The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
>
> I'll post my response up here soon.
>
> Jolly good. I shall await it, thank you.
Here goes. ...
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing
> you
> Ø humiliate yourself like this.
I don't feel humiliated - but isn't all this bickering on your behalf - a tad embarassing?
>
> Well, look at that….Forest ignores the fact that he’s been owned.
> What a surprise…Are you going to even acknowledge that I’ve caught
> you out?
I'll acknowledge questions...... ...
>
>
>
>
> No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I
> can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So,
> Light
> - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the
> Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't
> try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not
> consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the
> Ø Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like
> myself.
>
> Well yes you do; under Mosaic law, any non-Jew is a gentile. And you,
> as a Christian, are therefore a gentile. Do you see?
I was raised as a Hebrew Christian - and will always be a Hebrew Christian.
Anyone who was
> raised in the Jewish faith who then becomes a Christian, that person
> is no longer a Jew. Do you see? They are merely of semetic
> background. Do you see?
I know of Jewish people - they are athiests - who have never been to synagogue in their life - not that I've been except for a relative's batmizvah and a wedding. So - how do you remain Jewish?
> No-one can follow the Old Covenant? So why do all those Jews observe
> the Sabbath, and eat kosher meat? What, are they just showing off?
They are trying their best to follow the Old Covenant - it can't be done, but they try their best.
> If we live in the age of grace, why are you so determined to prove
> that you do not eat blood? Surely it shouldn’t matter in the age of
> Grace?
There are still commandments in the age of Grace. While if I fail to do certain practices I won't be put to death - we have to try and follow the New Covenant as thoroughly as possible.
>
> You’re not jewish at all, are you?
Yes I am.
You show an alarming lack of
> knowledge about Judaism, and that ignorance is exposed the second you
> try to talk to someone with more than a passing knowledge of the
> faith (ie. Me). As I’ve said, being a Jew is a matter of faith and
> you claim to be a Christian. As I’ve said (and as you’ve failed to
> answer), being both Jewish and Christian is a theological
> impossibility. You tried to say that you’re only semetic in
> background, but you seem to have forgotten that and now you’re trying
> to revert to saying that you’re part of the jewish faith as well.
> Keep up; you’re losing track of all your lies.
You are showing that you know nothing about the background of Jewish. If you can acknowledge I'm White - you can acknowledge I'm Jewish.
>
> Oh, and there’s the classic; Gump compares himself to Jesus in
> another chapter of his messianic fantasy. I have unfortunate news for
> you; Jesus didn’t avoid questions, or snap at people who’d caught him
> out. Jesus wasn’t a 14 year old fanatic with mental health problems
> either.
As I have already explained Jesus tells us to examine ourselves and be more like Him. People tried to catch Jesus out - but each time He knew the answers. I could catch you out, in the same way you could catch me out, but you can never catch the scriptures out.
>
>
>
> I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there
> is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I
> say
> animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the
> animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was
> most
> interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have
> heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in
> the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which
> Ø side of the arguement is correct.
>
> And how did animals inherit our nature? Did they copy us? Are you
> saying that animals are self aware enough to copy the nature of
> humans? If animals copy human nature, then how can anything ever be
> ‘natural’? As a general rule there is less homosexual behaviour in
> the animal world? Really? And how do you know this? Where do you get
> your figures from?
They inherited their sinful nature from the fall of man.
>
> A ‘Professor of Animals’? Mwah ha ha haaa….tell me, do you call
> doctors “Practitioners in People”? Do you mean a zoologist? If so,
> lets see a link to some of these articles you claim exist. Otherwise,
> this looks like another example of “Book of Mormon was a kids book”;
> a lie that you passed off as fact.
The Book of Mormon is a fictional book - which I have already demonstrated in a previous link.
>
> I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered
> 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your
> termology. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious
> Ø Gentile - but quite the opposite.
>
> You mean terminology, not termination. The former refers to words,
> the later refers to killing. A Freudian slip perhaps?
It's called a typo.
It would seem
> so, along with use of the word ‘demise’.
> You would be considered a Gentile by every practising Jew on the face
> of the planet. How do you know that God looks on you and treats you
> differently to everyone else?
Funny - I've met so many practising Jews who consider me Jewish.
>
> Does he talk to you personally?
Yes, He knows me and He knows you. He knows everyone walking this earth. But not everyone knows Him.
>
> We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks
> ago
> - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific
> contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to
> Ø cover up the articles.
>
> No dear boy; that’s not answering the question, it’s avoiding it. Not
> only that, but every article you posted was discredited. If I’m wrong
> on that, please do find one that hasn’t been ripped apart by the
> other posters. You won’t though; they all have. If by ‘covering up’
> your articles, you mean “disprove”, then I’d agree. So please, what
> do you mean by “covering up the articles”?
>
> So I’ll restate; I’ve offered you a simplistic definition of why your
> argument is wrong. I’d like you to offer a clear and concise argument
> of your own as to why the rebuttal I have provided is mistaken. A
> word of warning; saying “I’ve already proved” is not a valid
> argument; it’s evasive cowardice.
>
>
>
> I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son
> to
> die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in
> the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in
> the
> Ø Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
>
> I know you don’t accept it. That’s why I keep asking you to rebut the
> point.But all you keep saying is “You’re wrong because God loves us
> all” whilst offering nothing whatsoever to disprove the comparison
> I’ve made.
> Why would God send His one and only Son to die for the world, then
> threaten everyone who doesn’t acknowledge the sacrifice with eternal
> torment?
>
> You haven’t answered me; you’ve just mindlessly restated your
> position, so I’ll ask again. You have failed to respond to my
> accusation that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Could you
> either respond adequately to the point, or accept that you can offer
> nothing in rebuttal.
>
>
> Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan
> is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts
> of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up
> the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan
> Ø only.
>
> Which isn’t answering my question; why, when a staff member mentioned
> people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to
> answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
>
> I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of
> every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting
> your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again
> - it's a shame.
>
>
> And it’s a shame that you feel the need to give inadequate answers,
> lies, half truths, and cowardice as your response. I’ve said it
> before and I’ll say it again; stop acting like a cowardly hypocrite,
> and I’ll stop attacking you. As is, you deserve every single insult
> heaped upon you and more.
>
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
>
> Ø Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry
> person.
>
> Aw, thanks for the sympathy Forest. It fair brings a tear to my eye
> to see you try and rile me so that I’ll change the subject and leave
> you alone…It’s not gonna happen though. Any anger I feel is countered
> by the unbridled joy I experience at watching you twist and turn to
> avoid acknowledging the lies you’ve told.
>
> So then; a lot more questions arising from your answers. As you’re so
> gutless that you’ll take any excuse to avoid answering, I’ll set them
> out for you in nice, easy to understand terms…
>
> 1. If the definition of a gentile is “non jew” and you’re saying
> you’re a jew, then therefore you have to obey the Old Covenant. Would
> you agree, and if you don’t then why?
I would follow the Old Covenant today - if Jesus hadn't given us the New Covenant. On the practical side it is no longer even possible to keep the Old Covenant - where as it is possible to keep the New Covenant.
> 2. You now seem to have gone back to saying that you’re a Jew in the
> religious sense as you are claiming not to be a gentile. Is that the
> case?
I am Jewish in background - not 'religiously' as in following old Jewish laws of the Old Covenant. However Jewishness plays a huge part in Christianity as well as the Jewish feasts. All the feasts are worth remembering in particularly Passover and the Feast of Trumpets. All today remain valid feasts for Christians. Jesus was Jewish, was the King of the Jews - God is described as 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', where all the Hebrews stem from. Except for the two books of Luke and one book of Job - the entire rest of the Bible, all the other 63 books all have Hebrew authors. The Jews are God's chosen people - the eternal Heaven state will be entitled the New Jerusalem. Jesus is returning to Jerusalem - God says He will never forget about Israel. Israel is the only country with an assured future.
> 3. If the Old Covenant can no longer be followed, then why do
> practising Jews all over the world keep following it as best they
> can? Are you saying they’re all wrong? Or all lying?
They believe that to atone for sin - they must continue doing these rituals. This was the correct ritual back in the time of the Israelites under Moses and Aaron - but is not possible today, due to the destruction of the Temples. We live in the age of Grace today and Jews should be following the new law Jesus set out for the atonement of sin - which is that He took it away on the cross.
> 4. You’ve eaten blood in medium steak and also because you don’t eat
> kosher meat, so therefore you’ve broken the Law. Why are you saying
> that we should follow the Bible literally when you don’t follow it
> yourself?
Actually Light, when you buy the meat products from your local Sainsbury's there is no blood on the beef or preferred meat. There are products that appear like blood, but in truth the meat is dripping in bi-products of blood - which even these are removed before cooking.
> 5. How exactly did animals copy human nature? If that is the case,
> wouldn’t they have built civilisations of their own?
Animals inherited a sinful nature. Humans are above animals and as such we build the houses and the cities. Because we are above the animals, they inherited our sinful nature.
> 6. If animals HAVE copied humans, then how can you say that anything
> is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to be ‘natural’ if
> animals copy humans? Or couldn’t we say that human nature is
> ‘natural’ because, according to you, nature copies it?
Nature 'inherits' not copies. 'Inherits' and 'copies' are two vastly different words - look them up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
> 7. I’d like you to provide evidence for your assertion that
> incidences of homosexuality are more common among humans than in the
> animal kingdom.
Statistics. Between 11% and 12% of humans are homo-sexual, at least in part. This figure in the animal world is vastly smaller and the types of animals involved is again vastly smaller.
> 8. Do you accept that under Mosaic law, as a Christian you are
> considered a gentile by Jews?
If I lived three and a half thousand years ago under Mosaic law and lived like I do today, I would still only be cut off from the Israelites - not a Gentile.
> 9. How do you know God sees you differently to others? Does He talk
> to you personally?
Apart from asking the question above. God knows everyone - even you. Yes - I have personally spoken to God.
> 10. How has anyone tried to ‘cover up’ the pro-creation articles?
By blocking them and saying 'that doesn't count as evidence'.
> 11. Kindly answer the specific example I gave you concerning the 2nd
> Law of thermodynamics (namely that every article you have posted has
> neglected to mention that the 2nd law states that entropy only
> prevails ‘in a closed system’, and the world is not a closed system).
> Again, I must make clear that saying “I’ve already answered” when all
> of your previous answers were discredited is NOT a valid answer.
I posted links to websites showing without doubt evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics while other posted links claiming ‘it might not’.
> 12. Respond adequately to my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Saying “no it isn’t” is NOT a valid answer.
There are two answers to this question. One would be ‘yes’ and the other would be ‘no’. You have effectively said I can’t say ‘no’, leaving me the only option as ‘yes’. But I like to have a choice and the answer is no.
> 13. If God loves us enough to send His son to His death, then why
> will he condemn us to eternal torment if we don’t love Him? How is
> that indicative of compassion?
You reject God in this life – He’ll reject you in the next life. You don’t want God in this life – He won’t want you in the next one. By rejecting God and His Son Jesus – you are rejecting the gift of Eternal Life.
> 14. Why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies,
> did you assume he meant you?
Edgy believed I maybe Archangel – I of course are not and are no other Newbies. In the same way I have assured people I am not Belldandy or any other members of SR.
> 15. Why do you insist on manufacturing a Jewish background for
> yourself to distinguish yourself from other Christians?
I am Jewish and I am not ashamed of that fact. Jewishness is the basis for the whole Bible and the future prophecies. Why would I be ashamed to be one of God’s chosen people?
> 16. Don’t you agree that once you are a Christian, it doesn’t matter
> what your original background was as you are now Christian?
Once you are a Christian – you are a Christian, yes – but it wipes off nothing. Since I accepted Jesus – my skin colour didn’t change – nor did my Jewish background.
> 17. Do you accept that you have eaten blood as you have eaten meat
> other than kosher meat?
I have never eaten blood but I have eaten meat other than kosher meat, because we no longer live in the Mosaic age.
>
> C’mon yellowbelly; I’m captivated by your evasiveness, hypocrisy, and
> cowardice. I simply can’t get enough of your lies and misquotes. I’m
> entranced by how you give half answers at best, then get angry when I
> don’t blindly accept what you say.
I have answered all seventeen of your questions. Phew.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
>
> I'll post my response up here soon.
>
> Jolly good. I shall await it, thank you.
Here goes. ...
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing
> you
> Ø humiliate yourself like this.
I don't feel humiliated - but isn't all this bickering on your behalf - a tad embarassing?
>
> Well, look at that….Forest ignores the fact that he’s been owned.
> What a surprise…Are you going to even acknowledge that I’ve caught
> you out?
I'll acknowledge questions...... ...
>
>
>
>
> No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I
> can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So,
> Light
> - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the
> Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't
> try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not
> consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the
> Ø Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like
> myself.
>
> Well yes you do; under Mosaic law, any non-Jew is a gentile. And you,
> as a Christian, are therefore a gentile. Do you see?
I was raised as a Hebrew Christian - and will always be a Hebrew Christian.
Anyone who was
> raised in the Jewish faith who then becomes a Christian, that person
> is no longer a Jew. Do you see? They are merely of semetic
> background. Do you see?
I know of Jewish people - they are athiests - who have never been to synagogue in their life - not that I've been except for a relative's batmizvah and a wedding. So - how do you remain Jewish?
> No-one can follow the Old Covenant? So why do all those Jews observe
> the Sabbath, and eat kosher meat? What, are they just showing off?
They are trying their best to follow the Old Covenant - it can't be done, but they try their best.
> If we live in the age of grace, why are you so determined to prove
> that you do not eat blood? Surely it shouldn’t matter in the age of
> Grace?
There are still commandments in the age of Grace. While if I fail to do certain practices I won't be put to death - we have to try and follow the New Covenant as thoroughly as possible.
>
> You’re not jewish at all, are you?
Yes I am.
You show an alarming lack of
> knowledge about Judaism, and that ignorance is exposed the second you
> try to talk to someone with more than a passing knowledge of the
> faith (ie. Me). As I’ve said, being a Jew is a matter of faith and
> you claim to be a Christian. As I’ve said (and as you’ve failed to
> answer), being both Jewish and Christian is a theological
> impossibility. You tried to say that you’re only semetic in
> background, but you seem to have forgotten that and now you’re trying
> to revert to saying that you’re part of the jewish faith as well.
> Keep up; you’re losing track of all your lies.
You are showing that you know nothing about the background of Jewish. If you can acknowledge I'm White - you can acknowledge I'm Jewish.
>
> Oh, and there’s the classic; Gump compares himself to Jesus in
> another chapter of his messianic fantasy. I have unfortunate news for
> you; Jesus didn’t avoid questions, or snap at people who’d caught him
> out. Jesus wasn’t a 14 year old fanatic with mental health problems
> either.
As I have already explained Jesus tells us to examine ourselves and be more like Him. People tried to catch Jesus out - but each time He knew the answers. I could catch you out, in the same way you could catch me out, but you can never catch the scriptures out.
>
>
>
> I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there
> is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I
> say
> animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the
> animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was
> most
> interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have
> heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in
> the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which
> Ø side of the arguement is correct.
>
> And how did animals inherit our nature? Did they copy us? Are you
> saying that animals are self aware enough to copy the nature of
> humans? If animals copy human nature, then how can anything ever be
> ‘natural’? As a general rule there is less homosexual behaviour in
> the animal world? Really? And how do you know this? Where do you get
> your figures from?
They inherited their sinful nature from the fall of man.
>
> A ‘Professor of Animals’? Mwah ha ha haaa….tell me, do you call
> doctors “Practitioners in People”? Do you mean a zoologist? If so,
> lets see a link to some of these articles you claim exist. Otherwise,
> this looks like another example of “Book of Mormon was a kids book”;
> a lie that you passed off as fact.
The Book of Mormon is a fictional book - which I have already demonstrated in a previous link.
>
> I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered
> 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your
> termology. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious
> Ø Gentile - but quite the opposite.
>
> You mean terminology, not termination. The former refers to words,
> the later refers to killing. A Freudian slip perhaps?
It's called a typo.
It would seem
> so, along with use of the word ‘demise’.
> You would be considered a Gentile by every practising Jew on the face
> of the planet. How do you know that God looks on you and treats you
> differently to everyone else?
Funny - I've met so many practising Jews who consider me Jewish.
>
> Does he talk to you personally?
Yes, He knows me and He knows you. He knows everyone walking this earth. But not everyone knows Him.
>
> We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks
> ago
> - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific
> contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to
> Ø cover up the articles.
>
> No dear boy; that’s not answering the question, it’s avoiding it. Not
> only that, but every article you posted was discredited. If I’m wrong
> on that, please do find one that hasn’t been ripped apart by the
> other posters. You won’t though; they all have. If by ‘covering up’
> your articles, you mean “disprove”, then I’d agree. So please, what
> do you mean by “covering up the articles”?
>
> So I’ll restate; I’ve offered you a simplistic definition of why your
> argument is wrong. I’d like you to offer a clear and concise argument
> of your own as to why the rebuttal I have provided is mistaken. A
> word of warning; saying “I’ve already proved” is not a valid
> argument; it’s evasive cowardice.
>
>
>
> I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son
> to
> die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in
> the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in
> the
> Ø Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
>
> I know you don’t accept it. That’s why I keep asking you to rebut the
> point.But all you keep saying is “You’re wrong because God loves us
> all” whilst offering nothing whatsoever to disprove the comparison
> I’ve made.
> Why would God send His one and only Son to die for the world, then
> threaten everyone who doesn’t acknowledge the sacrifice with eternal
> torment?
>
> You haven’t answered me; you’ve just mindlessly restated your
> position, so I’ll ask again. You have failed to respond to my
> accusation that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Could you
> either respond adequately to the point, or accept that you can offer
> nothing in rebuttal.
>
>
> Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan
> is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts
> of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up
> the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan
> Ø only.
>
> Which isn’t answering my question; why, when a staff member mentioned
> people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to
> answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
>
> I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of
> every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting
> your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again
> - it's a shame.
>
>
> And it’s a shame that you feel the need to give inadequate answers,
> lies, half truths, and cowardice as your response. I’ve said it
> before and I’ll say it again; stop acting like a cowardly hypocrite,
> and I’ll stop attacking you. As is, you deserve every single insult
> heaped upon you and more.
>
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
>
> Ø Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry
> person.
>
> Aw, thanks for the sympathy Forest. It fair brings a tear to my eye
> to see you try and rile me so that I’ll change the subject and leave
> you alone…It’s not gonna happen though. Any anger I feel is countered
> by the unbridled joy I experience at watching you twist and turn to
> avoid acknowledging the lies you’ve told.
>
> So then; a lot more questions arising from your answers. As you’re so
> gutless that you’ll take any excuse to avoid answering, I’ll set them
> out for you in nice, easy to understand terms…
>
> 1. If the definition of a gentile is “non jew” and you’re saying
> you’re a jew, then therefore you have to obey the Old Covenant. Would
> you agree, and if you don’t then why?
I would follow the Old Covenant today - if Jesus hadn't given us the New Covenant. On the practical side it is no longer even possible to keep the Old Covenant - where as it is possible to keep the New Covenant.
> 2. You now seem to have gone back to saying that you’re a Jew in the
> religious sense as you are claiming not to be a gentile. Is that the
> case?
I am Jewish in background - not 'religiously' as in following old Jewish laws of the Old Covenant. However Jewishness plays a huge part in Christianity as well as the Jewish feasts. All the feasts are worth remembering in particularly Passover and the Feast of Trumpets. All today remain valid feasts for Christians. Jesus was Jewish, was the King of the Jews - God is described as 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', where all the Hebrews stem from. Except for the two books of Luke and one book of Job - the entire rest of the Bible, all the other 63 books all have Hebrew authors. The Jews are God's chosen people - the eternal Heaven state will be entitled the New Jerusalem. Jesus is returning to Jerusalem - God says He will never forget about Israel. Israel is the only country with an assured future.
> 3. If the Old Covenant can no longer be followed, then why do
> practising Jews all over the world keep following it as best they
> can? Are you saying they’re all wrong? Or all lying?
They believe that to atone for sin - they must continue doing these rituals. This was the correct ritual back in the time of the Israelites under Moses and Aaron - but is not possible today, due to the destruction of the Temples. We live in the age of Grace today and Jews should be following the new law Jesus set out for the atonement of sin - which is that He took it away on the cross.
> 4. You’ve eaten blood in medium steak and also because you don’t eat
> kosher meat, so therefore you’ve broken the Law. Why are you saying
> that we should follow the Bible literally when you don’t follow it
> yourself?
Actually Light, when you buy the meat products from your local Sainsbury's there is no blood on the beef or preferred meat. There are products that appear like blood, but in truth the meat is dripping in bi-products of blood - which even these are removed before cooking.
> 5. How exactly did animals copy human nature? If that is the case,
> wouldn’t they have built civilisations of their own?
Animals inherited a sinful nature. Humans are above animals and as such we build the houses and the cities. Because we are above the animals, they inherited our sinful nature.
> 6. If animals HAVE copied humans, then how can you say that anything
> is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to be ‘natural’ if
> animals copy humans? Or couldn’t we say that human nature is
> ‘natural’ because, according to you, nature copies it?
Nature 'inherits' not copies. 'Inherits' and 'copies' are two vastly different words - look them up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
> 7. I’d like you to provide evidence for your assertion that
> incidences of homosexuality are more common among humans than in the
> animal kingdom.
Statistics. Between 11% and 12% of humans are homo-sexual, at least in part. This figure in the animal world is vastly smaller and the types of animals involved is again vastly smaller.
> 8. Do you accept that under Mosaic law, as a Christian you are
> considered a gentile by Jews?
If I lived three and a half thousand years ago under Mosaic law and lived like I do today, I would still only be cut off from the Israelites - not a Gentile.
> 9. How do you know God sees you differently to others? Does He talk
> to you personally?
Apart from asking the question above. God knows everyone - even you. Yes - I have personally spoken to God.
> 10. How has anyone tried to ‘cover up’ the pro-creation articles?
By blocking them and saying 'that doesn't count as evidence'.
> 11. Kindly answer the specific example I gave you concerning the 2nd
> Law of thermodynamics (namely that every article you have posted has
> neglected to mention that the 2nd law states that entropy only
> prevails ‘in a closed system’, and the world is not a closed system).
> Again, I must make clear that saying “I’ve already answered” when all
> of your previous answers were discredited is NOT a valid answer.
I posted links to websites showing without doubt evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics while other posted links claiming ‘it might not’.
> 12. Respond adequately to my assertion that your love of God is
> nothing more than fear. Saying “no it isn’t” is NOT a valid answer.
There are two answers to this question. One would be ‘yes’ and the other would be ‘no’. You have effectively said I can’t say ‘no’, leaving me the only option as ‘yes’. But I like to have a choice and the answer is no.
> 13. If God loves us enough to send His son to His death, then why
> will he condemn us to eternal torment if we don’t love Him? How is
> that indicative of compassion?
You reject God in this life – He’ll reject you in the next life. You don’t want God in this life – He won’t want you in the next one. By rejecting God and His Son Jesus – you are rejecting the gift of Eternal Life.
> 14. Why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies,
> did you assume he meant you?
Edgy believed I maybe Archangel – I of course are not and are no other Newbies. In the same way I have assured people I am not Belldandy or any other members of SR.
> 15. Why do you insist on manufacturing a Jewish background for
> yourself to distinguish yourself from other Christians?
I am Jewish and I am not ashamed of that fact. Jewishness is the basis for the whole Bible and the future prophecies. Why would I be ashamed to be one of God’s chosen people?
> 16. Don’t you agree that once you are a Christian, it doesn’t matter
> what your original background was as you are now Christian?
Once you are a Christian – you are a Christian, yes – but it wipes off nothing. Since I accepted Jesus – my skin colour didn’t change – nor did my Jewish background.
> 17. Do you accept that you have eaten blood as you have eaten meat
> other than kosher meat?
I have never eaten blood but I have eaten meat other than kosher meat, because we no longer live in the Mosaic age.
>
> C’mon yellowbelly; I’m captivated by your evasiveness, hypocrisy, and
> cowardice. I simply can’t get enough of your lies and misquotes. I’m
> entranced by how you give half answers at best, then get angry when I
> don’t blindly accept what you say.
I have answered all seventeen of your questions. Phew.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
>
> I'll post my response up here soon.
Jolly good. I shall await it, thank you.
> Light wrote:
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
>
> I'll post my response up here soon.
Jolly good. I shall await it, thank you.
Light wrote:
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
I'll post my response up here soon.
> Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the
> self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
I'll post my response up here soon.
Heh. Thank you. If one is going to spend ones day destroying the self-obsessed lies of a hypocrite, one may as well be thorough.
Light wrote:
> Quite the most comprehensive owning I have ever had the privilege of witnessing, and one that if I quoted in full would mean an immediate banning for spamming and trying to increase my word count (not that I give a damn about things like that).
I'm astounded. Seriously. Astounded.
> Quite the most comprehensive owning I have ever had the privilege of witnessing, and one that if I quoted in full would mean an immediate banning for spamming and trying to increase my word count (not that I give a damn about things like that).
I'm astounded. Seriously. Astounded.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing
> you
Ø humiliate yourself like this.
Well, look at that….Forest ignores the fact that he’s been owned. What a surprise…Are you going to even acknowledge that I’ve caught you out?
>
>
> No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I
> can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So, Light
> - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the
> Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't
> try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not
> consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the
Ø Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like myself.
Well yes you do; under Mosaic law, any non-Jew is a gentile. And you, as a Christian, are therefore a gentile. Do you see? Anyone who was raised in the Jewish faith who then becomes a Christian, that person is no longer a Jew. Do you see? They are merely of semetic background. Do you see?
No-one can follow the Old Covenant? So why do all those Jews observe the Sabbath, and eat kosher meat? What, are they just showing off?
If we live in the age of grace, why are you so determined to prove that you do not eat blood? Surely it shouldn’t matter in the age of Grace?
You’re not jewish at all, are you? You show an alarming lack of knowledge about Judaism, and that ignorance is exposed the second you try to talk to someone with more than a passing knowledge of the faith (ie. Me). As I’ve said, being a Jew is a matter of faith and you claim to be a Christian. As I’ve said (and as you’ve failed to answer), being both Jewish and Christian is a theological impossibility. You tried to say that you’re only semetic in background, but you seem to have forgotten that and now you’re trying to revert to saying that you’re part of the jewish faith as well. Keep up; you’re losing track of all your lies.
Oh, and there’s the classic; Gump compares himself to Jesus in another chapter of his messianic fantasy. I have unfortunate news for you; Jesus didn’t avoid questions, or snap at people who’d caught him out. Jesus wasn’t a 14 year old fanatic with mental health problems either.
>
> I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there
> is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I say
> animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the
> animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was most
> interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have
> heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in
> the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which
Ø side of the arguement is correct.
And how did animals inherit our nature? Did they copy us? Are you saying that animals are self aware enough to copy the nature of humans? If animals copy human nature, then how can anything ever be ‘natural’? As a general rule there is less homosexual behaviour in the animal world? Really? And how do you know this? Where do you get your figures from?
A ‘Professor of Animals’? Mwah ha ha haaa….tell me, do you call doctors “Practitioners in People”? Do you mean a zoologist? If so, lets see a link to some of these articles you claim exist. Otherwise, this looks like another example of “Book of Mormon was a kids book”; a lie that you passed off as fact.
> I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered
> 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your
> termination. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious
Ø Gentile - but quite the opposite.
You mean terminology, not termination. The former refers to words, the later refers to killing. A Freudian slip perhaps? It would seem so, along with use of the word ‘demise’.
You would be considered a Gentile by every practising Jew on the face of the planet. How do you know that God looks on you and treats you differently to everyone else? Does he talk to you personally?
>
> We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks ago
> - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific
> contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to
Ø cover up the articles.
No dear boy; that’s not answering the question, it’s avoiding it. Not only that, but every article you posted was discredited. If I’m wrong on that, please do find one that hasn’t been ripped apart by the other posters. You won’t though; they all have. If by ‘covering up’ your articles, you mean “disprove”, then I’d agree. So please, what do you mean by “covering up the articles”?
So I’ll restate; I’ve offered you a simplistic definition of why your argument is wrong. I’d like you to offer a clear and concise argument of your own as to why the rebuttal I have provided is mistaken. A word of warning; saying “I’ve already proved” is not a valid argument; it’s evasive cowardice.
>
> I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son to
> die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in
> the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in the
Ø Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
I know you don’t accept it. That’s why I keep asking you to rebut the point.But all you keep saying is “You’re wrong because God loves us all” whilst offering nothing whatsoever to disprove the comparison I’ve made.
Why would God send His one and only Son to die for the world, then threaten everyone who doesn’t acknowledge the sacrifice with eternal torment?
You haven’t answered me; you’ve just mindlessly restated your position, so I’ll ask again. You have failed to respond to my accusation that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Could you either respond adequately to the point, or accept that you can offer nothing in rebuttal.
>
> Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan
> is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts
> of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up
> the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan
Ø only.
Which isn’t answering my question; why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to
> answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
>
> I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of
> every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting
> your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again
> - it's a shame.
>
And it’s a shame that you feel the need to give inadequate answers, lies, half truths, and cowardice as your response. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; stop acting like a cowardly hypocrite, and I’ll stop attacking you. As is, you deserve every single insult heaped upon you and more.
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
>
Ø Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry person.
Aw, thanks for the sympathy Forest. It fair brings a tear to my eye to see you try and rile me so that I’ll change the subject and leave you alone…It’s not gonna happen though. Any anger I feel is countered by the unbridled joy I experience at watching you twist and turn to avoid acknowledging the lies you’ve told.
So then; a lot more questions arising from your answers. As you’re so gutless that you’ll take any excuse to avoid answering, I’ll set them out for you in nice, easy to understand terms…
1. If the definition of a gentile is “non jew” and you’re saying you’re a jew, then therefore you have to obey the Old Covenant. Would you agree, and if you don’t then why?
2. You now seem to have gone back to saying that you’re a Jew in the religious sense as you are claiming not to be a gentile. Is that the case?
3. If the Old Covenant can no longer be followed, then why do practising Jews all over the world keep following it as best they can? Are you saying they’re all wrong? Or all lying?
4. You’ve eaten blood in medium steak and also because you don’t eat kosher meat, so therefore you’ve broken the Law. Why are you saying that we should follow the Bible literally when you don’t follow it yourself?
5. How exactly did animals copy human nature? If that is the case, wouldn’t they have built civilisations of their own?
6. If animals HAVE copied humans, then how can you say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to be ‘natural’ if animals copy humans? Or couldn’t we say that human nature is ‘natural’ because, according to you, nature copies it?
7. I’d like you to provide evidence for your assertion that incidences of homosexuality are more common among humans than in the animal kingdom.
8. Do you accept that under Mosaic law, as a Christian you are considered a gentile by Jews?
9. How do you know God sees you differently to others? Does He talk to you personally?
10. How has anyone tried to ‘cover up’ the pro-creation articles?
11. Kindly answer the specific example I gave you concerning the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (namely that every article you have posted has neglected to mention that the 2nd law states that entropy only prevails ‘in a closed system’, and the world is not a closed system). Again, I must make clear that saying “I’ve already answered” when all of your previous answers were discredited is NOT a valid answer.
12. Respond adequately to my assertion that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Saying “no it isn’t” is NOT a valid answer.
13. If God loves us enough to send His son to His death, then why will he condemn us to eternal torment if we don’t love Him? How is that indicative of compassion?
14. Why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
15. Why do you insist on manufacturing a Jewish background for yourself to distinguish yourself from other Christians?
16. Don’t you agree that once you are a Christian, it doesn’t matter what your original background was as you are now Christian?
17. Do you accept that you have eaten blood as you have eaten meat other than kosher meat?
C’mon yellowbelly; I’m captivated by your evasiveness, hypocrisy, and cowardice. I simply can’t get enough of your lies and misquotes. I’m entranced by how you give half answers at best, then get angry when I don’t blindly accept what you say.
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing
> you
Ø humiliate yourself like this.
Well, look at that….Forest ignores the fact that he’s been owned. What a surprise…Are you going to even acknowledge that I’ve caught you out?
>
>
> No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I
> can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So, Light
> - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the
> Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't
> try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not
> consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the
Ø Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like myself.
Well yes you do; under Mosaic law, any non-Jew is a gentile. And you, as a Christian, are therefore a gentile. Do you see? Anyone who was raised in the Jewish faith who then becomes a Christian, that person is no longer a Jew. Do you see? They are merely of semetic background. Do you see?
No-one can follow the Old Covenant? So why do all those Jews observe the Sabbath, and eat kosher meat? What, are they just showing off?
If we live in the age of grace, why are you so determined to prove that you do not eat blood? Surely it shouldn’t matter in the age of Grace?
You’re not jewish at all, are you? You show an alarming lack of knowledge about Judaism, and that ignorance is exposed the second you try to talk to someone with more than a passing knowledge of the faith (ie. Me). As I’ve said, being a Jew is a matter of faith and you claim to be a Christian. As I’ve said (and as you’ve failed to answer), being both Jewish and Christian is a theological impossibility. You tried to say that you’re only semetic in background, but you seem to have forgotten that and now you’re trying to revert to saying that you’re part of the jewish faith as well. Keep up; you’re losing track of all your lies.
Oh, and there’s the classic; Gump compares himself to Jesus in another chapter of his messianic fantasy. I have unfortunate news for you; Jesus didn’t avoid questions, or snap at people who’d caught him out. Jesus wasn’t a 14 year old fanatic with mental health problems either.
>
> I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there
> is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I say
> animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the
> animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was most
> interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have
> heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in
> the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which
Ø side of the arguement is correct.
And how did animals inherit our nature? Did they copy us? Are you saying that animals are self aware enough to copy the nature of humans? If animals copy human nature, then how can anything ever be ‘natural’? As a general rule there is less homosexual behaviour in the animal world? Really? And how do you know this? Where do you get your figures from?
A ‘Professor of Animals’? Mwah ha ha haaa….tell me, do you call doctors “Practitioners in People”? Do you mean a zoologist? If so, lets see a link to some of these articles you claim exist. Otherwise, this looks like another example of “Book of Mormon was a kids book”; a lie that you passed off as fact.
> I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered
> 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your
> termination. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious
Ø Gentile - but quite the opposite.
You mean terminology, not termination. The former refers to words, the later refers to killing. A Freudian slip perhaps? It would seem so, along with use of the word ‘demise’.
You would be considered a Gentile by every practising Jew on the face of the planet. How do you know that God looks on you and treats you differently to everyone else? Does he talk to you personally?
>
> We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks ago
> - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific
> contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to
Ø cover up the articles.
No dear boy; that’s not answering the question, it’s avoiding it. Not only that, but every article you posted was discredited. If I’m wrong on that, please do find one that hasn’t been ripped apart by the other posters. You won’t though; they all have. If by ‘covering up’ your articles, you mean “disprove”, then I’d agree. So please, what do you mean by “covering up the articles”?
So I’ll restate; I’ve offered you a simplistic definition of why your argument is wrong. I’d like you to offer a clear and concise argument of your own as to why the rebuttal I have provided is mistaken. A word of warning; saying “I’ve already proved” is not a valid argument; it’s evasive cowardice.
>
> I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son to
> die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in
> the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in the
Ø Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
I know you don’t accept it. That’s why I keep asking you to rebut the point.But all you keep saying is “You’re wrong because God loves us all” whilst offering nothing whatsoever to disprove the comparison I’ve made.
Why would God send His one and only Son to die for the world, then threaten everyone who doesn’t acknowledge the sacrifice with eternal torment?
You haven’t answered me; you’ve just mindlessly restated your position, so I’ll ask again. You have failed to respond to my accusation that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Could you either respond adequately to the point, or accept that you can offer nothing in rebuttal.
>
> Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan
> is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts
> of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up
> the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan
Ø only.
Which isn’t answering my question; why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to
> answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
>
> I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of
> every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting
> your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again
> - it's a shame.
>
And it’s a shame that you feel the need to give inadequate answers, lies, half truths, and cowardice as your response. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; stop acting like a cowardly hypocrite, and I’ll stop attacking you. As is, you deserve every single insult heaped upon you and more.
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
>
Ø Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry person.
Aw, thanks for the sympathy Forest. It fair brings a tear to my eye to see you try and rile me so that I’ll change the subject and leave you alone…It’s not gonna happen though. Any anger I feel is countered by the unbridled joy I experience at watching you twist and turn to avoid acknowledging the lies you’ve told.
So then; a lot more questions arising from your answers. As you’re so gutless that you’ll take any excuse to avoid answering, I’ll set them out for you in nice, easy to understand terms…
1. If the definition of a gentile is “non jew” and you’re saying you’re a jew, then therefore you have to obey the Old Covenant. Would you agree, and if you don’t then why?
2. You now seem to have gone back to saying that you’re a Jew in the religious sense as you are claiming not to be a gentile. Is that the case?
3. If the Old Covenant can no longer be followed, then why do practising Jews all over the world keep following it as best they can? Are you saying they’re all wrong? Or all lying?
4. You’ve eaten blood in medium steak and also because you don’t eat kosher meat, so therefore you’ve broken the Law. Why are you saying that we should follow the Bible literally when you don’t follow it yourself?
5. How exactly did animals copy human nature? If that is the case, wouldn’t they have built civilisations of their own?
6. If animals HAVE copied humans, then how can you say that anything is ‘natural’? Isn’t it impossible for anything to be ‘natural’ if animals copy humans? Or couldn’t we say that human nature is ‘natural’ because, according to you, nature copies it?
7. I’d like you to provide evidence for your assertion that incidences of homosexuality are more common among humans than in the animal kingdom.
8. Do you accept that under Mosaic law, as a Christian you are considered a gentile by Jews?
9. How do you know God sees you differently to others? Does He talk to you personally?
10. How has anyone tried to ‘cover up’ the pro-creation articles?
11. Kindly answer the specific example I gave you concerning the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (namely that every article you have posted has neglected to mention that the 2nd law states that entropy only prevails ‘in a closed system’, and the world is not a closed system). Again, I must make clear that saying “I’ve already answered” when all of your previous answers were discredited is NOT a valid answer.
12. Respond adequately to my assertion that your love of God is nothing more than fear. Saying “no it isn’t” is NOT a valid answer.
13. If God loves us enough to send His son to His death, then why will he condemn us to eternal torment if we don’t love Him? How is that indicative of compassion?
14. Why, when a staff member mentioned people posting as newbies, did you assume he meant you?
15. Why do you insist on manufacturing a Jewish background for yourself to distinguish yourself from other Christians?
16. Don’t you agree that once you are a Christian, it doesn’t matter what your original background was as you are now Christian?
17. Do you accept that you have eaten blood as you have eaten meat other than kosher meat?
C’mon yellowbelly; I’m captivated by your evasiveness, hypocrisy, and cowardice. I simply can’t get enough of your lies and misquotes. I’m entranced by how you give half answers at best, then get angry when I don’t blindly accept what you say.
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing you
> humiliate yourself like this.
>
> As for the questions (all of which were asked yesterday, yet you kept
> telling me to "be patient"...
>
> 1. You have previously said you are a jewish christian. However, you
> say you don't follow the Old Covenant. Therefore, would you agree
> that this means you cannot be Jewish? Would you further agree that
> your acceptance that you follow only the New Covenant renders your
> attempts to distinguish yourself as "A hebrew christian"
> are entirely meaningless as one type of christian is no better than
> another?
No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So, Light - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like myself.
>
> 2. You haven't bothered to explain how the incidences of
> homosexuality in the natural world affect your assertion that
> homosexuality is unnatural. Kindly do so and stop being so evasive.
I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I say animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was most interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which side of the arguement is correct.
>
> 3. Your definition of religion has no merit as it disagrees entirely
> with the commonly accepted definition of the word. Therefore, I ask
> you whether you would agree that you are religious according to the
> commonly accepted definition of "religious".
I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your termination. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious Gentile - but quite the opposite.
>
> 4. Your response to my accusation that you ignore the arguments that
> rebutt your own and mindlessly restate your discredited argument, was
> to ignore the arguments that rebutted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> assertionn and mindlessly restate that "it disproves
> evolution". I've offered you a simplistic definition of why your
> argument is wrong. I'd like you to offer a clear and concise argument
> of your own as to why the rebuttal I have presented is mistaken.
We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks ago - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to cover up the articles.
>
> 5. You have responded to my accusation that your love is nothing more
> than fear by simply stating that your fear is a form of love. Either
> rebutt the argument, or accept that you've lost on that point.
I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son to die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in the Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
>
> 6. If you're not posting as all these newbies, why did you assume
> that someone who mentions an increase in newbies is talking about
> you?
Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan only.
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's a shame.
>
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry person.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding
> asking
> me a question?
>
>
> Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at
> 9.53am...
>
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions.
> Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
>
>
> It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about
> your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's
> crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of
> ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing you
> humiliate yourself like this.
>
> As for the questions (all of which were asked yesterday, yet you kept
> telling me to "be patient"...
>
> 1. You have previously said you are a jewish christian. However, you
> say you don't follow the Old Covenant. Therefore, would you agree
> that this means you cannot be Jewish? Would you further agree that
> your acceptance that you follow only the New Covenant renders your
> attempts to distinguish yourself as "A hebrew christian"
> are entirely meaningless as one type of christian is no better than
> another?
No - once a Jew - always a Jew is the motto said and it's right. I can never stop being White - can never stop being who I am. So, Light - do I suddenly become a Gentile then? Because no-one and even the Rabbis will agree - no-one can follow the Old Covenant and I don't try to as today we live in the age of Grace. The Lubivich may not consider me Jewish but Jesus certainly does. Jesus knew He was the Son of God and was Jewish - He is still Jewish just like myself.
>
> 2. You haven't bothered to explain how the incidences of
> homosexuality in the natural world affect your assertion that
> homosexuality is unnatural. Kindly do so and stop being so evasive.
I found the article most interesting - but as a general rule, there is less homo-sexual behaviour then in the human world. But like I say animals have inherited a sinful nature from humans - not that the animals themselves are sinners - but they inherit our sin. I was most interested in the article about homo-sexual animals, although I have heard professors of animals who have stated that homo-sexuality in the animal world is unheard of. I am interested in finding out which side of the arguement is correct.
>
> 3. Your definition of religion has no merit as it disagrees entirely
> with the commonly accepted definition of the word. Therefore, I ask
> you whether you would agree that you are religious according to the
> commonly accepted definition of "religious".
I would accept that by other people's demise I may be considered 'religious', in the same I may be consider 'Gentile' by your termination. However, God looks at me and doesn't see a relgious Gentile - but quite the opposite.
>
> 4. Your response to my accusation that you ignore the arguments that
> rebutt your own and mindlessly restate your discredited argument, was
> to ignore the arguments that rebutted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> assertionn and mindlessly restate that "it disproves
> evolution". I've offered you a simplistic definition of why your
> argument is wrong. I'd like you to offer a clear and concise argument
> of your own as to why the rebuttal I have presented is mistaken.
We've already gone through the second law of thermodynamics weeks ago - I found articles upon articles showing the scientific contradictions of the theory of evolution - while others tried to cover up the articles.
>
> 5. You have responded to my accusation that your love is nothing more
> than fear by simply stating that your fear is a form of love. Either
> rebutt the argument, or accept that you've lost on that point.
I don't accept that point. Why would God send His One and Only Son to die for the World - because He loves the World. He loves everyone in the World and has died for each one of them and He has a place in the Kingdom of God for anyone who wants to redeem it.
>
> 6. If you're not posting as all these newbies, why did you assume
> that someone who mentions an increase in newbies is talking about
> you?
Edgy continually insists that, 'I wouldn't be suprised if Forest Fan is Archangel', who of course I am not. Plus - I have heard all sorts of conspiracy theories about who I may also be - the one cropping up the most being Belldandy. I post under Forest Fan and Forest Fan only.
>
>
> So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young
> boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent
> all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to answer
> why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian
> hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself.
> That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly
> pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new
> covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that
> anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one
> doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way
> you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I
> just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you
> got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further
> proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly
> Judaism).
I've answerd all points. But this is what bothers me - at the end of every post, you write a whole paragraph just attacking me - venting your anger verbally at me. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's a shame.
>
> C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can
> scale today!
Again - your anger is unbelievable. You must be a very angry person.
Forest Fan wrote:
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding asking
> me a question?
Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at 9.53am...
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions. Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing you humiliate yourself like this.
As for the questions (all of which were asked yesterday, yet you kept telling me to "be patient"...
1. You have previously said you are a jewish christian. However, you say you don't follow the Old Covenant. Therefore, would you agree that this means you cannot be Jewish? Would you further agree that your acceptance that you follow only the New Covenant renders your attempts to distinguish yourself as "A hebrew christian" are entirely meaningless as one type of christian is no better than another?
2. You haven't bothered to explain how the incidences of homosexuality in the natural world affect your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural. Kindly do so and stop being so evasive.
3. Your definition of religion has no merit as it disagrees entirely with the commonly accepted definition of the word. Therefore, I ask you whether you would agree that you are religious according to the commonly accepted definition of "religious".
4. Your response to my accusation that you ignore the arguments that rebutt your own and mindlessly restate your discredited argument, was to ignore the arguments that rebutted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics assertionn and mindlessly restate that "it disproves evolution". I've offered you a simplistic definition of why your argument is wrong. I'd like you to offer a clear and concise argument of your own as to why the rebuttal I have presented is mistaken.
5. You have responded to my accusation that your love is nothing more than fear by simply stating that your fear is a form of love. Either rebutt the argument, or accept that you've lost on that point.
6. If you're not posting as all these newbies, why did you assume that someone who mentions an increase in newbies is talking about you?
So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to answer why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself. That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly Judaism).
C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can scale today!
> What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding asking
> me a question?
Heheheheh. Before I do, lets have a look at what I said yesterday at 9.53am...
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> I want to get every issue sorted out before we move on to the next
> one - otherwise we'll have to continually go back to previous ones.
>
> No; you want to concentrate on one issue out of the many I've
> cornered you on, stick with that until the original post has been
> bumped off the front page, then ignore all the other questions. Then,
> if someone asks you to answer the other questions, you'll post
> "What questions?". If someone refers to the original post,
> you'll say "Which post?" You know; like you've done since
> the moment you started posting here.
It's SO nice to see you being so predictable, proving me right about your cowardice and evasiveness, and doing so in such a way that it's crystal clear for all to see what a truly pathetic patch of ladyboxrot you are. Really, I take great satisfaction from seeing you humiliate yourself like this.
As for the questions (all of which were asked yesterday, yet you kept telling me to "be patient"...
1. You have previously said you are a jewish christian. However, you say you don't follow the Old Covenant. Therefore, would you agree that this means you cannot be Jewish? Would you further agree that your acceptance that you follow only the New Covenant renders your attempts to distinguish yourself as "A hebrew christian" are entirely meaningless as one type of christian is no better than another?
2. You haven't bothered to explain how the incidences of homosexuality in the natural world affect your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural. Kindly do so and stop being so evasive.
3. Your definition of religion has no merit as it disagrees entirely with the commonly accepted definition of the word. Therefore, I ask you whether you would agree that you are religious according to the commonly accepted definition of "religious".
4. Your response to my accusation that you ignore the arguments that rebutt your own and mindlessly restate your discredited argument, was to ignore the arguments that rebutted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics assertionn and mindlessly restate that "it disproves evolution". I've offered you a simplistic definition of why your argument is wrong. I'd like you to offer a clear and concise argument of your own as to why the rebuttal I have presented is mistaken.
5. You have responded to my accusation that your love is nothing more than fear by simply stating that your fear is a form of love. Either rebutt the argument, or accept that you've lost on that point.
6. If you're not posting as all these newbies, why did you assume that someone who mentions an increase in newbies is talking about you?
So then you contemptible, egocentric, and deeply ignorant young boy…any answers to offer, or just more evasion? After all, we spent all day yesterday on the 1st of these and you still refused to answer why you’re so keen on distinguishing yourself from the Christian hoi-polloi by making up a fictional jewish background for yourself. That’s not even touching on the fact that you had to make up a truly pathetic lie to try and hide the fact that you’ve broken the new covenant by eating blood in a medium done steak (I’m afraid that anyone who has ever, ever cooked a steak sort of knows that one doesn’t wash it before cooking it. Not only that, but the only way you can actually avoid eating blood in meat is to eat kosher meat. I just wanted to see whether you’d even mention that, but instead you got drawn into this argument on medium steak, thus providing further proof of your ignorance concerning religion and particularly Judaism).
C’mon old yeller’, lets see what fresh heights of cowardice you can scale today!
What question have you for me Light - rather than just avoiding asking me a question?
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> I'm no Messiah - only Jesus is - but we are told to try and be like
> Him, follow Him.
Yes, you've taken it a little too far haven't you? After all, you keep stressing a (fictional) semetic background. Like Jesus had. And you keep telling us that you are being questioned and doubted. Like Jesus was. And you've also told me not to question you because it makes God angry. Jesus never did that of course, but I liked the implication that you're special in the eyes of God.
If you were really anything like Jesus, you'd answer questions that are asked of you. As is, your cowardice and odiousness of character make you far more comparable to Judas. Actually, no; Judas had a sense of honour and at least he had the decency to kill himself. With your desire to stop everyone questioning you, your fantasy of being special, and your determination that everyone should be as frightened of God as you are, you're far more like Torquemada.
>
> Oh, you're running and hiding from questions again. Care to start
> answering them, or is your cowardice getting the better of you
> again?
>
> Questions...
Heheheh. Oh Forest; are you doing exactly what I predicted and using the fact that you've concentrated on one question so that the others slip away from the front screen to pretend that you don't know what the otehr questions are? And when you haven't even gone anywhere close to doing anything other than confirming that you're a hypocrite who eats blood and then lies to cover it up. Like I say, you're a predictable coward.
There are 6 questions; the one that you're currently trying to lie about (the eating of blood in a medium steak; tell me, are you still trying to claim that meat is washed before consumption?) and the 5 that you've avoided altogether. C'mon my gutless wonder; let me hear your latest gambit to avoid answering any questions.
>
> I'm no Messiah - only Jesus is - but we are told to try and be like
> Him, follow Him.
Yes, you've taken it a little too far haven't you? After all, you keep stressing a (fictional) semetic background. Like Jesus had. And you keep telling us that you are being questioned and doubted. Like Jesus was. And you've also told me not to question you because it makes God angry. Jesus never did that of course, but I liked the implication that you're special in the eyes of God.
If you were really anything like Jesus, you'd answer questions that are asked of you. As is, your cowardice and odiousness of character make you far more comparable to Judas. Actually, no; Judas had a sense of honour and at least he had the decency to kill himself. With your desire to stop everyone questioning you, your fantasy of being special, and your determination that everyone should be as frightened of God as you are, you're far more like Torquemada.
>
> Oh, you're running and hiding from questions again. Care to start
> answering them, or is your cowardice getting the better of you
> again?
>
> Questions...
Heheheh. Oh Forest; are you doing exactly what I predicted and using the fact that you've concentrated on one question so that the others slip away from the front screen to pretend that you don't know what the otehr questions are? And when you haven't even gone anywhere close to doing anything other than confirming that you're a hypocrite who eats blood and then lies to cover it up. Like I say, you're a predictable coward.
There are 6 questions; the one that you're currently trying to lie about (the eating of blood in a medium steak; tell me, are you still trying to claim that meat is washed before consumption?) and the 5 that you've avoided altogether. C'mon my gutless wonder; let me hear your latest gambit to avoid answering any questions.
Page: