Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2023 12:54:15 GMT
Yes, Ned believes in the resurrection. Any Christian who does not believe in the resurrection, frankly, is not what they say they are.
The Romans wanted the resurrection stifled and made up a story to cover the truth. The enemies of Christianity are still trying to say there was no resurrection and would like the crucifixion covering up, too. The crucifixion was the moment that Christ bore the sins and shame of humanity, past present and future to pay the penalty of death, in our place.
Easter does not generally dwell on the crucifixion in today's secular world. It prefers chocolate eggs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 12:55:08 GMT
Yes, Ned believes in the resurrection. Any Christian who does not believe in the resurrection, frankly, is not what they say they are. The Romans wanted the resurrection stifled and made up a story to cover the truth. The enemies of Christianity are still trying to say there was no resurrection and would like the crucifixion covering up, too. The crucifixion was the moment that Christ bore the sins and shame of humanity, past present and future to pay the penalty of death, in our place. Easter does not generally dwell on the crucifixion in today's secular world. It prefers chocolate eggs! Yes, the Conspiracy Theory forum is filled with similar claims. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 17, 2023 13:00:50 GMT
Yes, Ned believes in the resurrection. Any Christian who does not believe in the resurrection, frankly, is not what they say they are. The Romans wanted the resurrection stifled and made up a story to cover the truth. The enemies of Christianity are still trying to say there was no resurrection and would like the crucifixion covering up, too. The crucifixion was the moment that Christ bore the sins and shame of humanity, past present and future to pay the penalty of death, in our place. Easter does not generally dwell on the crucifixion in today's secular world. It prefers chocolate eggs! Yes, the Conspiracy Theory forum is filled with similar claims. Says the poster who's long held belief is that a man can transform into a woman. You now have lost the plot when you claim this to be 'biological fact'. Biological fact isn't on your side here. Not unless you want to change that definition to. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 17, 2023 13:04:21 GMT
Yes, the Conspiracy Theory forum is filled with similar claims. Says the poster who's long held belief is that a man can transform into a woman. You now have lost the plot when you claim this to be 'biological fact'. Biological fact isn't on your side here. Not unless you want to change that definition to. Indeed. Any cult that believes a man can change into a woman if he feels like it has no business to challenge other cults . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:06:59 GMT
Yes, the Conspiracy Theory forum is filled with similar claims. Says the poster who's long held belief is that a man can transform into a woman. You now have lost the plot when you claim this to be 'biological fact'. Biological fact isn't on your side here. Hmmm. Do you really need it to be explained for a 100th time? There was a time when sexual relations were considered a marker of mental health. A person who had sex with a member of the same sex was locked up in an asylum because that were deemed to be insane. They are no longer locked up because sexual predisposition is no longer considered a marker of sanity. The meaning of the word sane has changed. The same can happen with anything. The traditional marker for maleness or femaleness has been sexual organs. That can change. The primary marker can be a psychological predisposition. Just as the markers for defining sanity can move from sexual predisposition, so can the markers for a person's sex move away from their genitals to the state of their mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:07:37 GMT
Says the poster who's long held belief is that a man can transform into a woman. You now have lost the plot when you claim this to be 'biological fact'. Biological fact isn't on your side here. Not unless you want to change that definition to. Indeed. Any cult that believes a man can change into a woman if he feels like it has no business to challenge other cults . Yeah. You pretty much agree with De Saussaure now. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 17, 2023 13:12:06 GMT
Indeed. Any cult that believes a man can change into a woman if he feels like it has no business to challenge other cults . Yeah. You pretty much agree with De Saussaure now. Yeah, just post empty statements . That’s the way to go .😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:16:50 GMT
Yeah. You pretty much agree with De Saussaure now. Yeah, just post empty statements . That’s the way to go .😁 It's true. You don't believe that words are inflexible, that they have platonic metaphysical correspondents. You believe language is mutable. You demonstrate that when you describe lefties as gammons. You clearly believe that language is a state of flux. If the word gammon can change to include lefties, the word woman can change to include transgender people. You carried out an experiment, and you proved De Saussaure's point. Good man! |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 17, 2023 13:19:18 GMT
Says the poster who's long held belief is that a man can transform into a woman. You now have lost the plot when you claim this to be 'biological fact'. Biological fact isn't on your side here. Hmmm. Do you really need it to be explained for a 100th time? There was a time when sexual relations were considered a marker of mental health. A person who had sex with a member of the same sex was locked up in an asylum because that were deemed to be insane. They are no longer locked up because sexual predisposition is no longer considered a marker of sanity. The meaning of the word sane has changed.
The same can happen with anything. The traditional marker for maleness or femaleness has been sexual organs. That can change. The primary marker can be a psychological predisposition. Just as the markers for defining sanity can move from sexual predisposition, so can the markers for a person's sex move away from their genitals to the state of their mind.Yes, but you and a sorry minority of people want to be the sole arbiters of what markers are. Take for example this thread, you now believe a symbol of faith is child abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 17, 2023 13:19:47 GMT
Yeah, just post empty statements . That’s the way to go .😁 It's true. You don't believe that words are inflexible, that they have platonic metaphysical correspondents. You believe language is mutable. You demonstrate that when you describe lefties as gammons. You clearly believe that language is a state of flux. If the word gammon can change to include lefties, the word woman can change to include transgender people. You carried out an experiment, and you proved De Saussaure's point. Good man! So you want to use a thread where I mocked you as a valid argument in the mind zone ? Lol. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2023 13:23:28 GMT
The whole thread was created with an ulterior motive. I like that about the mind zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:26:01 GMT
Hmmm. Do you really need it to be explained for a 100th time? There was a time when sexual relations were considered a marker of mental health. A person who had sex with a member of the same sex was locked up in an asylum because that were deemed to be insane. They are no longer locked up because sexual predisposition is no longer considered a marker of sanity. The meaning of the word sane has changed.
The same can happen with anything. The traditional marker for maleness or femaleness has been sexual organs. That can change. The primary marker can be a psychological predisposition. Just as the markers for defining sanity can move from sexual predisposition, so can the markers for a person's sex move away from their genitals to the state of their mind.Yes, but you and a sorry minority of people want to be the sole arbiters of what markers are. Take for example this thread, you now believe a symbol of faith is child abuse. And you believe modern science is child abuse. It's a funny old world, Bubbles. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:26:53 GMT
The whole thread was created with an ulterior motive. I like that about the mind zone. What was that ulterior motive? To make a point? That's what forums like this are all about, Ned. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 13:28:07 GMT
It's true. You don't believe that words are inflexible, that they have platonic metaphysical correspondents. You believe language is mutable. You demonstrate that when you describe lefties as gammons. You clearly believe that language is a state of flux. If the word gammon can change to include lefties, the word woman can change to include transgender people. You carried out an experiment, and you proved De Saussaure's point. Good man! So you want to use a thread where I mocked you as a valid argument in the mind zone ? Lol. What? You disproved your own argument. I don't think a little gratitude on my part is a breach of the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 17, 2023 13:31:29 GMT
Yes, but you and a sorry minority of people want to be the sole arbiters of what markers are. Take for example this thread, you now believe a symbol of faith is child abuse. And you believe modern science is child abuse. It's a funny old world, Bubbles. Indoctrinating children into trans ideology is not modern science (unless you've suddenly changed the definition of modern science on us as well). |
|
