(October 27, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: As I pointed out earlier, nobody believes it is necessary such that if someone dies on their way to their baptism they are going to hell. Catholics, and many other denominations reject such a notion of necessity.

Yes, some people do.  You have no excuse for not knowing this..I've seen you use the term that refers to them.   Amusingly, until recently, catholics...a non-trivial number of christians, believed that unbaptized children were not saved.  

Quote:And I'm inclined to think that's the vein the SA interpretation follows.

But even if we do assume this rigid doctrinal difference, it's still not widespread enough. 1/33,000 isn't widespread. 

Oh, sorry. 3/33,000. Or 0.00009 %

You're inclined to many things, apparently, including deliberate and persistent dishonesty.  These are the fruits by which I know the tree.

Are you really going back to denying reality, dismissing your fellow believers, and generally painting a bad picture of christendom?  Am I supposed to stop you from doing any of this? These differences aren't important to you, regardless of how important they may be to those who hold them - and we already know that. They are, however, precisely what you asked for, precisely what you claimed did not exist. You are not treating the subject, your own faith, with dignity or respect.

It's mission accomplished, as far as I'm concerned, when I can get a christian to treat christianity worse than I do. Carry on soldier, your service is appreciated.

(October 27, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: As I pointed out earlier, nobody believes it is necessary such that if someone dies on their way to their baptism they are going to hell. Catholics, and many other denominations reject such a notion of necessity.

Yes, some people do.  You have no excuse for not knowing this..I've seen you use the term that refers to them.   Amusingly, until recently, catholics...a non-trivial number of christians, believed that unbaptized children were not saved.  

Quote:And I'm inclined to think that's the vein the SA interpretation follows.

But even if we do assume this rigid doctrinal difference, it's still not widespread enough. 1/33,000 isn't widespread. 

Oh, sorry. 3/33,000. Or 0.00009 %

You're inclined to many things, apparently, including deliberate and persistent dishonesty.  These are the fruits by which I know the tree.

Are you really going back to denying reality, dismissing your fellow believers, and generally painting a bad picture of christendom?  Am I supposed to stop you from doing any of this?  These differences aren't important to you, regardless of how important they may be to those who hold them - and we already know that.  They are, however, precisely what you asked for, precisely what you claimed did not exist.  You are not treating the subject,  your own faith,  with dignity or respect.

It's mission accomplished, as far as I'm concerned, when I can get a christian to treat christianity worse than I do.  Carry on soldier, your service is appreciated.

I'm not responsible for your comprehension difficulties, Rhythm.

I think it's best you bow out. You can mumble obscenities and accuse me of dishonesty. I understand that's how atheists respond when they are lost and confused and haven't been paying attention.

Left...right.....left, Joe.

When you're done throwing a tantrum I'll still be here, still giving you what you claim to require, still exposing the weakness of your personal faith.

(October 27, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Left...right.....left, Joe.

When you're done throwing a tantrum I'll still be here, still giving you what you claim to require, still exposing the weakness of your personal faith.

So many missionaries come here half expecting appreciation from us when all along there are a few good atheists trying their level best to save them right back.  Bless you Rhythm.  I admit I have much fewer fucks to give about the delusions cherished by the 'faithful'.  Fuck em'.

(October 27, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 12:55 am)Thena323 Wrote: I've done so. I've provided links demonstrating significant variances in interpretation of Scripture regarding baptism that directly relate to the core doctrine of Salvation by Grace.

Read the rest of the sentence of mine that you bolded. Simply demonstrating differences is not enough. Differences alone means your case has failed.

I think now's a good time to give up on the hapless flailing. It's not gonna happen- you, nor anybody else, are not going to be able to make this case.

Grow the hell up.

The case has been made, and the answers have been provided to you repeatedly.

You respond to the facts that are presented to you by essentially saying "Nuh-uh!" and rescripting your so-called challenges, so that it appears as if the terms aren't being met. This little ruse of yours is dishonest, immature, and completely unimaginative....which in turn, makes it transparent as hell. 

Pretty disgusting, actually.

She is delicate. She can't be exposed to reality.

(October 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: Read the rest of the sentence of mine that you bolded. Simply demonstrating differences is not enough. Differences alone means your case has failed.

I think now's a good time to give up on the hapless flailing. It's not gonna happen- you, nor anybody else, are not going to be able to make this case.

Grow the hell up.

The case has been made, and the answers have been provided to you repeatedly.

You respond to the facts that are presented to you by essentially saying "Nuh-uh!" and rescripting your so-called challenges, so that it appears as if the terms aren't being met. This little ruse of yours is dishonest, immature, and completely unimaginative....which in turn, makes it transparent as hell. 

Pretty disgusting, actually.

The willfully ignorant will remain so. There's no changing it by fact or fiction.

(October 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Delicate Wrote: Read the rest of the sentence of mine that you bolded. Simply demonstrating differences is not enough. Differences alone means your case has failed.

I think now's a good time to give up on the hapless flailing. It's not gonna happen- you, nor anybody else, are not going to be able to make this case.

Grow the hell up.

The case has been made, and the answers have been provided to you repeatedly.

You respond to the facts that are presented to you by essentially saying "Nuh-uh!" and rescripting your so-called challenges, so that it appears as if the terms aren't being met. This little ruse of yours is dishonest, immature, and completely unimaginative....which in turn, makes it transparent as hell. 

Pretty disgusting, actually.

Wow. Very emotionally flamboyant. If I were an atheist, I would be immediately convinced by your theatrical rhetoric.

But sadly I'm not.

Do you have a clear conception of what my "challenge" in fact is?

(October 27, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Left...right.....left, Joe.

When you're done throwing a tantrum I'll still be here, still giving you what you claim to require, still exposing the weakness of your personal faith.

Well, you've imagined you've met my three criteria. You've imagined I'm dishonest simply because I don't agree with you.

Are you capable of imagining I'm throwing a tantrum?

Sure, why not. Keep imagining.

When you get back to reality, remind yourself that you tried to tell me that a diverging view that amounts to  0.00009 % of groups counts as widespread. 

That way we can both laugh together.

Widespread indeed.

There WAS only one way to interpret my book, then you dicks went and translated it without my approval.