I mean, “Massivechusetts” was right there.

I know the legal meaning of a yellow light varies from place to place, but the effective meaning of traffic lights is:

• Red: You shouldn’t be in the intersection. You must not find yourself in the intersection, because other traffic/pedestrians/etc are doing so, and if you’re in the intersection, you’re creating a safety problem.

• Yellow: a Red is imminent. You should take whatever steps are safe to ensure that you will not be in the intersection when the light turns red. If that means you need to drive through to get clear, then if the path is clear, do so. If that means instead you need to stop and you can safely do so, do that.

• Green: you can go straight through; if you’re turning in a legal direction, you can do so after safely yielding.

Yeah, it’s all the worst evangelical tendencies (“I bet God is happy he finally has us, here at 3rd avenue primitive KJV-only fundamental second baptist church, since everyone else is so wrong!”) amplified by all the worst right-wing tendencies (but then, maybe I repeat myself).

Even “Christian” here requires an asterisk, as preaching most of what Jesus said will get you labelled “woke” and targeted as a “librul”.

Source: am a somewhat-progressive Christian who was at a hard-right church (trying to be the voice of reason) for way too long.

The one at Boston Logan is pretty good. All soft padded surfaces and everything.

That’s an additive change, not a conflicting one.

What you’re saying is like “the US amended its Constitution to give women the right to vote, so you can’t claim they grant the right to free speech.” The fact that the 19th amendment came after the 1st amendment does not mean the 19th amendment disagrees with the 1st amendment; rather, they address two different subjects, both of which independently needed fixing by addressing them in a foundational document.

If anything, the Filioque, as I understand it, strengthens what I’m saying, because it was a change to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father, but from the Father and the Son (Jesus), since they’re one.

That contradicts Mormon teaching even harder, since Mormon teaching is that Jesus is a distinct, separate god, and is not “one” with the Father (Yahweh) in the way that Jesus himself said he was (“I and my Father are one” in John 10; “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” in John 14) or that the rest of the Christian New Testament teach (as distinct from the Mormon editions, which have been changed based on Joseph Smith’s “visions” that all existing manuscripts were somehow secretly corrupted from some hypothetical original text that has never been found nor referenced in any writings prior to Smith coming up with the idea).

Yeah, I dunno why this is the DoD’s job to hash out, I’m with you there. That part is the Christian Nationalism nasty bullying around.

I get you need chaplains, but IMO just use the official endonyms of each group without trying to categorize or subcategorize, and call it a day and let the chaplains match themselves up.

If I were a Catholic in the military and I got an LDS chaplain (or vice versa) for my religious rites, I’d be upset. So just treat all the little groups as their own little things if you must change something.

If the best you’ve got is “the globally-accepted definition of Christianity that was agreed upon immediately after its founding millennia ago by the closest adherents of Christianity, and was formally codified within the first couple hundred years only so as to explicitly name disagreement with this definition as specifically not being Christianity, and which was only ever disputed in mid-1800s Utah by a random dude who wanted to legitimize his brand-new polygamy cult by pretending it’s part of Christianity is not the definition of Christianity”

…I don’t think you’re in as strong a position as you seem to think.

Mormons are absolutely not Nicene Christians, but they profess to follow Jesus of Nazareth,

Is a bit like

Naturopaths are absolutely not germ-theory doctors, but they profess to practice wellness and healing,

as a way to shoehorn Brenda with the essential oils into the category of “doctor”. At the point where you’ve denied one of the few definitional traits of the category, you have to admit you don’t fit into it anymore, you can’t just pretend the definition doesn’t actually exist. It’s like being a lawyer who doesn’t deal with legal matters, but they have a bunch of ideas their college roommate came up with about how to run a country while he was high before dropping out of the first semester of law school.

They believe that Jesus was God Himself (not another god, or a dude who became a god, but the one God Himself) who came down to die so that humanity could, depending on Christus Victor or Penal Substitutionary Atonement, either be saved from the cursing effects of death or else have their sins atoned?

Or do they instead believe that Jesus, an entirely-separate god that the God and some other “Divine Mother” gave birth to, died to pave a path to becoming a god yourself?

I don’t have to. The Christian church formalized it in 325AD. Joey Smith just wasn’t creative enough to come up with a new heresy. He moved too quick to “okay so let’s do multiple wives and also since my wife is objecting to that God says she’s no longer a prophet and is actually a false shepherd” when he should’ve been doing his homework to make his con more credible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

EDIT: I think maybe you’re confused? I’m not asserting that the uppercase-O Orthodox Church is all of Christianity. I’m using the normal plain meaning of “orthodox”, which is “adhering to the fundamental principles held to be true by a religious group.” All Christians believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and is fully God, because that’s what Christian means, in the same way that I can assert that all watercraft are things that can travel in water. The LDS faith is not Christian because their cult leader prophet decided stupidly to pick the defining trait of Christianity as a thing he wanted to change.

The Son of God who is fully one with God Himself, the second person of the Trinity, which is one God in three persons.

A ton of the earliest writings in the church were dealing with explaining the Trinity, and nearly every time for the first several hundred years that the Christian church found it important enough to get together and publicly denounce someone as a heretic, it was because of denying some part of that equation (either the Trinity itself, or Jesus as fully God, or Jesus as fully God and one with God the Father). The LDS chucks it out in favor of their own weird “nah, actually everyone’s kinda a god, that’s what’s up with Jesus.” A history dive on “begotten, not made” and the Nicene Creed is helpful here, comparing it with LDS doctrine on the nature of Jesus and on the end times.

That makes them heretics to orthodox Christianity (for denying that Jesus is not “one with the Father”, all homousia) for a similar reason to why Islam views Christians as heretics (because Islam views the Trinity as an assertion of multiple gods, counter to “Allah is one”).

A lot of people see a sort of “X derived from Y” and assume based on lack of any further digging that X and Y are interchangeable, when the very derivation from should call to attention that there was a fork in the road where beliefs diverged. Some of those forks are more divergent from one another than others; Presbyterians and Baptists have more in common than Presbyterians and Catholics, and those two groups themselves have more in common than Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, and still Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have much more in common than LDS and any Christian denomination you could pick from a hat.

It’s true. Unfortunately, his learnings were exclusively limited to The Boston Molasses Disaster, but boy is he an encyclopedia on that subject now.

I mean, I don’t think they do draw that line; 47% of Republicans would still vote for Trump even if Trump were implicated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities – and those are just the ones who answered brazenly and honestly on the survey, to say nothing of those who say one thing in public and do another when nobody’s looking.