Response to sin

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Soloist

Re: Response to sin

Post by Soloist »

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:08 pm Here is a topic on OCD and scrupulosity if this is of any help.

https://strengthtostrength.org/understa ... ty-part-1/
https://strengthtostrength.org/understa ... ty-part-2/
Well I listened to it, there was 1 question about gender that he pretty much sidestepped but it seemed like he was not necessarily understanding the questions given to him. The questions seemed to be pretty focused on people struggling with scrupulosity but then when a question about gender and OCD came up he didn't really have much to say. He did give a disclaimer about his license so maybe he felt like he couldn't speak to it or he just didn't have much experience in that area.
There was also a question about autism that made me wonder if he believed in autism.
My wife found some of what he said to be useful.
0 x
Soloist

Re: Response to sin

Post by Soloist »

In other news, we stay on topic about as well as someone does not thinking about white bears.
0 x
temporal1

Re: Response to sin

Post by temporal1 »

RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:58 am We are told today that if abortion is outlawed, then women will self-harm. Either with back alley abortions or DIY.
Can we look back to the 1 in 4 in the 1860's and confirm this as well?
No source for the 1 in 4 claim. i’m doubtful. Large families were the norm.
1860’s was U.S. Civil War era.
Medical records, presumably dubious? General nutrition, health and healthcare? Prenatal care was not yet on the radar.

“Spontaneous abortions” are not back-alley or unnatural. Or uncommon. (We suffered 3.)

A lot of irresponsible claims are circulating because of RvW/SCOTUS hate, leveraging for VOTES.
0 x
Post Reply