The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
No that's not what I'm saying, personally I think the police were in the wrong and I have already stated that. All I'm saying is if there was a terrorist, and not just some Brazilian jumping a ticket barrier - then shoot to kill to protect seems like the right idea.
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.
Light wrote:
> And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Like this, I think.
This reminds me of a long time ago, when a supposedly "innocent" man was killed for his radical thinking. To save many others from sin, apparently. So, in short, Forest's point is that radical Christians like himself like it when the odd innocent person dies. It's nostalgic for them.
> 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.
Light wrote:
> And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?
Like this, I think.
This reminds me of a long time ago, when a supposedly "innocent" man was killed for his radical thinking. To save many others from sin, apparently. So, in short, Forest's point is that radical Christians like himself like it when the odd innocent person dies. It's nostalgic for them.
loki wrote:
> Indeed I'd imagine that to the Jewish community, the idea that God
> could be made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself of
> course) would be utterly blasphemous.
Actually, I think most Jews (i.e. non Christians) are still looking for a Messiah to come to earth to bring them peace...
> Indeed I'd imagine that to the Jewish community, the idea that God
> could be made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself of
> course) would be utterly blasphemous.
Actually, I think most Jews (i.e. non Christians) are still looking for a Messiah to come to earth to bring them peace...
Light wrote:
> loki wrote:
>
> I'd imagine that to the Jewsish community the idea that God could be
> made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself) would be
> utterly blasphemous.
>
> Not completely sure on that to be honest; I only know that the
> official line is that he hasn't done so. As to how accepted the idea
> that he one day may/will do so is...
I get the impression that Judaism takes the 'There is only one God' thing more seriously than Christianity. So the idea of the trinity (and that Jesus was ALSO God) i think is the problem there.
> loki wrote:
>
> I'd imagine that to the Jewsish community the idea that God could be
> made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself) would be
> utterly blasphemous.
>
> Not completely sure on that to be honest; I only know that the
> official line is that he hasn't done so. As to how accepted the idea
> that he one day may/will do so is...
I get the impression that Judaism takes the 'There is only one God' thing more seriously than Christianity. So the idea of the trinity (and that Jesus was ALSO God) i think is the problem there.
loki wrote:
> A lot of stuff that is uniquely Christian would never have been
> believed by Jesus's original following.
Heh. I'd take issue with the phrase "uniquely christian"!
> A lot of stuff that is uniquely Christian would never have been
> believed by Jesus's original following.
Heh. I'd take issue with the phrase "uniquely christian"!
loki wrote:
> I'd imagine that to the Jewsish community the idea that God could be
> made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself) would be
> utterly blasphemous.
Not completely sure on that to be honest; I only know that the official line is that he hasn't done so. As to how accepted the idea that he one day may/will do so is...
> I'd imagine that to the Jewsish community the idea that God could be
> made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself) would be
> utterly blasphemous.
Not completely sure on that to be honest; I only know that the official line is that he hasn't done so. As to how accepted the idea that he one day may/will do so is...
Strafio wrote:
> They were Christians, as Christians are, only the name
> "Christian" hadn't been invented yet. I guess they'd've
> assumed that all Jews would be "Christian" so there was no
> need to make a new name. As it is, lots of Jews remained
> "Jews" so these Jesus believers had to call themselves
> "Christians".
They only had to do so when St Paul...well, stole the franchise from Jesus' brother, James. Up until that point, Christians hadn't claimed he was the Messiah. They were just another Jewish messianic sect. However, Paul removed the whole prerequisite of Jewishness from being a Christian in order to broaden the appeal, get more followers, and get more power (not that I'm cynical at all...).
The claims of Jesus being the Messiah, along with not following any of the dietary requirements...oh, and the creation of the New Testament; all of these things rendered Christianity incompatible with Judaism.
> They were Christians, as Christians are, only the name
> "Christian" hadn't been invented yet. I guess they'd've
> assumed that all Jews would be "Christian" so there was no
> need to make a new name. As it is, lots of Jews remained
> "Jews" so these Jesus believers had to call themselves
> "Christians".
They only had to do so when St Paul...well, stole the franchise from Jesus' brother, James. Up until that point, Christians hadn't claimed he was the Messiah. They were just another Jewish messianic sect. However, Paul removed the whole prerequisite of Jewishness from being a Christian in order to broaden the appeal, get more followers, and get more power (not that I'm cynical at all...).
The claims of Jesus being the Messiah, along with not following any of the dietary requirements...oh, and the creation of the New Testament; all of these things rendered Christianity incompatible with Judaism.
Light wrote:
> Judaism does not accept that the Son of God has ever been sent to
> earth.
> Christians do.
Indeed I'd imagine that to the Jewish community, the idea that God could be made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself of course) would be utterly blasphemous.
> Judaism does not accept that the Son of God has ever been sent to
> earth.
> Christians do.
Indeed I'd imagine that to the Jewish community, the idea that God could be made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself of course) would be utterly blasphemous.
Strafio wrote:
> They were Christians, as Christians are, only the name
> "Christian" hadn't been invented yet. I guess they'd've
> assumed that all Jews would be "Christian" so there was no
> need to make a new name. As it is, lots of Jews remained
> "Jews" so these Jesus believers had to call themselves
> "Christians".
No, that's very wrong. The views of Jesus' early jewsish followers were very different from the views that were developed after St. Paul and subsequent leaders.
A lot of stuff that is uniquely Christian would never have been believed by Jesus's original following. Read up on St. Paul - he is basically the father of what became Christianity.
[note the bascially - the development of Christian thought was clearly a lot more complex then that]
> They were Christians, as Christians are, only the name
> "Christian" hadn't been invented yet. I guess they'd've
> assumed that all Jews would be "Christian" so there was no
> need to make a new name. As it is, lots of Jews remained
> "Jews" so these Jesus believers had to call themselves
> "Christians".
No, that's very wrong. The views of Jesus' early jewsish followers were very different from the views that were developed after St. Paul and subsequent leaders.
A lot of stuff that is uniquely Christian would never have been believed by Jesus's original following. Read up on St. Paul - he is basically the father of what became Christianity.
[note the bascially - the development of Christian thought was clearly a lot more complex then that]
Okay...
There is the Jewish idea of a messiah; a man sent by God to lead them. There have been numerous messiahs in Jewish History (though I have to say, I'm not sure how many, if any, have been recognised as such by Orthodox Judaism).
Then there is the Christian idea of the Messiah (note capitalisation), which refers to the Son of God.
Judaism does not accept that the Son of God has ever been sent to earth.
Christians do.
So if you are a Jew, by definition you do not believe in the Messiah (though you may well believe in a messiah).
However, if you are a Christian, then by definition you do believe in the Messiah. Which precludes you from being a Jew.
Or, in summary, Forest is a self-important anti semite who regards himself as "better" than Jews despite not being Jewish himself.
There is the Jewish idea of a messiah; a man sent by God to lead them. There have been numerous messiahs in Jewish History (though I have to say, I'm not sure how many, if any, have been recognised as such by Orthodox Judaism).
Then there is the Christian idea of the Messiah (note capitalisation), which refers to the Son of God.
Judaism does not accept that the Son of God has ever been sent to earth.
Christians do.
So if you are a Jew, by definition you do not believe in the Messiah (though you may well believe in a messiah).
However, if you are a Christian, then by definition you do believe in the Messiah. Which precludes you from being a Jew.
Or, in summary, Forest is a self-important anti semite who regards himself as "better" than Jews despite not being Jewish himself.
Page: