14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnewhatever, perhaps someone, somewhere cares.
I wasn't asking about your representation of the JW position. I was asking about your representation of the JW organization. Do you think you've represented the JW organization well? In other words, do you think you've done more harm or good to the reputation of the JW organization?
BTW, I'm not at all concerned with my "reputation" with those kids tha ...[text shortened]... m seem mature - other than to pre-teens and other teens, it makes them seem immature.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then, the stance is clear. Christians have the right to cherry pick the bible for the passages they wish to adhere to. It's all just suggestions then.
The fact is, if you profess to follow the Bible in its entirety, you should advocate the
execution of homosexual people - Rank Outsider
nope, this is an oversimplification and a misunderstanding. It is true that the act of
homosexuality was a capital crime in the nation of Israel under the mandate of the
Mosaic law, however, the law is appl ...[text shortened]... apologise for the length of this text but its not so simple to explain it in any other
terms.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by sonhouseclearly you have understood virtually nothing about the passages and their explanation,
Well then, the stance is clear. Christians have the right to cherry pick the bible for the passages they wish to adhere to. It's all just suggestions then.
is it any wonder you have a skewered perspective?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you DON'T pick and choose, as christians, which verses of the bible to follow?
clearly you have understood virtually nothing about the passages and their explanation,
is it any wonder you have a skewered perspective?
If that is the case, why do you need the old testament as part of your bible? Why don't you just chuck the old test. out and just go with the new?
Originally posted by sonhousebecause it contains principles that are still applicable, as explained, in the text, for
So you DON'T pick and choose, as christians, which verses of the bible to follow?
If that is the case, why do you need the old testament as part of your bible? Why don't you just chuck the old test. out and just go with the new?
example, you must not steal, you must not commit adultery are all principles that
are still binding upon Christians although the Law which incorporated them has been
annulled, due to a superior Law, the Law of the Christ.
That is correct, ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial! 2 Tim 3:16,17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you reject the part of the OT that says men are worth 50 shekels but women are only worth 35 shekels? Or the directive saying gays should be put to death?
because it contains principles that are still applicable, as explained, in the text, for
example, you must not steal, you must not commit adultery are all principles that
are still binding upon Christians although the Law which incorporated them has been
annulled, due to a superior Law, the Law of the Christ.
That is correct, ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial! 2 Tim 3:16,17
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by sonhouseno i don't reject it, its part of the mosaic law, part of the Biblical canon, now annulled in
So you reject the part of the OT that says men are worth 50 shekels but women are only worth 35 shekels? Or the directive saying gays should be put to death?
practice, but binding in principle, as i have explained. What is it about ALL scripture
being inspired that you don't understand.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo it still sounds like cherry picking to meπ
no i don't reject it, its part of the mosaic law, part of the Biblical canon, now annulled in
practice, but binding in principle, as i have explained. What is it about ALL scripture
being inspired that you don't understand.