The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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?
>
> 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?
> 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?
>
> 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?
All religious people "advise" you to follow their religion
It doesn't mean you have to.
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.
It doesn't mean you have to.
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.
Not sure if this is a topic about religion or the guy who got shot, maybe both, either way;
He was at the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong kind of jacket for a warm summers morning, intending to use the wrong kind of public transportation and choosing the wrong kind of people to ignore and run away from, in the wrong kind of city that has had 250 bomb scares since 7/7. Okay that was dumb but you get the idea, if he didnt do just one of those things he would probably still be alive. Like if he went to Tescos instead of the station, wore a shirt instead of a puffy jacket, talked to the police instead of running away from them.
He was at the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong kind of jacket for a warm summers morning, intending to use the wrong kind of public transportation and choosing the wrong kind of people to ignore and run away from, in the wrong kind of city that has had 250 bomb scares since 7/7. Okay that was dumb but you get the idea, if he didnt do just one of those things he would probably still be alive. Like if he went to Tescos instead of the station, wore a shirt instead of a puffy jacket, talked to the police instead of running away from them.
down wrote:
> Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your
> logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
And I would ask you again; what do the members of his clergy say?
Something I found (admittedly only on a website, and the emphasis is mine)...
"Sikhs choose not to cut their hair. It is not really a matter of not being allowed to cut their hair. Hair was kept by all prophets. Jesus, Mohamed and mosses are a perfect example. A reason why Sikhs preserve their hair is, if hair wasn't pleasing to God why did He cause it to grow? The Sikh Guru's strongly advised us to accept Gods will. So there for, hair can symbolise that you obey Gods Will. "
Note the language used; choose, advise, "not a matter of not being allowed". It's all a lot more advisory than the christian "thou shalt not" standard, no?
You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing for my right to tell people what their religion is. I'm arguing that the tenets of a religion are decided by it's clergy and majority of followers.
> Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your
> logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
And I would ask you again; what do the members of his clergy say?
Something I found (admittedly only on a website, and the emphasis is mine)...
"Sikhs choose not to cut their hair. It is not really a matter of not being allowed to cut their hair. Hair was kept by all prophets. Jesus, Mohamed and mosses are a perfect example. A reason why Sikhs preserve their hair is, if hair wasn't pleasing to God why did He cause it to grow? The Sikh Guru's strongly advised us to accept Gods will. So there for, hair can symbolise that you obey Gods Will. "
Note the language used; choose, advise, "not a matter of not being allowed". It's all a lot more advisory than the christian "thou shalt not" standard, no?
You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing for my right to tell people what their religion is. I'm arguing that the tenets of a religion are decided by it's clergy and majority of followers.
Goatboy wrote:
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
That's what I'm trying to get at; he can call himself what he likes, it's his insistence that the clergy of both faiths accept him as such that grates.
> You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate
> and has any worth as a religion.
That's what I'm trying to get at; he can call himself what he likes, it's his insistence that the clergy of both faiths accept him as such that grates.
Well the five Ks are the most important thing in Sikhism, so by your logic he couldn't be considered a Sikh anymore, even though he is.
down wrote:
> Aye sure... :)
>
> Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following
> every single part of their religion.
Have you any idea how many sects, branches, and cults there are with the Christian brand? And how they differ from each other in minute ways? It's not been possible to use the term "Christian", meaning a unified faith, since...well, since about 50 years after the death of Christ; from the Arian heresy onwards in fact.
>
> I know a Sikh whose father had his hair cut off when he came into
> this country to avoid prejudice - he's still a Sikh however.
And without knowing too much about Sikhism, I'd say he could reconcile his faith with having had to do that (though I feel sorry for the poor sod). Has he done something that makes it impossible to be a sikh? Do the members of his clergy tell him that he is no longer a sikh?
> Aye sure... :)
>
> Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following
> every single part of their religion.
Have you any idea how many sects, branches, and cults there are with the Christian brand? And how they differ from each other in minute ways? It's not been possible to use the term "Christian", meaning a unified faith, since...well, since about 50 years after the death of Christ; from the Arian heresy onwards in fact.
>
> I know a Sikh whose father had his hair cut off when he came into
> this country to avoid prejudice - he's still a Sikh however.
And without knowing too much about Sikhism, I'd say he could reconcile his faith with having had to do that (though I feel sorry for the poor sod). Has he done something that makes it impossible to be a sikh? Do the members of his clergy tell him that he is no longer a sikh?
You can call yourself a Muslim Hinduist, doesn't mean it's legitimate and has any worth as a religion.
I said months ago when he started this crap that you cannot be a Christian Jew, and that's insulting to both faiths.
I said months ago when he started this crap that you cannot be a Christian Jew, and that's insulting to both faiths.
loki wrote:
>
> Sorry , but that's very blinkered. Why should everyone be orthadox?
> There have always been splinter sects of every faith with varying
> beliefs. Not every Christian has to be Catholic. Protestantism grew
> out a a sect considered heretical by the mainstream church. Not every
> Jew has to be Orthodox. Jesus himself was thought to be an Essene
> which was a splinter sect of Judaism which criticised the Jewsish
> orthadoxy.
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.
I think you're misunderstanding me to a degree; I'm not saying that not belonging to the "orthodoxy" means you are wrong. Quite the opposite; my belief is that faith is a personal thing and I abhor organised religion for trying to tell people what their faith HAS to be.
But what I am saying is that, if you're claiming membership of a particular faith, you at least have to acknowledge the rules of that faith. Hence my annoyance at Forests "I am both Jewish and Christian". Fine if he wants to call himself that, and accept it's a faith that is his own and not a reconcilation of two irreconcilable faiths.
>
> You can't say that someone isn't jewish just cos they don't agree
> with some rabbi you've found from one particualr sect of Judaism. You
> don't have the final say on who is allowed be a member of a faith!
You're absolutely right; I can't. However, the clergy of that particular faith can, which is why I'm so interested to see the views of the orthodox rabbi's on this. The two I've spoken to both agree that one cannot call oneself a Jew is one believes in Christ as the Messiah. If I speak to more who say otherwise, that changes things. But both the literature I've read and the theologists I've spoken to agree that one of Judaism's central tenets is accepting that the messiah has not yet been to earth.
In other words, if you're in a minority telling the majority of a faith taht YOU are right, you can expect to be told "No you're damned well not" and find yourself not considered a member of that faith any more. And that in itself isn't a bad thing (going back to what I say about faith being personal).
To reverse your point slightly, neither do you have the final say on whether Jewish Christianity is theologically possible based on a website with an unknown number of adherents. We neither of us do, but what I can do is state the centrally accepted tenets of both Christianity and Judaism to make clear why it is not possible in the eyes of the majority of both of those religions to belong to both simultaneously.
>
> Sorry , but that's very blinkered. Why should everyone be orthadox?
> There have always been splinter sects of every faith with varying
> beliefs. Not every Christian has to be Catholic. Protestantism grew
> out a a sect considered heretical by the mainstream church. Not every
> Jew has to be Orthodox. Jesus himself was thought to be an Essene
> which was a splinter sect of Judaism which criticised the Jewsish
> orthadoxy.
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.
I think you're misunderstanding me to a degree; I'm not saying that not belonging to the "orthodoxy" means you are wrong. Quite the opposite; my belief is that faith is a personal thing and I abhor organised religion for trying to tell people what their faith HAS to be.
But what I am saying is that, if you're claiming membership of a particular faith, you at least have to acknowledge the rules of that faith. Hence my annoyance at Forests "I am both Jewish and Christian". Fine if he wants to call himself that, and accept it's a faith that is his own and not a reconcilation of two irreconcilable faiths.
>
> You can't say that someone isn't jewish just cos they don't agree
> with some rabbi you've found from one particualr sect of Judaism. You
> don't have the final say on who is allowed be a member of a faith!
You're absolutely right; I can't. However, the clergy of that particular faith can, which is why I'm so interested to see the views of the orthodox rabbi's on this. The two I've spoken to both agree that one cannot call oneself a Jew is one believes in Christ as the Messiah. If I speak to more who say otherwise, that changes things. But both the literature I've read and the theologists I've spoken to agree that one of Judaism's central tenets is accepting that the messiah has not yet been to earth.
In other words, if you're in a minority telling the majority of a faith taht YOU are right, you can expect to be told "No you're damned well not" and find yourself not considered a member of that faith any more. And that in itself isn't a bad thing (going back to what I say about faith being personal).
To reverse your point slightly, neither do you have the final say on whether Jewish Christianity is theologically possible based on a website with an unknown number of adherents. We neither of us do, but what I can do is state the centrally accepted tenets of both Christianity and Judaism to make clear why it is not possible in the eyes of the majority of both of those religions to belong to both simultaneously.
Light wrote:
> http://www.jewsforjesus.org
>
> Hmm...an interesting site. I'd be interested to see how it's regarded
> by the Orthodox Jewish community.
>
> Oh good luck to 'em. But they're not members of the Jewish faith.
Sorry , but that's very blinkered. Why should everyone be orthadox? There have always been splinter sects of every faith with varying beliefs. Not every Christian has to be Catholic. Protestantism grew out a a sect considered heretical by the mainstream church. Not every Jew has to be Orthodox. Jesus himself was thought to be an Essene which was a splinter sect of Judaism which criticised the Jewsish orthadoxy.
You can't say that someone isn't jewish just cos they don't agree with some rabbi you've found from one particualr sect of Judaism. You don't have the final say on who is allowed be a member of a faith!
> http://www.jewsforjesus.org
>
> Hmm...an interesting site. I'd be interested to see how it's regarded
> by the Orthodox Jewish community.
>
> Oh good luck to 'em. But they're not members of the Jewish faith.
Sorry , but that's very blinkered. Why should everyone be orthadox? There have always been splinter sects of every faith with varying beliefs. Not every Christian has to be Catholic. Protestantism grew out a a sect considered heretical by the mainstream church. Not every Jew has to be Orthodox. Jesus himself was thought to be an Essene which was a splinter sect of Judaism which criticised the Jewsish orthadoxy.
You can't say that someone isn't jewish just cos they don't agree with some rabbi you've found from one particualr sect of Judaism. You don't have the final say on who is allowed be a member of a faith!
Page: