Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[The Grand Nudger]

For one, it's a single denomination. 

Indeed it is, and a much larger number of people think that they are wrong, that baptism is necessary.  Though this may often be the only thing they agree upon, that some other guy is wrong.

Compared to other denominations that affirm water baptism, it's a drop in the ocean. It simply won't do to predicate "soooooo muchhhh doctrinal divergence, bro" on 1 out of 33,000 denominations. There it lets the atheists down.

You've been given 3 examples out of 33k.........lol. We could continue, but we're 3 for 3 already. Are you expecting that to change?

As well, it freely allows people to practice water baptism, and explicitly and repeatedly makes clear there's nothing wrong with people doing it. It doesn't say "baptism is wrong". So that's a mark against it too. 

Also clearly states that those who believe it to be necessary -are- wrong, in their opinion.  You wouldn't happen to have any definitive word on this would you, btw?

[Delicate]

Yeah, I don't see where they say others are wrong.

In fact, they state exactly the opposite of what you've said.

The Salvation Army has never said it is wrong to use sacraments

Care to explain why you're misrepresenting them?

[The Grand Nudger]

Their belief, clearly stated, is that baptism is not necessary for grace.  If you believe that baptism is necessary for grace (as many christians do), understand that in their opinion...as stated in their beliefs....you're wrong.  If you, like they, feel that it is not necessarry, then you must understand that in the opinion of many christians - those same christians as before, you are wrong.

That's real simple stuff.  


Now, since no ones claimed that the Salvation Army thinks it's wrong to use sacraments...not you, not I, not the salvation army, I'm not sure how your response has anything to do with me or this conversation? I take it you're done pretending that the differences between sects which caused the schisms in the first place don't exist? Good.

[Athene]

---

Baptism is an integral component of salvation by grace, which is a core doctrine.


Such as not believing water immersion is a requirement for salvation? Keep in mind there are many Christians who do not consider water baptism to be an optional expression. Instead, it's believed to be the very mechanism by which the baptism of the Holy Spirit is recognized.


Okay. Here's John 3:5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And here are two examples of the diversity regarding this issue:
http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/101-reasons-baptism-not-necessary-for-salvation
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte...ticle=2748


As well as being oblivious to known facts and in very deep denial. 

You remind me of a former forum member who constantly attempted to control the dialogue on this forum, in an effort to follow his formulated apologetics spiel to the letter.

---

Please look at the previous posts I've made clarifying exactly what criteria need to be met to support the atheist case. Your post doesn't meet the criteria.

The point is not to find evidence of a scriptural basis for water baptism, but rather, to find evidence that denominational teachings differ substantially in this regard, and the differences are so widespread and prevalent that they support the atheist allegations.

We've been beating around the bush enough. The others have failed to produce this evidence. I doubt you will. 

I think it's time to put the issue to rest. The atheists haven't been able to support their claims here over a fairly long period of time and the repeated failure of atheists is getting boring.

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.

To say otherwise means you either read my post carelessly, or you're lying. If you don't wish to discuss matters truthfully, you still have the option of ignoring my posts as you did before.  It's clear that simple honesty makes you uncomfortable.







NOTE: *Delicate removed his questions from my quoted post
NOTE: *font change to bold in quoted posts done by me, for emphasis*

[robvalue]

I still think this could be a wind up. But then, I've seen this level of dishonesty before, so who knows?

I think the problem may be that the mental defences protecting indoctrinated ideas are so strong, that the person isn't necessarily aware that what they are saying is garbage. They just throw out whatever stops those beliefs being properly questioned and examined.

I know the feeling, it has happened to me too. Not about religion, but about my attitudes towards myself. I was told some home truths by my therapist, and I did not want to hear them. I said anything and everything to avoid having to consider she might be right. I spent a couple of days being really angry at how incompetent she was, and convincing myself I must be right. Then it sunk in, I calmed down, and I examined what she said rationally. It was then I found out she was right. I had programmed myself over a long period of time, but I got myself out of it again with her help.

I see this forum as a way of trying to provide that same help to victims of indoctrination, to give them the opportunity to properly reflect upon their beliefs. It's up to them whether they want to do that, or just fire out the first thing that comes into their mind to deflect any serious analysis.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I still think this could be a wind up. But then, I've seen this level of dishonesty before, so who knows?

I think the problem may be that the mental defences protecting indoctrinated ideas are so strong, that the person isn't necessarily aware that what they are saying is garbage. They just throw out whatever stops those beliefs being properly questioned and examined.

I know the feeling, it has happened to me too. Not about religion, but about my attitudes towards myself. I was told some home truths by my therapist, and I did not want to hear them. I said anything and everything to avoid having to consider she might be right. I spent a couple of days being really angry at how incompetent she was, and convincing myself I must be right. Then it sunk in, I calmed down, and I examined what she said rationally. It was then I found out she was right. I had programmed myself over a long period of time, but I got myself out of it again with her help.

I see this forum as a way of trying to provide that same help to victims of indoctrination, to give them the opportunity to properly reflect upon their beliefs. It's up to them whether they want to do that, or just fire out the first thing that comes into their mind to deflect any serious analysis.

QFT. Or because we're just angry atheists.

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. Well, you've seen my videos. I'm a raving monster!

I often see some theists throw out replies within in a minute or less. That's a dead giveaway that they have spent no effort stopping and considering. I'd rather they took their time and put some proper thought into it. I don't expect them to just agree with us, obviously, but to at least avoid knee-jerk replies.

I've been guilty of it too, and I've realized that I have shot my mouth off later.

[Losty]

I'm the angriest atheist of them all!

Look at this <----angry face! That's angry atheism at its Truest!

[Neo-Scholastic]

I still think this could be a wind up. But then, I've seen this level of dishonesty before, so who knows?

I think the problem may be that the mental defences protecting indoctrinated ideas are so strong, that the person isn't necessarily aware that what they are saying is garbage. They just throw out whatever stops those beliefs being properly questioned and examined.

I know the feeling, it has happened to me too. Not about religion, but about my attitudes towards myself. I was told some home truths by my therapist, and I did not want to hear them. I said anything and everything to avoid having to consider she might be right. I spent a couple of days being really angry at how incompetent she was, and convincing myself I must be right. Then it sunk in, I calmed down, and I examined what she said rationally. It was then I found out she was right. I had programmed myself over a long period of time, but I got myself out of it again with her help.

I see this forum as a way of trying to provide that same help to victims of indoctrination, to give them the opportunity to properly reflect upon their beliefs. It's up to them whether they want to do that, or just fire out the first thing that comes into their mind to deflect any serious analysis.

I'm glad you feel more healthy and whole. Self-reflection can be a difficult process.

[Delicate]

Their belief, clearly stated, is that baptism is not necessary for grace.  If you believe that baptism is necessary for grace (as many christians do), understand that in their opinion...as stated in their beliefs....you're wrong.  If you, like they, feel that it is not necessarry, then you must understand that in the opinion of many christians - those same christians as before, you are wrong.  

That's real simple stuff.  


Now, since no ones claimed that the Salvation Army thinks it's wrong to use sacraments...not you, not I, not the salvation army, I'm not sure how your response has anything to do with me or this conversation?  I take it you're done pretending that the differences between sects which caused the schisms in the first place don't exist?  Good.

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.

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 %

Please look at the previous posts I've made clarifying exactly what criteria need to be met to support the atheist case. Your post doesn't meet the criteria.

The point is not to find evidence of a scriptural basis for water baptism, but rather, to find evidence that denominational teachings differ substantially in this regard, and the differences are so widespread and prevalent that they support the atheist allegations.

We've been beating around the bush enough. The others have failed to produce this evidence. I doubt you will. 

I think it's time to put the issue to rest. The atheists haven't been able to support their claims here over a fairly long period of time and the repeated failure of atheists is getting boring.

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.

To say otherwise means you either read my post carelessly, or you're lying. If you don't wish to discuss matters truthfully, you still have the option of ignoring my posts as you did before.  It's clear that simple honesty makes you uncomfortable.







NOTE: *Delicate removed his questions from my quoted post
NOTE: *font change to bold in quoted posts done by me, for emphasis*

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.