• 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.

Protestantism[W:17]

Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Just as I thought. Your "knowledge" is superficial at best, you lack the theological chops to even define Protestantism (It's not just a word), and your usual defense is "because this guy said so".
Click to expand...

Yet.. for all that, you can not counter that groups in your very own church call themselves protestant. Imagine that. You can't counter the fact that it is part of the title that the head of the Church of England has when they become head of the Church. You can't counter the fact that is how it was exclusively referred to before the 19th Century. Instead, you attack me. Isn't that amazing?
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
Yet.. for all that, you can not counter that groups in your very own church call themselves protestant. Imagine that. You can't counter the fact that it is part of the title that the head of the Church of England has when they become head of the Church. You can't counter the fact that is how it was exclusively referred to before the 19th Century. Instead, you attack me. Isn't that amazing?
Click to expand...

No, it's not amazing at all, once again we see that your lack of knowledge has you grasping for more flimsy evidence, and when asked for something more concrete you can't deliver.

So you have ruined yet another thread. Good day.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
No, it's not amazing at all, once again we see that your lack of knowledge has you grasping for more flimsy evidence, and when asked for something more concrete you can't deliver.

So you have ruined yet another thread. Good day.
Click to expand...

I see. You avoid the points i make, and can't counter them, so you attack. How nice. YOu claim 'lack of knowledge', yet you can not even counter the points I make.

Or, don't you think the Bishop of Canterbury is an expert on the Anglican Church??
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
I see. You avoid the points i make, and can't counter them, so you attack. How nice. YOu claim 'lack of knowledge', yet you can not even counter the points I make.

Or, don't you think the Bishop of Canterbury is an expert on the Anglican Church??
Click to expand...

You don't "make points", you deflect and try to change the subject.

And I'll tell you what: send the AB a note and ask him if he's Protestant. Let me know what he says.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
You don't "make points", you deflect and try to change the subject.

And I'll tell you what: send the AB a note and ask him if he's Protestant. Let me know what he says.
Click to expand...

For example,

At her coronation in 1953, Elizabeth swore to “uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and reserve the settlement of the Church of England.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you are trying to use the points that previously been pointed out as your faults and redirect them to me.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
For example,



I find it amusing that you are trying to use the points that previously been pointed out as your faults and redirect them to me.
Click to expand...

Not that it matters, but you do know that Protestantism is a thing, it's not just a word. I asked you three times what Protestantism looks like and you weren't able to tell me.

Oh, I could have told you about Richard Hooker, Archbishop Cranmer, or what the BCP says, but you'd probably break your fingers trying to type all that into a search engine and still not find anything out. Then you'd blame it on me.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Not that it matters, but you do know that Protestantism is a thing, it's not just a word. I asked you three times what Protestantism looks like and you weren't able to tell me.

Oh, I could have told you about Richard Hooker, Archbishop Cranmer, or what the BCP says, but you'd probably break your fingers trying to type all that into a search engine and still not find anything out. Then you'd blame it on me.
Click to expand...

Yawn. I am sure you studied your own religion a lot more than I have. Yet.. you make claims that can objectively be shown to be false. I DO have the ability to look it up, and I bet I could find LOTS of things out, and unlike some people, I can actually read in context. And, knowing how some peoples ability to read, and narrow minded interpretation of the materials are questionable at least, I bet I would find many Christian scholars that would disagree with your points.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
Yawn. I am sure you studied your own religion a lot more than I have. Yet.. you make claims that can objectively be shown to be false. I DO have the ability to look it up, and I bet I could find LOTS of things out, and unlike some people, I can actually read in context. And, knowing how some peoples ability to read, and narrow minded interpretation of the materials are questionable at least, I bet I would find many Christian scholars that would disagree with your points.
Click to expand...

These alleged scholars you speak of never seem to be in sight. All I ever get are lay people trying to teach me my business.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
These alleged scholars you speak of never seem to be in sight. All I ever get are lay people trying to teach me my business.
Click to expand...

This is an indication you are not bothering to read my supporting documentation. Sad.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Not that it matters, but you do know that Protestantism is a thing, it's not just a word. I asked you three times what Protestantism looks like and you weren't able to tell me.

Oh, I could have told you about Richard Hooker, Archbishop Cranmer, or what the BCP says, but you'd probably break your fingers trying to type all that into a search engine and still not find anything out. Then you'd blame it on me.
Click to expand...
What about Cranmer?
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
I'm going to try this one more time, and if you can't back up your claims this conversation is over. What doctrines do we hold that makes us "Protestant"?
Click to expand...

Not believing that the Pope has a hotline to god for one.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
I see. You avoid the points i make, and can't counter them, so you attack. How nice. YOu claim 'lack of knowledge', yet you can not even counter the points I make.

Or, don't you think the Bishop of Canterbury is an expert on the Anglican Church??
Click to expand...

He displays many conspiracy theorist traits.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
This is an indication you are not bothering to read my supporting documentation. Sad.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, sometimes not, but the reality is that I don't want to know what those guys know, I want to know what YOU know, which is hard to do with you constantly appealing to authority all of the time. They are not here for me to question, you are, and I want to know if you know what you're talking about. All you've ever shown any of us is that you can look things up on the internet.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Sometimes, sometimes not, but the reality is that I don't want to know what those guys know, I want to know what YOU know, which is hard to do with you constantly appealing to authority all of the time. They are not here for me to question, you are, and I want to know if you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You know the problem.. you quite often present your claims as an absolute, which brook no change or disagreement, yet, I find tons and tons of Anglican theologians and bishops that directly contradict your presentation. The narrow minded blinders and unwillingness to even look at opposing viewpoints , even that are presented by theologians of your own church is the reason many condemn your behavior.
 
Re: Protestantism

zyzygy said:
He displays many conspiracy theorist traits.
Click to expand...

What do you think are traits of conspiracy theorists?
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Sometimes, sometimes not, but the reality is that I don't want to know what those guys know, I want to know what YOU know, which is hard to do with you constantly appealing to authority all of the time. They are not here for me to question, you are, and I want to know if you know what you're talking about. All you've ever shown any of us is that you can look things up on the internet.
Click to expand...

You are the ultimate authority on these matters? It doesn't appear to be so.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
You know the problem.. you quite often present your claims as an absolute, which brook no change or disagreement, yet, I find tons and tons of Anglican theologians and bishops that directly contradict your presentation. The narrow minded blinders and unwillingness to even look at opposing viewpoints , even that are presented by theologians of your own church is the reason many condemn your behavior.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making things up. I don't think you even know any Anglican clergy, let alone Anglican theologians.
 
Re: Protestantism

zyzygy said:
Insults instead of answers for one.
Click to expand...

I think a more complete list is
1) Insults instead of answers as a deflection method
2) The inability to back up the claim with a valid source.
3) The inability to read in context.
4) The belief that a stated opinion is a fact instead of an opinion.
5) Trying to have someone defend a position they didn't take.
6) The use of questions and unreasonable skepticism instead of showing evidence or presenting an alternate presentation that has actual evidence behind it.
7) The use of raw links and/or videos without any evidence that they read or understood their own source.
8) Accuse the other side of lying or making things up.
 
Last edited:
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Now you're just making things up. I don't think you even know any Anglican clergy, let alone Anglican theologians.
Click to expand...

This is yet more indication you have not bothered to read what sources I have provided, since a couple were directly referring to the writings of Anglican Clergy.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
You know the problem.. you quite often present your claims as an absolute, which brook no change or disagreement, yet, I find tons and tons of Anglican theologians and bishops that directly contradict your presentation. The narrow minded blinders and unwillingness to even look at opposing viewpoints , even that are presented by theologians of your own church is the reason many condemn your behavior.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, if I only agreed with you everyone would love me. I'm syarting to think even you don't believe this crap.
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Yeah, I know, if I only agreed with you everyone would love me. I'm syarting to think even you don't believe this crap.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about discussing?
 
Re: Protestantism

it's just me said:
Yeah, I know, if I only agreed with you everyone would love me. I'm syarting to think even you don't believe this crap.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't believe in the entire Christian religion. And, agreement with me is not needed. In fact, total agreement would be boring as all heck. However, there are some things that would be nice to see from you.

Such as, backing up claims with reasonable sources
Not presenting opinion as an absolute.
Actually addressing what is said, rather than building straw men, and attempting to make someone defend what they didn't say and isn't their position.
Stop playing the 'holier than thou' and claims for superior knowledge when you are unwilling to present your sources, or even good arguments to show that there is an actual basis for your opinion.

Agreement is not needed, nor is it expected. What is desired is the ability to present an argument is a clear and concise manner, with proper sources and something other than raw links or videos without an extraction of the point you want to make. That is lacking in the presentations you are giving.
 
Re: Protestantism

RAMOSS said:
Oh, I don't believe in the entire Christian religion. And, agreement with me is not needed. In fact, total agreement would be boring as all heck. However, there are some things that would be nice to see from you.

Such as, backing up claims with reasonable sources
Not presenting opinion as an absolute.
Actually addressing what is said, rather than building straw men, and attempting to make someone defend what they didn't say and isn't their position.
Stop playing the 'holier than thou' and claims for superior knowledge when you are unwilling to present your sources, or even good arguments to show that there is an actual basis for your opinion.

Agreement is not needed, nor is it expected. What is desired is the ability to present an argument is a clear and concise manner, with proper sources and something other than raw links or videos without an extraction of the point you want to make. That is lacking in the presentations you are giving.
Click to expand...

Do you know what I'd like to hear from you? I'd like you to admit that you were wrong about this:

I just pointed out that until the 19th century, the Anglican church thought itself as protestant, and that even today, parts of the ritual for the coronation of the monarch in England reference itself as protestant. As far as I can see, the tradtion from the time of King Henry to the 19th century of themselves calling themselves protestant is still relevant today.
Click to expand...

It didn't take much effort to find this quotation from Alistair McGrath, theologian and scientist. When asked by Christianity Today about the importance of via media, he said:

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of Anglicanism is its emphasis on the via media, the middle way. Is that still important?

Historically it’s been very important. Though it is implicit in Cranmer, it doesn’t become articulated as such until Richard Hooker (c. 1544–1600), in his Treatise on the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. He argues that Anglicanism follows a middle way, retaining the best of Roman Catholicism (liturgy and tradition) and Protestantism (authority of Scripture and justification by faith).
Click to expand...

1600, a far cry from the 1800's. Actually, if that would have taken me any more time than it did I wouldn't have bothered, because you will probably dismiss both McGrath and Christianity Today of being "apologists".

Finally, I would like for you to produce those "tons and tons of Anglican theologians and bishops that directly contradict [my] presentation". Since I happen to personally know the presiding Bishops of three Anglican jurisdictions, give me their names, I'll ask them myself. And I just gave you one theologian who agrees with me.

Most of the people who "condemn my behavior" here (as if they know anything about me) are atheists who would probably be clapping their hands with glee if Michael Pfleger showed up here and started throwing leftwit politics around in the same manner.

So cut the crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom