The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Jesus was still Jewish - I am still Jewish. Light, if you can't accept
> this - then the other questions won't be answered any time soon.
Mwah ha ha haaaa! Typical cowardly Forest Fan; ignore the fact that his rather elementary attempt to shut me up has been thoroughly eviscerated. Simply repeat what was said, and pretend it hasn't been discredited. I can't say as I'm surprised you've made a post like this;
"Unless you stop pointing out all the gaping flaws in my poor excuses for arguments, I'm going to stop arguing with you". Pathetic. The simple fact is that your comparison to Christ is borne entirely of your own messianic complex, and you don't like that it was insultingly easy to answer your ridiculous attempt to sustain your "I'm Jewish and Christian but I don't have to follow the Old Covenant of the Jews". Do you have any other arguments to add, or are you just going to repeat that one and hope I'll leave you alone?
One more thing; if you're Jewish, why did you claim to be white and english in this post;
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=98688&forumid=423&offset=0¤tsort=desc[/URL]
It's almost as if you've lost track of the lies you're telling in a deeply contemptible attempt to convince the posters on a webboard that you're as special as you hope your abusive God thinks you are...
> Jesus was still Jewish - I am still Jewish. Light, if you can't accept
> this - then the other questions won't be answered any time soon.
Mwah ha ha haaaa! Typical cowardly Forest Fan; ignore the fact that his rather elementary attempt to shut me up has been thoroughly eviscerated. Simply repeat what was said, and pretend it hasn't been discredited. I can't say as I'm surprised you've made a post like this;
"Unless you stop pointing out all the gaping flaws in my poor excuses for arguments, I'm going to stop arguing with you". Pathetic. The simple fact is that your comparison to Christ is borne entirely of your own messianic complex, and you don't like that it was insultingly easy to answer your ridiculous attempt to sustain your "I'm Jewish and Christian but I don't have to follow the Old Covenant of the Jews". Do you have any other arguments to add, or are you just going to repeat that one and hope I'll leave you alone?
One more thing; if you're Jewish, why did you claim to be white and english in this post;
[URL]http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php?threadid=98688&forumid=423&offset=0¤tsort=desc[/URL]
It's almost as if you've lost track of the lies you're telling in a deeply contemptible attempt to convince the posters on a webboard that you're as special as you hope your abusive God thinks you are...
Jesus was still Jewish - I am still Jewish. Light, if you can't accept this - then the other questions won't be answered any time soon.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Patience, Light. All the points will be addressed, the point I just
> raised is the first one.
As you have a track record for avoiding questions, and lying about what exactly you've said in the first place, you'll pardon me if I show no patience with your evasion and if I continue to harry you for answers.
> Patience, Light. All the points will be addressed, the point I just
> raised is the first one.
As you have a track record for avoiding questions, and lying about what exactly you've said in the first place, you'll pardon me if I show no patience with your evasion and if I continue to harry you for answers.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light - I don't stop being Jewish, I am still Jewish.
And I have explained why that is a theological impossibility. If you follow the new covenant, you are a christian. And if you are a christian, you cannot be a member of the Jewish faith. You can only be of semetic race. Simple, isn't it?
D'you see why I keep at you? Because you give answers that have already been discredited and destroyed and hope no-one will notice.
>
> Light - what race was Jesus from, eh? Is it me or did Jesus celebrate
> Passover? Is it me or did Jesus participate in Jewish practices? I'll
> let you think about those questions.
Ahh, so you ARE trying to compare yourself to Jesus are you? Heh...it's funny watching your messianic complex unravel before my eyes. How are you going to convince others that you're Jesus when you can't even make a decent stab of convincing a heretic like me?
Here's the thing; Jesus set out the New Covenant and made clear that it superceded the old. From that point on, Jesus ceased to be a Jew. He was a semetic man of the Christian faith (such as it was then). Tell me, did Jesus partake in those practises after setting out the New Covenant? No, he didn't.
Thank you for letting me think about those questions. However, as I'm not a blinkered fundamentalist, I didn't find them too difficult. Because I used what is known as "logic". You may have heard of it.
Now then; that's all of your questions answered. Are you going to answer the rest of mine, or are you going to evade and avoid like a gutless little hypocrite?
> Light - I don't stop being Jewish, I am still Jewish.
And I have explained why that is a theological impossibility. If you follow the new covenant, you are a christian. And if you are a christian, you cannot be a member of the Jewish faith. You can only be of semetic race. Simple, isn't it?
D'you see why I keep at you? Because you give answers that have already been discredited and destroyed and hope no-one will notice.
>
> Light - what race was Jesus from, eh? Is it me or did Jesus celebrate
> Passover? Is it me or did Jesus participate in Jewish practices? I'll
> let you think about those questions.
Ahh, so you ARE trying to compare yourself to Jesus are you? Heh...it's funny watching your messianic complex unravel before my eyes. How are you going to convince others that you're Jesus when you can't even make a decent stab of convincing a heretic like me?
Here's the thing; Jesus set out the New Covenant and made clear that it superceded the old. From that point on, Jesus ceased to be a Jew. He was a semetic man of the Christian faith (such as it was then). Tell me, did Jesus partake in those practises after setting out the New Covenant? No, he didn't.
Thank you for letting me think about those questions. However, as I'm not a blinkered fundamentalist, I didn't find them too difficult. Because I used what is known as "logic". You may have heard of it.
Now then; that's all of your questions answered. Are you going to answer the rest of mine, or are you going to evade and avoid like a gutless little hypocrite?
Patience, Light. All the points will be addressed, the point I just raised is the first one.
Oh, and by the way; you still haven't addressed my assertion that as you have eaten a steak that was medium done, you've eaten blood, and therefore broke the law that you admit to following. Of course, it shouldn't matter should it? Because according to you, the New Covenant means that no more sacrifices are required. Oh, but...but how can that possibly fit with your telling us all that we have to make sacrifices and follow rules? It's almost as if you're saying completely contradictory things whilst insisting that both are correct.
Light - I don't stop being Jewish, I am still Jewish.
Light - what race was Jesus from, eh? Is it me or did Jesus celebrate Passover? Is it me or did Jesus participate in Jewish practices? I'll let you think about those questions.
Light - what race was Jesus from, eh? Is it me or did Jesus celebrate Passover? Is it me or did Jesus participate in Jewish practices? I'll let you think about those questions.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the
> Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about
> old and new law has proved. So which is it.
>
> Light, since I became a Christian - has my skin colour changed?
Ahh, is this a clumsy attempt to say "I'm a jewish person but christian in faith"? Something which you could have made clear several weeks ago, but choose now to raise because you're being questioned on it rather closer than you'd like? To be absolutely clear; are you now saying that you're not a Jewish Christian, but a Semetic Christian?
Y'know, if you were to have said that you're racially semetic but still a christian, I could have raised a modicum of respect for you. However, you've tried to say you're a jewish christian. To be jewish, you need to be of the Jewish faith because to be a jew is to be both part of a religion and part of a people. Ergo, it is impossible to be a Jewish Christian, but entirely possible to be a semetic one (the jews being a semetic race. As are the Palestinians actually, but that's by the by...).
So; sorry to ruin this for you, but I believe I've raised a number of questions, and I'm not going to let you get away with only beginning to address one of them whilst ignoring the rest. Please answer the rest of the questions, because in the space of one post you're continuing to prove correct all I say about your cowardice.
> Light wrote:
> Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the
> Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about
> old and new law has proved. So which is it.
>
> Light, since I became a Christian - has my skin colour changed?
Ahh, is this a clumsy attempt to say "I'm a jewish person but christian in faith"? Something which you could have made clear several weeks ago, but choose now to raise because you're being questioned on it rather closer than you'd like? To be absolutely clear; are you now saying that you're not a Jewish Christian, but a Semetic Christian?
Y'know, if you were to have said that you're racially semetic but still a christian, I could have raised a modicum of respect for you. However, you've tried to say you're a jewish christian. To be jewish, you need to be of the Jewish faith because to be a jew is to be both part of a religion and part of a people. Ergo, it is impossible to be a Jewish Christian, but entirely possible to be a semetic one (the jews being a semetic race. As are the Palestinians actually, but that's by the by...).
So; sorry to ruin this for you, but I believe I've raised a number of questions, and I'm not going to let you get away with only beginning to address one of them whilst ignoring the rest. Please answer the rest of the questions, because in the space of one post you're continuing to prove correct all I say about your cowardice.
Light wrote:
> Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the
> Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about
> old and new law has proved. So which is it.
Light, since I became a Christian - has my skin colour changed?
> Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the
> Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about
> old and new law has proved. So which is it.
Light, since I became a Christian - has my skin colour changed?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Light wrote:
> I'll tell you what; how about you address;
>
> 1 - The fact that you have to follow both old and new law due to
> your
> judaism and christianity, thus rendering you mewlings about
> "The
> law has changed" irrelevant and thus showing you to be a
> hypocrite.
>
> But I don't follow the old law. Do I? The law under Moses was correct
> - but Jesus fufilled it and today we live in the age of Grace - no
> more sacrifices are required.
Yet Jews do not accept that Jesus was the son of God. So leaving aside that this shows just how ludicrous your claim to be a Jewish Christian is, this means that Jews do not accept the new law and still live the law according to Moses. Which, in turn, means that you have to obey the law according to Moses. Which, in turn, means that you are a hypocrite for not doing so.
Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about old and new law has proved. So which is it.
>
> 2 - The posts concerning incidences of homosexuality in nature
>
> I have read through the article and once again found it most
> interesting.
Mwah ha ha haaaa! You'll probably try and use this as proof that you "answer questions", won't you? What an evasive little smear of menstrual waste you are...Right; now that you have read it I'd like you to answer how these incidences of homosexuality in the natural world square up with your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural. Okay?
>
> 3 - The fact that, if you are as you claim "not
> religious",
> you therefore do not believe in God
>
> As I have explained - I follow a 'faith' and a 'belief', but not a
> religion - because a religion states how you must reach up to God -
> which is of course nonsense - because God reached down to us with
> Christ Jesus.
And I have posted the OED definition of religion, which states no such thing. Your definition of religion, which I have challenged over and over, is irrelevant and based on nothing more than how YOU personally define religion. Yet you expect everyone else to accept your definition as correct and ignore the accepted definition.
Under the accepted definition, you are religious because of the reasons I stated in previous posts on this subject. Do you accept that, under the accepted definition of "religious" you are indeed religious?
>
> 4 - The fact that you misquoted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and
> despite having your borrowed argument shredded, you still kept using
> it.
>
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics does disprove Evolution and even
> scientists agree that it does.
Utter balls. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy will prevail IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Funny how you fail to mention that part in any of your posts, isn't it? Anyway, as the universe is not a closed system, then your misquotation of the 2nd law doesn't apply.
To give an example; if an apple is thrown in a bin (a closed system) it will decay; entropy will indeed set in. If an apple is thrown on the ground outside (the world not being a closed system) then that apple will seed, and a new tree will grow.
Do you see? Or are you going to continue to respond with "No it doesn't" and then pretend that your pathetic borrowed arguments haven't been blown out of the water?
>
> 5 - The fact that your message of love revolves around absolute fear
> of an Abusive God.
>
> My love for God is one of admiration and thanksgiving. Plus once you
> have accepted Jesus you are in no danger of losing salvation - so I
> don't ever fear if I do something - that I will lose my salvation,
> because I can't.
Really? Then how come you've admitted that you do fear God but it is "a form of love" in your own words?
Also, you've accepted Jesus because the alternative is hell (in your mind). Therefore, your actions are not borne of love, but of fear of the consequences of not accepting Jesus, aren't they? In other words, your words simply exemplify my assertion that your mindset is that of a battered wife; you love God because you fear what He will do if you don't love Him.
>
> 6 - The fact that most of the religious newbies who've posted in
> recent weeks are you.
>
> Archangel? A friend, have you seen his posting times? His style of
> posts? All different. Archangel is a friend, if you look carefully at
> his posts, I'm sure you'll figure out it's not me.
Who's talking about Archangel? I'm talking about the fact that when one of the staff moderators mentioned people signing on as newbies, you assumed he was talking about you. Your guilty conscience sorta gave you away.
>
>
> Address some of those, and then we will have a genuine Q and A
> session. And by 'answer' I mean 'answer and explain'. Not a
> transparent "If I give a one word answer, then he can't keep
> questioning me" gambit.
>
> I've addressed all those points.
No you haven't. To tackle what you've said point by point, so there can be none of your wailing "I answered so you have to leave me alone";
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?
>
> For your part.
>
Demands eh? Heh. I was wondering when you'd start making those. It's in the nature of totalitarians like you to make demands of others whilst offering nothing but lies and evasion in return. I'll tell you what; I'll address these one by one, but bear this in mind; if you start answering questions in full at the first time of asking, without running away and begging to be left alone to continue posting self-important nonsense that has a basis in nothing more than making yourself feel a little bit special, then I'll happily show the same respect to you.
> 1 - Refer to me as Forest Fan and not Gump.
Anwer questions put to you and stop avoiding them, or giving half answers, or giving inadequate responses, and I will.
>
> 2 - Stop starting threads purely based to 'wind me up' and try to
> stir others to hatred against me.
I'm not. I'm putting questions to you to expose your hypocrisy and stupidity, as well as your general unpleasantness and odiousness of character. The only person stirring up hatred is you. I'm not 'making' people hate you. People are starting to hate you because of what you are.
>
> 3 - If you have a question, ask it politely. By simply addressing
> your question, I'll get it answered - again don't use your question
> to try and belittle me.
I use questions to belittle you because you have a track record of ignoring them. If you actually start to answer questions, then answer queries arising from those questions, then you'll be asked in politer tones. As is, you seem to think we should accept your answers in reverent awe and never EVER question you further. Get over yourself.
>
> 4 - Accept that I am no other members. Other Christians do exist and
> I am sure they will continue to use these forums. Myself, Colourless,
> Flanders, Archangel, Lil Ginge and many others are Christians - I
> couldn't possibly be all those people.
Interesting how you only use names of a newbie who has satisfied people he's not you, and a bunch of regulars. No mention of the newbies names there...I accept nothing from you that you offer without any proof. I'm afraid that, unlike your cult, I don't accept unquestioningly.
>
> 5 - When I answer a question - don't get angry, just because you
> don't agree with the answer - otherwise, what would be the point of
> the question?
>
I'm not getting angry because I don't agree with an answer. I get angry when you refuse to answer, or when your answers contradict one another yet you continue to insist that you're still correct on both answers. Or when you try to avoid giving answers. Or when you start to imply that you're the Son of God. Or when you lie. Or when you use an irrelevant quotation. You stop doing that, and you'll stop being the target of my ire.
> 6 - Understand that the law has changed under Jesus and that the
> Bible clearly states that we have been given a New Covenant and a New
> Law as we live in the age of grace.
And you understand that this means you cannot claim to be both Jew and Christian, as the law of one contradicts the law of the other.
>
> 7 - Accept that I am a Hebrew Christian. Hebrew in background and a
> practising Christian.
See above; I will accept no such thing until you admit that it is theologically impossible to be both Jew and Christian.
>
> 8 - Accept I am not religious, as religions try and reach up to God,
> when Jesus reached down to us, when He came down to Earth.
Nope, because that acceptance depends on me accepting a definition that only you believe in. Furthermore, your definition of yourself means that all of your preaching is meaningless; we don't have to follow your petty rules because (using your own words) we should worship God "as you can", not according to arbitrary rules. Give me some reasons I should accept your definition over and above the definition used by the rest of the world, and maybe I'll start listening. Until then, you continue to be a coward, a liar, and a hypocrite of questionable mental health who's demands for respect are nothing more than adolescent insistence on being taken seriously because you yourself consider yourself special.
> Light wrote:
> I'll tell you what; how about you address;
>
> 1 - The fact that you have to follow both old and new law due to
> your
> judaism and christianity, thus rendering you mewlings about
> "The
> law has changed" irrelevant and thus showing you to be a
> hypocrite.
>
> But I don't follow the old law. Do I? The law under Moses was correct
> - but Jesus fufilled it and today we live in the age of Grace - no
> more sacrifices are required.
Yet Jews do not accept that Jesus was the son of God. So leaving aside that this shows just how ludicrous your claim to be a Jewish Christian is, this means that Jews do not accept the new law and still live the law according to Moses. Which, in turn, means that you have to obey the law according to Moses. Which, in turn, means that you are a hypocrite for not doing so.
Either you follow the New Law, and are a Christian or you follow the Old, and are a Jew. You can't have both as this conversation about old and new law has proved. So which is it.
>
> 2 - The posts concerning incidences of homosexuality in nature
>
> I have read through the article and once again found it most
> interesting.
Mwah ha ha haaaa! You'll probably try and use this as proof that you "answer questions", won't you? What an evasive little smear of menstrual waste you are...Right; now that you have read it I'd like you to answer how these incidences of homosexuality in the natural world square up with your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural. Okay?
>
> 3 - The fact that, if you are as you claim "not
> religious",
> you therefore do not believe in God
>
> As I have explained - I follow a 'faith' and a 'belief', but not a
> religion - because a religion states how you must reach up to God -
> which is of course nonsense - because God reached down to us with
> Christ Jesus.
And I have posted the OED definition of religion, which states no such thing. Your definition of religion, which I have challenged over and over, is irrelevant and based on nothing more than how YOU personally define religion. Yet you expect everyone else to accept your definition as correct and ignore the accepted definition.
Under the accepted definition, you are religious because of the reasons I stated in previous posts on this subject. Do you accept that, under the accepted definition of "religious" you are indeed religious?
>
> 4 - The fact that you misquoted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and
> despite having your borrowed argument shredded, you still kept using
> it.
>
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics does disprove Evolution and even
> scientists agree that it does.
Utter balls. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy will prevail IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Funny how you fail to mention that part in any of your posts, isn't it? Anyway, as the universe is not a closed system, then your misquotation of the 2nd law doesn't apply.
To give an example; if an apple is thrown in a bin (a closed system) it will decay; entropy will indeed set in. If an apple is thrown on the ground outside (the world not being a closed system) then that apple will seed, and a new tree will grow.
Do you see? Or are you going to continue to respond with "No it doesn't" and then pretend that your pathetic borrowed arguments haven't been blown out of the water?
>
> 5 - The fact that your message of love revolves around absolute fear
> of an Abusive God.
>
> My love for God is one of admiration and thanksgiving. Plus once you
> have accepted Jesus you are in no danger of losing salvation - so I
> don't ever fear if I do something - that I will lose my salvation,
> because I can't.
Really? Then how come you've admitted that you do fear God but it is "a form of love" in your own words?
Also, you've accepted Jesus because the alternative is hell (in your mind). Therefore, your actions are not borne of love, but of fear of the consequences of not accepting Jesus, aren't they? In other words, your words simply exemplify my assertion that your mindset is that of a battered wife; you love God because you fear what He will do if you don't love Him.
>
> 6 - The fact that most of the religious newbies who've posted in
> recent weeks are you.
>
> Archangel? A friend, have you seen his posting times? His style of
> posts? All different. Archangel is a friend, if you look carefully at
> his posts, I'm sure you'll figure out it's not me.
Who's talking about Archangel? I'm talking about the fact that when one of the staff moderators mentioned people signing on as newbies, you assumed he was talking about you. Your guilty conscience sorta gave you away.
>
>
> Address some of those, and then we will have a genuine Q and A
> session. And by 'answer' I mean 'answer and explain'. Not a
> transparent "If I give a one word answer, then he can't keep
> questioning me" gambit.
>
> I've addressed all those points.
No you haven't. To tackle what you've said point by point, so there can be none of your wailing "I answered so you have to leave me alone";
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?
>
> For your part.
>
Demands eh? Heh. I was wondering when you'd start making those. It's in the nature of totalitarians like you to make demands of others whilst offering nothing but lies and evasion in return. I'll tell you what; I'll address these one by one, but bear this in mind; if you start answering questions in full at the first time of asking, without running away and begging to be left alone to continue posting self-important nonsense that has a basis in nothing more than making yourself feel a little bit special, then I'll happily show the same respect to you.
> 1 - Refer to me as Forest Fan and not Gump.
Anwer questions put to you and stop avoiding them, or giving half answers, or giving inadequate responses, and I will.
>
> 2 - Stop starting threads purely based to 'wind me up' and try to
> stir others to hatred against me.
I'm not. I'm putting questions to you to expose your hypocrisy and stupidity, as well as your general unpleasantness and odiousness of character. The only person stirring up hatred is you. I'm not 'making' people hate you. People are starting to hate you because of what you are.
>
> 3 - If you have a question, ask it politely. By simply addressing
> your question, I'll get it answered - again don't use your question
> to try and belittle me.
I use questions to belittle you because you have a track record of ignoring them. If you actually start to answer questions, then answer queries arising from those questions, then you'll be asked in politer tones. As is, you seem to think we should accept your answers in reverent awe and never EVER question you further. Get over yourself.
>
> 4 - Accept that I am no other members. Other Christians do exist and
> I am sure they will continue to use these forums. Myself, Colourless,
> Flanders, Archangel, Lil Ginge and many others are Christians - I
> couldn't possibly be all those people.
Interesting how you only use names of a newbie who has satisfied people he's not you, and a bunch of regulars. No mention of the newbies names there...I accept nothing from you that you offer without any proof. I'm afraid that, unlike your cult, I don't accept unquestioningly.
>
> 5 - When I answer a question - don't get angry, just because you
> don't agree with the answer - otherwise, what would be the point of
> the question?
>
I'm not getting angry because I don't agree with an answer. I get angry when you refuse to answer, or when your answers contradict one another yet you continue to insist that you're still correct on both answers. Or when you try to avoid giving answers. Or when you start to imply that you're the Son of God. Or when you lie. Or when you use an irrelevant quotation. You stop doing that, and you'll stop being the target of my ire.
> 6 - Understand that the law has changed under Jesus and that the
> Bible clearly states that we have been given a New Covenant and a New
> Law as we live in the age of grace.
And you understand that this means you cannot claim to be both Jew and Christian, as the law of one contradicts the law of the other.
>
> 7 - Accept that I am a Hebrew Christian. Hebrew in background and a
> practising Christian.
See above; I will accept no such thing until you admit that it is theologically impossible to be both Jew and Christian.
>
> 8 - Accept I am not religious, as religions try and reach up to God,
> when Jesus reached down to us, when He came down to Earth.
Nope, because that acceptance depends on me accepting a definition that only you believe in. Furthermore, your definition of yourself means that all of your preaching is meaningless; we don't have to follow your petty rules because (using your own words) we should worship God "as you can", not according to arbitrary rules. Give me some reasons I should accept your definition over and above the definition used by the rest of the world, and maybe I'll start listening. Until then, you continue to be a coward, a liar, and a hypocrite of questionable mental health who's demands for respect are nothing more than adolescent insistence on being taken seriously because you yourself consider yourself special.
Page: