You're advocating exclusion/rejection on the basis of suspected heresy are you not?
Be honest and call a spade a spade, eh?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're advocating exclusion/rejection on the basis of suspected heresy are you not?Why quote me and then say something I clearly didn't say?
It's not God not wanting to. It's human choice that determines if we believe the Gospel or not.But why would God not want unbelievers to 'see the light of the gospel' if that might make them believers?
No, what I'm saying is the "house is burning down",You're advocating exclusion/rejection on the basis of suspected heresy are you not?
Be honest and call a spade a spade, eh?
Choice.Can you put that in a short sentence and actually tell me what the difference is between belief in God and perceived gender identity that opposes the gender a person was born?
.. by choice .. (but one has to first distinguish the belief there, before one can realise the choice).Do you understand a believer has their identity in Christ? That means the individual perceptual identity that was moulded and shaped by the world is replaced by our true identity given by God.
It is .. (and that's not what I said there).How is gender orientation not relevant to self-identity?
Hmm .. ok.No, what I'm saying is the "house is burning down",
Best to correct someone whos in err than to let them remain in it
I didn't "deceptively" do anything. I pointed out the fact that I obviously can not easily change your mind as this entire conversation has proven.If you had bothered to quote the entire sentence instead of deceptively quoting mining what I said, you would have seen that I said, "You could have easily changed my mind by providing evidence to back up your claim."
Do my recent posts get you to question your ideologies on gender theory?
OK still not clear. You're being evasive.Choice.
.. by choice .. (but one has to first distinguish the belief there, before one can realise the choice).
It is .. (and that's not what I said there).
ever known anyone to get themselves out of a blazing fire who wasn't a firefighter?Hmm .. ok.
(Perhaps they're quite able to self rescue, though?)
I would say that there are several ideas about formation of gender identity, somewhere during very early childhood, which do not suggest that it forms by way of belief. (There is some weak evidence supporting such notions).OK still not clear. You're being evasive.
Do you agree or disagree that gender identity stems from belief that results in a choice? If not, why not?
Really? Refer back to #3,130 (my post you missed). Watch parts 1 and 2 and then come back and tell me that.I would say that there are several ideas about formation of gender identity, somewhere during very early childhood, which do not suggest that it forms by way of belief. (There is some weak evidence supporting such notions).
So a child who has it impressed on them at a young age that they would be more preferable or loved as the opposite gender, can not grow up holding that belief themselves and therefore that belief dictating the choices they make later in life?I don't see how the formation of gender identity during that early stage of development, fits (for the purposes of practical usefulness), with an operational definition of a belief, (followed by a choice).
How is a belief that you're the opposite gender of what you actually are (or non-binary for that matter), "beholden to the rules of logic"? Your comments are contradictory, and are contrary to objective reality and so by the scientific method that you yourself want used in "proving God", you yourself use your subjective reality to prove gender identity. Completely biased and unscientific approach. Forget logic, what ever happened to reason?Such a definition is: 'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic' (both conditions are necessary).
ever known anyone to get themselves out of a blazing fire who wasn't a firefighter?
I will watch as much as I have time for and can stomach! (Ie: why is the discussion announced as being unsuitable for children?)Really? Refer back to #3,130 (my post you missed). Watch parts 1 and 2 and then come back and tell me that.
How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?
Sorry. I'm not clear on what you want. You originally asked for a 'brief' summary. I gave you that. And....now I guess you're wanting me to elaborate further on some point? I wasn't attempting to offer evidence by referring to Conrad Hyers, but rather scholarly elucidation about the kind of...www.christianforums.com
Evidence doesn't 'confirm' anything in science .. let's get that straight, eh?Plenty of evidence in psychology that confirms beliefs formed in childhood around identity come from the direct interaction of the environment (Caregivers/siblings/peers) and perceptual ideas in relation to how someone sees themselves as a result (which creates a belief-system).
A bit like the belief in God then, yes? (I'd concur with that).So a child who has it impressed on them at a young age that they would be more preferable or loved as the opposite gender, can not grow up holding that belief themselves and therefore that belief dictating the choices they make later in life?
Formation of Gender Dysphoria has nothing to do with logic.How is a belief that you're the opposite gender of what you actually are (or non-binary for that matter), "beholden to the rules of logic"?
I would point out that you have not clearly articulated what you mean by 'objective reality'. I thus don't have any basis for relating with your perception of 'contradiction' or 'contrary' there.Your comments are contradictory, and are contrary to objective reality and so by the scientific method that you yourself want used in "proving God", you yourself use your subjective reality to prove gender identity. Completely biased and unscientific approach. Forget logic, what ever happened to reason?
Because it talks about abuse. Why? Are you a child? If not, then it's not a concern unless you don't like hearing about the sad realities of life.(Ie: why is the discussion announced as being unsuitable for children?)
How're they different? Because the movement has pushed for a different definition to be applied to them doesn't mean that it is.I think this corresponds with Gender Dysphoria and not so much with the Transgender phase.
I was talking about the "gender identity" issue in the transgender movement.So in my last post, I was focusing on human formation of 'Gender Identity', (because you referred to 'Gender Identity'),
I know that and is why this thread title is counter-productive.Evidence doesn't 'confirm' anything in science .. let's get that straight, eh?
Well everyone keeps saying on this thread the evidence that something is "real" has to be "objective". Everyone agreeing that it's real right? You are trying to deflect from what you've previously said.I would point out that you have not clearly articulated what you mean by 'objective reality'. I thus don't have any basis for relating with your perception of 'contradiction' or 'contrary' there.
Then why are you on this thread?I most certainly, do not 'want to use the scientific method to prove God', for goodness sake!
Ok. thanks for the clarificationI was talking about the "gender identity" issue in the transgender movement.
No I'm not. Objective is defined by the method used by scientifically thinking minds .. Many other people don't use the term that way and it leads to inconsistencies.Well everyone keeps saying on this thread the evidence that something is "real" has to be "objective". Everyone agreeing that it's real right? You are trying to deflect from what you've previously said.
At the moment, I am conversing with yourself but I have been involved in this thread, on and off, from the outset.Then why are you on this thread?
Glad I challenged someone to think about the issues confronting science, because there are a few.. particularly when proving the existence of God objectively (which is theoretically impossible btw).You've raised some challenging questions which provide an opportunity for exploring issues confronting science.
Because my response to the OP apparently wasn't "good enough" and was challenged. But, considering the question involved in the context of her post "how to witness to non-believers who need proof" - I felt I had a right to respond to her as a fellow believer.Why are you on it?
Some people run things into the ground and don't know when to quit.Well, Kylie, however much I'd like to have a solid, more sensible, more academic level conversation with you, I just get the sense that you're not interested.
Why would the Israelites need a myth?Why would that be? Wouldn't the Isrealites still need an origin myth after exile?
Some things in Christianity are true.It takes time to "back things up." And I didn't say your post was subterfuge. I said that there were other forms of subjective opinions and the ones I listed were illegitimate forms. There are legitimate forms too
As to the point you were making about subjective opinion on the whole, the only thing I said about your progression of thought in that post is that it fails as a deduction. That's all I meant by that. I wasn't trying to allude that subterfuge or sabotage was what you were doing, or are doing.
I'm assuming that your presence on CF is to challenge various Christians because you're actually wanting to know if Christianity has any chance of being true. I have to give you this benefit of the doubt and assume you're being transparent to some extent about this because I couldn't imagine it being otherwise.
the bible is 100% truth,
Anything else and it's calling GOD a Liar,
Such a Person doesn't know GOD.
Being a Christian and making such a statement is done in err and should be repented of and turned away from
So Pi really is 3.0the bible is 100% truth,
Anything else and it's calling GOD a Liar,
Such a Person doesn't know GOD.
Being a Christian and making such a statement is done in err and should be repented of and turned away from
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?