"True Christian" denominations must teach True Christian doctrine.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Like before, if you cannot tell the difference between a person being brought up and educated in a largely Christian environment, a person studying a religion for personal development and a person studying a religion for diplomatic reasons then there is no point discussing it.

This is the statement you said about Jefferson and religion:

The only religious movement he would've had contact with would've been a form of Christianity.

But according to the account of him studying the Koran, your statement is false. He even met with ambassadors of Tripoli and this is what was said: (wouldn't you agree this is "contact" with the religious movement of Islam?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

please, are you trying to deny that you believe that God/Christianity is the source of all good and that it is gosh, simply just the bestest?

Even Jesus said there is none good but God.

which is why the debate is when should you consider it (the conceived) to be a, for lack of a better term, proper person/human being/life? When is it a child?

Biblically, medically, and scientifically it is proven to be at conception.

As for the adoption option.
Sure, that is a viable alternative but that leads to another bunch of questions.
Is it right for the victim of the crime to have to endure around 9 months of carrying the rapists child inside her then suffer the pain of childbirth?

yes, for the sake of the child.

Is it then right to simply leave the child to the care of others.
How does that fit into a world that is increasingly over-populated and in a country (the US) that doesn't seem want to give people in less fortunate positions proper healthcare or wellfare?

Good joke DM! ask any of the illegal aliens in the U.S. about the health care and welfare here!

Of course, going back to the Bible; you ask is it right for the child (ignoring questions when to consider it life) to suffer for the crimes of the father.
I ask, is it right for Christianity to esentially treat all people as being sinners from the moment they are born until we accept Christ?
What's, in terms of the principles, is the difference there?

facts are facts.Cite to me any one year old who hasn't rebelled against his/her parents.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

But according to the account of him studying the Koran, your statement is false.

so is that it?
instead of discussing this with reason and debating the intent of point you're going to instead pick at the wording?

Originally Posted by CL8

Even Jesus said there is none good but God.

And so we get back to one of the key points of argument against religion; why take Jesus' (or any other prophets') word for it?
What makes it true?

Originally Posted by CL8

Biblically, medically, and scientifically it is proven to be at conception.

I like how you insert Biblically there but fair's fair.
This then leads to the next question of debate; if you take this strict definition of life (and the extension of it be sacred), then how can you justify the destruction of any other life form?

Originally Posted by CL8

yes, for the sake of the child.

and thus make the pain and misery of the victim even greater?

Originally Posted by CL8

Good joke DM! ask any of the illegal aliens in the U.S. about the health care and welfare here!

Abuse of the system is not the point of the debate.
If you want to talk about abuse, I could take this moment to remind you of what's going on in the Vatican.
It's also no surprise that you choose to ignore the many recorded/reported cases of (tax paying, law abiding) people falling ill and then lose their house as they can't afford to pay their medical bills.

Originally Posted by CL8

Cite to me any one year old who hasn't rebelled against his/her parents.

In case you missed it, i'm talking about (some) Christian's concept of original sin but again, let's take what you say and go back a few steps, if all children are born sinners, why is it so wrong then to abort that life?
After all, it even says that's ok in the Bible to kill children who disobey their parents. If you insist that we as a race are sinners from the moment we are conceived then that means we can all freely aborted as the Bible commands.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

so is that it?
instead of discussing this with reason and debating the intent of point you're going to instead pick at the wording?

As some well known people have said "Words mean things"

The intent of the point is clear and I addressed it.

I caught you in the wrong so now you are back tracking.

How about answering the question below please?

(wouldn't you agree this is "contact" with the religious movement of Islam?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Quote:
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

And so we get back to one of the key points of argument against religion; why take Jesus' (or any other prophets') word for it?
What makes it true?

The same thing that makes 2+2=4 true.

I like how you insert Biblically there but fair's fair.
This then leads to the next question of debate; if you take this strict definition of life (and the extension of it be sacred), then how can you justify the destruction of any other life form?

Human beings were created in the image of God other life forms were not AND Jesus Christ died for the souls of humans NOT other life forms.

and thus make the pain and misery of the victim even greater?

Is the comfort of the mother worth MORE than the life of her unborn child?

Abuse of the system is not the point of the debate.
If you want to talk about abuse, I could take this moment to remind you of what's going on in the Vatican.
It's also no surprise that you choose to ignore the many recorded/reported cases of (tax paying, law abiding) people falling ill and then lose their house as they can't afford to pay their medical bills.

cite specific examples please. Why are you equating sex abuse to abuse of a government welfare system?

In case you missed it, i'm talking about (some) Christian's concept of original sin but again, let's take what you say and go back a few steps, if all children are born sinners, why is it so wrong then to abort that life?

Christ came to die for and save sinners. If God loves sinners so should people.

After all, it even says that's ok in the Bible to kill children who disobey their parents. If you insist that we as a race are sinners from the moment we are conceived then that means we can all freely aborted as the Bible commands.

Again you don't understand bible doctrine and Gods plan for mankind. He made a plan to SAVE mankind. If everyone was aborted no one would come to know Gods plan of salvation.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

The intent of the point is clear and I addressed it.

I caught you in the wrong so now you are back tracking.

No and no.
My point is this:
Jefferson was brought in a Christian based society.
He was taught in a Christian based schooling system.
He lived in a country where Christianty was as tied to the culture as it was as a stand alone religion. Any exposure to a foreign religion he would've had would not have been in the same vein as his exposure to Christianity would've been.

Originally Posted by CL8

The same thing that makes 2+2=4 true.

So it is simply "because you say so" then?

Originally Posted by CL8

Human beings were created in the image of God other life forms were not AND Jesus Christ died for the souls of humans NOT other life forms.

Why do you take the scientific approach to defining when it is considered life yet conveniently ignore the scientific view that one bunch of cells is essentially the same as another bunch of cells?

Originally Posted by CL8

Why are you equating sex abuse to abuse of a government welfare system?

I'm not.
You are the one who brought up the abuse of your country's current welfare system by illegal immigrants. I mentioned welfare and healthcare because you have indicated in the past that you aren't in favour of them. I asked to mean how can you justify not wanting to have abortions and not wanting suitable welfare and heathcare in place.
My mention of abuse is to indicate that you can't use the abuse of a system to say that the system is flawed.
I used the Vatican to highlight that a system might mean well but is still open to abuse if people choose to.
My intent isn't specifically about child abuse; it is abuse of their position of pwer but I should've seen you mis-reading what I was alluding to.

Originally Posted by CL8

Christ came to die for and save sinners. If God loves sinners so should people.

So where is your love for those who abuse your welfare system?
So why can't you let them sin and abort the child?

Originally Posted by CL8

Again you don't understand bible doctrine and Gods plan for mankind. He made a plan to SAVE mankind. If everyone was aborted no one would come to know Gods plan of salvation.

How do you know that God didn't intend for the child to be aborted?
Who said anything about aborting everyone?

If God's plan is truly ineffable, surely whatever we do and choose to do all fits into His plan anyway.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

No and no.
My point is this:
Jefferson was brought in a Christian based society.
He was taught in a Christian based schooling system.
He lived in a country where Christianty was as tied to the culture as it was as a stand alone religion. Any exposure to a foreign religion he would've had would not have been in the same vein as his exposure to Christianity would've been.

So whats your point? Many people are raised in Christian homes, in a christian society, but then they go to a university and study another religion or study another religion on their own and convert. That exposure wouldn't be in the same "vein" as their exposure to Christianity either, but it is often enough to change their beliefs.

So it is simply "because you say so" then?

No.
It's because what is true is true and will always be true whether people believe it or not.

Why do you take the scientific approach to defining when it is considered life yet conveniently ignore the scientific view that one bunch of cells is essentially the same as another bunch of cells?

Here is some proof not all cells are the same.:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ani..._vs_Plant_Cell


I'm not.
You are the one who brought up the abuse of your country's current welfare system by illegal immigrants. I mentioned welfare and healthcare because you have indicated in the past that you aren't in favour of them. I asked to mean how can you justify not wanting to have abortions and not wanting suitable welfare and heathcare in place.
My mention of abuse is to indicate that you can't use the abuse of a system to say that the system is flawed.
I used the Vatican to highlight that a system might mean well but is still open to abuse if people choose to.
My intent isn't specifically about child abuse; it is abuse of their position of pwer but I should've seen you mis-reading what I was alluding to.

A welfare recipient is NOT in a position of power when he abuses the system, unlike priests, bishops and cardinals who abuse their position in the Catholic church (which IS a flawed system).

So where is your love for those who abuse your welfare system?
So why can't you let them sin and abort the child?

So, in order to show a welfare recipient love, we must allow them to abort their unborn child?
Quite the contrary. Abortion has been shown to do physical, emotional and psychological damage to the mother, as well as the child. Showing love would be preventing her from having an abortion.

How do you know that God didn't intend for the child to be aborted?
Who said anything about aborting everyone?

The same way I know my mom didn't INTEND for my sister to fall off the swing and break her collar bone. She loves her and wants the best for her even her health and well being.

If God's plan is truly ineffable, surely whatever we do and choose to do all fits into His plan anyway.

But we still have choices.

[grotenolmen]

I am Jewish. I don't practice all that much, but I do identify as Jewish. I also don't know squat about different Christian denominations. I put in another thread that I'm marrying a Catholic, but in that thread (which I don't want to self-hijack) I've noticed people talk about the differences in religion. For me, it's pretty cut and dry: Her religion believes that the messiah has come in the form of Jesus, and we're still waiting around for the guy/gal to show up.

However, that's my view of all Christians. What, exactly, separates a Catholic from a Protestant from a Methodist from a Baptist, etc?

[CL8]

Originally Posted by grotenolmen

I am Jewish. I don't practice all that much, but I do identify as Jewish. I also don't know squat about different Christian denominations. I put in another thread that I'm marrying a Catholic, but in that thread (which I don't want to self-hijack) I've noticed people talk about the differences in religion. For me, it's pretty cut and dry: Her religion believes that the messiah has come in the form of Jesus, and we're still waiting around for the guy/gal to show up.

However, that's my view of all Christians. What, exactly, separates a Catholic from a Protestant from a Methodist from a Baptist, etc?

Thats quite a loaded question.
You have probably heard the term "Evangelical Christianity".
Many protestant denominations are Evangelical, that is they adhere to the teachings of New Testament doctrine,
especially the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ alone for salvation.
The Baptist "denomination" is the one that most closely adheres to the doctrines of the bible.

The Catholic church adds much to the teachings of the bible such as, prayers to and worship of saints (Mary and others).
The Catholic church teaches you must be baptized to have your sins forgiven. No such teaching is found in the bible.
The Catholic church teaches you must be a member of the Catholic church
to get to heaven. Such teaching is not in scripture.

Basically you have "Christian "denominations" that teach you must work for your salvation.
Then you have the Christian "denominations" that hold to what the bible says, it's faith alone in Jesus Christ that will get you to heaven.

Both can not be right. "True Christian" beliefs will teach faith and not works for salvation.
According to the bible, anyone trusting in their own good works to be acceptable to God will be damned to hell because he didn't trust Christs
sacrifice on the cross for salvation.

I hope this answers your question.

and welcome to the forum!

Cl8

[CL8]

Welcome to the forum "Cam"!

And thanks for reviving this thread!

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Welcome to the forum "Cam"!

And thanks for reviving this thread!

Well, Cam, if you are looking around, there is a nice summary of this very thread found on Youtube, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[CL8]

Actually, this is a video that truly describes the debate here:
(It could be to others besides Mormons)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qx4J...eature=related