Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

J C

recedite wrote: »

To be fair, "tantamount" is your own word, and so nobody is jumping to attack your strawman.
The atheist said that civil law no longer considers that parents can do whatever they like to their child's body, but they can do more or less whatever to the child's mind.

Civil/Church Law never considered that parents could do anything they liked to their child's body ... there have been laws prohibiting incest and child abuse down the centuries!!!
... and there are (perfectly adequate) Laws protecting childrens minds as well ... laws banning the exposure of children to age-inappropriate material, for example ... and Laws banning the provision of mind-altering substances, like alcohol, to minors ... and laws requiring that children be educated.
All responsible parents fully support such reasonable legisation as appropriate for the protection and benefit of their children.

... however, what you guys want to do, is to use laws to ban young people being educated in the Christian Faith of their parents ... when this can only be to the benefit of children ...
... ye want the law to promote ignorace of the largest Faith on Earth and by far the main cultural influence historically and currently within our society.
I think that all children should learn about the beliefs and culture of the people that they will be interacting with throughout society ... and any liberal education worthy of the name should do this.

recedite wrote: »

It's not completely black and white though; for example if you failed to send the child to school (or home educate) the State would intervene. However, when it comes to mis-education, for example filling their heads with myths presented as facts, the state does not intervene. Whether it ever will in the future is an open question, and one which some of us find interesting to speculate on.

It's a gross caraciture to imply that people of Faith conflate Facts and Faith. Christians are well aware of the Facts supporting their Faith and the line where Facts stop and Faith starts.
Atheists also have the same facts ... but they choose to put their faith in God not existing ... which is a very high risk strategy ... if He does exist ... and is the loving and just God that he has said He is!!!

Be that as it may, I will agree to differ with you on that particular issue ...
... but, in any event, there is no reason to only present a materialist worldview to children ... and to start talking about banning all alternative views by law.

J C

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ignoring the religious BS in the first paragraph. Someone who believes in something for no good reason cannot have their opinion swayed by logic, no matter how compelling.

I guess that also applies to Atheists ... they believe that God doesn't exist ... for no good reason ...

Max Power1 wrote: »

[Regarding introducing children to religion so that they can "decide later".. thats all well and good, but if you introduce a child (brainwash) at 4-5 years old in schools, then what hope is there in later years?

... children should be educated ... and not brainwashed by anybody!!!

... schools should be centres of cultural, religious and technical education.

philologos

Ignoring my whole post you mean Max Power1. If you don't want to actually engage with anything other than atheism, just stick me on your ignore list as a whole, or stop reading posts, articles or anything else from believers of any form.

J C

recedite wrote: »

It is logical to be "agnostic" when you lack sure knowledge of something.

It isn't actually ... we never have perfect knowledge of anything
... it is therefore logical to evaluate the risks of different actions based on the known (allbeit limited) information.
For example, if somebody tells you that there is a dangerous cliff ahead, but you are unsure if they are telling the truth ... it is logical to take an alterative route ... even though you aren't certain that the cliff is there or whether it is dangerous ... the potential downsides of proceeding ahead vastly outweigh the few extra miles involved in diverting.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle ... and it underpins all modern Environmental Safety Systems.

Equally, even if we don't know for certain that God exists ... it makes sense to act as if He does exist ... because an eternity of damnation could await us, if we refuse to believe that a Just God exists ... and we find out He does exist, when we die!!!:eek:

I guess, Christianity is the spiritual application of the Precautionary Principle.:)

recedite wrote: »

In the Old testament it was OK to stone homosexuals to death, and to enslave rival tribes. Nowadays it isn't. Explain that.

Stoning was used to punish many things in the Old Testament ... which was a society under Law ... but we are now under God's Grace (or Mercy).
The change is best illustrated by what happened when the Pharisees took a woman caught in adultery before Jesus and asked Him to condemn her to death by stoning (which the Law demanded).
He extended His mercy towards her instead ... and He illustrated the inherent weakness of the Law ... whereby one law-breaker condemns another law-breaker.
When Jesus asked for somebody without sin to throw the first stone ... nobody was to be found to do it!!!

J C

Max Power1 wrote: »

This is my main issue with religion being taught in schools. It is easier to brainwash a 5 year old than it is to teach critical thought, logic, and reason at a later age.

You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that Atheists, for some unknown reason, have a monopoly on critical thought, logic and reason.
Christian Philosophers and Theologians spend years training in these very disciplines ... and all good Christian Education Programmes are based on these principles.

The Quadratic Equation

MrPudding wrote: »

Agreed. When you are looking for a crutch to help you get through life or something to tell you "don't worry, you are really really important" or something to help you with your fear of death then athiesm, new or otherwise, does not offer much.

Another myth peddled about why Christians believe what they do to make Atheists feel smugly superior. Life would be much simpler if I was not a Christian. Yes my faith gives me comfort, but it is not the reason for it.

MrPudding wrote: »

we must add the possibilities of others exaggerating the story of Jesus, for whatever reason

Yes its been added and found wanting, or perhaps all the apostles and all other eyewitnesses were ALL mad or lying as well.

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice use of the strawman there. Who is denying the existence of a MAN called Jesus? I have little doubt a MAN called Jesus existed. In fact, there are currently 10s, if not 100s, of thousands of men called Jesus in the world.

Where is the evidence for him being the son of a sky wizard and him doing magic tricks?

The strawman is all your own, I work with a guy called Jesus from Brazil, who happens to be an excellent football player on our 5 a side team, but I think we all know we're discussing Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

fatmammycat wrote: »

I couldn't care less about Jesus, he lived, he died, he was a mortal historical figure. It's when people declare he was the son of a god that I start to wonder about the power of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

J C

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

johnners2981

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

I died the other day, resurrected myself a couple of days later. 500 witnessed this, you can call me Jesus Jnr if you wish

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

By comparison, how many people have seen Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

By comparison, how many people have seen Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?

They haven't put their hands on their flesh ... and talked to them!!!!:)

J C

johnners2981 wrote: »

I died the other day, resurrected myself a couple of days later. 500 witnessed this, you can call me Jesus Jnr if you wish

You would need to be executed by the civil authorities (who tend to do the job, once they start) ... and have your body laid in a tomb, guarded by highly trained soldiers and if you then resurrected, and still had the fatal wounds from the execution ... I guess CNN might cover it!!!:)

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

They haven't put their hands on their flesh ... and talked to them!!!!:)

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

*takes note of today's lesson*

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

*takes note of today's lesson*

You really do have a 'one track mind' ... the difference is nobody has ever claimed to be close enough to BF or the LNM to physically touch them ... and thus 'sightings' may be optical illusions or practical jokes.

In the case of Jesus Christ the encounters were 'up close and personal' in that Thomas, (the First Christian Skeptic), put his hands into the wounds of Christ ... and Jesus also met with and talked to many people after His Resurrection.
Love ya!!!:)

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Since there is no evidence for a creator I see no real reason to believe in one.

As your premise is incorrect ... your conclusion is also erroneous.:)

... any further discussion here please:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=467

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

You really do have a 'one track mind' ... the difference is nobody has ever claimed to be close enough to BF or the LNM to physically touch them ... and thus 'sightings' may be optical illusions / practical jokes.

In the case of Jesus Christ the encounters were 'up close and personal' in that Thomas, (the First Christian Skeptic), put his hands into the wounds of Christ ... and Jesus also met with and talked to many people after His Resurrection.
Love ya!!!:)

If you're gonna have a one track mind what better subject? hooah.

So then what of Muhammad or Joseph Smith? Both also had superpowers, were witnessed by people (we have books that tell of them being witnessed) etc.?

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you're gonna have a one track mind what better subject? hooah.

... if you wish to love Jesus try doing it platonically.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So then what of Muhammad or Joseph Smith? Both also had superpowers, were witnessed by people (we have books that tell of them being witnessed) etc.?

Neither claimed to be God ... and, as far as I know, neither raised themselves or anybody else from the dead.

philologos

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

So what? That doesn't make it any more believable. I'm sure there are psych-houses filled with people who declare the same. Fact is he was mortal, was crucified and died. ( I don't believe a single word about his popping up a few days later, followers had to create that one for how could the 'son of god' die as the thieves next to him - what message might THAT send out.)

fatmammycat

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

It's not tripe, he's actually correct. People believe in all kinds of crazy things, UFOs, monsters, the walking dead, angels, fairies, gods, Joe Coleman. All of them believe their supernatural passion/entity must be true, yours happens to be a belief in a Christian god, but that doesn't afford you any grand level of respect from a non believer. Why would it?

philologos

I was referring to some of the other contents of his posts. We could do without a lot of it:

So the difference between Jesus and Big Foot/ The Loch Ness Monster is the former likes to engage in small talk during intercourse whereas the others don't. Got ya.

What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.

getz

first time child baptism came into the christian church was in the 2nd century,the first time it became the law of the church was in the 5th century,when emporor constantine made christianity the state religion,infant baptism became law of the land in 416 AD ,those who did not believe on child baptism were called anobaptists [ baptists]the law ment that every baby in the roman empire had to be baptized at the hands of a authorized roman priest or else, those who disagreed with the teaching were persecuted without mercy,for 30 miles on the road leading out of rome there were stakes with the gory heads of anobaptists on them, i had my child dedicated in a baptist church not baptized like in the catholic and anglican churches [both my wife and my self are baptized catholics and we are against child baptisms] it has nothing to do with being a christian

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

Historically (Mythologically) speaking, Jesus was not the only one who supposedly Resurrected at this time, and certainly not the only to perform miracles with numerous witnesses.

It was actually quite a performance piece on the streets, ye Old David Copperfield kinds of thing.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

I was referring to some of the other contents of his posts. We could do without a lot of it:


What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.

Come on now Phil, that was clearly a joke. I don't think he meant any harm by it.

MrPudding

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Another myth peddled about why Christians believe what they do to make Atheists feel smugly superior. Life would be much simpler if I was not a Christian. Yes my faith gives me comfort, but it is not the reason for it.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes its been added and found wanting, or perhaps all the apostles and all other eyewitnesses were ALL mad or lying as well.

Seriously? It is a damn sight more likely that people lied, exaggerated and simply made stuff up than half the crap you believe actually happened. Given the lack of first hand eye witness accounts it would be very easy.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The strawman is all your own, I work with a guy called Jesus from Brazil, who happens to be an excellent football player on our 5 a side team, but I think we all know we're discussing Jesus Christ of Nazareth.



Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

Sorry, not my strawman. You are arguing against people say Jesus, the man, did not exist. No one here, that I can see, is arguing that. People are arguing that Jesus, the son of a sky wizard did not exist, or specifically, the bits about Jesus the man (who did exist) being the son of a sky wizard and doing magic tricks is bollix.

And really, because Jesus (apparently) said he was the son of a sky wizard he was the son of a sky wizard? Stop for a second, have a look around, remember what forum you are on and then catch yourself on.

MrP

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's not tripe, he's actually correct. People believe in all kinds of crazy things, UFOs, monsters, the walking dead, angels, fairies, gods, Joe Coleman. All of them believe their supernatural passion/entity must be true, yours happens to be a belief in a Christian god, but that doesn't afford you any grand level of respect from a non believer. Why would it?

Could I suggest that a better way is to respect and listen to everyone ... but check everything out ... before you believe it!!!

J C

getz wrote: »

first time child baptism came into the christian church was in the 2nd century,the first time it became the law of the church was in the 5th century,when emporor constantine made christianity the state religion,infant baptism became law of the land in 416 AD ,those who did not believe on child baptism were called anobaptists [ baptists]the law ment that every baby in the roman empire had to be baptized at the hands of a authorized roman priest or else, those who disagreed with the teaching were persecuted without mercy,for 30 miles on the road leading out of rome there were stakes with the gory heads of anobaptists on them, i had my child dedicated in a baptist church not baptized like in the catholic and anglican churches [both my wife and my self are baptized catholics and we are against child baptisms] it has nothing to do with being a christian

... so what exactly is your point???
I accept that legally enforced child baptism is wrong ... but so too is the legal proscription of child baptism.

Quite young children can be Saved ... and if they are, I see no reason why they cannot be Baptised. In any event, as it is a spiritual matter, I don't see that anybody (other than the child and its parents) should have any say in it, one way or the other.

... and BTW whether you call it a 'dedication' or a 'baptism' ... the Atheists on this thread would like to proscribe your right as a parent to do either!!

Please stop sweating the small stuff ... and qubbling over minor theological points ... while the Atheists are advocating the proscription of all Christian teaching to your children and mine.

As a Baptist, you of all people, should recognise 'the bigger picture' of what is happening here ... but you seem to be stuck in history, fighting the battles of the early Roman Church!!!

I must say that I have to admire the unity of the Atheists on this forum in prosecuting their views ... and I must also deplore the disunity of Christians ... as they squabble over theological 'gnats' ... while ignoring the 'camels' that threaten the transmission of all Faith.

J C

philologos wrote: »

What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.

... I don't think such discussions will be futile ... but they certainly will be needlessly antagonistic.

Let's respect each other (liberal Atheism has a long and noble tradition) ... I think they are wrong ... and they me.
... but this is no reason that we cannot look at the strengths and weaknesses of our respective Faiths in a civil and respectful manner.

... and calling the ideas or the people (on either side) rude names doesn't add one iota to the case ... it merely confirms that the person using such language is unable to fully express themselves in proper English. Things like the following gems from Mr P

wrote:

Mr P
It is a damn sight more likely that people lied, exaggerated and simply made stuff up than half the crap you believe actually happened ...
... the bits about Jesus the man (who did exist) being the son of a sky wizard and doing magic tricks is bollix.

getz

J C wrote: »

... so what exactly is your point???
I accept that legally enforced child baptism is wrong ... but so too is the legal proscription of child baptism.
Quite young children can be Saved ... and if they are, I see no reason why they cannot be Baptised. In any event, as it is a spiritual matter, I don't see that anybody (other than the child and its parents) should have any say in it, one way or the other.
... and BTW whether you call it 'dedication' or 'baptism' ... the Atheists on this thread would proscrible your right as a parent to do either!!
Please stop sweating the small stuff ... and qubbling over minor theological points ... while the Atheists are advocating the proscription of all Christian teaching to your children and mine.

As a Baptist, you of all people, should recognise 'the bigger picture' of what is happening here ... but you seem to be stuck in history, fighting the battles of the early Roman Church!!!

I must say that I have to admire the unity of the Atheists on this forum in prosecuting their views ... and I must also deplore the disunity of Christians ... as the squabble over 'gnats' ... while ignoring the 'camels' that threaten the transmission of all Faith.

first of all i am not a baptist,i believe i am a christian ,but i dont care for closed shop churches, baptism comes from a pagonistic jewish sect,the greek word baptist means emerge ,if its going to be done,do it right. and they are not minor theological point,ask the roman church

J C

getz wrote: »

first of all i am not a baptist,i believe i am a christian ,but i dont care for closed shop churches, baptism comes from a pagonistic jewish sect,the greek word baptist means emerge ,if its going to be done,do it right. and they are not minor theological point,ask the roman church

Baptism comes directly from Jesus Himself (in the Great Commission)
e.g. Mt 24:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
... but, as Baptism is not essential to be Saved (one way or the other)... it is a minor theological point that you are pursuing!!

... so if you are a Saved Christian, like you say you are, then you should be Baptised together with your houshold ... but if you're not Baptised, this will not affect you Salvation ... because once you are Saved you remain Saved.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... I don't think such discussions will be futile ... but they certainly will be needlessly antagonistic.

Let's respect each other (liberal Atheism has a long and noble tradition) ... I think they are wrong ... and they me.
... but this is no reason that we cannot look at the strengths and weaknesses of our respective Faiths in a civil and respectful manner.

... and calling the ideas or the people (on either side) rude names doesn't add one iota to the case ... it merely confirms that person using such language is unable to fully express themselves in proper English. Things like the following gems from Mr P

The problem is, JC, that people like you are so invested in the delusion that there isn't anything that can be said, civily or otherwise, that will make any difference.

Added to this, when you have a poster that has been spouting utter sh1t for years, been called on, continues to spout the same crap, declares victory when none is apparent and consistently refuses to answer simple questions, then things get a little frustrating. In the interests of avoiding doubt, that is you that is.

MrP

getz

J C wrote: »

Baptism come directly from Jesus Himself.
... but, as it is not essential to be Saved (one way or the other)... it is a minor theological point!!

unless you want to put your children into a school in a catholic school,or wish to marry someone from another religion,or bring up you children in another faith, in the new testament years it was it not exceptable to baptize children

Sarky

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

getz

Sarky wrote: »

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

to be baptised is that you understand and believe in and is a act of your faith,the word understand is the point,young children and babies do not understand,so untill they themselves can decide it is wrong to baptise them,yet the catholic church tell us,that it is a mortal sin to delay the baptism of babies ,

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

I don't think baptism comes from Jesus. It comes from the Jewish practice of mikveh. John the Baptist baptised for the repentance of sins - an external symbol of forgiveness.

The difference between John's baptism and Jesus' is in John the Baptist's own words:

John 1:32-34 wrote:

And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

John's baptism was a sign of repentance. Getting people ready for the coming of Jesus.

Jesus' baptism was a sign of actually being born again by the Holy Spirit (see John 3). I.E Dying to sin and rising to new life in Him. That's the meaning behind Jesus' death and resurrection in Christianity (see Romans 6).

Jesus gave baptism a significance which didn't exist otherwise. John the Baptist was the figure prophesied to make a way for Jesus' ministry. All this stuff can be found at the start of Mark or John's Gospel. A reading of Isaiah 40, and Malachi 3 will also give you a good start into looking into it.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

So what? That doesn't make it any more believable. I'm sure there are psych-houses filled with people who declare the same.

Indeed, as there was a the time of Jesus, and as there is today. Funny how us rational skeptics can tell the difference.

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

... if you wish to love Jesus try doing it platonically.

Neither claimed to be God ... and, as far as I know, neither raised themselves or anybody else from the dead.

Yes but do you believe Joseph Smith had super powers as they were witnessed in person and there is written record of such?

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

It doesn't present your point of view in the most positive light, and it makes people less willing to engage with your point of view in a constructive manner. In short, it's a turnoff.

My POV is that blasphemy should be legal, but it still doesn't make it any less obnoxious particularly in Christian - atheist dialogue. I find atheism absurd, but I don't descend into ridicule.

The Quadratic Equation

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

Sigh... you really have an amazing ability to intepret things exactly how people didn't mean them.

JCs arguments are so bad and troll like if you don't laugh at them you'd cry. Much the same as any skeptic with a particularly deluded conspiracy theorist.

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't present your point of view in the most positive light, and it makes people less willing to engage with your point of view in a constructive manner. In short, it's a turnoff.

My POV is that blasphemy should be legal, but it still doesn't make it any less obnoxious particularly in Christian - atheist dialogue. I find atheism absurd, but I don't descend into ridicule.

Well phil I can tell you now in grown up discussions in real life I tend to tone the ridicule down though I still have no problem blaspheming. I won't mock someone for their beliefs but I probably will end up mocking the belief if it's silly.
More importantly though you did catch me quoting JC and if you can see anything about an atheist's communication with his good self it is that it is anything but a dialogue!
By the way as for presenting my view in a positive light: I have long given hope of changing the mind of anyone who finds my mildly blasphemous comments offensive so the positivity of the light is irrelevant..

philologos

Well at least I made my point ShooterSF. Those are the margins I'm going to work in.

ShooterSF

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

If I didn't let steam off now and then I'd just resort to posting bitter sniping one liners all the time and that would be a low for me.

Anywho, I appear to be pulling this thread apart.

The Quadratic Equation

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sigh... you really have an amazing ability to intepret things exactly how people didn't mean them.

JCs arguments are so bad and troll like if you don't laugh at them you'd cry. Much the same as any skeptic with a particularly deluded conspiracy theorist.

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

His remarks were directed at philologos's posts, but equally I don't think trying to pick on JC, rather than debate the issue is fair or adult.

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

His remarks were directed at philologos's posts, but equally I don't think trying to pick on JC, rather than debate the issue is fair or adult.

He quoted and named JC in the post.

It's funny you don't think it's fair, seeing as so many of your posts are thinly veiled slights such as the one above.

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, as there was a the time of Jesus, and as there is today. Funny how us rational skeptics can tell the difference.

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

J C

getz wrote: »

unless you want to put your children into a school in a catholic school,or wish to marry someone from another religion,or bring up you children in another faith, in the new testament years it was it not exceptable to baptize children

My understanding is that there is no impediment to enrolling children in primary schools under RCC patronage, whatever their religion (or none) ...
... the issue of RCC baptism would only arise if and when you want them to receive RCC First Communion or Confirmation ... and I guess, if you want to be in the army ... you will need to wear the boots!!!

... and it has always been acceptable ... even encouraged to baptise children ... once they were Saved.
Acts 16:14-15 gives an account of the Salvation of Lydia ... and confirms that both herself and her household (which would have included her children) were Saved and Baptised.
Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

I've studied many beliefs and philosophies, and have always been open to them, it just so happens I find Christianity the most compelling, so your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

J C

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

The only duty of a Christian is to witness for Jesus Christ and present the truth ... whether anybody gets Saved as a result is a matter entirely between themselves and God ... i.e. no pressure ... no pack drill !!!

... and the same applies to you Dr Doom ... what a name!!!:eek:

... are you a pessimist ... or just a 'realistic' optimist???:D

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I've studied many beliefs and philosophies, and have always been open to them, it just so happens I find Christianity the most compelling, so your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

It's not ad hom at all, it's an observation. I also doubt you've studied- in the true sense of the word - 'many beliefs'.

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

fatmammycat wrote: »

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

[...] your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

FYI, ad hominem comments are directed at people (and are cardable misdemeanors in this forum), while fatmammycat's comments were directed at your ideas.

Many religious people, perhaps from a misplaced sense of the politics of identity as it related to religion, appear to have great difficult in distinguishing the two.