Results 81 - 100 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Two Christmases? | Is 9:6 | stjones | 106373 | ||
Hi, Hank; I'm inclined to think that the second (secular) Christmas was inevitable. There are really two aspects of this second Christmas. One is the obvious gross commercialization that has grown up around it. But I don't think that would be as pervasive if it were not for the emotional - even spiritual - dimension of this second Christmas: People who don't know the origin of the words speak longingly of "peace on Earth" and universal goodwill. Even the Coca-Cola company would like to "teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". I think this emotionalism arises out of our nature, created in the likeness of God. C. S. Lewis once observed that there are many religions with tales and myths that resemble events described in the Bible. There are resurrection myths and incarnation myths that preceded the birth of Christ. Critics point to these myths and claim that Christianity borrowed them. Lewis said that these myths arose out of the deepest longings of the human heart; it's no surprise that God, who knows the human heart best, satisfied those longings perfectly in his son, Jesus. Those myths don't undermine the truth of Christianity; they testify to it. I think the secular Christmas continues to speak to these deep desires - even while it fails to know or acknowledge the truth of Jesus' birth. So, yes, they are compatible in some ways. It is the only time of the year that I can think of where the universal desire for peace and hope is universally expressed. When all the beggars in the world are openly starving for bread, we have an opportunity to tell them that it can be found right under their noses. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
82 | What makes Christianity different | John 14:6 | stjones | 106349 | ||
Hi, Dr. X; That's somewhat akin to saying that all roads lead to Key West. In the midst of Winter we may wish it were true, but it isn't. To get around the dificulty by saying that all religions share the same god is somewhat akin to saying that every city and village is named Key West and therefore every road will get you to Key West. That's not true either. To say that all religions lead to "God" is to say that "God" has no identity, no name, no character, no expectations, and no consistency. The God revealed in the Bible is not Allah, not Shiva, not Ram, not Zeus, not anyone but the God of the Bible. There's only one Key West and most roads won't get you there; there's only one road that will get you to Key West. Likewise, there's only one God and only one road that will get you there. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
83 | Storing Up Treasure | Eph 2:1 | stjones | 105744 | ||
Indeed so. See you there. - Indy |
||||||
84 | Storing Up Treasure | Eph 2:1 | stjones | 105736 | ||
Hi, Makarios; You said "There are no redeeming qualities in those who are not saved." I must disagree - not to pick on you, my friend, but because I have heard Christians say this and it has always troubled me. First, I assume you didn't mean "redeeming" in its narrow theological sense. There are no redeeming qualities because, as you know, it is Jesus who redeems, not any qualities of our own. So I asume you meant the word in its more common sense of "virtuous" or "worthwhile". I think this comment is contrary to both the Bible and everyday experience. Saved or not, we are all created in God's image. I don't believe that sin has the power to completely obliterate every hint of God's qualities within even the most reprobate member of God's creation. (As a Presbyterian, I hope I'm not sending Calvin spinning in his grave.) For example, there are several instances in Acts of Gentiles worshipping God before they were saved (Cornelius, Lydia, Titius Justus). Surely they exhibited some virtuous or worthwhile qualities. I seldom rely on extra-Biblical sources, but I agree with C. S. Lewis that in a quarrel, even the most hardened atheist will appeal to an innate sense of fair play - a concept of right and wrong that is part of our nature imparted by God. My own experience confirms this. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
85 | What is slain in the spirit? | Acts 3:6 | stjones | 105638 | ||
The imagination of men. There is no example in the Bible of healing being accomplished by smacking someone on the head. Makes for good TV, though. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
86 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105220 | ||
Hi, Ed; You're right, of course; it was only an imperfect analogy, not an equivalence. Two minor points - God's advice is not always found in the Bible and I think he likes to see us make correct choices using "the mind of Christ" he has given us. Jesus taught his disciples then sent them out, expecting them to do the job without running back to consult him every time they had to choose. They sometimes failed, of course, but they learned and grew spiritually. Grace allows us to continually exercise our renewed minds. Christian maturity is, in part, the ability to know God's will without asking. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
87 | Is civil disobedience OK when... | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105213 | ||
Hi, Ed; Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think the two statements harmonize in this way: If my children constantly ask me what they should do, they'll soon find an area where I can't help. My goal as a father is to equip them to make good decisions on their own in whatever circumstance they find themselves in. Such is the effect of renewing the Christian's mind and writing God's law on the Christian's heart. I think what Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and others did helped, but you're right that the resultant flood of legislation fell far short of its intentions. Good institutions can't make bad people good but good people can make bad institutions good. We are in complete agreement about coed dorms! There are many bad ideas in modern higher education, but that is one of the worst. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
88 | What light was created on day one? | John 9:5 | stjones | 105185 | ||
compudex; I like to be up front about things. I found your personal and insulting response to Mommapbs worthy of an abuse complaint (I was afraid she might be too nice to do it). I commend John 13:34-35 and Phillipians 2:1-5 to your attention. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
89 | and the winner is ... Markarios . | Bible general Archive 2 | stjones | 105182 | ||
Heh, heh. You rotten egg you. | ||||||
90 | 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 |
||||||
91 | 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 |
||||||
92 | 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 |
||||||
93 | Civil disobedience follow-up | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 105124 | ||
Hi, kalos; A follow-up question: When one breaks a law which causes no damage or harm to another, waits quietly for the authorities, offers no resistance to arrest, offers no defense other than conscience, and accepts the punishment prescribed by law, has one submitted to the authorities as Paul admonished us to do? Is this not very similar to what Jesus did? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
94 | 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 |
||||||
95 | 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 |
||||||
96 | 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 |
||||||
97 | The Bible the only guide for USA law | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104984 | ||
Hi, kalos; Disagree. The Mosaic Law was given to a nation chosen by God with a king of God's choosing (Deut 17:14-15). The laws of that nation were to be adjudicated by judges chosen for each tribe (Deut 16:18) in courts that included the Levitical priesthood (Deut. 17:8-9). That nation no longer exists as a political entity, so there is no longer a civil society for it to govern. Jesus distinguished between the Kingdom of God and the civil authorities (Matthew 22:16-21), as did Paul (Romans 13:1-6). Paul wrote that the civil authorities were God's servants and exercised power instituted by God, but neither Jesus nor Paul asserted that the Roman Senate or Emperor were subject to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 1, Paul condemned the pagan religion of Rome, but not the exercise of political power by the Roman civil authorities, pagan or otherwise. I think American Christians should accept the historical reality that ours is a secular nation established by the Constitution. The Constitution reflects the values and beliefs primarily of Christians, Deists, and a handful of Enlightenment philosophers. It is a political document with no mention of Jesus or even God. There is a great deal that could be said about the role of religion - any religion - in American society and politics and about what part Christians should play. But that's a different discussion. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
98 | 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 |
||||||
99 | Is "Israel" actually Jacob's descendents | Gen 32:28 | stjones | 104938 | ||
Jacob was given the name Israel by God. The Israel of the Bible consist of his descendants. As for Jacob's deceitfulness, he was no worse than his grandfather Abraham before him or King David after him. Rahab was a prostitute, Samson was a lustful doofuss. They were far from perfect, but they had two things in common. They had uncommon faith in God and they were chosen by god to do extraordinary things. I take two lessons from this - God is sovereign and chooses whomever he wishes and God can use anyone, however flawed, to do his will. Men throw away cracked vessels; God fills them with the Holy Spirit and uses them, cracks and all. That gives me hope. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
100 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | stjones | 104936 | ||
Hi, kalos; There is only one authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. Within the Bible, all sources - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, John, Paul, Luke, others - are equally authoritative since all were inspired by the same God. This is true even though John, for example, was much closer to Jesus in time, space, and personal relationship than Isaiah. Apparent differenece among the Biblical sources must be harmonized. Differences between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources render these other sources irrelevant. Josephus, Origen, and spurious gospels such as Thomas and Mary may make for interesting reading, but there is no need to harmonize the Bible with them. The same can be said of any modern writer, whether the great apologist C. S. Lewis or the Jesus Seminar charlatan John Crossan. But you knew all that. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [33] >> |