Results 381 - 400 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18605 | ||
Dear Nolan, Thank you for your further input on the idea of deleting duplicate posts on the forum. Let me try to take some of the things that you said one at a time. You said, "I completely support the 'filtering' of specific threads that are offensive or derogatory in nature, but should we really have the license to edit all threads just to make them more accessible or "look better"?" I completely agree about the filtering of offensive material. At the same time I would encourage you to rethink the benefit of editing threads for duplication. The purpose is not just aesthetic to "look better". Instead it is to help people who are searching for truth to be able to find as much information as possible from this forum. You said, "But just which posts should we decide to keep and which ones should we not keep?" I agree that there would need to be well-thought out guidlines to determine this, but I think a good starting place would be deleting the questions which all of us forum members easily recognize as being repeats. These are the questions that we simply respond by telling the person to do a search on certain words to find the original thread. You said, "If you are the "judge" of this, then does that mean that you will keep all of your particular postings on a subject and consider the postings of others as "expendable"? I do not believe that a single member of this Forum could or should accomplish such an objective task." I agree that it would be too large of a task for one person, but I think that it is deffinately not impossible to be objective. For instance, I just today replied to Prayon about Israel's actions deserving their slavery in Egypt. Afterwards, I realized that you had already replied to them with basically the same answer. In my thinking, my post should be deleted, because yours was first, and mine didn't add anything significant. Simply using chronology is an objective way to do it. You said, "Also, there are other problems like number of postings by users." I do not understand what the problem is there. It seems to me that the number of posts that a forum member has posted has very little relevancy. I do think that knowing whether a person has posted 1 time, 5 times or 100 times can be helpful. However, past that point, I can't think of any good purpose for keeping track of that information. Finally, you said, "Also, what if a completely new subject has spawned off the post or posts that were considered as "expendable"? Does this mean that other valid information concerning a different topic would also be lost?" I think this is a great point. It will be important to be very deliberate to not lose "valid information" during this process (if it ever happens to begin with). There are many threads that have gone in a completely different direction than they were originally intended. In these cases, there are multiple possibilities. Depending on what subject they are about, they could be added to the original thread on the same subject, or to another original thread which they more closely allign with, or to a completely new thread dedicated to that topic. In conclusion, I hope to have shown that although there are many details that would need to be worked out, I think there are answers for all of these very important questions. If this is something that the overall forum sees could be as helpful for enhancing the usefulness of this forum for building the kingdom of God, then it is worth working towards. That's why I started this vote, to see if it is even something that people want. If so then we'll work out the details. If not then I'll drop it and move on. So far the vote is 8 for, 6 against (4 of them just due to difficulty), and 1 undecided. |
||||||
382 | What did they do? | Exodus | Sir Pent | 18600 | ||
Further Support .................................. Dear Prayon, I agree with Nolan and Steve. There are times when we suffer hardships in life that are not a direct result of any particular bad decisions we make or sins that we commit. An excellent Bible passage that deals with this is John 9:1-3. Sometimes God allows times of suffering in our lives, because they can bring about His ultimate purposes. As Christians, we can be confident that this ultimate plan is also in our own best interest (Rom 8:28), even if it doesn't appear like it in the short term. P.S. Welcome back Nolan. I missed you while you were on "forum vacation". |
||||||
383 | murder ok for david but not others why ? | 2 Samuel | Sir Pent | 18581 | ||
Different Opinion ................................ Drummer, I also would like to welcome you to the forum. One of the great things about this forum is that there are many people here with different ideas. Through sharing them we are able to get a more complete picture of many important concepts. For instance, although Steve and I agree on most things, we have different perspectives on this issue. This concept that you have brought up is one that has been brought up before. I would encourage you to use the search box at the top right of the screen to find many posts dealing with capital punishment. To start you might want to search for "old new fundamental". This will take you to a post of mine that talks about what was different about King David's time and today. |
||||||
384 | Just an intriguing topic | Rom 12:17 | Sir Pent | 18501 | ||
Dear KaLe, Welcome to the forum. I am glad that you have been blessed (as I have) through the thoughts that are shared here. Please feel free to add any insights that you have as you continue to fellowship with us. God bless! |
||||||
385 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18498 | ||
Charis, Hank, Kalos, and Nolan, I appreciate all of your answers with regard to this suggestion of deleting duplicate posts. It seems that all four of you voted "no" not because you are against the idea, but just because it would be too difficult. I understand your concern, but would you mind revoting based purely on the idea itself. Of course if it is not possible for Lockman to do this, I'm sure we would all understand. But I think that it would be helpful to at least have an accurate view of what the ideal desires of the forum members are. Also, I have a few ideas that might make it possible to accomplish without too much work. For old posts, they could probably just do a search for the word "search". This would pull up all the threads where someone asked a question that had already been asked and someone else responded by telling them to use the search box. For future posts, we could start using some sort of standardized comment like "this thread is a duplicate" to draw Lockman's attention to any threads that needed to be deleted. This would still be a time consuming task, because there could be some new material in responses to the duplicate question that would need to be added to the original post on that subject. However, I don't think that it would be impossible. In any case, I just would like a little clarification if you are all against the idea in general. Thanks again for all your help in making this a terriffic forum. |
||||||
386 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18283 | ||
Switch to Improvements #4....................... Dear Tim, the idea of the more descriptive headings was originally brought to my attention by Jensen. In fact there is currently an unanswered question about it (Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #4). For it to work though, you have to put a bunch of periods after your heading, like I did at the beginning of this post. |
||||||
387 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18280 | ||
Dear Tim Moran (may I just call you Tim?), I can definately appreciate your point that many issues discussed on this forum are very complex, and need to be explored in depth. At the same time, you mentioned that it is important for "both parties" to be involved ("agree"). This is exactly the point that I'm trying to get across. When a new person to our forum posts a question, and then 40 people respond, I think that is not something that the original poster would have agreed to (as evidenced by the fact that they no longer choose to be involved at all). One of the things that I really admire about Jesus was that He was able to give people exactly the answers that they needed to hear. He didn't leave out critical information, but He also didn't answer each question with every detail that the scriptures contained on the subject. When the rich, young ruler asked what was required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus gave a relatively simple answer to him. If a new person asked that question on this forum, I guarantee that the responses would not be anywhere near as limited. Obviously, Jesus had the advantage of being able to know the hearts of the people He interacted with. However, I still think that we could as Christians, at least try to follow His example a little more closely. My suggestion is only my humble attempt to do this. |
||||||
388 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18276 | ||
Dear Norrie, Don't worry, I have not forgotten you or your suggestion. I am going to be starting a new thread which will include this idea. |
||||||
389 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18275 | ||
Dear Jensen, I think that it could be very helpful to have more descriptive beginings of our posts so that people could follow threads at a glance more accutately. I will start a new thread with this as one of the suggestions. |
||||||
390 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18274 | ||
Dear Reformer Joe and EdB, Thanks for your thoughts on these issues as well. If I understand correctly, you both agree with the second idea, that we should be more commited to staying focused on the topic of the original question in a thread. It also seems that you agree that we should be more selective in responding to "primary" questions. I completely agree with your ideas about how when we get to far away from the scripture itself, we move into very dangerous waters. The one disagreement that I picked up on was the idea of ending threads with a summary statement. I'm glad that you also see the value in this EdB, and would like to provoke a couple thoughts for you Reformer Joe. You mention that it is impossible to come to consensus when we have such different ideas about many subjects. However, let me give you an example of how it is possible. A recent thread asked whether one could lose their salvation. Those who agree mainly with Reformed theology said no, and those who agree mainly with the Arminian theology said yes. However, in the midst of all that there was a common idea held by both sides, and that was to not risk it. One poster said it best when they said, "This 'debate' is not about initial salvation it is about living after salvation. It comes down to a debate on what I can and can not do and still remain saved. All I'm saying is that is not how a Christian should approach salvation, A Christian should shoot for the best and let grace cover everything else." Therefore, if I was writing a consensus statement of that thread, I would focus on two things. The first would be the ideas that almost all of the posts agreed with (whether I agree with it or not). The second would be how that topic could be applied to our lives. Then as a final note, I would just mention any significant minority opinions. This would be in my opinion a fair, relatively unbiased (as much as possible), and most of all extremely helpful way to end a thread. The final point that I would like you to think about is that although you do not think there are many "seekers" who visit our forum, couldn't there be another explanation. Perhaps there are actually a large number of these visitors, who come, but because of the way that they observe us responding to people they decide to not post, or even leave completely. |
||||||
391 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18270 | ||
All votes count, including yours. Greetings There and Tim Moran. You both bring up valid points. I seem to have confused There and apologize for a lack of clarity about my first suggestion (limiting initial responses to 3). My intention was not to say that there could never be more than 3 responses to a question (so that our friends like There could not chime in unless they happened to get in at just the right time). Instead, I just meant that after the first 3 responses to a "primary" question begining a new thread, we would wait for the original questioner to respond before continuing to "pile on" so to speak. For instance, BillyK recently asked a question about where souls came from. There have been literally 40 responses, and none of these are from BillyK at all. This is exactly the type of thing that I wish we could avoid. I think it would be better for there to just be a few, relatively simple answers to "primary" questions. This way, new people to the forum would find it easier to read through and respond to them, instead of being confused and overwhelmed. Tim, you also brought up the point that you were uncomfortable with limiting debate beyond civility. I would hope that you would not see any of my suggestions as doing that. Adding a post at the end of a debate to summarize it does not seem to limit the debate, at least in my mind. Staying focused in a debate on the subject that the debate was supposed to be about in the beginning seems to be exactly what civility would demand. And as for limiting initial responses to primary questions, I admit that this is a limitation, however, as I tried to explain above, I think it is also the most civil and helpful way to respond to new posters. Also this limitation is not complete, if the original person elaborates after any of the three initial responses, then it becomes open season again to unload with both barrels and post as many times as wanted. I have a lot of respect for your opinions, and feel that both of you add significantly to this forum. I just hope that you can understand my heart on this issue. I feel like this forum is a phenomenal resource for the regular members, and I just want to improve it so that it can also be welcoming to "seekers" and "visitors" so that they too can benefit from it as we all have. |
||||||
392 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18269 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc - Yes - especially responses like "already answered, do search on ..." BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie - Yes - definately duplicate threads, maybe also similar threads EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank - No - too difficult, and repetition has its usefulness Kalos - No - it would be too difficult Lionstrong - No - the repetition is a safeguard Norrie - Yes Ray - Yes Sir Pent - Yes - it will assist clarity and searching Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran - No - it is unnecessary Still missing? Nolan Keck Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm There Total Yes 8 Total No 5 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
393 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18257 | ||
Dear Forum Coleagues, Since Lanny has recently asked about this subject, I believe it would be good to resurrect and add to this thread from long ago. I am curious how your study turned out Tim Moran. What did you end up deciding and why? |
||||||
394 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18161 | ||
Christianity in a Nutshell part 2 Here's the rest of the story: Faith - This is believing something even though there is not absolute proof of its truth (Heb 11:1). In Christianity, it is critical to have faith that the essentials of Christianity (ie. Apostle's Creed) are true. Apostle's Creed - A summary of beliefs that are essential to Christianity. It is the most famous of many creeds that were created by a council of church leaders with much prayer and discussion. I would encourage any introduction to Christianity to include reading this creed. Ministry - A way of life that is primarily focused on doing the will of God. The most commonly thought of way of doing this is as a Pastor of a church, but there are of course many other ways to "minister" to people. In fact, all Christians should be involved in some type of ministry (Eph 4:11-12). Baptism - A ceremony where an individual is either submerged with water or has water poured or sprinkled on their head. This ceremony is a symbolic representation of the complete change that has taken place in the person?s life. It shows to all who observe it that the person has chosen to have faith in Jesus Christ, has been cleansed of their sins, and has become a new creation (1 Pet 3:21). Bible - This is God's written message for mankind (Matt 5:18). God used many different people over hundreds of years to write, copy, compile, and even translate this message so that it could be read and trusted by the entire world (Rom 15:4). Old Testament - This is the record of the time before Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God used one chosen nation, Israel, to be an example to the world of how to relate to God (Jer 3:17). New Testament - This is the record of the time during and shortly after Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. It is focused around how God Himself, through His own Son, Jesus, showed the ultimate example of how to relate to God (John 8:42). Prophecy - These are statements made about future events. Many of these are recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and of these, the vast majority have already been proved true (Isa 7:14). Some have not happened yet, and are anticipated by Christians (Acts 1:11). Heaven - The final destination of all persons who ultimately accept God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal joy both physically (no pain or tears) and most importantly spiritually (ultimate communion with God) (Rev 21:3-4). Hell - The final destination of all persons who ultimately reject God's plan for their lives. It is a place of eternal pain both physically (lake of fire) and most importantly spiritually (completely seperated from God) (Matt 25:41). |
||||||
395 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18058 | ||
Dear Bill Mc, Charis, and Jensen, Thank you for your responses to these suggestions so far. It sounds like we all agree that a much better job could be done of maintaining the relevancy of discussion to the original question in a post. (In fact, I noticed that Bill Mc did a good job of this in his most recent post on regarding where souls come from.) It also seems that there is agreement on the need for greater unity, which could be aided by having "consensus posts" at the end of threads. (I didn't catch your take on that idea though Jensen.) I think that this would help people who are searching for an answer to a question to be able to get an overall idea before wading through all the "personal notes". I appreciate Bill Mc and Charis support for the third idea of limiting our responses to 3 after a person initially asks a question. I understand your reservation, Jensen, that perhaps all of the first three responses could be completely incorrect. Although this is possible, I think that it is unlikely. There is a large number of very consistent members of this forum who seem to always look out for new questions and jump at the chance to answer them (Nolan Keck, Steve Butler and Tim Moran are three of many examples). I have observed enough of all of these people's posts to have confidence in their responses. Even if I don't completely agree with what they might say, I know that they will be at least based in scripture and pretty well thought out. In short, they would be sufficient for a starting point for the original questioner to respond to. The alternative is to keep doing what we're doing and have 10 responses to a question that are so overwhelming and many times contradictory (to the point of confusion after 10 of them), that the original person who asked the question never comes back. Finally, I would like to say that these are not absolute rules to be followed upon penalty of death. Instead they are "Unity Guidelines" which I hope many of us could agree to abide by as a pattern of behavior. Of course if there was a time that the first three responses to a question said that Jesus was not the Son of God, there would be just cause for an exception to be made. |
||||||
396 | Who determines what is "minor"? | Hebrews | Sir Pent | 18035 | ||
Dear Steve, I am a bit confused. Do you mean that the list of things mentioned are minor (not worth dying for), or are major (things worth dying for)? |
||||||
397 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17958 | ||
Update so far ... I will try to compile the votes for this particular change. I would appreciate input from each of the people below who seem to be the 20 most consistent participants on this forum. Of course all other input is appreciated as well and will be added to this list. Please try to limit this thread to only the one change proposed (deleting and combining duplicate threads). For other changes, please start seperate threads. Bill Mc BrianG - Yes CDBJ - doesn't know yet Charis - No - it would be too difficult for Lockman, we need more patience Debbie EdB - Yes - also probably too difficult Hank Kalos Lionstrong Nolan Keck Norrie - Yes Ray Reformer Joe RElderCascade Retxar Schwartzkm Sir Pent - Yes Steve Butler - Yes - currently requests this on an individual basis Tim Moran There Total Yes 5 Total No 1 Total Undecided 1 |
||||||
398 | Where was God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 17835 | ||
MStevens, The verse that immediately came to my mind was John 11:35 "Jesus wept". This is a good example of a time when God shared the sorrow of His friends Mary and Martha. Eph 4:30 also talks of how our sin can "grieve" the Holy Spirit. Although this doesn't specifically say that God "cries", I thinking "grieving" would be the same idea. |
||||||
399 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17826 | ||
Dear Norrie, It seems that my hunch about the cult background was correct (JW). I agree with Hank that she SEEMS to be very closed to the truth right now. Many people would consider spending time and energy on a person like that to be "casting pearls before swine". However, I would disagree. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist/optimist, but I think that you should continue trying to help her develop a relationship with the true God. Sometimes when people are fighting their hardest to be independent, it is because on the inside, they feel like they're about to fall apart. There is a word of warning here though. Imagine a person standing on a chair and another person standing beside them on the ground. It is much easier for the person on the ground to pull the person down to the ground than it is for the person on the chair to pull the person up to the chair. Similarly, it will be much easier for your friend to bring confusion, misconceptions, and possibly sin into your life than for you to lead them to truth, clarity, and a healthy relationship with God. This is especially true if you have not studied the Bible as deeply as they have (like it sounds like you're saying). If this is the case, then it becomes absolutely critical that you surround yourself with Godly counsel to support you in your own faith. Your local church and even this forum would be, in my opinion essential to your own spiritual well-being. |
||||||
400 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17685 | ||
I agree with you Norrie. I also believe Genesis is meant to be taken in a straightforward and literal manner. There are some Christians (mainly in academia) who believe that the beginning of Genesis (creation, the garden, etc.) is only figurative. They mainly base this on the idea that the literary style it is written in is an ancient form of poetry. However, even these people do not believe such far-fetched ideas as Cain being the son of Satan. Is your friend a Christian or a member of some sort of cult? I would be a bit concerned for them if they are being taught and believing such ideas. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [24] >> |