Results 161 - 180 of 465
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106194 | ||
No doubt you make a good point. My concern is how Christians respond to the authority of the state when they disagree. |
||||||
162 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106181 | ||
I was hoping someone would challenge my statement and your response is quite excellent. Your examples show that when taken too far, by people who don't understand the law, legalism leads to abuse. This supports my view that many Americans really don't have a clue about how our system is supposed to work. Sadly, many Christians sometimes fall into that same habit. Cases which test us against our principles, like the "under God" case, will help strengthen our country, not weaken it. |
||||||
163 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106136 | ||
Regarding your persecution, clearly your teachers acted inappropriately. As a Christian, you can rejoice that you have been chosen to suffer for Christ! Like you, I see what is happening with our culture. At a university, I am witness to how it plays out in the lives of our young people. I guess my concern was prompted by decidedly unchristian comments that were very uncharitable toward those who dare to challenge the powerful majority. |
||||||
164 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106124 | ||
'one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is meant to be the ideal we strive for, not the reality we enjoy. We are far from "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" Parable |
||||||
165 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106122 | ||
My concern is that if the Supreme Court decides that congress' act to insert "under God" is unconsitutional, how many Christians will respect that ruling by acting in a manner that reflects WHY the court reached that decision. Yes, you are free to say "under God", but don't skirt the issue by saying that you're not coercing others to say it with you. For all practical purposes, young students are completely powerless to oppose what the teacher makes them do in class. Regarding your persecution in high school, I suspect that it was not the content of your speech, but rather the time, place and manner you delivered it that got you in trouble. From my experience here at a university, I suspect your persecutors would suggest you were disrupting the institution. Not that I agree, but that's how I expect they justified their actions agains you. |
||||||
166 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106113 | ||
What do you suggest the framers intended? | ||||||
167 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106104 | ||
I respond point by point: The doctrine of separation is well established and is central to our freedom. The issue is not your individual speech, but the 1954 congressional act that inserted "under God" into the Pledge. The real debate is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with how the constitution is interpreted. Your religious freedom is intact. Americans now enjoy the greatest religious liberty in history. No one here is persecuted for their faith. If you disagree, look at Sudan and then tell me you are suffering for your faith. No mention of God appears in the constitution, by design. The framers were careful to avoid this. While the creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, this document has no standing as law. Congress opens with prayer out of tradition, just like the Pledge. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in terms of the document itself and precedents set by earlier courts, not to imagine what the framers intended. This is because the intent of the framers is not law. The Pledge, said every school day by millions of students, teachers and administrators is much more than a "mention". Again, your freedom of speech is not the issue, but rather the imposition of speech on those who may not believe as you do. Peace, David |
||||||
168 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106028 | ||
Actually, I agree with your point. Indeed, in my first post, I suggested that the Pledge is not law, but rather a practice imposed by the force of tradition. The problem is that this practice is imposed on everyone at public schools, which are funded by tax dollars and this where the conflict arises. Sure, you can make the Pledge part of your day at a private school, but tax dollars carry with them the obligations to uphold the constitution. | ||||||
169 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106026 | ||
Interesting approach. You seem to suggest that doing what may be deemed unconstitional is ok because there is no law expressly forbidding it. The problem with this idea is the constition is the highest law of the land, higher than any legislation Congress may pass. Indeed, the constitution is the standard by which all congressional acts are measured. More importantly, in our spiritual lives, isn't this line of thinking how we often delude ourselves into justifying what we want instead of what is right? |
||||||
170 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105994 | ||
The question of civil disobedience as an option is not the issue. Rather, it is the question of whether or not "under god" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and if Christians should obey if the Supreme Court rules it to be unconstitutional. According to Kalos, post #105993: "The applicable biblical principle seems to be that civil disobedience is only acceptable, and perhaps even required, when it is to protect innocent human life." I submit that those who seek to remove "under God" from the Pledge may be innocent in need of protection, misguided as they may be. Of course, it is debateable if this is a life or death issue, but surely the defense of the constitution often has cost people their lives. Parable |
||||||
171 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105949 | ||
You said "the question is not what would Jesus do, the question is what should a follower of Christ do?" I say a follower of Christ looks to Him for direction, courage and strength. Accordingly, I have offered a position and biblical support for it. Regarding the "what if's", this is not about hypothetical situations, the question is real and it is before us now. We are not talking about legislating morals, we are talking about a specific challenge to a specific practice. There are many Christians who vehemently oppose even having the dialogue, let alone submitting to the authority of the State should it come to that. As for this submission, and for pledging allegiance to a nation, Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God. So, if you were a Supreme Court Justice with the Constitution in one hand, and as a Christian with the Bible in the other, how would you vote and how would you justify your vote on whether "under God" shall remain in the Pledge of Allegiance? Peace, Parable |
||||||
172 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105947 | ||
With all due respect to Tacitus, Seward, Kennedy and Lincoln, their sentiments are not scripture. While I agree with everything you have said, you have not offered a clear position nor biblical support leading to one. I do not preclude disobedience to civil authority as a form of obedience to God. However, according to Scripture, the state is ordained by God and for Christians, there should be compelling biblical reasons to oppose it. So far, I have not heard any. Peace, Parable |
||||||
173 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Not Specified | Parable | 105846 | ||
In response to the "under God" controversy, Christians who object to the recent challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance might want to consider the question, What Would Jesus Do? Scripture (e.g. Romans 13) informs that all authority is ordained by God and that believers are to submit to civil authority as part of their submission to God. In the US, that civil authority ultimately is the Constitution, which precludes the establishment any official state religion. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the brutal persecution of independent groups of believers by powerful sectarian state churches. The Pledge is not law and therefore has no authority under the Constitution, yet it remains a nationwide daily ritual in public schools, imposed through the force of tradition. Of course, children and teachers can opt to remain silent during the Pledge, but such civil disobedience, with its associated personal costs, clearly should not be the expected norm for any student or teacher at any public school. Furthermore, for anyone in public schools to be required to recite an oath of allegience to "one nation under god" is to require them to swear an oath to that god, or at least to acknowledge that god. Consider how would you feel if the pledge were to say "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Buddha" or "one nation under Cosmic Consciousness"? How can we be so sure that the pledge is not simply religious indoctrination imposed by the might of the majority? Is this how God operates in our lives? As Christians, are we not called to embrace the oppressed, weak and powerless, even if, especially if, we disagree with them? If the Supreme Court upholds the Pledge, it will be all too easy to gloat that justice, and God, have been served. But, the real test of moral conviction will be if "under God" gets struck down and it is Christians, not atheists, who must choose submission or disobedience. So, with all due respect I ask, what would Jesus do, submit or disobey? Please support your response with specific verses or generally accepted biblical principles. Parable |
||||||
174 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105863 | ||
In response to the "under God" controversy, Christians who object to the recent challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance might want to consider the question, What Would Jesus Do? Scripture (e.g. Romans 13) informs that all authority is ordained by God and that believers are to submit to civil authority as part of their submission to God. In the US, that civil authority ultimately is the Constitution, which precludes the establishment any official state religion. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the brutal persecution of independent groups of believers by powerful sectarian state churches. The Pledge is not law and therefore has no authority under the Constitution, yet it remains a nationwide daily ritual in public schools, imposed through the force of tradition. Of course, children and teachers can opt to remain silent during the Pledge, but such civil disobedience, with its associated personal costs, clearly should not be the expected norm for any student or teacher at any public school. Furthermore, for anyone in public schools to be required to recite an oath of allegience to "one nation under god" is to require them to swear an oath to that god, or at least to acknowledge that god. Consider how would you feel if the pledge were to say "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Buddha" or "one nation under Cosmic Consciousness"? How can we be so sure that the pledge is not simply religious indoctrination imposed by the might of the majority? Is this how God operates in our lives? As Christians, are we not called to embrace the oppressed, weak and powerless, even if, especially if, we disagree with them? If the Supreme Court upholds the Pledge, it will be all too easy to gloat that justice, and God, have been served. But, the real test of moral conviction will be if "under God" gets struck down and it is Christians, not atheists, who must choose submission or disobedience. So, with all due respect I ask, what would Jesus do, submit or disobey? Please support your response with specific verses or generally accepted biblical principles. Parable |
||||||
175 | Lord, let us always be your remnant. | Not Specified | Parable | 105602 | ||
Not really a question, but an observation on the dangers of doctrinism. "Arminius himself was not a man of extreme views, but those he held, and those of Calvin, have been taken to extreme measures by those who follow them. Maybe were they alive today neither Calvin would be a calvinist nor Arminius an arminian... That this (calvinism, arminianism, and other doctinal positions) should result in the formation of groups of Christians based upon their allegiance to one particular doctrinal emphasis was almost inevitable if none the less regrettable. The establishment of the earliest independent congregations was generally on a much more sure foundation. Their basic objection to a State Church was that it did not allow for the scriptural conception of a church based on a purely spiritual unity. In this way, they recognized that believers must gather only because of their relationship to Christ, and that matters of spiritual understanding are secondary to spiritual fellowship. It was not long, however, before the order was being changed. Churches were being formed because of doctrinal affiliations, and others were being split because of doctrinal differences. In doing so, spiritual life began to fade. Sectarianism became the order of the day. The ground of the church was deserted by all but the remnant whom the Lord has always preserved from the earliest times." -- John W. Kennedy, Torch of the Testimony, SeedSowers Publishing, 1965, p179. |
||||||
176 | Lord, let us always be your remnant. | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 105650 | ||
Not really a question, but an observation on the dangers of doctrinism. "Arminius himself was not a man of extreme views, but those he held, and those of Calvin, have been taken to extreme measures by those who follow them. Maybe were they alive today neither Calvin would be a calvinist nor Arminius an arminian... That this (calvinism, arminianism, and other doctinal positions) should result in the formation of groups of Christians based upon their allegiance to one particular doctrinal emphasis was almost inevitable if none the less regrettable. The establishment of the earliest independent congregations was generally on a much more sure foundation. Their basic objection to a State Church was that it did not allow for the scriptural conception of a church based on a purely spiritual unity. In this way, they recognized that believers must gather only because of their relationship to Christ, and that matters of spiritual understanding are secondary to spiritual fellowship. It was not long, however, before the order was being changed. Churches were being formed because of doctrinal affiliations, and others were being split because of doctrinal differences. In doing so, spiritual life began to fade. Sectarianism became the order of the day. The ground of the church was deserted by all but the remnant whom the Lord has always preserved from the earliest times." -- John W. Kennedy, Torch of the Testimony, SeedSowers Publishing, 1965, p179. |
||||||
177 | Is satan omni-present? | Job 1:1 | Parable | 100318 | ||
No. Satan is not omnipresent. In the beginning of Job, he is clearly presented as having been wandering the earth. This does not mean that the enemy does not have his agents stationed in many places nor that Satan cannot travel freely. However, Christ has defeated Satan and death, so the work of evil in the world is a last ditch effort to cause damage before the final closure of history when Jesus returns. Regarding our flesh, until we are resurrected, we will have to struggle with our carnal nature. |
||||||
178 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | Parable | 100266 | ||
The traditional reading of the creation account in Genesis presumes a cosmic perspective at the beginning of time. However, in his book "The Genesis Question", Dr. Hugh Ross interprets Genesis in the context of an earthly perspective some time after the cosmos was created. By doing so, he has been able to demonstrate that the Genesis account follows the order of events that are proposed by planetary geology and biology. In the past, I have taken heat for suggesting that Dr. Ross may be on to something here, but I mention it now because I believe it is important to be aware of all the sincere opinions about how our understanding of creation and scripture either do or do not compare. Parable |
||||||
179 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | Parable | 99271 | ||
Yes, I concur. I should have emphasized this in my previous note. | ||||||
180 | God is not the author of evil. | Job | Parable | 99139 | ||
The depravity of man is not in question, however I note that man was originally created good and will be restored to that original condition by the grace of God. Paul also describes that what good he wants to do, he does not, and what bad he wants to avoid, he does. I note that Paul does admit to having good intentions, but that he lacks the ability to follow through on them. Only through the power of the Holy Spirit can we do that. Paul also admits to his desire to avoid sin, but that he cannot resist it. Again, we can only do so through the power of the Holy Spirit. I submit therefore that while we lack the ability to do good or avoid sin on our own, in our hearts we can have these as goals. Do you concur? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [24] >> |