• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

All or Nothing?

Harlan said:
Why do you assume that God cannot or does not provide teachings adapted to the needs of civilization as it changes? The Bible mentions the progression through time of many Prophets sent with divine teachings, such as Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. If a one time lesson was all that was needed, then we wouldn't need anyone but Abraham. Baha'is believe that this is the natural rythmn of religion. Human society progresses and changes. God sends Messengers to provide the Divine Guidance.
Click to expand...

How do you spot a messenger from a false prophet, especially if he/she diverges from or contradicts scripture?
 
MaggieD said:
Personally, I have no problem with it 99.99% of the time. Well, actually? It's none of my business, so I never have a problem with it. ;)

There are certain fundamentals in any religion that I'd find essential from a purist standpoint. For instance, I think a Christian must believe that Jesus Christ is his savior. But if, for instance, someone calls themselves a Catholic yet has trouble believing that the Virgin Mary was born without original sin, I don't think that failure disqualifies them from calling themselves Catholic.

Tolerance.
Click to expand...

"Trouble believing" and "disbelieving" are two different things.

If a Catholic "DISBELIEVED" that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, i.e. she was the "Immaculate Conception," then he would be denying important Catholic doctrine, and that would be to deny that the Church teaches infallibly, and if one denied that, then what would be the point of doctrine at all?

From the perspective of a practicing Catholic, Catholicism is not a cafeteria. It's "all or nothing."
 
Last edited:
lachrimosa said:
"Trouble believing" and "disbelieving" are two different things.

If a Catholic "DISBELIEVED" that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, i.e. she was the "Immaculate Conception," then he would be denying important Catholic doctrine, and that would be to deny that the Church teaches infallibly, and if one denied that, then what would be the point of doctrine at all?

From the perspective of a practicing Catholic, Catholicism is not a cafeteria. It's "all or nothing."
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it.
 
I disagree. I think that a lot is lost in the translation from language to language to language. Also, Biblical books were all written by humans who interpreted what they thought God meant...so, no, I don't believe in following religious doctrine to the "T".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom