The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Aye sure... :)
Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following every single part of their religion.
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.
Anyway, some people call themselves Christians without following every single part of their religion.
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.
down wrote:
>
> But aren't they the normal Jews? The Jewish Jews?
A bit like the normal catholics; the catholic catholics. And if one doesn't believe in one of the central tenets of their faith, they are not catholic.
>
> The Jews that believe in Jesus probably believe every single thing
> normal Jews do, except that their messiah has come. The fact that
> they believe the messiah hasn't come isn't the defining factor for
> being a Jew - everything about Judaism is probably equally
> important.
Not the case; The messiah most assuredly is a defining factor in Judaism. There are major and minor tenets of faith. One can find common ground between faiths on the minor ones (there has been a certain degree of rapproachment between CofE and Catholicism on various minor issues), but to disagree with a major tenet means you are not part of that faith in the eyes of...well, that faiths particular clergy.
An example would be the Reformation; Martin Luther didn't disagree with much about the Catholic Church, only a few points. But they were so severe in terms of their differences that, although he was still a christian, he could no longer call himself catholic. Hence the birth of Protestantism.
Go back further, and one sees that the split between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches was similar.
Whilst there are different sects of Judaism, they all agree on the central tenets, one of which is that the Messiah has not yet been given human form. If the majority of Orthodox Jews were to accept that he had, then that would be a different matter. But they have not, and so the theological impossibility of being a Jewish Christian remains. It's like saying you're a Protestant Catholic (which is what the early CofE pretty much did); you don't reconcile the 2 faiths, you simply create a new one.
>
> Frankly, he can believe whatever he wants, and you can't really
> criticize that. I'm firmly against him preaching, and writing
> testimonials, but as he isn't doing that anymore, just outlining and
> defending his ideals, I don't have a problem with him.
I would agree; thus far I've been proved entirely wrong in my expectation that he's back to preach his self-indulgent "God thinks I'm better than you" nonsense. And if that's the case, I'd much prefer to debate him about religion in general rather than deliberately pulling apart the inconsistencies in his beliefs. Believe it or not, I tend to prefer the former.
>
> But aren't they the normal Jews? The Jewish Jews?
A bit like the normal catholics; the catholic catholics. And if one doesn't believe in one of the central tenets of their faith, they are not catholic.
>
> The Jews that believe in Jesus probably believe every single thing
> normal Jews do, except that their messiah has come. The fact that
> they believe the messiah hasn't come isn't the defining factor for
> being a Jew - everything about Judaism is probably equally
> important.
Not the case; The messiah most assuredly is a defining factor in Judaism. There are major and minor tenets of faith. One can find common ground between faiths on the minor ones (there has been a certain degree of rapproachment between CofE and Catholicism on various minor issues), but to disagree with a major tenet means you are not part of that faith in the eyes of...well, that faiths particular clergy.
An example would be the Reformation; Martin Luther didn't disagree with much about the Catholic Church, only a few points. But they were so severe in terms of their differences that, although he was still a christian, he could no longer call himself catholic. Hence the birth of Protestantism.
Go back further, and one sees that the split between Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches was similar.
Whilst there are different sects of Judaism, they all agree on the central tenets, one of which is that the Messiah has not yet been given human form. If the majority of Orthodox Jews were to accept that he had, then that would be a different matter. But they have not, and so the theological impossibility of being a Jewish Christian remains. It's like saying you're a Protestant Catholic (which is what the early CofE pretty much did); you don't reconcile the 2 faiths, you simply create a new one.
>
> Frankly, he can believe whatever he wants, and you can't really
> criticize that. I'm firmly against him preaching, and writing
> testimonials, but as he isn't doing that anymore, just outlining and
> defending his ideals, I don't have a problem with him.
I would agree; thus far I've been proved entirely wrong in my expectation that he's back to preach his self-indulgent "God thinks I'm better than you" nonsense. And if that's the case, I'd much prefer to debate him about religion in general rather than deliberately pulling apart the inconsistencies in his beliefs. Believe it or not, I tend to prefer the former.
Ant wrote:
> In today's totally mucked up World, death and murder isn't uncommon,
> unfortunately.
I haven't really been reading this thread but my eye just caught that part - how can you say todays world is "totally mucked up"? It is a far better cry from a world 100, 500 or 1000 years ago. Murder and death are far less commonplace now here at least than before, but because of media and up to date news etc. you can find out about anything in the globe. No, it's unfair to say todays world is "mucked up". It isn't perfect but it could be a damn sight worse.
> In today's totally mucked up World, death and murder isn't uncommon,
> unfortunately.
I haven't really been reading this thread but my eye just caught that part - how can you say todays world is "totally mucked up"? It is a far better cry from a world 100, 500 or 1000 years ago. Murder and death are far less commonplace now here at least than before, but because of media and up to date news etc. you can find out about anything in the globe. No, it's unfair to say todays world is "mucked up". It isn't perfect but it could be a damn sight worse.
Light wrote:
> It's not theologically possible; Jews believe that the messiah has
> not yet taken human form. Christians believe that he has in the form
> of Christ.
But aren't they the normal Jews? The Jewish Jews?
The Jews that believe in Jesus probably believe every single thing normal Jews do, except that their messiah has come. The fact that they believe the messiah hasn't come isn't the defining factor for being a Jew - everything about Judaism is probably equally important.
Frankly, he can believe whatever he wants, and you can't really criticize that. I'm firmly against him preaching, and writing testimonials, but as he isn't doing that anymore, just outlining and defending his ideals, I don't have a problem with him.
> It's not theologically possible; Jews believe that the messiah has
> not yet taken human form. Christians believe that he has in the form
> of Christ.
But aren't they the normal Jews? The Jewish Jews?
The Jews that believe in Jesus probably believe every single thing normal Jews do, except that their messiah has come. The fact that they believe the messiah hasn't come isn't the defining factor for being a Jew - everything about Judaism is probably equally important.
Frankly, he can believe whatever he wants, and you can't really criticize that. I'm firmly against him preaching, and writing testimonials, but as he isn't doing that anymore, just outlining and defending his ideals, I don't have a problem with him.
gerrid wrote:
> Well surely that just means they only take stock from the gospels,
> rather than from the various other books that don't directly involve
> Jesus.
And the 7 gospels that aren't included? What about them?
Not to mention the fact that not one of the 4 Gospels actually in the Bible was written contemporaneously with Jesus' life. They're all full to the brim of miraculous incidents borrowed from older religions. The other books, particularly the Letters, make no such supernatural claims.
> Well surely that just means they only take stock from the gospels,
> rather than from the various other books that don't directly involve
> Jesus.
And the 7 gospels that aren't included? What about them?
Not to mention the fact that not one of the 4 Gospels actually in the Bible was written contemporaneously with Jesus' life. They're all full to the brim of miraculous incidents borrowed from older religions. The other books, particularly the Letters, make no such supernatural claims.
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is asking/pointing out exactly, from both sides of the argument, but I may as well throw my two cents in.
I don't know what I would have done if I had been in the police's situation. But if I seriously, legitimately thought that this guy had a bomb and was planning to detonate it inside a busy underground train, and I decided that it were better for one 'guilty' man to be killed than many innocent, and if I pulled the trigger...then I would hope that God would understand.
Personally, I don't think I'd have the guts to do it. But if I did it, because I thought it was right, then God knows that. He knows if our intentions are right or wrong.
In today's totally mucked up World, death and murder isn't uncommon, unfortunately. Of course this doesn't make it any worse, but the invention of more powerful and deadly weapons such as guns and bombs, for example, have only made murder more...inevitable, for the want of a better word. I'm sure God is hugely saddened by the fact that we have created and regularly use these weapons, but it happens. I guess what I'm trying to say, albeit rather long-windedly, is that my God, the one I believe in, would take into account what was going through that policemen's head when he shot that man.
I know what the Bible says, in parts anyway, and yes it does undoubtedly proclaim that "thou shalt not kill." And no, we shouldn't. But I'm not sure myself that the Bible should be taken exactly word for word, after all, it passed through so many different authors and different generations that there are bound to be contradictions and the like. It IS God's word, and yes, we should avoid killing as much as humanly possible...but I'm sure even God has the occasional exception. It's just my opinion, I'm not particularly basing it on any fact, but that's what I believe. Whether this matter is an exception, I'm unsure...but I think it all depends on what was going through the police's minds, at that time.
I don't know what I would have done if I had been in the police's situation. But if I seriously, legitimately thought that this guy had a bomb and was planning to detonate it inside a busy underground train, and I decided that it were better for one 'guilty' man to be killed than many innocent, and if I pulled the trigger...then I would hope that God would understand.
Personally, I don't think I'd have the guts to do it. But if I did it, because I thought it was right, then God knows that. He knows if our intentions are right or wrong.
In today's totally mucked up World, death and murder isn't uncommon, unfortunately. Of course this doesn't make it any worse, but the invention of more powerful and deadly weapons such as guns and bombs, for example, have only made murder more...inevitable, for the want of a better word. I'm sure God is hugely saddened by the fact that we have created and regularly use these weapons, but it happens. I guess what I'm trying to say, albeit rather long-windedly, is that my God, the one I believe in, would take into account what was going through that policemen's head when he shot that man.
I know what the Bible says, in parts anyway, and yes it does undoubtedly proclaim that "thou shalt not kill." And no, we shouldn't. But I'm not sure myself that the Bible should be taken exactly word for word, after all, it passed through so many different authors and different generations that there are bound to be contradictions and the like. It IS God's word, and yes, we should avoid killing as much as humanly possible...but I'm sure even God has the occasional exception. It's just my opinion, I'm not particularly basing it on any fact, but that's what I believe. Whether this matter is an exception, I'm unsure...but I think it all depends on what was going through the police's minds, at that time.
Light wrote:
> Where does one get these teachings if not from the Bible, a document
> which is the result of Christian distortion and embellishment?
Well surely that just means they only take stock from the gospels, rather than from the various other books that don't directly involve Jesus.
> Where does one get these teachings if not from the Bible, a document
> which is the result of Christian distortion and embellishment?
Well surely that just means they only take stock from the gospels, rather than from the various other books that don't directly involve Jesus.
loki wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
>
> http://www.jewsforjesus.org
Hmm...an interesting site. I'd be interested to see how it's regarded by the Orthodox Jewish community.
>
>
> The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was
> a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if
> you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain
> traditions distortions and embellishments)
Where does one get these teachings if not from the Bible, a document which is the result of Christian distortion and embellishment? How can anyone therefore claim to follow the "original" teachings?
> then you don't necessarily
> have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit
> firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards
> that is incompatible.
I wouldn't agree; the Jewish tradition is that the messiah hasn't arrived yet. To accept Jesus as the Messiah is to say that he has. Hence the whole notion of being a christian is entirely incompatible with the notion of being a jew. Yeah, Jesus' followers were Jewish. But when they accepted he was the messiah, they diverged from Judaism and were no longer of the Jewish faith.
>
> Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the
> messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of
> religious interpretation.
Thats the point though; individual expression. Forest's expression is anything but.
> Not all Christians will follow the Pope's
> view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different
> beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any
> viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck
> to 'em, I say.
Oh good luck to 'em. But they're not members of the Jewish faith. Semetic people, yes. Jews; no (assuming that you're defining Jewish people as necessarily being part of the Jewish faith).
>
> I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the
> arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the
> possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish
> followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as
> stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling oneself such, no. But when one attempts to reconcile one diametrically opposed faith with another, one doesn't do much more than create a brand new faith. And, as Forests faith is just that, I get immensely vexed by his dismissal of any "new" faiths (and just about any faith except his own).
> Light wrote:
>
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
>
> http://www.jewsforjesus.org
Hmm...an interesting site. I'd be interested to see how it's regarded by the Orthodox Jewish community.
>
>
> The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was
> a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if
> you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain
> traditions distortions and embellishments)
Where does one get these teachings if not from the Bible, a document which is the result of Christian distortion and embellishment? How can anyone therefore claim to follow the "original" teachings?
> then you don't necessarily
> have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit
> firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards
> that is incompatible.
I wouldn't agree; the Jewish tradition is that the messiah hasn't arrived yet. To accept Jesus as the Messiah is to say that he has. Hence the whole notion of being a christian is entirely incompatible with the notion of being a jew. Yeah, Jesus' followers were Jewish. But when they accepted he was the messiah, they diverged from Judaism and were no longer of the Jewish faith.
>
> Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the
> messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of
> religious interpretation.
Thats the point though; individual expression. Forest's expression is anything but.
> Not all Christians will follow the Pope's
> view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different
> beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any
> viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck
> to 'em, I say.
Oh good luck to 'em. But they're not members of the Jewish faith. Semetic people, yes. Jews; no (assuming that you're defining Jewish people as necessarily being part of the Jewish faith).
>
> I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the
> arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the
> possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish
> followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as
> stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling oneself such, no. But when one attempts to reconcile one diametrically opposed faith with another, one doesn't do much more than create a brand new faith. And, as Forests faith is just that, I get immensely vexed by his dismissal of any "new" faiths (and just about any faith except his own).
Light wrote:
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org
The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain traditions distortions and embellishments) then you don't necessarily have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards that is incompatible.
Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of religious interpretation. Not all Christians will follow the Pope's view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck to 'em, I say.
I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
> Jews for Jesus? That's a new one on me. Got a link to a website or
> owt?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org
The point is, that Jesus's followers initially were Jews. And it was a group of Jews that initially pronounced Jesus as the messiah. So if you just follow Jesus's teachings (and not the later Christain traditions distortions and embellishments) then you don't necessarily have to be a Christian. His alleged teachings can be seen to sit firmly within the Jewish tradition. It's much that came afterwards that is incompatible.
Just becuase a rabbi or an official body states their belief that the messiah has not arrived yet, it doesn't preclude individual freedom of religious interpretation. Not all Christians will follow the Pope's view of abortion for example. Every religion has sects with different beliefs - there is no one orthadoxy as there can be no proof of any viewpoint. So some Jews may believe Jesus was the messiah. Good luck to 'em, I say.
I don't agree with any of it - and i'm not saying that all the arguments stand up - but I would concede that there is the possibility of a genuine theological debate here. To be a Jewish followers of Jesus may be unorthadox but it's not necessarily as stupid an idea as it may initially sound to some.
Forest Fan wrote:
> I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I
> think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but
> the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
The principle of killing them, full stop? No interest in due process then?
> Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when
> dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when
> defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence)
> it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held
> likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just
> heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of
> it.
Where does the Bible talk about this? In the Old Testament? Or the New? Doesn't it therefore go against what is said in the catechism? The main references I've heard about justifiable killing come from Aquinas, so I'm intrigued to know where your views come from.
On a side note, I find myself impressed that you're taking the time to think things through here.
> I'm not debating the death of an innocent man, because like I said I
> think the police were in the wrong from what I've been hearing, but
> the principle of killing terrorists seems correct to me.
The principle of killing them, full stop? No interest in due process then?
> Murder is wrong, but you have to consider this with discretion when
> dealing with murder of non-innocents. The Bible talks about how when
> defending your house, if a burgular dies (i.e. through self defence)
> it will not be considered a sin. Killing a terrorist is held
> likewise. And you're probably right about not quoting Aquinas, I just
> heard that phrase in RE the other week and quite liked the sound of
> it.
Where does the Bible talk about this? In the Old Testament? Or the New? Doesn't it therefore go against what is said in the catechism? The main references I've heard about justifiable killing come from Aquinas, so I'm intrigued to know where your views come from.
On a side note, I find myself impressed that you're taking the time to think things through here.
Page: