Results 81 - 100 of 281
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180585 | ||
Of course it was a miracle. That wasn't the question. Please bear with my process, there is a point to it, and its maybe not to "logically explain it away." Legalistically, since Mary was still a virgin, no sex act occurred, so technically it can't have been adultery. Yet, there are many broken people who have experienced the pain of a spouse who was for all practical purposes unfaithful, but perhaps not sexually, rather emotionally with someone else. This is perhaps even more of a betrayal than the physical. For them, the question of what constitutes infidelity is not just about whether or not intercourse occurred. Certainly what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit was intimate. In other words, does it not qualify as adultery by virture of the fact it was God who was involved, or that it was not sexual? (I think perhaps both, and seek scriptural support for the former aspect of that.) That is, if it were possible for a man to impregnate Mary without having sex with her, or even physical contact, how would it be seen and more importantly, would Joseph feel betrayed? I think we would have a problem with that scenario, and would expect no less from Joseph. So, my purpose is to illuminate why it may be different because it was God, not man. Scripture tells that Joseph, a righteous man, considered divorcing Mary because she was pregnant not by him. The angel told him not to do so because the child she carried was from God. Either this means that what happened was somehow not was not adultery, or if it was, it was somehow justified, like not all killing is murder, e.g. self-defense or execution by the state. This is exegesis, not an attempt to disparage God. |
||||||
82 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180542 | ||
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but you have not provided any scriptural references that support your points 1-5, which without specific scriptural support, appear to be conjecture or speculation. | ||||||
83 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180541 | ||
Thanks, Steve. I'm not assuming anything about God, or trying to box Him in. I'm just testing the logic that seems apparent and working to apply biblical principals to a fair question put to me by a sincere seeker. I get many questions like this working at a university as I do. |
||||||
84 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180540 | ||
Excellent citation! Thank you! | ||||||
85 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180513 | ||
Not only the Spirit's actions, but also those of Mary, who said "May it be to me as you have said." Luke 1:38 |
||||||
86 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177230 | ||
I love your analogies! | ||||||
87 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177226 | ||
I must qualify my use of my pastor's quote: I use it in a slightly different context than he did, so any disagreement you have is with my application, not his. If you wish to review his message, it will soon be available as a pod-cast at "www.wordofgrace.org" To clarify Harris' thesis, he contends that faith itself is the problem, because it leads people to act on the basis of what they believe without any rational support, and historically those beliefs have been harmful because of the atrocities they have inspired. He distinguishes faith from the object of faith, because without the first, the second is impotent. Regarding your comment "the terrorist "suicide/murderer" is not showing agape love towards others". I agree, but Harris might disagree because he explains that if you truly embrace the articles of faith of Islam, killing infidels is virtually the only logical conclusion you can reach, as it is for their own good because it separates them from their Godless beliefs. Such is the reasoning that Harris is challenging. Regarding your concerns about surrendering your right to be right, my pastor also said "the power of weakness is not the powerlessness of helplessness, giving up and giving in to life. No, the power of weakness means standing in the power of God released in me when I totally trust God because I'm totally helpless" and "even if I'm right, making that the issue can make me dead wrong". I submit that loving others sometimes means not asserting our right to be right, that's all. Your comment about the benefit of faith is on point. However, I note that in his doctoral work, Harris is studying the neuralogy of the brain in order to better understand how it behaves in various states of belief and disbelief. He is very much a laboratory experimentalist in this regard. |
||||||
88 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177223 | ||
yes, my understanding of Harris' argument is: faith in propositions that cannot be tested or for which there is no objective evidence, other than mystical writings, is inherently dangerous to mankind, and even more so now in an age when weapons of mass destruction are becoming more available to those who would use them to fulfill what they believe are written instructions from God to kill heretics or wage war on infidels, for example. My pastor this weekend delivered an excellent message that relates to this. About hating your enemies, he said "The more I hate to be wrong and the more I'm sure I'm right, the more I hate others who disagree with me, who are different. When I'm totally right and you're totally wrong, that could mean we're enemies. And we might have to kill each other for that." Harris says essentially the same thing, and adds that religious articles of faith, taken as divine revelation, leave no room for anything but absolute conviction in being right, because they come from God, who is truth, or so the faithful believe. Harris also argues that the benefits of religion are available by other means, so faith and religion are not necessary. However, instead of condemning faith, my pastor proceeds from this starting point to explain the deeper truth that God's power is made complete in weakness, that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world and that if we are to become more like Jesus, we must surrender our right to be right. Clearly, if people lived like this, the world would be much more peaceful. Furthermore, in contrast to Harris' idea that the benefits of religion are available by other means, I note that the truth of this teaching about weakenss can only be understood in light of the truth of Jesus. Otherwise, turning the other cheek and yielding to each other out of reverence for Christ are indeed foolish ways to live. |
||||||
89 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177219 | ||
You have a good point. It shows the truth of the statement "If you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention." :) "religion" to me is as you suggest. my understanding of what Mr. Harris means by this term is not so clear, but I suspect his meaning might include more than mine. given the meaning you suggest, how would you answer my question? |
||||||
90 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177158 | ||
Hank, as always I respect your views and how graciously you express them. I agree that SBF is not the place to debate the existence of God, but none of my original questions were about this. I thank all those who have so far provided excellent examples from scripture in response to my first two and fourth questions about the nature of mystical faith as it may relate to Harris' concerns. However, I do believe my third question about what the bible says about religiosity being a problem is within the mission of SBF. Indeed, I feel that scripture agrees that religion is a burden to the world, and this is why Christ came, i.e. to clear the way for relationship instead. I look forward to any responses that speak to this point. Peace, Parable |
||||||
91 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177136 | ||
This is another excellent contribution to the answer I seek. Thank you. | ||||||
92 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177135 | ||
I am looking for a cogent response to a credible challenge to our faith. I accept your answer as a sincere contribution to that effort. I do believe that as christians we are accountable to each other for how we live, including the likes of Mr. Harris. I do agree that changed lives testify to the power of God, although Mr. Harris would propbably suggest that it can be explained just as well in terms of the power of the human mind in a particular state of belief or unbelief. As for Mr. Harris "asking", it may be that he has not asked, but his work inspires others to ask how the atrocities committed in accordance with the dictates of religious belief are justified, including the beliefs of christianity. As for my motivations, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." -- Proverbs 27:17 |
||||||
93 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177124 | ||
BradK, You asked "Why do we need to respond to Sam Harris?" First, because scripture commands us to always be ready to "...make a defense to EVERYONE who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you..." 1 Peter 3:15. Second, because he charges that faith itself is ultimately dangerous for humanity and lots of people are listening to him, see below. You asked "What credentials does he posses?" He is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford and is completing a doctorate in neuroscience, studying the neural basis of belief, disbelief and uncertainty. His book is an award-winning NY Times Bestseller and has received glowing endorsements from many notable figures in contemporary social dialogue. You asked "why should we listen to him?" Because he makes credible arguments that are persuasive to a vast audience. Essentially, his position is summarized on page 106, "Whenever you hear that people have begun killing noncombatants intentionally and indiscriminately, ask yourself what dogma stands at their backs. What do these freshly minted killers BELEVE? You will find that it is always -- ALWAYS - preposterous." He includes a detailed historical overview of many atrocities committed in the name of God, including by christians (the crusades, the inquisition) and by present day muslims (suicide bombings, jihad), and an analysis of the belief systems of several religions. He also describes that many of us so-called religious "moderates" have a hard time admitting that atrocities were rightly committed in the name of God because we ourselves do not actually beleive what our religions teach regarding what must be done with heretics, for example. That is, Harris charges that most of us conveniently disregard much of our own scriptures in order to live with our modern-minded selves, and we cannot honestly endorse the actions of those who do fully embrace and act on everything our scriptures command. Ignoring Harris' argument would be seen as confirming his hypothesis. So, how do we as christians give answer? |
||||||
94 | guiding principles? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175258 | ||
The content of your post is not consistent with the guidelines prescribed by the owners of this forum. | ||||||
95 | 2 Tim 3:16 | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175241 | ||
In science and law, it is recognized that the evidence we consider often is shaped by the questions we ask. I am mindful that hermaneutics is not exempt from this. It is possible that the distinction I see is more about how I think and less about how God thinks. | ||||||
96 | 2 Tim 3:16 | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175231 | ||
God's unwillingness to answer is not the point. My question relates to what the Word says about what was done in His name. While your commentaries are insightful, they are not scripture, which is what I am trying to understand. And, you suggest all the commentaries you provided answered my orginal question. I disagree. Here are the relevant excerpts, with my observations (in parens): Matthew Henry -- "The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry." (this explains why they were spared, but not why the boys were killed) Your paraphrase -- "John Gill comments on the women killed ...." (this explains why the women were killed, but does not address why the virgin females were spared nor why the boys were killed) Robert Jamieson, et al, -- "No order had been given for the slaughter of the women, and in ancient war they were commonly reserved for slaves." (this explains why the officer brought them back from war) "...the Midianitish women had forfeited all claims to mild or merciful treatment; and the sacred character, the avowed object of the war (Numbers 31:2-3), made their slaughter necessary without any special order." (this explains why the women were killed) "But why 'kill every male among the little ones'? It was designed to be a war of extermination, such as God Himself had ordered against the people of Canaan, whom the Midianites equalled in the enormity of their wickedness." (if a war of extermination, then killing the boys is consistent with that, but sparing the virgin females is not) Adam Clarke -- "The little ones were safely lodged; they were taken to heaven and saved from the evil to come." (so, killing the boys was essentially an act of mercy. if so, then this mercy was denied to the virgin females. why?) John Wesley -- "Every woman - Partly for punishment, because the guilt was general, and though some of them only did prostitute themselves to the Israelites, yet the rest made themselves accessary by their consent or approbation; and partly, for prevention of the like mischief from such an adulterous generation." (this explains the killing of the women, and perhaps the boys, but does not speak to why the virgin females were spared) Finally, while I appreciate your encouragement to explore this topic elsewhere and report my findings, to be honest it feels more like I am being dismissed, now that you have answered my question yet I have somehow not understood your meaning. My question remains best stated in two parts: 1. What purpose is served by eliminating the boys that would not have also been served by eliminating the virgin females? 2. Conversely, what purpose is served by sparing the virgin females that would not have also been served by sparing the boys? If anyone has any scriptural references that speak to the distinction between the boys and virgin females that I have articulated, please advise. Otherwise, it seems God's purpose with this distiction, if it is indeed real, is not to be revealed in His Word. |
||||||
97 | what purpose served by this distinction? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175215 | ||
Thanks, the link is good, except it fails to address the killing of the boys. | ||||||
98 | why the distinction btw girls and boys? | Num 31:17 | Parable | 175214 | ||
Actually, this is the original. | ||||||
99 | Prophets of to day | 1 John 4:1 | Parable | 143971 | ||
it is also god's standard that we speak the truth in love, with gentleness and respect. kindly explain to me how your public condemnation ministers god's grace and mercy to the person you reduced to tears. Parable |
||||||
100 | Prophets of to day | 1 John 4:1 | Parable | 143869 | ||
By your standard, all of us should remain silent. Parable |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |