Christian trigger words

[brewer]

Thomas Aquinas, who was a Christian, defined the soul as the form of the body. 

Following Aristotle, he said that every material object has both matter (hyle) and form (morphe). 

Form, in this view, is more than just shape. It includes the workings of a particular thing. So the form of the human body includes the ability to do the things that bodies do -- breath, eat, etc. A human body which couldn't do these things would in some way lack its proper form. 

Christians who follow Aquinas posit that this form is an intrinsic part of who we are. The only supernatural thing they claim about the soul is that it can be transferred after death to a different type of matter. But the form that you are, plus the matter which the form forms, is what you are. 

Therefore, the idea that a man's soul is detachable and can be transferred into a woman's body at will, or vice versa, would go against what a person's true form is. They define violence as that which opposes the flourishing of the form one has, in an effort to make it do something against that flourishing. According to them, if you are born with the form of a man, it is doing violence to yourself to attempt to change that form into something else.

There are a lot of arguments why people should be able to be trans if they want. As far as I personally am concerned, I think it's up to them.

But if we want to attack the Christian position we should attack the real position they have. I suspect that the definition you give here, and the obvious problems it presents, would not be relevant to, say, the Pope, who knows what Aquinas wrote as the official dogma of the church.

Then this belief/position is outdated and needs revision. What is the evidence of a persons "true form"?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...165209.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So you're intentionally using false and stupid readings of Bible verses in order to argue with stupid people. 

Is this the only alternative you have?

Lol, I suppose so.

---

Nothing  clearly racist or sexist.  If you feel there is, maybe specify what you think is, and why you feel that way?  Now there are times things are reported, but that doesn't mean they are supported.  It's just talking about people and their traditions at a set time.  "Slavery" was also viewed very differently than in modern times.  There were slaves and masters, but there were guidelines to having slaves.  The slaves were often such because they owed a debt.  During the year of jubilee, the slaves were to be released.  Some wanted to continue working for their master, and if they chose to, their ear would be pierced which was symbolic of their dedication to their master.  If you're thinking of the Egyptians, then slavery was more brutal, but that's not something that was being supported, but rather reporting a historical account.

Don't be ridiculous. I can sniff your indentured servant lies a mile away.  Jewish men could only be a slave for 7 years.  Women and foreigners would be slaves for life.  That's racism and sexism right there.  Also, certain races were not allowed into the temple. You could charge foreigners interest but not Jews.  Imagine if white people got interest-free credit cards and blacks never could get those.  The fact that I have to spell this out for you in 2019 is ridiculous. Old news that you are pretending to not know.  What is your problem?

What are you talking about? You have yet to post one thing that validates your claims.  Where are you suggesting the bible tells people to take slaves for life just because?  Also, where does it suggest that it's okay to abuse them?  If you're going to make claims, maybe assert evidence for them. 

Context is everything.  If you have to change it to get the results you want, then there was no point in reading it in the first place.

[Brian37]

Thomas Aquinas, who was a Christian, defined the soul as the form of the body. 

Following Aristotle, he said that every material object has both matter (hyle) and form (morphe). 

Form, in this view, is more than just shape. It includes the workings of a particular thing. So the form of the human body includes the ability to do the things that bodies do -- breath, eat, etc. A human body which couldn't do these things would in some way lack its proper form. 

Christians who follow Aquinas posit that this form is an intrinsic part of who we are. The only supernatural thing they claim about the soul is that it can be transferred after death to a different type of matter. But the form that you are, plus the matter which the form forms, is what you are. 

Therefore, the idea that a man's soul is detachable and can be transferred into a woman's body at will, or vice versa, would go against what a person's true form is. They define violence as that which opposes the flourishing of the form one has, in an effort to make it do something against that flourishing. According to them, if you are born with the form of a man, it is doing violence to yourself to attempt to change that form into something else.

There are a lot of arguments why people should be able to be trans if they want. As far as I personally am concerned, I think it's up to them.

But if we want to attack the Christian position we should attack the real position they have. I suspect that the definition you give here, and the obvious problems it presents, would not be relevant to, say, the Pope, who knows what Aquinas wrote as the official dogma of the church.

Then this belief/position is outdated and needs revision. What is the evidence of a persons "true form"?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...165209.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

There is no such thing as "true forum", as intended by ancient philosophy. "True forum" is simply another way of re stating Plato's bad idea of "essence".

Today in modern understanding of life in evolutionary terms is that evolution changes life over millions of years. And even with celestial objects, those things too, do not stay static and change over time.

---

And to Jor.....

This is how he screwed up logic, 

Quote Aquinas, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

Faith does not require anything but buying. 

"To one without faith, no explanation is possible"

^^^^^ A very self defeating pessimistic view. Fortunately for humans, this has been widely ignored and explanations were later found that didn't involve a super natural gap answer.

[Nihilist Virus]

Lol, I suppose so.

---

Don't be ridiculous. I can sniff your indentured servant lies a mile away.  Jewish men could only be a slave for 7 years.  Women and foreigners would be slaves for life.  That's racism and sexism right there.  Also, certain races were not allowed into the temple. You could charge foreigners interest but not Jews.  Imagine if white people got interest-free credit cards and blacks never could get those.  The fact that I have to spell this out for you in 2019 is ridiculous. Old news that you are pretending to not know.  What is your problem?

What are you talking about? You have yet to post one thing that validates your claims.  Where are you suggesting the bible tells people to take slaves for life just because?  Also, where does it suggest that it's okay to abuse them?  If you're going to make claims, maybe assert evidence for them. 

Context is everything.  If you have to change it to get the results you want, then there was no point in reading it in the first place.

Leviticus 25:44-46. You can own a slave as property and you can own them for life. Provided they're a foreigner, as the Bible is racist. Exodus 21:2 says you can only own a Jewish man for 6 years.

Exodus 21:20-21. You can beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them. Sounds like a green light for abuse to me.

Like I said. It's 2019. What is your excuse for making me spell all of this out? We've all seen this before.

[Brian37]

What are you talking about? You have yet to post one thing that validates your claims.  Where are you suggesting the bible tells people to take slaves for life just because?  Also, where does it suggest that it's okay to abuse them?  If you're going to make claims, maybe assert evidence for them. 

Context is everything.  If you have to change it to get the results you want, then there was no point in reading it in the first place.

Leviticus 25:44-46.  You can own a slave as property and you can own them for life.  Provided they're a foreigner, as the Bible is racist.  Exodus 21:2 says you can only own a Jewish man for 6 years.

Exodus 21:20-21.  You can beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them. Sounds like a green light for abuse to me.

Like I said. It's 2019.  What is your excuse for making me spell all of this out?  We've all seen this before.

Lets be fair here.

We can point out all the verses in the bible, but the truth worldwide in all of antiquity is most people lived under local ruling families. And even in prior polytheism before Jews and Christians and Muslims, it was common in the age of kings to defeat rival rulers and take their land and make slaves out of the defeated.

This is the case also in India and China too when looking at human history in antiquity.

Humans worldwide lived under local rulers back then, that mistook their success as coming from a divine source, be it gods, a god, or the spirits of their ancestors as entitlement.

[Nihilist Virus]

Leviticus 25:44-46.  You can own a slave as property and you can own them for life.  Provided they're a foreigner, as the Bible is racist.  Exodus 21:2 says you can only own a Jewish man for 6 years.

Exodus 21:20-21.  You can beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them. Sounds like a green light for abuse to me.

Like I said. It's 2019.  What is your excuse for making me spell all of this out?  We've all seen this before.

Lets be fair here.

We can point out all the verses in the bible, but the truth worldwide in all of antiquity is most people lived under local ruling families. And even in prior polytheism before Jews and Christians and Muslims, it was common in the age of kings to defeat rival rulers and take their land and make slaves out of the defeated.

This is the case also in India and China too when looking at human history in antiquity.

Humans worldwide lived under local rulers back then, that mistook their success as coming from a divine source, be it gods, a god, or the spirits of their ancestors as entitlement.

I don't understand your point.

[downbeatplumb]

The best way to trigger a Christian is to ask for evidence
.

[Brian37]

Lets be fair here.

We can point out all the verses in the bible, but the truth worldwide in all of antiquity is most people lived under local ruling families. And even in prior polytheism before Jews and Christians and Muslims, it was common in the age of kings to defeat rival rulers and take their land and make slaves out of the defeated.

This is the case also in India and China too when looking at human history in antiquity.

Humans worldwide lived under local rulers back then, that mistook their success as coming from a divine source, be it gods, a god, or the spirits of their ancestors as entitlement.

I don't understand your point.

It isn't just you, but people get stuck debating one religion more than others. I am talking about the entirety of human ignorance back then in all of antiquity worldwide.

Sexism and slavery were common worldwide even in prior polytheism, even in Asia. It isn't a patent owned by Christians.

The religions of antiquity were patriarchal, male dominated. Even the polytheism always had a top male figure as a deity and even female goddesses were never the top boss of all other gods.

[Drich]

I made a thread which was deleted on the grounds that transsexualism cannot be discussed on the Christian forums.  So I remade the thread and edited that topic out while supplementing my position with further evidence. It was deleted again.  So I think I've found their best trigger since the time I was in the habit of reminding them that the Bible was written by racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  Here's the thread I posted:

-------------------------

As an American I have to keep answering whether I'm a liberal or conservative. I'm neither. I think both parties have unforgivably stupid ideas. Here, I want to point out that right-wing Christians are hypocritical in the attacks they make on transsexuals.

Firstly, let's establish that every Christian believes they have a soul. The soul, in fact, is their actual being. A Christian's body is just a vehicle and the soul is the driver.

But what is a soul?

A soul is a transdimensional, immortal, non-physical entity which will be placed into a new body on a "new earth."

So to summarize, conservative Christians laugh at transsexuals, saying, "A man who self-identifies as a woman? Absurd! But let's not mention the fact that I self-identify as a transdimensional, immortal abstraction which will one day be reincarnated on another planet. BTW, those Mormons sure do believe in some wacky stuff!"

I always try to be respectful to transsexuals, not just to their face but also when their back is turned. But I do think that the way Christians self-identify takes this whole fad a little too far. Please, someone give a reason as to why I might be any of these things:

Transdimensional
Immaterial
Immortal


Anything at all, really, would go a long way in establishing Christianity as true.



-------------------------

Transdimensionality:

Space and time define height, width, and length. Due to inevitable heat death, one must exit the universe to live forever. To exit space is to be transdimensional.

Immortality:

John 3:16

Immaterial:

Matter and energy comprise physical material.  To exit the universe is to become non-physical.

Reincarnation:

1 Corinthians 15:35-38

Exoplanet:

Revelation 21:1

Bonus trigger:

Tell Christians that their religion is sorcery.  Sorcery being, among other things, the invocation of a deity or powerful spirit so that it can possess you or guide you.

something as simple as a memory can be considered transdimensional as it is outside of space and time. it may represent a moment in time and in space but that time and space no longer exists therefore the existence of a memory exists outside of time and space. If memories can be considered outside time and space then truly how far of a leap is it to also to consider a dream to be outside time and space. a dream we are conscious in put our being in a extra dimension even if it is as common as a dream dimension. But also keep in mind we could very well spend most of our lives in this world rather than in the waking world. Which by at least a loose definition makes you a trans dimensional being.

Again don't get anal about any of this I simply point out it is possible if you play with your definition just a little bit.

As far as immaterial goes both dreams and memories are immaterial 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.

As far as morality goes nothing in the bible grants you immortality aside from God himself. So if God says you are immortal then I guess you are other wise know you are by nature a finite being.

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

---

The best way to trigger a Christian is to ask for evidence
.

Easier easier...

All they need do is provide personal eye witness testimony of their experience. As Eye witness testimony is one of the hardest evidence to refute in a court of law. especially idk just about everyone who has ever lived in the last 2000 years can attest to God in some form or fashion.

If one or two eye witnesses are enough to put someone to death in a criminal investigation then how much more evidence is needed than the majority of all who have lived for the last 2000 years who atest to the same God?

If you all were honest and did not look for the one place God specific says he will not be found, you would have all the evidence you could ever need.

[FatAndFaithless]

As Eye witness testimony is one of the hardest evidence to refute in a court of law

What.