Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community

DaveW

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    4,996
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    147

DaveW last won the day on April 11

DaveW had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About DaveW

  • Rank
    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke
  • Birthday 09/30/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    I'm a West Aussie
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

14,976 profile views
  1. Divorce and Remarriage (The Exception Clause)

    Book of Hosea. More to be said, but not by me at this time.
  2. Two old lines to remind people of: 1. How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving....... 2. If you got all the politicians in the country and put them into a big hessian bag, and then kicked the bag...... you would get the right one every time!
  3. England/Wales

    Enjoy your trip then. Not jealous at all.........
  4. I won't be around in 3018, and I suspect neither will Mr Trump!
  5. Formula 1 is prepping for a new season.

    My mate Dan ran rings around the rest in China. I didn't see it because we had a visiting preacher, and it is always more important to feed a missionary or preacher than to sit and watch a car race.
  6. Addition to the rules and regs?

    Surely though, if the individual had a reason for not being public, we can trust the mods to check and approve. I agree that teachers should be IFB, but if that is in the rules it makes it easier for the mods to police. And the whole point of this discussion is to give the mods more tools to control the bad guys. We don't want to stop people from coming here altogether, just to stop the false teachers from teaching. Yes, they should be forthcoming with information. Yes, they should answer any reasonable questions. But our mods are a trustworthy bunch, and it is their job. I personally think that it should be an OPTION, at the discretion of the mods, for an IFB teacher to provide that information to our mod group, and for the Mods to let the general board know that the information checks out, but it has been requested as private. As I said previously, I have not provided a church website publicly. This was primarily because there were a few members here (now banned) who I had serious concerns about personal attacks outside OLB. I can understand people being cautious with personal info. But some of the mods and some members here have my personal details. To me, this should be a requirement of anyone who wants to teach here. But as I am not taking on a large amount of teaching here, I would not be subject anyway. My take on it: Request for proof of IFB background and church affilliation supplied publicly, with an option for that info supplied to the mods and noted publicly by the mods that it has been satisfactorily supplied, and then that person is permitted to "teach". This can of course be revoked if it turns out that the guy is a nutter. I really like the idea of requiring a personal statement of faith on their profile. Not for general posters but for anyone presuming to teach here.To me this should be the minimum requirement, for if they then go against their own statement it is immediately obvious of their character, and the mods can ban for deliberate deceit. A personal statement of faith for teachers does not have to provide sensitive public info, but lays out a doctrinal position and gives a source for accountability.
  7. Addition to the rules and regs?

    I enjoy teaching. I don't feel like I should do much of it on line. That's me. I have a real issue with "Internet theologians". I have no problem at all with Pastors / evangelists etc from real churches who also have certain on line presence. And Salyan - exactly why I suggested an option of private info to the mods, rather than public. Just so long as someone can check them out - but that means more work for you!!!!
  8. Addition to the rules and regs?

    I don't disagree with you, however, I have not made the website for the church I attend public here. This was partly because I did not want the possibility of our church website being attacked by some of those false teachers. There are many on here who do know my home church and have looked at the website, but it is not "public" on here as such. Wouldn't take much to figure it out of course. However, I also have only posted one item that could be considered "teaching". I appreciate those who do teach here, but I do not feel it is where I should spend my efforts. As such, I would be happy with either private or public requirement. But I would not be happy with no requirement. (I will accept whatever is decided by the Mods of course - it is up to them, and Brother Matt). If it is deemed that a private disclosure is acceptable, then maybe the Mods need to somewhere state that the individual has a legitimate association with a good Independent Baptist Church, when a new guy is approved. But also people have to realise and understand that the Mods cannot do some sort of full on FBI check, and a quick look at a website is no guarantee. This is another burden being put onto a group of volunteers and we all have to keep that in mind. If, even after a change is made (if it is deemed appropriate) we still have some of this, it is not the fault of the Mods. It will almost certainly happen, because someone will lie to them and produce enough "evidence" to get away with it for a while. Wolves will find ways to get into the sheepfold. Hmmm..... I had wanted to just put something into the stated rules to give the Mods a "standard rule" to point to, but now it looks like I am trying to make extra work for them...... Sorry Mods.... Anyway, this is just some of us discussing - ignore it if you like, and we will just keep enjoying throwing ideas around!
  9. Addition to the rules and regs?

    I wonder what people think about the idea (if it is even possible) to have some sort of "teacher ranking" where say consecutive posts (more than 3 ?) are not possible without a "permission", which must be sought from the mods. In other words, to post a teaching thread, you must first ask for and get approval to do so. In my mind it would be a one off permission and able to be revoked if needed. The "three consecutive posts" is just a thought on how - someone else would have to comment before the person could continue then. That means though that if someone doesn't want their church details out in public it only needs to be the mods who know. I am ok with that, just so long as someone can check them out. Anyway, just another thought. I do think pne restriction is that if they cant cpntrol their spelling mistakes they shouldnt be able to teach.......
  10. mental health and other things

    That is why I said to talk to your specialist. Don't just assume it definitely IS for a lifetime. I have a certain amount of experience with this - I am not talking about something of which I know nothing.
  11. Addition to the rules and regs?

    Thanks for letting us know. I certainly don't want to add any pressure to the mods over this - I thought someone might have a really good suggestion to add that the rest of us hadn't thought of. The Mods here do a great job - have to to put up with me!
  12. mental health and other things

    That's good news. Can I encourage you to ask that therapist about strategies to reduce and eventually stop the medication. Under controlled method of course and with supervision. But that would be the best solution.
  13. Addition to the rules and regs?

    I know the mods will now be discussing this in their own mods room, and I think it would ultimately be up to BroMatt anyway (?), but any other suggestions on how to handle it? And Alan, thanks for pointing out that we are not infallible and thanks especially for pointing out that I, in particular, am not infallible.......
  14. Let's Get Past The Four Spiritual Laws

    By the way, I am going to PEPPER you presumptuous teaching threads with warning that you are untrustworthy until you prove otherwise. People need to know that your "teaching" needs to be tested against the Bible - and that your teaching has been proven false by just that sort of testing.
  15. Daily Genesis

    You don't believe the Bible means what it says - we saw that in your totally false and unjustified redefinition of terms earlier in this thread. Why on earth should we trust someone who doesn't believe the first chapter of God's Word? Especially when that one is presuming to TEACH FROM THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE, but he doesn't believe it means what it says!!!!!
×