Results 81 - 100 of 402
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135461 | ||
Kalos, Actually, I was asking you specifically. But I'll do the search anyway, beginning with ID#115286. Thanks. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
82 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135458 | ||
Tim, Here are two scripture units where Jesus enforces the Law of Moses. Perhaps the account of the woman caught in adultery was an isolated incident: Matthew 25 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (NAS95) Revelation 19 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
83 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135454 | ||
Tim, You stated: "I don't know! :-) You may feel my point was semantics, but I just wanted to make sure that all the readers are aware that this is not a moderated forum. :-)" I don't know either. :-) So the four forum guidelines are unmoderated yet enforced? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
84 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135448 | ||
Tim, Actually the Law of Moses is also enforced on those who did not sign the covenant, and who were not members of the house of Israel. For example: Joshua 6 20 So the people shouted, and priests blew the trumpets; and when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the city. 21 They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. (NAS95) Joshua 10 28 Now Joshua captured Makkedah on that day, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it. He left no survivor. Thus he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho. 30 The LORD gave it also with its king into the hands of Israel, and he struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor in it. Thus he did to its king just as he had done to the king of Jericho. 32 The LORD gave Lachish into the hands of Israel; and he captured it on the second day, and struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword, according to all that he had done to Libnah. 33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish, and Joshua defeated him and his people until he had left him no survivor. 35 They captured it on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day every person who was in it, according to all that he had done to Lachish. 37 They captured it and struck it and its king and all its cities and all the persons who were in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor, according to all that he had done to Eglon. And he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it. 39 He captured it and its king and all its cities, and they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person who was in it. He left no survivor. Just as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king, as he had also done to Libnah and its king. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
85 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135444 | ||
Kalos, You stated: "To whom does the Law of Moses say what it says? To whom were the Ten Commandments given? The Ten Commandments were given to Israel. Exodus 20:2 (ESV) "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." What nation did God bring out of slavery in Egypt? Israel." But shouldn't I strive to keep the Law of Moses today? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
86 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135442 | ||
Tim, If the Law of Moses (as represented by the Ten Commandments) cannot be enforced today with full death penalties on other church members, then why is it still in the church? What practical good is abiding by the law, if you can't enforce it when it's violated? For example, - Exodus 20 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (NAS95) Numbers 15 32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (NAS95) - As for Jesus not wanting to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery, Jesus was promoting forgiveness towards law offenders. After all, He was a lawbreaker himself, as per the following verse references: Matthew 12 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." (NAS95) Mark 2 23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" (NAS95) Luke 6 1 Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, "Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
87 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135435 | ||
Tim, My original question was: "Are the interpretive applications of scripture, as presented by the moderators of the Study Bible Forum, representative of the views of the Lockman Foundation and the translators of the NASB?" However, you stated: 1. "'Moderator' has a specific meaning when it comes to forums and boards. A moderator reads every post and decides whether or not to allow the post. This forum does not have a moderator." Perhaps then I should use a term other than moderator, although I'm not sure what term I should use. Perhaps "enforcer"? I think we're beginning to play semantics here, but well enough. - 2. "However, abuse reports can be filed on a post and a thread can then be restricted, but not removed. As Kalos pointed out, restriction simply keeps the thread from appearing on the homepage - it does not remove it from the forum. It can still be searched for, read, and posted to. Thus, this site is unmoderated." I'm still not precisely certain which of the four forum guidelines I had abused. Any remote ideas? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
88 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135429 | ||
Kalos, You asked: 1. "Where does New Testament Scripture give the church the authority to enforce the penalties for breaking the Ten Commandments?" That's precisely my point. It doesn't. (Unless, maybe during Christ's millennial kingdom.) 2. "Surely you are not suggesting that the local church should stone offenders or put them to death in other ways, are you?" Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Why do I suggest that? Because that's what the Law of Moses says to do. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
89 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135422 | ||
Kalos, My original question was: "Are the interpretive applications of scripture, as presented by the moderators of the Study Bible Forum, representative of the views of the Lockman Foundation and the translators of the NASB?" In response, Tim wrote: "What moderators my friend? This is an unmoderated site!" By moderator, I mean any who have the authority to restrict a thread. And yes, it would be more proper for me to say that one of my previous threads had been restricted from appearing on the homepage. I had also placed what I thought was a valid follow-up in the question board, but it was stealthily removed within the space of an hour, before anyone could answer it. Thus it will effectively become dead. I'm just not precisely certain which of the four forum guidelines that I had violated, that my first thread would be restricted or the second question "removed", as the moderator had put it. I seem to be at a loss. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
90 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | Reighnskye | 135421 | ||
Aixen7z4, If we truly respect the Ten Commandments, as per the placard on the wall, then we must also respect the penalties that were in force, in the context that they were given. In fact, it would be more convincing to me if you also put a placard on your wall, that referenced the death penalty by verse, for each and every violation of these commandments. This list of biblical penalties would adjoin each of the Ten Commandments. For example: Exodus 20 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (NAS95) Numbers 15 32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (NAS95) Or: Exodus 20 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (NAS95) Deuteronomy 21 18 "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. 20 "They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear. (NAS95) - If we truly respect the Ten Commandments, then should we not also respect the penalties that they involve, in the context that they were given? And if we strive to keep the Ten Commandments today, then shouldn't we also strive to enforce the penalties for breaking them on others? - Incidentally, here are a couple of other laws that people often miss. Perhaps these can be added to the placard on the wall: Leviticus 20 13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (NAS95) Leviticus 20 27 'Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'" (NAS95) Again, if we truly respect the Law of Moses, will we not also strive to enforce it's penalties when they are violated? - Uumm....what were those other two commandments that you had mentioned? I forget now. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
91 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135418 | ||
Tim, One of my threads was pulled from the boards, although I'm not precisely certain which of the forum rules that I had violated. Only moderators possess that authority. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
92 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Not Specified | Reighnskye | 135398 | ||
Are the interpretive applications of scripture, as presented by the moderators of the Study Bible Forum, representative of the views of the Lockman Foundation and the translators of the NASB? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
93 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135400 | ||
Are the interpretive applications of scripture, as presented by the moderators of the Study Bible Forum, representative of the views of the Lockman Foundation and the translators of the NASB? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
94 | Doc and EdB: regarding common-law | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135395 | ||
EdB, May I ask which of your four guidelines that I have violated, so as not to repeat the matter? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
95 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135394 | ||
EdB, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
96 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135393 | ||
Doc, I had submitted this follow-up as a new question, but I guess it was deleted, for failure to conform to one or more if the site policies. I'm not sure if it will be deleted from here as well, but here goes, I guess. This is a reproduction. I apologize if you don't interpret it as biblical, but I believe that it is. Such is not meant to be disrespectful towards your views on marriage: - I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
97 | Doc and EdB: regarding common-law | Not Specified | Reighnskye | 135383 | ||
Doc and EdB, I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
98 | Doc and EdB: regarding common-law | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135390 | ||
Doc and EdB, I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
99 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135243 | ||
(continued) EdB, You further stated: 6. "I too believe Adam and Eve had a valid marriage. I also think if they had lived in the United States they would have also obtained a marriage license. Again God’s criteria has been expressed here by me and others. In it God states his requirements for marriage which you can meet without a marriage license. However God also stipulates we adhere to the laws of the land as long as they do not require us to violate God’s law. With that in mind, every state requires a marriage license to be obtained before a wedding ceremony can legally be performed." This last statement is accurate. The problem is that when the laws of the land incur bodily injury to the medically-handicapped, the spirit of the law is then abandoned. For this reason, I must fall back upon the scripture, which I view to be higher than the laws of the land. And we see countless instances in scripture when the saints break the laws of the land directly in the New Testament, and whole legal systems are condemned of God in the Old Testament. I believe that you have used Romans 13:1-7 as an illegitimate basis to turn the laws of the land into a religion. If you wish to appeal to law as the basis of your religious beliefs, then why not turn to the Old Testament Law of Moses, which was directly administered through angels? Why do you instead appeal to the extra-biblical laws of man? 7. "I offered the scenarios to point out that there were legal issues that are effected by marriage. Whether you like it or not that is a fact. If you believe you can live around those issues fine. However as many homosexuals are learning there are things you can’t that is why they are fighting so hard to redefine marriage." I'm stuck with that one. I have no power there. 8. "God’s word says don’t let you good be spoken evil of Romans 14:16. Most consider it wrong to intentionally circumvent a law or situation. The laws says if your married, your benefits will cease, right or wrong that is what you claim the law says. For you to be consider yourself married and still collect those benefits puts you outside the law. While you and I may consider that law very unfair and thus wrong it remains the law. Until that law is changed and you consider yourself married in any form and you still collect your benefits your breaking that law. What else can anyone say?" So what does the Law of Moses say? You've again elevated the laws of the land above the Old Testament scriptures. If you appeal to the law to make your religious case, why not appeal to God's law as ordained in scripture, rather than appealing to the secular laws of man? 9. "Reighnskye please don’t get back to me. We both know what is right and what is wrong. We both know the answer to your question. Yes the situation as you stated it is unfair, the whole thing stinks, and the law needs to be changed. However we both know that if you live as man and wife you and consider yourself man and wife by whatever means you justify it, then your man and wife and the law says if your married you no longer qualify for disability benefits." You seem to be under a falsified impression that if you believe a certain way regarding law and morality, that others must also. But again, you shy away from using a strictly biblical basis, and conversely resort to an appeal to secular authority to make your religious claims. Rather than present to me your secularly-based definition of marriage, why not present what the bible says instead? The bible does indeed address the legalities of marriage, beyond what you are professing here. - And for the record, I will still get back to you with the verse references that you provided, as this forum is moreso intentioned for biblical discussion as opposed to secular discussion. Again, you need not respond, if you don't wish to. Just please don't find it amiss if someone doesn't interpret the scripture the same way that you do, or if they don't rely upon the secular state over the Law of Moses for the definition of marriage. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
100 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135242 | ||
EdB, I will respond to you by point. If you don't wish to respond to me, that's fine. I'll leave that up to you. If you do respond to me, however, as you have done here, I will be sure to respond back. If you do not respond, then I will not respond back. Fair enough? - 1. "Any body that marries homosexuals is not a church. they may call themselves that but I assure you there are not." I'm not quite sure what you are considering to be a church here. The government recognizes many non-Christian organizations as being churches, even granting them not-for-profit status, based on their pursuit of collective worship. If we shall define what marriage is simply by what the secular state says, should we not also define a church by what the secular state says it to be? You are choosing to adhere to one state-based definition and not another. That's assuming that we've both thrown the bible out the window here, and done away with discussing scripture for the sake of secular argument, as you've done. 2. "There is no scriptural description of marriage other than what has already been offered you. However since the Scripture repeatedly admonishes us not to violate the laws of the land we have to look to those laws for further definition of the marriage. And as long as those laws do not force us to violate God’s law we must uphold them." You are looking to extra-biblical definitions of marriage. Rather than looking to the secular state to define marriage, you would've been more biblically-based to look to the Old Testament Law of Moses. The bible does indeed speak of the legalities of marriage, and it does say volumes more than what you've offered me. These verses are contained in the Old Testament Torah. I don't see it as feasible that you would toss aside the Law of Moses, and yet quote the laws of the land, as if they were bible. 3. "You know best what God has laid on your heart. I retract that suggestion as not to upset you further." Thank you. My priorities are on medical treatments. 4. "I mentioned the insurance issue in reference to your future wife. Possibly someone you meet would have such insurance and your medical needs would be met. I didn’t mean you should get another job." That'd be a nice benefit, but God forbid I should fall in love without the right insurance policy. Then I'd have to tell God that He sent me the wrong one, and nix a love relationship over money. 5. "I understand life and it’s twists having lived it myself for 57 years. What I meant was every time a point is made you offer a counter point. It appears your intent is to debate this rather than seek advice." And have you not offered counter-points here? And most of them are secularly-based. If you wish to present a concise scripture unit, and then verify it's applicability to a specific situation, I'd be glad to hear it. Instead, however, you've told me that the bible says no more about marriage, than the verses that you've offered me. When indeed the bible has volumes more than what you've offered me. You've merely set aside what the Old Testament Law of Moses says about marriage, and have rather appealed to the secular state. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) (continued) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [21] >> |