California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As jeni said, many if not most Protestants do believe in original sin. I'd be careful in saying, however, that most Protestants do not practice infant baptism. Given that the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed/Presbyterians and Methodists are among the largest Protestant groups and given that they all practice infant baptism, saying that "most" Protestants don't practice infant baptism might be an overstatement.

I would agree, though, that most Protestant groups do not see baptism as remitting original sin in quite the same way as the Roman Catholic Church does.

Original sin as understood in the Western church, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, is largely based on Augustine's understandings. ('Course, Calvin took it a step further with total depravity.) But yes, almost all Protestant groups -- even those that rejected infant baptism -- retained the doctrine, though as you say, with varying degrees of emphasis or understanding. The Eastern Orthodox never accepted the Augustinian understanding, and there is nothing comparable to it in Jewish teaching.

Apparently, it's a Connecticut thing as well.

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

Thanks for proving my point that ignorance can be found anywhere, and no region of the country has a monopoly on it.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

The former confederate states have a longer history of being ignorant then any other section in the country. Remember, CT didnt start the Civil War, South Carolina did. And where is SC located? In the South! What happened when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage? The former confederate states quickly moved to ban it. Their definition of sex between two men is listed under their sodomy laws. How ignorant.

Firing the first shot does not mean that SC started it. The reasons behind the war between the states are a lot more complex than you're letting on- probably because you're clueless. Taking a basic American history course in high school (especially in a liberal state) does not mean that you know anything about the war between the states.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Firing the first shot does not mean that SC started it. The reasons behind the war between the states are a lot more complex than you're letting on- probably because you're clueless. Taking a basic American history course in high school (especially in a liberal state) does not mean that you know anything about the war between the states.

Basic? Is that what they call it in the South. Up here we call them AP classes.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Christening (meaning at its root "to make Christian") and baptism are the same thing.

I have to disagree. It's to my understanding (though I do not claim to know everything) that christening was merely the parents' act of dedicating their child to God (which makes it synonymous with "infant dedication") and baptism was one's act of dedicating him/herself to God--making the choice of one's own free will. A dedication differs in that the parents are merely "giving their child to God" (which can be taken in whatever context you will, I know it varies from sect to sect). A baptism is not a remitting of original sin because that (somewhat) occurred at the moment the person accepted Jesus as savior, but a public declaration of that acceptance and acknowledgement that a new life is going to be lived. I grew up Baptist and while I don't claim that denomination anymore, this is this path I followed in childhood and what I was told those things meant.

hijack:
It's because of the definition of baptism that I find it a shame when parents (who do believe in the diff that I stated) force a 5 yo to be baptised--it's supposed to be a personal choice, not like a dedication where it's your parents decision. Most kids that I know are christened as infants and baptised between ages 5-10. My mother was infuriated when I said I wanted to make sure I was old enough to really understand "what I was getting into" so to speak. I refused to be baptised until I was sure it was what I wanted--when I was 15. I think it was my way of telling her I didn't really believe in God, but that's another story...
/hijack

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I have to disagree. It's to my understanding (though I do not claim to know everything) that christening was merely the parents' act of dedicating their child to God (which makes it synonymous with "infant dedication") and baptism was one's act of dedicating him/herself to God--making the choice of one's own free will. A dedication differs in that the parents are merely "giving their child to God" (which can be taken in whatever context you will, I know it varies from sect to sect). A baptism is not a remitting of original sin because that (somewhat) occurred at the moment the person accepted Jesus as savior, but a public declaration of that acceptance and acknowledgement that a new life is going to be lived. I grew up Baptist and while I don't claim that denomination anymore, this is this path I followed in childhood and what I was told those things meant.

According to my study during Confirmation/Baptism as well as my degree in Religion and Theology, christiangirl is correct. There is a baptism and infant baptism (christening). If an infant stays within in God's eyes as he grows, then he is not in need of a baptism in SOME religions. Others believe that a christening is to dedicate the child's life to God during its youth as the Parent's are still considered responsible for a child's "original sin." Catholics use to declare that this was before the age of 7, and after the child was then responsible. However the church has leaned off of this idea and the adult baptism has moved passed the age of 7 in some respects. My personal church believed that when a child reached the age of ten, it was necessary for him to go through confirmation which is ended with a baptism. This is after an infant baptism (christening) when the child is a mere infant. In Judaism, we know that this switch is 13.

The CONCEPT merely comes from when the parents are responsible for the child's original sin and when the child is then responsible that the child needs to recommit itself since, as an infant, the child is unable to actively choose a christian (or jewish) path.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

According to my study during Confirmation/Baptism as well as my degree in Religion and Theology, christiangirl is correct.

This made me . No matter what the real answer is, I'll always have this official, decree-looking statement.

So anyway, laws and such...