The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
down wrote:
>
> I don't know what you're saying.
That if you change the rules of a game, unless the majority agree to the rule change, you've just created a whole new game.
> Well, he's in Greece at the moment, and texting him will cost about a
> billion pounds.
>
> Anyway, aren't most religions just metaphorical advice?
Hell yes. But the advice differs from sect to sect, faith to faith. And when the advice of two differing faiths contradicts, it's impossible to follow both.
Anyway, to both yourself and loki; thanks for making a dull day very enjoyable. Best and most honest debate about religion I've had for a long time, and it's definitely made me think.
>
> I don't know what you're saying.
That if you change the rules of a game, unless the majority agree to the rule change, you've just created a whole new game.
> Well, he's in Greece at the moment, and texting him will cost about a
> billion pounds.
>
> Anyway, aren't most religions just metaphorical advice?
Hell yes. But the advice differs from sect to sect, faith to faith. And when the advice of two differing faiths contradicts, it's impossible to follow both.
Anyway, to both yourself and loki; thanks for making a dull day very enjoyable. Best and most honest debate about religion I've had for a long time, and it's definitely made me think.
loki wrote:
> Yep, but i don't see any reason why it would be invalid to be a jew
> and belive in christ as messiah. I don't believe you can be a Jew and
> a Christian and subscribe to all their beliefs. They are clearly
> incompatible in a number of areas (how many depends on which sect of
> Christianity you want to take as the gold standard).
Thing is, ALL sects of Christianity take Christ as the Messiah. So if you believe in Christ as a messiah in the Jewish messianic sense we've being discussing then you cannot possibly be a Christian. But if you believe in him in the Christian sense, you fall foul of the Jewish belief that the Messiah (as in the Son of God, chosen to lead the Jews) has not yet arrived on earth.
I would agree that there are an awful lot of areas where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are compatible with one another; it's only to be expected when they all share the Old Testament in their respective Holy Books. But there is a reason that those 3 faiths are separate and distinct, and it's due to their incompatibility on major tenets of faith.
> Yep, but i don't see any reason why it would be invalid to be a jew
> and belive in christ as messiah. I don't believe you can be a Jew and
> a Christian and subscribe to all their beliefs. They are clearly
> incompatible in a number of areas (how many depends on which sect of
> Christianity you want to take as the gold standard).
Thing is, ALL sects of Christianity take Christ as the Messiah. So if you believe in Christ as a messiah in the Jewish messianic sense we've being discussing then you cannot possibly be a Christian. But if you believe in him in the Christian sense, you fall foul of the Jewish belief that the Messiah (as in the Son of God, chosen to lead the Jews) has not yet arrived on earth.
I would agree that there are an awful lot of areas where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are compatible with one another; it's only to be expected when they all share the Old Testament in their respective Holy Books. But there is a reason that those 3 faiths are separate and distinct, and it's due to their incompatibility on major tenets of faith.
loki wrote:
> Correct. It was never my claim that a Christian could ever be
> considered a Jew in by any mainsteam, organised religious group.
Okay, just wanted to make sure I had the right end of the stick there.
My problem with Forest stems from his claim that he WAS stating he was accepted as both Jew and Christian by a mainstream and organised religious group. My argument is that to be regarded as a member of a any religious group, one has to abide by the rules of that group. And he had tried to state that the 2 groups he claimed membership of's rules allowed his particular beliefs. Which, of course, they don't.
I've no problem with him if he'd accepted that was part of a sect/cult/religious group with no roots beyond "Hey, I fancy being a Jewish Christian". As is, he followed that tiresome evangelical route of stating that his personal beliefs were the only ones sanctioned by God. And, naturally, the red mist descended...
> Correct. It was never my claim that a Christian could ever be
> considered a Jew in by any mainsteam, organised religious group.
Okay, just wanted to make sure I had the right end of the stick there.
My problem with Forest stems from his claim that he WAS stating he was accepted as both Jew and Christian by a mainstream and organised religious group. My argument is that to be regarded as a member of a any religious group, one has to abide by the rules of that group. And he had tried to state that the 2 groups he claimed membership of's rules allowed his particular beliefs. Which, of course, they don't.
I've no problem with him if he'd accepted that was part of a sect/cult/religious group with no roots beyond "Hey, I fancy being a Jewish Christian". As is, he followed that tiresome evangelical route of stating that his personal beliefs were the only ones sanctioned by God. And, naturally, the red mist descended...
Light wrote:
> 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?
I don't know what you're saying.
>
> 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?
Well, he's in Greece at the moment, and texting him will cost about a billion pounds.
Anyway, aren't most religions just metaphorical advice?
> 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?
I don't know what you're saying.
>
> 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?
Well, he's in Greece at the moment, and texting him will cost about a billion pounds.
Anyway, aren't most religions just metaphorical advice?
Light wrote:
> As you say yourself; "Not in the Christian sense". If
> you're not accepted Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense, you
> cannot possibly call yourself Christian. You can be one, but not the
> other.
Yep, but i don't see any reason why it would be invalid to be a jew and belive in christ as messiah. I don't believe you can be a Jew and a Christian and subscribe to all their beliefs. They are clearly incompatible in a number of areas (how many depends on which sect of Christianity you want to take as the gold standard).
> As you say yourself; "Not in the Christian sense". If
> you're not accepted Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense, you
> cannot possibly call yourself Christian. You can be one, but not the
> other.
Yep, but i don't see any reason why it would be invalid to be a jew and belive in christ as messiah. I don't believe you can be a Jew and a Christian and subscribe to all their beliefs. They are clearly incompatible in a number of areas (how many depends on which sect of Christianity you want to take as the gold standard).
Light wrote:
> 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?
Correct. It was never my claim that a Christian could ever be considered a Jew in by any mainsteam, organised religious group.
Only that all religions have offshoots, sects and heretics and that it is sometime only historical accident that separates a crackpot faith from a legitimate new branch of a religion (see the history of the protestant reformation for hundreds of examples).
And that the idea of someone who considered themself jewsih that saw jesus in the jewish messianic tradition is no more crackpot than anyone else as there is a lot of common history/theology between them.
> 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?
Correct. It was never my claim that a Christian could ever be considered a Jew in by any mainsteam, organised religious group.
Only that all religions have offshoots, sects and heretics and that it is sometime only historical accident that separates a crackpot faith from a legitimate new branch of a religion (see the history of the protestant reformation for hundreds of examples).
And that the idea of someone who considered themself jewsih that saw jesus in the jewish messianic tradition is no more crackpot than anyone else as there is a lot of common history/theology between them.
loki wrote:
>
> You can't believe in all the core Jewish and Christian ideas at once
> as they're surely irreconcilable. Judaism and Jesus as a religious
> leader or even as a messiah (though not in the 'Christian' sense of
> messiah) do not seem so wildly opposed to me.
As you say yourself; "Not in the Christian sense". If you're not accepted Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense, you cannot possibly call yourself Christian. You can be one, but not the other.
>
> You can't believe in all the core Jewish and Christian ideas at once
> as they're surely irreconcilable. Judaism and Jesus as a religious
> leader or even as a messiah (though not in the 'Christian' sense of
> messiah) do not seem so wildly opposed to me.
As you say yourself; "Not in the Christian sense". If you're not accepted Jesus as a messiah in the Christian sense, you cannot possibly call yourself Christian. You can be one, but not the other.
Light wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's
> legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
The fact that Jesus himself was Jewsish, was seen as a messianic figure by a group of Jews (before 'Christianity' even existed), and that Christianity can be seen as an offshoot of a jewish sect means that there is some basis for a legitimate position to be argued here though.
You can't believe in all the core Jewish and Christian ideas at once as they're surely irreconcilable. Judaism and Jesus as a religious leader or even as a messiah (though not in the 'Christian' sense of messiah) do not seem so wildly opposed to me.
> Goatboy wrote:
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's
> legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
The fact that Jesus himself was Jewsish, was seen as a messianic figure by a group of Jews (before 'Christianity' even existed), and that Christianity can be seen as an offshoot of a jewish sect means that there is some basis for a legitimate position to be argued here though.
You can't believe in all the core Jewish and Christian ideas at once as they're surely irreconcilable. Judaism and Jesus as a religious leader or even as a messiah (though not in the 'Christian' sense of messiah) do not seem so wildly opposed to me.
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?!
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.
Page: