Woman chooses 11th Trimester Abortion

Glaucus said:
I think trying to trace Christianity to it's roots has some value, but ultimately Christianity became the main religion that it is today during the Bynatine empire. That was when many of the different Christian off-shoots either died off or were killed off. After that, you can look at many of the off-shoots from the Eastern Orthodoxy and for the most part the beliefs are the same but differ mostly in institutional structures. For example, the Orthodox consider the pope's claim to speak to god (or for god) to be heresy, but aside from that the teachings between the two are quite similar and compatible. I think if you look at the biggest Christian camps you can easily pick out core values that have survived.
Click to expand...

I think theologically it was the 1st to 3rd century that Christianity spread throughout the Hellenistic society and the basic beliefs were standardized. The big conflict was with Gnostics who had secret teachings versus Pauline theology which held there could be no secret teachings as St Paul argued that God created a natural world that could be deduced by reason. Paul merged Greek philosophy with a Jewish theology.

All of the Gospels with Secret (Gnostic) teaching were branded heritical (e.g. Secret Gospel of __________)


Glaucus said:
I tend to consider Mormons as Christian as well as they do share at least some core values. However, I certainly see them as different from what most consider "mainstream" Christianity.
Click to expand...

the Bible is not their main text, but the book of Morman, and they have secret teachings (e.g. Gnostic)

Glaucus said:
Clearly the term "Christianity" is an umbrella term for a variety of religions. I guess my point is that if you make that umbrella too big it starts to lose it's meaning. Some self-proclaimed "Christian" groups deviate a lot from the mainstream at which point the term Christianity starts to become meaningless. For example, if we reduce the meaning of "Christian" as someone who believes there was once a dude named Christ, well, that's hardly useful and we might as well do away with the term entirely.
Click to expand...

a dude named Jesus of Nazerith, Christ is a title :)
 
metalman said:
the Bible is treated as the "word of God" as imperfectly transcribed by man, so the entire Bible could be considered an allegory
Click to expand...
And exactly where to draw the line of allegory is a moving goalpost. The Holy Roman Empire drew that line fairly narrowly seeing more literal truths. Each Pope, while supposedly having a 'Batphone' to God, draw the lines slightly differently. Christians have been fighting Christians for eons over that literal/allegorial divison. (Well not to mention fighting all other religions too.) And even now we see you discarding Mormonism, for example, because their version of the Bible is a lot more allegorical than yours.

Westboro Church is a cult with 100 members approximately
Their "teaching" has nothing to do with "the sermon on the mount"
Click to expand...
Agreed. Which it is why it was sad to see Christians, whose teaching has to do with 'SoM', support them publically.

Christians expect those who break the law to be punished by man, those who sin by God
Click to expand...
Ideally yes. But in reality no. We often see Christians arguing for or against something due to it's 'sinfulness'. For an easy example we can see how the Catholic Church and agencies wanted to determine laws around healthcare.

a dude named Jesus of Nazerith, Christ is a title
Click to expand...
Probably as there's no evidence of Nazareth existing until about 150 years after the supposed cruxification of Jesus. ;)

@Glacus and Fluffy,
Do note MetalMan's classification of Christianity came about because he wanted to declare examples of Christians doing bad things as being not a 'True Christian(TM)'. Unfortunately for this/that whole part of the thread I tended along examples that came from mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism. Sure, a couple 'weak' associations like Mormons but most the evidence didn't fall into the group he wanted to not be 'TrueChristians(TM)' in the first place.
 
faethor said:
And exactly where to draw the line of allegory is a moving goalpost. The Holy Roman Empire drew that line fairly narrowly seeing more literal truths. Each Pope, while supposedly having a 'Batphone' to God, draw the lines slightly differently. Christians have been fighting Christians for eons over that literal/allegorial divison. (Well not to mention fighting all other religions too.) And even now we see you discarding Mormonism, for example, because their version of the Bible is a lot more allegorical than yours.
Click to expand...
It has to do with Science is also moving goalpost, the Science of Aristotle was once considered "Settled Science"
The Bible and science can not be in conflict, so if there is a conflict between the Bible and Science, that portion of the Bible 'must be' interpreted as allegory. This was explained by St Augustine. He even wrote Christians should learn a pagan science if it helped to understand the undeniable truths of the natural world.

The pope is only infallible when speaking from the "chair of Peter" something that has occurred only about 7 times in the history of the Catholic Church

Later Day Saints primary text is the "Book of Morman" the Bible is a secondary text for them, they have secret Gnostic type teachings, their primary philosopher is Joseph Smith, not St Paul

faethor said:
@Glacus and Fluffy,
Do note MetalMan's classification of Christianity came about because he wanted to declare examples of Christians doing bad things as being not a 'True Christian(TM)'. Unfortunately for this/that whole part of the thread I tended along examples that came from mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism. Sure, a couple 'weak' associations like Mormons but most the evidence didn't fall into the group he wanted to not be 'TrueChristians(TM)' in the first place.
Click to expand...

Your examples are Later Day Saints (Mormans) = "NTC"
Christian Scientists = "NTC"
Protestants who take Genesis literally = TC, but their beliefs conflict with Catholics and Orthodox (also 'TC") who consider Genesis allegory
 
metalman said:
a dude named Jesus of Nazerith, Christ is a title :)
Click to expand...

Or rather Jesus the Nazarene of Galilee since Nazareth wasn't really a place were people lived back in the supposed time of Jesus. Nazarene is a sect of Judaism, the city of Nazareth appeared much later in time and partly grew because of the confusion that Nazarene meant from Nazareth (which it didn't). This is just one of the many plain old mistakes in the bible - or, if you prefer, allegories - though what it would be an allegory for, who knows.
 
metalman said:
It has to do with Science is also moving goalpost, the Science of Aristotle was once considered "Settled Science"
The Bible and science can not be in conflict, so if there is a conflict between the Bible and Science, that portion of the Bible 'must be' interpreted as allegory. This was explained by St Augustine. He even wrote Christians should learn a pagan science if it helped to understand the undeniable truths of the natural world.
Click to expand...
Essentially what this version of God boils down to is God is 'The God of the Gaps". Perhaps why God 'created the universe' and has done increasingly less impressive things over the eons. Today's God seems to be fairly limited to making his image on toast.

Seems odd to me to not be honest and say - 'We don't know and have more work to do'. Instead people run around assign a culturally acceptable mystical being as the cause. Then kill each other over what in reality is an ever decreasing nanoparticle-God.

The pope is only infallible when speaking from the "chair of Peter" something that has occurred only about 7 times in the history of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
Of course, all powerful beings can't use Wifi, got it.

Later Day Saints primary text is the "Book of Morman" the Bible is a secondary text for them, they have secret Gnostic type teachings, their primary philosopher is Joseph Smith, not St Paul
Click to expand...
Again in my world view they're all Christian. Then we segment into the Pauline sects and the non-Pauline sects (Russian Orthodox (Andrew not Paul) , Mormons (Paul++), etc.)

Your examples are Later Day Saints (Mormans) = "NTC"
Christian Scientists = "NTC"
Protestants who take Genesis literally = TC, but their beliefs conflict with Catholics and Orthodox (also 'TC") who consider Genesis allegory
Click to expand...
As only God knows who the 'True Christian' is I'd rather let TC refer to Traditional Christians. (Though if you watch South Park you'd realize how God choose the Mormons to go to heaven.) Then the NonTC are the non-Tradiational Christians. Slighly different spin but still holds the relatship of a division within the larger set of Christianity. As for Protestants I can't speak for all their branches but the Lutheranism I was part of for ~20 years taught Genesis as an allegorical document.
 
Saw another similar sign - GOP, we want a government so small that it'll fit in your uterus. - Ouch!
 
metalman said:
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Click to expand...

the_leander said:
Holy shit you actually went there. Even after it was explained to you, in terms that even a child could understand, the purpose of that paper.
Click to expand...

It's only a little over 6 years later, and that paper the_leander was certain did not mean what it actually said in black & white has come true. Post-birth abortion is now legal in NY and about to be legal in VA.

Virginia Governor Describes How Post-Birth Abortion Would Proceed

“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Northam also said he thought that the reaction to Tran’s bill was “really blown out of proportion.”

He also emphasized that the decision to allow babies to die should be left to “the mothers and their providers.”

‘Safe and Rare’ Also Means ‘Post-Birth Abortion’

Love ya the_leander, but had to point this out.
 
redrumloa said:
“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Click to expand...

So.... what sort of circumstances would have to happen for there to be a decision needed as to whether of not to resuscitate a baby after birth?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So.... what sort of circumstances would have to happen for there to be a decision needed as to whether of not to resuscitate a baby after birth?
Click to expand...

When a baby is born, he/she is not usually breathing yet. The airway has to be cleared and the doctor "resuscitates" him or her. I assume that is what he means, he also mentions "The infant would be kept comfortable". An infant in the womb feels pain as early as 13 weeks. A full term delivered baby would certainly feel it. The "resuscitated" term is odd. But go ahead and read the bill. It states no limits on killing the baby after it is born.

-Edit-
It just came to me. "The baby would be made comfortable". They would sedate the baby with anesthesia. If the mother decides "nah {bleep} that baby, kill it", the doctor would slit the throat or dispatch it in a similar way. If the mother decides to keep it, the baby would be taken out of sedation.
 
Last edited:
Finally, this just came to mind. It is anecdotal, but I know this person would not lie. In the 90s I was essentially an apprentice. My boss's wife had been working as an assistant in an abortion mill. My boss and his wife were aging hippies. They were big Bill Clinton fans and pro abortion. That said, his wife ultimately quit the abortion mill (my term, they called it a abortion clinic) because of the horrors she witnessed there.

We didn't talk politics a lot since we were far apart in our view. I always got the impression they didn't become pro-life based on the experience, but it troubled them.
 
redrumloa said:
When a baby is born, he/she is not usually breathing yet. The airway has to be cleared and the doctor "resuscitates" him or her. I assume that is what he means, he also mentions "The infant would be kept comfortable". An infant in the womb feels pain as early as 13 weeks. A full term delivered baby would certainly feel it. The "resuscitated" term is odd. But go ahead and read the bill. It states no limits on killing the baby after it is born.
Click to expand...

Could be they are talking about a non-viable baby, one born with serious health problems that require medical intervention to keep the baby alive. That would jibe with "decision to allow babies to die"
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Could be they are talking about a non-viable baby, one born with serious health problems that require medical intervention to keep the baby alive. That would jibe with "decision to allow babies to die"
Click to expand...

Reading the actual law, there are no qualifiers.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Can you post the relevant bits of the bill?
Click to expand...

20h8vgx.jpg


There are no qualifiers besides "impair mental health of the woman", which is so vague it opens the door to selective murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top