The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate and has any worth as a religion.
I said months ago when he started this crap that you cannot be a Christian Jew, and that's insulting to both faiths.
I said months ago when he started this crap that you cannot be a Christian Jew, and that's insulting to both faiths.
down wrote:
> Aye sure... :)
>
> Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following
> every single part of their religion.
Have you any idea how many sects, branches, and cults there are with the Christian brand? And how they differ from each other in minute ways? It's not been possible to use the term "Christian", meaning a unified faith, since...well, since about 50 years after the death of Christ; from the Arian heresy onwards in fact.
>
> I know a Sikh whose father had his hair cut off when he came into
> this country to avoid prejudice - he's still a Sikh however.
And without knowing too much about Sikhism, I'd say he could reconcile his faith with having had to do that (though I feel sorry for the poor sod). Has he done something that makes it impossible to be a sikh? Do the members of his clergy tell him that he is no longer a sikh?
> Aye sure... :)
>
> Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following
> every single part of their religion.
Have you any idea how many sects, branches, and cults there are with the Christian brand? And how they differ from each other in minute ways? It's not been possible to use the term "Christian", meaning a unified faith, since...well, since about 50 years after the death of Christ; from the Arian heresy onwards in fact.
>
> I know a Sikh whose father had his hair cut off when he came into
> this country to avoid prejudice - he's still a Sikh however.
And without knowing too much about Sikhism, I'd say he could reconcile his faith with having had to do that (though I feel sorry for the poor sod). Has he done something that makes it impossible to be a sikh? Do the members of his clergy tell him that he is no longer a sikh?
Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
Goatboy wrote:
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
That's what I'm trying to get at; he can call himself what he likes, it's his insistence that the clergy of both faiths accept him as such that grates.
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
That's what I'm trying to get at; he can call himself what he likes, it's his insistence that the clergy of both faiths accept him as such that grates.
down wrote:
> Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your
> logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
And I would ask you again; what do the members of his clergy say?
Something I found (admittedly only on a website, and the emphasis is mine)...
"Sikhs choose not to cut their hair. It is not really a matter of not being allowed to cut their hair. Hair was kept by all prophets. Jesus, Mohamed and mosses are a perfect example. A reason why Sikhs preserve their hair is, if hair wasn't pleasing to God why did He cause it to grow? The Sikh Guru's strongly advised us to accept Gods will. So there for, hair can symbolise that you obey Gods Will. "
Note the language used; choose, advise, "not a matter of not being allowed". It's all a lot more advisory than the christian "thou shalt not" standard, no?
You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing for my right to tell people what their religion is. I'm arguing that the tenets of a religion are decided by it's clergy and majority of followers.
> Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your
> logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
And I would ask you again; what do the members of his clergy say?
Something I found (admittedly only on a website, and the emphasis is mine)...
"Sikhs choose not to cut their hair. It is not really a matter of not being allowed to cut their hair. Hair was kept by all prophets. Jesus, Mohamed and mosses are a perfect example. A reason why Sikhs preserve their hair is, if hair wasn't pleasing to God why did He cause it to grow? The Sikh Guru's strongly advised us to accept Gods will. So there for, hair can symbolise that you obey Gods Will. "
Note the language used; choose, advise, "not a matter of not being allowed". It's all a lot more advisory than the christian "thou shalt not" standard, no?
You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing for my right to tell people what their religion is. I'm arguing that the tenets of a religion are decided by it's clergy and majority of followers.
Not sure if this is a topic about religion or the guy who got shot, maybe both, either way;
He was at the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong kind of jacket for a warm summers morning, intending to use the wrong kind of public transportation and choosing the wrong kind of people to ignore and run away from, in the wrong kind of city that has had 250 bomb scares since 7/7. Okay that was dumb but you get the idea, if he didnt do just one of those things he would probably still be alive. Like if he went to Tescos instead of the station, wore a shirt instead of a puffy jacket, talked to the police instead of running away from them.
He was at the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong kind of jacket for a warm summers morning, intending to use the wrong kind of public transportation and choosing the wrong kind of people to ignore and run away from, in the wrong kind of city that has had 250 bomb scares since 7/7. Okay that was dumb but you get the idea, if he didnt do just one of those things he would probably still be alive. Like if he went to Tescos instead of the station, wore a shirt instead of a puffy jacket, talked to the police instead of running away from them.
All religious people "advise" you to follow their religion
It doesn't mean you have to.
The fact the long hair and the turban is part of obeying god's will suggests it is a big a part of Sikhism as the ten commandments are of Christianity.
It doesn't mean you have to.
The fact the long hair and the turban is part of obeying god's will suggests it is a big a part of Sikhism as the ten commandments are of Christianity.
down wrote:
> All religious people "advise" you to follow their religion
>
> It doesn't mean you have to.
That is exactly what I am saying; you don't have to. But if you don't, you can't expect that faith to accept you as one of its own.
It's like...well, when a footballer picked up the ball and ran with it, no he didn't HAVE to continue just kicking it. But the fact that he picked it up means that he's not playing by the rules of that game. Hence, a new set of rules was needed, and we now have the totally separate game of Rugby.
Is this making sense or am I babbling?
>
> The fact the long hair and the turban is part of obeying god's will
> suggests it is a big a part of Sikhism as the ten commandments are of
> Christianity.
I'd point, once again, to the language used; advice and suggestions are rather different to "Thou shalt do this or I'll spank you", are they not? It does indeed sound a big part of their faith, but does it sound like the sort of thing that one would be expelled from the faith for? Based on what I've read, and the circumstances you describe I personally would say not. However, as I keep asking you, what do his clergy say about it?
> All religious people "advise" you to follow their religion
>
> It doesn't mean you have to.
That is exactly what I am saying; you don't have to. But if you don't, you can't expect that faith to accept you as one of its own.
It's like...well, when a footballer picked up the ball and ran with it, no he didn't HAVE to continue just kicking it. But the fact that he picked it up means that he's not playing by the rules of that game. Hence, a new set of rules was needed, and we now have the totally separate game of Rugby.
Is this making sense or am I babbling?
>
> The fact the long hair and the turban is part of obeying god's will
> suggests it is a big a part of Sikhism as the ten commandments are of
> Christianity.
I'd point, once again, to the language used; advice and suggestions are rather different to "Thou shalt do this or I'll spank you", are they not? It does indeed sound a big part of their faith, but does it sound like the sort of thing that one would be expelled from the faith for? Based on what I've read, and the circumstances you describe I personally would say not. However, as I keep asking you, what do his clergy say about it?
Light wrote:
> See my answer to down; no, they don't have to be 100% orthodox.
> However, to belong to a faith one has to follow the major tenets. As
> the non-appearence of the messiah is a central tenet of the Jewish
> faith, to say that Jesus was the messiah is to deny that central
> tenet. Did the Essenes deny central tenets, or did they deny certain
> interpretations? I'm guessing the latter.
>
That's my whole point. They didn't necessarily deny central tenets. And nor did Jesus (according to the teachings attributed to him). They were a jewish sect, therefore Jesus beliefs own beliefs spring from Judaism. And there is a long tradition of jewish messianic sects. The fact they believed various messiahs had come does not suddenly strip them of their religios foundations.
There are huge amounts of christian beliefs that do seem profoundly opposed to judaism (like the concept of the trinity for example) but acceptance of those do not seem necessary to accept Jesus as a jewish spiritual reformer or even as part of the messianic tradition.
The gnostics were seen as a heretical (and possibly crackpot) christian sect, even though their beliefs would be profoundly shocking to mainstream christian leaders (satan created the earth, matter is evil etc.) Why can't Jews who see Jesus as a messiah in the jewish tradition (forgetting some of the zany catholic additions to the faith) just be seen as a crackpot jewish sect? After all, some Jews believed that Jesus was a messianic figure before Christianity even existed.
> See my answer to down; no, they don't have to be 100% orthodox.
> However, to belong to a faith one has to follow the major tenets. As
> the non-appearence of the messiah is a central tenet of the Jewish
> faith, to say that Jesus was the messiah is to deny that central
> tenet. Did the Essenes deny central tenets, or did they deny certain
> interpretations? I'm guessing the latter.
>
That's my whole point. They didn't necessarily deny central tenets. And nor did Jesus (according to the teachings attributed to him). They were a jewish sect, therefore Jesus beliefs own beliefs spring from Judaism. And there is a long tradition of jewish messianic sects. The fact they believed various messiahs had come does not suddenly strip them of their religios foundations.
There are huge amounts of christian beliefs that do seem profoundly opposed to judaism (like the concept of the trinity for example) but acceptance of those do not seem necessary to accept Jesus as a jewish spiritual reformer or even as part of the messianic tradition.
The gnostics were seen as a heretical (and possibly crackpot) christian sect, even though their beliefs would be profoundly shocking to mainstream christian leaders (satan created the earth, matter is evil etc.) Why can't Jews who see Jesus as a messiah in the jewish tradition (forgetting some of the zany catholic additions to the faith) just be seen as a crackpot jewish sect? After all, some Jews believed that Jesus was a messianic figure before Christianity even existed.
loki wrote:
>
> That's my whole point. They didn't necessarily deny central tenets.
> And nor did Jesus (according to the teachings attributed to him).
> They were a jewish text, therefore Jesus beliefs and spring from
> Judaism. And there is a long tradition of jewish messianic sects. The
> fact they believed various messiahs had come does not suddenly strip
> them of their religios foundations.
And are any of those messianic sects still going today, and accepted as Jewish by the majority of Jewish clergy? Or were those various messianic sects condemned? I can 100% guarantee it's the latter. And again, there's no problem with that; faith should be determined by the individual, not the many. Just don't expect to be able to claim membership of 2 diametrically opposed religions and be accepted by both (or either) or them.
Jesus himself never claimed to be the messiah. His followers did, and that differenciates them from Judaism.
> There are huge amounts of christian beliefs that do seem profoundly
> opposed to judaism (like the concept of the trinity for example) but
> acceptance of those do not seem necessary to accept Jesus as a jewish
> spiritual reformer or even as part of the messianic tradition.
To be a Christian is to accept Jesus as the Messiah, is it not? This does necessarily contradict Judaism. The messianic tradition is there, yes. Has any one of these sects in the entire of Jewish History survived today to be accepted by the Jewish clergy?
>
> The gnostics were seen as a heretical (and possibly crackpot)
> christian sect, even though their beliefs would be profoundly
> shocking to mainstream christian leaders (satan created the earth,
> matter is evil etc.) Why can't Jews who see Jesus as a messiah in the
> jewish tradition (forgetting some of the zany catholic additions to
> the faith) just be seen as a crackpot jewish sect? After all, some
> Jews believed that Jesus was a messianic figure before Christianity
> even existed.
Because the Christian belief is that he is the Son of God. The Jewish belief is that the Son of God has not yet been made flesh. Ergo, it is impossible to reconcile the two.
Look, you're using a lot of sects, cults, and heresies to argue your point. You're not, however, saying that these things are accepted by the majority, or by the clergy, correct? My position is that it is these 2 that tell a faith what it is. If you take a minority position against these 2, then you are by definition, not a member of that faith.
You say "why can't the jewish leaders...", and the honest answer is, I don't fully understand why not. But the fact is that they don't. Ergo, the impossibility of Jewish Christianity remains.
Now why couldn't Forest ever have debated like this?!
>
> That's my whole point. They didn't necessarily deny central tenets.
> And nor did Jesus (according to the teachings attributed to him).
> They were a jewish text, therefore Jesus beliefs and spring from
> Judaism. And there is a long tradition of jewish messianic sects. The
> fact they believed various messiahs had come does not suddenly strip
> them of their religios foundations.
And are any of those messianic sects still going today, and accepted as Jewish by the majority of Jewish clergy? Or were those various messianic sects condemned? I can 100% guarantee it's the latter. And again, there's no problem with that; faith should be determined by the individual, not the many. Just don't expect to be able to claim membership of 2 diametrically opposed religions and be accepted by both (or either) or them.
Jesus himself never claimed to be the messiah. His followers did, and that differenciates them from Judaism.
> There are huge amounts of christian beliefs that do seem profoundly
> opposed to judaism (like the concept of the trinity for example) but
> acceptance of those do not seem necessary to accept Jesus as a jewish
> spiritual reformer or even as part of the messianic tradition.
To be a Christian is to accept Jesus as the Messiah, is it not? This does necessarily contradict Judaism. The messianic tradition is there, yes. Has any one of these sects in the entire of Jewish History survived today to be accepted by the Jewish clergy?
>
> The gnostics were seen as a heretical (and possibly crackpot)
> christian sect, even though their beliefs would be profoundly
> shocking to mainstream christian leaders (satan created the earth,
> matter is evil etc.) Why can't Jews who see Jesus as a messiah in the
> jewish tradition (forgetting some of the zany catholic additions to
> the faith) just be seen as a crackpot jewish sect? After all, some
> Jews believed that Jesus was a messianic figure before Christianity
> even existed.
Because the Christian belief is that he is the Son of God. The Jewish belief is that the Son of God has not yet been made flesh. Ergo, it is impossible to reconcile the two.
Look, you're using a lot of sects, cults, and heresies to argue your point. You're not, however, saying that these things are accepted by the majority, or by the clergy, correct? My position is that it is these 2 that tell a faith what it is. If you take a minority position against these 2, then you are by definition, not a member of that faith.
You say "why can't the jewish leaders...", and the honest answer is, I don't fully understand why not. But the fact is that they don't. Ergo, the impossibility of Jewish Christianity remains.
Now why couldn't Forest ever have debated like this?!
Page: