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

[Delicate]

Okay I'm going to read you charitably here. Nobody believes you'll go to hell if baptism isn't performed correctly.

Yes, they do.  Maybe you don't..but who cares? They certainly don't give a shit whether or not you, Delicate, believe what they believe.  They're going to go ahead and keep on believing it regardless of your sage pronouncements.  

But there is a pretty widespread divide over the question of baptismal regeneration. That is, whether salvation is tied to baptism.

Sounds like an important disagreement.  You've used the term, you have no excuse for not knowing what it means at this point.

So strictly speaking, I've guided you to an issue that, potentially, meets the criteria for a serious, widespread doctrinal divide. Maybe because I'm bored of watching atheists fail day in day out.

Maybe you feel compelled to take the credit for the work of another...but you're a christian..so that's to be expected.  

But if you look at every denomination that affirms baptismal regeneration, virtually all of them reject the view that if you don't get baptism you'll go to hell tout court. In the case of the Catholics, they are explicit about this. And I'm pretty sure the others are too. Strictly speaking no denomination believes that no baptism entails hell. 

Many denominations believe that without salvation we are destined to burn.  Yet another important issue of contention.  If you need to be baptised to be saved, and if, without that salvation...you are destined to burn....then failing to be baptized or baptized properly will, indeed, consign one to hell.

What does this mean for Christians? Widespread confusion? Only in the imagination of atheists. Once you become a Christian and want a relationship with God, it's only natural to want to be baptized. I can't think of any Christian who doesn't want to be baptized. So will this ever be a problem for Christians? Only in the imagination of atheists.

Oh?  Is it, because some christians don't practice baptism at all........

So the bottom line is, when you're ready to drop the irrational anger and hate and finally come to God, who loves you, you have nothing to worry about.

Reciprocity is the difference between love and stalking.  God doesn't love me, god is stalking me by proxy....you.

Which Christians don't practise baptism at all?

And more importantly, what does that have to do with what Christianity teaches?

I see lots of atheist rage towards a supposedly nonexistent deity, as well as a lot of empty, baseless claims, but I'm not seeing any specific evidence.

Since I care about evidence, I'm led to disbelieve your pseudoclaims in a heartbeat. 

But I think I've given you, and the others here enough time to produce solid evidence, and I haven't seen any.

You haven't been able to support your claims. 

I think it's time to sit down. You've lost. 

Delicate
Baptism is not a core doctrine. People don't go to hell on the basis of their preferred method of baptism. And yes, this is after what's at stake for those who believe it.

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

Delicate
The pathway to salvation would be a core doctrine, to the extent that there are people who hold a view that might cause them to lose their salvation. 

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.

Delicate
These differences are in fact relevant, and if an atheist wants to assert that there is soooo mucchhhhhh doctrinal diversity over this issue, my response would be "Well asserted. Now where's the evidence?"

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-religion...-salvation
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte...ticle=2748

Delicate
I might also stroke my chin and twirl my invisible moustache, but only because that's a peripheral doctrinal practise on my part.

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.

On top of the issue of 'errancy' in the bible, your position ignores the fact that many of those groups, based on different interpretations, have a history of violence towards others, using the interpretations as a pretext for that violence. These are not petty or trivial matters of distinction; people have died over them. These are not 'unified' groups, these are independently functioning cells of differing belief, not to be glossed over in an apologetic.

Care to put a number on that? Maybe one that cannot otherwise be more accurately attributed to geopolitical disputes?

Good luck with asking for any substantial evidence from this crowd. lol.