Results 741 - 760 of 801
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
741 | how can suicide be the same | Eph 5:29 | jlhetrick | 155785 | ||
Hi Mark, No, I don't agree with this argument. This is the argument that Doc offered you. Again, this is the "all or nothing thinking" that requires us to have definitive Yes or no answers to questions that are more complex than yes or no. While there is no such thing as "relativness" regarding truth, there is relativneness regarding circumstances. You may hate your neighbor and want to see him "suffer" and be all sorts of miserable. Therefore, you would want to suffer if you hate yourself? Not a logical argument in my opinion. There is a significant difference between what I might think and feel about myself and what I might want to experience as a result of that thinking. For example. I have learned that I was a sinner deserving judgment and eternal separation from God. I am saved now though I continue to sin from time to time. I know this and I absolutely hate this about myself. but I do not want to punish myself with what I deserve in order to enhance my hatred toward my sin. With that said, let me add. There are people that I work with that do very intentionally cause harm and suffering to themselves and in some cases it is the result of being dissapointed with themselves to the point of believing they need to be punished. Sometimes it is more of an impulsive act done while agitated. These people are very very different from the suicidal patient. finally, you wrote: "If not for self-love, why do I seek better for myself?" As I have said, this is the "all or nothing" way of considering the question. For the unsaved it is most often (in my opinion) the love for self that motivates bettering oneself. To answer your question specifically, that is regarding you yourself, I would hope that the answer is your love for God and not self. Jeff |
||||||
742 | how can suicide be the same | Eph 5:29 | jlhetrick | 155784 | ||
I think you play on words here which is something I attempted to satisfy with my response. I'll repeat myself. I think/believe that the statement made in the verse "no one ever hated their own body" was a generalization that has nothing at all to do with your presentation here. It was a statement meant to represent the rational or "typical" thinking and behavior regarding the attentiveness shown toward oneself which should be in turn shown toward the wife (which is the point of the passage). The point of the passage is in no way to present an argument that definitively states that the human being is not and will not be capable of hating (or not loving) himself or his body. I believe the verse I quoted from Job demonstrates this truth. you wrote: "Do you think there is a distinction between "loving my life", "loving my self", and "loving my body"? I ask, if you love yourself do you hate your body? If you hate your body do you love yourself? If you hate your body and yourself do you love your life? It is perhapse this type of "reading into" the verse that caused the confusion and original question in the first place. From your question it appeared that you were sincerely seeking an answer to a lagitimate question but then you appear to be rejecting the feedback offered by those who have responded. Leaves me confused about your motives. Finally, you wrote: "When the Bible says "No one ever hated their own body," are you saying that it doesn't really mean that?" Please don't attempt to draw me into that familiar, weak, philosophical argument meant to accuse blasphemy. Questions such as these are only appropriate when the questioned did not offer appropriate explanation for his comment which I have done twice now. Jeff |
||||||
743 | how can suicide be the same | Eph 5:29 | jlhetrick | 155776 | ||
Hello Bows44, Let me jump in and attempt to give additional insight. I was interested in reading the exchange between you and Doc as you each seem to have an understanding of this issue from different ends of the spectrum. My views are my "personal" understanding of this issue as both a christian and a liscensed professional practicing in the "realm" of mental health. Eph. 5:29 can not possibly be anything other than a generalization (foucsing on the norm) used to make the point of the passage which is that a man is called to love his wife in the way a "normal" or "typical" man would love himself in that he tends to all of his personal needs be they emotinal or physical. Remember context. Job 9:21 says "Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life." (KJV) Job, while not saying that he in fact did despise his life, certainly had the understanding that it is possible that one might despise his life. Jude 1:8 says "Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (KJV) Now the obvious rebuttle to my argument here will include that the "defiling" of the flesh in this verse actually speaks to the sinful behavior resulting from the sinful loving of the flesh. This argument is missing the point so I "point" it out here. The real focus of the verse in this arguement is "despise dominion". Here, in my opinion, is where the issue of loving verses hating oneself (or despising oneself) might involve the issue of suicide. Before christ, dominion rests in the flesh. To the unsaved person he/she is lord of their own life and choses those things "fitting" as demanded by the flesh. Upon being saved, lordship (that is dominion/authority) is given over to God. The fight cointinues with the flesh however, and we might find ourselves "despising" the flesh. that is, we become unhappy and unsatisfied with our behavior when it is sinful and self-serving. We confess to the authority (God) in our lives and receive forgiveness and hope. But what about the unsaved. He/she too can become unhappy and unsatisfied with his behavior and more specifically the psychosocial stressors resulting. The problem is that he is his own authority and finds himself hopelessly incapable of managing the circumstances by his own devices. He doesn't know the Lord, he has no hope. If relief is not found, the sense of hopelessness can become overwhelming. Depression is a "real" thing. A person who truly feels no hope may see suicide as the "only" hope of escaping their persistant condition. This is the point that people might argue that they "love" themselves so much that they will kill themselves in order to escape the misery. This isn't good logic and certainly doesn't reflect what is really going on regarding the persons thought process and behavior. It is fair to say, (again in my opinion) that suicide is certainly a "selfish" act in that the person, even in their hopeless state, continues to look within themselves for the answer; thus they continue to refuse to acknowledge the God that created them and the only one that is able to save them. But, I would argue that this "selfishness" is a direct feflection of their lost and hopeless condition without the Lord rather than "self love". Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
744 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155514 | ||
Absolutely | ||||||
745 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155513 | ||
Well said and thank you. And who better to rely on than God. Jeff |
||||||
746 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155474 | ||
Hi Doc, Good point, the brother believed he was doing what he should be doing. I'll need this on Monday and throughout the work day particularly. Thanks, Jeff |
||||||
747 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155469 | ||
Hi Doc, Yes, the Lord Himself. And realized through the living out of those works He calls us to. My comment had come from a conversation I had recently had with my brother (biological). We were talking about how we discover God's will in both major life-changing decisions as well as everyday events. Of course the bible is the first and best answer. Our course must be in keeping with obediece to the truth found in scripture. We include prayer and meditation which is essential. We never rely on our thoughts or feelings (desires) but we consider them in light of what we gain through the reading of the bible and prayer and meditation. Finally we have the responsibility of action, which should always be in faith and sometimes faith is the only thing obvious. So then, the desires of our hearts are certainly not always from God, but those that are can be discerned as such and then faithfully acted on. my thoughts provoked, Jeff |
||||||
748 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155448 | ||
C.S.M. Yes, and each of us approach our calling and service as THE minsitry. Sunday night, after presenting a lesson on salvation an elderly woman approached me at the back of the church. She told me, with tears in her eyes, that the teaching that night had given her answers that she had been seeking for years and particularly since the death of her husband. She told me that the teaching (presented mostly from Romans chapter 5) put things into perspective for her and that she no longer doubted her salvation. Sure made me feel like teaching the adult population was THE ministry. That's why God has created us so differently in regards to our personalities, gifts, skills, and abilities. There is so much work to do. It's true that we may choose to do this or that, but when we are called by God into ANY ministry, it is because, as you know, God chooses you for it. It is this realization that some time ago I gained a new perspective and/or understanding of a certain verse. Ps 37:4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. KJV I had always heard this taught to mean that when one delights in the Lord, He will give you what you want or have desire for. I do believe that this is what the verse is saying. But I believe it is saying something else as well. If you delight in the Lord, the desires that you have in your heart will be there in the first place because HE HAS GIVEN them to you. So, in truth, the guy volunteering at the soup kitchen, or the one mowing the elderly widows lawn, or the one handing out bulletins on Sunday morning has THE most important ministry. It is his/her ministry for the Lord that he/she has been called at that time to do. Again, may God bless your ministry, Jeff |
||||||
749 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155446 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the well researched and presented explanation here and for responding to my questions. Most of what you have stated here I am familiar with (and agree with as well) though I would have had to do some research to list the creeds and statements as linked to their respective denominations. As I am sure you knew all along I was intentionally playing on words because I felt that the dialogue in answer and question form would be beneficial for any who might be interested in the topic. In addition, I very likely would not have been able to articulate it as clearly and well as you did. Once again, thanks, Jeff |
||||||
750 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155445 | ||
Hello again C.S.M. I see your point. God bless you for what you do for the children. It's great that there are those who have been blessed with the ministry of teaching and shepherding children. It is arguably among the most important ministry callings in the church. Good luck and God bless you for your work. Jeff |
||||||
751 | God dosn't love everybody???? | Rom 9:13 | jlhetrick | 155418 | ||
Hi C.S.M., Great answer and well laid out with scripture reference and easy to understand. Thanks. Observation and remark: You wrote- This is what theologians call "being born again", I call it a.s.k. and you shall receive...John 14:13-14, John 3:16-17. Just wanted to point out that in addition to and prior to the theologians, Jesus used the language "born again". (John 3:3, John 3:7). "asking and receiving" might refer to anything. "Born Again" is scripturally based terminology familiar to most Christians and non-christians alike and therefore, in my opinion, appropriate for use in answering this question. Thanks for including it in your answer. Jeff |
||||||
752 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155402 | ||
Very good response and well explained. Another question if I may. Of course the word "catholic" means by general definition, "universal". Agreed and understood. But what does the word "catholic" mean as defined in today's multi-denominational "church"? Furthermore, in today's "all-inclusive", "any-thing goes" culture that is quickly and firmly establishing, even within the christian church, how is "universal" being defined. My point here is that I have always had a problem with the inclusion of Article #9 in it's current language based on what I think might be the obvious answers to my above questions. I completely agree with your explanation and understanding of Article #9 which I share, though you didn't address the meaning of the 'apostolic' church. Final question; as the Nicene Creed has been changed over time in order to best reflect what the christian church understands and believes as true regarding the biblical teaching of the essentials, might it be time to deal with Article #9? Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
753 | Persicution | Luke 11:52 | jlhetrick | 155373 | ||
Hi Humbled, Good response. First you respectfully gave credit to ominous for his/her right to raise the issues he/she did. Then you properly redirected the issue back to the truth. Well done. In your post, you brought up the issue of beginning a dialogue on rebuking a brother. I think that would be a good discussion even for those of us who "think" we might know the biblical teachings in this area. May I begin the dialague by starting with the following bible reference? Matt 18:15-18 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. KJV Now the only way to do this properly on the forum would be some form of private instant message and/or email which would have to be made available. I believe the rest of this process was played out well regarding a resent ongoing interaction between several forum members and one offender. I had considered calling for a halting of the dialogue with a certain formum member (of which I was at least equally involved). I considered this because I believed the above process had reached the point of "binding". Afterall, even a Jedi can be bound if he refuses to hear two or more witnesses of the church. What good can come out of the continuing bickering? The next question might be, if the one is not a "brother" in the first place, how should he/she be handled? Jeff |
||||||
754 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155372 | ||
Hi Doc, thanks for clarifying. I didn't suspect differently of you but thought for the sake of other's who might not be aware of what the Nicene Creed is (or your well established position on biblical truth) that the bible should be pointed out as being the only true authority. And, yes, I am familiar with the Creed and it's history as well as that of "Sola Scriptura" but thanks for posting the information for all to see. Question: What are your views on article #9 of the Nicene Creed? |
||||||
755 | Mat. 24:36 | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155353 | ||
Hi Doc, well said and with good supporting bible references. I agree completely with the theology you explain here. I would however, like to ask, simply from curiosity, why you chose to use the "Nicene Creed" as the athoritative reference by which to establish Jehonadab's repudiation in your openening statement (rather than the bible). And with that, I would like to ask one more question for clarification. You end your post with the statement: "Please note that this forum strongly supports the truths expressed in the Nicene creed." By "this forum" do you mean the providers and administrators of the forum, or the forum members? Curious Jeff |
||||||
756 | RESTORATION NOT REFORMATION | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155347 | ||
Hi Kalos, Good points. And I have a question to follow up. Isn't it the Mormons that say that when they pray and ask, the "testimony" they receive is a "burning in the bosom"? They describe this as an actual physical experience as well as an emotinoal one. The next logical question would be, what are the different potential experiences that might leave one with a "burning in their bosom"? Me personally, I know that Mexican food can give it to me real serious like. A CT scan with contrast did it to me once. Then there's sweets and coffee and some have described the symptoms of a heart attach similarly. Most of these causes are easily discerened and explained, however, there is another cause that can be much more subtle and deceiving. You've probably guessed it, that's right, a devil or Satan himself. Yes, those pesky evil ones that can posses the person who is "unsaved" can, as the bible shows in many different accounts, have very significant control and influence over one's body and mind. Wow, to think. One might trust their eternal state to the consequences of eating too much Mexican food. Scary. Jeff |
||||||
757 | Are we to pray to the holy spirit? | Matt 6:9 | jlhetrick | 155239 | ||
Hi Ray, Well, my (m)man thing was just showing that I disagree with you on your capitalization argument here. Where the title "man" is used to refer to Jesus there are two different functions involved. That of showing that Jesus was a man, and that of showing that Jesus was God. When we refer to His being a (m)man we are talking about that state of humility that He experienced in setting aside for a time His glorified Self in Heaven to become like you and me. When Jesus used the title man to refer to Himself as God, He used Son of Man which pointed toward His being God (capitalization is appropriate). We recognize and believe that Jesus the (m)man was also God. So, I just believe that to attempt to assign God status to the (m)man that Jesus became in order that He might experience temptation and physical death invalidates His whole purpose and need for becoming like us. Perhaps you have heard it taught that Jesus was "fully man" and "fully God". It was required of Him to be fully man, otherwise He could not have truly experienced temptation; though He sinned not. It would not have been so great a feat for Him if He had not become fully man; first, He could not have experienced temptation of sin (and therefore could not have been sufficient as a sacrifice being found blameless), so no biggy and no suffering, and second, He could not have died a physical death, again no suffering. If He could not have died a physical death, He could not have been raised again to life, physically, and death still would not be conquered. So we must honor Him for having humbled Himself in that He became a (m)man and died for you and me, by recognizing that He did so. We do this while recognizing that Jesus was and is fully God. Of course this at once becomes a mystery at this point and one that my (and your) human minds can not comprehend. I have followed your arguments regarding capitalization and respect your opinion though I disagree here. But, I hope that you do not teach or believe that Jesus was not in fact born an actual, physical human. On the other issue; Ray, I simply can't follow your argument here. You support your position with a verse that absolutely contradicts yourself and your position. You write: "I believe that Jesus was always Spirit, was always God, and is now "Spirit" Then you give as support: Luke 24:39 says, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Jesus, right there in your quoted verse says; "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see THAT I HAVE. Jesus was saying, Hey, wake up guys, your not looking at a "SPIRIT" here, it's me, Jesus, in the flesh. Look at it again Ray, closely. You then contradict yourself again. You write: "A spirit or a ghost does not have flesh and bones like Jesus had, so He was not a ghost." Finish the thought. A SPIRIT OR A GHOST does not have flesh and bones LIKE JESUS HAD, so He was not a ghost (though finished- and He was not a spirit). Not to put words in your fingers Ray, this is only a logical conclusion. Finally Ray, you write: "So He had a resurrected body, one that could still eat food, yet one that went through doors, and could change appearances. Who knows or understands? But I know that He is a Spirit and we shall see Him as He is." Your right that Jesus' body after the resurrection was different. The bible teaches that it was a glorified body but a body none-the-less. Ours too will be changed, and made incorruptible at His glorious coming. We will SEE Him, actually and absolutely. In Luke 24:39 it was a physical body as you point out; He ate and the deciples were able to touch and feel Him. But you emphasis that He "went through doors." Well I go through doors several times a day. I assume that you are teaching what I have heard others teach; that being that he went through a closed door without opening it or similarly through a wall. Let me redirect this and argue that no where in scripture does it teach or say that Jesus walked through unopened doors or through walls, but instead "he stood among them." A more acurate interpretation would be that He "appeared" before them and how, again, this is a mystery that speaks to His glorified body, but a body it was and is. But the bible does not say that "He walked through doors." I don't fault you here though as it is an easy mistake to make when you consider that the verse does render that the doors were locked, bringing the readers attention to the doors. But lets not re-write it. Anyway, I hope I make myself understandable whether or not you agree; I at least hope my presentation is rational and able to be understood. 2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. KJV God bless, Jeff |
||||||
758 | Are we to pray to the holy spirit? | Matt 6:9 | jlhetrick | 155201 | ||
Hi Ray, got a question for you related to your above post. You wrote: The heavenly Father is Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Spirit. The Son, being God, is Spirit Jesus was born, lived, and died on the cross a (m)man (in the flesh) who was also God. When He rose again He was "flesh and bone". This same physical body was seen by the deciples ascending into Heaven. Question: Is Jesus now "spirit"? |
||||||
759 | I'm doing the best I can. | John 13:34 | jlhetrick | 155185 | ||
Hello In2Jesus, I am at work now and checking my emails and saw you had responded. I don't have the time to respond in depth but I will get back to you with some bible references that apply to your situation and may help guide and comfort you. Let me say this though. Take this in love, it is meant to help you not offend you. The forum is not intended to be a source of counseling one another and for good reason. Consequently, I will not advise you in any way regarding "my opinion" about how you should proceed with your son. I will give this advise though. Obviously pray for your son, and this woman and her children. Also go to another Christian you can trust (preferrably a pastor or other that will counsel you from the bible). Make sure this person is someone who will keep your and your son's (and the woman's) confidentiality. In love and best wishes, Jeff |
||||||
760 | When Was Godhead Divided? | Bible general Archive 2 | jlhetrick | 155114 | ||
Still not following but thanks for the reply anyway, No need to respond back, as I have these matters seetled for myself. I will say that Jesus is the Son of Man because Jesus the man was and is God. And He who was God and is God could not have humbled Himself any further than having taken on not only the form, but the essence of a (m)man. The man did not become God, God became the man, in all of man's aspects save for a sin nature. Jesus the man, was and is Jesus the Son of Man. As for the answer to hoaryhead's question, you can get it from Doc's response. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ] Next > Last [41] >> |