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

[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.