Results 161 - 180 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 21016 | ||
Clarification .................................. Dear Lionstrong, The never-ending struggle to find common ground continues :) In your last post, you talk about rationality in terms of "appreciation for her personal history" and "fear of death or non-being". This seems to me like you are talking about being self-aware, which is defined by the dictionary as "an awareness of one's own personality or individuality". If this is what you are talking about, then I also agree with you. Humans have an ability to recognize their unique existance, seperate from the rest of the universe. They are able to perceive that "I" am something other than just stuff (tissue and electric currents). They are also therefore concerned about what happens to "I" after the stuff ceases to function. I do not believe that animals have this ability, and I don't know of any experiments to the contrary. However, I would reiterate that this is "self-awareness", and that is beyond mere intellegence. You seem to agree that animals can communicate to some degree. I think that communication requires some level of intellegence and rationality; don't you? |
||||||
162 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 21138 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear Lionstrong, I respect you personally, but your post is based on purely circular reasoning. You say that animals don't communicate, because communication requires thought, and animals don't think. But your fundamental assumption "animals don't think" is the very thing that is being debated. It is not logical to prove an idea by using something completely based on the idea itself. Secondly, you are using a different definition of communication than the dictionary. The true definition of communication is simply "an exchange of information". It is a proven fact that animals are able to do this. Finally, you said that animals are intellegent but not rational. Yet earlier in this thread, you agreed that those words were synonymous, which would be in agreement with the dictionary. It definately appears that you (and perhaps certain Bible verses) are using the word "rational" to have a special meaning beyond the standard definition. Do you mean "self-awareness"? |
||||||
163 | An Animal Spoke to Eve | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 22203 | ||
Personal Note .................................... Dear Lionstrong, Eve wasn't surprised that the snake talked to her because she knew that animals were rational and it was therefore perfectly normal to carry on a conversation with them :) Just giving you a hard time my friend :) |
||||||
164 | Gen.3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Sir Pent | 24170 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Casiv, I would just like to tell you that I believe this is the best post that you have contributed to this forum thus far. The point you are making is very understandable. It is supported by referrences in both the Old and New Testaments. And it is a cool thought that I had not previously discovered. I really like your idea that it is the very same thing which the serpent injured (the heel) that will completely destroy it (crush the head). You are correct that it is a good picture of Christ, who Satan injured (on the cross), but who eventually defeated Satan once and for all. Once again, great post. I hope to see more posts like this one in the future. |
||||||
165 | Is God still creating man in His image? | Gen 5:3 | Sir Pent | 16150 | ||
Kalos, I agree that we are not created by God in the same way that Adam and Eve were. Our physical bodies grow from the genetic blueprints of our parents, as opposed to Adam being formed out of dust. On the other hand, I believe that each person's soul (or spirit depending on which forum member you ask) is unique. I don' think that it is merely a product of former creations, but is a new creation of God. "Remember, O Lord, what the measure of life is, for what vanity thou hast created all the sons of men!" (Psalm 89:47) So do you think that that the image of God is more directly connected with our physical bodies or our spirit (soul)? |
||||||
166 | Is God still creating man in His image? | Gen 5:3 | Sir Pent | 16179 | ||
I thought this thread was about man's being created in the image of God. Now it seems to be getting onto the subject of the death penalty. There is another thread currently going, which is dealing with that issue, but I would like to just respond briefly to this post. People who are against the death penalty DO NOT BELIEVE that criminals "shouldn't be punished for their crimes". They just believe that this punishment should not be killing the criminal. |
||||||
167 | Version vs Version - Again | Gen 6:1 | Sir Pent | 114014 | ||
Disagreement............................ Hi Ikeepoo68, I disagree that God put people on other planets. I also disagree that these non-existent people came to Earth. I also disagree that these non-existent people were giants and mistaken for Gods. Do you have any places in scripture that lead you to believe any of these things? |
||||||
168 | What did they do? | Exodus | Sir Pent | 18600 | ||
Further Support .................................. Dear Prayon, I agree with Nolan and Steve. There are times when we suffer hardships in life that are not a direct result of any particular bad decisions we make or sins that we commit. An excellent Bible passage that deals with this is John 9:1-3. Sometimes God allows times of suffering in our lives, because they can bring about His ultimate purposes. As Christians, we can be confident that this ultimate plan is also in our own best interest (Rom 8:28), even if it doesn't appear like it in the short term. P.S. Welcome back Nolan. I missed you while you were on "forum vacation". |
||||||
169 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Sir Pent | 114708 | ||
Identification of cults............................................. Hello Aniset, I understand that if you are a Jehovah's Witness that you probably feel that Kalos and possibly others on this forum are attacking your beliefs. Please do not take this personally. This forum is designed to be a Christian perspective on Biblical truth. And historically, the vast majority of the Christian church has considered the Jehovah's Witness religion to be a cult. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Kalos would post information that would point out why the doctrines that are taught by that group are contrary to orthodox interpretation of scripture. |
||||||
170 | Where are muslims in the Bible? | Ex 20:3 | Sir Pent | 21133 | ||
Contrary View ................................. Dear Searcher Steve, I appreciate your answer of mincc's question. I agree with everyone else that Islam is not specifically in the Bible, but it was good of you to point out the indirect connections that exist. I would like to disagree with one statement that you made. You said, "the view of God was changed slightly to be Allah." I would say that the word SLIGHTLY is a large understatement. The Muslim idea of Allah is very different from the Christian idea of God. Christians believe God is in 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Muslims believe Allah is only 1 person (denying the deity of Jesus, and existance of the Holy Spirit). Also, Christians believe that God is loving and desires a relationship with human beings. Muslims believe that Allah desires merely to be submitted to. They believe Allah is very impersonal. In my opinion, these are major differences. In fact, they are so important, that I believe that Allah cannot be considered compatible with the true God at all. To imply that these discrepancies are SLIGHT can be dangerous. That belief is what has misled many into believing that Muslims will also be saved, due to their worshipping the same god, by a different name. |
||||||
171 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16178 | ||
The terrorists who attacked two days ago were indeed extremely arrogant to believe that they had the right to end all of those lives. I completely agree with you that what they did was wrong, sinful, and will (barring true repentance) result in them spending eternity in hell. However, my point is that just because they sinned does not give us, as Christians, license to go against the will of God. I believe the death penalty to be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. You also point out that the freedoms which I enjoy today were bought by the deaths of the people who have in the past tried to take it away. On the one hand, I have a great appreciation for their sacrifice. On the other hand, I feel that the cost was greater than the reward. I realise that by not defending my freedom (to the point of killing), I could end up losing it. However, I can't justify ending another person's life (and chance for redemption), just so that I can have the freedoms in this life that I so enjoy. Finally, I'd like to respond to is your point that we don't live in Utopia, and therefore my ideas just won't work. You imply that I am irrationally idealistic and optimistic, and you would not at all be the first or the last person to see me that way:) However, I believe that just becuase the world is not perfect, does not mean that we shouldn't do our part to live that way (as much as possible). I also believe that our actions should be based on what is right, not what is effective. We should not refuse to kill our enemies because we believe that they will stop on their own, or because we know that God will stop them for us (although this might happen). Instead we should refuse to kill our enemies because it is right, and be willing to live with the consequences. Once again, I would like to say that I understand that this is an issue which Christians can be and are on both sides of. I hope that through this thread people from both perspectives will be able to see each others interpretation of scripture which leads to their conclusions. P.S. Charis, you consistently share excellent posts with this forum. Therefore, I was dissapointed at your last statement, characterizing the belief of "free will" as putting salvation in the hand of humans own "whim and fancy". This is not at all a fair or accurate portrayal of the beliefs of a very large number of committed Christians. |
||||||
172 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16191 | ||
My belief IS based on the Bible, Kalos, I understand that you think it is "absurd" to believe "that capital punishment is not the will of God". I also understand that you have a biblical basis for that belief (almost exclusively from the Old Testament). What I hope that you can begin to understand is that I too have a biblical basis (incorporating the Old and New Testaments) for my belief. The death penalty is not wrong because Sir Pent says it is. It is wrong because the Bible in it's entirety says that it is. I will attempt to (using many biblical passages) explain to you my reasoning for this belief. Let me begin by agreeing with you that in ancient Israel, it was right to kill people for certain reasons. For instance God specifically commanded stoning to death for certain sins (1 Samuel 15), and specifically commanded killing certain kings and enemy nations (Exodus 19:10-13). However, I the Bible also documents a fundamental change that occurred, which causes killing for any reason to no longer be an appropriate action. This fundamental change happended between Christ's death and resurrection. During that time, Jesus preached to all the people who had died before that time (1 Peter 3:19). Therefore, it seems that although the people in the OT were killed in the body, they still had a chance to later hear Christ's message to them. However, from that time on, people have had the opportunity to hear the message of salvation during this lifetime, so that when they die, their eternity is set (Hebrews 9:27). This is why I think that killing people now is so terrible. It not only kills their body, but also takes away any chance that they would later come to know Christ and be saved. I think that it is interesting and somewhat supportive that never in the NT is it presented as good for a human to kill someone. In fact the only times when death is seen as a good thing, it is done by God Himself or His angels. Some instances are Annanias and his wife Saphira (Acts 5:1-10), King Herrod (Acts 12:21-23). I want to close by just restating that the point I am making is that the system changed, not that God changed. (James 1:17) I think that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament is a good parallel. In the Old Testament it was not morally wrong to kill a sheep for the reason of cleansing of sin. However, there was a fundamental change in the system (Christ death once for all), which makes it now morally wrong for a Christian to go around killing sheep to cleanse themselves from sin. Of course, the change with regards to sacrifices is much more obvious in the Bible, and that's why we don't have modern Christians discussing it on internet forums. I believe it is because the change with regards to killing people is less obvious that there is such confusion today. |
||||||
173 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16212 | ||
Tim, While I, too, can respect your belief, I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the passage in 1 Peter, chapter 3. Verse 19 does not say Christ "preached to the righteous spirits", it just says He "preached to the spirits". That seems to be pretty all inclusive. Also if you look at the context of the next verse, it even seems to imply that Jesus specifically preached to the unrighteous, or those who were disobedient towards God. I would be surprised if most Christians would believe in the limited interpretation that you propose. It does not seem to match up at all with what the biblical context clearly seems to indicate. 1 Peter 3 18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19: in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20: who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. |
||||||
174 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16213 | ||
I appreciate your courage in being willing to state your belief although we are in the minority. However, I think that the "risk of being flamed" is minimal. If you look through this thread, I think you will find that both sides have conducted themselves with great self-control and patience. With the possible exception of only one person, the posts have stayed focused on the issue instead of personally attacking any individuals. In fact, I would like to compliment all forum members for how well this very difficult, and potentially divisive subject, has been handled | ||||||
175 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16347 | ||
Tim, After looking up "dogmatic" in the dictionary I found that it meant "dictorial". After looking up "dictorial" in the dictionary, I found that it meant a "total or absolute ruler". At that point I decided for sure that I did not find you last point to be dogmatic at all :) As for your comments on the passage in 1 Peter, I think that it's really not that complicated. I think that if a person just reads the verses below, it God?s message would be pretty obvious. However, I will try to respond to your points. You mentioned that there are three different views of these verses. 1. Christ went up or down. (I say it doesn't matter what direction He went) 2. Christ preached to Old Testament people. (I say that is correct) 3. Christ preached through Noah. (I say this goes against the passage clearly saying that Christ preached Himself, and if through anybody, it would be the Holy Spirit). You also mentioned that there are four different questions on these verses. 1. When did Christ go, before or after resurrection? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past) 2. Where did Christ go? (I say it doesn't matter, the point remains that he preached to the people who had died in the past) 3. Did Christ preach to people who died in the past or to demons? (I say that it is obvious in the passage that He preached to humans) 4. What message did Christ preach? (Although it is not difinatively stated, I think it is obvious from the context of verse 18 that this passage is talking about salvation, and would therefore have to assume that it is most likely that salvation was Christ's message) My overall point is that these "views" and "questions" are actually not a big deal at all. Let's just look at what the verses say, and add as little of our own interpretation as possible. I am not saying that you are doing that, just that the commentators that you quoted seem to be doing that. 1 Peter chapter 3 (I used NRSV last time, so this time I?ll quote NIV) 18. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19. through whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison 20. who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, |
||||||
176 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16353 | ||
Dear EdB, I would like to take this opportunity to agree with almost your entire last post. You said that God established life and death. I say that I totally agree. You said that God said not to murder, but supported (in the OT) execution sometimes. I say that I totally agree (with parenthesis added). You said that Jesus died to cleanse us of the eternal consequences of sin. I say that I totally agree. You said that Jesus forgiveness does not cancel out earthly consequences of sin. I say that I totally agree. You said that the Matthew 26:52 (below) is only saying that if you kill you will be killed, not that it is wrong. I say that on this one point I would have to disagree with you. If we look at the context of the verses around it, Jesus does say that if the disciple lives by the sword he will die by the sword. However, He also says to put the sword away, and that using the sword indicates a lack of faith in God the Father's ability to protect. Also if you read the parallel passage in Luke (also below), Jesus tells the disciples to not use their swords anymore, and heals the damage done by the first strike. This also indicates that He did not approve of that action. Matthew chapter 26 51: And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53: Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Luke chapter 22 49: And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50: And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51: But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him. |
||||||
177 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16612 | ||
Dear RElderCascade, In your post you admit that you do not think war is good. In fact you go further by saying it is evil, when you say, "It (war) is the lesser of two evils." If you truly believe what you say, then why would you ever choose to support something that you knew was evil? As believers, if we are presented with a choice, and we believe all options are evil, then I would say that we should refuse all given options and seek out an alternative until we can find the choice that God would want us to make. God doesn't give us more than we can handle (1 Cor 10:13), and He doesn't want us doing evil things. You also asked a valid question, "What does the Bible say?" I came across this passage in my own Bible reading just over a week ago. "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Cor 10:3-4) The last point that you made that I would like to respond to was that those of us who are contientous objectors should "stop saying that we should be also". I hope that you are not referring to me, but just in case, I would like to just quote the very first statement that I made in my very first posting in this thread. "It seems that most of my distinguished forum colleagues are in support of the death penalty. Let me begin by saying that I respect your opinions, and believe that it is possible for Christians to be on both sides of this issue." |
||||||
178 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16613 | ||
Dear EdB, You said at the end of your post that you were sure that I would find it absurd to tear out the Old Testament and just put criminals on "time out" for a while. You are completely correct, I do think that's absurd. You also referred to the ineptness of our justice system, as compared to ones in other countries. I would have to completely agree with you again. I do not think that our justice system is as good as it could be. I also think that there should be tougher punishments for crimes. Although specifics would have to be worked out, I think that having criminals work to repay for damages or theft, could be a great idea. In fact, although it seems barbaric, I also see some logic behind other countries laws requiring castration for sex offenders. That would be both a deterrant to first crimes as well as making repeat offenses impossible. Going into more detail as to how the justice system should punish specific crimes should probably be a seperate thread. But I just wanted to let you know that just because I am against killing fellow human beings, doesn't mean that I am against there being serious consequences of crime. |
||||||
179 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16620 | ||
Dear EdB, You bring up several really good points. For instance, why did the disciples have swords to begin with? Oddly enough, it is because Jesus told them to bring them. (Luke 22:36). The obvious question is why would Jesus tell them to bring swords, and then when they were actually in the garden, tell them not to use them. I do not think that Jesus wanted them to be able to defend Him. Jesus said that 2 swords was enough, (Luke 22:38) although that would obviously NOT BE ENOUGH to stop an entire company of soldiers. It seems that instead Jesus just wanted to make it obvious that He was choosing to allow Himself to be arrested. The fact that they had at least a couple of swords, but still didn't use them showed that Jesus was not taken against His will, but within it. This made His sacrifice for us and our sins even greater. You also made a couple points about humanists, and imply that possibly I am one. The first was that "humanists believe they are god". That is probably true of extreme humanists, but it is definately not true of me (I do not consider myself a humanist at all). Your also said that "to a humanist life is far more important than salvation". This is also completely not true according to my beliefs. In fact, I think this thread would greatly go against that thought. My basis for being against killing humans is that it removes the chance for them to come to salvation in the future. In fact, in the case of me allowing a criminal to kill me or my family instead of me killing them shows that I value their chance for salvation more than my own life or even my family's life. In fact, it is the position of my opponents who say that the lives of people on this earth are more important that the eternal life and salvation of the criminal. You make one more good point that I would like to comment on. You said that I seem to be limiting God by arguing that we as humans can take away a person's chance for redemption. This issue really just comes back to the question of "free will" versus "predestination" that comes up so often on this forum. If you believe in predestination, then my entire argument is useless. If God already has decided who goes to Heaven and Hell before they are born, then it doesn't really matter what we do to a person in this life. This life is so short in comparison to eternity, that it is almost completely insignificant, and so who cares if we kill someone 40 years before they would naturally die. Conceeding this point, I would have to say that on the other hand, if a person believes in "free will", then they believe that God has limited His own abilities enough to give people a choice. God could have created people so that they would have to follow Him and love Him or so that they would have to not do those things. However, if they didn't have a choice then it would have been empty and meaningless. But this has been thoroughly covered in other threads. I would suggest that instead of rehashing all that, we just focus on whether the death penalty is appropriate from a "free will" perspective. |
||||||
180 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16633 | ||
Dear Charis, There were a few comments from your post, which I would like to respond to. The first was that "unilateral disarmament will not bring the world about". My question is how do we know? It's never been tried. On the other hand unilateral armament has been tried throughout history, and all the wars that have resulted definately have not brought the world about. Another comment was that criminals take away the chance of their victims to come to a relationship with God later in life, so why should we give the criminal that chance. Quite simply because we are Christians. As followers of Christ we are called to not only give mercy to those who deserve it (even the non-Christians do that), but also to those who do not deserve it. If we remove the criminal's chance for salvation then we are lowering ourselves to the level of the criminal. Another comment was that "Free Will negates the sovereignity of God." Simply put, that satement is not true. This is extensively dealt with in other threads. I'd prefer to limit that dicussion to the threads dedicated to it. A final comment was that "we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and others from anti-social behavior." If a person looked at the life of Jesus would they see someone who was willing to kill people in order to "protect Himself"? Is the definition of the "others" that we have a responsibility to protect limited to not include sinners who we kill? Does this "protection" require killing people, or is it conceivable that there could be other ways? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [24] >> |