• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by webmdave

  1. [News] High school senior who is anti-vax has been banned from Kentucky school due to chicken pox outbreak. All un-vaccinated children are banned. Says it is illegal, immoral, and blah-blah-blah. [News] Alabama judge rules in favor of man suing woman who had an abortion of fetus he inseminated. Dead fetus is named as "co-plaintiff". [News] Catholic diocese sued by West Virginia (republican) Attorney General for protecting pedophiles [News] More catholics considering abandoning the church. 37% considering leaving the church, up from 22% the previous year. The child molestation scandal was frequently cited [News] Lifeway christian book stores are going out of business [SHIT] "Trump of the Tropics" Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro on the 700 Club. May move Israel embassy to Jerusalem and considering withdrawing from Paris Climate Agreement. [News] Georgia lawmaker proposes law: * requires men to get permission from sexual partner before getting Viagra * criminalizes vasectomies * defines sex without a condom as "aggravated assault" * and much more! View the full article
  2. Tracie Harris and Don Baker. Failures in the News. Don talks about the Methodist schism and various sex abuse scandals. View the full article
  3. The Questions section is not intended to be used as a discussion page, just a question and answer page. I may have to change it to discussion format if the Q&A concept is not satisfactory.
  4. Actually, this belief has been going on for a long time now. Not sure why all the media attention at this stage of the game, but I've known anti-vaccine fanatics for years. All the ones I knew were Christians. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5175704/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-autism https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccination http://histmed.collegeofphysicians.org/for-students/the-anti-vaccination-movement/
  5. A date stamp appears on each comment/post under the name of each poster.
  6. Good luck with your move and please hurry back. It's been fun.
  7. William likely has accepted one of these two epistemological positions: Reformed Epistemology seeks to justify someone's belief in God by arguing that such a belief is properly basic, and as such no other justification is needed because properly basic beliefs are so basic that they have the nature of being axiomatic (self-evident). Axioms are assumed rather than proved. Reformed Epistemology argues that belief in God is a properly basic belief and as such one does not need any other evidence to justify holding the belief. You might say that Reformed Epistemology seeks for reasons why it does not need reasons. Then there is Presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism states that we all have fundamental, core commitments that are not proved but rather assumed which allow us to answer questions about what is real, how we can know, and what is right and wrong. The presuppositionalist argues that unless one assumes the Christian God, then the foundation is not sufficient for there to be knowledge or anything. God is the ultimate axiom needed to make sense of the world. Presuppostionalists argue that God is so properly basic that we are justified in believing in Him because apart from Him we cannot know anything or predicate anything. Please forgive me if I've oversimplified here.
  8. You should be able to rate posts now. Thanks for the tech exchange offer. We have no plans to enable Giphy.
  9. It's a very small branch off the tree: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Presbyterian_Church_of_North_America
  10. Thanks for playing along. Since you apparently understand the fallacious nature of false dilemma questions, I wonder at your use of the approach. Seems disengenuous.
  11. So witty, but my question wasn't "Have you stopped leaving your house before your wife, or beating her as if in a race." So, when did you stop beating her? Just a date, please. Thanks.
  12. Your observations somewhat parallel my own. Thanks for the explanation.
  13. My question to William @Christforums : Have you stopped beating your wife? Please answer yes or no.
  14. Frankly, everything to do with religion is about control. And, all religious doctrine and practice is based on fiction. Arguing about discrepancies in religious doctrine and practice is a bit like arguing about discrepancies in Star Wars episodes. Doesn't really matter because it's all made up. So, why the fixation with one point of the Christian fiction?
  15. This sentence I agree with. The rest of your rant? Meh... There are several presuppositions implied in your rant above that would need to be addressed (existence of any god, existence of the Jewish god, that the the Bible can be trusted to be accurate about reality or at all, etc.) before wasting time arguing your points.
  16. In response to the original OP, I would say that yes, all "true" Christians at their core are fundamentalists. In this case I am not confining the use the word fundamentalist to its historical definition, but applying it in a looser, wider way to describe Christians who are convinced beyond question that the doctrine and dogma that defines their chosen slice of Christianity (the fundamentals of their denomination) is the purest and most accurate version of ultimate truth. And, these individuals are quite often self-appointed evangelists who believe their God has commamded them to share their "accurate" version of "truth" with "every creature." The quote above is a good example.
  17. He believes in some version of Reformed theology. For more on Fundamentalism, read here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism
  18. If I understand you correctly, you are now claiming to have intense interest in these topics and do certainly like to engage in debate. Yet, you also do not desire to change people's minds and your motivation for discussion is nothing more than explaining why you think what you think. This is where you come off (to me) as a bit duplicitous, but for the sake of argument, I'll take you at your word. If I read you correctly, you are also saying my tone was the reason for your tone. Hmm. Let me 'splain something to you, Lucy... You are entirely responsible for your own actions. No one else can be blamed for what you do, period. You didn't like my tone, so you came back rudely. It was unintentionally rude? Really? Hmm. Anyway, I am not defending my tone. I am not claiming any moral high ground of politeness, kindness or patience. My tone was calculating in the hopes of obtaining an honest and genuine response. I wanted to find out what you were really about and where you were really coming from. It appears to have worked. Again, thanks for the insight and fun. Best,
  19. Well, maybe it's because you said these things: That language sounds more to me like instructions on where I am thinking incorrectly and teaching me how this big 'ol world really works (if I were a woman, I might call it mansplaining) more than you explaining why you think what you think. Regardless, your admitted regular participation in several other forums for the purpose of discussing these same issues and your implication that arguments and rebuttals ensue, such as: ...hints to me that you have more than a simple interest in these topics. Certainly reading books would satisfy interest. You come across here as someone with interest and a desire to actively engage -- perhaps even debate -- with others on these topics. That's OK, just pointing out there is a bit of a duplicitous ring to some of your statements. No Matter. Whatever your reason(s), I believe I now have a fuller understanding on where you are coming from with all this. Thanks for your time. It's been fun. To the OP: My apologies for the temporary hijacking.
  20. The "mission" of this site is not "activist." The site exists to encourage those who need it, but it is not evangelistic in any way. Christians who come here to argue are engaged accordingly, but there is no encouragement from the leadership here to go out and de-convert the deluded believers out there. Supporting apostates in their apostacy is a far cry from rallying the troops to an activist agenda. And frankly, most of the time what is called activism is nothing more than self-important hot air. It's like prayer. Makes the one praying feel like they are doing something when they are actually doing nothing. Don't musunderstand me, I am fully aware that contemporary history is replete with charismatic leaders rallying others to sacrifice time, resources, and even their lives to causes that at the time appeared worthy. Part of the human condition is a search for significance and purpose, and working for some worthy cause can appear to fill that need. However, it is only in retrospect that the historic value of popular causes can be determined. Those formerly decieved by activist religion are the ones invited here, and showing compassion toward them suggests wielding a gentle hand while waving other activist flags. Habitually self-identifying under socio-political positional banners divides us. Division may be unavoidable at times, but I think wisdom dictates regular, healthy, introspective questioning when it comes to our personal socio-political opinions. I also think there are occasions when we would be more advanced human beings by occasionally looking past our favorite "fighting words." "Maybe I'm just a dreamer." -- John Lennon