15 Jan '12 15:57>
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.