So who's allowed to call themselves a christian?

Your question is based upon the assumption that God actually spoke to the woman. As far as I know, God does not "speak" directly to anyone.

I wouldn't immediately jump up and say "I'm gonna get an abortion".

Abortion distresses me greatly.

However, I would think hard on the fact that I really wasn't giving birth to a human, in the sense we understand the world human.

ok, what if you or I were told that the fetus we were carrying did not have a head, or a neck even. However, it would be medically possible to insert a few tubes into this torso with arms and legs, keep it oxygenated, hydrated and fed.

Would that be a human?
I don't believe it would be.
Is the baby human just because it has what we recognize as a face, and something like a head? Does the fact that we can't see the part that's missing make it more human? Does putting a dress on a doll turn it into a real person?

If the fetus I was carrying had no arms or legs, but had a brain, that is very much a human.

You know why a chicken can run around after it's head has been cut off? Because a part of it's brain stem remained. If the axe came down a little lower, it wouldn't run around.

I can understand very much wanting something to be true so badly, that I would grasp at straws to make it so. If my best intentions of wishing it so failed, but I was later presented with another opportunity to make it true, I can understand my now turning to that.

however......that.......is fucked up.

The disturbing part of this particular fucked-up-edness is how her wishful thinking grew like topsy until it had a life of it's own. Like was said before (sorry, I forget who said it), after 10 months of believing that God was not going to let this child die, she now had 5 more get out of jail cards in case another tragedy happened. With 5 more chances, surely God would let one of these children live.

Well, that's just as far as you know. You have no more idea what God does or doesn't do than anyone else.

I have no idea if God speaks to anyone or not, or if God even has a voice to speak.

However, this woman did give birth to something that was not viable in any sense, and kept it alive for almost a year because she said God spoke to her. Then, in order to maintain her belief that God not only spoke to her, but cannot be wrong, she transfered that statement onto an entirely different person and situation. Since God couldn't be wrong in her eyes, it was her timing that was off. See, if only she had known that God was speaking to her about this other child, she could have aborted the brainless fetus, knowing that on it's own, it wouldn't have lived more than a few minutes. Instead, she drug out this travesty for almost a year, and in her mind, way beyond.

In any event, this is all hypothetical because, based on other statements made during my conversation with C., he wasn't 100% educated on the entire story either. If he wasn't, how could I be?

Personally? I think there was a part of the brain stem developed on this baby, not enough for thought or function, but enough that it could survive with major assistance for quite some time.

Why do I think this? Well, during the part of his story about him being in a coma, he mentioned about himself that much of his liver had been damaged, and he had "brain damage". I didn't want to start with anything at all with him, since it was just friendly conversation, but I didn't have any idea what his idea of brain damage meant. I did however jump in with the comment of "Your liver regenerates you know."

He said "huh?"

I said something to the effect of "Oh yeah, you can have most of your liver removed, and it will grown back just fine"

So, here we have someone who felt that his liver recovering was a miracle, and it wasn't until I asked that he added that he was also on dialysis during that time because of the drug overdose.

The other doctors saying "that's impossible" and "the only christian doctor" acknowledging there was a miracle afoot is also a result of wishful thinking, IMO.

My husband shouldn't be alive today. His cardiologist has more or less said a few times it's impossible. But obviously all of us know it is. When seeing what is impossible right before your eyes, we're all really saying "it's highly improbable."

I believe in using words closely to their common usage, and that dictionaries are good at documenting this usage. In this spirit, I checked a few dictionaries about the noun Christian, and found that the American Heritage Dictionary puts it best:


Every denomination in the list you gave earlier qualifies as Christian under this definition. So when you ask someone if he is a Christian, and he answers he is Catholic, or Lutheran, or Methodist, he is indeed answering your question.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Unfortunatley, that's not how some other people think.

Indeed it is not. I suspect those are the same people who also think god created the Earth 6000 years ago. Fortunately, it is irrelevant what they think, because their thinking so does not make it so. Likewise for their definition of the word Christian: They can think the word means whatever they want it to. But their thinking so does not make it so. I find at least some relief in that knowledge.

Exactly my point. Therefore, it rather makes the discussion pointless. No?

No.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you - but part of it could be the emotions with the pregnancy. The other part - is maybe she just really wants to believe that God spoke to her and not that her emotions got the better part of her.

I think the second part kinda is weird that she misunderstood by the wrong child that seems a bit bonkers to me. The first part, I could see be so distraut that you almost want to believe anything that your child will survive.

Oh I know you weren't disagreeing.

Even not having been a mother, I know how I'd feel when wanting to protect you child.

I'm conflicted over what I was saying about being human vs. no brain...as in where do you draw the line.

Thankfully, I've never been in a position where I would ever even have to consider an abortion, but I think something like this would be one of the rare times when it's the way to go, and not morally wrong. Like I said, baby with no legs and arms is a person. A baby with very limited brain function is a person. A baby with no brain stem, hence in essence no way to have thoughts, emotions, awareness of any sort, because the engine is missing....I have to say, and I keep hesitating between typing letters....not a person.

Fortunately I was never in a position where I had to make this decision, however, I did discuss this with my husband when I was pregnant. There were many test offerred to me when I was pregnant. I refused most because I didn't want the anxiety of false positives and figured I would have the baby any way if she had A, B, or C. I also agreed that if the child had something where it would not survive (like this situation you describe), I would abort. But only under that circumstance. My husband is much stricter Christian in thought, but I give him credit - he said if the situation were to happen, it is ultimately my decision.

One of my friends (after I had my two children) had such a situation. The doctor determined that their baby would probably not even come to term and if s/he did would not survive. They decided to let nature take its course. Which it did and almost took the mom's life too. In hind site, she said as hard as it would have been, she should have had the abortion. On a happy note, she is fine and how has a happy healthy toddler.

I believe that there have been individuals that will attend different Protestant churchs for different reasons, with very little concern about the denomination's respective theology (e.g., free will vs predestination). So, this makes me believe that there might be individuals that use their affiliation with a church like a membership card to a specific social group. In effect, Christianity can be a social thing, as well as a spiritual thing, and some people put the emphasis on social, I believe. Followers of the right social circle.

If a god actually exists, and expects Christians to follow particular rules to be considered Christians, then there is an objectively true Christian/non-Christian definition. Good luck with your guesses as to His Criteria.

If no god exists, or some exist but don't have such expectations, then Christians are whatever and whoever (whomever?) they want to be.

I like the fact that it's much easier to be a Christian if no gods exist.

Your first word sums it up mate. Labels. If someone throws one at you and you grab it then it is you who label yourself.

Instead, duck, and let ig sail by and refuse to accept even one label. Be yourself, not what someone else wants to define you as.

If you want to believe the Christian fantasy then do so. But do it quietly and keep it to yourself. If you shout it out you will get the derision such beliefs deserve.

There are various beliefs in what/who is a Christian (the baptism definition is only for Catholics):

I liked your answer, but the baptism difinition is not only for Catholics also for Lutherans and some other denomintions closer to Catholicism than protestantism

I'm not now a Christian--haven't been since I was 15, but I was born and raised a mainstream one (Presbyterian), and it irritates the hell out of me when the damned fundamentalist right wingers tell me something is "Christian" with the implication that only that particular viewpoint on the subject is the Christian one, and I know damned well that it is only "Christian" to their particular sect, not to Presbyterians or Methodists or even Episcopalians (some of them at least), not to mention the Unitarians I hang out with in New England, because they like folk music ("What happens when two Unitarians get together? " answer: "They open a coffehouse". It's true)

Most people who really have a certain religious belief really do think everyone else is wrong in their religious beliefs or else they really don't belief in a certain religious belief but rather a vague one.

For example you can't believe both Catholics and those who go to the Church of Christ (not united churches of Christ) are right. The Church of Christ who still adhere to the doctrine (the church of Christ is actually divided now between liberal churches of Christ who have relaxed their standards so to speak and conservative churches of Christ who go strictly by the bible as they understand it and believe it) believe that once you become of a certain age old enough to understand the concept of sin and old enough to understand why Jesus died and old enough to understand the resurrection, you should be baptized into the remission of sin to become a christian. Catholics believe in baptizing a child early enough so that if the child died he/she would be a christian. (think i got that right)

You see how the two are not compatible and can't both be called right? If you truly believe in one or the other then you can't logically believe the other is right therefore in your mind only one is truly a christian and the other is not.

On the other I don't see any benefits in going around being intolerant of others beliefs whatever the may be. If you are interested in converting people, insulting them is not going to get you anywhere anyway.

Also it is just as wrong to be intolerant of those who have faith in some kind of religious belief than it is for those who have religious beliefs to be intolerant of those who don't or intolerant of other religious beliefs.

(In my particular belief; I don't believe there are miracles or prophets anymore since the last apostle died who was a witness to Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. They were the only ones who had the power to perform miracles and was able to spread that power by the laying of the hands. I base those beliefs on my reading of the Bible starting in Hebrews 1:1.)

Unless you look at it from the point of view of the intolerant, in which case it's your intolerance of their intolerance that is wrong.

I agree with you though, that everyone thinks their beliefs are "correct", including those whose believe all beliefs should be respected.

We've been through this before: http://able2know.org/topic/128492-23#post-3559700

If Jesus was really god he would never have been nailed to the cross. Instead he would have heaved fireballs at those who tried to kill him. At least that's what I would have done.