Skip to main content

Originally Posted by vplee123:

Anyway, it doesn't really matter that you were baptized as an infant. You reject God now, and He will get the message.  

Cheers...Veep.

Veep, atheists do not reject "god" or gods.  we only reject the evidence that has been offered for it's existence thus far.  we are open minded about the possibility (with few exceptions).

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by vplee123:

Anyway, it doesn't really matter that you were baptized as an infant. You reject God now, and He will get the message.  

Cheers...Veep.

Veep, atheists do not reject "god" or gods.  we only reject the evidence that has been offered for it's existence thus far.  we are open minded about the possibility (with few exceptions).

Even Einstein had to admit there was a higher power, because of the perfect

order of things in the Universe. Unfortunatly you don't know the joy of faith.

Skippy

 

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by vplee123:

Anyway, it doesn't really matter that you were baptized as an infant. You reject God now, and He will get the message.  

Cheers...Veep.

Veep, atheists do not reject "god" or gods.  we only reject the evidence that has been offered for it's existence thus far.  we are open minded about the possibility (with few exceptions).

Even Einstein had to admit there was a higher power, because of the perfect

order of things in the Universe. Unfortunatly you don't know the joy of faith.

Skippy

 

Skipster,

Einstein's "god" was a metaphor for the grandeur of the Universe.  He is on record as rejecting the notion of a personal god.  What he called "god" another could call "nature".

 

DF

Originally Posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by vplee123:

Anyway, it doesn't really matter that you were baptized as an infant. You reject God now, and He will get the message.  

Cheers...Veep.

Veep, atheists do not reject "god" or gods.  we only reject the evidence that has been offered for it's existence thus far.  we are open minded about the possibility (with few exceptions).

Even Einstein had to admit there was a higher power, because of the perfect

order of things in the Universe. Unfortunatly you don't know the joy of faith.

Skippy

 

Skipster,

Einstein's "god" was a metaphor for the grandeur of the Universe.  He is on record as rejecting the notion of a personal god.  What he called "god" another could call "nature".

 

DF

Billy Bob,

and what one might call "nature" another might call "GOD".
Einstein wrote,"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are

clearly marked off from each other. There are strong reciprocal relationships and

dependencies. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."

(this was his view later in life.)

No matter what kind of belief he had, he believed in something.

 

Skippy

 

 

Well, now, you see, my dear skipperooni, that Einstein considered religion the reverence for the Universe.  It is pretty awesome when you see it as it is, inasmuch as we Middle Earth humans are capable of that.

 

Note that Einstein mentioned "religion" not gods.  Religions are human-made institutions.  Many of us need them, for reasons I can't understand, but might imagine.  I imagine Einstein considered religions to be the poetic kernal of the human soul, a kernal that grew from within the soul to the manifestation of religion.  Perhaps he saw religion as the manifest yearning of the human kind to seek meaning and knowledge of the stuff we do not know. 
I would disagree with him, I see religion as a stifling influence that retards new knowledge.  When one knows "the truth', new data will not suffice to change one's mind.  This is the evil of religion.  We are learning about the universe and the world in which we live by leaps and bounds, and religion is that which drags on the public acceptance and understanding of this knowledge.

 

I have freed myself from the pernicious influences of religion.  It's basic tenets are untrue.  Its stories are fairy tales.  The guilt and shame it assumes are laughable when one knows the basics of brainwashing and psychological manipulation, not to mention Natural History.  I'm free from the brainwashing and guilt, and I am at least in a position to see the universe as it is, even if I must struggle to conceive the magnanimity of it.  As poorly as I accomplish that, I recognize that the Universe is far, far greater than the War God of the ancient Jews who is Yahweh.

 

I encourage you to study the history of religion, the history of the Bible, and the current state of science.  A new world, a new mind, a sturdy reality awaits  you.  Let me know if I can suggest resources for you.

 

DF

 

No Billy I have some suggestions for you.

You think Atheism is so peaceful, may I refer you to Cage's topic,

"Atheism and Mass Murder". You don't even have to go back to anceint

history to find it. As Cage referenced the 20th century and Communism.

How could we forget Stalin and millions massacred. Let's see Obama's

idle Chairman Mou, millions again. How about North Korea? How about

the Cambodian killing fields? How about all those massacred trying to

excape from Eastern Europe not that long ago? How about Castro and

the people he killed to suppress? And many many more. Let's not forget

The N*z*s and thier taste for blood. You Atheist have a lot to be proud of.

 

Skippy

Madam, the person -- priest or elder of BFF -- who performs the Baptism is of no consequence.  It is the Baptized who determines his fate.  If you will bother to read the sacrament of Baptism, you will find, with a few exceptions, that the sacrament is acceptance into the body of Christians.  It is not the path to salvation, Though the Roman Catholic Religion says it is a necessity.  If you will bother to read John 3:5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." you'll find that a person must also be born of the Spirit.  

 

Historically John the Baptist, who Baptized Jesus, preceded the formal creation of the Christian Church. 

Dont forget the Crusades (both Muslim and Christian)
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

No Billy I have some suggestions for you.

You think Atheism is so peaceful, may I refer you to Cage's topic,

"Atheism and Mass Murder". You don't even have to go back to anceint

history to find it. As Cage referenced the 20th century and Communism.

How could we forget Stalin and millions massacred. Let's see Obama's

idle Chairman Mou, millions again. How about North Korea? How about

the Cambodian killing fields? How about all those massacred trying to

excape from Eastern Europe not that long ago? How about Castro and

the people he killed to suppress? And many many more. Let's not forget

The N*z*s and thier taste for blood. You Atheist have a lot to be proud of.

 

Skippy

Originally Posted by peeler:
Dont forget the Crusades (both Muslim and Christian)
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:Sorry those were not my Churches can't be responsible
for others beliefs or actions. Nice try though.

No Billy I have some suggestions for you.

You think Atheism is so peaceful, may I refer you to Cage's topic,

"Atheism and Mass Murder". You don't even have to go back to anceint

history to find it. As Cage referenced the 20th century and Communism.

How could we forget Stalin and millions massacred. Let's see Obama's

idle Chairman Mou, millions again. How about North Korea? How about

the Cambodian killing fields? How about all those massacred trying to

excape from Eastern Europe not that long ago? How about Castro and

the people he killed to suppress? And many many more. Let's not forget

The N*z*s and thier taste for blood. You Atheist have a lot to be proud of.

 

Skippy

 

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

Holster those guns Windsong. These are our forum friends that have stood behind

us for the most part from the blazeing attacks from Bill and BeternU. Whether or not

you think so, the way you are telling people they are doomed isn't winning any hearts.

I truley believe God knows whats in everyone's hearts. And there will be others in Heaven

that were not LDS in this life. As it is Bill could come back in his mind as the Savior from

us mean Mormon's.

 

Skippy

So, what have we here--a division in the Mormon ranks?  A cultic spat?
Really, Skippy, do you think that WINDSONG could possibly be wrong in the course of criticism he has taken relative to the baptism of non-Mormons?  Surely WINDSONG must have prayed for divine guidance on this matter and surely he believes that the Holy Spirit has confirmed his interpretation.    But maybe you, also, prayed for divine wisdom on the same subject and maybe you got a different answer--or think you did.  In any case, one of you two Mormons has to be WRONG about what wisdom to use in your forum proselytizing initiatives.

 

But ***gettaboutit anyway.  The silly notion that baptism must be administered by an ordained member of some  sacerdotal (that's "priestly", for the vocabulary-limited) order  is nowhere found in the New Testament!  If you disagree, then show me the goods! As to the Mormon "Melchizedek priesthood," I would advise you to avoid asserting that kind of title.  Nowhere is scripture is it accorded to anyone but Melchizedek and Jesus. Read all about it in Hebrews 6 and 7.  It is a frivolous and blasphemous business for Mormons to be conferring that status on just about every male member of their heretical cult.

Last edited by upsidedehead
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

Holster those guns Windsong. These are our forum friends that have stood behind

us for the most part from the blazeing attacks from Bill and BeternU. Whether or not

you think so, the way you are telling people they are doomed isn't winning any hearts.

I truley believe God knows whats in everyone's hearts. And there will be others in Heaven

that were not LDS in this life. As it is Bill could come back in his mind as the Savior from

us mean Mormon's.

 

Skippy

So, what have we here--a division in the Mormon ranks?  A cultic spat?
Really, Skippy, do you think that WINDSONG could possibly be wrong in the course of criticism he has taken relative to the baptism of non-Mormons?  Surely WINDSONG must have prayed for divine guidance on this matter and surely he believes that the Holy Spirit has confirmed his interpretation.    But maybe you, also, prayed for divine wisdom on the same subject and maybe you got a different answer--or think you did.  In any case, one of you two Mormons has to be WRONG about what wisdom to use in your forum proselytizing initiatives.

 

But ***gettaboutit anyway.  The silly notion that baptism must be administered by an ordained member of some  sacerdotal (that's "priestly", for the vocabulary-limited) order  is nowhere found in the New Testament!  If you disagree, then show me the goods! As to the Mormon "Melchizedek priesthood," I would advise you to avoid asserting that kind of title.  Nowhere is scripture is it accorded to anyone but Melchizedek and Jesus. Read all about it in Hebrews 6 and 7.  It is a frivolous and blasphemous business for Mormons to be conferring that status on just about every male member of their heretical cult.

No, No division in ranks, both on the same page, you just missed something in Skippys post that I didnt. As for the Priesthood, If you dont believe Jesus Christ Himself RESTORED His true original organization theough His chosen Prophet Joseph Smith, then you miss out on a lot of up to date Modern revelation from God Himself, that has to do with the Priesthood.  Sorry

Originally Posted by WINDSONG:
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

Holster those guns Windsong. These are our forum friends that have stood behind

us for the most part from the blazeing attacks from Bill and BeternU. Whether or not

you think so, the way you are telling people they are doomed isn't winning any hearts.

I truley believe God knows whats in everyone's hearts. And there will be others in Heaven

that were not LDS in this life. As it is Bill could come back in his mind as the Savior from

us mean Mormon's.

 

Skippy

So, what have we here--a division in the Mormon ranks?  A cultic spat?
Really, Skippy, do you think that WINDSONG could possibly be wrong in the course of criticism he has taken relative to the baptism of non-Mormons?  Surely WINDSONG must have prayed for divine guidance on this matter and surely he believes that the Holy Spirit has confirmed his interpretation.    But maybe you, also, prayed for divine wisdom on the same subject and maybe you got a different answer--or think you did.  In any case, one of you two Mormons has to be WRONG about what wisdom to use in your forum proselytizing initiatives.

 

But ***gettaboutit anyway.  The silly notion that baptism must be administered by an ordained member of some  sacerdotal (that's "priestly", for the vocabulary-limited) order  is nowhere found in the New Testament!  If you disagree, then show me the goods! As to the Mormon "Melchizedek priesthood," I would advise you to avoid asserting that kind of title.  Nowhere is scripture is it accorded to anyone but Melchizedek and Jesus. Read all about it in Hebrews 6 and 7.  It is a frivolous and blasphemous business for Mormons to be conferring that status on just about every male member of their heretical cult.

No, No division in ranks, both on the same page, you just missed something in Skippys post that I didnt. As for the Priesthood, If you dont believe Jesus Christ Himself RESTORED His true original organization theough His chosen Prophet Joseph Smith, then you miss out on a lot of up to date Modern revelation from God Himself, that has to do with the Priesthood.  Sorry

Both on the same page, my sweet ass!  You said:

 

"So ask you preacher to prove he or she has that power and authority in a traceable line back to Jesus Christ. I'll bet they CAN NOT! and if they cant, Then all the ordinances performed by that person are are INVALID and USELESS. This is very important because to get into heaven you MUST be baptised BY IMMERSION AS JESUS SET THE EXAMPLE FOR US, and by someone having the traceable POWER and AUTHORITY from GOD to do so. This power and authority must be passed on by the laying on of hands like unto the apostles of old!"

 

Now that is pretty easy to understand.  Without  baptism by a Mormon priest with authority from God, you say there will be no salvation in heaven.  That is  as plain as day. You have expressed yourself very clearly.

 

Skippy said THIS: 

 

"And there will be others in Heaven that were not LDS in this life." 

 

Any  drooling fool can see that you and Skippy are in disagreement here.  You make it plain that in your warped way of thinking, only your cultic so-called church  has power to confer the priesthood and that only Mormon priests can legitimately administer baptism.  Such baptism does not create Catholics, Baptists or Rosicrucians; it creates more Mormons!  Thus, clearly, by all the principles of logical analysis, you are claiming that only Mormons will get to heaven.  Skippy, in stark contrast, is conceding that there will be people in heaven "that were not LDS in this life."  So, to any rational person (perhaps even to an occasional Mormon), it is inescapably clear that you are of one opinion and Skippy is of another.

 

Now tell me this--which of you, if any, is being guided by the Holy Spirit?  Can't be both!  My considered opinion is:  NEITHER!!  You are both cultic nutcakes trolling for trouble on this forum.  And for as long as you continue to post the kind of deranged cultic drivel that is your customary product, you will find it!

 

Now how about responding to  the other part of my earlier reply, namely my charge that you and other Mormons who claim the Melchidezek priesthood are caliming something that by right belongs only to Jesus Christ and to the late Melchiezek?  Kindly show me where Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or anyone else ever found any basis for installing the Melchidezek priesthood in the LDS cult. Since you contend that I am ignorant of Momon teaching on the priesthood, help enlighten me. Then we can continue this dialogue on the basis of whatever you (and Joseph and Brigham) can put up

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by WINDSONG:
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

Holster those guns Windsong. These are our forum friends that have stood behind

us for the most part from the blazeing attacks from Bill and BeternU. Whether or not

you think so, the way you are telling people they are doomed isn't winning any hearts.

I truley believe God knows whats in everyone's hearts. And there will be others in Heaven

that were not LDS in this life. As it is Bill could come back in his mind as the Savior from

us mean Mormon's.

 

Skippy

So, what have we here--a division in the Mormon ranks?  A cultic spat?
Really, Skippy, do you think that WINDSONG could possibly be wrong in the course of criticism he has taken relative to the baptism of non-Mormons?  Surely WINDSONG must have prayed for divine guidance on this matter and surely he believes that the Holy Spirit has confirmed his interpretation.    But maybe you, also, prayed for divine wisdom on the same subject and maybe you got a different answer--or think you did.  In any case, one of you two Mormons has to be WRONG about what wisdom to use in your forum proselytizing initiatives.

 

But ***gettaboutit anyway.  The silly notion that baptism must be administered by an ordained member of some  sacerdotal (that's "priestly", for the vocabulary-limited) order  is nowhere found in the New Testament!  If you disagree, then show me the goods! As to the Mormon "Melchizedek priesthood," I would advise you to avoid asserting that kind of title.  Nowhere is scripture is it accorded to anyone but Melchizedek and Jesus. Read all about it in Hebrews 6 and 7.  It is a frivolous and blasphemous business for Mormons to be conferring that status on just about every male member of their heretical cult.

No, No division in ranks, both on the same page, you just missed something in Skippys post that I didnt. As for the Priesthood, If you dont believe Jesus Christ Himself RESTORED His true original organization theough His chosen Prophet Joseph Smith, then you miss out on a lot of up to date Modern revelation from God Himself, that has to do with the Priesthood.  Sorry

Both on the same page, my sweet ass!  You said:

 

"So ask you preacher to prove he or she has that power and authority in a traceable line back to Jesus Christ. I'll bet they CAN NOT! and if they cant, Then all the ordinances performed by that person are are INVALID and USELESS. This is very important because to get into heaven you MUST be baptised BY IMMERSION AS JESUS SET THE EXAMPLE FOR US, and by someone having the traceable POWER and AUTHORITY from GOD to do so. This power and authority must be passed on by the laying on of hands like unto the apostles of old!"

 

Now that is pretty easy to understand.  Without  baptism by a Mormon priest with authority from God, you say there will be no salvation in heaven.  That is  as plain as day. You have expressed yourself very clearly.

 

Skippy said THIS: 

 

"And there will be others in Heaven that were not LDS in this life." 

 

Any  drooling fool can see that you and Skippy are in disagreement here.  You make it plain that in your warped way of thinking, only your cultic so-called church  has power to confer the priesthood and that only Mormon priests can legitimately administer baptism.  Such baptism does not create Catholics, Baptists or Rosicrucians; it creates more Mormons!  Thus, clearly, by all the principles of logical analysis, you are claiming that only Mormons will get to heaven.  Skippy, in stark contrast, is conceding that there will be people in heaven "that were not LDS in this life."  So, to any rational person (perhaps even to an occasional Mormon), it is inescapably clear that you are of one opinion and Skippy is of another.

 

Now tell me this--which of you, if any, is being guided by the Holy Spirit?  Can't be both!  My considered opinion is:  NEITHER!!  You are both cultic nutcakes trolling for trouble on this forum.  And for as long as you continue to post the kind of deranged cultic drivel that is your customary product, you will find it!

 

Now how about responding to  the other part of my earlier reply, namely my charge that you and other Mormons who claim the Melchidezek priesthood are caliming something that by right belongs only to Jesus Christ and to the late Melchiezek?  Kindly show me where Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or anyone else ever found any basis for installing the Melchidezek priesthood in the LDS cult. Since you contend that I am ignorant of Momon teaching on the priesthood, help enlighten me. Then we can continue this dialogue on the basis of whatever you (and Joseph and Brigham) can put up

I can see we have another BeternU in you. When you take the time to read all my posts on the subject , in other threads, you will see , there is much more going on here. I will now take the time to show you how Skippy and I are in agreement. The parts you missed were the fact that there are different levels in Heaven, this is backed by your Bible in two places. In one the speak of the third level and in the other they speak of the 7th heaven. Now , as Skippy said, and I fully agree, there will be many from other religions in Heaven, BUT, to inherit the HIGHEST LEVEL of Heaven, You must have ALL the saving ordinances performed for you by one having the Power and Authority from God.

 

Now, PUFFY---  Your back under a different name, Chill out Crawford, You still speak the same. You know the drill, you cant stand it because you have NO PROOF or WITNESS from the HOLY GHOST that your religion is Gods. Sorry about that BuBBa. I will not fight with you, it is of satan. If you know for a fact by the power of the HOLY GHOST ( without faking it) That Mormonism is false, then stay far away from it and dont ask questions about things you claim to know so much about.  Your wasting good oxygen other good people could be breathing!

 

About the Holy Melchidezek Priesthood, you have no proof we are wrong .  Dude, you are so filled with hatred, there is no way you can see the truth and as for a continued diaoluge with you, what for? you already know it all.   DWIGHT?WINDSONG

PS you still causing trouble for everyone in the town meetings?

YOu can not weasel out of this one with that frail and impotent response.

 

You said, when you began this string: 

 

"The power and authority from GOD must come down an unbroken chain of authority traceable back to Jesus Christ. So ask you preacher to prove he or she has that power and authority in a traceable line back to Jesus Christ. I'll bet they CAN NOT! and if they cant, Then all the ordinances performed by that person are are INVALID and USELESS. This is very important because to get into heaven you MUST be baptised BY IMMERSION AS JESUS SET THE EXAMPLE FOR US, and by someone having the traceable POWER and AUTHORITY from GOD to do so."

 

You said nothing about the "highest level of Heaven" when you posted that exclusivistic claim, WINDSONG.  Now you are trying to obscure the obvious conflict between yourself and Skippy by bringing in that business about three levels of Heaven.  Your weasly, crawfishy, evasive tactics are plain for all to see.

 

You believe, as many do, that baptism is essential in order to have one's sins remitted.  Tell me this, then: If baptism is necessary for remission of sins, and if only a properly qualified Mormon priest can administer a valid baptism, does that not mean that Mormons teach that a person with unremitted sins, i.e. one who has not been baptized by a Mormon priest, will NOT get to Heaven?

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

No Billy I have some suggestions for you.

You think Atheism is so peaceful, may I refer you to Cage's topic,

"Atheism and Mass Murder". You don't even have to go back to anceint

history to find it. As Cage referenced the 20th century and Communism.

How could we forget Stalin and millions massacred. Let's see Obama's

idle Chairman Mou, millions again. How about North Korea? How about

the Cambodian killing fields? How about all those massacred trying to

excape from Eastern Europe not that long ago? How about Castro and

the people he killed to suppress? And many many more. Let's not forget

The N*z*s and thier taste for blood. You Atheist have a lot to be proud of.

 

Skippy

Oh, let's start  somewhat late in the history of mankind and only begin with the Old Testament.  Genocide.  Bashing babies' heads on rocks.  There's more, but you get the picture.

China has a politically-motivated atheist agenda, and i reject it, and i despise it.  Freedom of religion is so much better.  And so much more persuasive in the end, I think.

 

You do not understand totalitarianism.  It is the ultimate mind f**k.  It tolerates no allegiance to any other end except the worship of the State.  When will you learn this?  It is perpetrated by evil dictators whose ultimate ends are ultimate power over their minions.  Ultimate power cannot abide a transcendent religion or any other faith-based reality.  What's so hard to understand?

 

Stalin was a murderer.  He murdered the best military officers he had for political reasons, to his harm.  He didn't murder the Russian Orthodoxy clergy, unless they (rarely) disagreed with him, because he understood the religious needs of the hoi polloi.  He used the Russian Orthodox Church to his ends.  Of course, he didn't let Orthodoxy get in the way of eliminating political or economic baggage whenever it occurred.

 

Please, sir, your arguments are simple.  Facile.

 

As I've posted before, by the Catholic Church's own criterion, Hitler was a Catholic.  I will not insult the readers of this post with a redundant recitation of Hitler's Catholic credentials.

 

You despise atheism because you cannot bring yourself to even understand it.  I would never ask you to embrace it, but I would suggest you try to understand it.  Because you despise atheism so, you must associate it with every evil you can imagine.

 

It's just not so.  Name a country for me that has suffered for being too reasonable.

 

Your accusations become a badge of honor.  Each one represents a lack of understanding and reasonable conclusion.

 

Sweden has gone, in recent centuries, from paganism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism, to secularism.  Who does Sweden hate?  Who hates Sweden?

 

There is no mechanism from atheism to violence.  There is a mechanism from Catholicism to the hating of Jews, for example.  Atheists regard both religions the same.  Irrelevant.  No need to go to war with anyone over any interpretation.  This is another reason for you to recognize that Maoism's atheism is tangential to its ultimate goals of totalitarianism.  And as far as Maoism is officially atheist, I reject and condemn it.  Side note: Maoism is pretty much dead in China, and let's hope the residual official atheist position follows suit.  We atheists don't need laws to enforce atheism, we have reason on our side. 

 

Please read some history, even Wiki, before you post again that "Notsism" (weird forum censorship, wouldn't' you agree?) and Stalinism, even Maoism, is based on atheism.

 

One more thing.  Communism is a recent philosophy.  It dates from about the time of the Civil War.  Maybe a little older.  Atheism is at least 2500 years old.  Communism has been proven wrong to the extent it's been tried.  Atheism has not.

 

DF

 

Last edited by Billy Joe Bob Gene
"Dont forget the Crusades (both Muslim and Christian)
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:Sorry those were not my Churches can't be responsible
for others beliefs or actions. Nice try though."
As usual skippy, you totally miss the point. You were pointing out wars fought in the name of atheism, I was simply pointing out that plent of wars are fought in the name of religion. Probably a whole lot more are fought in the name of God than are fought in the name of atheism, starting with, but not limited to, the Muslim and Christian Crusades. And yes, they ARE the forerunners of modern Christianity therefore, by extension, they are parts of YOUR Churches.
Originally Posted by Karl Leuba:

Madam, the person -- priest or elder of BFF -- who performs the Baptism is of no consequence.BOY ARE YOU WRONG! EVEN JESUS HAD TO BE BAPTISED BY SOMEONE HOLDING THE PRIESTHOOD A S JOHN THE BAPTIST DID.  It is the Baptized who determines his fate.  If you will bother to read the sacrament of Baptism, you will find, with a few exceptions, that the sacrament is acceptance into the body of Christians.  It is not the path to salvation, Though the Roman Catholic Religion says it is a necessity.  If you will bother to read John 3:5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." you'll find that a person must also be born of the Spirit. YO, YO , YO,  BORN OF THE WATER, THIS BE BAPTISM MON!  

 

Historically John the Baptist, who Baptized Jesus, preceded the formal creation of the Christian Church. 

 

Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

How about we end this one with the agreement that there are bad people in all walks of life.

There are bad people in religion, in atheism, in the Eastern Hemosphere, in the Western Hemospere.

Bad people who are tall. Bad people who are small. Fat ones short ones. If people are bad and evil, they are just bad and evil.

 

Skippy

Stephen Weinberg, Nobel Laureate, said it best.  Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things, but to make good people do evil things, it requires religion..

 

You're right, there are good people and bad people among us.  Have you ever studied the religious persuasions of prison populations?

 

DF

Originally Posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:

No Billy I have some suggestions for you.

You think Atheism is so peaceful, may I refer you to Cage's topic,

"Atheism and Mass Murder". You don't even have to go back to anceint

history to find it. As Cage referenced the 20th century and Communism.

How could we forget Stalin and millions massacred. Let's see Obama's

idle Chairman Mou, millions again. How about North Korea? How about

the Cambodian killing fields? How about all those massacred trying to

excape from Eastern Europe not that long ago? How about Castro and

the people he killed to suppress? And many many more. Let's not forget

The N*z*s and thier taste for blood. You Atheist have a lot to be proud of.

 

Skippy

Oh, let's start  somewhat late in the history of mankind and only begin with the Old Testament.  Genocide.  Bashing babies' heads on rocks.  There's more, but you get the picture.

China has a politically-motivated atheist agenda, and i reject it, and i despise it.  Freedom of religion is so much better.  And so much more persuasive in the end, I think.

 

You do not understand totalitarianism.  It is the ultimate mind f**k.  It tolerates no allegiance to any other end except the worship of the State.  When will you learn this?  It is perpetrated by evil dictators whose ultimate ends are ultimate power over their minions.  Ultimate power cannot abide a transcendent religion or any other faith-based reality.  What's so hard to understand?

 

Stalin was a murderer.  He murdered the best military officers he had for political reasons, to his harm.  He didn't murder the Russian Orthodoxy clergy, unless they (rarely) disagreed with him, because he understood the religious needs of the hoi polloi.  He used the Russian Orthodox Church to his ends.  Of course, he didn't let Orthodoxy get in the way of eliminating political or economic baggage whenever it occurred.

 

Please, sir, your arguments are simple.  Facile.

 

As I've posted before, by the Catholic Church's own criterion, Hitler was a Catholic.  I will not insult the readers of this post with a redundant recitation of Hitler's Catholic credentials.

 

You despise atheism because you cannot bring yourself to even understand it.  I would never ask you to embrace it, but I would suggest you try to understand it.  Because you despise atheism so, you must associate it with every evil you can imagine.

 

It's just not so.  Name a country for me that has suffered for being too reasonable.

 

Your accusations become a badge of honor.  Each one represents a lack of understanding and reasonable conclusion.

 

Sweden has gone, in recent centuries, from paganism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism, to secularism.  Who does Sweden hate?  Who hates Sweden?

 

There is no mechanism from atheism to violence.  There is a mechanism from Catholicism to the hating of Jews, for example.  Atheists regard both religions the same.  Irrelevant.  No need to go to war with anyone over any interpretation.  This is another reason for you to recognize that Maoism's atheism is tangential to its ultimate goals of totalitarianism.  And as far as Maoism is officially atheist, I reject and condemn it.  Side note: Maoism is pretty much dead in China, and let's hope the residual official atheist position follows suit.  We atheists don't need laws to enforce atheism, we have reason on our side. 

 

Please read some history, even Wiki, before you post again that "Notsism" (weird forum censorship, wouldn't' you agree?) and Stalinism, even Maoism, is based on atheism.

 

One more thing.  Communism is a recent philosophy.  It dates from about the time of the Civil War.  Maybe a little older.  Atheism is at least 2500 years old.  Communism has been proven wrong to the extent it's been tried.  Atheism has not.

 

DF

 


i brief note in agreement with this:

while people like mao were , indeed, athiest, and did, indeed, force atheism on their populace, it wasn't for the purposes of religion in and of it's self. Deepy covered it above but i felt it important enough to hit again.

 

Mao demanded a total absence of religion, for the simple reason that if you spend time kneeling to God, then it was time you weren't spending kneeling to Mao.

 

Mao wasn't evil because he was athiest. Mao wasn't athiest because he was evil.

Mao was evil, and he used athieism and deadly suppression of religion as a tool to help establish complete control over the country.

that doesn't make athieism any more evil than the witch-burners in europe make christianity evil.

evil people use whatever tools are handy and easily weilded to further their cause, and will twist any good thing to their evil purposes.

 

sadly, tho, the maoist ideal is pretty alive and well in china, it hangs on strongly in bangladesh and in several locations around that area of the world. it was only a couple of weeks ago the chinese government rounded up and imprisoned a ' underground christian ' church, simply for the crime of being christian. religion is still met with a heavy hand in china. but then, so is free speech. and copyright laws.

they gots lots of lead-based dairy products tho.

Perhaps Skippy was referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead. I understand the Mormon church has baptized in the names of those killed in the holocaust. The enormity of the thing is that they could have even have baptized in the names of our late grandparents or parents, and since the dead cannot be hurt legally, there's nothing we can do about it.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Perhaps Skippy was referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead. I understand the Mormon church has baptized in the names of those killed in the holocaust. The enormity of the thing is that they could have even have baptized in the names of our late grandparents or parents, and since the dead cannot be hurt legally, there's nothing we can do about it.

There are plenty of folks whose dead non-Mormon loved ones were baptized by proxy by deluded Mormons who have greatly misunderstood and mis-applied scripture to come up with this "baptism for the dead" nonsense.  There have been numerous instances in which Mormons were baptized for Jews, who do not even believe in Jesus. The New Testament says that "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Do Mormons also BELIEVE for the dead?  If the answer is yes, then that has to be the silliest thing going, since no one can "believe" for another. If the answer is no, then the New Testament prerequisite of belief is lacking and the baptism is invalid for that reason.  

Originally Posted by WINDSONG:
Originally Posted by Karl Leuba:

Madam, the person -- priest or elder of BFF -- who performs the Baptism is of no consequence.BOY ARE YOU WRONG! EVEN JESUS HAD TO BE BAPTISED BY SOMEONE HOLDING THE PRIESTHOOD A S JOHN THE BAPTIST DID.  It is the Baptized who determines his fate.  If you will bother to read the sacrament of Baptism, you will find, with a few exceptions, that the sacrament is acceptance into the body of Christians.  It is not the path to salvation, Though the Roman Catholic Religion says it is a necessity.  If you will bother to read John 3:5, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." you'll find that a person must also be born of the Spirit. YO, YO , YO,  BORN OF THE WATER, THIS BE BAPTISM MON!  

 

Historically John the Baptist, who Baptized Jesus, preceded the formal creation of the Christian Church. 

 

And just WHERE, pray tell, do I "read the sacrament of baptism" according to you?

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Perhaps Skippy was referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead. I understand the Mormon church has baptized in the names of those killed in the holocaust. The enormity of the thing is that they could have even have baptized in the names of our late grandparents or parents, and since the dead cannot be hurt legally, there's nothing we can do about it.

There are plenty of folks whose dead non-Mormon loved ones were baptized by proxy by deluded Mormons who have greatly misunderstood and mis-applied scripture to come up with this "baptism for the dead" nonsense.  There have been numerous instances in which Mormons were baptized for Jews, who do not even believe in Jesus. The New Testament says that "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Do Mormons also BELIEVE for the dead?  If the answer is yes, then that has to be the silliest thing going, since no one can "believe" for another. If the answer is no, then the New Testament prerequisite of belief is lacking and the baptism is invalid for that reason.  

BeternU, Crawford, you are so unknowledgable about spiritual things. The above reply proves it. You left out the obvious third option. I think you need to go to a different forum, your not doing well at all in here!

Originally Posted by WINDSONG:
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Perhaps Skippy was referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead. I understand the Mormon church has baptized in the names of those killed in the holocaust. The enormity of the thing is that they could have even have baptized in the names of our late grandparents or parents, and since the dead cannot be hurt legally, there's nothing we can do about it.

There are plenty of folks whose dead non-Mormon loved ones were baptized by proxy by deluded Mormons who have greatly misunderstood and mis-applied scripture to come up with this "baptism for the dead" nonsense.  There have been numerous instances in which Mormons were baptized for Jews, who do not even believe in Jesus. The New Testament says that "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Do Mormons also BELIEVE for the dead?  If the answer is yes, then that has to be the silliest thing going, since no one can "believe" for another. If the answer is no, then the New Testament prerequisite of belief is lacking and the baptism is invalid for that reason.  

BeternU, Crawford, you are so unknowledgable about spiritual things. The above reply proves it. You left out the obvious third option. I think you need to go to a different forum, your not doing well at all in here!

What, pray tell, is the "obvious third option"?  Obscure and unexplicated references like that do not add anything to the discussion. If YOU are so knowledgeable about spiritual things, then try to share your great wisdom with us by being specific instead of vague. 

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by WINDSONG:
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Perhaps Skippy was referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing for the dead. I understand the Mormon church has baptized in the names of those killed in the holocaust. The enormity of the thing is that they could have even have baptized in the names of our late grandparents or parents, and since the dead cannot be hurt legally, there's nothing we can do about it.

There are plenty of folks whose dead non-Mormon loved ones were baptized by proxy by deluded Mormons who have greatly misunderstood and mis-applied scripture to come up with this "baptism for the dead" nonsense.  There have been numerous instances in which Mormons were baptized for Jews, who do not even believe in Jesus. The New Testament says that "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Do Mormons also BELIEVE for the dead?  If the answer is yes, then that has to be the silliest thing going, since no one can "believe" for another. If the answer is no, then the New Testament prerequisite of belief is lacking and the baptism is invalid for that reason.  

BeternU, Crawford, you are so unknowledgable about spiritual things. The above reply proves it. You left out the obvious third option. I think you need to go to a different forum, your not doing well at all in here!

What, pray tell, is the "obvious third option"?  Obscure and unexplicated references like that do not add anything to the discussion. If YOU are so knowledgeable about spiritual things, then try to share your great wisdom with us by being specific instead of vague. 

LOOK< you are the one flaunting your intyelligence in here, cracking on others in abilities. Just remember, where I may be lacking in some skills that you arent, I am way furthwer ahead in others that you cant even hold a fire to. Mr Know it all, You figure it out .

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×