15 Jan 12
Originally posted by buckkyIt sounded nuts back in the 80s from what I recall. But who something sounds has a lot to do with whether or not it is required for other beliefs that you hold.
Why is it the Christian God needs Blood to forgive mankind for the Adam and Eve problem ? In ther year 2012 it sounds a little bit nuts don't you think ?
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by buckkyAs nuts as it may sound, there is now no need for further sacrifice; since Christ fullfiled the demands of the law. I do understand your viewpoint though.
Why is it the Christian God needs Blood to forgive mankind for the Adam and Eve problem ? In ther year 2012 it sounds a little bit nuts don't you think ?
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by buckkyWell most don't really know God's view of blood and that to him it is sacred. In the bible God says "that a humans life is in it's blood". So if one were to take another humans life the only equal payment to god would be that ones life would be taken in repayment not only to the relatives that may be involved but to pay back to God this life that was taken. This command from God is still in affect in many parts of the world today.
Why is it the Christian God needs Blood to forgive mankind for the Adam and Eve problem ? In ther year 2012 it sounds a little bit nuts don't you think ?
This explains it:
Taking Life.
With Jehovah is the source of life. (Ps 36:9) Man cannot give back a life that he takes. “All the souls—to me they belong,” says Jehovah. (Eze 18:4) Therefore, to take life is to take Jehovah’s property. Every living thing has a purpose and a place in God’s creation. No man has the right to take life except when God permits and in the way that he instructs.
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5, 6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for one’s own purposes.—De 12:15, 16.
Man was entitled to enjoy the life that God granted him, and anyone who deprived him of that life would be answerable to God. This was shown when God said to the murderer Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Ge 4:10) Even a person hating his brother, and so wishing him dead, or slandering him or bearing false witness against him, and so endangering his life, would bring guilt upon himself in connection with the blood of his fellowman.—Le 19:16; De 19:18-21; 1Jo 3:15.
Because of God’s view of the value of life, the blood of a murdered person is said to defile the earth, and such defilement can be cleansed only by shedding the blood of the murderer. On this basis the Bible authorizes capital punishment for murder, through duly constituted authority. (Nu 35:33; Ge 9:5, 6) In ancient Israel no ransom could be taken to deliver the deliberate murderer from the death penalty.—Nu 35:19-21, 31.
Even in cases where the manslayer could not be found on investigation, the city nearest the site where the body was found was counted bloodguilty. To remove the bloodguilt, the responsible city elders had to perform the procedure required by God, had to disclaim any guilt or knowledge of the murder, and had to pray to God for his mercy. (De 21:1-9) If an accidental manslayer was not seriously concerned over the taking of a life and did not follow God’s arrangement for his protection by fleeing to the city of refuge and remaining there, the dead man’s nearest of kin was the avenger authorized and obligated to kill him in order to remove bloodguilt from the land.—Nu 35:26, 27
So to bring this back to your question is that Adam lost our life's for all humans and it's because of his actions that we all die. He in an affect became a murderer. So God in the Garden of Eden immediatly started the plan in action to eventually have a perfect life that would be used in exchange to balance what Adam had lost for all of us, and this is what Jesus's death did.
15 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Are you going to quote your source of the majority of this post or continue to plagarise other people's thoughts as your own?
Well most don't really know God's view of blood and that to him it is sacred. In the bible God says "that a humans life is in it's blood". So if one were to take another humans life the only equal payment to god would be that ones life would be taken in repayment not only to the relatives that may be involved but to pay back to God this life that was ta xchange to balance what Adam had lost for all of us, and this is what Jesus's death did.
You have ben called out over this several times Galveston, it's dishonest and disrespectful to the members of this forum.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI suspect that JW sources do not mind being copied without attribution by JWs, and do not consider it plagiarism, but it would be helpful to us who want to look into the information further, if a URL were given.
Are you going to quote your source of the majority of this post or continue to plagarise other people's thoughts as your own?
You have ben called out over this several times Galveston, it's dishonest and disrespectful to the members of this forum.
(This one was easy to find.)
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by JS357I got to a JW blog.
I suspect that JW sources do not mind being copied without attribution by JWs, and do not consider it plagiarism, but it would be helpful to us who want to look into the information further, if a URL were given.
(This one was easy to find.)
I don't object to Galv copy/pasting, but I like to look at the source and consider it's context in relation to the thread and the poster. It is just poor form not to quote sources. Dasa was/is the same.
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by divegeesterThe problem, is that the requirement is central to Christian theology, yet Christians have extreme trouble explaining it.
As nuts as it may sound, there is now no need for further sacrifice; since Christ fullfiled the demands of the law. I do understand your viewpoint though.
Christians often try to use theology to explain why they hold certain beliefs, when in reality, they hold their beliefs for quite different reasons (that they don't like to admit) and use theology merely to justify said beliefs. The result is that when their theology is questioned they feel duty bound to defend it even when they don't understand it themselves.
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by divegeesterit-1 344
Are you going to quote your source of the majority of this post or continue to plagarise other people's thoughts as your own?
You have ben called out over this several times Galveston, it's dishonest and disrespectful to the members of this forum.
Does this help or will you continue to b- - - h about everything I post? Get over it and grow up dude!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem, is that the requirement is central to Christian theology, yet Christians have extreme trouble explaining it.
Christians often try to use theology to explain why they hold certain beliefs, when in reality, they hold their beliefs for quite different reasons (that they don't like to admit) and use theology merely to justify said beliefs. The r ...[text shortened]... is questioned they feel duty bound to defend it even when they don't understand it themselves.
The problem, is that the requirement is central to Christian theology, yet Christians have extreme trouble explaining it.
Christians often try to use theology to explain why they hold certain beliefs, when in reality, they hold their beliefs for quite different reasons (that they don't like to admit) and use theology merely to justify said beliefs. The result is that when their theology is questioned they feel duty bound to defend it even when they don't understand it themselves.
I find it amusing the way you always chime in your gloat that no one explains to you the blood.
You SURE don't throw up hands in disappointment if not one poster can explain the origin of life.
I have written adaquate explanations of the references to the blood of Christ.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by divegeesterRemember you too must always post your sources as well then, okay?
I got to a JW blog.
I don't object to Galv copy/pasting, but I like to look at the source and consider it's context in relation to the thread and the poster. It is just poor form not to quote sources. Dasa was/is the same.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThanks. I'm not trying to hide anything or where I may get my info from but I know most here would not have the liturature to look at themselves as most is going to be from the WTS.
Remember you too must always post your sources as well then, okay?
If it is from an outside sourse like wikipedia I'll always post that.
16 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I know that and they know that too. However, they like criticizing and
Thanks. I'm not trying to hide anything or where I may get my info from but I know most here would not have the liturature to look at themselves as most is going to be from the WTS.
If it is from an outside sourse like wikipedia I'll always post that.
debating, so that gives them one more thing to complain about to hold
you to a higher standard. I don't agree with all the JW teachings, but
I would not think it would be necessary to post a reference for the
source for everything you write here. They ask me to do the same
when they don't agree with me.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you kidding me? Your posts are rarely if ever agreed with. The only time you are asked for a source is when you copy and paste long articles. If people go through the trouble to read the junk you post, they should at least know where it comes from to see if you even got the context right. I don't think it is too mjch to ask.
I know that and they know that too. However, they like criticizing and
debating, so that gives them one more thing to complain about to hold
you to a higher standard. I don't agree with all the JW teachings, but
I would not think it would be necessary to post a reference for the
source for everything you write here. They ask me to do the same
when they don't agree with me.
You BLAST the JW on a regular basis, and only want to console him to justify your own shortcomings. You and Gman aren't held to a higher standard. You are held to the same standard of everyone else on this forum. Quit trying to make yourself a martyr.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillI don't think there is a poster here who can explain the origin of life. I don't expect them to. It is not central to Christian theology is it?
I find it amusing the way you always chime in your gloat that no one explains to you the blood.
You SURE don't throw up hands in disappointment if not one poster can explain the origin of life.
I have written adaquate explanations of the references to the blood of Christ.
Not adequate enough for me to understand. I am not sure whether I have read your explanations, but in my experience, the few posters willing to write anything on the subject merely quote vast quantities of the Bible, and state as fact thinks that need explanation.
On this particular topic, some people have tried to maintain a duality whereby they simultaneously claim that it is all symbolism, and that it is all real.