Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2023 18:41:14 GMT
No, I wasn't. Being encouraged to be kind, generous and happy never used to be a bad thing. Our Christian based society wasn't fundamentalist, unlike the Left. Well, you will have gone to one of the few schools that didn't try to indoctrinate the idea that the talking snake was an actual historical character, then. Like I said, these were ordinary schools that followed the curriculum. I have no idea what you're actually banging on about.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 18:42:52 GMT
Maybe, you just don't understand. If a woman is defined as someone who is born with a vagina, then someone born with a penis can never be a woman. That's logical. But if a woman is defined as someone with a certain bio-chemical brain make-up, then, someone born with a penis can be a woman if they have that bi-chemical make-up. It all depends on how the word 'woman' is defined. I understand Darling but you are no better than the Catholic who says that the wafer becomes Christs flesh . The linguistic argument is ridiculous too . The left want to impose a delusion as fact on the community . Yeah. Definitions are often social constructs. For instance, until relatively recently the word insane covered gay people. Gay people were deemed insane by virtue of their sexuality. Now, socieity doesn't include gay people within the definition of insane. The meaning of the word insane has changed. That happens with language all the time. The meaning of the word woman can change too. In fact, some people have changed their definition already. So, what was once considered a man can be considered a woman. It all depends on how woman is defined. When people like Starmer say that transgender women are women he is absolutely right. For someone who defines a woman as someone with a particular kind of bio-chemical make-up, they are women.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 20, 2023 18:43:34 GMT
Two wrongs don't make one right either, which is sort of what we have been saying elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 20, 2023 18:46:07 GMT
I understand Darling but you are no better than the Catholic who says that the wafer becomes Christs flesh . The linguistic argument is ridiculous too . The left want to impose a delusion as fact on the community . Yeah. Definitions are often social constructs. For instance, until relatively recently the word insane covered gay people. Gay people were deemed insane by virtue of their sexuality. Now, socieity doesn't include gay people within the definition of insane. The meaning of the word insane has changed. That happens with language all the time. The meaning of the word woman can change too. In fact, some people have changed their definition already. So, what was once considered a man can be considered a woman. It all depends on how woman is defined. When people like Starmer say that transgender women are women he is absolutely right. For someone who defines a woman as someone with a particular kind of bio-chemical make-up, they are women. Then you agree that a wafer become Christs flesh during communion ?
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 20, 2023 18:50:06 GMT
What the... kin hell the girls are ganging up on me lol. Ladies do your worst. Attention seeker. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 18:55:01 GMT
Yeah. Definitions are often social constructs. For instance, until relatively recently the word insane covered gay people. Gay people were deemed insane by virtue of their sexuality. Now, socieity doesn't include gay people within the definition of insane. The meaning of the word insane has changed. That happens with language all the time. The meaning of the word woman can change too. In fact, some people have changed their definition already. So, what was once considered a man can be considered a woman. It all depends on how woman is defined. When people like Starmer say that transgender women are women he is absolutely right. For someone who defines a woman as someone with a particular kind of bio-chemical make-up, they are women. Then you agree that a wafer become Christs flesh during communion ? No, not at all. But society can choose which objects in the real world to apply the words 'communion wafer' to. In fact, it has already done that. It might change tomorrow. Who knows? It can also decide who the word woman applies to.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 20, 2023 19:00:05 GMT
Then you agree that a wafer become Christs flesh during communion ? No, not at all. Why not? The same premise applies to both the wafer and the biological man. All you need to do is call them what you want them to be and linguistics will do it for you . We could use the cult of changing genitalia method to make black people white and cripples into athletes . Maybe that’s how Jesus did it .
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 19:01:04 GMT
Why not? The same premise applies to both the wafer and the biological man. All you need to do is call them what you want them to be and linguistics will do it for you . We could use the cult of changing genitalia method to make black people white and cripples into athletes . Maybe that’s how Jesus did it . No. See my post above.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 20, 2023 19:01:45 GMT
Then you agree that a wafer become Christs flesh during communion ? No, not at all. But society can choose which objects in the real world to apply the words 'communion wafer' to. In fact, it has already done that. It might change tomorrow. Who knows? It can also decide who the word woman applies to. Ah so you only want to apply the linguistic method of redefining when it’s suits you ?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2023 19:02:25 GMT
I was raised in a household where religion was not practised, at school the Church of Scotland was the direction of religious teaching, we did bible readings every morning and even at the age of 6 I was perplexed by the belief that a loving God could ask a father to sacrifice his son to Him, even if he did save him at the last minute. However in those days we were encouraged to have enquiring minds and to seek answers as opposed to accepting what we were taught. It seems that nowadays belief and dogma of all sorts is the order of the day and instead asking can a man be a woman, or is the planet really warming due to us, they are taught a man can be a woman and is a woman when he says so and the planet is warming becasue of us and millions will die unless we do as we are told. It seems the talking snake has shed its skin and taken human form. Really? Teaching children about talking snakes, burning bushes, the entire animal kingdom fitting into a boat, etc., is not indoctrination? I beg to differ. I did not say it was not, I said at the same time we were taught to be enquiring and asking questions was the teaching method. Thinking was the golden goose and questions were the egg. Young children can be taught all sorts of things but if one fails to teach them to think and enquire then that will be indoctrination which certainly seems to be what we currently have. We were never faulted if we asked questions about the bible readings. As a comparison as regards what we have now reference the poor girl who aired her opinion as regards a fellow pupil who identified as a cat and the actions of the teacher.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 19:09:15 GMT
No, not at all. But society can choose which objects in the real world to apply the words 'communion wafer' to. In fact, it has already done that. It might change tomorrow. Who knows? It can also decide who the word woman applies to. Ah so you only want to apply the linguistic method of redefining when it’s suits you ? Redefining happens all the time. See the example I gave above with insanity and gay people. It's not difficult. If you define a woman as someone born with a vagina, then obviously someone born with a penis can never be a woman. If you define a woman as someone born with a certain bio-chemical make-up, then someone born with a penis can be a woman. The language we use to define what a woman is can change, in the same way that it changed in respect of insanity and gay people. So, can someone born with a penis be a woman? That depends on the current cultural definition of woman and the use of the word within certain sections of the community. Woman is a social construct. What a woman is can change from place to place and time to time, according to the prevalent definition of woman.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2023 19:09:45 GMT
Then you agree that a wafer become Christs flesh during communion ? No, not at all. But society can choose which objects in the real world to apply the words 'communion wafer' to. In fact, it has already done that. It might change tomorrow. Who knows? It can also decide who the word woman applies to. What a strange outlook, we know what the Communion wafer represents (or is) to those who are religious but in the real world to the rest of us and as a clear definition it is a communion wafer. Of course society can decide what a woman is and general terms that has been done by those who wish it to change, to the rest of us we all know what a woman is and who it applies to. Changing of words requires common usage to change if the word is changed without common usage then it is being manipulated. Woke is one such word, common usage is creating its rather disparaging meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 19:10:32 GMT
No, not at all. But society can choose which objects in the real world to apply the words 'communion wafer' to. In fact, it has already done that. It might change tomorrow. Who knows? It can also decide who the word woman applies to. What a strange outlook, we know what the Communion wafer represents (or is) to those who are religious but in the real world to the rest of us and as a clear definition it is a communion wafer. Of course society can decide what a woman is and general terms that has been done by those who wish it to change, to the rest of us we all know what a woman is and who it applies to. Changing of words requires common usage to change if the word is changed without common usage then it is being manipulated. Woke is one such word, common usage is creating its rather disparaging meaning. The last of the Platonists!
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2023 19:16:12 GMT
Really? Teaching children about talking snakes, burning bushes, the entire animal kingdom fitting into a boat, etc., is not indoctrination? I beg to differ. I did not say it was not, I said at the same time we were taught to be enquiring and asking questions was the teaching method. Thinking was the golden goose and questions were the egg. Young children can be taught all sorts of things but if one fails to teach them to think and enquire then that will be indoctrination which certainly seems to be what we currently have. We were never faulted if we asked questions about the bible readings. As a comparison as regards what we have now reference the poor girl who aired her opinion as regards a fellow pupil who identified as a cat and the actions of the teacher. The 'poor girl' who asked questions about a cat was the class bully who was trying to make another pupil look like an idiot in front of the rest of the class. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the girl who 'identified as a cat' as she was clearly just attention seeking. But I should think the teacher's reaction to the 'poor girl' who raised the issue in class stemmed primarily from her understanding that that 'poor girl' was acting maliciously.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 20, 2023 19:17:15 GMT
Ah so you only want to apply the linguistic method of redefining when it’s suits you ? Redefining happens all the time. See the example I gave above with insanity and gay people. It's not difficult. If you define a woman as someone born with a vagina, then obviously someone born with a penis can never be a woman. If you define a woman as someone born with a certain bio-chemical make-up, then someone born with a penis can be a woman. The language we use to define what a woman is can change, in the same way that it changed in respect of insanity and gay people. So, can someone born with a penis be a woman? That depends on the current cultural definition of woman and the use of the word within certain sections of the community. Woman is a social construct. What a woman is can change from place to place and time to time, according to the prevalent definition of woman. It would have been quicker to say yes . You are choosing a method to make a falsehood into a ‘ truth ‘ and impose it in society . You justify it because it has been done before and is for the greater good . It’s a religious dogma.
|
|