• 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!

Fla. students' shirts: 'Islam is of the Devil'

General Basic Christian Doctrine 101:

1. The fall of man occurred in a primordial event.

2. Man is thus fallen and is incapable of redeeming himself (this makes Christianity incompatible with Buddhism for example).

3. The son of God, Christ, suffered and died on the cross for the sins of man. Thus Christ is man's redeemer.

4. All man must do to be redeemed is repent for their sins and accept Christ as their personal redeemer.

Regardless of whether you are Baptist, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Anglican, that is the basic summation of Christian views toward salvation.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Agna:

Tinker was about EXPLICITLY political speech. The schools have a right to prohibit disruptive messages, and that right has been upheld repeatedly.

firstamendmentcenter.org: analysis
Click to expand...

That isn't a rebuttal to my comment, and there's actually a far higher standard for determination of expression as "disruptive" than you would seem to imply. Morse v. Frederick, for example, could have easily been resolved in Joseph Frederick's favor by a 6 to 3 ruling if he had claimed that there was some tangible meaning to the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," despite its clearly "disruptive" nature.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
General Basic Christian Doctrine 101:

1. The fall of man occurred in a primordial event.

2. Man is thus fallen and is incapable of redeeming himself (this makes Christianity incompatible with Buddhism for example).
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Man is capable of redeeming himself, not only is salvation by works somewhat important in Catholicism but man is capable of coming to Jesus.

3. The son of God, Christ, suffered and died on the cross for the sins of man. Thus Christ is man's redeemer.

4. All man must do to be redeemed is repent for their sins and accept Christ as their personal redeemer.

Regardless of whether you are Baptist, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Anglican, that is the basic summation of Christian views toward salvation.
Click to expand...
Actually there is a difference between the views of the Orthodox and Catholic(of whatever kind.) on the one side and the Protestants on the other. As R.H Tawney put it:

The difference between loving men as a result of first loving God, and learning to love God through a growing love for men, may not, at first sight, appear profound.
To Luther it seemed an abyss, and Luther was right. It was, in a sense, nothing less than the Reformation itself. For carried, as it was not carried by Luther, to its logical result, the argument made, not only good works, but sacraments and the Church itself unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
This is incorrect. Man is capable of redeeming himself, not only is salvation by works somewhat important in Catholicism but man is capable of coming to Jesus.

Actually there is a difference between the views of the Orthodox and Catholic(of whatever kind.) on the one side and the Protestants on the other. As R.H Tawney put it:

The difference between loving men as a result of first loving God, and learning to love God through a growing love for men, may not, at first sight, appear profound.
To Luther it seemed an abyss, and Luther was right. It was, in a sense, nothing less than the Reformation itself. For carried, as it was not carried by Luther, to its logical result, the argument made, not only good works, but sacraments and the Church itself unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Ok, not to turn this into a theological argument, but there is nothing incorrect about what I said, it was nothing but "Mere Christianity" as C.S. Lewis would put it.

Yes, Catholics recognize works, but they see works as a product of salvation. Not as something one earns it with.

It is core to Christianity regardless of the denomination that man cannot redeem himself. If man could redeem himself, then there would have been no reason for Christ to suffer and die on the cross for the sins of man.

The differences in denominations, even between Catholics and Protestants are largely nuanced. For example, some denominations recognize sacraments as means of conveying grace, others see them as simply symbolic. Some believe once saved always saved, others believe that man can turn from God after accepting Christ and thus lose his salvation. Of course there is also the differences about how different denominations see how man comes to God. Some believe man must of his own volition choose God - Arminius. Others believe that God chooses man - Calvin.

Just the same, the very generalized statements I made any Christian theologian would agree with.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ok, not to turn this into a theological argument, but there is nothing incorrect about what I said, it was nothing but "Mere Christianity" as C.S. Lewis would put it.

Yes, Catholics recognize works, but they see works as a product of salvation. Not as something one earns it with.

It is core to Christianity regardless of the denomination that man cannot redeem himself. If man could redeem himself, then there would have been no reason for Christ to suffer and die on the cross for the sins of man.

The differences in denominations, even between Catholics and Protestants are largely nuanced. For example, some denominations recognize sacraments as means of conveying grace, others see them as simply symbolic. Some believe once saved always saved, others believe that man can turn from God after accepting Christ and thus lose his salvation. Of course there is also the differences about how different denominations see how man comes to God. Some believe man must of his own volition choose God - Arminius. Others believe that God chooses man - Calvin.

Just the same, the very generalized statements I made any Christian theologian would agree with.
Click to expand...
Note: I'm guessing I'm talking to a Christian here, if you're an agnostic or atheist I'm not really interested in debating the existence of God or anything like that.


I disagree, as Tawney said the issue of works is a big divide, they play far more a part than you allow. You are putting a very protestant, personal-faith spin on it. For us Catholics, whether we be Romans or Anglicans, and those of the Orthodox faith, there is a definite place for works as part of salvation and the church as a mediator between God and man.

Another point is that most, except perhaps the Calvinists, believe we choose Jesus which is how we gain redemption. This is how man redeems himself and Jesus redeems him at the same time. Whether this is compatible with Buddhism and such, not in a soft ecumenical level, but a deeper level is debatable and to me I agree with the likes of Lord Northbourne and Rene Guenon and think it is. Obviously the outer exoteric layers may not be but the deeper stuff is. This doesn't mean one should try and combine them, one should stick to their own tradition but recognise that God would not abandon most of mankind and he has given them another path to the same location.

It is similar to heaven, if one accepts the regular, exoteric view made for the common man then heaven is quite different from Nirvana but when one looks at it deeper as the theologians and mystics have then heaven is certainly not the pearly gates and dancing on clouds but something much closer to Nirvana.
 
Wessexman said:
[My Usual pro-establishment comeback.] In England we have an established and it has a place, legally in state schools. A place I acknowledge and firmly support. If this is being neglected it is a sad thing and I advise all Englishmen who hear about such to complain and support their established church and its long held place in society.[/My Usual pro-establishment comeback.]

...Thought I might as well get it out of the way.;)
Click to expand...

:rofl

Indeed, now you can get onto the other stuff now we have that cleared up
 
I grew up in a very fundamentalist Protestant church. My original pastor would probably consider me a "liberal" (you have to pronounce it with a spitting sound, lol) these days, isn't that a hoot? :shock:

One reason being, that if someone tells me they know Jesus as their personal savior, I'm inclined to take them at their word unless they give me some reason to think otherwise...even if they're Catholic. :mrgreen:
 
JakeFromWI said:
Sending them home is an outrage!

And please remember it is an outrage to release a report started during the Bush administration that stated the possibility of right wing terrorist acts are more and more likely in present days. Too bad we couldn't continue that debate once some Jew hater blasted away people some 4 days after the report was released. And a couple weeks after that a man who wanted to kill Obama walked into a gym and blasted away people.

Im serious and on topic. We MUST stop this way of "hate thinking" if we are to get ANYWHERE as a people. Folks actually believe there is a devil. And on top of it, they actually believe Islam is the work of the little goatee'd red guy.
Click to expand...

Great post!!!
 
Goshin said:
I grew up in a very fundamentalist Protestant church. My original pastor would probably consider me a "liberal" (you have to pronounce it with a spitting sound, lol) these days, isn't that a hoot? :shock:

One reason being, that if someone tells me they know Jesus as their personal savior, I'm inclined to take them at their word unless they give me some reason to think otherwise...even if they're Catholic. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
To me Jesus is the link between man and God, he is the supreme, personal being(as opposed to God who is not personal but absolute, unmanifested totality- all possibility.). This is why we need to grow towards a personal relationship with him as this bridge. I just believe that most of the other major religious traditions teach similar things in different ways, the philosophia perennis, and that God would not abandon them. Some might consider this a liberal thing I suppose although I consider myself a follower of the Perennialist or Traditionalist school, as well as a devout Anglican as Lord Northboure was, and they are very much traditionalists, some might say raging reactionaries.
 
Wessexman said:
Note: I'm guessing I'm talking to a Christian here, if you're an agnostic or atheist I'm not really interested in debating the existence of God or anything like that.


I disagree, as Tawney said the issue of works is a big divide, they play far more a part than you allow. You are putting a very protestant, personal-faith spin on it. For us Catholics, whether we be Romans or Anglicans, and those of the Orthodox faith, there is a definite place for works as part of salvation and the church as a mediator between God and man.
Click to expand...

Well I was raised Catholic so I know my Catholic doctrine, I changed to Episcopalian as an adult (Anglican), and am borderline agnostic today. If I had to choose, my favorite kind of service to attend is probably a good old traditional Southern Baptist one. So I have been exposed to all sides of it, and basically the differences as to salvation are pretty nuanced after you get passed differences in tradition and style of worship.

Catholic Answers addresses the subject of Faith and Works, and it pretty much just restates what I wrote earlier.

Aren’t We Saved by Faith Alone? (This Rock: March 2003)
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well I was raised Catholic so I know my Catholic doctrine, I changed to Episcopalian as an adult (Anglican), and am borderline agnostic today. If I had to choose, my favorite kind of service to attend is probably a good old traditional Southern Baptist one. So I have been exposed to all sides of it, and basically the differences as to salvation are pretty nuanced after you get passed differences in tradition and style of worship.

Catholic Answers addresses the subject of Faith and Works, and it pretty much just restates what I wrote earlier.

Aren’t We Saved by Faith Alone? (This Rock: March 2003)
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm not saying you can just use works for salvation. I agree with you there. Grace is certainly the key but not all. I suppose what I meant was that Catholics and Orthodox Christians, such as myself, hold works and sacrements to be extremely important alongside the obvious necessity of grace. Works though on their own are meaningless, it is why we do them which matters and for them to mean something they must come through a profound love for man and God. Absent a least a modicum of good works then it is hard to understand how the individual can be saved, as in how can a person who accepts salvation not perform goods works. As that link shows, and the quote of Tawney's as well, there is a real difference here between Catholics and Protestants. It is part of the larger differences between the very individualistic faith of the Protestant and the traditional community, tradition and authority based faith of the Catholic and Orthodox. I'm an Anglican which is sort of like an episcopalian except I'm quite high church and celebrate the Catholic nature of our church as well as defend its established place in English society and gov't.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, in general its Christian doctrine that if you are not Christian yet have also not been informed that Christ died for your sins, then you will still go to heaven - basically that God does not judge you simply on your ignorance. However, if you are not Christian yet have been told that Christ died for your sins, and thus have rejected Christ as your personal redeemer than you will go to Hell.
Click to expand...

:shock: I Better start packing, hmm what to wear what to wear, need to make sure to take a bottle of SPF 1000 x Pi
 
Last edited:
OxymoronP said:
:shock: I Better start packing, hmm what to wear what to wear, need to make sure to take a bottle of SP 1000 x Pi
Click to expand...

Lol
I'll join you.

Remember to pack some suncream. Where we are going i heard is hot all year round
 
OxymoronP said:
take a bottle of SPF 1000 x Pi Way ahead of you, ;).
Click to expand...

Damn lol

I need nothing except some haircream.
Can't have it drying out you know
 
Laila said:
Damn lol

I need nothing except some haircream.
Can't have it drying out you know
Click to expand...

Maybe I should follow the example of Soviet prisoners in Gulags who would tatoo pictures of Stalin on their chest so that the execution squad wouldnt shoot.

I am thinking 666 with Hitler anally raping a white dove, just to fit in with the boys down there.
 
OxymoronP said:
Maybe I should follow the example of Soviet prisoners in Gulags who would tatoo pictures of Stalin on their chest so that the execution squad wouldnt shoot.

I am thinking 666 with Hitler anally raping a white dove, just to fit in with the boys down there.
Click to expand...

If you take Hitler, who shall i have to fit in with the cool group down there

Any evil females exist who has killed millions? No?
 
Laila said:
If you take Hitler, who shall i have to fit in with the cool group down there

Any evil females exist who has killed millions? No?
Click to expand...

Hmmm Queen Elizabeth killed lots, Catherine had Turks and rebels killed.

But they arent really evil persay, Joan of Ark naaa she was a hero and stuff killing in the name of the lord that wont fly with Luci boy.

Maybe Lady Macbeth, she is not really real but I am sure she was evil.
Perhaps Lady macbeth doing the Virgin Mary with a strapon.
 
Wessexman said:
Does the women from Roe Vs. Wade count?;)
Click to expand...

Nooo lol ... she should be classed as a hero :mrgreen:

RvW doesn't affect our Abortion laws Wessex
Psst ... we have more liberal laws than US and it was men who introduced it
 
OxymoronP said:
Hmmm Queen Elizabeth killed lots, Catherine had Turks and rebels killed.

But they arent really evil persay, Joan of Ark naaa she was a hero and stuff killing in the name of the lord that wont fly with Luci boy.

Maybe Lady Macbeth, she is not really real but I am sure she was evil.
Perhaps Lady macbeth doing the Virgin Mary with a strapon.
Click to expand...
She was real as was Macbeth, they were just very different from how Shakespeare presented them as often was the case(Richard III wasn't that bad and didn't even have a hump!).
 
OxymoronP said:
Hmmm Queen Elizabeth killed lots, Catherine had Turks and rebels killed.

But they arent really evil persay, Joan of Ark naaa she was a hero and stuff killing in the name of the lord that wont fly with Luci boy.

Maybe Lady Macbeth, she is not really real but I am sure she was evil.
Perhaps Lady macbeth doing the Virgin Mary with a strapon.
Click to expand...

Queen Elizabeth it is then!
I love her anyway, she is considered my favourite
 
Laila said:
Nooo lol ... she should be classed as a hero :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Even ignoring the abortion issue she is hardly a hero, she was involved in a egregious piece of judicial activism and stamping on state's rights.

RvW doesn't affect our Abortion laws Wessex
Psst ... we have more liberal laws than US and it was men who introduced it
Click to expand...
We don't have more liberal laws actually. I don't believe you'd get the likes of Tiller in Britain. We have a strict cut off and in many ways I don't believe it is strictly on demand, you need to see a doctor and such.

Personally I'm pro-life but I wouldn't want too many changes from the British system, maybe it knocked down to 20 or even 16 weeks and more safeguards against those using it as means of contraception.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
We don't have more liberal laws actually. I don't believe you'd get the likes of Tiller in Britain. We have a strict cut off and in many ways I don't believe it is strictly on demand, you need to see a doctor and such.

Personally I'm pro-life but I wouldn't want too many changes from the British system, maybe it knocked down to 20 or even 16 weeks and more safeguards against those using it as means of contraception.
Click to expand...

I can deal with 20 ... just ...
But no go on 16. Ever.

Never would you get the likes of Tiller that is true and the main reason is that it is not such a controversial issue like US and therefore it seems you cannot have a logical, calm debate on abortion limits/laws in US without the crazies jumping in with emotion and ruining it allowing people like Tiller to make a appearance.

Maybe i should have said a more liberal attitude.

Even ignoring the abortion issue she is hardly a hero, she was involved in a egregious piece of judicial activism and stamping on state's rights.
Click to expand...

So horrible. States right.
Sometimes federal Govt. is right.

Didn't it enforce segregation as illegal over state rights? Civil rights etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom