The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> Thankyou - that needed pointing out to Light. Eating out - my steak
> is usually medium or well done. When cooked at home - well done. This
> also points out that when you buy the steak - it is not dripping in
> blood.
And I never said it was dripping in blood, did I? C'mon Gump; point out where I said this.
So you eat a medium steak when eating out? Then you've eaten blood. Hypocrite.
>
> Thankyou - that needed pointing out to Light. Eating out - my steak
> is usually medium or well done. When cooked at home - well done. This
> also points out that when you buy the steak - it is not dripping in
> blood.
And I never said it was dripping in blood, did I? C'mon Gump; point out where I said this.
So you eat a medium steak when eating out? Then you've eaten blood. Hypocrite.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
>
> I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare,
> medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a
> steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak,
> you silly, silly boy.
Mwah ha ha hahaaaaa! No, you don't buy it like that from a supermarket. It's how you cook it. The steak that is bought, raw, has blood in it. If you cook it to a well done stage, that blood product is lost. If you cook it anything up to a medium, then it contains blood. Ergo, unless you (well, your parents...) cook it well done, it will contain blood.
You DO however order a steak in a restaurant Rare, Medium, or Well Done. What's the matter Gump? Never been to a restaurant before? Oh, of course you haven't; your parents have never taken you to one have they? I find your inadvertant admission of social retardation simply breathtaking in its amusement value.
Heh. This is fun; your attempts at scathing sarcasm are like a goldfish trying to threaten a piranha!
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
>
> I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare,
> medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a
> steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak,
> you silly, silly boy.
Mwah ha ha hahaaaaa! No, you don't buy it like that from a supermarket. It's how you cook it. The steak that is bought, raw, has blood in it. If you cook it to a well done stage, that blood product is lost. If you cook it anything up to a medium, then it contains blood. Ergo, unless you (well, your parents...) cook it well done, it will contain blood.
You DO however order a steak in a restaurant Rare, Medium, or Well Done. What's the matter Gump? Never been to a restaurant before? Oh, of course you haven't; your parents have never taken you to one have they? I find your inadvertant admission of social retardation simply breathtaking in its amusement value.
Heh. This is fun; your attempts at scathing sarcasm are like a goldfish trying to threaten a piranha!
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak
> invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words
> into
> my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your
> level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the
> matter?
> Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
>
> I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare,
> medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a
> steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak,
> you silly, silly boy.
Thankyou - that needed pointing out to Light. Eating out - my steak is usually medium or well done. When cooked at home - well done. This also points out that when you buy the steak - it is not dripping in blood.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak
> invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words
> into
> my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your
> level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the
> matter?
> Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
>
> I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare,
> medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a
> steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak,
> you silly, silly boy.
Thankyou - that needed pointing out to Light. Eating out - my steak is usually medium or well done. When cooked at home - well done. This also points out that when you buy the steak - it is not dripping in blood.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
That my dear boy is what is known as bull. Ever actually bought a steak? It has fluid in it. Red fluid. Blood. So what you're doing there is lying. Shall we open this one up to the floor, and ask the entire rest of the world whether or not steaks have traces of blood in them if done medium? After all, the whole point of a rare steak, or steak tartare is that one can taste the blood. So are you now saying that every single person who has ever eaten a rare steak has not actually eaten blood?
And why restate the point about black pudding? I know you haven't eaten it. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of your own continued righteousness.
Next? Why, you already have a number of other questions from me that you're avoiding. So as well as telling a blatant lie about the nature of a medium done steak (which, by the way, is proving another point of mine; just how ludicrous your faith is if it will bar someone from heaven for eating an undercooked steak...), you are now (as I predicted) trying to avoid answering the other questions. How cowardly do you have to be before you'll accept that you're not the messiah. You're a very naughty boy.
>
> Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background.
> Not white (caucasian).
>
> Heh. Think what country we live in. Think how hot the overall climate
> is here. Think how many hours of sunshine there are each year. Think
> what skin colour I have. Well done.
Hey wow, sarcasm; that is AWESOME! Okay...think what country we live in? Doing that...I'm also thinking of the Jewish community in Gateshead near where I live. Hey, you know something? Those jews couldn't really be described as being white. Cos, y'know, being afro-asian is more about just having tanned skin. It's a racial grouping, just as causcasion is. I mean what; do you think that 2nd generation Jamaican immigrants are white too?
So would you like to try again; my question was "Why do you raise your semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith."
Would you care to address that point? Or are you going to answer with more irrelevances, smoke, and mirrors?
>
> Are you still trying to claim that you're not
> afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are
> you?
> Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does
> the semetic part of your heritage come from?
>
> Semitic. Yes, just semitic.
And where does that semetic heritage come from? You see Gump; you're avoiding the question. Like a coward.
>
> I'll re-iterate the patience stance. You need to learn patience. Once
> we have worked through every point - the next one will be addressed.
> We wouldn't want to be opening up old questions again, would we?
And I'll re-iterate the "you're a lying, evasive little coward who will stick to one point in the hope that this one will go away" point. I'll also point out that in this very post you rather rashly say "next". Okay then; I'll take that as you being ready to address all the other questions. Or didn't you really mean 'next'? Finally I'll point out that even in this post of yours, you've avoided questions. So you have no right to ask for patience, as your evasiveness and lying is fairly clear.
>
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
That my dear boy is what is known as bull. Ever actually bought a steak? It has fluid in it. Red fluid. Blood. So what you're doing there is lying. Shall we open this one up to the floor, and ask the entire rest of the world whether or not steaks have traces of blood in them if done medium? After all, the whole point of a rare steak, or steak tartare is that one can taste the blood. So are you now saying that every single person who has ever eaten a rare steak has not actually eaten blood?
And why restate the point about black pudding? I know you haven't eaten it. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of your own continued righteousness.
Next? Why, you already have a number of other questions from me that you're avoiding. So as well as telling a blatant lie about the nature of a medium done steak (which, by the way, is proving another point of mine; just how ludicrous your faith is if it will bar someone from heaven for eating an undercooked steak...), you are now (as I predicted) trying to avoid answering the other questions. How cowardly do you have to be before you'll accept that you're not the messiah. You're a very naughty boy.
>
> Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background.
> Not white (caucasian).
>
> Heh. Think what country we live in. Think how hot the overall climate
> is here. Think how many hours of sunshine there are each year. Think
> what skin colour I have. Well done.
Hey wow, sarcasm; that is AWESOME! Okay...think what country we live in? Doing that...I'm also thinking of the Jewish community in Gateshead near where I live. Hey, you know something? Those jews couldn't really be described as being white. Cos, y'know, being afro-asian is more about just having tanned skin. It's a racial grouping, just as causcasion is. I mean what; do you think that 2nd generation Jamaican immigrants are white too?
So would you like to try again; my question was "Why do you raise your semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith."
Would you care to address that point? Or are you going to answer with more irrelevances, smoke, and mirrors?
>
> Are you still trying to claim that you're not
> afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are
> you?
> Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does
> the semetic part of your heritage come from?
>
> Semitic. Yes, just semitic.
And where does that semetic heritage come from? You see Gump; you're avoiding the question. Like a coward.
>
> I'll re-iterate the patience stance. You need to learn patience. Once
> we have worked through every point - the next one will be addressed.
> We wouldn't want to be opening up old questions again, would we?
And I'll re-iterate the "you're a lying, evasive little coward who will stick to one point in the hope that this one will go away" point. I'll also point out that in this very post you rather rashly say "next". Okay then; I'll take that as you being ready to address all the other questions. Or didn't you really mean 'next'? Finally I'll point out that even in this post of yours, you've avoided questions. So you have no right to ask for patience, as your evasiveness and lying is fairly clear.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare, medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak, you silly, silly boy.
> Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been
> cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles
> of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
I'd just like to point out that you don't buy a steak "rare, medium rare, medium, or well done" from a shop, but simply as a steak. A rare stake and a well done steak comes from the same steak, you silly, silly boy.
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less
> than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
>
> Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood,
> just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
>
>
> Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak
> invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words into
> my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your
> level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the matter?
> Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
>
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
> No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in
> background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have
> said all the time......
>
> No you haven't dear boy; you've claimed to be all of these things
> without reference to the other. It's only now that you've been pinned
> down on it that you're claimnig to be one and not the other. So...now
> that we've established that you're not Jewish, but semetic in
> background, why do you keep raising that background? The whole point
> of Christianity was that it was to be inclusive, and not limit itself
> to a racial grouping as Judaism does. So why do you mention your
> Semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is
> because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying
> to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that
> being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to
> be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your
> 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith.
> Would you care to address that point?
>
> Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background.
> Not white (caucasian).
Heh. Think what country we live in. Think how hot the overall climate is here. Think how many hours of sunshine there are each year. Think what skin colour I have. Well done.
Are you still trying to claim that you're not
> afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are you?
> Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does
> the semetic part of your heritage come from?
Semitic. Yes, just semitic.
>
> Would you also care to address the multitude of other points you're
> running from; I've explained why your pleas for patience don't wash
> with me, and I'd be obliged if you went some way to addressing my
> assertion that you're a lying, cowardly hypocrite by answering ALL of
> the questions you've been asked.
I'll re-iterate the patience stance. You need to learn patience. Once we have worked through every point - the next one will be addressed. We wouldn't want to be opening up old questions again, would we?
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less
> than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
>
> Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood,
> just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
>
>
> Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak
> invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words into
> my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your
> level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the matter?
> Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
Actually a medium steak will have no blood in it - as it has been cleaned up and ready for consumption by the time it hits the aisles of Sainsbury's. And I have never eaten black pudding. Next.
>
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
> No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in
> background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have
> said all the time......
>
> No you haven't dear boy; you've claimed to be all of these things
> without reference to the other. It's only now that you've been pinned
> down on it that you're claimnig to be one and not the other. So...now
> that we've established that you're not Jewish, but semetic in
> background, why do you keep raising that background? The whole point
> of Christianity was that it was to be inclusive, and not limit itself
> to a racial grouping as Judaism does. So why do you mention your
> Semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is
> because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying
> to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that
> being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to
> be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your
> 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith.
> Would you care to address that point?
>
> Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background.
> Not white (caucasian).
Heh. Think what country we live in. Think how hot the overall climate is here. Think how many hours of sunshine there are each year. Think what skin colour I have. Well done.
Are you still trying to claim that you're not
> afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are you?
> Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does
> the semetic part of your heritage come from?
Semitic. Yes, just semitic.
>
> Would you also care to address the multitude of other points you're
> running from; I've explained why your pleas for patience don't wash
> with me, and I'd be obliged if you went some way to addressing my
> assertion that you're a lying, cowardly hypocrite by answering ALL of
> the questions you've been asked.
I'll re-iterate the patience stance. You need to learn patience. Once we have worked through every point - the next one will be addressed. We wouldn't want to be opening up old questions again, would we?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less
> than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
>
> Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood,
> just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words into my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the matter? Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
>
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
> No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in
> background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have
> said all the time......
No you haven't dear boy; you've claimed to be all of these things without reference to the other. It's only now that you've been pinned down on it that you're claimnig to be one and not the other. So...now that we've established that you're not Jewish, but semetic in background, why do you keep raising that background? The whole point of Christianity was that it was to be inclusive, and not limit itself to a racial grouping as Judaism does. So why do you mention your Semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith. Would you care to address that point?
Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background. Not white (caucasian). Are you still trying to claim that you're not afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are you? Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does the semetic part of your heritage come from?
Would you also care to address the multitude of other points you're running from; I've explained why your pleas for patience don't wash with me, and I'd be obliged if you went some way to addressing my assertion that you're a lying, cowardly hypocrite by answering ALL of the questions you've been asked.
> Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less
> than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
>
> Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood,
> just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
Since when did I say 'dripping in blood'? I said a medium steak invariably has some blood in it. And you, by trying to put words into my mouth and misrepresent and lie about what I said, are doing your level best to avoid admitting that you're fallible. Whats the matter? Don't you like your fantasy of perfection being questioned?
>
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
> No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in
> background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have
> said all the time......
No you haven't dear boy; you've claimed to be all of these things without reference to the other. It's only now that you've been pinned down on it that you're claimnig to be one and not the other. So...now that we've established that you're not Jewish, but semetic in background, why do you keep raising that background? The whole point of Christianity was that it was to be inclusive, and not limit itself to a racial grouping as Judaism does. So why do you mention your Semetic background? As far as I can see, the only reason you do so is because Jesus was a Jew who started christianity, and you're trying to equate yourself with him. Either that, or you somehow think that being semetic makes you a better christian. Either way, it seems to be all about you making yourself out to be special, because your 'jewish' background is completely irrelevant to your current faith. Would you care to address that point?
Also, I've shown that semetic people are afro-asian in background. Not white (caucasian). Are you still trying to claim that you're not afro-asian, but white? If that is the case, just how semetic are you? Was your grandmothers uncles cousin half jewish? Where exactly does the semetic part of your heritage come from?
Would you also care to address the multitude of other points you're running from; I've explained why your pleas for patience don't wash with me, and I'd be obliged if you went some way to addressing my assertion that you're a lying, cowardly hypocrite by answering ALL of the questions you've been asked.
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood, just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have said all the time......
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
>
> Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether
> you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not
> fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less than
> well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium
> done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or
> are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to
> have eaten medium steak?
Since when did steak come dripping in blood? I've never eaten blood, just accept it Light - so we can move on to further points.
>
> Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not
> claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
No - I am claiming to be Jewish in background just as I am White in background - English, Welsh and Austrian in background. Which I have said all the time......
No-one can completely follow the Old Covenant, can they Light?
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less than well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to have eaten medium steak?
Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
>
> Patience, Light. Like I have previously stated we will work through
> every issue before moving on to the next one. Our first issue is
> still unresolved about Semitics and them being followers of Christ.
And I've stated that I don't trust you; you will simply carry on with this topic and ignore all the others in the hope I'll go away (which, by the way, I won't). And it's not about semetic peoples and them being followers of christ; it's about your claim to be both Jewish and Christian, how that is impossible, and how even if it were, that means you have to obey the Old Covenant, which you do not. Got all that? Good; now answer the other questions you little coward.
>
> I'll leave you with a question Light, how is it possible for Jews to
> keep the Old Covenant when both their temples have been destroyed and
> the Dome (Muslim Mosque) has been built over the site?
Because they keep to the Old Covenant (your words here) "as they can". And, for the record, why do you think there is such conflict in Israel? Because of jewish efforts to restore the temples and thus keep to the Old Covenant in an even stricter way.
What you seem to be saying is that, as one element of the Old Covenant can't be followed, then it is all rendered meaningless. In which case, Jews mustn't observe the sabbath any more. Or passover. Or circumcision. Oh...but they do, don't they? In other words, a good jew will follow as much of the Old Covenant as he is able. But you don't even do that, do you? Hypocrite.
>
> Light, when have I ever eaten blood? Don't I know? I can tell you I
> have never eaten blood and don't intend to anytime soon.
Heh. You're determined to avoid this one aren't you? I asked whether you only ever eat steak well done. You said "I'm not fussy". So in other words, you've eaten steak that was less than well done. As anyone whohas eaten steak before will know, a medium done steak has blood in it. So you've eaten blood, haven't you? Or are you now going to go back on what you've said and claim never to have eaten medium steak?
Oh, and answer the main question please: Are you or are you not claiming to be jewish in the religious sense?
>
>
> Patience, Light. Like I have previously stated we will work through
> every issue before moving on to the next one. Our first issue is
> still unresolved about Semitics and them being followers of Christ.
And I've stated that I don't trust you; you will simply carry on with this topic and ignore all the others in the hope I'll go away (which, by the way, I won't). And it's not about semetic peoples and them being followers of christ; it's about your claim to be both Jewish and Christian, how that is impossible, and how even if it were, that means you have to obey the Old Covenant, which you do not. Got all that? Good; now answer the other questions you little coward.
>
> I'll leave you with a question Light, how is it possible for Jews to
> keep the Old Covenant when both their temples have been destroyed and
> the Dome (Muslim Mosque) has been built over the site?
Because they keep to the Old Covenant (your words here) "as they can". And, for the record, why do you think there is such conflict in Israel? Because of jewish efforts to restore the temples and thus keep to the Old Covenant in an even stricter way.
What you seem to be saying is that, as one element of the Old Covenant can't be followed, then it is all rendered meaningless. In which case, Jews mustn't observe the sabbath any more. Or passover. Or circumcision. Oh...but they do, don't they? In other words, a good jew will follow as much of the Old Covenant as he is able. But you don't even do that, do you? Hypocrite.
Page: