Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party

[Adrift]

As always you critique any source of information that doesn’t reinforce your position.

Well, your source was worth the critique, no? You framed both sources, particularly the first one, as though infanticide was permissible among Christians during the Middle Ages. Your source had nothing to do with the Middle Ages. It had to do with ancient Pagan Rome.

You did the same re Fact Checks on Trump’s pathological lies vis-à-vis Obama’s and Clinton’s relative honesty in previous discussions. Rather than accept the verdict of reputable Fact Checkers you simple question their reliability, not Trump’s palpable dishonesty. This is ‘denial’ worthy of the deranged buffoon himself.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. When did I question Fact Check? Pretty sure you're mistaking me for someone else.

The most cursory search provides considerable evidence of exposure and abandonment in the Christian West. E,g. “Studies of Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the 19th century reveal a substantial history of infanticide and of abandonment to foundling homes, charitable institutions that arose to take in these children. Infanticide, infant abandonment, and exposure also occurred in colonial America”

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/...pages_1-10.pdf

There are many others.

So...you're just going to source authorless papers that you come across in a quick google search now? Tassman, this is shoddy work even by your standards. Here's the full quote, and I even found the sources author for you.

Source: The Child: An Encyclopedic Companion, Richard A. Shweder, Editor in Chief, Edited by Thomas R. Bidell, Anne C. Dailey, Suzanne D. Dixon, Peggy J. Miller, and John Modell, 2009

Studies of Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the 19th century reveal a substantial history of infanticide and of abandonment to foundling homes, charitable institutions that arose to take in these children. Infanticide, infant abandonment, and exposure also occurred in colonial America. English Poor Laws, transported to the American colonies, made local parishes responsible for the care of abandoned children within their precincts, thereby burdening the entire community. Those supporting the creation of foundling homes on both sides of the Atlantic argued that they would be a relatively inexpensive option and would reduce the need for infanticide. Those opposing them believed that their existence would encourage sexual license and illegitimacy. All agreed (erroneously) that the only person who would kill or abandon a child was an unwed woman hiding her shame. Recent studies show that poverty played an equally compelling part in abandonment and that, for example, 20% to 30% of abandoned children in 18th-century Paris were legitimate. Similarly, in early 19th-century America, reports of abandonment increased in periods of economic depression.

© Copyright Original Source

But see, no one denies that someone somewhere within the Christian West abandoned their children. We're all familiar with that image of the baby in the basket sitting on the steps of a church, or in front of an orphanage. It certainly wasn't approved of by the church or society, as you attempted to frame it earlier as happening within the Christian West on a grand scale, with absolute impunity, and with the most frigid indifference.

My good buddy Starlight accepts it as a valid option under certain circumstances. That's NOT the same as being "fine with infanticide". As far as I'm concerned, if brain function is the criterion used to determine the death of a person; it should also be the criterion for its beginning.

Nah, Starlight has expressed a bit more than that. He has expressed that infanticide is essentially the same as abortion. That like fetuses, infants lack personhood. Go ahead, ask him. As his hero Peter Singer states, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living" So it isn't only those with severe disabilities on the chopping block, but, as in abortion, those who's birth mother lacks the time and finances to a raise child that are also on the chopping block.

[rogue06]

Nah, Starlight has expressed a bit more than that. He has expressed that infanticide is essentially the same as abortion. That like fetuses, infants lack personhood. Go ahead, ask him. As his hero Peter Singer states, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living" So it isn't only those with severe disabilities on the chopping block, but, as in abortion, those who's birth mother lacks the time and finances to a raise child that are also on the chopping block.

As this exchange from just yesterday demonstrates:

A view where it is fine to wantonly murder infants several weeks old if the mother decides she doesn't want them? You are deluding yourself.

You know what I paraphrase comments such as this to in my mind as I read them? "I hate abortion! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Interesting how you keep trying to equate your approval of killing children several weeks old with abortion since you know that many of your liberal friends approve of the latter but not the former. It's like you realize just how repulsive your view and wish to conceal it from them.

I equate it because to me it is the same. What does it matter whether the fetus is outside the womb or inside when it is killed? To me that makes no moral difference...

Starlight is an advocate of infanticide and makes no bones about it.

[Adrift]

As this exchange from just yesterday demonstrates:

Starlight is an advocate of infanticide and makes no bones about it.

Major inconvenient and embarrassing fact for his friends here. You can almost see them squirming when they attempt to defend him on the subject.

[Leonhard]

Minor bug fix. Amens were tripping it up.

var blacklist = ['Username', 'Another username', 'I don't want to see this guy either'];

// Loop through all the posts visible
document.querySelectorAll('li.postbitim').forEach(function(el, i) {
    // Remove posts from blacklisted user
    if (blacklist.includes(el.querySelector('a.username span').textContent)) {
        if (el.classList.contains('postbitignored')) {
            el.style.display = 'none';
        }
        else {
            el.style.display = 'none';
            if (!el.nextElementSibling.classList.contains('postbitim')) {
                el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
            }
        }
    }
    
    // Remove posts quoting blacklisted user
    var quote_name = el.querySelector('div.bbcode_postedby strong');
    if (quote_name) {
        if (blacklist.includes(quote_name.textContent)) {
            el.style.display = 'none';
            el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
        }
    }
});

[rogue06]

Major inconvenient and embarrassing fact for his friends here. You can almost see them squirming when they attempt to defend him on the subject.

Some things just shouldn't be defended.

quote-you-can-t-defend-the-indefensible-anything-you-say-sounds-self-serving-and-hypocritical-di.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Al Franken's Supply Side Jesus comic is a nice depiction of how US evangelicals' ideas of economics are completely backwards compared to the bible.

Al Franken... Now there's a recognized expert in Christan theology and biblical exegesis.

[Darth Executor]

Minor bug fix. Amens were tripping it up.

var blacklist = ['Username', 'Another username', 'I don't want to see this guy either'];

// Loop through all the posts visible
document.querySelectorAll('li.postbitim').forEach(function(el, i) {
    // Remove posts from blacklisted user
    if (blacklist.includes(el.querySelector('a.username span').textContent)) {
        if (el.classList.contains('postbitignored')) {
            el.style.display = 'none';
        }
        else {
            el.style.display = 'none';
            if (!el.nextElementSibling.classList.contains('postbitim')) {
                el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
            }
        }
    }
    
    // Remove posts quoting blacklisted user
    var quote_name = el.querySelector('div.bbcode_postedby strong');
    if (quote_name) {
        if (blacklist.includes(quote_name.textContent)) {
            el.style.display = 'none';
            el.nextElementSibling.style.display = 'none';
        }
    }
});

nobody cares, stop spamming this thread

[Leonhard]

Major inconvenient and embarrassing fact for his friends here. You can almost see them squirming when they attempt to defend him on the subject.

Starlight, who despite his less than winning personality is actually interesting to debate with (on some topics), really killed his reputation by going all out on infanticide like that. I don't see what point he's trying to win on it.

[Meh Gerbil]

Starlight, who despite his less than winning personality is actually interesting to debate with (on some topics), really killed his reputation by going all out on infanticide like that. I don't see what point he's trying to win on it.

Do we expect people who are atheist to hold to Christian morals?

Christians regularly paint atheists as the worst sorts of people - with absolutely no foundation for any type of moral code - and yet the moment an atheist is honest enough to actually express a real opinion on something we get people running around with their hair on fire - for expressing the exact kind of view the stereotype holds that he would posses.

I think everyone needs to take a breather.
This is getting embarrassing.

[Darth Executor]

Christians regularly paint atheists as the worst sorts of people - with absolutely no foundation for any type of moral code

I don't think this is true of most people here. What we argue is that there is no rational foundation, which is hardly the same thing.

[Leonhard]

You can even add this code bit if you want to be free of threads started by a person you want to ignore.

// Loop through all the threads visible
document.querySelectorAll('#threads > li').forEach(function(el, i) {
    if (blacklist.includes(el.querySelector('div.author > span > a').textContent)) {
        el.style.display = 'none';
    }
});

A bit of detour. Javascript is fun though and I'm in a tinkering mood today. Though I think I'll take future posts about this up into Computer Labs once I've tinkered a bit more with it.

[Starlight]

Do we expect people who are atheist to hold to Christian morals?

Hmm, you've made me wonder about the inverse of that: Should I expect people who are Christian to hold to atheist morals? I guess I'll have to think about that. Obviously I often judge Christians as falling morally short. But perhaps I should cut them more slack and not expect them to live up to atheist moral codes?

Christians regularly paint atheists as the worst sorts of people - with absolutely no foundation for any type of moral code

Which seems kind of detached from reality on their part, to the extent that if you talk to any atheist they almost always believe strongly in a moral code. Usually atheists will fault Christians for falling short of their atheistic moral code.

and yet the moment an atheist is honest enough to actually express a real opinion on something we get people running around with their hair on fire

Obviously any time anyone holds a different moral code to another person, it will be possible to find cases where something that one person thinks is immoral, the other person thinks is moral, and vice versa. That's just the way it works. You see the same thing happening even among the Christians on this forum, who hold a variety of different moral views on torture, the killing of unarmed prisoners who have surrendered in war (e.g. seer thinks his buddies slaughtering Japanese soldiers who had surrendered in WWII was just fine), war in general / drone strikes etc.

But it's wrong to equate "thinks something different to I do on a particular issue" with "lacks an overarching moral paradigm and moral principles". Obviously most people have strong moral codes.

[Mountain Man]

Obviously I often judge Christians as falling morally short.

And this from a guy who has no problem with murdering infants.

[Starlight]

And this from a guy who has no problem with murdering infants.

A complete misrepresentation of my view as usual, from a guy who (I suspect) is fine with:
- Torture
- Drone strikes that cause civilian causalities
- War
- Killing animals for meat
- The death penalty
- Gay and trans people lacking human rights
Edit:
- People not having healthcare if they can't afford it
- Homelessness
- Poor people not having food, education or anything else if they don't have enough money to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
- Police shooting unarmed black people in the streets

[Darth Executor]

Most of humanity has been ok with all of that throughout human history. It's funny how you object to those, nearly every one of which can be justified on the basis that the people being killed are a danger to you, but draw the line at protecting infants from predatory progressives like you.