When I Die

Newbirth

Well-known member
I know what you said. You said ""God made male and female not effeminate"", which is using an adjective (effeminate) as a noun.
No, it is not. God made male and female (nouns) not effeminate (adjective). God did not make the description that is attributed to the nouns. In other words, God made the person, not the description he embraces.
It's not so hard to understand, I agree, but it's perfectly reasonable to ask what you mean by it since someone using a word incorrectly is a frequent sign that they don't know what it means.
The error here is you both assume that I am saying that effeminate is a third gender. Did you miss the part where I specifically said God made male and female? Why then would I be referring to another gender(noun)?
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I think I do. Now what?
you have not shown that you know what a test is...so what you think is irrevelant
To verify Jesus rose from the dead, someone must go, right?
Who made the claim that they verified Jesus rose from the dead? We believe it by faith. Those who were with Jesus when he was killed have left us letters saying that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. We believe them. It is the same as the Paris example.
It depends on what you're looking for to test.
That makes no sense if looking is a test. According to your understanding when you looked you tested.
You can find out about the composition of the sun by observing the light it emits.
Then I can find out about the composition of your brain by observing the response you make. That does not make it a test...
No I'm not.
If you are not manipulating the light then you are not testing it...
Why would you need to?
To show that it was tested. Can you imagine you sending a photo of your blood for a blood test?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
you have not shown that you know what a test is...so what you think is irrevelant
I don't think you have, now what?
Who made the claim that they verified Jesus rose from the dead? We believe it by faith. Those who were with Jesus when he was killed have left us letters saying that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. We believe them. It is the same as the Paris example.
Can you go back and confirm it? If not, don't ask of me what you cannot do yourself.
That makes no sense if looking is a test. According to your understanding when you looked you tested.
That makes no sense.
Then I can find out about the composition of your brain by observing the response you make. That does not make it a test...
No, but you can find out about the chemical composition of the sun by observing the light it emits in a particular way.
If you are not manipulating the light then you are not testing it...
What do you mean by manipulate?
To show that it was tested. Can you imagine you sending a photo of your blood for a blood test?
No, but I can imagine looking at the light from the sun when it reaches the earth and finding out from it the chemical composition of the sun.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No, it is not. God made male and female (nouns) not effeminate (adjective). God did not make the description that is attributed to the nouns. In other words, God made the person, not the description he embraces.
Yes, it is. Using the word this way is using it as a noun. Sorry, but that's simple English.

Your claim that you are using it as an adjective would work...except that it doesn't. For a start, it would be atrocious sentence structure. Nobody would write "God made male and female not blue." (substituting another adjective). It's simply grammatically wrong. Secondly, of course, even if we allow that 'effeminate' is intended to be an adjective, then your sentence is simply wrong, because God did make female effeminate (to use your awful sentence structure). The word 'effeminate' means female-like. There's nothing more female-like than a female.
The error here is you both assume that I am saying that effeminate is a third gender. Did you miss the part where I specifically said God made male and female? Why then would I be referring to another gender(noun)?
No, neither of us are assuming that at all. We are assuming only that you are writing English.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
You appear to be thinking that...the word describes the actions of a person.
Nope.
The word describes traits. Usually physical.
A person with a very slender build, and elfin facial features, is "effeminate'.
And this is with no actions at all.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I don't think you have, now what?
It is not my fault that you don't think.
Can you go back and confirm it?
I am not making those claims.
If not, don't ask of me what you cannot do yourself.
Then you cannot confirm your claims. It is that simple.
That makes no sense.
Because you cannot test anything by looking at it.
No, but you can find out about the chemical composition of the sun by observing the light it emits in a particular way.
No, you cannot. You can assume but you cannot go to the sun to confirm
What do you mean by manipulate?
I mean you cannot control it. Do you know what a control variable is?
No, but I can imagine looking at the light from the sun when it reaches the earth and finding out from it the chemical composition of the sun.
What you imagine is not a test. That is not science.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Yes, it is. Using the word this way is using it as a noun. Sorry, but that's simple English.
I am using it no different from the scripture...
Your claim that you are using it as an adjective would work...except that it doesn't. For a start, it would be atrocious sentence structure. Nobody would write "God made male and female not blue." (substituting another adjective).
Given that we are in an ongoing conversation and I am making reference to the scripture you should take those into consideration. Unless you are saying there is no context to the conversation and we are simply speaking arbitrary sentences, your argument is not valid.
It's simply grammatically wrong.
So? Is this grammar class?
Secondly, of course, even if we allow that 'effeminate' is intended to be an adjective, then your sentence is simply wrong, because God did make female effeminate (to use your awful sentence structure).
Not in the context of the verse I was referring to. We are still discussing scripture are we not?
The word 'effeminate' means female-like.
Actually, we are discussing the scripture, here is the scriptural meaning. Soft, delicate.

There's nothing more female-like than a female.
A female is a female...A Trans female is not more female than a female. Actually, she would be more male-like than a female.
No, neither of us are assuming that at all. We are assuming only that you are writing English.
It is not my fault that you cannot follow a conversation. The issue here is this.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Sorry, you missed the context that the word is used in the scripture.
Here are the translations of the verse in question
Where? And what verse?
There was no verse in question. There was your use of an adjective, as a noun.
The apparent random blue seems to be a link to a bible babble site.
So you are playing games with words, to try to make yourself as obscure as possible.
You meant "child sex slave", so just say it.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It is not my fault that you don't think.
Ah, that's the level is it? I'll only put up with so much crap from someone before I start giving as good as I get.
Because you cannot test anything by looking at it.
Yes you can. You can find out what the chemical composition of any star is by looking at the light it emits.
Do you deny this?
No, you cannot. You can assume but you cannot go to the sun to confirm.
But the light comes here, you don't have to go there.
I mean you cannot control it. Do you know what a control variable is?
Do you?
What you imagine is not a test. That is not science.
Yes it is.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Where? And what verse?
This is a bible discussion forum is it not?
There was no verse in question.
Just because you are not aware does not mean there isn't.
There was your use of an adjective, as a noun.
that is your claim because you are not aware of the verse in the scripture.
The apparent random blue seems to be a link to a bible babble site.
seems is the operative word...This is a bible discussion forum, you would expect people to refer to the bible, wouldn't you? You missed the grammar discussion forum.
So you are playing games with words, to try to make yourself as obscure as possible.
I am not playing games, you are. The word is used once in the KJV that is the position of my argument. This is a bible discussion forum, even though this section is secular, atheist ect, you would expect people who are arguing against the scripture would know what it says.
You meant "child sex slave", so just say it.
Now you have elevated yourself to mindreader and failing miserably at it.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Ah, that's the level is it? I'll only put up with so much crap from someone before I start giving as good as I get.
you said you don't think, what is your problem?
Yes you can. You can find out what the chemical composition of any star is by looking at the light it emits.
Do you deny this?
Of course, I do, no one has gone to the star to verify their claim.
But the light comes here, you don't have to go there.
But you were not there to verify anything...You are assuming not testing.
yes I do...it is the variable that you control in an experiment
Yes it is.
It is pseudoscience...
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
No. It is an atheism discussion forum.
On a Christian website within a bible discussion forum. This is CARM sir.
You choose an obscure scrap of bible babble that you refuse to explain clearly.
Why are you on CARM website sir? You are the one refusing to accept explainations.
You dance in endless circles to avoid clarifying your position.
My position is clear...you are the one with the understanding problem. You don't even understand you are on CARM
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
you said you don't think, what is your problem?
That's odd, I thought that was you.
Of course, I do, no one has gone to the star to verify their claim.
So? We don't have to. The light comes hear. You can see it.
But you were not there to verify anything...You are assuming not testing.
Not at all.

Yes I do...it is the variable that you control in an experiment
No it isn't.
It is pseudoscience...
How would you know?
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
On a Christian website within a bible discussion forum.
No. On a christian website within an ATHEIST discussion forum.
This is CARM sir.
BINGO! You got something right. Congratulations on spotting the bleedingly obvious.

Why are you on CARM website sir?
Because CARM is where I have been posting for 20 years.
You are the one refusing to accept explainations.
Excuse me? When have I ever refused to accept an explanation?

My position is clear...you are the one with the understanding problem.
Your position seems to be that language has no rules... I have never had an understanding problem.
You don't even understand you are on CARM
WRONG!.
Try again.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
No. On a christian website within an ATHEIST discussion forum.
since you are nit-picking you should look at the menu.
BINGO! You got something right. Congratulations on spotting the bleedingly obvious.
Do you realize the C is for Christian?
Because CARM is where I have been posting for 20 years.
Apparently, you didn't realize it is a Christian-based website.
Excuse me? When have I ever refused to accept an explanation?
Always...20 years and you have not accepted anything.
Your position seems to be that language has no rules...
Your position is that the rules you apply overrides all other rules
I have never had an understanding problem.
because you don't accept it when people tell you that you do.
WRONG!.
Try again.
No, you don't...you don't know you are on 'Atheism' in the Secular Issues section on CARM.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
since you are nit-picking you should look at the menu.
Again? Has it changed?
Do you realize the C is for Christian?
Well DUH!.
That would maybe be related to the word CARM being an acronym for Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry. Dont you think?
Apparently, you didn't realize it is a Christian-based website.
Given that I have long realized that it was a christian ministry owned website. Founded by one Matt Slick. Back in the late 1990s.
Always...20 years and you have not accepted anything.
I have accepted many things. I have even accepted that there are no gods.
Your position is that the rules you apply overrides all other rules
Nope. Try again.
because you don't accept it when people tell you that you do.
No. Because I dont have an understanding problem.
No, you don't...you don't know you are on 'Atheism' in the Secular Issues section on CARM.
Wow. Given that I know full well that I am on the Atheism/Agnosticism/Secular Humanism board on the Secular section of CARM....
And given that I have known this since I first arrived in this forum, more than 20 years ago....
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Again? Has it changed?
nope...so where does it say atheism discussion forum?
Well DUH!.
That would maybe be related to the word CARM being an acronym for Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry. Dont you think?
I do, so where does it say atheism discussion forum?
Given that I have long realized that it was a christian ministry owned website. Founded by one Matt Slick. Back in the late 1990s.
so where does it say atheism discussion forum?
I have accepted many things. I have even accepted that there are no gods.
Accepting something does not mean that thing is true. It simply means that YOU believe it to be true. Therefore your position is just the opposite of someone accepting there is a God.
Nope. Try again.
You just proved it when you said I have even accepted that there are no gods.
No. Because I dont have an understanding problem.
How is it then you cannot understand that people accept as true there is a God just as you accept as true there is no God?
Wow. Given that I know full well that I am on the Atheism/Agnosticism/Secular Humanism board on the Secular section of CARM....
And somehow you believe it is an Atheism board?
And given that I have known this since I first arrived in this forum, more than 20 years ago....
Clearly, you do not know the position of the board that you are on...
 
Top