The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
>
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
Yeah, but Jesus never said "Lo, blessed are those whom little children don't bully and pick on for being different", did he? So the whole "little kids use gay as an insult" is hardly a biblical view, is it?
> Edgy wrote:
>
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
Yeah, but Jesus never said "Lo, blessed are those whom little children don't bully and pick on for being different", did he? So the whole "little kids use gay as an insult" is hardly a biblical view, is it?
Forest Fan wrote:
> In answer to Jonathan and David being homosexual - that is quite
> clearly wrong as David had had several wives -
Gay people can have wives. They sometimes do as a smokescreen and a way to deny their sexuality.
> Jonathan was also
> married and the fact that the 'love' was more precious than
> that of a woman - suggests it was not a lustful one.
*shrugs* That's your interpretation. Perhaps he loves hot man meat. Who knows?
> Besides the
> greatest love ever shown was Jesus dying on the cross and that wasn't
> sexual - love has many different meanings.
But love more precious than a woman is not the love of Christ.
(I know what you are getting at BTW, platonic love, and I tend to agree, I just found it an interesting quote, and wanted to show how diferently it could be interpreted)
> In answer to Jonathan and David being homosexual - that is quite
> clearly wrong as David had had several wives -
Gay people can have wives. They sometimes do as a smokescreen and a way to deny their sexuality.
> Jonathan was also
> married and the fact that the 'love' was more precious than
> that of a woman - suggests it was not a lustful one.
*shrugs* That's your interpretation. Perhaps he loves hot man meat. Who knows?
> Besides the
> greatest love ever shown was Jesus dying on the cross and that wasn't
> sexual - love has many different meanings.
But love more precious than a woman is not the love of Christ.
(I know what you are getting at BTW, platonic love, and I tend to agree, I just found it an interesting quote, and wanted to show how diferently it could be interpreted)
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's
> not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
>
> Just to stir the pot, as it's an interesting passge I've just found.
>
> Samuel 1:26, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You
> have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful
> than the love of women."
'Samuel 1:26'? Where?
>
> Cmon, quote me the "Man should not lie with man" quote.
In answer to Jonathan and David being homosexual - that is quite clearly wrong as David had had several wives - Jonathan was also married and the fact that the 'love' was more precious than that of a woman - suggests it was not a lustful one. Besides the greatest love ever shown was Jesus dying on the cross and that wasn't sexual - love has many different meanings.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's
> not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
>
> Just to stir the pot, as it's an interesting passge I've just found.
>
> Samuel 1:26, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You
> have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful
> than the love of women."
'Samuel 1:26'? Where?
>
> Cmon, quote me the "Man should not lie with man" quote.
In answer to Jonathan and David being homosexual - that is quite clearly wrong as David had had several wives - Jonathan was also married and the fact that the 'love' was more precious than that of a woman - suggests it was not a lustful one. Besides the greatest love ever shown was Jesus dying on the cross and that wasn't sexual - love has many different meanings.
Forest Fan wrote:
> MASSACHUSETTES
> is set to allow same-sex marriages beginning May 17
>
> This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to be
> homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and
> a woman - groom and bride?
Well, that's not currently is it? Therefore same sex couples do not currently have the same rights as differnt sex couples. Plus, this is in MASSACHUSETTES and not the Uk, so same sex couple here are still going to suffer injustice.
And again, my congratulations to them. Marrage is (finally) being brought up to date in MASSACHUSETTES and hopefully soon here.
[edit} Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman - groom and bride?
Aye, and wasn;t there not supposed to be any female priests? Weren't women supposed to obey their husbands and not have a life of their own?
Isn't progress a wonderful thing?
> MASSACHUSETTES
> is set to allow same-sex marriages beginning May 17
>
> This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to be
> homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and
> a woman - groom and bride?
Well, that's not currently is it? Therefore same sex couples do not currently have the same rights as differnt sex couples. Plus, this is in MASSACHUSETTES and not the Uk, so same sex couple here are still going to suffer injustice.
And again, my congratulations to them. Marrage is (finally) being brought up to date in MASSACHUSETTES and hopefully soon here.
[edit} Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman - groom and bride?
Aye, and wasn;t there not supposed to be any female priests? Weren't women supposed to obey their husbands and not have a life of their own?
Isn't progress a wonderful thing?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> That's all set to change in a couple of years though. Already,
> Massachusetts is set to allow full homosexual rights and marriages
> by
> Friday next week - the same is likely to happen in Britain in
> several
> years time.
>
> Just clearing you up on some facts you've got wrong, and as far as
> I'm concerned, good for them.
Right Pandaemonium, in my issue of Time magazine dated MARCH 8, 2004 on page 26. (I actually got the date wrong as I will explain). The text reads ---->
MASSACHUSETTES
is set to allow same-sex marriages beginning May 17
This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to be homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman - groom and bride?
> Forest Fan wrote:
> That's all set to change in a couple of years though. Already,
> Massachusetts is set to allow full homosexual rights and marriages
> by
> Friday next week - the same is likely to happen in Britain in
> several
> years time.
>
> Just clearing you up on some facts you've got wrong, and as far as
> I'm concerned, good for them.
Right Pandaemonium, in my issue of Time magazine dated MARCH 8, 2004 on page 26. (I actually got the date wrong as I will explain). The text reads ---->
MASSACHUSETTES
is set to allow same-sex marriages beginning May 17
This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to be homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and a woman - groom and bride?
Forest Fan wrote:
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
Just to stir the pot, as it's an interesting passge I've just found.
Samuel 1:26, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."
Cmon, quote me the "Man should not lie with man" quote.
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
Just to stir the pot, as it's an interesting passge I've just found.
Samuel 1:26, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women."
Cmon, quote me the "Man should not lie with man" quote.
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Taken from another thread but it is highly relevant to this
>
> How?
>
> Because it seems that the common sense in this subject is that, as
> well as it may not be seen the preferred choice of sexuality by the
> common majority here, homosexuality is commonly seen as fine.
But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So are mine and so are Jesus'.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Taken from another thread but it is highly relevant to this
>
> How?
>
> Because it seems that the common sense in this subject is that, as
> well as it may not be seen the preferred choice of sexuality by the
> common majority here, homosexuality is commonly seen as fine.
But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's not Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So are mine and so are Jesus'.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> What about it? Children use homosexuality as an insult to one
> another. Many children believe being gay is 'bent', different and so
> is a term of mockery - as well as acknowledging that the sin of
> homosexuality is disgusting - which it obviously is.
I see; so we should derive our morality from 5 year olds then? In which case, why haven't you started preaching about how disgusting girls are? Oh, and of course small children can be remarkably racist; are we to understand that you think people of different colours are disgusting? Just because you're a small child, don't expect others to live by your rules.
Also, that answer you've given simply restates what you said initially. You've made no effort to address other people's responses. Hence you are not debating; you are mindless restating a mantra. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, eh? Coward; can't even address a simple point.
>
> Homosexuals appear to have the exact same rights as hetrosexuals. No
> laws target homosexuals - it is perfectly legal for one example for a
> 16 year old boy to have a homosexual relationship with a 61 year old
> man. Light - where do you think the word 'Christian' is derived from
> - Christ. I believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah - which makes me
> a Christian - even though I'm not particularly fond with how much the
> word has been used - I still am a Christian.
Yup, and it's legal for a 16 year old girl to have a heterosexual relationship with a 61 year old man. You know what? I personally find that more repulsive in terms of the mental image it creates. You seem to be complaining about equality. One of the main teaches of Christ was equality and brotherhood. You seem to have forgotten that, hence my saying that we're more christian than you in terms of the philosophy we on this board seem to generally follow. You say you're a christian, but you seem to pick and choose which teachings you follow. You're no more a christian than kittens born in an oven are biscuits.
And I note you haven't bothered to address the actual point; that the Sun ran an anti-gay campaign against Peter Mandleson. How surprising; you avoid addressing something cos you're too cowardly to do so.
>
>
> I've answered each one of the 17 questions Light. I can repost the
> answers of you would like.
No dear boy; you answered a couple, but the remainder you avoided like a snivelling little coward. Here; I'll repost the questions, your 'answers', and the questions arising from those 'answers'. Are you going to address them, or run away and manufacture another excuse for having done so?
>
> 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; Don’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?
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; 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: 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, 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: 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; 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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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! 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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?
>
>
> What about it? Children use homosexuality as an insult to one
> another. Many children believe being gay is 'bent', different and so
> is a term of mockery - as well as acknowledging that the sin of
> homosexuality is disgusting - which it obviously is.
I see; so we should derive our morality from 5 year olds then? In which case, why haven't you started preaching about how disgusting girls are? Oh, and of course small children can be remarkably racist; are we to understand that you think people of different colours are disgusting? Just because you're a small child, don't expect others to live by your rules.
Also, that answer you've given simply restates what you said initially. You've made no effort to address other people's responses. Hence you are not debating; you are mindless restating a mantra. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, eh? Coward; can't even address a simple point.
>
> Homosexuals appear to have the exact same rights as hetrosexuals. No
> laws target homosexuals - it is perfectly legal for one example for a
> 16 year old boy to have a homosexual relationship with a 61 year old
> man. Light - where do you think the word 'Christian' is derived from
> - Christ. I believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah - which makes me
> a Christian - even though I'm not particularly fond with how much the
> word has been used - I still am a Christian.
Yup, and it's legal for a 16 year old girl to have a heterosexual relationship with a 61 year old man. You know what? I personally find that more repulsive in terms of the mental image it creates. You seem to be complaining about equality. One of the main teaches of Christ was equality and brotherhood. You seem to have forgotten that, hence my saying that we're more christian than you in terms of the philosophy we on this board seem to generally follow. You say you're a christian, but you seem to pick and choose which teachings you follow. You're no more a christian than kittens born in an oven are biscuits.
And I note you haven't bothered to address the actual point; that the Sun ran an anti-gay campaign against Peter Mandleson. How surprising; you avoid addressing something cos you're too cowardly to do so.
>
>
> I've answered each one of the 17 questions Light. I can repost the
> answers of you would like.
No dear boy; you answered a couple, but the remainder you avoided like a snivelling little coward. Here; I'll repost the questions, your 'answers', and the questions arising from those 'answers'. Are you going to address them, or run away and manufacture another excuse for having done so?
>
> 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; Don’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?
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; 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: 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, 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: 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; 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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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! 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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?
Forest Fan wrote:
> That's all set to change in a couple of years though. Already,
> Massachusetts is set to allow full homosexual rights and marriages by
> Friday next week - the same is likely to happen in Britain in several
> years time.
Just clearing you up on some facts you've got wrong, and as far as I'm concerned, good for them.
> That's all set to change in a couple of years though. Already,
> Massachusetts is set to allow full homosexual rights and marriages by
> Friday next week - the same is likely to happen in Britain in several
> years time.
Just clearing you up on some facts you've got wrong, and as far as I'm concerned, good for them.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Taken from another thread but it is highly relevant to this
>
> How?
Because it seems that the common sense in this subject is that, as well as it may not be seen the preferred choice of sexuality by the common majority here, homosexuality is commonly seen as fine.
> Edgy wrote:
> Taken from another thread but it is highly relevant to this
>
> How?
Because it seems that the common sense in this subject is that, as well as it may not be seen the preferred choice of sexuality by the common majority here, homosexuality is commonly seen as fine.
Page: