Humanities desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

The International Churches of Christ

How has the International Churches of Christ changed since the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter? Did the ICOC stop it's abusive practices that were mentioned by Henry Kriete in his letters?? Did the ICOC right any wrongs that were mentioned by Henry Kriete in his letters? Or did the ICOC simply expel Kip Mckean and continue on it's merry way without changing anything? What, about the ICOC, if anything, has changed? Qewr4231 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article International Churches of Christ may provide some insights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately our ICOC article has for a long time been ruled by whitewashers. It looks better now than it did when I last looked at it a few years ago, but it hardly mentions the biggest reason that anybody cares about the ICOC- that they're routinely described as an abusive cult who've caused massive damage to various people's lives. Right now our article's probably not a good place to look for real info, especially about the OP's question. I don't know enough to point to better refs unfortunately. Staecker (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Christian version of Scientology. What types of abuses are they alleged to have committed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Television (STV) advertisement seeking "SoapBox Scots" to comment on current/future events, e.g. Scotland's Independence from U.K.

Today's date is 29 JAN 14. Within the past week an advertisement (exhortation?) was broadcast, during an evening news programme, on my TV set as I passed through the living room. Capable speakers ("SoapBox Scots") were sought. I lacked notation materials. When I remembered to query my PC, I'd forgotten the precise e-contact (www) address, and have failed to discover it. Will somebody help me, please? TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.95.100.24 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The URL is https://www.facebook.com/SoapboxScots?ref=hl and it's sponsored by The Sun. Tevildo (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic rites on the unborn

I have read Catholic views on abortion and infant baptism but still have some questions about the Catholic view on the unborn:

I see that historically there have been discussions about when ensoulment happens. The 2010 text linked there says:

We may say with Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer: “the one who will be a man is one already” (Apologeticum IX, 8), there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.

If the Catholic opinion is that the unborn is a person with a soul (at least in the latter period of the pregnancy),
- doesn't it follows that it has original sin and could (musts?) be baptised before birth? Why wait until birth when there is a recommendation to not wait but a few days after birth? Has some theologian considered this? Are there opinions about it?

Following on, what is the Catholic criteria on what should be done with the result of a miscarriage, stillbirth or an artificial abortion? Should it be disposed of like an amputated body part or should it be given a Christian burial?

--Error (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer to your middle point is that it isn't possible to baptise a child before birth, at least not as Catholics understand baptism as it requires at least some water being sprinkled on the person (or at least something which may be water if you really can't get water). See e.g. this discussion [1] and also [2], [3] and [4].

As for you last question, note that as I understand it, there's no requirement for a Roman Catholic funeral of any particularly form, e.g. no mass is required [5]. (In other words, I don't think it's necessarily a sin for either a Catholic person of their Catholic next of kin to decide against a Catholic funeral provided they don't do it for the wrong reasons.) There are a small number of limitations such as cremating the remains for reasons that go against the Catholic faith [6]. And I think in all cases the remains should be treated with appropriate reverence [7] as far as possible which includes in miscarriages etc [8] [9] [10].

Also nowadays a full Catholic funeral including a mass can be provided even for children who died before baptism [11] [12] (also earlier sources) and I don't think based on current Catholic teaching anyone would suggest it should be different whether it happened before or after birth (see also the last source about reverence) [13] [14]. Although since as I mentioned no specific form of funeral is required, none is going to be expected here either (in other words, it's up to the parents). It may be that a Catholic funeral with a funeral mass is recommended [15] [16] [17] [18], but I'm not sure how strong that recommendation is and it seems even less so for infants. (As mentioned here [19], a funeral mass may not have been allowed for an unbaptised infant in the past.)

Note that current Catholic teaching is that infants who die before baptism (actually any children who die without baptism) are "entrusted to the mercy of god" which is emphasised in the funeral rites where held, as mentioned in earlier sources and also [20]. If you read the last source and some of the earlier ones carefully, what they are more or less saying is that while we believe baptism is essential for salvation, in certain cases like an unbaptised infant, it seems unlikely god will be so harsh as to allow the soul to suffer eternally so it's likely they are saved, although we can't know for sure what god does.

P.S. To avoid confusion, as mentioned in the last and some of the earlier sources, there are actually other forms of baptism namely baptism by desire and baptism by blood [21]. While these don't require water, they aren't particularly relevant here because they generally are taken to require conscious thought. Some may have suggested extending them to cover infants in the past, but even in that case, it's still not something the parent or anyone else can do.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer and the many references. --Error (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to my response after you reply, you can see them here [22]. Probably the most important change is that while I don't think a Catholic funeral of any form is required, most seem to agree the remains should be treated with appropriate reverence (which includes that from a miscarriage etc). Also some emphasise the need for a Catholic funeral more than others. Cheers. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy question

I know that this article is satire but I'm curious about the logical fallacy involved. That said, the article that I'm referring to is this one where Michelle Bachmann supposedly said that since Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes that many other things that scientists say cannot be trusted either. Basically, I'm looking for the name of the argument that says "You were wrong about one thing, so you can't be right about anything." It's been a long time since I took my logic class in college but I thought that this had a name. I've been poking about and can't find it on my own. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a search may be Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, Association fallacy or False dilemma? Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in case there's any confusion, she didn't make the statements, [23] is satire. Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Bachmann's portrayed speaking into a microphone, surely there's a youtube video? I'd love to hear this. If not, isn't this a BLP issue? μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I pointed out that it was satire in the first sentence. Medeis, you're off your rocker again. A) I said it was satire. B) Nil Einne said it was satire. C) Nobody said anything about Bachmann with any seriousness. D) It is satire. Dismas|^(talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And in all seriousness, thank you for the links, Nil Einne! Dismas|^(talk) 02:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I was tired and somehow missed that bit when checking what you had said to see if you had mentioned it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]