The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.
So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second? NB. You'd said it WASN'T a split second; apologies for that.
And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?
Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;
The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"
Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,
"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"
Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
> Well that's the truth, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.
Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, here's the new thread for it.
>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.
So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second? NB. You'd said it WASN'T a split second; apologies for that.
And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?
Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;
The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"
Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,
"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"
Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
> Well that's the truth, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.
Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, here's the new thread for it.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.
So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second? NB. You'd said it WASN'T a split second; apologies for that.
And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?
Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;
The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"
Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,
"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"
Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
> Well that's the truth, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.
Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, here's the new thread for it.
>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.
So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second? NB. You'd said it WASN'T a split second; apologies for that.
And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?
Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;
The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"
Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,
"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"
Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
> Well that's the truth, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.
Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, here's the new thread for it.
Give it up Light.
It's getting boring now.
It's getting boring now.
I'm sure it is. For others. Hence the new thread.
Personally, I never get bored of debating religion with people who claim to have all the answers.
[edit] That sounded really sniffy and petulant didn't it? Apologies; wasn't meant to.
Personally, I never get bored of debating religion with people who claim to have all the answers.
[edit] That sounded really sniffy and petulant didn't it? Apologies; wasn't meant to.
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
>
> And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
> Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou
> shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence) it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of it.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.
>
> And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
> Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou
> shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?
Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence) it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of it.
The guy was followed by the police from a flat they regarded as suspicious, he jumped over a barrier at the tube station. He didn't stop when ordered to by the police.
With all that's happen over the last few weeks, I don't think they were wrong to shoot.
Sure, he may have been innocent of any terrorist crimes, however, would you run from police and jump over a barrier at a tube station so close to the bombings?
With all due respect to his family, he was one dumb
It's not like the police normally carry guns wherever they go is it.
With all that's happen over the last few weeks, I don't think they were wrong to shoot.
Sure, he may have been innocent of any terrorist crimes, however, would you run from police and jump over a barrier at a tube station so close to the bombings?
With all due respect to his family, he was one dumb
It's not like the police normally carry guns wherever they go is it.
Light, can I ask what the problem is with the 'Jewish Christian' thing? It's not exactly uncommon is it, you never heard of Jews For Jesus?
It makes a lot more sense for a Jew to follow Jesus's teachings (Jesus was born a Jew, was a Jewish reformer and died a Jew) than to follow Paul's odd twists and inventions that led to the foundation of Christain dogma. Let's face it, all of Jesus original followers were Jewish so I don't see the problem.
I'm no fan of any religion, but Jews who follow the teachings of Jesus don't seem any more wacky or deluded than any other religious believers. Catholocism has some truly bizarre ideas after all.
It makes a lot more sense for a Jew to follow Jesus's teachings (Jesus was born a Jew, was a Jewish reformer and died a Jew) than to follow Paul's odd twists and inventions that led to the foundation of Christain dogma. Let's face it, all of Jesus original followers were Jewish so I don't see the problem.
I'm no fan of any religion, but Jews who follow the teachings of Jesus don't seem any more wacky or deluded than any other religious believers. Catholocism has some truly bizarre ideas after all.
loki wrote:
> Light, can I ask what the problem is with the 'Jewish Christian'
> thing? It's not exactly uncommon is it, you never heard of Jews For
> Jesus?
It's not theologically possible; Jews believe that the messiah has not yet taken human form. Christians believe that he has in the form of Christ. Therefore to believe one set of tenets is to be in direct denial of the other. I spoke to a Rabbi about it who was actually rather insulted at the idea of Jewish Christianity; it implies that the Jews are basically wrong in their beliefs.
Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or owt?
It wasn't Paul who set the ethics that give us the Catholic church today; it was his successors and the political expedients they used. And don't get me wrong; I find all organised religion ludicrous. It's just that I find a religion that was clearly created recently by a bunch of people who wanted to feel special, and that tries to look down on anyone who isn't part of it's membership of about 12 people, more than ludicrous; I find it distasteful.
> Light, can I ask what the problem is with the 'Jewish Christian'
> thing? It's not exactly uncommon is it, you never heard of Jews For
> Jesus?
It's not theologically possible; Jews believe that the messiah has not yet taken human form. Christians believe that he has in the form of Christ. Therefore to believe one set of tenets is to be in direct denial of the other. I spoke to a Rabbi about it who was actually rather insulted at the idea of Jewish Christianity; it implies that the Jews are basically wrong in their beliefs.
Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or owt?
It wasn't Paul who set the ethics that give us the Catholic church today; it was his successors and the political expedients they used. And don't get me wrong; I find all organised religion ludicrous. It's just that I find a religion that was clearly created recently by a bunch of people who wanted to feel special, and that tries to look down on anyone who isn't part of it's membership of about 12 people, more than ludicrous; I find it distasteful.
Edgy wrote:
> The guy was followed by the police from a flat they regarded as
> suspicious, he jumped over a barrier at the tube station. He didn't
> stop when ordered to by the police.
Did they order him to stop? I've not heard that they did so until he was running for the train.
>
> With all that's happen over the last few weeks, I don't think they
> were wrong to shoot.
Mm, I agree (with proviso's of course...); I posted my actual thoughts about this in the thread this came from.
> The guy was followed by the police from a flat they regarded as
> suspicious, he jumped over a barrier at the tube station. He didn't
> stop when ordered to by the police.
Did they order him to stop? I've not heard that they did so until he was running for the train.
>
> With all that's happen over the last few weeks, I don't think they
> were wrong to shoot.
Mm, I agree (with proviso's of course...); I posted my actual thoughts about this in the thread this came from.
Forest Fan wrote:
> I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I
> think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but
> the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
The principle of killing them, full stop? No interest in due process then?
> Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when
> dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when
> defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence)
> it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held
> likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just
> heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of
> it.
Where does the Bible talk about this? In the Old Testament? Or the New? Doesn't it therefore go against what is said in the catechism? The main references I've heard about justifiable killing come from Aquinas, so I'm intrigued to know where your views come from.
On a side note, I find myself impressed that you're taking the time to think things through here.
> I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I
> think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but
> the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
The principle of killing them, full stop? No interest in due process then?
> Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when
> dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when
> defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence)
> it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held
> likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just
> heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of
> it.
Where does the Bible talk about this? In the Old Testament? Or the New? Doesn't it therefore go against what is said in the catechism? The main references I've heard about justifiable killing come from Aquinas, so I'm intrigued to know where your views come from.
On a side note, I find myself impressed that you're taking the time to think things through here.
Light wrote:
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org
The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain traditions distortions and embellishments) then you don't necessarily have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards that is incompatible.
Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of religious interpretation. Not all Christians will follow the Pope's view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck to 'em, I say.
I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org
The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain traditions distortions and embellishments) then you don't necessarily have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards that is incompatible.
Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of religious interpretation. Not all Christians will follow the Pope's view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck to 'em, I say.
I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
Page: