The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I heard two people talking about this the other night, and was wondering what you guys thought. Is being gay in your DNA, or is it 'acquired' through your life?
So yeh, enlighten me...
So yeh, enlighten me...
Page:
Archangel wrote:
> Jewishness:
>
> Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and
> circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the
> letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Yes, and I'm sure the good people of Israel would grant citizenship on that basis alone...
> Jewishness:
>
> Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and
> circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the
> letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Yes, and I'm sure the good people of Israel would grant citizenship on that basis alone...
Jewishness:
Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
>
> With time and this post on my side, this should get answered...
Well,lets just see shall we...
>
>
>
Here's the 1st
> questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
>
> No-one, no-one, absolutely no-one can follow the Old Covenant. They
> could do so perfectly in the time of Moses.
~sigh~ 1 question in, 1 evasive and pathetic response. I asked if they should follow it as best they can , and you respond "they can't follow it perfectly". You sad, evasive little dogboning coward.
Then I asked you to tell me what is needed to be jewish. And you didn't even bother answering that, you pigfelching smear of menstrual matter.
So, to repeat;
Question 1
Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
If you don't, what do you think a Jew needs to do in order to be Jewish.
>
> My claim to being Jewish is in people group, just as I am White in
> colour - I am Hebrew in background. I do not follow the Orthadox view
> of Judaism, BUT I am Jewish in background. A fact which is
> undeniable.
I didn't actually ask you about that here; interesting to note how defensive you're getting about your fake Jewishness. However, I'm glad you've finally found the courage to admit that your view of judaism isn't orthodox (ie. no Jew in the world will agree with your view). Is that, perchance, in readiness for when the Rabbi I've contacted gets in touch to tell me that you're talking theological nonsense?
Anyway, I'll deal with your 'jewishness' later on...
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
>
> Wasn't.
Heh. You can't even agree with me without sounding like a spoilt brat, can you?
>
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your
> family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
>
> Interesting. Both parents are Christians, as are brothers. My close
> family of 5 are all Christians. None of my cousins are Christians -
> one is in fact training to be a rabbi in Israel. I find this
> interesting as we enter the last days, as he could be one of the
> 144,000 in Israel... Anyway of the grandparents, two are dead, from
> different halves of the family and both were Christians - the
> remaining ones are non-Christians. All my Aunt's relatives live in
> America and all are Christians.
Lovely. Thank you.
question 2
Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call you Jewish?
>
>
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t
> have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
>
> We want to please God - we want to worship God, pay Him back a little
> of what we He has done for us. No - there is nothing we ourselves can
> do to get ourselves into Heaven but accept Jesus.
You'll make a good politician one day...
Sorry to keep pushing you, but you're saying we don't have to follow commandments, then you say we HAVE to accept Jesus. So...
question 3
Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a commandment?
>
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you
> think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
>
>
> Repost: Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> thinking.
Oh dear...and I asked you WHY you think anyone else would be thinking I meant that. So what you've done here, you cowardly rectal wart, is avoided answering the question. So I'll ask it again and hope you discover the courage to give me an actual answer;
question 4
why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
NOTE: I am NOT asking you "Why did you think you had to post 'dripping in blood'" I am asking you "why do you think ANYONE would assume that I meant dripping in blood. 'K? K.
>
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew
> can
> eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
>
> Yes.
Sweet. A direct answer. I shall enjoy reading the good Rabbi's response to this one...
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6
> why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
>
> Blood = blood. Blood by products = blood by products. Blood is not
> acceptable, blood by products is acceptable.
Mwah ha ha hahaaaaa!
Tell me;
question 5
Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood by products'?
question 6
Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
question 7
Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to actually ARE?
>
>
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW
> did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> The world became corrupted when we sinned, ergo we brought down God's
> creation.
Oh dear oh dear....you've done better than previously in that you have answered 2 questions. However, you're still being a cowardly hunk of old tramps vomit by-product in this one. I am asking you, directly, HOW did the animals inherit our sinful nature. Do you actually understand the question? I'm not asking "How did the world get corrupt". You have, again, avoided the question so I will ask again;
question 8
HOW
did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you?
> question
> 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t
> want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
>
> No = straight forward and clear.
Except it isn't. You see dear boy, in a debate, if someone asks you to clarify what you mean, you have to clarify it. So I will ask you again, you lying, yellow, obnoxious piece of poo in the G&T of life...
question 8
Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone,
> and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
>
> That's between me and God. He's told me many things in the past. Told
> me who to pray for, who to witness to, He even gave me a vision of
> thread I started, the 'Being a Christian' one.
So he HAS spoken directly to you eh? Lovely, thank you; the reason I wanted to know this is I wanted to know whether or not I was dealing with a zealot. Now I know I am.
>
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply
> providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with
> me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
>
> Trying to undermine the only logical explanation for the origin of
> the universe. By the way, after studying the impossibilities with
> evolution some more, I would be interested to have some questioned
> answered by Evolutionists...
Post those questions then. I'll be happy to answer them.
Now, what we have here is exactly what I've accused you of; your arguments have been discredited, yet you ignore that and persist with them. You say it's the only logical explaination, which exposes your blinkered ignorance; the mere fact that other theories exist prove that it is not the ONLY explanation. You say "trying to undermine". Yet any good theory should be tested. That indicates you are scared of having your theory tested. Either that, or you think no-one should ever argue against the bible. So...
question 9
Do you believe that no biblical based theory should ever be questioned?
>
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
>
> Some = [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=some[/URL]
Mwah ha ha hah aaaaaa! Oh, I do so laugh when you use sarcasm. It's like watching a dog trying to use a photocopier.
>
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from
> claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some.
> Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
Heheheh. I like how you ignore entirely my question about the 2nd Law only applying in a closed system, yet you seem to think you can still quote that argument of yours.
Anyway, leaving that aside for a second; what you have said there is in no way an answer to the question. Its a rather sad attempt to mindlessly restate you blind belief in a discredited argument, you evasive dregs of an old mans denture draining board. I will ask again;
question 10
Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one
> who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
>
> No.
Heheheheheheheh. Yet in the previous post to this, you said that YOU said "that doesn't count as evidence". Previously, you said others had said it. So...
question 11
Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first one thing, then the opposite?
question 12
Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as evidence"?
>
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a
> simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
>
> Not really, just sharing my view, just as relevant as you saying and
> I quote 'like a gutless little coward'. Maybe something for you to
> think about there, eh?
Nah, not hugely. But I appreciate your attempt to get me to leave you alone. However, you're not just 'sharing your view'. You're saying "this is the truth and you're wrong about evolution, and here is an argument why I'm right". In return, I'm saying "That argument is invalid, and here is why. Would you like to respond". And then you're saying "shan't. Waaah!!!".
I have thought about calling you a gutless little coward, and I'm of the opinion that, as a statement of fact, it is 100% correct.
>
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then
> why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
>
> I won't give up. Evolution has actually been disproved. Still, Thomas
> Edison and Isaac Newton were both Creationists, yet you would rather
> believe the 'theory', yes 'theory' that Charles Darwin made up
> . No, I'm not twisiting the truth or trying to sound arrogant. He
> didn't have proof, he simply observed an ape and human and said they
> looked and acted similarly, when they of course don't. The percentage
> of difference between a human and ape is staggering in size.
Umm, he actually based his theory on observations on the finches in the Galapagos islands. So you're staggeringly wrong there. Your attempt to simplify Darwins theory (you say that like it's a revelation; all good science is theory, nothing more) is touching, but laughable. Isaac Newton lived before Darwin was born. As an argument, that's rather like me saying that Christianity is bunkum because Ramses II didn't believe in it.
All of which is diverting, however it doesn't address the central question. As you have now said you're willing to answer, I will now restate;
Question 13
The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved
> to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or
> offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
>
> It is right to fear God, but in the right sense. It is not right to
> be afraid of God though. Here's an example:
>
> You might fear passing the policeman, not that you are afraid of what
> he will do to you, but you fear the power he has to throw you in
> prison, because he has power. In the same way you might fear a
> airoplane, not that you are afraid of the airoplane itself - but that
> you are entrusting your life in that aircraft and in the hands of the
> pilot. God is like this, there is even a parable above the talents,
> showing why we shouldn't fear God, posted below.
Yet a policeman will not throw you in prison for not fearing him. God will according to you. An airoplane will not crash if I stop believing it can fly. So your rebuttal is, I'm afraid, inadequate. I still find your mindset to be that of a battered wife. But thank you for at least attempting to answer.
>
> Parable of the Talents
More spam eh?
>
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If
> you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
>
> The percentage of homosexual animals is almost unheard of. Homosexual
> animals remains extremely rare, compared to in the human race.
>
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> If you can proove to me that the amount of homosexual animals is
> above 12% then I will believe that the percentage is higher than in
> humans.
Heh. Well, alas for you I've asked you the question first. Several times. Y'see, under the rules of a debate, a person asserting a fact has to prove it. You're asserting that rates of homosexuality are lower in the animal kingdom. So you have to prove it. I'm not asserting anything; I'm just asking you.
I'll take each of these at once, as the cowardice you display is evident in each one, you scat munching excuse of a coward;
question 14
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM?
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may
> have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
>
> It was written as a story book, not a great novel, ergo it's target
> audience was probably children.
So in other words....
question 15
Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
>
>
> He loves everyone, but we have to take iniative and accept
> Jesus. He took the iniative to die for us, all we have to do
> is accept Him.
question 16
Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted Christ by the time we die?
>
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and
> you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about
> you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> Edgy said, please note this is not a direct quote, but Edgy did say
> something like this;
>
> "I would still not be suprised if Archangel really was Forest
> Fan."
Yes, maybe he did. But I didn't. I asked a direct question which you're still avoiding, you decayed and smelly bum-bean. So I'll ask again;
Question 17
I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about you. Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show
> numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
>
> Sure, knock yourself out.
Mm, my bad, I should have clarified what I meant. So...
Question 18
If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to
> your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you
> a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
>
> Ah... but those who follow God, would not follow the Old Covenant,
> because His Son gave us the New Covenant in His Father's Name.
Well, that's very clever. Evasive and cowardly, but a clever piece of evasive cowardice from an unusually stupid piece of gorilla smeg.
Now then; 3.5 thousand years ago, the new covenant was not in place. The Jews of today follow the old covenant AS BEST THEY CAN, as did the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago. So...
Question 19
Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN would not consider you a jew?
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better,
> please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
>
> Chosen to be the apple in God's eye, chosen to be the country where
> Messiah was born and to return, possibly chosen to be the ones to
> spend the 1000 years with Christ in Israel.
Question 20
Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days.
> question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage?
> Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
>
> Exactly that. There are some more Godly Gentiles than Jews and vice
> versa. I would never dispute that fact.
Tops. Thank you. I've asked a slightly modified version of the question above relating directly to you, rather than in these general terms.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
Heh. Nah dear boy, you're not; it's not possible to be a Jew AND a Christian. And the disciples stopped being Jews when they became Christians. Sorry.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when
> they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they?
>
> Not in the slightest.
>
> They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel.
>
> They considered themselves to be.
To be what? You seem to be saying that they were still Jewish, then you admit they were christians. So
Question 21
Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
>
> I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah.
>
> Semitic merely refers to coming from Abraham. Jews and Arabs come
> from Abraham - we are both Semites. Jews come through the line of
> Isaac and then Jacob and Arabs through Ishmael.
> As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
And you haven't actually addressed this last part of the post. Please do so.
That wasn't bad actually; you answered a quarter of the questions and avoided the rest like a snivelling coward. Which is better than I expected. I look forward to seeing you try to avoid these subsequent questions.
> Light wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
>
> With time and this post on my side, this should get answered...
Well,lets just see shall we...
>
>
>
Here's the 1st
> questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
>
> No-one, no-one, absolutely no-one can follow the Old Covenant. They
> could do so perfectly in the time of Moses.
~sigh~ 1 question in, 1 evasive and pathetic response. I asked if they should follow it as best they can , and you respond "they can't follow it perfectly". You sad, evasive little dogboning coward.
Then I asked you to tell me what is needed to be jewish. And you didn't even bother answering that, you pigfelching smear of menstrual matter.
So, to repeat;
Question 1
Do you agree that to be described as Jewish one must follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN (not perfectly, as that is impossible, but AS BEST THEY CAN under todays circumstances)?
If you don't, what do you think a Jew needs to do in order to be Jewish.
>
> My claim to being Jewish is in people group, just as I am White in
> colour - I am Hebrew in background. I do not follow the Orthadox view
> of Judaism, BUT I am Jewish in background. A fact which is
> undeniable.
I didn't actually ask you about that here; interesting to note how defensive you're getting about your fake Jewishness. However, I'm glad you've finally found the courage to admit that your view of judaism isn't orthodox (ie. no Jew in the world will agree with your view). Is that, perchance, in readiness for when the Rabbi I've contacted gets in touch to tell me that you're talking theological nonsense?
Anyway, I'll deal with your 'jewishness' later on...
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
>
> Wasn't.
Heh. You can't even agree with me without sounding like a spoilt brat, can you?
>
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your
> family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
>
> Interesting. Both parents are Christians, as are brothers. My close
> family of 5 are all Christians. None of my cousins are Christians -
> one is in fact training to be a rabbi in Israel. I find this
> interesting as we enter the last days, as he could be one of the
> 144,000 in Israel... Anyway of the grandparents, two are dead, from
> different halves of the family and both were Christians - the
> remaining ones are non-Christians. All my Aunt's relatives live in
> America and all are Christians.
Lovely. Thank you.
question 2
Do your cousins agree with your views on judaism, and do they call you Jewish?
>
>
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t
> have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
>
> We want to please God - we want to worship God, pay Him back a little
> of what we He has done for us. No - there is nothing we ourselves can
> do to get ourselves into Heaven but accept Jesus.
You'll make a good politician one day...
Sorry to keep pushing you, but you're saying we don't have to follow commandments, then you say we HAVE to accept Jesus. So...
question 3
Wouldn't you agree that accepting Jesus, if we HAVE to do this, is a commandment?
>
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you
> think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
>
>
> Repost: Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> thinking.
Oh dear...and I asked you WHY you think anyone else would be thinking I meant that. So what you've done here, you cowardly rectal wart, is avoided answering the question. So I'll ask it again and hope you discover the courage to give me an actual answer;
question 4
why do you think any other person would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very little blood in it?
NOTE: I am NOT asking you "Why did you think you had to post 'dripping in blood'" I am asking you "why do you think ANYONE would assume that I meant dripping in blood. 'K? K.
>
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew
> can
> eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
>
> Yes.
Sweet. A direct answer. I shall enjoy reading the good Rabbi's response to this one...
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6
> why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
>
> Blood = blood. Blood by products = blood by products. Blood is not
> acceptable, blood by products is acceptable.
Mwah ha ha hahaaaaa!
Tell me;
question 5
Where in the Bible does it differentiate between 'Blood' and 'Blood by products'?
question 6
Where does it say that blood by product is acceptable?
question 7
Could you tell me what these by products you keep referring to actually ARE?
>
>
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW
> did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> The world became corrupted when we sinned, ergo we brought down God's
> creation.
Oh dear oh dear....you've done better than previously in that you have answered 2 questions. However, you're still being a cowardly hunk of old tramps vomit by-product in this one. I am asking you, directly, HOW did the animals inherit our sinful nature. Do you actually understand the question? I'm not asking "How did the world get corrupt". You have, again, avoided the question so I will ask again;
question 8
HOW
did animals inherit our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you?
> question
> 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t
> want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
>
> No = straight forward and clear.
Except it isn't. You see dear boy, in a debate, if someone asks you to clarify what you mean, you have to clarify it. So I will ask you again, you lying, yellow, obnoxious piece of poo in the G&T of life...
question 8
Do you mean “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”?
Or do you mean “No, human nature is not natural?
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone,
> and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
>
> That's between me and God. He's told me many things in the past. Told
> me who to pray for, who to witness to, He even gave me a vision of
> thread I started, the 'Being a Christian' one.
So he HAS spoken directly to you eh? Lovely, thank you; the reason I wanted to know this is I wanted to know whether or not I was dealing with a zealot. Now I know I am.
>
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply
> providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with
> me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
>
> Trying to undermine the only logical explanation for the origin of
> the universe. By the way, after studying the impossibilities with
> evolution some more, I would be interested to have some questioned
> answered by Evolutionists...
Post those questions then. I'll be happy to answer them.
Now, what we have here is exactly what I've accused you of; your arguments have been discredited, yet you ignore that and persist with them. You say it's the only logical explaination, which exposes your blinkered ignorance; the mere fact that other theories exist prove that it is not the ONLY explanation. You say "trying to undermine". Yet any good theory should be tested. That indicates you are scared of having your theory tested. Either that, or you think no-one should ever argue against the bible. So...
question 9
Do you believe that no biblical based theory should ever be questioned?
>
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
>
> Some = [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=some[/URL]
Mwah ha ha hah aaaaaa! Oh, I do so laugh when you use sarcasm. It's like watching a dog trying to use a photocopier.
>
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from
> claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some.
> Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
Heheheh. I like how you ignore entirely my question about the 2nd Law only applying in a closed system, yet you seem to think you can still quote that argument of yours.
Anyway, leaving that aside for a second; what you have said there is in no way an answer to the question. Its a rather sad attempt to mindlessly restate you blind belief in a discredited argument, you evasive dregs of an old mans denture draining board. I will ask again;
question 10
Why did you find the arguments that rebutted your assertion that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inadequate?
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one
> who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
>
> No.
Heheheheheheheh. Yet in the previous post to this, you said that YOU said "that doesn't count as evidence". Previously, you said others had said it. So...
question 11
Would you like me to repost the posts you made where you said first one thing, then the opposite?
question 12
Can you tell me who DID say "that doesn't count as evidence"?
>
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a
> simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
>
> Not really, just sharing my view, just as relevant as you saying and
> I quote 'like a gutless little coward'. Maybe something for you to
> think about there, eh?
Nah, not hugely. But I appreciate your attempt to get me to leave you alone. However, you're not just 'sharing your view'. You're saying "this is the truth and you're wrong about evolution, and here is an argument why I'm right". In return, I'm saying "That argument is invalid, and here is why. Would you like to respond". And then you're saying "shan't. Waaah!!!".
I have thought about calling you a gutless little coward, and I'm of the opinion that, as a statement of fact, it is 100% correct.
>
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then
> why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
>
> I won't give up. Evolution has actually been disproved. Still, Thomas
> Edison and Isaac Newton were both Creationists, yet you would rather
> believe the 'theory', yes 'theory' that Charles Darwin made up
> . No, I'm not twisiting the truth or trying to sound arrogant. He
> didn't have proof, he simply observed an ape and human and said they
> looked and acted similarly, when they of course don't. The percentage
> of difference between a human and ape is staggering in size.
Umm, he actually based his theory on observations on the finches in the Galapagos islands. So you're staggeringly wrong there. Your attempt to simplify Darwins theory (you say that like it's a revelation; all good science is theory, nothing more) is touching, but laughable. Isaac Newton lived before Darwin was born. As an argument, that's rather like me saying that Christianity is bunkum because Ramses II didn't believe in it.
All of which is diverting, however it doesn't address the central question. As you have now said you're willing to answer, I will now restate;
Question 13
The 2nd law says entropy prevails ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. The universe is not a closed system. Ergo, the 2nd law does not apply.
Do you agree? If not, why not?
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved
> to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or
> offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
>
> It is right to fear God, but in the right sense. It is not right to
> be afraid of God though. Here's an example:
>
> You might fear passing the policeman, not that you are afraid of what
> he will do to you, but you fear the power he has to throw you in
> prison, because he has power. In the same way you might fear a
> airoplane, not that you are afraid of the airoplane itself - but that
> you are entrusting your life in that aircraft and in the hands of the
> pilot. God is like this, there is even a parable above the talents,
> showing why we shouldn't fear God, posted below.
Yet a policeman will not throw you in prison for not fearing him. God will according to you. An airoplane will not crash if I stop believing it can fly. So your rebuttal is, I'm afraid, inadequate. I still find your mindset to be that of a battered wife. But thank you for at least attempting to answer.
>
> Parable of the Talents
More spam eh?
>
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If
> you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
>
> The percentage of homosexual animals is almost unheard of. Homosexual
> animals remains extremely rare, compared to in the human race.
>
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> If you can proove to me that the amount of homosexual animals is
> above 12% then I will believe that the percentage is higher than in
> humans.
Heh. Well, alas for you I've asked you the question first. Several times. Y'see, under the rules of a debate, a person asserting a fact has to prove it. You're asserting that rates of homosexuality are lower in the animal kingdom. So you have to prove it. I'm not asserting anything; I'm just asking you.
I'll take each of these at once, as the cowardice you display is evident in each one, you scat munching excuse of a coward;
question 14
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES FOR RATES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM?
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may
> have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
>
> It was written as a story book, not a great novel, ergo it's target
> audience was probably children.
So in other words....
question 15
Am I right in saying that the only evidence you have for saying it was a childrens book is your own opinion, and nothing else?
>
>
> He loves everyone, but we have to take iniative and accept
> Jesus. He took the iniative to die for us, all we have to do
> is accept Him.
question 16
Are you saying that He loves us even if we don't accept Christ, but He'll send us to hell even though he loves us if we haven't accepted Christ by the time we die?
>
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and
> you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about
> you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> Edgy said, please note this is not a direct quote, but Edgy did say
> something like this;
>
> "I would still not be suprised if Archangel really was Forest
> Fan."
Yes, maybe he did. But I didn't. I asked a direct question which you're still avoiding, you decayed and smelly bum-bean. So I'll ask again;
Question 17
I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about you. Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show
> numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
>
> Sure, knock yourself out.
Mm, my bad, I should have clarified what I meant. So...
Question 18
If I repost them, will you even acknowledge them?
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to
> your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you
> a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
>
> Ah... but those who follow God, would not follow the Old Covenant,
> because His Son gave us the New Covenant in His Father's Name.
Well, that's very clever. Evasive and cowardly, but a clever piece of evasive cowardice from an unusually stupid piece of gorilla smeg.
Now then; 3.5 thousand years ago, the new covenant was not in place. The Jews of today follow the old covenant AS BEST THEY CAN, as did the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago. So...
Question 19
Do you accept that Jews who follow the Old Covenant AS BEST THEY CAN would not consider you a jew?
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better,
> please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
>
> Chosen to be the apple in God's eye, chosen to be the country where
> Messiah was born and to return, possibly chosen to be the ones to
> spend the 1000 years with Christ in Israel.
Question 20
Do you believe that you're better than Christians who are not of a Semitic background, or who have Jewish ancestors?
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days.
> question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage?
> Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
>
> Exactly that. There are some more Godly Gentiles than Jews and vice
> versa. I would never dispute that fact.
Tops. Thank you. I've asked a slightly modified version of the question above relating directly to you, rather than in these general terms.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
Heh. Nah dear boy, you're not; it's not possible to be a Jew AND a Christian. And the disciples stopped being Jews when they became Christians. Sorry.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when
> they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they?
>
> Not in the slightest.
>
> They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel.
>
> They considered themselves to be.
To be what? You seem to be saying that they were still Jewish, then you admit they were christians. So
Question 21
Were the disciples Jews or Christians at the time of their deaths?
>
> I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah.
>
> Semitic merely refers to coming from Abraham. Jews and Arabs come
> from Abraham - we are both Semites. Jews come through the line of
> Isaac and then Jacob and Arabs through Ishmael.
> As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
And you haven't actually addressed this last part of the post. Please do so.
That wasn't bad actually; you answered a quarter of the questions and avoided the rest like a snivelling coward. Which is better than I expected. I look forward to seeing you try to avoid these subsequent questions.
Answered then Light.
Light wrote:
> Light wrote:
>
>
> For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
With time and this post on my side, this should get answered...
>
>
> 1. Don’t you agree that in order to describe oneself as being
> Jewish,
> one must follow the old covenant? If not, what do you think is
> needed
> to be Jewish?
>
> No - because it is fundamentally impossible to follow the Old
> Covenant - due to the destruction of the Temple. If you believe that
> to be Jewish you must completely follow the Old Covenant - then
> there
> Ø would not not be a single Jew in this world.
>
> Ah, you’re relying on semantics to avoid the question again? Despite
> already having had it put to you that this line of defence is
> essentially saying that Jews don’t actually observe the Sabbath, eat
> kosher meat etc? Then I shall rephrase it; Here's the 1st
> questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
No-one, no-one, absolutely no-one can follow the Old Covenant. They could do so perfectly in the time of Moses.
My claim to being Jewish is in people group, just as I am White in colour - I am Hebrew in background. I do not follow the Orthadox view of Judaism, BUT I am Jewish in background. A fact which is undeniable.
>
> 2. You mention your Jewish background; what exactly is that? How
> many
> of your family are Jewish or semetic?
>
> Both parents - all four grandparents and I believe all great
> Ø grandparents too.
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
Wasn't.
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your
> family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
Interesting. Both parents are Christians, as are brothers. My close family of 5 are all Christians. None of my cousins are Christians - one is in fact training to be a rabbi in Israel. I find this interesting as we enter the last days, as he could be one of the 144,000 in Israel... Anyway of the grandparents, two are dead, from different halves of the family and both were Christians - the remaining ones are non-Christians. All my Aunt's relatives live in America and all are Christians.
>
>
>
> Salvation is NOT dependant on following commandments. Simply
> Ø accepting Jesus is enough to be saved - because He is the
> sacrifice.
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t
> have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
We want to please God - we want to worship God, pay Him back a little of what we He has done for us. No - there is nothing we ourselves can do to get ourselves into Heaven but accept Jesus.
>
>
> Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> Ø thinking.
>
> No, I don’t believe you. At no point was it even implied that a
> steak
> may be dripping in blood. Shall I tell you what I think? I think you
> tried to misrepresent what I said so that you could, in good
> conscience, say you’ve never eaten A LOT of blood. Which wasn’t what
> I asked, was it? I think you were caught out and you were trying to
> weasel out of it.
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you
> think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
Repost: Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be thinking.
>
> 5. Are you implying that there is no need to eat kosher meat in
> order
> to fulfil the commandment on not eating blood?
>
> Ø There isn't.
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew can
> eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
Yes.
>
>
> Again Light - you seem a little confused. Why don't you leave the
> law
> Ø concerning blood to me - the Christian.
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6
> why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
Blood = blood. Blood by products = blood by products. Blood is not acceptable, blood by products is acceptable.
>
> 7. Your answer to “how did animals inherit our sinful nature” was
> “they inherited it in the fall”. That is unsatisfactory. I’d like
> you
> to explain HOW they inherited it in the fall.
>
> When man sinned - nature and animals suffered as a consequence in
> Ø this sinful world.
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW
> did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
The world became corrupted when we sinned, ergo we brought down God's creation.
>
> 8. You used semantics to avoid answering my question on “what is
> natural”? So… if animals HAVE inherited our nature, then how can you
> say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to
> be ‘natural’ if animals inherited their nature humans? Or couldn’t
> we
> say that human nature is‘natural’ because, according to you, nature
> inherits its nature from us?
>
> No.
>
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you? question
> 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t
> want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
No = straight forward and clear.
>
> 9. I asked you if God has spoken to you, not if you spoke to Him. So
> answer the question; has God ever spoken to you personally.
>
> Ø I actually said God has spoken to me - so of course.
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone,
> and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
That's between me and God. He's told me many things in the past. Told me who to pray for, who to witness to, He even gave me a vision of thread I started, the 'Being a Christian' one.
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply
> providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with
> me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
Trying to undermine the only logical explanation for the origin of the universe. By the way, after studying the impossibilities with evolution some more, I would be interested to have some questioned answered by Evolutionists...
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
Some = [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=some[/URL]
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from
> claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some.
> Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one
> who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
No.
>
>
> Why - bother? You don't want it. If I post any article - you'll just
> say 'because I don't agree with it I'll write a couple of paragraphs
> Ø attacking Forest Fan'. It's stupid.
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a
> simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
Not really, just sharing my view, just as relevant as you saying and I quote 'like a gutless little coward'. Maybe something for you to think about there, eh?
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then
> why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
I won't give up. Evolution has actually been disproved. Still, Thomas Edison and Isaac Newton were both Creationists, yet you would rather believe the 'theory', yes 'theory' that Charles Darwin made up . No, I'm not twisiting the truth or trying to sound arrogant. He didn't have proof, he simply observed an ape and human and said they looked and acted similarly, when they of course don't. The percentage of difference between a human and ape is staggering in size.
>
> 14. I asked if you could rebut my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Your answer was “yes”. Yet you failed to
> then
> offer a rebuttal. Kindly do so.
>
> There is not a similiarity you offered - so there was no where to
> Ø start.
>
> Yes dear boy, it is. All you’re doing is saying “No, you’re wrong”
> and running away like a coward. Question 14 I’ll restate the
> similarity in case
> you’ve tried to forget it;
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved
> to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or
> offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
It is right to fear God, but in the right sense. It is not right to be afraid of God though. Here's an example:
You might fear passing the policeman, not that you are afraid of what he will do to you, but you fear the power he has to throw you in prison, because he has power. In the same way you might fear a airoplane, not that you are afraid of the airoplane itself - but that you are entrusting your life in that aircraft and in the hands of the pilot. God is like this, there is even a parable above the talents, showing why we shouldn't fear God, posted below.
Parable of the Talents
14 "(11) For it is just like a man (12) about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15 "To one he gave five (13) talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he (14) went on his journey.
16 "Immediately the one who had received the five (15) talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17 "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18 "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and (16) settled accounts with them.
20 "The one who had received the five (17) talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and (18) faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will (19) put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 "Also the one who had received the two (20) talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and (21) faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 "And the one also who had received the one (22) talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29 "(23) For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30 "Throw out the worthless slave into (24) the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:14-30
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If
> you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
The percentage of homosexual animals is almost unheard of. Homosexual animals remains extremely rare, compared to in the human race.
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> And again, how do you know when you’re not posting any proof of the
> lower figures in the animal kingdom. Question 16 It’s quite
> simple; I’ve asked
> you to give proof that homosexuality is less common in the animal
> kingdom. All you’ve said is “yes it is”. Provide proof please.
If you can proove to me that the amount of homosexual animals is above 12% then I will believe that the percentage is higher than in humans.
>
> 17. Do you acknowledge that the reason you got torn apart over the
> book of Mormon was NOT because you said it was fictional, but
> because
> you said it “was originally written as a childrens book”?
>
> Ø It may have been written as a children's book.
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may
> have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
It was written as a story book, not a great novel, ergo it's target audience was probably children.
>
>
> No - God loves EVERYONE. Which is why He sent His Son to die for
> Ø EVERYONE. Including me and you.
>
> Question 18 If that is the case, why will he only save people
> who profess to love
> him? And why are you shouting? Afraid of your God?
He loves everyone, but we have to take iniative and accept Jesus. He took the iniative to die for us, all we have to do is accept Him.
>
> 19. Why did you assume that a staff member complaining about people
> posting as newbies was talking about you?
>
> You've asked this question several times - it has been answered
> several times. Kindly refrain from continually posting the same
> Ø question. Thankyou.
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and
> you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about
> you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
Edgy said, please note this is not a direct quote, but Edgy did say something like this;
"I would still not be suprised if Archangel really was Forest Fan."
>
>
> Ø Propheices contradicting each other or a historical
> inaccuracy.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show
> numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
Sure, knock yourself out.
>
> 21. Do you accept that by admitting that the jews of the original
> mosaic law would have cut you off, you can make no claim today of
> being a jew?
>
> Ø No - otherwise everyone in the world is not Jewish.
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to
> your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you
> a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
Ah... but those who follow God, would not follow the Old Covenant, because His Son gave us the New Covenant in His Father's Name.
>
>
> Jews are no better than Gentiles - just are the chosen people. Jesus
> was Jewish - Israel is the chosen country - the land of the Jews.
> And
> Ø Jewish people are most influential in the Bible.
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better,
> please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
Chosen to be the apple in God's eye, chosen to be the country where Messiah was born and to return, possibly chosen to be the ones to spend the 1000 years with Christ in Israel.
>
> 23. Following on from question 16, if you are saying that you are a
> Christian, you are therefore rejecting the idea that one race is
> superior to another in Gods eyes. If that is the case, why do you
> keep restating your Semetic heritage?
>
> Ø Because I am not ashamed to be one of God's chosen people.
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days.
> question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage?
> Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
Exactly that. There are some more Godly Gentiles than Jews and vice versa. I would never dispute that fact.
>
> 24. Also following on from question 16, if you are saying you are a
> Jew, then you have to follow the Old Covenant, correct? Note I am
> not
> asking for another of your tortured misunderstandings of theology; I
> am asking IF you are a Jew then you would have to follow the Old
> Covenant. Not “Tell me what you think of the Old Covenant”.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when
> they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they?
Not in the slightest.
> They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel.
They considered themselves to be.
I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah.
Semitic merely refers to coming from Abraham. Jews and Arabs come from Abraham - we are both Semites. Jews come through the line of Isaac and then Jacob and Arabs through Ishmael.
> As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
> Light wrote:
>
>
> For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
With time and this post on my side, this should get answered...
>
>
> 1. Don’t you agree that in order to describe oneself as being
> Jewish,
> one must follow the old covenant? If not, what do you think is
> needed
> to be Jewish?
>
> No - because it is fundamentally impossible to follow the Old
> Covenant - due to the destruction of the Temple. If you believe that
> to be Jewish you must completely follow the Old Covenant - then
> there
> Ø would not not be a single Jew in this world.
>
> Ah, you’re relying on semantics to avoid the question again? Despite
> already having had it put to you that this line of defence is
> essentially saying that Jews don’t actually observe the Sabbath, eat
> kosher meat etc? Then I shall rephrase it; Here's the 1st
> questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
No-one, no-one, absolutely no-one can follow the Old Covenant. They could do so perfectly in the time of Moses.
My claim to being Jewish is in people group, just as I am White in colour - I am Hebrew in background. I do not follow the Orthadox view of Judaism, BUT I am Jewish in background. A fact which is undeniable.
>
> 2. You mention your Jewish background; what exactly is that? How
> many
> of your family are Jewish or semetic?
>
> Both parents - all four grandparents and I believe all great
> Ø grandparents too.
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
Wasn't.
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your
> family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
Interesting. Both parents are Christians, as are brothers. My close family of 5 are all Christians. None of my cousins are Christians - one is in fact training to be a rabbi in Israel. I find this interesting as we enter the last days, as he could be one of the 144,000 in Israel... Anyway of the grandparents, two are dead, from different halves of the family and both were Christians - the remaining ones are non-Christians. All my Aunt's relatives live in America and all are Christians.
>
>
>
> Salvation is NOT dependant on following commandments. Simply
> Ø accepting Jesus is enough to be saved - because He is the
> sacrifice.
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t
> have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
We want to please God - we want to worship God, pay Him back a little of what we He has done for us. No - there is nothing we ourselves can do to get ourselves into Heaven but accept Jesus.
>
>
> Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> Ø thinking.
>
> No, I don’t believe you. At no point was it even implied that a
> steak
> may be dripping in blood. Shall I tell you what I think? I think you
> tried to misrepresent what I said so that you could, in good
> conscience, say you’ve never eaten A LOT of blood. Which wasn’t what
> I asked, was it? I think you were caught out and you were trying to
> weasel out of it.
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you
> think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
Repost: Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be thinking.
>
> 5. Are you implying that there is no need to eat kosher meat in
> order
> to fulfil the commandment on not eating blood?
>
> Ø There isn't.
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew can
> eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
Yes.
>
>
> Again Light - you seem a little confused. Why don't you leave the
> law
> Ø concerning blood to me - the Christian.
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6
> why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
Blood = blood. Blood by products = blood by products. Blood is not acceptable, blood by products is acceptable.
>
> 7. Your answer to “how did animals inherit our sinful nature” was
> “they inherited it in the fall”. That is unsatisfactory. I’d like
> you
> to explain HOW they inherited it in the fall.
>
> When man sinned - nature and animals suffered as a consequence in
> Ø this sinful world.
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW
> did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
The world became corrupted when we sinned, ergo we brought down God's creation.
>
> 8. You used semantics to avoid answering my question on “what is
> natural”? So… if animals HAVE inherited our nature, then how can you
> say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to
> be ‘natural’ if animals inherited their nature humans? Or couldn’t
> we
> say that human nature is‘natural’ because, according to you, nature
> inherits its nature from us?
>
> No.
>
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you? question
> 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t
> want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
No = straight forward and clear.
>
> 9. I asked you if God has spoken to you, not if you spoke to Him. So
> answer the question; has God ever spoken to you personally.
>
> Ø I actually said God has spoken to me - so of course.
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone,
> and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
That's between me and God. He's told me many things in the past. Told me who to pray for, who to witness to, He even gave me a vision of thread I started, the 'Being a Christian' one.
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply
> providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with
> me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
Trying to undermine the only logical explanation for the origin of the universe. By the way, after studying the impossibilities with evolution some more, I would be interested to have some questioned answered by Evolutionists...
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
Some = [URL]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=some[/URL]
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from
> claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some.
> Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one
> who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
No.
>
>
> Why - bother? You don't want it. If I post any article - you'll just
> say 'because I don't agree with it I'll write a couple of paragraphs
> Ø attacking Forest Fan'. It's stupid.
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a
> simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
Not really, just sharing my view, just as relevant as you saying and I quote 'like a gutless little coward'. Maybe something for you to think about there, eh?
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then
> why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
I won't give up. Evolution has actually been disproved. Still, Thomas Edison and Isaac Newton were both Creationists, yet you would rather believe the 'theory', yes 'theory' that Charles Darwin made up . No, I'm not twisiting the truth or trying to sound arrogant. He didn't have proof, he simply observed an ape and human and said they looked and acted similarly, when they of course don't. The percentage of difference between a human and ape is staggering in size.
>
> 14. I asked if you could rebut my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Your answer was “yes”. Yet you failed to
> then
> offer a rebuttal. Kindly do so.
>
> There is not a similiarity you offered - so there was no where to
> Ø start.
>
> Yes dear boy, it is. All you’re doing is saying “No, you’re wrong”
> and running away like a coward. Question 14 I’ll restate the
> similarity in case
> you’ve tried to forget it;
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved
> to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or
> offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
It is right to fear God, but in the right sense. It is not right to be afraid of God though. Here's an example:
You might fear passing the policeman, not that you are afraid of what he will do to you, but you fear the power he has to throw you in prison, because he has power. In the same way you might fear a airoplane, not that you are afraid of the airoplane itself - but that you are entrusting your life in that aircraft and in the hands of the pilot. God is like this, there is even a parable above the talents, showing why we shouldn't fear God, posted below.
Parable of the Talents
14 "(11) For it is just like a man (12) about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15 "To one he gave five (13) talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he (14) went on his journey.
16 "Immediately the one who had received the five (15) talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17 "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18 "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and (16) settled accounts with them.
20 "The one who had received the five (17) talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and (18) faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will (19) put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 "Also the one who had received the two (20) talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and (21) faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 "And the one also who had received the one (22) talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'
29 "(23) For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30 "Throw out the worthless slave into (24) the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:14-30
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If
> you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
The percentage of homosexual animals is almost unheard of. Homosexual animals remains extremely rare, compared to in the human race.
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> And again, how do you know when you’re not posting any proof of the
> lower figures in the animal kingdom. Question 16 It’s quite
> simple; I’ve asked
> you to give proof that homosexuality is less common in the animal
> kingdom. All you’ve said is “yes it is”. Provide proof please.
If you can proove to me that the amount of homosexual animals is above 12% then I will believe that the percentage is higher than in humans.
>
> 17. Do you acknowledge that the reason you got torn apart over the
> book of Mormon was NOT because you said it was fictional, but
> because
> you said it “was originally written as a childrens book”?
>
> Ø It may have been written as a children's book.
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may
> have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
It was written as a story book, not a great novel, ergo it's target audience was probably children.
>
>
> No - God loves EVERYONE. Which is why He sent His Son to die for
> Ø EVERYONE. Including me and you.
>
> Question 18 If that is the case, why will he only save people
> who profess to love
> him? And why are you shouting? Afraid of your God?
He loves everyone, but we have to take iniative and accept Jesus. He took the iniative to die for us, all we have to do is accept Him.
>
> 19. Why did you assume that a staff member complaining about people
> posting as newbies was talking about you?
>
> You've asked this question several times - it has been answered
> several times. Kindly refrain from continually posting the same
> Ø question. Thankyou.
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and
> you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about
> you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
Edgy said, please note this is not a direct quote, but Edgy did say something like this;
"I would still not be suprised if Archangel really was Forest Fan."
>
>
> Ø Propheices contradicting each other or a historical
> inaccuracy.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show
> numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
Sure, knock yourself out.
>
> 21. Do you accept that by admitting that the jews of the original
> mosaic law would have cut you off, you can make no claim today of
> being a jew?
>
> Ø No - otherwise everyone in the world is not Jewish.
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to
> your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you
> a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
Ah... but those who follow God, would not follow the Old Covenant, because His Son gave us the New Covenant in His Father's Name.
>
>
> Jews are no better than Gentiles - just are the chosen people. Jesus
> was Jewish - Israel is the chosen country - the land of the Jews.
> And
> Ø Jewish people are most influential in the Bible.
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better,
> please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
Chosen to be the apple in God's eye, chosen to be the country where Messiah was born and to return, possibly chosen to be the ones to spend the 1000 years with Christ in Israel.
>
> 23. Following on from question 16, if you are saying that you are a
> Christian, you are therefore rejecting the idea that one race is
> superior to another in Gods eyes. If that is the case, why do you
> keep restating your Semetic heritage?
>
> Ø Because I am not ashamed to be one of God's chosen people.
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days.
> question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage?
> Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
Exactly that. There are some more Godly Gentiles than Jews and vice versa. I would never dispute that fact.
>
> 24. Also following on from question 16, if you are saying you are a
> Jew, then you have to follow the Old Covenant, correct? Note I am
> not
> asking for another of your tortured misunderstandings of theology; I
> am asking IF you are a Jew then you would have to follow the Old
> Covenant. Not “Tell me what you think of the Old Covenant”.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when
> they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they?
Not in the slightest.
> They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel.
They considered themselves to be.
I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah.
Semitic merely refers to coming from Abraham. Jews and Arabs come from Abraham - we are both Semites. Jews come through the line of Isaac and then Jacob and Arabs through Ishmael.
> As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
Light wrote:
For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
>
> 1. Don’t you agree that in order to describe oneself as being
> Jewish,
> one must follow the old covenant? If not, what do you think is
> needed
> to be Jewish?
>
> No - because it is fundamentally impossible to follow the Old
> Covenant - due to the destruction of the Temple. If you believe that
> to be Jewish you must completely follow the Old Covenant - then
> there
> Ø would not not be a single Jew in this world.
>
> Ah, you’re relying on semantics to avoid the question again? Despite
> already having had it put to you that this line of defence is
> essentially saying that Jews don’t actually observe the Sabbath, eat
> kosher meat etc? Then I shall rephrase it; Here's the 1st questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
>
> 2. You mention your Jewish background; what exactly is that? How
> many
> of your family are Jewish or semetic?
>
> Both parents - all four grandparents and I believe all great
> Ø grandparents too.
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
>
>
>
> Salvation is NOT dependant on following commandments. Simply
> Ø accepting Jesus is enough to be saved - because He is the
> sacrifice.
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
>
>
> Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> Ø thinking.
>
> No, I don’t believe you. At no point was it even implied that a steak
> may be dripping in blood. Shall I tell you what I think? I think you
> tried to misrepresent what I said so that you could, in good
> conscience, say you’ve never eaten A LOT of blood. Which wasn’t what
> I asked, was it? I think you were caught out and you were trying to
> weasel out of it.
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
>
> 5. Are you implying that there is no need to eat kosher meat in
> order
> to fulfil the commandment on not eating blood?
>
> Ø There isn't.
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew can eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
>
>
> Again Light - you seem a little confused. Why don't you leave the
> law
> Ø concerning blood to me - the Christian.
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6 why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
>
> 7. Your answer to “how did animals inherit our sinful nature” was
> “they inherited it in the fall”. That is unsatisfactory. I’d like
> you
> to explain HOW they inherited it in the fall.
>
> When man sinned - nature and animals suffered as a consequence in
> Ø this sinful world.
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> 8. You used semantics to avoid answering my question on “what is
> natural”? So… if animals HAVE inherited our nature, then how can you
> say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to
> be ‘natural’ if animals inherited their nature humans? Or couldn’t
> we
> say that human nature is‘natural’ because, according to you, nature
> inherits its nature from us?
>
> No.
>
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you? question 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
>
> 9. I asked you if God has spoken to you, not if you spoke to Him. So
> answer the question; has God ever spoken to you personally.
>
> Ø I actually said God has spoken to me - so of course.
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone, and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some. Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
>
>
> Why - bother? You don't want it. If I post any article - you'll just
> say 'because I don't agree with it I'll write a couple of paragraphs
> Ø attacking Forest Fan'. It's stupid.
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
>
> 14. I asked if you could rebut my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Your answer was “yes”. Yet you failed to
> then
> offer a rebuttal. Kindly do so.
>
> There is not a similiarity you offered - so there was no where to
> Ø start.
>
> Yes dear boy, it is. All you’re doing is saying “No, you’re wrong”
> and running away like a coward. Question 14 I’ll restate the similarity in case
> you’ve tried to forget it;
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> And again, how do you know when you’re not posting any proof of the
> lower figures in the animal kingdom. Question 16 It’s quite simple; I’ve asked
> you to give proof that homosexuality is less common in the animal
> kingdom. All you’ve said is “yes it is”. Provide proof please.
>
> 17. Do you acknowledge that the reason you got torn apart over the
> book of Mormon was NOT because you said it was fictional, but
> because
> you said it “was originally written as a childrens book”?
>
> Ø It may have been written as a children's book.
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
>
>
> No - God loves EVERYONE. Which is why He sent His Son to die for
> Ø EVERYONE. Including me and you.
>
> Question 18 If that is the case, why will he only save people who profess to love
> him? And why are you shouting? Afraid of your God?
>
> 19. Why did you assume that a staff member complaining about people
> posting as newbies was talking about you?
>
> You've asked this question several times - it has been answered
> several times. Kindly refrain from continually posting the same
> Ø question. Thankyou.
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
>
> Ø Propheices contradicting each other or a historical
> inaccuracy.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
>
> 21. Do you accept that by admitting that the jews of the original
> mosaic law would have cut you off, you can make no claim today of
> being a jew?
>
> Ø No - otherwise everyone in the world is not Jewish.
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
>
>
> Jews are no better than Gentiles - just are the chosen people. Jesus
> was Jewish - Israel is the chosen country - the land of the Jews.
> And
> Ø Jewish people are most influential in the Bible.
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better, please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
>
> 23. Following on from question 16, if you are saying that you are a
> Christian, you are therefore rejecting the idea that one race is
> superior to another in Gods eyes. If that is the case, why do you
> keep restating your Semetic heritage?
>
> Ø Because I am not ashamed to be one of God's chosen people.
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days. question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage? Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
>
> 24. Also following on from question 16, if you are saying you are a
> Jew, then you have to follow the Old Covenant, correct? Note I am
> not
> asking for another of your tortured misunderstandings of theology; I
> am asking IF you are a Jew then you would have to follow the Old
> Covenant. Not “Tell me what you think of the Old Covenant”.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they? They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel. I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah. As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
For the 3rd time, you evasive little coward....
>
> 1. Don’t you agree that in order to describe oneself as being
> Jewish,
> one must follow the old covenant? If not, what do you think is
> needed
> to be Jewish?
>
> No - because it is fundamentally impossible to follow the Old
> Covenant - due to the destruction of the Temple. If you believe that
> to be Jewish you must completely follow the Old Covenant - then
> there
> Ø would not not be a single Jew in this world.
>
> Ah, you’re relying on semantics to avoid the question again? Despite
> already having had it put to you that this line of defence is
> essentially saying that Jews don’t actually observe the Sabbath, eat
> kosher meat etc? Then I shall rephrase it; Here's the 1st questionDon’t you agree that in
> order to describe oneself as being Jewish, one must follow the old
> covenant AS BEST THEY CAN? If not, what do you think is needed to be
> Jewish?
>
> 2. You mention your Jewish background; what exactly is that? How
> many
> of your family are Jewish or semetic?
>
> Both parents - all four grandparents and I believe all great
> Ø grandparents too.
>
> I see. There, that wasn’t difficult was it?
>
> Question 2 My question following on from that is, of your family, how many of
> them are now Christian?
>
>
>
> Salvation is NOT dependant on following commandments. Simply
> Ø accepting Jesus is enough to be saved - because He is the
> sacrifice.
>
> I see; question 3 so what you are saying is that we don’t have to follow any
> commandments, is that correct?
>
>
> Because I am clearing up what you or any other person may be
> Ø thinking.
>
> No, I don’t believe you. At no point was it even implied that a steak
> may be dripping in blood. Shall I tell you what I think? I think you
> tried to misrepresent what I said so that you could, in good
> conscience, say you’ve never eaten A LOT of blood. Which wasn’t what
> I asked, was it? I think you were caught out and you were trying to
> weasel out of it.
>
> However, I shall play ball and ask: question 4 why do you think any other person
> would assume I meant a steak was dripping in blood when anyone who
> knows anything about meat knows that a medium done steak has very
> little blood in it?
>
> 5. Are you implying that there is no need to eat kosher meat in
> order
> to fulfil the commandment on not eating blood?
>
> Ø There isn't.
>
> I see…so essentially, question 5 you’re saying that a Jew can eat non kosher
> meat, is that correct?
>
>
> Again Light - you seem a little confused. Why don't you leave the
> law
> Ø concerning blood to me - the Christian.
>
> Because you clearly don’t understand the law. You’re avoiding the
> question dear boy, and I think I’ve proved that I know at least as
> much about biblical law as you do. So, your weak willed and pathetic
> attempt to divert me aside, answer the question: question 6 why are you
> continuing to lie about the preparation of meat in supermarkets and
> why do you attempt to distinguish between blood and blood products
> when the commandment covers both (in that it does not state anywhere
> that “blood by products are excused”)?
>
> 7. Your answer to “how did animals inherit our sinful nature” was
> “they inherited it in the fall”. That is unsatisfactory. I’d like
> you
> to explain HOW they inherited it in the fall.
>
> When man sinned - nature and animals suffered as a consequence in
> Ø this sinful world.
>
> Which, once again, does not explain HOW they inherited it. So I will
> ask again; question 7 you’re saying they suffered; HOW? HOW did animals inherit
> our sinful nature? I’m not interested in your repeated and mindless
> statements. I’d like you to actually explain what you mean.
>
> 8. You used semantics to avoid answering my question on “what is
> natural”? So… if animals HAVE inherited our nature, then how can you
> say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to
> be ‘natural’ if animals inherited their nature humans? Or couldn’t
> we
> say that human nature is‘natural’ because, according to you, nature
> inherits its nature from us?
>
> No.
>
>
> Heheheheh…you just get more and more cowardly don’t you? question 8 Do you mean
> “No, it is not possible for anything to be natural”? Or do you mean
> “No, human nature is not natural?”. Or do you mean “No. Now leave me
> alone because I’ve been trapped by my own statements and I don’t want
> to talk about it anymore”?
>
> I’d like you to expand on the answer “No” as it is nonsensical and
> evasive.
>
> 9. I asked you if God has spoken to you, not if you spoke to Him. So
> answer the question; has God ever spoken to you personally.
>
> Ø I actually said God has spoken to me - so of course.
>
> question 9 No, you said he knows you as he knows everyone, and that you talked
> to him. That’s not the same. So God has spoken directly to you eh?
> What did he say? Same thing he said to David Khoresh?
>
>
> By posting other articles about why evolution is the dominant
> Ø theory.
>
> question 10 That’s not blocking is it? That’s simply providing evidence to rebut
> yours. I fail to see how posting a pro evolution article could stop
> someone reading a pro-creationism one. As is, your answer (to me)
> seems to be “They blocked it because they dared to disagree with me”.
> Why don’t you clarify what you mean?
>
> 11. Are you trying to say that no argument against those pro
> creationism articles was put forward aside from “that doesn’t count
> as evidence”?
>
> Ø Some.
>
> Some what? Some arguments were put forward? Some people disagreed?
> Come on now; you were whining like a cat with a nettle on its balls
> before that I didn’t accept your answers. Then you offer inadequate
> and evasive responses like this. I mean, this was a no brainer; you
> could have said yes or no, but instead you go for the meaningless
> middle ground.
>
> question 11 Okay; lets leave aside that you’ve gone from claiming that there were
> no arguments to rebut yours, to admitting that there were some. Could
> you now explain to me why you found those arguments to be
> inadequate?
>
>
> No, I used it when articles tried to cover up the questions about
> the
> Ø second law of thermodyamics breaking theory that is
> evolution.
>
> question 12 Right…so now you’re saying that YOU are the one who said “that
> doesn’t count as evidence”? So it wasn’t someone else who used that
> argument, as you previously claimed? Can you confirm that that is
> what you are saying please?
>
>
> Why - bother? You don't want it. If I post any article - you'll just
> say 'because I don't agree with it I'll write a couple of paragraphs
> Ø attacking Forest Fan'. It's stupid.
>
> Right, so you’re avoiding answering the question? It’s quite a simple
> one, yet you’re avoiding it like a gutless little coward aren’t you?
>
>
> question 13 Tell me; if you really think “Why bother” then why are you still
> arguing with me on the points that you still think you have answers
> for? Surely you would have stopped altogether. Don’t you think it’s
> curious how you’re only avoiding answering a question because you
> know I’m correct? Isn’t it amusing how you’re backing down now that
> someone has, in very clear terms, utterly debunked your lies and
> misquotes about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
>
> 14. I asked if you could rebut my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Your answer was “yes”. Yet you failed to
> then
> offer a rebuttal. Kindly do so.
>
> There is not a similiarity you offered - so there was no where to
> Ø start.
>
> Yes dear boy, it is. All you’re doing is saying “No, you’re wrong”
> and running away like a coward. Question 14 I’ll restate the similarity in case
> you’ve tried to forget it;
>
> I worked with a lot of battered women when I was a solicitor. They
> were of the mindset that their abusive husbands loved them. However,
> because they (the women) were so evil and worthless, they deserved to
> get hit occasionally and it was only the immense love that the men
> held for the women that stopped them being beaten further.
>
> You are of the mindset that your God loves you. However, because
> you’re by nature sinful, you deserve to go to hell and be punished
> and it’s only Gods immense love that gives you any chance at all of
> going to hell
>
> I think the similarity is clear. So, either offer a rebuttal or offer
> yet another mewling term of evasion.
>
> 15. Please post a link to, or tell me where you got the figures for
> percentage of rates of homosexuality in humans.
>
> Ø In the article someone posted entitled 'gay sheep'.
>
> Bwah ha aha hahaaaaa! Question 15 Post the link please. If you can remember the
> figures, you can remember where the link is. So post it.
>
> 16. You have said that homosexuality in animals is less common, but
> you have posted no figures or evidence of any kind to prove this.
> Kindly do so.
>
> Again the number of human homo-sexuals is between 11% and 12% -
> Ø vastly larger than that in the animal world.
>
> And again, how do you know when you’re not posting any proof of the
> lower figures in the animal kingdom. Question 16 It’s quite simple; I’ve asked
> you to give proof that homosexuality is less common in the animal
> kingdom. All you’ve said is “yes it is”. Provide proof please.
>
> 17. Do you acknowledge that the reason you got torn apart over the
> book of Mormon was NOT because you said it was fictional, but
> because
> you said it “was originally written as a childrens book”?
>
> Ø It may have been written as a children's book.
>
> Question 17 And what is your evidence for saying that it may have been written as
> such? Especially when, in the Being a Christian thread, you admit
> that you have no evidence of that beyond your own personal opinion?
>
>
> No - God loves EVERYONE. Which is why He sent His Son to die for
> Ø EVERYONE. Including me and you.
>
> Question 18 If that is the case, why will he only save people who profess to love
> him? And why are you shouting? Afraid of your God?
>
> 19. Why did you assume that a staff member complaining about people
> posting as newbies was talking about you?
>
> You've asked this question several times - it has been answered
> several times. Kindly refrain from continually posting the same
> Ø question. Thankyou.
>
> Question 19 No, it hasn’t. I’ve asked several times and you’ve avoided the
> question several times. I didn’t ask about Edgy, or Belldandy, or
> Archangel. I asked, quite clearly, why you assumed that a staff
> member talking about people posting as newbies was talking about you.
> Answer the question, you snivelling wretched little coward.
>
>
> Ø Propheices contradicting each other or a historical
> inaccuracy.
>
> question 20 Alas, the chronicles of Joseph of Aramathea show numerous historical
> inaccuracies. And I’ve posted links to sites that detail the
> contradictions of the bible. Would you like me to repost them for
> you?
>
> 21. Do you accept that by admitting that the jews of the original
> mosaic law would have cut you off, you can make no claim today of
> being a jew?
>
> Ø No - otherwise everyone in the world is not Jewish.
>
> question 21 But that’s not what I asked; I was referring to your admission that
> the jews of 3.5 thousand years ago would have cut you off. So
> therefore, does that mean that if they wouldn’t have considered you a
> jew, you yourself can not make any such claim?
>
>
> Jews are no better than Gentiles - just are the chosen people. Jesus
> was Jewish - Israel is the chosen country - the land of the Jews.
> And
> Ø Jewish people are most influential in the Bible.
>
> question 22 Chosen for what exactly? If they are no better, please clarify what
> it is you as a Christian believe they have been chosen for.
>
> 23. Following on from question 16, if you are saying that you are a
> Christian, you are therefore rejecting the idea that one race is
> superior to another in Gods eyes. If that is the case, why do you
> keep restating your Semetic heritage?
>
> Ø Because I am not ashamed to be one of God's chosen people.
>
> Which is laudible; there is too much anti Semitism these days. question 23 Do you
> then accept that your Semetic heritage does not make you a better or
> worse Christian than a Christian who is of, say, African heritage? Or
> French heritage? Or Arabic heritage?
>
> 24. Also following on from question 16, if you are saying you are a
> Jew, then you have to follow the Old Covenant, correct? Note I am
> not
> asking for another of your tortured misunderstandings of theology; I
> am asking IF you are a Jew then you would have to follow the Old
> Covenant. Not “Tell me what you think of the Old Covenant”.
>
> I am Jewish. I don't follow the Old Covenant - I follow the
> New Covenant that the Jewish Messiah Jesus started and the Jewish
> Ø disciples observed.
>
> question 24 Except those disciples stopped being jews when they followed the New
> covenant, didn’t they? They became Christians and were no longer
> considered to be members of the tribes of Israel. I think what you
> mean is that you are Semetic (because to be Jewish, you have to
> follow the Old Covenant as far as is possible), and you follow the
> new covenant that the Christian messiah jesus started (The jews do
> not accept Christ as the messiah, therefore he cannot be a jewish
> messiah. As it happens, the jews thought a contemporary of Christ,
> Herod Agrippa, was the messiah but he turned out to be a busted
> flush) and his Christian disciples observed, correct?
[edit] Childish. I'll refrain.
Light wrote:
> So; Answer the 20 or so questions, you loathsome little coward.
Re-post. Anyway, I'm going now, just have them reposted.
> So; Answer the 20 or so questions, you loathsome little coward.
Re-post. Anyway, I'm going now, just have them reposted.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Heh, heh. Yes I do cook and no it's not blood.
What is it then? Blood by product? That's still blood, that still falls foul of the prohibition on blood, that still makes you a blood munching little hypocrite.
It is blood though; everyone here who has ever cooked knows that. Sorry dear boy, but you can't bully people into taking your word for it. You need to provide evidence. So far, you've avoided doing so. Coward.
>
> Heh, heh. Yes I do cook and no it's not blood.
What is it then? Blood by product? That's still blood, that still falls foul of the prohibition on blood, that still makes you a blood munching little hypocrite.
It is blood though; everyone here who has ever cooked knows that. Sorry dear boy, but you can't bully people into taking your word for it. You need to provide evidence. So far, you've avoided doing so. Coward.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> 3 things:
>
> 1. You're lying. And even if you weren't, you've admitted eating out
> in restaurants. They don't wash their meat, bloodeater.
>
> But I have well done when I eat out.
Nuh uh dear boy. I asked you specifically about this and you admitted you eat medium steaks when you eat out. So I'm afraid you're lying. Would you like me to repost where you admitted this so I can make it even clearer what a liar you are?
>
> 2. Even if you weren't lying, you don't eat kosher meat. Ergo,
> you've
> eaten blood.
>
> I haven't eaten blood.
Heheheheheh. Liar. You need to eat kosher or halal meat to avoid eating blood. You don't. So you've eaten blood.
>
>
> 3. You're still avoiding the 20 or so questions in this thread, you
> blood munching little coward.
>
> Would you like to count the number of questions in these threads in
> total I've answered? Hmm?
Oooh, we're getting annoyed this morning aren't we? You've avoided most of the questions; your 'answers' are almost always evasive, not actually addressing the point at all. That's when you bother to answer them...
So; Answer the 20 or so questions, you loathsome little coward.
>
> 3 things:
>
> 1. You're lying. And even if you weren't, you've admitted eating out
> in restaurants. They don't wash their meat, bloodeater.
>
> But I have well done when I eat out.
Nuh uh dear boy. I asked you specifically about this and you admitted you eat medium steaks when you eat out. So I'm afraid you're lying. Would you like me to repost where you admitted this so I can make it even clearer what a liar you are?
>
> 2. Even if you weren't lying, you don't eat kosher meat. Ergo,
> you've
> eaten blood.
>
> I haven't eaten blood.
Heheheheheh. Liar. You need to eat kosher or halal meat to avoid eating blood. You don't. So you've eaten blood.
>
>
> 3. You're still avoiding the 20 or so questions in this thread, you
> blood munching little coward.
>
> Would you like to count the number of questions in these threads in
> total I've answered? Hmm?
Oooh, we're getting annoyed this morning aren't we? You've avoided most of the questions; your 'answers' are almost always evasive, not actually addressing the point at all. That's when you bother to answer them...
So; Answer the 20 or so questions, you loathsome little coward.
Page: