California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

Wow. That was easy. Won the Old Testament battle in a matter of minutes.

Jesus really never had anything to say about homosexuality, though he DID unfavorably compare Jerusalem's sin of inhospitality with that of Sodom in Matthew. You'd kind of think that if the gay thing were so important that our Lord and Saviour would have made at least passing note of it, donthathink?

No, you didn't win that battle. I actually defeated it with that post, but you seem to be too ignorant to understand that.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by nate2512

No, you didn't win that battle. I actually defeated it with that post, but you seem to be too ignorant to understand that.

ignorance is a southern thing!

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

ignorance is a southern thing!

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

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

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

thank you, I did not want to be the only one who said that his excuse for ignorance, was highly ignorant.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Your comment is ignorant AND smug

Well, if southerners had emanicipated slaves we would have never had the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Dred Scott Case, or the Civil War. All of these events were irrepressible unfortunately. We dont need another 800,000 casualties! Long live the 20th Maine and the 54th Massachusetts!

[shinerbock]

I don't believe I've equated what "people believe" with what should be legislated. I'm simply saying something being natural doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. I think we've got two different lines of argument going.

I think gay marriage should be left to the states. I don't believe that people who have never before fit the American definition of marriage should have a fundamental right to include themselves under that label, against the tides of public opinion and history. That said, I am not avidly against civil unions or similar devices.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Protestants don't believe this. We believe, for the most part, that as a young child, it is your parents responsibility to teach you about church and Jesus Christ. After going to Sunday school, church, and vacation Bible school that around the age 10 - 13, the kid would make the decision to commit his / her life to Christ, and thus decide to get baptized.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Protestants do believe that people are born with sin. Most Protestants don't practice infant baptism, however.

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.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

For clarity's sake, original sin is one of the major theological beliefs that came out of the Protestant Reformation in full force.

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.

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

ignorance is a southern thing!

Apparently, it's a Connecticut thing as well.

[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.

[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

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Churches differentiate between christening/dedication and infant baptism for this reason.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Churches differentiate between christening/dedication and infant baptism for this reason.

Okay, I'm veering even further off topic here, but huh? Not sure I follow you.

Christening (meaning at its root "to make Christian") and baptism are the same thing. Christening is just the traditional term used in England; I mainy hear it used by Episcopalians in the US, and I hear fewer and fewer of them use it. (Although I have had Baptist friends who insist on calling the baptism of an infant "christening" because they refuse to even suggest that an infant could be baptized.)

Dedication is, of course, different from baptism/christining. But I don't see how the lack of belief that baptism remits original sin (at least formulated in the same way as Catholics would typically formulate it) gives rise to that distinction. Seems to me the distinction comes from the disagreement as to whether baptism must be preceded by a decision of faith.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by GooniePDT49

Well, if southerners had emanicipated slaves we would have never had the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Dred Scott Case, or the Civil War. All of these events were irrepressible unfortunately. We dont need another 800,000 casualties! Long live the 20th Maine and the 54th Massachusetts!

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.

You're an idiot.....and your sense of history concerning the reasoning behind the Civil War, the freeing of slaves, life in general etc. is on line with that of a floating turd.

Congratulations oh non-ignorant one.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

You're an idiot.....and your sense of history concerning the reasoning behind the Civil War, the freeing of slaves, life in general etc. is on line with that of a floating turd.

Congratulations oh non-ignorant one.

The feeling is mutual!