Christian trigger words

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not at all.  It establishes relationship.  First 4 - relationship to God.  Last 6 - relationship to fellow man.

It is about community and family.  At the heart of Christianity, that is what it is meant to look like.  How it's presented many times, not so much.

My parents gave my brother and I various rules to follow.  Had nothing to do with kissing up to them.  If one of us broke a rule, they dealt with us but in a loving way.  If it weren't for those rules, then there would've been no standard for order, and that disorder would extend beyond the household.  Sometimes there was a penalty, but it wasn't because they wanted there to be, but because it reinforced the rule and I knew not to try it again.  Perfect love is unconditional and it didn't matter how many times I broke the rules, they still loved me the same.  God does the same for us.

Rubbish

Anything can be considered rubbish to someone else. Does that automatically make it rubbish?  No!

[Amarok]

Rubbish

Anything can be considered rubbish to someone else. Does that automatically make it rubbish?  No!

And the thing can be rubbish and that person can be right ? Yes!

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Anything can be considered rubbish to someone else. Does that automatically make it rubbish?  No!

And the thing can be rubbish and that person can be right ? Yes!

You don't have to find value in something I find value in.  Tis your choice.

[Amarok]

And the thing can be rubbish and that person can be right ? Yes!

You don't have to find value in something I find value in.  Tis your choice.

Or it may have no value

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You don't have to find value in something I find value in.  Tis your choice.

Or it may have no value

Or it may have value.

Round-n-round again?

[Amarok]

Or it may have no value

Or it may have value.

Round-n-round again?

Or it may have no value

[notimportant1234]

Again, context is important.  Instead of just posting the scripture and looking at what it meant in context, you posted your interpretation.  What you are reading in Exodus 21 is Moses speaking about formal ordinances.  It's not encouraging violence against slaves, but addressing the terms to which there would be a judicial ruling against a party.  The issue with female servants is because they were sold as wives, which is why they wouldn't have been released in the seventh year.  They weren't married to their male slaves, so they were free to go, but they could willfully stay.  Many slaves had a financial obligation, so their work was also seen as "money" and that's how it was looked at judicially.  How we apply these things today is different.  

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.

The best way to understand Christian requirements by God's law is to look at two things (Ten Commandments + Greatest Commandments). With the Ten Commandments, the first four are a direct responsibility to God, and the last six are our responsibility to each other.  Of course Jesus simplified it even more by saying to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, which encompasses the first four (greatest commandment), and to love your neighbor as yourself, which encompasses the last six.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

The only way to turn this around using context is by inserting " I was joking. " at the end. 

[Angrboda]

Have you actually read Aquinas?

Read enough of his apologist fans to know all they are doing is what I said in my prior posts.

Aquinas fan, "Aquinas was a smart man, he believed in same God I do, there for my God is real."

I could care less if we were talking about the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict"  by Josh McDowell

I could care less if it were a Muslim arguing that the Koran matches science. An apology is an apology no matter who is making the attempt or the club they are trying to point you to.

Aquinas was using his status to con himself and others into thinking that constitutes evidence for a Sky Wizard. 

But he had far less knowledge about the nature of reality that we have now.

I have read the bible, and not only is it historically spotty at best, it most certainly is throughout scientifically absurd when it comes to the countless fantastic claims it makes. So it really does not matter to me how smart Aquinas was. An apologist is not objective.

Criticizing someone for what they wrote without actually having read it is stupid and ignorant, Brian. You don't get around that with a song and dance.

[Drich]

What.

I agree "What"?

Any lawyer worth their weight prosecuting or defending, wants as few witnesses as possible. The more people that take the stand the more opportunity for the other side to pick the arguments apart.

I hate this argument that "witness" observation is the same as scientific observation. 

Our species perceptions are notoriously flawed. It is literally why one can walk into a squeaky clean glass door thinking it is open when it is not. Science is the ability to determine if the door is open or not and not simply rely on claims.

Trying to equate courts to scientific method is stupid.

I once went to traffic court and prior to mere traffic tickets, the docket put forth arraignment of case like theft robbery ect ect. So this one case was called, a cab driver swore under oath that the accused robbed him. I remember him being dead serious certain the guy accused was the guy who robbed him. BUT, the accused family members, one after the other, got on the stand and swore he was at home watching TV with him. The judge wasn't buying the accused story, but his hands were tied because no evidence was presented in that arraignment that the family members were lying. So the charges were dropped.

As far as holy writings it is possible that the writers are making up myth and lying to over conflate numbers to sell a story.

Observation in scientific method is not like a court.

But look at your own shittie argument! Did you use scientific evidence to support your beliefs and experience or did you use your own eye witlessness observations to try and refute what you were hypocritically dong? "I think.. I once... I remember.." All personal testimony. If science was truly the only standard then why did you lead with personal testimony?

Why? because in this instance science is over kill for something easily verified or refuted with minimal effort. You are just not honorable enough to allow you opposition to use the same tools of observation and personal experience that you yourself enjoy.

[Drich]

something as simple as a memory can be considered transdimensional as it is outside of space and time.

False.  Memories are stored and recalled in neurons, which exist inside time and space.

Not true. there are three universally agree on points as to how memory works encoding storage and retrieval. now on what media (brain material or process) does these three things happen, is not agreed upon. Your explanation is one of many, which is why science has back out of speaking in absolutes when it comes to how memory works. they rather focus on the process rather than the exact media. That does indeed leave room for the idea that memory is more than the process of encoding storage and retrieval, Meaning in it's simplest forum it is captured moment that has been pull from it original specific time and space and stored to be accessed at our will. In the end the how 'we' as trans dimensional beings do this is irrelevant as the moment can not exist outside of our memory.
Do you understand? retard version: Just because you can explain how we can capture a moment of time and space pull it from existence and store it outside of it's orginial time and space, and later access it does not make it any less trans dimensional act. Your little brain has not been told it is ok to think of things that way by people you respect. in the end to relive a past moment through a very good memory is to experience a trans dimensional moment because that moment does not belong to this space or time.

Again just because you can semi explain how it works does not mean a memory is a moment of displaced time and space. Your scientific sin is to assume the mundane can not fit in the realm of fantastical just because you feel you have mastery over a principle or idea.

A memory is not a perfect recreation of the events being remembered.  The fact that the events being remembered are no longer occurring is not relevant to anything whatsoever.

said a person with a closed mind desperately trying to close a subject without any explanation or reason other than "i said so and I am going to trivialize and make fun of the way I don't automatically think. Seriously besides trivializing my idea what is your actual objection?

You do understand that the universe does not rewind itself and replay events when you attempt to recall them, right?

Good glob you can't be that stupid as to think that is what I said. I said we pull a moment from time and space and store it. I am saying memory as however you wish to explain it works scientifically at it's core allow us not this body but out disembodies consciousness to go back in to that time and space and relive or examine that moment. that's what makes us trans dimensional beings. we don't have to go back we capture a moment out side of time and space and at will our core selves can revist it. while our physical self remain in this time and space.

If memories can be considered outside time and space

Your conditional statement fails.

there is no condition here it is an observation that if something as difficult as a memory can qualify then something that better fits the definition qualifies that much more.

That would be a leap from reality.  Dreams occur in the brain.  Brains take up dimensions of space.  Brains are not trans dimensional.  But who knows... you're pretty out there... maybe yours is.

I did not say brains are trans dimensional moron, I said the dream world is. The reason Dream space can be considered a different dimension is because it a place where consciousness can exist outside of what in going on here in the waking world. maybe you don't understand this is a matter of philosophy not science

Dimensions pertain to height, width, and length.  And time.  Perhaps more higher dimensions on top.  There's no wiggle room there.  Nothing about dreams.

and here is where you mind closed.. the word dimension has at least 20 different aspects or meanings and you have zeroed into only one. for you this word can only mean the one thing when in fact it is used to specifically divide this waking world into spiritual and or even dream world. It can simple describe a point of consciousness existence outside of a specific moment and time. Yes our bodies may remain but out consciousness can wander in a waking dream or memory, this excape from here and now is what makes us a dual core being have a conscious state separate from our physical form.

No.  They are experiences resulting from physical processes in the brain.  That's material.

content of dreams and memories are immaterial despite how we physically capture these moments or project our selves into the dream world.. Again just because you have an idea how something works does not mean or necessitate a change in the philosophical understand of what is happening.

yet you can exist in both of these realms.. So then the nature of conscious can float between a realm of time and space and a realm without the confines of time and space as our core nature is immaterial.

2 questions.  What are you taking?  And will you share with the rest of the class?

all I've taken is reality with an open mind and looked at it from a few different angels.

Hold on.  Let me get this straight.  You don't believe souls are intrinsically immortal?

 Intrinsically nope.

Then that means that Jehovah not only sends souls into eternal conscious torment, but he is the very source that keeps them alive?  They could eventually just cease to exist after a hundred trillion years, but no, that's not enough suffering.  

why should I be any more surprised? Ever hear of the resurrection? Jesus when He died on the cross over came death, as Christ arose from the dead he has the power to raise those who follow him from the dead as well. Then everyone will be raise, then be judged and then sentenced to Heaven and or Hell. Nothing in the bible says we will burn in Hell forever. the bible says hell his forever and Satan and his angels are slated to burn forever, but we won't last in hell forever, over time we will be consumed by the hell fire. This according to the bible is known as the second death. So no again we do not intrinsically live forever.

So how exactly are these 'trigger words again?' and to whom are they made to stump? seems to me only the closed minded with a singular world bsolutest view seem trapped by the meaning of your words.. other wise easy peasie

So you're OK with self-identifying as a trans dimensional, immortal, immaterial entity which will be reincarnated on another planet?

duh... why do you think I am taking the pro position?
By definition God is a trans dimensional being, by definition heaven and Hell are of a different dimension, after the resurrection God is promised to make a new heaven and a new earth for us to live on. Everything you said here is foretold in the bible just by a different name. Just because we use different words than they did 2000 years ago doesnt mean anything is invalidated, it just means we need to keep up with the modern lingo.

Something you failed to do when the word dimension is used.