Results 181 - 197 of 197
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15828 | ||
I am called to never kill another human. The answer to this question is extremely difficult to apply to all Christians. But let me explain what I believe God's will is for me. When it all boils down, it is a question of whether it is right for you personally to kill another specific person. So lets look at some common reasons for killing people. Some of these are easy to throw out as obviously unchristian motives. I think that we would all agree that it would be wrong to kill a person becuase of greediness for another person's wealth or position of power. I would also assume that all Christians would, upon reflection, agree that it would be wrong to kill a person becuase of hate, even due to such terrible things as adultery or abuse. I only say "upon reflection" because some Christians might have a first reaction of supporting a wife, who has been beaten for years, finally fighting back and killing her husband. Then there are those middle areas where most, but not all Christians agree that killing is wrong. This would include abortions. I think all Christians would agree that abortion is wrong when motivated by its most common reason, convienence (the mother just doesn't want to deal with having a kid). However, more Christians would be supportive if the girl had been raped, and a very high number of Christians would support killing the baby if the life of the mother was in danger. I believe however, that it is wrong to kill a baby, even to ease the pain of the trauma associated with rape. And although it is more difficult to say absolutely when the mother's life is endangered, I believe personally that it too is wrong. Another of these issues where there is disagreement within the Christian community is the death penalty. Many Christians would say that it is right to kill a serial killer. They would say that this is what that criminal deserves, that it keeps them from harming more people, and that it deters others from following in their path. Once again, I would disagree. I believe that it is wrong to kill a human to set an example, or based on what they might do in the future, or even to get the fair revenge for what they have done in the past. Finally, there are some issues, which the vast majority of Christianity agrees are appropriate reasons to kill a person. These would include protecting of countries (wars) and protection of our families (from criminals). I'm going to go out on a limb here to be in the very small minority who believes that these too are wrong. As a soldier in a war, it seems that there would only be a few motivations when one fires one's gun to kill someone, or pushes the button to blow up someone. The first is that one likes doing it, and I think all Christians would agree that is sinful. A second is that one really believes in one's cause. For instance, one could believe that democracy is so much better than communism that one was willing to kill a Vietnamese man in order to keep a country from switching political systems. This is an oversimplification and I am probably extremely offending any Vietnam veterans on our forum, which is not my intent. Please be patient with me. The third reason that I can think of is that one could feel that it was one's duty to obey the orders of one's superiors. I agree that God wants us to respect the authorities over us, but I think that our obedience is limited by the will of God. Therefore, if an authority over us commands us to do something that goes against that (such as, in my opinion, killing people), then we are not responsible to obey that command. The last issue that comes to mind is that of protecting one's family. Almost all Christians would say that if a burglar broke into their home and was threatening to kill their family, that it would be right to kill that person. This brings up a couple of questions. Should we do something wrong to keep someone else from doing something wrong? More classically this is the question, "Do the ends justify the means?" The second question is based on an assumption. Probability would indicate that the family members of a Christian are more likely to be in a better relationship with God than a murderer who breaks into their house. So the question is, "Which is worse, for the murderer to kill the innocent family members (who would probably go to Heaven for eternity), or for the Christian to kill the criminal (who would almost definately spend eternity in Hell)?" I know that most people in the Christian community and probably on this forum will disagree (some extremely) with this perspective. I ask that you please respond gracefully, not for my sake (I could take the attacks), but because of all the other people who will read these posts and judge Christianity by how we deal with each other. They will know we are Christians by our love. |
||||||
182 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 15780 | ||
Wrap-up, consensus of this thread: I would like to try to start something new here. When a thread has been responded to by a variety of posters, it can be difficult to find an overall answer to the original question. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to add a consensus statement to the end of these threads after either it seems that all ends are tied up or new posts seem to cease. Since I asked the original question in this thread, I will humbly attempt to summarize these ideas at this time. After reflection, it appears that the majority of posts are in agreement that God has played an active role in bringing the modern versions (such as the NASB) to the people in today's world. The differences arise in what people call this intervention, and to what degree people believe that it happened. Some quotes from many posters involved: Charis - "Inspiration continues." Hank - "God goes about His buisness of guarding and preserving the purity of His word." Open Mind - "God?s inspiration of the Bible works above the level of the text." Retxar - "God?s divine guidance in preserving His Word" Schwartzkm - "God has aided in keeping the Bible" Sir Pent - "God has inspired the people at each step in the process of bringing it to the masses." Tim Moran - "God has preserved His text throughout the years." Most posters do not believe that God put words in the translators minds, or physically directed the hands of the people who copied the scriptures. However, it seems that most posters believe that God has, in some way, actively maintained the truth of His message to mankind in the text itself and outside of the text as the reader is inspired by the Holy Spirit to have understanding. Some call it "inspiration", some call it "preserving", some call it "aiding", but the consensus is that God has been involved in the process, not only of the original writing of the Bible, but also of its copies and translations. The reason why I believe this is important to us as Christians, is that it confirms that the Bible is as true today as it was to the Christians in the Early Church. It supports the belief that the Bible is still authoritative for our lives, and that we can trust that it is still the Word of God. Lastly, it is of encouragement to all of the believers who have not had the opportunity to study Greek or Hebrew. It lets them know that even reading the Bible in their native tongue will enlighten them (if their hearts are open) to the critical message which God wants them to know. If anyone should come to this thread in the future, and have further questions, please feel free to email me at: markundy@hotmail.com |
||||||
183 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 15511 | ||
Dear Forum members, I could be wrong on this, but let me hypothosize something. This post seems merely intended to be inflamatory. It appears to be the kind of post that only a person who was not truly interested in reaching understanding would post. I'm guessing that they either posted it and took off never to return, just to stir things up, or they posted it and will just watch and laugh at all of the responses. In either case continuing to attack their post either does no good (if they've left), or plays into their hands (if they're laughing). I would suggest that we cease adding to this thread, until Chimeara should return and indicate that they are legitemately interested in discussing whether the Bible is true. I would also encourage us as a Forum to be more careful in our responses to similar postings in the future. Perhaps we could just let one or two people respond intially, and see if the original poster remains involved in the thread or not. Does this sound reasonable? |
||||||
184 | Where are the scriptures, believers? | Matt 6:15 | Sir Pent | 15450 | ||
I may have found a passage this morning as I was doing my regular Bible reading. I have not posted on this thread in the past, because I have not felt that I had anything of interest to add. However, without the intention of finding anything, I came across this passage, and it jumped out at me as dealing with this very issue. I would be interested in how you view it. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 that he had written to the church there a letter, which it sounds like was one of correction. I feel that it is safe to assume that his audience was made up of believers (this is based on a myriad of statements Paul makes throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians). In the specific passage mentioned though, Paul says that he rejoices that his letter caused them "godly grief", which led to "repenting", which produced "salvation". It seems like this was a case where believers had allowed some sin to creep back into their life, and it was disrupting their proper relationship with God. God brought conviction (through Paul's correction), and they responded appropriately by admiting guilt, repenting, changing their lives, and restoring a healthy relationship with God. This is how I would interpret this passage (trying to be objective), how would you? |
||||||
185 | More comments? | Ex 20:15 | Sir Pent | 15401 | ||
Could it not depend on what your job was. For instance, what if a person was in sales, and was paid on commission? In that case, they would not be paid for their time, but only for their accomplishments. Therefore, spending time on the forum during "job-time" would be different for them than an hourly employee at a factory for instance. Or what about a technical service person at a printer company. They are paid to be available to answer questions that customers have about their printers. If they spent time on the forum in between calls, yet always did their best while actually talking to the customers, is that wrong? I do not have either of these jobs myself, but I wanted to throw out some other possibilities to think about. |
||||||
186 | More comments? | Ex 20:15 | Sir Pent | 15383 | ||
Since this was asked twice, by accident, I'm just moving it off the unaswered questions. | ||||||
187 | Sir Pent and GeneralWas, notice please. | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 14530 | ||
Greetings Bill Mc, Appearantly I have offended you, which was not my intention. I was truly curious as to how there could be such a similarity of views. This does not neccessarily mean that GeneralWas is also Bill Mc. In fact it is more likely that GeneralWas is James A. Fowler, who actually wrote the article on the webpage that Bill Mc cited. However, neither of these possibilities could be true, and all three people could be completely independant. I was just unfamiliar with that particular theory and was surprised to suddenly find it repeated from so many different places. |
||||||
188 | How could Jesus increase in wisdom? | Luke 2:52 | Sir Pent | 14526 | ||
My personal belief on this is that when Jesus became a man, He put aside temporarily some of His Godly abilities (Philippians 2:5-7), in order to identify more fully with mankind (Hebrews 4:14-15). I believe that omniscience was one of these things, which Jesus, temporarily gave up. For instance, in Mark 13:32, Jesus claims to not know the exact day and hour of His return. With this perspective, there is no conflict with Jesus growing in wisdom. P.S. Steve, please do not take offense to this, for in fact I have defended you before in other threads on this forum. However, I am curious. It seems that certain forum members have an inclination to attack your posts. I must admit that it seems a large number of your questions, do relate to very difficult (and often controversial) questions, such as this one. As I looked at your profile, I recieved little clarification as to your background. Would you mind giving a little more information about yourself, and why you ask so many questions that could be dangerous to less mature believer's faith? |
||||||
189 | Where are these three chronicles? | 1 Chr 29:29 | Sir Pent | 14465 | ||
The Gad referred to was a prophet during the reign of king David (not to be confused with the son of Jacob who was the father of one of the 12 tribes). 1 Chronicles 21:8-19 (also in 2 Samuel 24:8-19) recounts a couple of encounters the prophet Gad had with King David. He is also referrenced in 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 1 Samuel 22:5. | ||||||
190 | stones in both your hands | 1 John 4:1 | Sir Pent | 14450 | ||
There are very few passages in the Bible which come close to that image. The one that I would lean toward would be when Moses came down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments. He probably held one of the stone tablets in each hand. (Ex 34:1-4) There is also a reference in Jeremiah 43:8-10, where God tells the prophet to take large stones in his hands, bury them, and issue a warning of comming destruction. One final word of caution would be that, God is a God of peace, not of confusion. If the message was truly from God, I would greatly expect that God would make clear to the one receiving the message, what was expected. If there is confusion, the message may not be from God, and should be dealt with very carefully. |
||||||
191 | Offices today? | Matt 15:9 | Sir Pent | 14397 | ||
There are many offices within the church today, and of course they vary slightly from one denomination to the next. However, I would suggest that there are basically just three categories. 1. There are high administration offices (usually called Bishops, Superintenants, or the Pope), which are responsible for the direction and guidance of entire denominations. I don't know of any Biblical equilivant to this other than maybe the apostles. For instance, Paul had to be approved by them in Jerusalem before going out as a minister. 2. There are offices in charge of particular congregations (usually called Pastors, Priests, Ministers, Reverands, Preachers). These would be what I would compare to the Biblical idea of "Bishops" (see 34 refs post). 3. There are also offices within a particular congregation (usually called Elders, Deacons, Lay Leaders). These would be what I would compare to the Biblical idea of "Deacons" (see 34 refs post). I don't really see any Biblical precedent for how many people should be able to hold any of these positions, and it doesn't seem to be really important. What does seem to be very important is the qualifications of holding these positions. These are adressed very completely in I Timothy chapter 3 and Titus chapter 1. As for who judges these qualifications, I would submit that the officers in category 1 judge those in category 2 who would in turn judge those in category 3. |
||||||
192 | How does Selah fit into 2 Tim 3:16? | Psalm | Sir Pent | 13949 | ||
I think that is a terrific question Dmadden, I completely agree with you that God wouldn't go to the trouble to have things in the Bible to be read for eternity unless there was a good purpose for them. I wonder if in this case it was God's way of tipping us off to the fact that it was a song at all. Without words like "Selah", we might think that the Psalms were just poems, or even just regular prose. I think that it is an important distinction. In my experience, music has a way of connecting with the human spirit in a way unlike anything else. This can be dangerous if the music is unholy. But if used the way that God intended, it can also enable us to worship God at a deeper level. | ||||||
193 | destruction | Psalm | Sir Pent | 13948 | ||
Dear Peches, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Are you looking for specific Bible verses to encourage you in times of fear? Please clarify. |
||||||
194 | Who created god? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 13933 | ||
Dear SummerChick, I too have thought about this question, and something which helped me out greatly was realizing that something had to always be here no matter what. As Christians we believe that God always existed, but what about Atheists? Most would subscribe to theories of the "Big Bang" and "Evolution". They would basically say that everything was in a small point (either in the form of energy or extremely compact matter), and it exploded creating the universe. Then specific elements of that energy and matter combined randomly over a long time to produce life as we know it on earth. Therefore, in that perspective, the chair that your sitting on has always existed in some form. The lunch you ate has always existed in some form. The car you drive has always existed in some form, etc. Now from a logical perspective, I agree that it doesn't make sense that something exists with no beginning. So I ask you, which makes more sense: that there are an innumerable number of things which deny this logic, or that there is only one exception to this logic (God), and that He made everything else. In my opinion, believing that God always existed make a lot more sense than any of the alternatives. |
||||||
195 | IN 1Cor.3:15 Is it the person or the wor | 1 Corinthians | Sir Pent | 13702 | ||
The interpretation of this verse requires the context of the verses preceeding it (see below). Some people would look at this individual verse and think that it says that everyone goes to Heaven. They would think that it says that the only difference is if one lives a holy Christian life they have a mansion there, and if one lives however they want (fulfilling sinful desires) that these works will be discarded and the person will slide into heaven anyway. When seen in context with verses 11-14, this is clearly not the case. This whole passage is specifically talking about Christians, because it speaks of building on the foundation of Christ (which the pagans and other religions do not do). Instead this is just comparing between people within the Christian faith who have lived lives of varying commitment to God. All will be saved becuase of their faith, but some will have more to show for their lives because their works were done out of the right motivations (love for God) instead of wrong ones (approval of men, selfish gain, etc.). 11: For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12: Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- 13: each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14: If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15: If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. |
||||||
196 | salvation/baptism | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 13701 | ||
There are two important answers here. The first has been covered well by previous responders (Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation). However the second has been completely overlooked. If you are a Christian, you SHOULD be baptized. First of all, you are a follower of Christ, and should follow his example (see below). Second of all, Jesus said that baptism is a part of righteousness (see below), and as a Christian, you should want to show your love for God by living out righteousness. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. The inward change (faith) is the critical, but the outward sign (courageously displaying devotion to God) is also important. Matthew Chapter 3 verses: 13: Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14: John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15: But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. |
||||||
197 | Do not fear what you say, it will not | Jer 15:2 | Sir Pent | 13696 | ||
There is a couple verses (Jeremiah 32: 36-37) which are somewhat similar. In those verses, the people are "saying" that a city will be given over to "the sword, famine, and pestilence", but God comes back and says that this will "not happen", but instead that the city will be given protection and safety. It is a stretch, but that might be what you're looking for. "36": And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; "37": Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] |