The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
While I was browsing the site you can find if you [URL]http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14510&page=2&pp=15[/URL] , I came across this interesting story.
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> I certainly will. You are curious aren't you Light?
Yup, I'm curious as to just how ignorant you truly are my 14 year old plaything.
> I certainly will. You are curious aren't you Light?
Yup, I'm curious as to just how ignorant you truly are my 14 year old plaything.
Light wrote:
> So, in your own time...
I certainly will. You are curious aren't you Light?
> So, in your own time...
I certainly will. You are curious aren't you Light?
~pop~
I haven't forgotten about you Gump. Any danger you'll even acknowledge these questions? Or are you going to use that selectively blindness of yours again and behave like the coward you are?
I haven't forgotten about you Gump. Any danger you'll even acknowledge these questions? Or are you going to use that selectively blindness of yours again and behave like the coward you are?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Here are your answers then Light....
Y'know, I rather suspect they'll be something other than that, but lets see...
>
> Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old
> Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but
> AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
>
> No. To be Jewish you can only do so, through background, which is of
> course out of your hands and not depandant upon rituals and
> regulations.
So, making my way through the appalling grammar here, it seems that you're saying that being Jewish holds no obligations. So there is no need to obey circumcision rules either, is that what you're saying?
Question 1
Do you think that being Jewish is only a matter of ancestry?
Question 2
Is it your interpretation of Judaism that you don't have to obey a single one of the religious laws, you merely have to have Jewish ancestry?
>
> Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call
> you Jewish?
>
> They don't agree that Jesus is Messiah or my beliefs no, but they do
> consider me Jewish.
Hmmm....and yet Jews do not consider Jesus as the Messiah. And so, to be Jewish, it is not theologically possible to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. So you see, it would seem that either you're lying, or your cousins are a stupid as you are. I'm guessing it's the former. However...
Question 3
Are you saying that your Jewish Cousins don't believe that they have to obey any of the religious commandments to be Jewish, they simply have to have Jewish ancestry?
> Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a
> commandment?
>
> No. Plain and simple, no. Still, there are the ten commandments,
> which obviously are.
And we have our first straightforward question avoidance!! Well done; you answered 2 questions...well, in an incomplete manner and there are questions arising from your answers, but well done you!
Question 4
Are you saying a christian has to obey the 10 commandments?
Question 5
If we HAVE to do something, it is compulsory. For example, if we HAVE to give blood and are sent to prison for not doing so, it is a law or commandment. Therefore, if accepting Jesus is not a commandment, we do not HAVE to accept him to get to heaven. Do you agree with that statement. If not, why not?
> why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was
> dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows
> that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
>
> Already answered.
Nope, you haven't. Answer it you evasive and vile little globule of pus. Either that, or repost your supposed answer.
Question 6
Why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak "dripping in blood" when I didn't use anything like those words, and when anyone who knows anything about meat knows a medium steak doesn't have much blood.
>
> Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood
> by products'?
>
> It only ever states that 'blood' cannot be eaten in the New Covenant.
> Jesus even says all foods are now clean to you, so therefore I would
> only ever assume to take away from that relevant food products that
> are not included, which is blood. Blood by products are never
> excluded from the clean foods.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!
That, my dear boy, shows a level of illogicality I've never yet encountered from you. Okay...
Question 7
If Jesus said "all foods are now clean", why are you assuming he meant "All foods are now clean, oh except blood"?
> Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
>
> In the same way it states that potatoes are acceptable, it states
> blood by products are available, by the declaration of the clean
> foods, except for blood itself.
Question 8
I asked for a direct biblical reference, which you have not provided. Am I to assume that your answer about blood products is from your INTERPRETATION of the Bible, and not the Bible itself?
> Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to
> actually ARE?
>
> Blood by products. I'm not an expert on by products, but I know that
> much.
Heh...so you don't know what they are, but you know they're exempt, right? Mwah ha ha ha haaaa!
Question 9
If you don't know what they are, how d'you know you're not breaking the commandment on the eating of blood?
> HOW
> did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your
> repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain
> what you mean.
>
> Animals inherited our nature of sin, because the judgement of sin for
> the world, meant death.
>
> “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
> life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
Yeah, I thought you might avoid answering this one, you gutless cowardly slime. As I said, I'm not interested in your mindless statements, or unrelated biblical quotes; I want YOU to explain what you mean.
Question 10
Your answer only says that the judgement for sin is death. You've given no indication as to HOW animals inherited our sinful nature. Do so.
> Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
> Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
>
> Homosexuality is not natural, is actually what I said in the first
> place, so neither.
Ahh, avoiding the question again! What a surprise. But your 'answer' is worthless, because according to your statement earlier, animals have inherited our nature. So if they're not natural, what is?
Question 11
Please explain your definition of "natural". According to you, homosexuality as a sin is not natural. Yet it occurs in the Animal Kingdom, so you've said that animals are not natural because they've inherited our sinful nature.
> Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
>
> Inadequate scientific evidence and acceptance was the problem.
Question 11
Really? Why was it inadequate? What about it failed to convince you?
>
> Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first
> one thing, then the opposite?
>
> Do what you want.
Hehehheheh. Oh, we are getting tetchy, aren't we dear boy? You hate it when you're caught out telling lies don't you? Shame you tell so many.
> Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as
> evidence"?
>
> Repeat: I can’t possibly remember, just look at how many posts are in
> the various threads, I have set up and I am not prepared to look
> through so many pages of posts.
Question 12
If you can't possibly remember, then why are you saying that someone did say it? If you can't remember what was said a couple of weeks ago, why on earth should I believe you when you say anything?
> The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The
> universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
>
> Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> No, anyway, evolutionists believe the world expanded, so it must have
> been a closed system at some stage according to them, ergo a
> contradiction within evolution.
Erm...no, I'm afraid not. You see, if the world was expanding (though I believe you're talking about the universe), then it was changing. And that is a dynamic and open system, not a closed one.
Question 13
Do you actually understand what "a closed system" is? If so, explain your understanding of it to me.
> WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE
> ANIMAL KINGDOM?
>
> It is virtual unheard of, the percentage of homosexual animal is in
> complete minority, compared to the relatively high 11-12% of human
> homosexuals.
Heh. And again, you run squealing from a direct question. So I'll repeat it;
Question 14
You are saying that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is unheard of. If that is the case, where are you getting your figures for rates of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? You must have some figures to be able to make this statement. So where are they?
> Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it
> was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
>
> No, it is well known, the motives behind the Book of Mormon.
Ahh, so now you're going back to ignoring the fact that you were caught out and admitted that you only said it was a kids book cos you thought so? Nice to see proof that you're a lying toerag! So...
Question 15
Post proof that the Book of Mormon was originally written as a childrens book. if it's "well known", it shouldn't be too difficult.
> Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but
> He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted
> Christ by the time we die?
>
> He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Do you see? He loves you, but
> hates your sin. However, if He can look on you and see no sin, you
> can be allowed into the sinless paradise. So even though He loves
> every single person, should He see sin on the day of judgement, you
> can not be allowed into the sinless paradise.
Mwah ha ha haaa! I've been looking forward to this one...
Question 16
If God is omnipotent, and loves us SO much, then why doesn't he simply cleanse the sinful portion of our souls and allow us into the sinless paradise?
> I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several
> times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked,
> quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about
> people posting as newbies was talking about you.
>
> I have already answered that question. I quite clearly stated that
> certain members have spread rumours, which get through to staff
> members. Got it?
Touchy touchy...but you haven't answered that question, because that isn't the one I asked. I didn't ask about certain members spreading rumours, I asked directly why you assumed a staffie talking about people logging on using multiple ID's was talking about you.
Question 17
Why do you assume that staffies talking about people posting as newbies are talking about you? Especially as Belldandy was the more famous for doing that.
>
> Answer the question,
> you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> Stick to relevance Light, not bickering.
Well, you are a snivelling wretched little coward. So I'd call that pretty relevant. Wouldn't you?
> If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
>
> Repost them then and I’ll take a look at it.
Question 18
Not what I asked; will you acknowledge them and respond to them?
> Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN
> would not consider you a jew?
>
> Depends, some do, some don’t. There is no set answer to that
> question, it depends upon the person and their interpretation.
Heh.
Question 19
According to you, we should take the bible literally. Now you're talking about different interpretations. If a Jew were to take the Bible literally, as you insist upon, would they consider you a Jew?
> Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a
> Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
>
> No. No-one is better than anyone else.
Ahh, the 3rd question answered. Well done, and thank you. We're only onto question 20, so that's a, what, 15% ish answer rate?
> Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
>
> Hebrew Christians, apart from Luke (Gentile).
Question 20
As the definition Hebrew Christian doesn't actually exist outside of your own cult, and as you've admitted in your previous answer that it doesn't make a difference what kind of Christian you are, then it seems you're saying that the disciples were Christians (gentiles are simply non-jews, so if he was a christian, he was a gentile). Therefore, you are nothing more than a Christian. NOT a Jewish Christian. Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> That’s your lot Light...
No dear boy, it isn't. You answered 3 out of 21 questions. A seventh of them. Less than 15%. Which, if this were an exam, would get you an "Ungraded" mark. You'd fail. And you've failed here. But never fear; there are another 20 questions for you to avoid, run away from, and generally complain about.
So, in your own time...
> Here are your answers then Light....
Y'know, I rather suspect they'll be something other than that, but lets see...
>
> Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old
> Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but
> AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
>
> No. To be Jewish you can only do so, through background, which is of
> course out of your hands and not depandant upon rituals and
> regulations.
So, making my way through the appalling grammar here, it seems that you're saying that being Jewish holds no obligations. So there is no need to obey circumcision rules either, is that what you're saying?
Question 1
Do you think that being Jewish is only a matter of ancestry?
Question 2
Is it your interpretation of Judaism that you don't have to obey a single one of the religious laws, you merely have to have Jewish ancestry?
>
> Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call
> you Jewish?
>
> They don't agree that Jesus is Messiah or my beliefs no, but they do
> consider me Jewish.
Hmmm....and yet Jews do not consider Jesus as the Messiah. And so, to be Jewish, it is not theologically possible to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. So you see, it would seem that either you're lying, or your cousins are a stupid as you are. I'm guessing it's the former. However...
Question 3
Are you saying that your Jewish Cousins don't believe that they have to obey any of the religious commandments to be Jewish, they simply have to have Jewish ancestry?
> Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a
> commandment?
>
> No. Plain and simple, no. Still, there are the ten commandments,
> which obviously are.
And we have our first straightforward question avoidance!! Well done; you answered 2 questions...well, in an incomplete manner and there are questions arising from your answers, but well done you!
Question 4
Are you saying a christian has to obey the 10 commandments?
Question 5
If we HAVE to do something, it is compulsory. For example, if we HAVE to give blood and are sent to prison for not doing so, it is a law or commandment. Therefore, if accepting Jesus is not a commandment, we do not HAVE to accept him to get to heaven. Do you agree with that statement. If not, why not?
> why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was
> dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows
> that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
>
> Already answered.
Nope, you haven't. Answer it you evasive and vile little globule of pus. Either that, or repost your supposed answer.
Question 6
Why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak "dripping in blood" when I didn't use anything like those words, and when anyone who knows anything about meat knows a medium steak doesn't have much blood.
>
> Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood
> by products'?
>
> It only ever states that 'blood' cannot be eaten in the New Covenant.
> Jesus even says all foods are now clean to you, so therefore I would
> only ever assume to take away from that relevant food products that
> are not included, which is blood. Blood by products are never
> excluded from the clean foods.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!
That, my dear boy, shows a level of illogicality I've never yet encountered from you. Okay...
Question 7
If Jesus said "all foods are now clean", why are you assuming he meant "All foods are now clean, oh except blood"?
> Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
>
> In the same way it states that potatoes are acceptable, it states
> blood by products are available, by the declaration of the clean
> foods, except for blood itself.
Question 8
I asked for a direct biblical reference, which you have not provided. Am I to assume that your answer about blood products is from your INTERPRETATION of the Bible, and not the Bible itself?
> Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to
> actually ARE?
>
> Blood by products. I'm not an expert on by products, but I know that
> much.
Heh...so you don't know what they are, but you know they're exempt, right? Mwah ha ha ha haaaa!
Question 9
If you don't know what they are, how d'you know you're not breaking the commandment on the eating of blood?
> HOW
> did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your
> repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain
> what you mean.
>
> Animals inherited our nature of sin, because the judgement of sin for
> the world, meant death.
>
> “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
> life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
Yeah, I thought you might avoid answering this one, you gutless cowardly slime. As I said, I'm not interested in your mindless statements, or unrelated biblical quotes; I want YOU to explain what you mean.
Question 10
Your answer only says that the judgement for sin is death. You've given no indication as to HOW animals inherited our sinful nature. Do so.
> Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
> Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
>
> Homosexuality is not natural, is actually what I said in the first
> place, so neither.
Ahh, avoiding the question again! What a surprise. But your 'answer' is worthless, because according to your statement earlier, animals have inherited our nature. So if they're not natural, what is?
Question 11
Please explain your definition of "natural". According to you, homosexuality as a sin is not natural. Yet it occurs in the Animal Kingdom, so you've said that animals are not natural because they've inherited our sinful nature.
> Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
>
> Inadequate scientific evidence and acceptance was the problem.
Question 11
Really? Why was it inadequate? What about it failed to convince you?
>
> Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first
> one thing, then the opposite?
>
> Do what you want.
Hehehheheh. Oh, we are getting tetchy, aren't we dear boy? You hate it when you're caught out telling lies don't you? Shame you tell so many.
> Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as
> evidence"?
>
> Repeat: I can’t possibly remember, just look at how many posts are in
> the various threads, I have set up and I am not prepared to look
> through so many pages of posts.
Question 12
If you can't possibly remember, then why are you saying that someone did say it? If you can't remember what was said a couple of weeks ago, why on earth should I believe you when you say anything?
> The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The
> universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
>
> Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> No, anyway, evolutionists believe the world expanded, so it must have
> been a closed system at some stage according to them, ergo a
> contradiction within evolution.
Erm...no, I'm afraid not. You see, if the world was expanding (though I believe you're talking about the universe), then it was changing. And that is a dynamic and open system, not a closed one.
Question 13
Do you actually understand what "a closed system" is? If so, explain your understanding of it to me.
> WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE
> ANIMAL KINGDOM?
>
> It is virtual unheard of, the percentage of homosexual animal is in
> complete minority, compared to the relatively high 11-12% of human
> homosexuals.
Heh. And again, you run squealing from a direct question. So I'll repeat it;
Question 14
You are saying that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is unheard of. If that is the case, where are you getting your figures for rates of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? You must have some figures to be able to make this statement. So where are they?
> Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it
> was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
>
> No, it is well known, the motives behind the Book of Mormon.
Ahh, so now you're going back to ignoring the fact that you were caught out and admitted that you only said it was a kids book cos you thought so? Nice to see proof that you're a lying toerag! So...
Question 15
Post proof that the Book of Mormon was originally written as a childrens book. if it's "well known", it shouldn't be too difficult.
> Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but
> He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted
> Christ by the time we die?
>
> He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Do you see? He loves you, but
> hates your sin. However, if He can look on you and see no sin, you
> can be allowed into the sinless paradise. So even though He loves
> every single person, should He see sin on the day of judgement, you
> can not be allowed into the sinless paradise.
Mwah ha ha haaa! I've been looking forward to this one...
Question 16
If God is omnipotent, and loves us SO much, then why doesn't he simply cleanse the sinful portion of our souls and allow us into the sinless paradise?
> I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several
> times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked,
> quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about
> people posting as newbies was talking about you.
>
> I have already answered that question. I quite clearly stated that
> certain members have spread rumours, which get through to staff
> members. Got it?
Touchy touchy...but you haven't answered that question, because that isn't the one I asked. I didn't ask about certain members spreading rumours, I asked directly why you assumed a staffie talking about people logging on using multiple ID's was talking about you.
Question 17
Why do you assume that staffies talking about people posting as newbies are talking about you? Especially as Belldandy was the more famous for doing that.
>
> Answer the question,
> you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> Stick to relevance Light, not bickering.
Well, you are a snivelling wretched little coward. So I'd call that pretty relevant. Wouldn't you?
> If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
>
> Repost them then and I’ll take a look at it.
Question 18
Not what I asked; will you acknowledge them and respond to them?
> Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN
> would not consider you a jew?
>
> Depends, some do, some don’t. There is no set answer to that
> question, it depends upon the person and their interpretation.
Heh.
Question 19
According to you, we should take the bible literally. Now you're talking about different interpretations. If a Jew were to take the Bible literally, as you insist upon, would they consider you a Jew?
> Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a
> Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
>
> No. No-one is better than anyone else.
Ahh, the 3rd question answered. Well done, and thank you. We're only onto question 20, so that's a, what, 15% ish answer rate?
> Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
>
> Hebrew Christians, apart from Luke (Gentile).
Question 20
As the definition Hebrew Christian doesn't actually exist outside of your own cult, and as you've admitted in your previous answer that it doesn't make a difference what kind of Christian you are, then it seems you're saying that the disciples were Christians (gentiles are simply non-jews, so if he was a christian, he was a gentile). Therefore, you are nothing more than a Christian. NOT a Jewish Christian. Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> That’s your lot Light...
No dear boy, it isn't. You answered 3 out of 21 questions. A seventh of them. Less than 15%. Which, if this were an exam, would get you an "Ungraded" mark. You'd fail. And you've failed here. But never fear; there are another 20 questions for you to avoid, run away from, and generally complain about.
So, in your own time...
Here are your answers then Light....
Light wrote:
OK Light, found the questions. Whether or not, you get to see the answers, for everyone else they're here...
> Question 1
>
> Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old
> Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but
> AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
No. To be Jewish you can only do so, through background, which is of course out of your hands and not depandant upon rituals and regulations.
> question 2
>
> Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call
> you Jewish?
They don't agree that Jesus is Messiah or my beliefs no, but they do consider me Jewish.
> question 3
>
> Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a
> commandment?
No. Plain and simple, no. Still, there are the ten commandments, which obviously are.
> question 4
>
>
> why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was
> dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows
> that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
Already answered.
> question 5
>
> Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood
> by products'?
It only ever states that 'blood' cannot be eaten in the New Covenant. Jesus even says all foods are now clean to you, so therefore I would only ever assume to take away from that relevant food products that are not included, which is blood. Blood by products are never excluded from the clean foods.
> question 6
>
> Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
In the same way it states that potatoes are acceptable, it states blood by products are available, by the declaration of the clean foods, except for blood itself.
>
> question 7
>
> Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to
> actually ARE?
Blood by products. I'm not an expert on by products, but I know that much.
> question 8
>
>
> HOW
> did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your
> repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain
> what you mean.
Animals inherited our nature of sin, because the judgement of sin for the world, meant death.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
> question 9
>
> Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
> Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
Homosexuality is not natural, is actually what I said in the first place, so neither.
> question 10
>
> Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
Inadequate scientific evidence and acceptance was the problem.
> question 11
>
> Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first
> one thing, then the opposite?
Do what you want.
> question 12
>
> Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as
> evidence"?
Repeat: I can’t possibly remember, just look at how many posts are in the various threads, I have set up and I am not prepared to look through so many pages of posts.
> Question 13
>
> The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The
> universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
>
> Do you agree? If not, why not?
No, anyway, evolutionists believe the world expanded, so it must have been a closed system at some stage according to them, ergo a contradiction within evolution.
> question 14
>
> WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE
> ANIMAL KINGDOM?
It is virtual unheard of, the percentage of homosexual animal is in complete minority, compared to the relatively high 11-12% of human homosexuals.
> question 15
>
> Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it
> was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
No, it is well known, the motives behind the Book of Mormon.
> question 16
>
> Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but
> He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted
> Christ by the time we die?
He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Do you see? He loves you, but hates your sin. However, if He can look on you and see no sin, you can be allowed into the sinless paradise. So even though He loves every single person, should He see sin on the day of judgement, you can not be allowed into the sinless paradise.
> Question 17
>
> I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several
> times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked,
> quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about
> people posting as newbies was talking about you.
I have already answered that question. I quite clearly stated that certain members have spread rumours, which get through to staff members. Got it?
> Answer the question,
> you snivelling wretched little coward.
Stick to relevance Light, not bickering.
> Question 18
>
> If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
Repost them then and I’ll take a look at it.
> Question 19
>
> Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN
> would not consider you a jew?
Depends, some do, some don’t. There is no set answer to that question, it depends upon the person and their interpretation.
> Question 20
>
> Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a
> Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
No. No-one is better than anyone else.
> Question 21
>
> Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
Hebrew Christians, apart from Luke (Gentile).
That’s your lot Light...
Light wrote:
OK Light, found the questions. Whether or not, you get to see the answers, for everyone else they're here...
> Question 1
>
> Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old
> Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but
> AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
No. To be Jewish you can only do so, through background, which is of course out of your hands and not depandant upon rituals and regulations.
> question 2
>
> Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call
> you Jewish?
They don't agree that Jesus is Messiah or my beliefs no, but they do consider me Jewish.
> question 3
>
> Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a
> commandment?
No. Plain and simple, no. Still, there are the ten commandments, which obviously are.
> question 4
>
>
> why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was
> dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows
> that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
Already answered.
> question 5
>
> Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood
> by products'?
It only ever states that 'blood' cannot be eaten in the New Covenant. Jesus even says all foods are now clean to you, so therefore I would only ever assume to take away from that relevant food products that are not included, which is blood. Blood by products are never excluded from the clean foods.
> question 6
>
> Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
In the same way it states that potatoes are acceptable, it states blood by products are available, by the declaration of the clean foods, except for blood itself.
>
> question 7
>
> Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to
> actually ARE?
Blood by products. I'm not an expert on by products, but I know that much.
> question 8
>
>
> HOW
> did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your
> repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain
> what you mean.
Animals inherited our nature of sin, because the judgement of sin for the world, meant death.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
> question 9
>
> Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
> Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
Homosexuality is not natural, is actually what I said in the first place, so neither.
> question 10
>
> Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
Inadequate scientific evidence and acceptance was the problem.
> question 11
>
> Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first
> one thing, then the opposite?
Do what you want.
> question 12
>
> Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as
> evidence"?
Repeat: I can’t possibly remember, just look at how many posts are in the various threads, I have set up and I am not prepared to look through so many pages of posts.
> Question 13
>
> The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The
> universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
>
> Do you agree? If not, why not?
No, anyway, evolutionists believe the world expanded, so it must have been a closed system at some stage according to them, ergo a contradiction within evolution.
> question 14
>
> WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE
> ANIMAL KINGDOM?
It is virtual unheard of, the percentage of homosexual animal is in complete minority, compared to the relatively high 11-12% of human homosexuals.
> question 15
>
> Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it
> was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
No, it is well known, the motives behind the Book of Mormon.
> question 16
>
> Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but
> He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted
> Christ by the time we die?
He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Do you see? He loves you, but hates your sin. However, if He can look on you and see no sin, you can be allowed into the sinless paradise. So even though He loves every single person, should He see sin on the day of judgement, you can not be allowed into the sinless paradise.
> Question 17
>
> I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several
> times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked,
> quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about
> people posting as newbies was talking about you.
I have already answered that question. I quite clearly stated that certain members have spread rumours, which get through to staff members. Got it?
> Answer the question,
> you snivelling wretched little coward.
Stick to relevance Light, not bickering.
> Question 18
>
> If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
Repost them then and I’ll take a look at it.
> Question 19
>
> Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN
> would not consider you a jew?
Depends, some do, some don’t. There is no set answer to that question, it depends upon the person and their interpretation.
> Question 20
>
> Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a
> Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
No. No-one is better than anyone else.
> Question 21
>
> Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
Hebrew Christians, apart from Luke (Gentile).
That’s your lot Light...
Strafio wrote:
>
> In the meantime I'll leave you and Light to spend some
> "quality" time together.
Hey, if this boards a rockin', don't come a knockin' y'hear?
>
> In the meantime I'll leave you and Light to spend some
> "quality" time together.
Hey, if this boards a rockin', don't come a knockin' y'hear?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Some of them contradict scientific laws, that's why.
And yet, you've still not bothered to answer the point I raised; all your infantile mewling about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't mention, at any point, that the 2nd law states that entropy will prevail only in a closed system . Therefore, it doesn't disprove evolution.
But then, you haven't answered any questions, have you my gutless and gullible young friend?
> Some of them contradict scientific laws, that's why.
And yet, you've still not bothered to answer the point I raised; all your infantile mewling about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't mention, at any point, that the 2nd law states that entropy will prevail only in a closed system . Therefore, it doesn't disprove evolution.
But then, you haven't answered any questions, have you my gutless and gullible young friend?
Ha ha ha, that site is excellent. It's fake too, but I have an alarming feeling that some people out there might believe it.
4 in a row - Connect 4!
Oh, and do you think this is where the Simpsons got "Springfield" from? Maybe Groening is a subscriber to these views? Would explain why it got so bad lately...
Page: