Results 181 - 200 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16645 | ||
Dear Tim, You have some good points, and I agree that it is theoretically possible to interpret the passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20 differently than I suggest. However, I still think that the most common interpretation is also by far the most logical. Your questions 1 and 2 indicate that Jesus could have gone to a different prison than the one that the dead from the past were in. Once again, just looking at the verses, it says Jesus preached to "the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago ... while the ark was being built". I think it's safe to say that all the people who were alive when the ark was being built were dead. Your question 3 indicates that the "spirits" might not be human. I think there is a vast amount of Biblical support that angels and demons are not put into any kind of prison until the end of time. There are also numerous passages which refer to Hades/Sheol, and the people that have died inhabiting them while waiting for the judgement. It definately seems to be most logical that the "spirits" were the people who had died during Old Testament times. Your question 4 indicates that the message Christ preached is not clearly indicated. However verse 18 starts with "For Christ died for sins once for all", and verse 20 talks about the salvation of Noah and his family on the ark. "In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water." Based on the context that verse 19 is both preceeded and followed by verses about salvation, I would find it to be quite a stretch to assume Jesus message was about anything else. I guess to sum up, I agree that there could be other ways to look at this, but they just don't make much sense. I also want to say that I understand where you are coming from. If you don't find this passage to be convincing that Christ gave a second chance to the people who died before He came to die for our sins, then you would not see the change that I see between the Old and New Testaments. I also understand that you do not see any New Testament passage which specifically condemns the death penalty. Let me just share one more passage of scripture, 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 talks about how we should no longer fight wars like the rest of the world, yet in the Old Testament there are many times when God commands the Israelites to fight wars. I think this is another good example of a place that indicates that something big has changed. "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) |
||||||
182 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16653 | ||
Dear Tim, Thanks for pointing out those refs about angels in prison. I would have to agree with you that I suppose there are some there. Overall, it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of the war and the death penalty. It's too bad though, because if one doesn't see that things have changed from the Old to New Testament in that area, then one has to come up with another explanation for why a loving and just God would command his people to go kill entire cities (including women and children). I of course have heard many explanations for this, and there's probably another thread on that already. But they all seem either arbitrary (which of course, God is entitled to be if He wants to) or Machievellian (sp?) in that "the ends justified the means" (preserving the purity of Israel justified the extermination of the contaminants in the land). However, that's a little outside the scope of this thread. When it all comes down to it, we do agree that we need more peace in the world, and the Jesus is the only way to get there completely. Live long and prosper :) |
||||||
183 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16767 | ||
Dear EdB, I'm glad you don't think I'm a humanist, nor do I think that you are. I also agree with you that God works in mysterious ways to bring people to Himself. Those are powerful stories that you mentioned about people understanding a salvation prayer in a language that they don't know. I would disagree with you that we cannot do "anything to mess any of these incidents up". For instance, that woman could have decided to not go to church that night. If she had not been open to God's leading, then she would have missed out on the gift that He wanted her to have. I agree with you that God calls us first, and with so many other things that you have said in this thread. I just come to some different conclusions, and I appreciate that we can disagree in love. |
||||||
184 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16769 | ||
Dear RElderCascade, I have just a couple of comments. The first is in regards to your usage of the word "evil". I will grant you that you probably did not intend to use that word to mean what the dictionary says it means "morally reprehensible". However, I think that it could be considered a "Freudian slip". Imagine a Christian who had to pull the switch to electrocute someone, pull the trigger to shoot a person in war, or stab a person who breaks into their house to harm their family. I am fairly confident that in all of these instances, that Christian would have a first reaction that it was "evil" and "the wrong thing to do." Only after that, would the person rationalize why "in this case" killing a person was "the right thing to do." My second comment is on the verses in 2 Corinthians that you commented on. I had just come across those in my personal devotions, and had not thoroughly researched the passage. Therefore, I had only read it in the NIV, where it seems to apply more to literal war. However, upon further reflection and after reading comments on this forum such as yours, I believe that I was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. The passage does seem to be talking about warfare in a spiritual sense as opposed to a literal one. |
||||||
185 | 'Conscientious Objection' Biblical? | Ex 20:13 | Sir Pent | 16777 | ||
Dear Charis, You said "unilateral disarmament has been tried historically numerous times", however, it has never been accomplished on a global sense. On a smaller scale, Ghandi was able to use passive resistance very effectively to defend freedoms in both South Africa and India. As for whether this is even possible to accomplish on a worldwide scale, you and EdB both bring up an important point. The Bible says that there will be wars all the way to the end of time. Therefore, we know that worldwide peace will not come unitl Jesus comes back. I completely agree with that. However, the Bible also says that the way to destruction is wide, that there will always be a remnant (implying small minority) of true believers, and that the way to salvation is narrow. This seems to clearly say that there will also never be a worldwide conversion to Christianity. But just because we know that we WILL NOT be completely successful at worldwide fulfillment of the "great commission" does not mean that we shouldn't at least attempt to accomplish it in our own lives. You also said that there was a difference between choosing "to submit to earthly authority for the sake of the name of Jesus, but quite another to submit to the whims of an immoral society". I would agree with the statement, but I don't think I agree with the intent. In my perspective, when I allow a criminal (or enemy in war) to kill me instead of me killing them, I am doing it for the sake of Jesus. I am laying down my life so that they may live longer and have a chance to repent and develop a relationship with God. Of course you said that for me to think that this decision on my part or any decision on their part cannot affect their salvation in any way. If you (and many other forum members) are correct, that nothing we do has any affect on our own or anyone else's salvation, then sure kill the people. But at the same time that would mean that there are only selfish reasons to send missionaries anywhere, or to strive for holiness in our own lives. Finally, you also mentioned that this thread "lapses into tedium". Unfortunately, I would have to agree with you. I think that I have shared all the ideas that I have, and almost everyone else is on the other side of the issue or staying silent. Therefore, perhaps it is time for there to be a wrap-up post to summarize a consensus of what has been discussed. Since you started this thread, I would nominate you for the honor. P.S. That was a nice touch quoting the verse which my user ID is related to. How can I argue with that :) |
||||||
186 | 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? |
||||||
187 | do piercing | Ex 21:6 | Sir Pent | 113081 | ||
Personal Note.................................... Hello EdB, Just thought I'd say that it's good to see another old friend here on the forum and share a thread together. As for fun, you should come by my house sometime on a Friday night and join us for game night :) |
||||||
188 | do piercing | Ex 21:6 | Sir Pent | 113169 | ||
Personal Note.................................... EdB (and everyone else), It is good to be back. As for myself and my family, we are very blessed, and thankful for it :) |
||||||
189 | list common traits of Moses,Joshua,Jesus | Ex 32:12 | Sir Pent | 16781 | ||
kalos, You and I have had some strong disagreements in some other threads. I just wanted to say that your last post was terriffic. It was a direct answer to the question, using a great Biblical passage. Keep up the good work :) |
||||||
190 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19820 | ||
An admonition.................................... Dear Bill Mc, I was dissapointed by this post that you wrote. You have had many distinguished posts that I have read. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but you are usually respectful in what you write. However, in this post, I observe nothing but sarcasm. There is no answer given to the question, but instead just insults and condesention. I do not think that Steve was trying to disprove the New Testament. It seems like his motives were to find an explanation for an APPEARANT contradiction so that others would not be led astray by it. I think that is a great goal, and would hope that you would also see the value in it. I also hope that upon reflection on this post of yours that you would be able to see that it was unnecessarily negative, and find it in your heart to apologize. |
||||||
191 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19836 | ||
Continued admonition ........................... Dear Bill Mc, I understand your frustration due to this disagreement that you have with Steve regarding the continued authority of the Old Testament now that we are under the New Covenant. However, I think that you are missing the forrest for the trees in this particular case. I would like to share an example using myself. I disagree with Steve on his extremely strict definition of the word "worship". For instance, I don't think that he would classify singing praise songs to God as worship. Now let's assume that Steve posts a note on the verse where Moses falls prostrate before God at the burning bush in worship (this would I think fit Steve's definition). I could do one of two things. I could focus on the "tree" and post a response attacking his note and pointing out all the other kinds of ways to worship God. Or I could see the "forrest" and realize that there will probably be someone someday who will read that note about the burning bush and will be helped by it. This person may never even read any of Steve's other posts about worship, and that isn't the point of the burning bush thread anyway. Also if the person did read the other worship posts, they would also see my posts there giving the other side. In any case, it is not helpful at all to confuse things by being negative and not staying on topic. Now that of course is a hypothetical situation, but I hope that you can see that you have done the same thing. Steve just asked a question here about two specific verses that appeared to contradict each other. Yet instead of being helpful and answering the question, you were extremely sarcastic and went off topic to an issue that has been dealt with elsewhere. I hope that you will be able to see more of the "forrest" in the future. There are people who will read these notes that we will never know about. For their sake, let us show our Christianity by our love for each other. Let us always strive to be respectful in our posts. I have suggested several guidelines for respectful posting in another thread (Lockman Forum Improvements #2). You did not respond to that, and I would appreciate your input there. I do value your participation here in the forum, and consider you to be one of the leaders here. With great leadership comes great responsibility. |
||||||
192 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19837 | ||
Clarification .................................... Dear Bill Mc, It seems that you might have misunderstood my previous post. I am sorry for not being clear enough. I am NOT defending Judaism for the sake of "keeping the peace". In fact, I am not defending Steve's view on the Old Testament at all. I am purely focusing on the nature of your response to the original post. It seemed to me to be very negative, sarcastic, and off-topic. I feel that it is an inappropriate way to respond whether we disagree with a person or not. I would also say that whether your post was meant to convey "self-righteousness" or "saddness" is beside the point that it was potentially hurtful. So to clarify, I am not defending Steve's position, I am asking you to reflect on whether Jesus would be pleased with your response to it. |
||||||
193 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19969 | ||
This is off topic .............................. Dear Tim, Steve, and Joe, I am deeply interested in the possiblility of a third view that somehow is a compromise between Calvinism and Arminianism. This would be a tremendous thread. However, it is not the topic of this thread. I would encourage one of you to start a seperate thread to discuss this idea. |
||||||
194 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19973 | ||
Resolution ...................................... Dear Bill Mc, Thank you for being willing to "look for the forrest". As for not being a leader, the dictionary defines it simply as being a guide. There are a lot of other definitions as well, but none of them include fluency in Greek, or any of the other things that you mentioned. I do not intend to insult our distinguished forum members who have this knowledge. I appreciate the insight that they are able to share as a result of this this skill. For example, Tim Moran's "Word Study" post in this thread was excellent and very helpful. I also consider Tim to be a leader on this Forum. My point is just that these things are not required to be a leader, and that all of us (even those like me, that don't know Hebrew, etc.) need to be more responsible with our posts. |
||||||
195 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19981 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Thanks guys. I'm looking forward to that thread, I think it could be really interesting. As for tickets, I don't have any to give. However, if you have any to a UK basketball game, and wanted to part with them for some reason ... :) |
||||||
196 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19990 | ||
Personal Note ................................ Dear Tim, Upon hearing that you're an IU fan, I have only two things to say. The first is that God is merciful, and if you repent he will gladly forgive you :) The second is that have you ever noticed that in paintings, Jesus is always wearing a blue and white outfit, and Satan is always wearing red. Just a coincidence, hmmmm ... |
||||||
197 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20094 | ||
This is also off topic ......................... Dear Bill Mc, Tim, and Reformer Joe, I'm not sure that there is anyway to bring consensus amoung you three Forum leaders on this issue. Reformer Joe is our resident expert defender of Calvinism. Tim is our resident expert defender of Arminianism. And Bill Mc is our resident expert defender of not claiming any labels whatsoever. However, I have appreciated posts from all three of you relating to this discussion in the past. I would recommend that a new thread be started to deal with the issues brought up by the website Bill Mc referred to. I think the overall point was that debating the issue of Calvinism/Arminianism divides the church where no division is needed. I think that this could make for an interesting new thread that could even cover some new ground on this subject (which hasn't been done for a while). For instance, if one gets past the initial disagreements on general issues, does it really lead to significant differences in application? Or do Tim and Reformer Joe have significantly different relationships with God as a result of their beliefs on this subject? If the answers are no, then possibly the guy on the website has a good point. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences? To sum up, this could be very interesting, but is not staying on the original topic of this thread, and so deserves it's own seperate one. |
||||||
198 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20107 | ||
Support ........................................ Dear Bill Mc, You said you do have the labels, "child of God, a son, a saint, a new creation, a citizen of heaven, an heir of God". I say, "Amen brother!" I support all of those and am glad that you claim them :) |
||||||
199 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 20201 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Kalos and Hank, I did not suggest simply another thread on the C and A subject, which has been covered so much on this forum. Instead, I suggested a thread on a specific and limited part of that discussion, which has not been adequately talked about to my knowledge. I understand your frustrations with redundancy. In fact, as you both know, I am striving to diminish this and other problems that we consistently run into here. However, I do not find it helpful for you both to post messages that are purely sarcastic and mocking in tone and content. |
||||||
200 | Should Christians practice nonresistance | Lev 26:6 | Sir Pent | 15841 | ||
Death penalty in OT is good, death penalty in NT is bad. I agree 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, and specifically commanded killing certain kings and enemy nations. However, I think that a fundamental change 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. 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. 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 (Annanias and his wife Saphira, King Herrod). P.S. Joe, I know that you come from the reformed perspective and therefore probably believe that giving someone more time to choose whether to follow God is irrelevant, because they are predestined one way or the other. This has of course been thoroughly discussed in other threads. But, I want to give everyone as much of an opportunity as possible to come to relationship with God. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [24] >> |