Woman chooses 11th Trimester Abortion

[metalman]

Your definition here really doesn't work. If something is a subset it can't be applied to by a 'True Scottsman' check. I think what you're trying to get at is your view of who a 'Christian' is, is more limited in scope than others in this thread.

So What defines a "true Christian religion"?
a. standard version of the Bible
b. trinitarian
c. Core teaching is "the sermon on the mount"
d. follow the standard 3yr lectionary cycle

what test would you add or delete from the list?
this list would include Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant demonstrations

And certainly Christians disagree on whose a Christian. Some sects discard Catholics as Christian. Some sects discard Mormons as Christian. Some sects accept both Catholics and Mormons in their definition of Christianity.

Catholics = yes, Mormons = no, Jehovah’s Witnesses =no, Christian Scientists = no
Just including Jesus in the teachings doesn't make them Christians, or are Muslims a Christian sect?

I find your claim that we're headed down this direction as spurious.

I notice how all the arguments for abortion the authors of the paper made equally applicable to "after birth abortions"
at what point do you draw the line?
The only requirement is "if its a burden"

 

[metalman]

I think it'll be interesting when we discover intelligent life in the universe. I certainly think 'Christianity' is their religion too not be a safe bet.

They'll be here to serve mankind

 

[faethor]

So What defines a "true Christian religion"?
a. standard version of the Bible
b. trinitarian
c. Core teaching is "the sermon on the mount"
d. follow the standard 3yr lectionary cycle

what test would you add or delete from the list?
this list would include Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant demonstrations

d) 3yr lectionary cycle - unnecessary and certainly nothing stated by Jesus that must be followed to get into heaven. and c) the Sermon on the Mount while taught in many religions (actually used in Mormonism too according to my LDS friends) it's followed by basically no Christians.

Catholics = yes, Mormons = no, Jehovah’s Witnesses =no, Christian Scientists = no
Just including Jesus in the teachings doesn't make them Christians, or are Muslims a Christian sect?

Personally I say not to those as they aren't Christians as derived from Paul. However, an increasing number of Americans are viewing Mormons as Christians. As the examples I cited were historical from Catholicism and Prostestantism my points of illustration that Christians do bad things too stand is on stable ground.

I notice how all the arguments for abortion the authors of the paper made equally applicable to "after birth abortions" at what point do you draw the line? The only requirement is "if its a burden"

The question you have here is when do we assign the rights of humans to the individual. In the US we definedour rights in the US Constitution. This document defines a citizen as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States " That's born not conceived. I think an important distinction that was decided to be made.

If we assign rights at conception the woman becomes a slave to the state. This results in some very abusive policies to individual rights. For example, Republican Akin's request to forbid abortion for rape or incest. Or a recent case in the Dominican Republican where medical conditions which result in both Mother and fetus being killed, in part because abortion was completely off the table as an option.

Once that fetus is viable and for sure once born it's ability to self sustain as a unique entity from the mother exists. It's at this point that many assign the rights similar to other humans. It's for this reason that we exclude most 3rd term abortions. And statistical evidence is in the US about 99% of those are done for life saving measures of the mother.

The case is if abortion is allowed to exist then each person can decide this topic for themselves. Individual rights and religious freedoms are preserved. If the Mom believes abortion is against her idea of God then don't have one. If the Mom believes abortion isn't against her idea of God under a certain set of conditions then she might but doesn't have to have one. But, when you start dictating what I can or cannot do, due to your religion that's when problems start. Because in no way do I have any responsibility whatsoever to adhere to your view of Gods role.

... The problem I see with religion is when do those religions assign a soul to this entity. Because souls are undectable we're unable to ever get a read on when that occurs. Importantly, if ever.

 

[faethor]

They'll be here to serve mankind

Great Twilight Zone episode. If a God is real wouldn't they rely on more than just 1 planet of beings to tell their tale to? Especially if believing was a condition for eternal bliss and that God loves his creation? I'd think so. Religions should have a problem with finding another planet and not finding their religion there. Of course there are a few that won't. Mormons get their own planet when they die so they'll be ok with it. Someday Mitt will be leader of his own planet. Talk about looney supersitions.

 

[Glaucus]

Just including Jesus in the teachings doesn't make them Christians, or are Muslims a Christian sect?

Muslims don't see Jesus as the son of god but a mere prophet and a minor one at that. Religions that see him as the son of god would certainly fall under the Christian camp.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Muslims don't see Jesus as the son of god but a mere prophet and a minor one at that. Religions that see him as the son of god would certainly fall under the Christian camp.

The Unitarians don't see Jesus as divine, nor do they believe in the trinity - but they do believe they are Christian.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

So What defines a "true Christian religion"?
a. standard version of the Bible
b. trinitarian
c. Core teaching is "the sermon on the mount"
d. follow the standard 3yr lectionary cycle

what test would you add or delete from the list?
this list would include Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant demonstrations

But it would rule out Jesus Christ and his disciples and most of that gray line in your charts that is labeled "Early Christianity". It also excludes Paul and Peter. Strange how True Christianity didn't start until hundreds of years after other kinds of Christianity.

 

[metalman]

Personally I say not to those as they aren't Christians as derived from Paul. However, an increasing number of Americans are viewing Mormons as Christians.

derived from Paul would be a good defining criteria, but that is just another way of arriving at the same group I defined

Mormons however have their own "Book of Morman" among other theological problems of being included with Christians, Christian influenced yes, Christian no

If we assign rights at conception the woman becomes a slave to the state. This results in some very abusive policies to individual rights. For example, Republican Akin's request to forbid abortion for rape or incest.

Once that fetus is viable and for sure once born it's ability to self sustain as a unique entity from the mother exists. It's at this point that many assign the rights similar to other humans. It's for this reason that we exclude most 3rd term abortions. And statistical evidence is in the US about 99% of those are done for life saving measures of the mother.

Akin is an idiot
The problem is abortions that are preformed where the fetus is totally healthy, and the abortion was preformed as a contraceptive procedure

 

[metalman]

But it would rule out Jesus Christ and his disciples and most of that gray line in your charts that is labeled "Early Christianity". It also excludes Paul and Peter. Strange how True Christianity didn't start until hundreds of years after other kinds of Christianity.

Yes it would, as the disciples considered themselves Jews

Paul would be the beginning of the Christian branch

There were some disagreements between Paul and Peter over the Gentiles and following Jewish law

 

[metalman]

The Unitarians don't see Jesus as divine, nor do they believe in the trinity - but they do believe they are Christian.

Unitarians are not "True Christians"

To be a Christian means your doctrine teaches Jesus was divine

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos)—meaning "follower of Christ"—comes from Χριστός (Christos)—meaning "anointed one"

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Unitarians are not "True Christians"

To be a Christian means your doctrine teaches Jesus was divine

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos)—meaning "follower of Christ"—comes from Χριστός (Christos)—meaning "anointed one"

But you can follow Christ and believe that he was anointed without believing that he is divine. Being anointed doesn't make someone God. But once again you are defining "True Christian" in a way that it includes you but excludes certain other people who consider themselves Christian. Your definition of "True Christian" is obviously different from the definition for Christian (meaning "follower of Christ").

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yes it would, as the disciples considered themselves Jews

Paul would be the beginning of the Christian branch

Except Paul was long before a standard version of the Bible. He didn't follow the standard 3yr lectionary cycle nor was the doctrine of the trinity developed at that time.

And as to the sermon on the mount, why not the sermon on the plain? And is it the sermon on the mount that is core or just the beatitudes. And if that is core then what is the rest of the Bible for? Surely what is core is something more like:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

 

[faethor]

derived from Paul would be a good defining criteria, but that is just another way of arriving at the same group I defined

Ever increasing numbers are viewing non-Paul derivitives as Christian. But, again it doesn't matter as the example I cited were Christian by your definition, most of them were Catholic lead. Even if you wished to believe they weren't. Which again is why I cited No True Scotsman.

Akin is an idiot

For two reasons. First for believing that shite. Second, for confirming the anti-woman and anti-free choice beliefs of the Republican Party. A quick look at the draft for the RNC it revials exactly what Akin said. No exemption for rape, incest, or protecting life of the mother. It'll be interesting if the RNC changes it prior to the convention.

The problem is abortions that are preformed where the fetus is totally healthy, and the abortion was preformed as a contraceptive procedure

I too have personal issues with this too. Within our society we have a surplus of kids up for adoption. Most family cherry pick the healthy, white, and young kids out. Handicapped, minorities, and the older the much less likely they are to be adopted. For me it's an issue that if we're not taking care of the people we have then we shouldn't be pushing out more people to not take care of properly. I agree people should have more individual responsibility. Though it doesn't exempt society from it's responsibility. Jesus would too said we should care for the meek and least among us.

 

[robert l. bentham]

Deinstitutionalisation

that doesn't actually say what you think it does... go back and reread it...

 

[faethor]

http://i.imgur.com/V5p0s.jpg

 

[cecilia]

Excellent interview with Nate Phelps. Want to know exactly how awful religion is? ask someone who had to Plan his escape from a douchebag asshole like his own fu*cking father. it's slightly over an hour but totally worth the time to hear it. Esp the first half.

The second half has callers who sometimes get a bit off topic but when Nate speaks he continues to offer very complex and interesting revelations. And, yes, even "milder" forms of religion are evil though the abuse is emotional rather than partly physical.

 

[metalman]

Except Paul was long before a standard version of the Bible. He didn't follow the standard 3yr lectionary cycle nor was the doctrine of the trinity developed at that time.

And as to the sermon on the mount, why not the sermon on the plain? And is it the sermon on the mount that is core or just the beatitudes. And if that is core then what is the rest of the Bible for? Surely what is core is something more like:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Your observations have been interesting, a different set of criteria would be needed before the bible was even compiled, this era is refereed to as "primitive Christianity"

There are 22 Gospels of which only 4 are canonical

Matthew's Gospel has "Sermon on the Mount" Luke's Gospel has "Sermon on the Plain" of Jesus teaching the same lesson in two different places and recorded by two different people. But you knew that already ...

When I set up my criteria list it was for modern branches of Christianity, and was to separate the "true christian" core from the Christian influenced groups, e.g. Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormans, ...

 

[metalman]

Ever increasing numbers are viewing non-Paul derivitives as Christian. But, again it doesn't matter as the example I cited were Christian by your definition, most of them were Catholic lead. Even if you wished to believe they weren't. Which again is why I cited No True Scotsman.

I posted criteria to separate the "true christian" core from the ones that are "christian influenced"
Need a consistent criteria to separate the two
Open to suggestions

A quick look at the draft for the RNC it revials exactly what Akin said. No exemption for rape, incest, or protecting life of the mother. It'll be interesting if the RNC changes it prior to the convention.

If you look at the DNC plank it had no exemption either, it was considered "implied"

I too have personal issues with this too. Within our society we have a surplus of kids up for adoption. Most family cherry pick the healthy, white, and young kids out. Handicapped, minorities, and the older the much less likely they are to be adopted. For me it's an issue that if we're not taking care of the people we have then we shouldn't be pushing out more people to not take care of properly. I agree people should have more individual responsibility. Though it doesn't exempt society from it's responsibility. Jesus would too said we should care for the meek and least among us.

A big problem here is its too hard to adopt, and then the birth mother could always change her mind ... , an adoption is never final here ..
My Brother adopted two mixed race kids from Korea, they gave up trying to adopt here, and his wife is a social worker ...

 

[metalman]

Excellent interview with Nate Phelps. Want to know exactly how awful religion is? ask someone who had to Plan his escape from a douchebag asshole like his own fu*cking father. it's slightly over an hour but totally worth the time to hear it. Esp the first half.

3 to 4 of his children have left the cult, one of his daughters who left changed her name to Bird, because she felt "free as a bird"

The Westborough Church is more correctly termed a cult, it has only about 100 members, which are all Fred Phelps children and their spouses. Christian influenced, but seems fixated on a few bible verses, definitely not teaching the "sermon on the mount"

Just like Rev. Jim Jones was an atheist cult leader

 

[metalman]

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is the act of redefining the Venn sets when it turns out that something you would rather not be in your set turns up.

Definition 1: A person born in America who does not renounce their citizenship is American.
Premise: All Americans are Christian.
Fact: Sam Harris is an American by definition 1 and he is atheist.

Standard logical conclusion is that the Premise is wrong i.e.
- it is not true that all Americans are Christian

No True Scotsman conclusion is that definition 1 is wrong i.e.

The premise is the definition and so definition 1 is to be understood to be amended as definition 2 below which shall henceforth be used in place of definition 1.

Definition 2. A person born in America who does not renounce their citizenship and who is a Christian is American.

Fact: $cientologists claim that $cientology is compatible with Christianity, Tom Cruse is an American and he is a $cientologist

Therefore: Tom Cruse is a True Christian American

Your saying that anyone who makes any claims to be Scottish must be included as a "True Scotsman"

1. No true Scotsman wears a kilt with undergarments
2. Mexican national Jesus Gonzalez wears a kilt without undergarments, goes to a Scotish Pub in Mexico City, gets drunk on Scottish Ale, watches Braveheart, and then proclaims he's now a "true scotsman" (in spanish)

• therefore … Jesus Gonzalez is a "true Scotsman"