it. For instance, you are not “free” to fly like a bird by flapping your arms, because it is impossible. I don’t understand what the word “freedom” means to you if it is impossible. .................................................................... Your answer to the second question was similar. You said that a boy whose desire is determined by someone else to be irresistably drawn to ice cream has the liberty to not go. How can he have the liberty to not go if the desire is irresistable? And how can it be “liberty” if the desire is put upon the boy by someone else? Once again, you seem to have some alternative meaning for the word “liberty”. .................................................................... Finally, you asked me a question about whether a person could ever choose something contrary to their strongest desire. I would say that the answer is no. I agree with you that a person must act based on their strongest desires. In fact, that is why I think that if a person’s desires are determined by someone else, then they are not truly “free” or “able” to make their own choices. .................................................................... Let me just finish by thanking you for your participation in this thread. It has been an enjoyable discussion, and I think that we will continue it through email. Hopefully, we will end up at consensus, but regardless, you have conducted yourself with reason and calmness on a subject that can easily cause dissention. If anyone has been reading this thread and would like to discuss these issues further, please contact either John Reformed or myself at our email addresses listed in our personal profiles on this website. |
||||||
148 | When and how EVIL came about? | Rom 5:12 | Sir Pent | 65751 | ||
A Different View ............................................. I think the question is flawed to begin with. "Evil" is not actually a thing at all. Therefore it was never created by anyone or anything. Instead what we think of as "Evil" is really nothing more than a perversion of something good. For instance, God created sex as a good thing between a married man and woman. However, when mankind takes that good gift and takes it out of the marriage covenant, then it becomes sin and is viewed as "evil". God created all good things, man has perverted many of them. |
||||||
149 | What does "send her away" refer to? | Matt 1:19 | Sir Pent | 63564 | ||
Personal Note ..................................... Dear John and EdB, I did not originally intend to post again to this thread since my comments on the subject are already pretty well developed in another thread. However, since you both have mentioned me, I felt it would be rude to not at least say hello to my distinguished colleagues. ..................................... Thanks to both of you for your compliment that my case is "strong". I am glad that we all agree that we can trust the Bibles that we have today as the True Word of God. |
||||||
150 | What does "send her away" refer to? | Matt 1:19 | Sir Pent | 63563 | ||
Personal Note ................................................. Dear Hank, Greeting to you as well, my friend. Thanks for your agreement, and I am glad that you have found such success with the NLT. I am not personally acquainted with it, but it sounds helpful :) |
||||||
151 | What does "send her away" refer to? | Matt 1:19 | Sir Pent | 63456 | ||
A Different View ............................. Dear John, In your post, you mentioned that you believe that “even the best translations are not infallible for infallibility is ascribed to the original manuscripts alone.” I would just like to point out that I disagree with that statement. I believe that since God went to the trouble of leaving a permanent record of His message to mankind (the Bible), that He would also protect that message across time, copies, and translations. Otherwise the only people who would be able to really trust God’s message would be the very small number of Greek and Hebrew scholars in the world. .......................................................... I believe that the major translations of the Bible are completely accurate, truthful, and trustworthy today in whatever language a person reads them in. This issue has been discussed before on the forum, and I would recommend reading that thread which started with post number 15402. |
||||||
152 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62960 | ||
Clarification .............................................. Dear John, Are you trying to be evasive and dodge resonding to the point that I make in my posts, or do you just happen to be ignoring them and continuing to suggest sidelines? We’re not talking about what people deserve. That is a whole other issue within the Calvinism and Arminian debate. Let’s not go there. Please stay on topic and respond to the points that I made in my post. .............................................. “As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice.” |
||||||
153 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62947 | ||
Clarification continued ................................................... Dear John, Yes, we all SAY that everyone chooses freely. However, the point is that Arminians believe that everyone has the ABILITY to choose either way, and Calvinists don’t. This is not a breakthrough, we’ve been over that ground already. Let’s keep moving forward, not backward. My point there, was that Calvin was saying that God could use any circumstance to bring about His overall plan. This supports my proposal that God could allow people to have the ABILITY to choose either direction on an issue and yet God would still be sovereign. Anyway, what is your response to the rest of my post? ................................................... “As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice.” |
||||||
154 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62944 | ||
The road goes 3 ways ................................................... Dear John, You said in your last post that “It is not my intention to sidetrack our main discourse, But sometimes the quickst route is the longest way about.” Unfortunately, I perceive your question about what God’s ultimate goal for the universe is, to be just that, a sidetrack. Therefore, I see three ways we could proceed on this specific part of the thread (POINT ALPHA): ................................................... Option 1. You decide that the Tom and Jerry analogy is sufficient for describing the Calvinist viewpoint of the human perspective and then explain how Jerry is making a REAL choice to not walk to the ice cream store if he doesn’t have any legs. ................................................... Option 2. You decide that you are unwilling to use the Tom and Jerry analogy for whatever reason, and therefore present your own alternative analogy, and we discuss it instead. ................................................... Option 3. You give a very clear explanation as to why in the world I should go down this side road about God’s ultimate goal for the universe. This explanation should include exactly how this relates back to the point we are talking about (whether Tom or Jerry are making a real choice). This explanation should also include why I should be redundant by discussing this subject again, when my thoughts on that exact question are already documented on another thread of this forum. (search for post #13788) |
||||||
155 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62937 | ||
Clarification .............................................. Dear John, I obviously need to clarify a couple of points here. First of all, I did not say that I agreed with Calvin that God is in absolute control of all things. My actual quote was that “God could allow humans to have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose either way on an issue, and yet still control circumstances regardless of their choice to bring about God’s own final outcome.” There is an important distinction. I am saying that God does NOT control a person’s choices, but rather controls the overall situation so that regardless of their choice, God’s plan is accomplished. .............................................. As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice. |
||||||
156 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62933 | ||
Perhaps we’re at an impass .............................................. Dear John, .............................................. Tom and Jerry’s lack of legs may have been a direct result of the sin of Adam. But the sin of Adam was a direct result of God creating the universe in a way that He knew would lead to Adam’s sin. Please remember that you have already agreed in a previous post that God knowingly created a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts). Thus Tom and Jerry’s lack of legs MUST BE BY DESIGN according to your own belief system. Therefore, the hat is straight again :) .............................................. If you are truly determined to never agree to use this analogy despite my efforts to show that it accurately reflects your belief system, then perhaps we are at an impass here after all. I regret that it is the case, however, I did commit to discussing some analogy of your own making, dealing with this issue, and will follow through with that commitment. I will try to remain open to your perspective and learn from what you present. For the sake of organization, perhaps you could add your analogy as a response to post #62527. |
||||||
157 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62932 | ||
Clarification continued ........................................... Dear John, It seems that you are a bit confused here, which I take some responsibility for. This thread has actually branched into two related but distinct and seperate discussions. The first discussion includes the Tom and Jerry analogy and deals with whether a person could accurately be described as having a FREE CHOICE within the Calvinist viewpoint. Let’s call that POINT ALPHA. The second discussion includes the Dollar Store analogy, the NIM game analogy, and your John Calvin quote. This second discussion deals with whether God could still be sovereign if He (as Arminians believe) allowed people to have both the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to love God or reject Him. Let’s call that POINT OMEGA. ........................................... Here in this last post you are saying that you have this big problem with the parent / scientist in the Tom and Jerry analogy because it doesn’t do justice to God’s sovereignity. The reason why I said that this is not relevant to our discussion is because I was referring to only POINT ALPHA. Since that is the part of the thread which we are currently adding posts to, I thought that it was obvious, however, I see now that you were confused. So to clarify, it doesn’t matter to POINT ALPHA what the parent / scientist is like in the Tom and Jerry analogy. All that really matters is that one boy has legs and the other doesn’t. The question is about Tom and Jerry. Do they really have a choice to walk to the ice cream store? Please remember that this part of the thread is only about FREE CHOICE, NOT about the SOVEREIGNITY of God. ........................................... P.S. I am still very interested in continuing our discussion on POINT OMEGA, which was the original intent of this thread, but I am still waiting on you resonse to my most recent post on the subject #62857. |
||||||
158 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62921 | ||
Now hold on a minute :) .............................................. Dear John, .............................................. Don’t worry about making things difficult for me. My Mom always taught me that “anything worth doing, was worth doing well”, and “the most important things in life, don’t come easy”. Now in your last post, you made a general statement that I have been saying that you must believe my analogy because “it is what Calvinists believe”. I feel that is an unfair and inaccurate description of the points that I have been making. I have not been backing up my analogy with generic ideas that I think Calvinists believe. Rather, I have been backing up my analogy with specific quotes from you, John Reformed, about what you believe. I have quoted from a definition of Calvinism that you agreed to, and I have quoted from multiple posts that you have made on this forum. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am just repeating what you have already said. .............................................. Please try to see this from my perspective. It appears to me that I have presented an analogy which represents the calvinist viewpoint fairly and accurately. Then you point out why it is inaccurate and unfair. I respond to each of your objections with direct quotes from you, yourself. Then when it appears you have run out of reasons why the analogy is inaccurate, you switch the discussion to claiming that I shouldn’t come up with the analogy to begin with. This is probably not your intent, but I hope that you can see that it naturally comes across that way. .............................................. Now you did mention one more objection in your last post as to why the analogy is inaccurate. You said that God is not the Father of all people. I would disagree, but that is not relevant to our discussion, therefore, let’s use your idea. Feel free to change the word “parent” in the analogy to “scientist”. After all, the point is just that they are a person who creates both Tom and Jerry without any legs. In your post, you also said we weren’t getting anywhere. It seems to me that we are making good progress. We have ammended the analogy on several occasions to make it even more accurately reflect your beliefs. This is another reason why I don’t want to start all over with a new analogy that you make up. I’ll be happy to do that later, but let’s finish this one first. |
||||||
159 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62914 | ||
You make a good point .............................................. Dear John, You have made another good point here in your last post. You said that the analogy is missing the sacrifice of the parent. Therefore, I will make another ammendment to the analogy to reflect that very important aspect of the Calvinist perspective (which the Arminians would agree with, I might add). This newest version of the analogy is thus: .............................................. Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry, who are consistently disobedient. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent had his own two legs amputated to make a set of artificial legs for Tom so that Tom could walk. But the parent did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent (whose legs miraculously grew back) decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either? .............................................. The rest of your post basically said that Tom and Jerry are both terrible people who DESERVE to be legless. But that is irrelevant to the question. Whether they DESERVE to be legless or not, the point is that only one of them is given legs. Whether humans DESERVE to be ABLE to choose to love God or not is not the point. The point is that in the Calvinist perspective only a select group of humans ARE ABLE to choose to love God. My question is NOT whether they get what they deserve. My question is whether their choice is TRULY FREE, since it is determined by the ABILITIES that God gave them. .............................................. P.S. I’m still waiting for your response to my post #62857. |
||||||
160 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62859 | ||
One thing at a time ................................................. Dear John, In you last post, you felt that I had tied your hands behind your back by asking you to answer my question within an analogy that I made up. However, if the analogy accurately reflects the Calvinist viewpoint, then it shouldn’t matter whether I make up the analogy or you do. And unless you have thought of another reason why the analogy doesn’t fit, then I’d appreciate if you would answer the question. After we finish talking about this analogy, I’d be glad to talk about a second one that you make up, but let’s just do one at time. So are the choices that Tom and Jerry make TRULY FREE? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [24] >> |