The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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".
munn wrote:
> A Jew who believes Jesus was the messiah isn't a Jew, he's a
> Christian.
You're missing the point that the christian view of the messiah is something completely different from previous concepts of a messiah. Some of Jesus contemporary followers believed jesus to be the messiah but they couldn't have been christians - because the beliefs which that entailed didn't exist yet and didn't really begin to be codefied for decades after his death (a process that continued for centuries).
> A Jew who believes Jesus was the messiah isn't a Jew, he's a
> Christian.
You're missing the point that the christian view of the messiah is something completely different from previous concepts of a messiah. Some of Jesus contemporary followers believed jesus to be the messiah but they couldn't have been christians - because the beliefs which that entailed didn't exist yet and didn't really begin to be codefied for decades after his death (a process that continued for centuries).
loki wrote:
> I'd assumed that his reference to a jewsish christian must be along
> the lines of someone who considered themself a jew that saw
> themselves as a follower of Jesus as a messiah. Which is problematic
> but a genuinely interesting position. I never anticipated anyone
> considering themselves to be a full member of two separate
> religions.
It's still not possible though.
A Jew who believes Jesus was the messiah isn't a Jew, he's a Christian.
A Christian who doesn't believe Jesus wasthe messiah isn't really a Jew, bu they're certainly not a Christian - they named the religion after him after all.
> I'd assumed that his reference to a jewsish christian must be along
> the lines of someone who considered themself a jew that saw
> themselves as a follower of Jesus as a messiah. Which is problematic
> but a genuinely interesting position. I never anticipated anyone
> considering themselves to be a full member of two separate
> religions.
It's still not possible though.
A Jew who believes Jesus was the messiah isn't a Jew, he's a Christian.
A Christian who doesn't believe Jesus wasthe messiah isn't really a Jew, bu they're certainly not a Christian - they named the religion after him after all.
down wrote:
> It's not really debating... neither of you are going to change your
> views.
Debates rarely change views but you sort of get into where people are coming from and even understand better where you're coming from. You suddenly have to think about things you took for granted.
After putting your views through a debate you can be quite sure that they'll be stronger/more accurate than before.
Although I've never changed my view, I've often had to modify it a little because of flaws etc. Forest, if Light hasn't driven you away with his, often correct but harshly delivered, views then [URL]http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81[/URL] .
It's a forum I talk religion in with a better balance of "both" sides (although there tends to be about 3-4 "sides" to a lot of things) and while there's people who'll tear up your arguments as effectively as Light, they'll refrain from tearing you up at the same time. ;-)
> It's not really debating... neither of you are going to change your
> views.
Debates rarely change views but you sort of get into where people are coming from and even understand better where you're coming from. You suddenly have to think about things you took for granted.
After putting your views through a debate you can be quite sure that they'll be stronger/more accurate than before.
Although I've never changed my view, I've often had to modify it a little because of flaws etc. Forest, if Light hasn't driven you away with his, often correct but harshly delivered, views then [URL]http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81[/URL] .
It's a forum I talk religion in with a better balance of "both" sides (although there tends to be about 3-4 "sides" to a lot of things) and while there's people who'll tear up your arguments as effectively as Light, they'll refrain from tearing you up at the same time. ;-)
down wrote:
> It's not really debating... neither of you are going to change your
> views.
I would draw your attention to the second d word used...
Plus, if it weren't for Forest, I wouldn't have had such a thought provoking debate with you and loki yesterday.
> It's not really debating... neither of you are going to change your
> views.
I would draw your attention to the second d word used...
Plus, if it weren't for Forest, I wouldn't have had such a thought provoking debate with you and loki yesterday.
It's not really debating... neither of you are going to change your views.
So, y'know.
So, y'know.
down wrote:
> Well, I don't give a damn if he thinks he's better than me, it really
> doesn't bother me.
>
> *whistles*
Hey, fair enough; I wish I didn't. But I find myself compelled to debate and destroy condescending, egocentric, arrogant swine.
Must be a self loathing thing...
> Well, I don't give a damn if he thinks he's better than me, it really
> doesn't bother me.
>
> *whistles*
Hey, fair enough; I wish I didn't. But I find myself compelled to debate and destroy condescending, egocentric, arrogant swine.
Must be a self loathing thing...
Well, I don't give a damn if he thinks he's better than me, it really doesn't bother me.
*whistles*
*whistles*
Goatboy wrote:
> I'd like to point out, to anybody that thinks Forest is not trolling
> you,
Y'know, I genuninely don't think he is; I think the unpleasant little smear of cat-turds really does believe himself to be special.
And he is. In the Joey Deacon sense of the word.
> I'd like to point out, to anybody that thinks Forest is not trolling
> you,
Y'know, I genuninely don't think he is; I think the unpleasant little smear of cat-turds really does believe himself to be special.
And he is. In the Joey Deacon sense of the word.
loki wrote:
>
> Well quite. I never assumed that anyone would claim to be a
> fully-fledged Christian and a fully-fledged Jew while holding all of
> their associated beliefs and that is practically impossible.
>
> I'd assumed that his reference to a jewsish christian must be along
> the lines of someone who considered themself a jew that saw
> themselves as a follower of Jesus as a messiah. Which is problematic
> but a genuinely interesting position. I never anticipated anyone
> considering themselves to be a full member of two separate
> religions.
Heh. Read his post since yesterday; his position is less to do with being interesting and more to do with considering himself to be better than the Jewish religion as a whole. I've frequently found myself concerned at the implied anti-semitism of Forest's religious beliefs, and his most recent post seems to confirm that.
It could indeed be an interesting position to debate, were it not for the fact that his only interest is to say "my religion makes me better than jews and better than Christians, and better than you".
>
> Having said that, never let it be said that blatant contradictions
> have get in the way of a good religion. Again, back to my favourites,
> those crazy Catholics with their assertion that there is only One true
> God. Oh no wait, there's actually 3 of him. D'oh!
Heh. Actually, that was sort of addressed in the Arian heresy; Arians said the 3 were separate, whilst orthodox Catholicism holds them to be one and the same whilst being simultaneously separate. At least they try to get round it by saying "it's an unexplainable miracle" rather than quoting pseudo-science to prove it as unassailably true.
An article of faith, I can't argue with. Someone attempting to prove said article as concrete fact...well, I'll sit and argue with 'em until the cows come home.
>
> Well quite. I never assumed that anyone would claim to be a
> fully-fledged Christian and a fully-fledged Jew while holding all of
> their associated beliefs and that is practically impossible.
>
> I'd assumed that his reference to a jewsish christian must be along
> the lines of someone who considered themself a jew that saw
> themselves as a follower of Jesus as a messiah. Which is problematic
> but a genuinely interesting position. I never anticipated anyone
> considering themselves to be a full member of two separate
> religions.
Heh. Read his post since yesterday; his position is less to do with being interesting and more to do with considering himself to be better than the Jewish religion as a whole. I've frequently found myself concerned at the implied anti-semitism of Forest's religious beliefs, and his most recent post seems to confirm that.
It could indeed be an interesting position to debate, were it not for the fact that his only interest is to say "my religion makes me better than jews and better than Christians, and better than you".
>
> Having said that, never let it be said that blatant contradictions
> have get in the way of a good religion. Again, back to my favourites,
> those crazy Catholics with their assertion that there is only One true
> God. Oh no wait, there's actually 3 of him. D'oh!
Heh. Actually, that was sort of addressed in the Arian heresy; Arians said the 3 were separate, whilst orthodox Catholicism holds them to be one and the same whilst being simultaneously separate. At least they try to get round it by saying "it's an unexplainable miracle" rather than quoting pseudo-science to prove it as unassailably true.
An article of faith, I can't argue with. Someone attempting to prove said article as concrete fact...well, I'll sit and argue with 'em until the cows come home.
Page: