Results 321 - 340 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20801 | ||
Personal Note ............................. Dear CDBJ, I'm still waiting. |
||||||
322 | What dose Jesus mean by Ye are gods. | Ps 82:6 | Sir Pent | 20798 | ||
Personal Note .................................. Dear Kalos, I must warn you my friend. If you continue to post such wise and complete principles for answering all Biblical questions, then you are going to put all of us "forum experts" out of buisness :) |
||||||
323 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20790 | ||
Conrary view, Experience ...................... Dear Lionstrong, You said that my definition of "rational" was acceptable, so let's take a look at it. I have defined rationality as the ability to learn or to process information in an orderly manner. This is a pretty standard definition according to dictionaries. Now let's look at some historical facts about animals. There was once a scientist named Pavlov. He had a bunch of dogs that he did an experiment with. He would ring a bell, and then feed them. He did this over a period of time, and noticed a change in the dogs. They associated the bell sound with food, which was demonstrated by salivation. When Pavlov would ring the bell, the dog's mouths would water even before he would feed them. This was not INSTINCT. A wild dog's mouth doesn't water when it hears a bell. These specific dogs were able to PROCESS INFORMATION that they received to LEARN that the food followed the bell. A much more advanced experiment was performed with the famous gorilla named, Koko. She was able to actually LEARN sign language and was able to communicate with her trainers and visitors. She was able to PROCESS INFORMATION not only that she was specifically taught, but was also able to combine concepts in order to learn things that were not taught to her. Her story has been chronicled and documented in numerous books and documentaries. I assume that you were unaware of these events, and share them so that you may be better informed of the scientifically proven exhibitions of animal intellegence. However, you can observe these things on your own as well. If you or someone you know has a dog that can "sit", "lie down", or "roll over" on command, that is also a good example. These are not INSTINCTS. Wild dogs do not understand a human voice command, much less obey it. These behaviors must be LEARNED, and that shows "rationality". This all being said, you did earlier in this thread, quote several good Bible verses, which seem to say that animals are not rational. I would suggest that the Bible is using the word "rational" to mean something beyond what the dictionary defines the word to mean. This would be similar to when Jesus said, "I am the Truth", meaning more than just being a fact and real. |
||||||
324 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20786 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Hank, Thanks for the oil; may our lamps never run dry. I, too, liked the idea about the typing dog. Maybe I could call him Dautsund Matrix. |
||||||
325 | Ninevah did. | Rom 1:18 | Sir Pent | 20785 | ||
A new perspective ............................... I just wanted to throw in an insight that an elder at my church shared with me about this appearant contradiction on God's part. At first He says that He will destroy the city of Nineveh, and then He doesn't because they repent. The idea that was helpful to me was that the fact that God sent Jonah to preach to the people there, is a strong implication that the final outcome is not completely determined. If God decided to destroy the city no matter what, then why waste time by sending Jonah to preach there. Not to mention all the trouble that had to be gone through to even get Jonah there. Therefore, since God sent Jonah to begin with, it indicates that He was at least giving the Ninevites the chance to repent and be forgiven. They responded to this call and repented, so God forgave them. |
||||||
326 | General Admonition (dealing with Casiv) | 1 Cor 14:26 | Sir Pent | 20682 | ||
Response to Criticism .......................... Dear Forumites, I would like to first thank Tim Moran for his willingness to earnestly search his heart and listen to the Holy Spirit's conviction. I also appreciate the support of EdB and completely agree with his position that we should be tolerant of people themselves, while not being tolerant of false doctrine. Secondly, I would like to respond to some criticisms brought forward by Hank and seconded by Kalos. It seems to me that I have offended you by admonishing the elder statesmen, so to speak, of the forum. I want to first say that I have great respect for many of these "dedicated and intelligent members of this forum". It is actually because of the high regard that I have for all of those who I mentioned in my post, that I expect Christ-like behavior from them. The statement was also made that, "Every reasonable effort has been made to deal with this user", as if this was a defense for the responses that were given. I would say that when reasonable efforts have been exhausted, that the proper action is not be become unreasonable, but rather to cease striving. If a user is completely unable to be dealt with using scripture, logic, experience, etc, then do not stoop to name calling and insults. Instead, shake the dust off your feet and stop responding to that thread. Finally, it was mentioned that the responses were not personally attacking Casiv at all. Let me quote once more from one member, "Each and every one of your postings shows your ignorance, arrogance and abrasiveness." This is not saying that the content of Casiv's posts are ignorant or arrogant or abrasive, which they sometimes are. It is saying that Casiv, himself, is those things. That is exactly the type of thing, which I believe we as Christians ought not do. In the end, it is the Holy Spirit's job to bring conviction to our hearts. I am a bit surprised how few people have responded in any way to this thread, considering how many people were involved in all of this. |
||||||
327 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20680 | ||
Personal Note .................................. Dear Tim, Yes, I agree that the names they come up with for these things are not entirely helpful or easy :) I see your point about how the contradiction could be explained by a conditional election. However, I don't think that the Amyraldian viewpoint would support that type of election. Therefore, the contradiction seems to still be there. Hopefully someone else (perhaps Steve, who I think identifies with this perspective) will be able to explain this. |
||||||
328 | The Plan of God in an Arminian Nutshell | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20678 | ||
Clarification .................................. Dear Dan K, I also appreciate your last posting regarding the two types of God's "will". If I understand you correctly, you are saying that God has a "sovereign will" which is unstopable and perfect, and a "permissive will" which is allowed by Him to be disrupted. I think that I agree with you completely. God does have a general will for all of the universe, to glorify Him. I believe that this is inevitable. No matter what choices anyone makes, in the end all glory will go to God. I also agree with you that there are times when something that appears to be against God's will ends up working for the best (ie. Joeseph's entire life). Romans 8:28 also gives me confidence that as a Christian, God always has my best interest at heart, and that in the end things will work out well for me (eternity in heaven with Him). However, I believe that within this framework of the eternal plan we live almost completely in the "permissive" system that God has set up. In one sense, God chose to set it up that way, so it is indirectly in His control. But in the lives of individuals, the choices that they make are completely their own. God's overall plan will be accomplished in the long term, but in the short term, earthly life of an individual that may not be the case. |
||||||
329 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20675 | ||
Confusion ....................................... Dear Lionstron, I must admit that I am very confused by your continuing to post that animals are incapable of thinking. I can only come up with 3 possible explanations. 1. You are using the word "thinking" to mean something other than its typical definition in the dictionary. If this is the case, please share the definition that you are using. 2. You are joking around with me. The "leather shoes" comment was kind of humorous, so maybe this is it. 3. You just want to have the last post. If this is the case, just let me know, and I'll stop responding for you. I really am curious what the original idea was that you were trying to make, but I seem to have lost it in the whole discussion of whether animals had the ability to use their brains. |
||||||
330 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20670 | ||
Personal Note ................................. Dear Lionstrong, You could be entirely correct, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the only possible interpretation. I am curious though, why you brought this up. Do you glean something from this passage based on the idea that the serpent changed classes? If so, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. |
||||||
331 | What fruit did Eve eat from the tree? | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20386 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Nazman, I also would like to welcome you to the Forum, and look forward to the ideas that you'll have to share with us in the future. |
||||||
332 | General Admonition (dealing with Casiv) | 1 Cor 14:26 | Sir Pent | 20377 | ||
General Admonition ............................... Dear Forumites, Recently Charis mentioned to me that it only takes "a few unruly persons to bring out the worst in us". I commented that this did not have to be the case. I said that even if a person made a post that was not constructive, we were still responsible for how we responded to that person. I said that we could maintain self-control (fruit of the Spirit), and wisdom in our responses. Unfortunately, I have observed over the past two weeks that Charis has been more correct than I have been. I am referring specifically to the interactions of practically everyone on this forum with the person known as "Casiv". I want to be clear that I am not defending the statements which Casiv has made and believes. In fact, I have thus far disagreed with the vast majority of his interpretations from scripture. However, I do believe that Casiv has not been treated with the respect and kindness, which anyone should be able to expect from a Christian community. This has not been an isolated problem, but has come from a large number of otherwise distinguished members of our forum. In no particular order: Schwartzkm has referred to his posts as "nonsense". Many members (such as Debbie, Hank, Tim Moran, and Searcher56) have mocked his posts by talking about the game of Clue. He has been called names; for example Jensen called him "Miss Cleo". Others such as Retxar and Bill Mc, have mocked his use of numerics by using phrases with 11 letters in them such as "Bunch of Bull". And most recently, Radioman told him that, "Each and every one of your postings shows your ignorance, arrogance and abrasiveness." Once again, I want you all to understand that I know how the ideas that Casiv supports are very inflamatory. I also know that the style, which Casiv uses to communicate is very frustrating. However, I think that we all need to be much more careful to focus our criticism on his content and style, as opposed to personal attacks. We also need to make sure that our responses are CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and not just ones that make fun of ideas. A good example of this would be a post where Charis responded, "I find your tone arrogant and offensive." Then Charis went on to answer his questions regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. I hope that as you all think about these things that you will redouble your efforts to not curse the darkness, but be a light in it. Also for those of you who the Holy Spirit convicts, I hope that you will be able to humble yourselves and apologize to anyone whom you have wronged. |
||||||
333 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20341 | ||
Contrary View, logic ............................ Dear Lionstrong, Yes, I agree that the image of God is uniquely given to humans and not to animals. However, I disagree that "the image of God is rationality." Rationality is merely the ability to think, or to process information in an orderly manner. This ability is not limited to humanity, for animals obviously do this. The image of God is much greater and all-encompassing than just pertaining to our brains. |
||||||
334 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20339 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Lionstrong, I'm not sure exactly what your point is in this post. However, I'm not sure that this interpretation of the verse is the only possible one. Just because the verse says that the serpent was more crafty than any "beast of the field", that doesn't mean that it is necessarily in the same category. If I say that Curt Schilling is a better pitcher than anyone on the Yankees, it doesn't mean that Curt is a Yankee (in fact he plays for Arizona). Similarly, the serpent could actually be in the category of "creeping things" and yet still be more crafty than the "beasts of the field". |
||||||
335 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20324 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear Joe, Let me just examine your answer to question 4 since you said that is the most significant practical difference between C and A perspecitves. You "see the decretive will of God in all things." I think that Arminians would also see the general plan of God being revealed throughout all of scripture. You see "all of the Biblical narrative as HIS story." I think that Arminians would also agree that the Bible is God's Word, not ours. They would also describe the Bible as being God's written account of His relationship to mankind in the past and His desired relationship with mankind in the present. They would agree the God is the main character of the Bible. You read the Bible believing God "will glorify HIMSELF through redeeming the elect." Arminians also read the Bible believing that God glorifies Himself through His redemption plan. They would just say that the plan includes more people. You see "all things in the Bible working for the chief end of glorifying God above all." Arminians would also agree that the purpose of everything in the universe (including everything in the Bible) is to glorify God. It is interesting that on this "most significant" difference between the C and A camps, I don't really see much disagreement at all. |
||||||
336 | The Plan of God in an Arminian Nutshell | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20317 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ........................ Dear Dan K, You do bring up a good example of where God went to extraordinary means (swallowing a person with a fish) to change Jonah's will to match God's plan. However, this type of action by God is the exception not the rule. In the garden of Eden, it was God's plan for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit. God did not make the fruit look disgusting so that they would not "want" to eat it. Instead it looked good. Throughout scripture the vast majority of the times that humans went against the will of God, He did not stop them or change their minds. Another example would be when Israel desired a king. That was against God's plan, and God even told them that through his prophet Sammuel. However, God did not change their minds, but allowed them to freely choose the wrong thing. |
||||||
337 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20227 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Steve, I had never heard of an "Amyraldian" before, however, I just finished reading about it at the following webpage. http://members.aol.com/briangord/amyrad.htm I thought it was very informative. It sounds like the basic idea is that Arminias was theoretically right and Calvin was practically right. It gave the quote that "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." Does this website present an accurate perception of your beliefs? |
||||||
338 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20210 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear CDBJ, I was hoping that you would respond to my post (10-24-01) on this subject. Do you have any thoughts? Also as for the coal, pitch idea. Just because it is organic doesn't mean that it was once alive. As others have pointed out, if we found Adam or Eve's skeleton, we would assume that they were once children and then grew to be adults. However, God just created them at the adult stage of life. Similarly, God could have just created the Earth with those organic materials (pitch, etc.) already there. The presence of tar doesn't prove that the Earth is ancient, and the Gap theory doesn't make sense (see note 10-24-01). |
||||||
339 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20205 | ||
Questions Answered, Part 2 ...................... Dear Forumites, Here's the rest of my answers. 7. What efforts to disciple? I have a leadership role in my church's ministry to college students. I think that more people leave the Church and Christianity at this period of life than any other. Thus I feel this is a critical time for me to try to make a difference in their lives, with God's help. I also less formally am often consulted by my friends on spiritual issues and life decisions. Therefore, I also use that as an opportunity to disciple. 8. What fellowship with other believers? I am actively involved in my local church, and besides services, also regularly attend fellowship opportunities. These are with many groups including my Sunday school class, our church leadership team, small groups at times, and just having a meal with another family. 9. What involvement in church? I lead Sunday school, attend morning service, assist with Children's church 2nd service, attend evening service, occasionally serve as an usher, and often participate in sharing testimonies at a service. I also participate in discussion during congregational meetings about the church's plans for the future. 10. What involvement in missions? I pray for many friends who are missionaries around the world. I support many of them financially both personally and through my local church, which has a significant percentage of the annual budget designated for missions. I also strive to be a missionary to non-Christians around me in my own life. 11. What manifestations of the Spirit? I do not think that I have ever exhibited those that I know of. I have not spoken in toungues, prophecied, or been "slain". 12. What Fruit of the Spirit? I consistently express many fruit of the Spirit, including: love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. I sometimes exhibit patience and gentleness. So that answers all the questions from one perspective of the C and A debate. Are there significant differences in the lives of anyone on the other side of the issue. |
||||||
340 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20204 | ||
Questions Answered .............................. Dear Forumites, I will try to help this discussion by answering the questions from one perspective so that those from the other perspective will have something to compare and contrast to. 1. My personal relationship with God? I view him as my Savior and Lord of my life. We communicate through prayer, scripture, and the words of those He has put in my life. I am confident that God has my best interest at heart. 2. How accepted by God? I feel completely accepted by God. This is not because I deserve to be, but because God relates to me through the cleansing power of Jesus sacrifice for my sins. 3. How is prayer life? My prayer life is mainly conversational during times when I am alone and quiet. However, I also sometimes participate in public prayer. I do this at church, Sunday school, and before meals. 4. How is Bible study? I most often gain insight from scripture when searching it as a result of conversations with other believers. Sometimes checking a pastors sermon, or responding to a post on this forum :) 5. How to worship God? I worship God by singing praises to Him, praying to Him, and trying to live a life that is pleasing to Him. 6. How do I share the gospel with others? I try to live as a good example of Christ around them. I also at times will talk with them about how Christ has made a difference in my life. I also participate in evangelistic activities with my church in order to show God's love to the Lost. There are several more questions, but I'll answer those in the next post. What are your thoughts so far. Does anything stick out as being specifically different? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [24] >> |