Results 341 - 360 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | 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. |
||||||
342 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20197 | ||
Support ......................................... Dear Charis, Thanks for your continued input on this subject. I appreciate that you also agree with the "literal until proven figurative by another scripture" guidline. It seems like this may end up being part of the consensus of this thread. At the same time, I understand your researvation about it only taking "a few unruly persons to bring out the worst in us". However, I would disagree with your implication that this is inevitable. "It takes two to tango", as the expression goes. Therefore, if one person posts in a manner that is not constructive, we are still responsible for our choice of how to respond. There have been times when there have been some pretty negative posts directed towards me. But thus far, I believe and hope that I have always responded with self-control and wisdom (to go along with my user id). If I can do it, then I'm sure that it can be done by anyone. |
||||||
343 | i need notes on all verses | Ephesians | Sir Pent | 20114 | ||
duplicate post | ||||||
344 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20113 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, Matthew 10:16 is a passage where Jesus, Himself instructs His disciples to be "shrewd as snakes" or "wise as serpents". Using these words according to their standard definitions (in the dictionary), this is saying that animals can think. Shrewd is defined as clever, which is defined as smart, which is defined as intellegent, which is defined as the ability to learn. 99 percent of people ages 5 and up would say that these are all synonomous with "thinking" and being "rational". I assume you must be using the word "rational" with some specific meaning that it ordinarily doesn't have. Perhaps if you explain how you define the word, it would help us to proceed. I don't want to be rude, but I am truly confused by your ideas on this issue. |
||||||
345 | 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 :) |
||||||
346 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20106 | ||
This tread could be deleted ..................... I meant for this to be a question, however, Tim Moran posed the same question at the same time. Therefore, I encourage everyone to answer his question and not duplicate things by responding here. |
||||||
347 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20105 | ||
Is there a third possibility in the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion? Could it be that neither one is entirely correct and that it is wrong for the Church to be divided because of them? If one gets past the initial disagreements on general issues, does it really lead to significant differences in application? Or do an Arminian like Tim Moran and a Calvinist like Reformer Joe have significantly different relationships with God as a result of their beliefs on this subject? If the answers are no, then possibly these discussions are really not that important. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences? |
||||||
348 | 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. |
||||||
349 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20091 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear CDBJ, I have never been to the ICR website before, and after your post regarding what you found there, I checked it out myself. I did come across the idea that you mentioned about it not making sense for God to create using evolution because of all the suffering required and the inefficiency of it all. I agree with you that this is not the best reasoning against the "Gap Theory". However, I also came across the point that I'll quote below. I think that it, on the other hand, is very good. It talks about the "Gap Theory"s acceptance of the ancient age of the Earth (assumed due to the geologic record), followed by the re-creation narrative in the rest of Genesis 1. "Thus, acceptance or the geologic ages implicitly involves acceptance of the whole evolutionary package. Most of the fossil forms preserved in the sedimentary rocks have obvious relatives in the present world, so that the "re-creation" concept involves the Creator in "re-creating" in six days of the same animals and plants which had been previously developed slowly over long ages, only to perish violently in a great pre-Adamic cataclysm. The gap theory, therefore, really does not face the evolution issue at all, but merely pigeon-holes it in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, and then use the method of special creation it to re-create the same forms He had just destroyed." |
||||||
350 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20063 | ||
Clarification, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, I do not think that we actually disagree with each other on this matter. Instead, I think that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about a spiritual rationality and I am speaking of a physical rationality. I assume that we both agree that both of these exist. The Bible clearly seperates Godly wisdom from earthly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). It also talks about how one could "see without seeing" and "hear without understanding" (Matthew 13:13). It seems clear that human reason and spiritual understanding are two distinct abilities. You seem to be making the case that only humans (due to being in the image of God) have the ability to have "spiritual understanding". I agree completely. I am making the case that animals and humans both have the ability to have earthly "reasoning" (as defined in the dictionary). I think that you would agree as well. I would mention that even in this kind of rationality, there is a matter of degree (1 Corinthians 13:11), and a human has much greater reasoning than an animal. |
||||||
351 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20061 | ||
Clarification ................................ Dear Charis, Thank you for joining the discussion. I value your input on this. I agree with you that the fractured nature of the Church into denominations is detrimental to our witness to the world. In fact, it is becuase of this that I seek to increase the unity of the Church (and even this Forum). That is one reason why I have suggested several improvements, and support this idea of EdB's. It seems to me that if we had a general guideline that it would help direct several different common thread ideas. For example in the American justice system, a person is "innocent until proven guilty". We could similarly have a guideline that said that the Bible was "literal until proven figurative by another scripture". That way if a person makes a post that says that the Genesis Creation is figurative, the burden of proof would be on that person to point out another scripture passage that contradicts a literal interpretation of it. Or if a person says that a specific number in the Bible is figurative and symbolizes something else, then the burden of proof is on that person to point out another scripture which contradicts it just meaning a literal number. As you can imagine, this could be helpful quite often on this forum. It would help to give direction to threads and keep everything firmly grounded in scripture. |
||||||
352 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20060 | ||
Support ......................................... Dear Hank, You write, "To address a passage as literal when the meaning clearly is not literal is to miss the point entirely." I completely agree. And that is exactly why we need a consistent way to tell the difference. |
||||||
353 | Earth was without form, and void. | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 20057 | ||
Further Support ............................... Dear Hank, Thank you for this excellent post. I see that you posted basically the same thing on 6-22-01. I really wish that more people would do a search on something before asking a question about it. I am glad that you were here to answer it again though. I think the reason why your answer is the best is that it not only supports there not being any men before Adam and Eve, but also supports the Truth of the KJV. Although the KJV is not my first translation of choice, I have a fundamental belief that God has protected the accuracy of His Word in all major translations. Therefore, I appreciate that you are able to explain this confusion not based on the KJV being wrong and the other versions right, but based on them all being right, and only our ignorance of definitions being wrong. |
||||||
354 | why difference in family tree of jesus | Matt 1:16 | Sir Pent | 20055 | ||
Please do a Search ............................ Dear Sujit, This question has been asked before. Please do a search for "Joseph Mary Father", and you will find another thread on the subject. In my post there, I explain why I think that Matthew has Mary's geneology and Luke has Joseph's geneology. |
||||||
355 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20005 | ||
Clarification ................................. Dear Tim, So it seems that our process would work in this case as well. We can see too scripture passages that appear to contradict if both taken literally. One implies that the hand can cause sin, and the other says that sin comes from inside the heart of a person. Based on this we can say that one must be figurative based on an objective process instead of just because the first passage appears (subjectively) to be hyperbolic language. So far, so good. |
||||||
356 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20002 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Hank, It seems here that you are making a "slippery slope" argument. By saying that we should cut off hands, then next we'll say cut off arms, and then heads, etc. The problem is that the verse does not say to do these other things. It's when we interpret verses to be figurative that we most often expand their meanings. On the other hand, I completely agree with you that we need to see the overall point of what Jesus was saying. Whether the passage is literal or figurative, it definately shows the importance of living holy lives and the graveness of sin. |
||||||
357 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20001 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture........................ Dear Hank, I don't know of any universally accepted way of determining biblical literalism and biblical symbolism either. That is the very reason why I am trying to come up with one here on the forum. As for the rest of your ideas about being objective when reading scripture, letting the Holy Spirit guide you, and just looking for the plain sense, I agree in one sense. Those all sound like great ideas, and if we all did them perfectly then there would be no problems. However, they are very subjective, and the simple truth is that we don't do them perfectly, and probably never will. Therefore, in a community there needs to be some kind of established principles that are objective and can be applied consistently. That is all we are trying to accomplish here. To look at the specific example that you cited, I believe it could be dealt with, within our current framework. Jesus said He was bread, a door, and a vine. But another scripture says that Jesus became a human (Phil 2:7). Therefore, based purely on scripture, we are forced to determine which is figurative and which is literal. Then of course it is obvious based on the vast amount of scriptures referring to Jesus that He was definately a human and not a slice of bread. The process seems to work here. |
||||||
358 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20000 | ||
Apology ....................................... Dear Steve, I am sorry for the confusion. I did indeed confuse you with the Steve other than yourself and Searcher56. I am having a hard time keeping up with all you Steve's :) |
||||||
359 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19999 | ||
Clarification ................................. Dear Tim, I can see your point. Do you know of any scripture passages that directly state that sin does not originate in a part of the body? The closest thing that I could come up with was the one about things going in the mouth not making one unclean, but that's not quite the same thing. |
||||||
360 | 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 ... |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [24] >> |