The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I'd like to point out, to anybody that thinks Forest is not trolling you, the following comment he made a few down:
"I feel I am following more of the Old Testament (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism"
Forest says he's more Jewish than Rabbis.
This is a 14yr schoolchild who absolutely refused to consider the opinions of a genuine Rabbi - a gentleman that would have had to undergo years of study including learning Hebrew.
Now who are you more likely to believe?
A Rabbi or a schoolboy who claims to be more Jewish than aforementioned Jewish scholastic priest?
Stupid sheigetz
"I feel I am following more of the Old Testament (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism"
Forest says he's more Jewish than Rabbis.
This is a 14yr schoolchild who absolutely refused to consider the opinions of a genuine Rabbi - a gentleman that would have had to undergo years of study including learning Hebrew.
Now who are you more likely to believe?
A Rabbi or a schoolboy who claims to be more Jewish than aforementioned Jewish scholastic priest?
Stupid sheigetz
Light wrote:
> 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.
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.
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!
> 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.
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.
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!
Forest Fan wrote:
> I admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
See, this is why I find myself ripping into the arrogant little cockswap at every opportunity...
Like we've been discussing, you're not Jewish because you believe in Christ as the Messiah. And, as the nice Rabbi told you, a central tenet of Judaism is that the Son of God has not yet come to earth.
> I admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
See, this is why I find myself ripping into the arrogant little cockswap at every opportunity...
Like we've been discussing, you're not Jewish because you believe in Christ as the Messiah. And, as the nice Rabbi told you, a central tenet of Judaism is that the Son of God has not yet come to earth.
Strafio wrote:
> So basically Christians are more Jewish than Jews.
> Reminds me of what John wrote in Revelations.
>
> They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue
> belongs to Satan.
>
> Having said that, I swear John must've been on acid when he wrote
> that book...
I always thought it was a combination of mushrooms, and too long in the sun.
> So basically Christians are more Jewish than Jews.
> Reminds me of what John wrote in Revelations.
>
> They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue
> belongs to Satan.
>
> Having said that, I swear John must've been on acid when he wrote
> that book...
I always thought it was a combination of mushrooms, and too long in the sun.
Forest Fan wrote:
> I admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
So basically Christians are more Jewish than Jews.
Reminds me of what John wrote in Revelations.
They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue belongs to Satan.
Having said that, I swear John must've been on acid when he wrote that book...
> I admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
So basically Christians are more Jewish than Jews.
Reminds me of what John wrote in Revelations.
They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue belongs to Satan.
Having said that, I swear John must've been on acid when he wrote that book...
Forest Fan wrote:
I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
-------
Ahahaha.
Troll. "I'm more Jewish than Rabbis and Jews"
I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
-------
Ahahaha.
Troll. "I'm more Jewish than Rabbis and Jews"
So the reason that you were so adamant that you weren't part of a religion before is because they wouldn't let you in?
He coming back! Look busy!
He coming back! Look busy!
"Ha! I out-Jewed you!"
©®™ Forest Fan
©®™ Forest Fan
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> 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 admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
Wow, talk about "holier than thou"...
> Light wrote:
> 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 admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish
> community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be
> considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament
> (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
Wow, talk about "holier than thou"...
Light wrote:
> 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 admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
> 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 admit that I would not be accepted in the mainstream Jewish community, but I don't feel that there's any reason not to be considered Jewish as I feel I am following more of the Old Testament (including Isaiah 53) than Rabbis and contemporary Judaism.
Page: