Results 61 - 80 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | and the winner is ... Markarios . | Bible general Archive 2 | stjones | 105182 | ||
Heh, heh. You rotten egg you. | ||||||
62 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105140 | ||
Hi, searcher; I think the meaning of "submission" is still an open question. For example, if your child left the yard to tackle the toddler next door who was about to wander into traffic, then came home and said "I know, Dad, I left the yard; no TV for a week." Did he submit? Maybe so. None of the translations I looked at used the word "obey" in Romans 13:1-7; they all used "submit" or "be subject to" (or some form thereof). So I think there's something beyond mere obedience in Paul's admonition. I don't claim that either my hypothetical protester or your child in this hypothetical situation obeyed. But I think, based on motive and acceptance of consequences, that they both may have submitted to or been subject to the relevant authority. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
63 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105135 | ||
Hi, searcher; "The Jews insisted, 'We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.'" (John 19:7) But I am not equating Jesus' actions leading to his arrest with civil disobedience. Obviously no protester has ever acted with the authority that Jesus did, no protester's motive has ever been as pure as Jesus' was, and no protester has ever acted with the wisdom and understanding that Jesus did. Unlike Jesus, no protester has ever been entitled to simply refuse to be bound by the laws of men when he chose not to be. That said, Jesus did break a number of the laws of men and responded to his arrest in much the way that I described. But of course the question was, when a person other than Jesus breaks a law and cooperates fully with the civil authorites in his arrest, conviction, and punishment, has he submitted to the civil authorities? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
64 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105132 | ||
Hi, Ed; Very good points, but I see one problem in your approach (which I'll express in the first person just because it's easier to say): I'm not Jesus. I don't have his earthly ministry and I can't carry out his mission of establishing his church on earth. Jesus is my spiritual role model and goal, but I can't live his life. Like most Christians, I don't have a full-time ministry; I'm not a full-time missionary. Unlike Jesus, I have a job, a family, and a daughter to put through college. The Bible tells us about Jesus and the leaders of the early church. But what about the thousands of converts in Acts 2? There's nary a word about how they lived out their lives as faithful disciples of Christ while earning a living and raising a family. Once again, I'll flirt with what some folks will consider blasphemy - I don't find the Bible to be a very practical guide to life. Is it a sin to drive an SUV? Is it Ok for my daughter to attend a secular university? How much should I give the United Way? We celebrated my older daughter's birthday at a moderately expensive restaurant last night; should we have eaten rice and given the money to the Salvation Army instead? These are all comfortable middle-class questions; is it a sin to be middle-class? The Bible has no concrete advice. No, what the Bible does, in conjuction with the Holy Spirit, is to change me from the inside out. The Bible and Holy Spirit help me to abide by Paul's admonition: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2) They don't tell me what to do in routine, every-day circumstances; they give me the "mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) so that I can make these choices myself. I believe this is what it means to have God's law placed in my mind and written on my heart (Jeremiah 31:33). And there is another difference with respect to the question at hand. Unlike Jesus, I live in a society where citizens can participate in government at every level. The Bible and the Holy Spirit give Christians our consciences; in this way, they equip Christian citizens to act in societies and situations unlike any described in the Bible. While ours is a secular society, I would prefer to have people in office who share my values if not every one of my beliefs. Finally, I agree with you that "persistent and fervent prayer of righteous men and women against social injustice is the most effective and most unused tool in Christendom today. If more people would pray and trust God, the wrong would be righted and an a new social injustice would not be created." But I am not convinced that Rosa Parks and Dr. King were not God's instruments, used by him to answer such prayers. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
65 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105123 | ||
Hi, Kathy; Thanks for your kind words. You've already received other responses, but I'll follow up anyway. I described what I think is one form of "violation of conscience" - when to accept the current situation is to stand by and see fellow citizens suffer intolerable treatment. To remain passive in the face of oppression is to participate in the oppression, especially if one has the power to oppose or alter it. The second kind of "violation of conscience" is when the civil authorities compel one to act in a way contrary to one's own consience. Graduating from high school in 1963, I knew many young men who evaded or resisted the draft out of fear or pure selfishness. I knew a few who evaded the draft because their consciences would not allow them to kill somebody or help another to do the killing. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
66 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105009 | ||
Hi, Kathy; Traditionally, an act of civil disobedience has involved two things, (1) publicly violating a law perceived to be unjust and (2) publicly accepting the correspondingly unjust punishment. The intent is to change the law. A modern variant (60s and 70s) is to violate a law in order to call public attention to some other injustice. An example of the more tradional form was 42-year-old Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of the bus (as the law in Montgomery, Alabama required all blacks to do) in 1955. She was subsequently arrested and the resulting publicity eventually produced a change in the law. This kind of civil disobedience is nearly always peaceful - at least on the part of the protester. Probably the most famous practitioner of non-violent civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi, who almost single-handedly broke British rule of India by doing nothing more than sit quietly and refuse to obey a particular law. An example of the modern variant was the Berrigan brothers (Phillip and Daniel, both Catholic priests) who occupied or vandalized government property to protest the war in Vietnam. It is important to note that the Berrigans were not protesting the trespassing and vandalism laws they broke; they broke the laws to call attention to their views on the war. This form of civil disobedience is also more prone to violence on the part of the protester. The key, of course, is determining whether or not a law is so unjust that obedience to it is unconscionable. The protesters I mentioned believed that to leave such laws intact was to stand by and see fellow citizens suffer intolerable treatment. To remain passive in the face of oppression was to participate in the oppression. Gandhi's conscience was shaped by his Hindu beliefs. Most of the early Civil Rights leaders' consciences were shaped by the Bible and Christianity. Anti-war protesters' consciences were shaped by many things - Christianity, universal human rights, pacifism, hatred of Richard Nixon, and popular culture. For the Christian, the heart of the matter is probably Romans 13:5 and 7: "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." "Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." My follow-up to kalos' question is this: When one breaks a law and waits quietly for the authorities, offers no resistance to arrest, offers no defense other than conscience, and accepts the punishment, has one submitted to the authorities as Paul admonished us to do? Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
67 | The Bible the only guide for USA law | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104999 | ||
And thank you, kalos. I hope you get some more takers. And I'll be interested in your take. - Indy |
||||||
68 | Is "Israel" actually Jacob's descendents | Gen 32:28 | stjones | 104939 | ||
Aaack! That's "chosen by God", of course. I apologize for reducing God the Father to a generic deity. Such was certainly not my intent. - Indy |
||||||
69 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104904 | ||
Hi, Leo; "God is not the author of confusion... but boy oh boy man sure is." You got that right. - Indy |
||||||
70 | Sexual orientation determined at birth | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104899 | ||
Hi, Pastor Glenn; I appreciate your comments and, no, I don't think you're picking nits. You're right, science (properly, in my opinion) does not take man's sinful nature into account. In the long run, that's why science will never discover the ultimate source (the "first cause") of homosexual behavior. But let's be clear about the term "sexual orientation". Before anyone claimed that homosexuality was simply an "alternate lifestyle", there was no such thing as "sexual orientation". It was only when a handful of psychologists decided that homosexual acts were "normal" for some people that the need arose to find an explanation other than psychological disorder. This change took place in the 1970s. After all, there never was a need to explain heterosexual acts - they were just normal, expected human behavior. The liberals, of course, claim that the Biblical prohibitions ignore sexual orientation. They say that Paul didn't know about sexual orientation because it was just "discovered" in the last century. They say that the prohibitions only apply to heterosexuals actimg in a way contrary to their nature. They say that the prohibitions don't apply to "natural" homosexuals (i.e. men and women whose sexual orientation leads them toward sex with people of the same gender). In an odd way the liberals have part of it right: The Bible doesn't specifically address sexual orientation because it didn't exist in the first century. Nor does it exist in the 21st. "Homosexual orientation" is nothing more than a particular person's prediliction for a particular kind of sin. So I think the passage in Romans describes homosexual behavior, not sexual orientation. The lust is just plain old lust. God wouldn't be any more pleased if the men burned with lust for the women instead of for each other. Sexual orientation goes deeper than acts or even lusts. It goes to the fundamental nature of the person. It says that even if a person remains utterly chaste in both thought and deed, he or she would still have an inborn tendency to prefer either same- or opposite-gender sex. Or both. Don't underestimate the liberals on this one. They have worked very hard to hide their distortions of Scripture in exotic interpretations of ancient Greek and plausible scientific theories. Theirs is a clever decepion. By coming up with an explanation ("sexual orientation") that the Bible does not address, they have fooled many people into believing that the Bible doens't really say what it clearly says. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
71 | Isa. 7:14 -- "virgin" or "young woman"? | Is 7:14 | stjones | 104519 | ||
Hi, kalos; Thanks for the kind words. I run into that attitude a lot - sometimes in myself. - Indy |
||||||
72 | Isa. 7:14 -- "virgin" or "young woman"? | Is 7:14 | stjones | 104487 | ||
Hi, kalos; I posted a few messages about the relationship between the virgins in Isaiah and Matthew some time ago. You participated early in the thread, but you may not have seen any of the later stuff since at some point it was removed from the home page. Anyway, I provided some information from a class I was taking. You may find it relevant to the interpretation of the NET Bible. I have to say that rendering the woman in question in Isaiah a "young woman" rather than a "virgin" would probably make my comments more palatable to some forum members. If you're interested, search for message #71993. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
73 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104399 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Don't get too puffed up; I only meant to thank you once. ;-) ;-) ;-) But thanks again. - Indy |
||||||
74 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104398 | ||
Hi, wordoer; I'd be willing to discuss this further but I'm afraid I've shot my bolt. I've explained why I believe all the passages cited (in Mark 7, 1 Timothy 4, 1 Corinthians 10 and Acts 10), taken as a whole, convey the same message: ": Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" (Mark 7:19) I know I'm repeating myself, but Jesus stated unequivocally: "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him." (Mark 7:15) What effect does eating a pork chop have one me? But to address your questions: 1) "Where does the Word of God teach 'unclean animals' are for 'food'?" a) Assuming that "food" is what I eat, the above passages make it clear an unclean animal can be eaten. b) Acts 10:9-16 includes examples of "unclean" animals that Peter is told to eat (make them "food"), together with this admonition: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 10:15) 2) "What leads you to believe there are no unclean animals?" See 1b above. There may be a sense in which an animal is still unclean but can nonetheless be eaten (because all can be eaten), but I don't think it would be relevant to a discussion that started with a question about eating pork. As I've explained, I can find nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating pork, even if swine are still unclean under the Law of Moses. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
75 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104395 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I always appreciate encouragement from one of the forum's stalwarts. - Indy |
||||||
76 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | stjones | 104394 | ||
Hi, Ray; Thanks for the reply. You always seem to come at things from a new direction - new to me anyway. I'll have to contemplate what you've said. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
77 | Is lifting His name related to this vs? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104392 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; Well said. Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
78 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104262 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I appreciate your taking the time to say so. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
79 | Is lifting His name related to this vs? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104090 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; No blasting. I have developed an aversion to generalities, especially blanket condemnations of "the modern church" or "most Christians", etc. But I see that you didn't intend anything of the kind and I apologize if I blasted you earlier. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
80 | Kathy, Is "Lifting His name" Biblical? | John 12:32 | stjones | 104088 | ||
Searcher; I'm afraid you are flirting with an intellectual fraud called deconstructionism. You keep bringing up John 12:32. I don't know if the songwriters who have expressed the idea of "lifting up" Jesus' name relied on John 12:32 or not. You haven't shown that they did, so I suspect you don't know either. Certainly nothing in the context of the two songs I've posted remotely suggests anything beyond simply exalting or praising Jesus. But deconstructionism comes to your rescue. The theory is that words have no intrinsic meaning and they cannot reliably convey what was in the author's mind when the song was written. Therefore the critic can ignore the author's intent and attach any motive and meaming he likes to the words. The writer can now be condemned for saying something he didn't say, or, conversely, what he did say can now be twisted to mean what the critic wants it to mean. Did Pastor Jack Hayford have John 12:32 in mind when he wrote "So exalt, lift up on high the name of Jesus. Magnify, come glorify Christ Jesus the King."? Did Rick Founds when he wrote "Lord, I lift your name on high"? Who cares? You have imposed your meaning on the words and now you can comfortably judge the songwriters and those who sing the songs and find them guilty of eisegesis. I can't understand why anyone would be so unwilling to simply read the songs that these two brothers in Christ have written and partake of the joy and gratitude and love of the Lord that they have expressed. Must everything be a hunt for little heresies? "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3-4) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [25] >> |