New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T11:57:18-0500

Larniavc said:
Crikey, wait till you find out that all of that overlaps with people who self identify as Christian!

They'd be right up there with Christiians who self identify as Czar of All the Russias or 1958 Buicks(or both).

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T12:02:01-0500

Fervent said:
Gender isn't a scientific category, and sex diversity among plants and fungii is hardly applicable to the sexual binary of humans. You're conflating topics, either due to a lack of understanding or an attempt to legitimize gender theory by giving it a scientific dress.

What's different about it?

Fervent said:
Metaphysics and theology is not simply a matter of opinion.

It's not objective truth, either.

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T12:02:29-0500

Tropical Wilds said:
As somebody who has been shopping in that section since the 90s, those books have always been there. You’re only just now noticing them, apparently. Frankly, the selection is not what it once was unless you go to a place that sells such things. More tarot cards, maybe, but that’s about it.

I still want the Star Trek tarot cards.

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T12:04:10-0500

BCP1928 said:
What's different about it?

I've seen some humans who were hard to distinguish from fungi.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T12:05:53-0500

Fervent said:
I've addressed that, it creates an environment where objective truth no longer matters since feelings trump objective categories.

Maybe they just trump yours.

Fervent · 2025-07-14T12:06:24-0500

BCP1928 said:
What's different about it?

One is about reproductive strategies and physical apparatuses, the other(gender theory) involves making an appeal to "social constructs"...but it remains the case that there are two sexes in human beings and that what we're born as is what we remain.

BCP1928 said:
It's not objective truth, either.

Not in and of itself, though it deals with objective truth.

Fervent · 2025-07-14T12:07:18-0500

BCP1928 said:
Maybe they just trump yours.

Is this meant to be a serious reply? Appears to be nothing more than an emotional outburst.

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T12:09:24-0500

Ophiolite said:
I am confident those gay and trans individuals reading this will be deeply moved by the Christian compassion that causes you to place them in the same category as criminals and sexual predators.

They're all mental abberants. Sorry, but that's the reality. Being sexualy attrated to lawn tractors isn't a "gender", it's a mental aberration.

Ophiolite said:
/deeply saddened sarcasm

As we say in Korean, jorone. (Roll the R)

AV1611VET · 2025-07-14T12:18:06-0500

Marlena Telep said:
Good morning, what do you think about the rather disturbing belief that's currently trending among young people on platforms like Tumblr, TikTok, and Reddit, in which members believe they are animals and record themselves walking on all fours on TikTok?

Sign of the times.

RileyG · 2025-07-14T13:34:12-0500

AV1611VET said:
Sign of the times.

No surprises here.

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T13:44:37-0500

com7fy8 said:
During my college biology studies at a religious college, starting in 1966 if I remember correctly, we were told we humans are animals

As opposed to rocks or kudzu, yeah.

com7fy8 said:
We weren't told to walk on all fours.

Who's "we"? 8)

com7fy8 said:
And, by the way, chimpanzees and gorillas and others walk on two and on all four.

Sonuvagun.

com7fy8 said:
And I think they are lemurs that can walk and jump around in the trees, with their hind legs.

Another revelation! Next it'll be dogs and cats living together.

com7fy8 said:
May be those people should identify as copy-cats.

Or just for the sake of simplicity, nincompoops.

com7fy8 said:
Or, copy-dogs.

I was thinking more along the lines of nitwits. Yeah, I know, name-calling, how terribly unChristian of me. But I harbor the belief there's some vitrue inpl;ain speaking. Alleging to believe that one is a lower animal is, at best, goofy, and at worst, a potential symptom of psychosis. I suspect that most of the time it's the former.

com7fy8 said:
It seems there definitely are people who are turkeys.

No dearth of them, IMO.

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T14:04:04-0500

ViaCrucis said:
I remember reading a Texe Marrs

My condolences, bruv. Marrs was a nasty piece of work, and Im not sure whether he was a complete crackpot, a vile grifter preying on the credulous, or a mixture of both. I saw a church broken up because of his rubbish. One of the church elders declared that pastor "didn't believe the Bible" because he told her that our Lord might not return in 2000, and she left and took about half the congregation with her. One of the people who stayed jokingly dubbed the preacher "Brother Gideon" becaue of it.

ViaCrucis said:
This was big business in many corners of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist world of the 70's and 80

Very big, and I almost got sucked into it myself. I was probably saved from it by my mom's hard-nosed Korean skepticism. She declared Marrs to be a crook from her first reading of one of his books. (I persuaded her that the bookstore wouldn't give me my money back, but at least I should have tried.)

ViaCrucis said:
Mike Warnke is perhaps the most famous of these, he was everywhere, not just at churches and Christian conferences, but on mainstream broadcasts being interviewed by serious journalists.

No lie. I doubted him from the outset. His tale just never rang true somehow; it smacked too much of magic, and I'd already learned that magic was designed either to entertain an audience or bilk the gullible.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T14:09:23-0500

Fervent said:
One is about reproductive strategies and physical apparatuses, the other(gender theory) involves making an appeal to "social constructs"...but it remains the case that there are two sexes in human beings and that what we're born as is what we remain.

You are still imputing an ontological claim to trans people which they are not making.

Fervent said:
Not in and of itself, though it deals with objective truth.

I like William Buckley's definition of metaphysics best: "Tedious discourses on the inherently unknowable."

Jipsah · 2025-07-14T14:13:42-0500

ozso said:
According to the info I read, Therians in general don't have an appearance that distinguishes them as such.

JUst like the "aliens who walk amongst us". <Laugh>

Fervent · 2025-07-14T14:23:37-0500

BCP1928 said:
You are still imputing an ontological claim to trans people which they are not making.

Oh? So then they don't claim that "transwomen are women"?

BCP1928 said:
I like William Buckley's definition of metaphysics best: "Tedious discourses on the inherently unknowable."

That, in and of itself, is a metaphysical belief(as well as an assertion of epistemic possibilities). Not all metaphysics is fanciful speculation, in fact most metaphysics now is about stripping away a priori commitments and developing as minimal of a metaphysical position as possible in order to not impose restrictions on where evidence can lead. The aversion to metaphysical discussion has simply allowed for a particular metaphysical viewpoint to be enshrined in a privileged position without justification or critical assessment, and statements such as those by William Buckley are nothing more than attempts to poison the well to maintain that privilege and escape defending the privileged metaphysical commitments prevalent among academics.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T14:34:49-0500

Fervent said:
Oh? So then they don't claim that "transwomen are women"?

Yes, but they aren't using your definition of "woman."

Fervent said:
That, in and of itself, is a metaphysical belief(as well as an assertion of epistemic possibilities). Not all metaphysics is fanciful speculation, in fact most metaphysics now is about stripping away a priori commitments and developing as minimal of a metaphysical position as possible in order to not impose restrictions on where evidence can lead. The aversion to metaphysical discussion has simply allowed for a particular metaphysical viewpoint to be enshrined in a privileged position without justification or critical assessment, and statements such as those by William Buckley are nothing more than attempts to poison the well to maintain that privilege and escape defending the privileged metaphysical commitments prevalent among academics.

Well, we won't agree on any of that--I studied metaphysics under RC tuteledge. I will say that I am disappointed in the absolute rejection of nominalism by many theologians, even to the extent of making up fibs about it. I once had a lengthy argument with a Christian, quite articulate and learned in Calvinist theology, in this forum to the effect that if God's will is not bound by two-value propositional logic then the existence of the Holy Trinity is impossible. Ridiculous.

Fervent · 2025-07-14T14:43:04-0500

BCP1928 said:
Yes, but they aren't using your definition of "woman."

Now you're getting into the silly territory of "quus" arguments and the like.

BCP1928 said:
Well, we won't agree on any of that--I studied metaphysics under RC tuteledge. I will say that I am disappointed in the absolute rejection of nominalism by many theologians, even to the extent of making up fibs about it. I once had a lengthy argument with a Christian, quite articulate and learned in Calvinist theology, in this forum to the effect that if God's will is not bound by two-value propositional logic then the existence of the Holy Trinity is impossible. Ridiculous.

I'm not sure I see the connection between the two, though nominalism is inherently a threat to Christianity because it denies the reality of things like "natures" which are essential to the atonement having any impact for anyone besides Jesus and reduces the gospel to a matter of moral teachings. Nominalism denies the reality of corporate association and mystical participation in Christ. And it inevitably leads to the destruction of objective meaning and truth becuse taxonomies become artificial constructs rather than reflecting reality proper in any true sense.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T15:03:47-0500

Fervent said:
Now you're getting into the silly territory of "quus" arguments and the like.

I'm not sure I see the connection between the two, though nominalism is inherently a threat to Christianity because it denies the reality of things like "natures" which are essential to the atonement having any impact for anyone besides Jesus and reduces the gospel to a matter of moral teachings.

In the first place, God has no need of universals. Universals are just tools for limited minds He is omiscient and knows each of the entities in His creation as individuals. The Atonement can have an effect on each and every one of us as individuals. That is within God's power.

Fervent said:
Nominalism denies the reality of corporate association and mystical participation in Christ.

Why does mystical participation in Christ require "corporate association?" I always took it to be one-on-one.

Fervent said:
And it inevitably leads to the destruction of objective meaning and truth becuse taxonomies become artificial constructs rather than reflecting reality proper in any true sense.

They are artificial constructs, created to help our understanding and hopefully crafted with enough care to reflect the reality we are trying to understand. Objective reality does not depend on their existence.

Fervent · 2025-07-14T15:16:42-0500

BCP1928 said:
In the first place, God has no need of universals. Universals are just tools for limited minds He is omiscient and knows each of the entities in His creation as individuals. The Atonement can have an effect on each and every one of us as individuals. That is within God's power.

This is a misunderstanding of what universals are, because universals do not deny the reality of individuals.

BCP1928 said:
Why does mystical participation in Christ require "corporate association?" I always took it to be one-on-one.

Then you are contra the Biblical discussion on the matter, which is a corporate experience. And it is your commitment to nominalism that is leading rather than comporting your beliefs to what is available on such matters.

BCP1928 said:
They are artificial constructs, created to help our understanding and hopefully crafted with enough care to reflect the reality we are trying to understand. Objective reality does not depend on their existence.

So you assert, but if they do not refer to real entities than the indeterminate nature of such language renders it impossible for us to discuss them meaningfully. The fact that we can meaningfully distinguish taxonomies implies there's more than simply individual entities and that such taxonomies have real referents, or else there would be no sensible way for us to discuss them because we'd never know if we were talking about the same thing.

BCP1928 · 2025-07-14T16:01:19-0500

Fervent said:
This is a misunderstanding of what universals are, because universals do not deny the reality of individuals.

I thought that was the mistake you were making.

Fervent said:
Then you are contra the Biblical discussion on the matter, which is a corporate experience. And it is your commitment to nominalism that is leading rather than comporting your beliefs to what is available on such matters.

For purposes of this discussion, in your opinion only. Maybe the mistake you are making is to confuse universals with aggregates. But my "commitment" to nominalism is agnostic. The ontological status of universals is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Fervent said:
So you assert, but if they do not refer to real entities than the indeterminate nature of such language renders it impossible for us to discuss them meaningfully. The fact that we can meaningfully distinguish taxonomies implies there's more than simply individual entities and that such taxonomies have real referents, or else there would be no sensible way for us to discuss them because we'd never know if we were talking about the same thing.

Of course they do. They refer to real observable similarities between entities

New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads