Results 141 - 160 of 173
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | I need some help. | 1 Cor 6:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126622 | ||
I am thoroughly confused. I would like to know what others understand the meaning of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:16 to be. To avoid any problems, I will not reply to any posts to this thread; I just wish to gain some definative understanding of this scripture. Please, I would just like to hear as many opinions regarding what this scripture means. | ||||||
142 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126621 | ||
You know Leslie, I just don't think that is the case :) Can you think of anything you wrote that would justify these thoughts? | ||||||
143 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126593 | ||
Why is this thread restricted? | ||||||
144 | Definitions, please? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126592 | ||
Can you define "Darwinian materialism" please (site some sources, please)? Also, can you please explain what Paul means in his statements regarding sex with a harlot in 1 Corinthians 6:15 and 16? | ||||||
145 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126495 | ||
There is no definitive Biblical defination other than: Genesis 2:23 and 2:24 and 2:25. I know there is no better for two reasons: 1. This is the definition that both Christ and Paul use. 2. I am unable to find another. If this is the case, we must adhere to this definition. Paul and Christ both choose to do this very thing. My point is to the nature of the relevance of the act of intercourse. Paul expressly describes the act of intercourse between (I will be gender specific for ease of reading)a Man and a Prostitute as resulting in a marriage covenant, and that by the above definition. Now, if this is the case between a Man and a Prostitute, how much more so as that between two people who LOVE one another and desire to be married? This being the case, consider the examples given in other posts. That of Genesis 38:9, Deuteronomy 21:13, and 25:5 for example. These are examples of this very concept in application. We have no scriptural precedent for the NECESSITY of a "marriage ceremony." Now, if someone is incorrect about PRE-MARITAL SEX, lets figure out why or why not! Just because the answere to this question APPEARS obvious most certainly does not MAKE it obvious. This definition of marriage above does not make "promiscuity" or "debauchery" permissable, but neither are these words ("promiscuity" or "debauchery") define of sex between a man and a woman loving and desiring to be married. For that matter, the Greek word used, as described in other posts, is also not a definiton of two loving adults that desire to be married. Instead, the definition focuses on the act of sex in a promiscuous fashion (wether for money or just for the sake of the act). All this considered, how innacurate is it to say that a man and a woman, "engaged to be married," living together and having sex, are, in fact, "married." At least according to Biblical definition. Furthermore, I would like you to provide me with an email address, so that I can discuss the matter of the restriction of this thread with you in a more appropriate environment. thank you. |
||||||
146 | Sex only after called husband and wife. | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126477 | ||
Searcher... When you read such as "he went in unto her," are you confused about why he "went in unto her," or what went on when he "went in unto her," or in what order of actions the scriptures conclude that such marriages took place? | ||||||
147 | Do you not know...? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126472 | ||
Where does the scripture (not a dictionary's definition of "fornication") state that sex outside of marriage is a sin? |
||||||
148 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126471 | ||
Sorry... I replied to wrong thread! | ||||||
149 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126470 | ||
Where does the scripture (not a dictionary's definition of "fornication") state that sex outside of marriage is a sin? | ||||||
150 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126468 | ||
I am amazed at the lack of concern dedicated to this topic. If Theo-minor is wrong, why is he not being refuted with sound, contrary scripture? I am asking, are Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 6:16 incorrect? Is my assessment of them wrong? Silencing this topic will not help those who are incorrect reach any amount of understanding, nor does it address the issue in question. |
||||||
151 | Am I wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126463 | ||
Hank... Interesting methodology. Is this how everyone who is presumed wrong is taught the truth? I am re-posting a reply I made to another part of this thread, and adding a couple questions: "I would like to add that my posts to this subject do NOT advocate the taking of the union of marriage lightly... On the other hand, I certainly imply that we do not take seriously enough the act of intercourse. Here it is dismissed as sin quite casually, but I believe the scriptures show that the implications of the act are much more far-reaching then some would like to admit." I assume you can refute what is being posted here with some form of specific scripture. Am I wrong? |
||||||
152 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126461 | ||
I would like to add that my posts to this subject do NOT advocate the taking of the union of marriage lightly... On the other hand, I certainly imply that we do not take seriously enough the act of intercourse. Here it is dismissed as sin quite casually, but I believe the scriptures show that the implications of the act are much more far-reaching then some would like to admit. | ||||||
153 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126456 | ||
I call myself Stultis because I am a fan of Charles Darwin (though I do not subscribe to modern Darwinism, or any other "Darwinism" for that matter), and his research. "Stultis the Fool" was Darwin's pen name amongst his friends, and I in no way quantify myself with any ancient or popular mythology regarding the name or persons of "Stultis". I am just a fan of Charles Darwin. I hope this helps! | ||||||
154 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126452 | ||
I understand quite well the argument that The-minor is putting forth. The scriptures he is quoting denote that the act of intercourse is a consumation placing both participants in a state of marriage. See 1 Crinthians 6:16: "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is ONE BODY with her? For it says, "THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE FLESH."" The exact act here (between a person and a harlot), is illicit sexual intercourse (fornication between an individual and a prostitute, as Theo-minor previously defined). The result, as Paul adequately describes, is marriage. There are no vows, no passing of rings, no preacher, friends, family, bridesmaids, etc. Just a person, a prostitute, and the Lord. The bible, in no place, prescribes the tradition of marriage (exchange of rings, marriage vows, etc.) that we have today. Marriage, while it is manifested publically, is a union between a man and a woman, and not between those two and any other person. I challenge you to produce scripture that displays the modern marriage ceremony as neccessary to facilitate "marriage". You will find no such scripture. All two people need to be "married", in my opinion, based on what is or is not found in the scriptures, is a WILLINGNESS to be married. Nowhere does the scripture require pomp and circumstance or ceremony. However, I do not denegrate the modern marriage ceremony of a purpose, and gladly suggest that a marriage ceremony, a reception, preacher, vows, etc. are a fine thing and I add that there is no wrongdoing in the participation in such festivities. However, we must not enforce what is a tradition of men where it contradicts the teachings of God. Those two people, engaged and living together (assuming they are engaged in intercourse), by Biblical example (the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, Gen 2:23-24, Gen 38:9, Deut 21:13, Deut 25:5], are as married as I am to my wife, you are to your wife, George W. Bush is to his wife, Augustus Caeser was to Livia, Joseph was to Mary, etc. You wrote: "When some one comes to be baptized they are saying I have repented, and turned away from sin, and want to follow Jesus and His instructions." Are you suggesting that two people, husband and wife, are to repent of foregoing a public marriage ceremony? You wrote: "Marriage is not mans standard of tradition, but is the standard the Lord has made,..." I agree, so why do we place our standards above the Lord's (as described in the passages above)? You wrote: "...it is not only sin in mans eyes, but is by Gods standard, Hebrews 13:4." Here you quote "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled..." [Hebrew 13:4 partial]. Do you suggest that we do not honor the union God has made? Or do you not know, "that the one who joins himself to a harlot is ONE BODY with her? For it says, "THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE FLESH."" [1 Corinthians 6:16]. Finally, I insist that you retract your "Catfish" accusations. They are juvenile and horrible, and not at all the behavior I expect from one forum member to the next. If Theo-minor is wrong, and you seek to prove such, do it with scripture or humble opinion, and keep your insults to yourself. If you wish to rebuke him, use God's words [Jude verse 9], and, I insist, avoid insults. |
||||||
155 | What does God say on blocking life? :) | Jer 1:5 | Stultis the Fool | 126236 | ||
That verse is a metaphorical comparison of the pure to impure. You will also notice that crippled individuals (even from birth) are not to enter the tent. The practical application of the Law, here, in Deuteronomy, is to express the absolute purety God demands of his chosen people. This is NOT a passage designed to condemn someone who has chosen to recieve a vasectomy, a tubal ligation, or, more contextually, a person who has been injured in there genitals. | ||||||
156 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126235 | ||
Jesus tells us that it is unrighteous to divorce our spouse for just any reason, but that it is permissable to divorce for immorality (adultery KJV). See Mathew Chapter 19, verses 3-9. God also tells us that He "hates divorce" [Malachi 2:16]. Read the whole of Malachi chapter 2 for context. Divorce is never a good thing (I am sure you know this), but it can become the only option. Even God divorces his wife. Read Jeremiah Chapter 3, verse 8 to see this in context. God is explaining that He was left with no option because of the repeated immorality of His wife. If you speak the truth, your transgression is neither sin nor impardonable. It seems as though you did the right thing. | ||||||
157 | Why? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126144 | ||
Correct, but why are you pointing this out? | ||||||
158 | doorkeepers responsibilities | Ps 84:10 | Stultis the Fool | 126066 | ||
The Psalm reads akin to "I have chosen to stand at the threshold of your house, rather than in the tents of the wicked." I see no correlation between this Psalm and the concept of checking men for circumcision. What is being described in 2 Chronicles 23:19 appears to be a dispensation of the offices and those who were assigned; record-keeping if you will. I am not saying that the teacher who taught you is incorrect, but I do not see anything that PLAINLY indicates inspection of the genitalia. In study, the word, here "gatekeeper," appears to be describing someone who "opens the gate." However, it is not unreasonable to believe that a doorkeeper stationed such that "no one should enter who was in any way unclean" was inspecting the male genitalia could not also be the case, particularly considering some of the conduct of the Jews later on. I just believe that a certain amount of inordinate extrapolation needs to take place for me to find this thing to be believable. I am not familiar with an appointed office of "doorkeeper" in the Pentateuch, but I may be wrong. Also, is there a Mosaic Law forbidding men from being "uncovered" in the tabernacle? If this is the case, it would definately preclude any genital inspection occurring in the house of the Lord, and thus debunk what was discussed by your teacher. Perhaps someone else can shed some light? |
||||||
159 | What does it mean in NEH.1 verse 5 when | Heb 10:31 | Stultis the Fool | 126059 | ||
Well, God is definately great, and it is definately a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the Living God (judgement). Additionally, that word (terrible) is not always translated as "terrible." The NASB translates it as "Awesome." This statement appears to be veneration and praise. I hope this helps! | ||||||
160 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126054 | ||
I feel foolish... the word is "accepted," and not excepted! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |