The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Chumley]

Day 3 and you guys are still going at it.  I hate to be captian obvious here but its a draw.  You're not changing each others mind.  Let's find something we can all agree on like Dan Marino being the best qb ever.

Brett Favre = best QB ever

Now you're making it personal.

 

[Politician Spock]

are you not reading what I am saying?

YES!!! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY WORD THAT YOU ARE POSTING!What I'm not doing is accepting the illogical conclusions that you are making. Are you even understanding that your conclusions are not logical?

The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

 

[larry_boy_44]

are you not reading what I am saying?

YES!!! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY WORD THAT YOU ARE POSTING!What I'm not doing is accepting the illogical conclusions that you are making. Are you even understanding that your conclusions are not logical?

The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Ok, I see you guys aren't going to stop so could someone synopsize what the disagreement is over so I don't have to read 6 pages?

 

[Seehawk]

Ever love a woman where every bit of your intellect is telling you that this is one big mistake yet no matter how logical you are your heart doesn't let you get away?

Yes I have (and thankfully still do). And while that is a good example emotion over logic I don't think it explains religious faith.For one thing, religious faith is rarely something that simply "happens". It's taught. There are textbooks (the Bible, the Koran) and classrooms (churchs & temples) and teachers (priests, rabis, etc) that teach you about God, religion, faith & the church. It's a learned world view rather then a spontaneously occuring one. People don't get baptized because they thought it up one night at a party. But love & devotion to the loved is spontaneous and naturally occuring. I need no school or societal norm to tell me to love my son. There is no book I've needed to read to convince me to lay down my life to protect his or his mother's.

Secondly, look at the way Larry Boy or Spock or others defend their faiths. They use words & phrases like "God's command", doctrine, fact, quote and evidence. These are not the arguements a man would make to defend his love for a women. He would understand that love is emotion and not fact and to try to defend/explain it as fact would be folly. But the religious faithful honestly and earnestly believe they can defend and explain their faiths (and in some cases defame and repudiate other faiths) based on facts, quotes and evidence that are anything but "factual". Larry Boy's disapproval of the catholic version of baptism stems from the "fact" that it goes against the "direct command of God". The foundation for his position are bible passages. Spock (and others) reply with other bible passages that also are supposed to be the word of God. What nobody talks about (or everybody chooses to ingore) is that bible passages aren't the word of God. They aren't God's commands. They are at BEST CASE 2nd hand quotes from God and at worst case significantly warped interpretations of God's words, deeds & desires.

My point; how can obviously smart, involved, intelligent people put forth a perfectly sound, reasoned and logical arguements about this stuff all the while knowing that their central premise, the foundation on which all they say is built, is patently unprovable?

Again my disclaimer; this is honestly not meant as a challenge to anybody's faith. It's everybody's right to feel as the feel and believe as they believe. I'm not asking for a defense of a specific believe or faith, moreso I'm trying to understand HOW you can come by it. How can you base your arguement, and apparently a large portion of your life, to "facts" that are actually no more then quotes proported to have been said 1500 years ago? I'm honestly fascinated by the process. Sometimes I'm jealous of it, sometimes I fear it, but I never feel I understand it and I really want to.

 

[Politician Spock]

are you not reading what I am saying?

YES!!! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY WORD THAT YOU ARE POSTING!What I'm not doing is accepting the illogical conclusions that you are making. Are you even understanding that your conclusions are not logical?

The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

They are not 100% seperate, because they are all God. But the manifestations talk to each other, glorify each other, which makes it logically impossible to conclude that the Father IS the Son unless you think God is nuts and talks to Himself.

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

I don't care if the Spice Girls changed it so that they could make some cool lyrics from it. The fact is that the change in words does not change the fact that the authority (name) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same authority (name) of Jesus. Nothing is lost in the change despite any underhanded intention of the revisers.

 

[Politician Spock]

My point; how can obviously smart, involved, intelligent people put forth a perfectly sound, reasoned and logical arguements about this stuff all the while knowing that their central premise, the foundation on which all they say is built, is patently unprovable?

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

 

[larry_boy_44]

are you not reading what I am saying?

YES!!! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY WORD THAT YOU ARE POSTING!What I'm not doing is accepting the illogical conclusions that you are making. Are you even understanding that your conclusions are not logical?

The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

They are not 100% seperate, because they are all God. But the manifestations talk to each other, glorify each other, which makes it logically impossible to conclude that the Father IS the Son unless you think God is nuts and talks to Himself.

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

I don't care if the Spice Girls changed it so that they could make some cool lyrics from it. The fact is that the change in words does not change the fact that the authority (name) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same authority (name) of Jesus. Nothing is lost in the change despite any underhanded intention of the revisers.

don't you get what I'm saying?When you speak of the Trinity, you are not talking of the same God that I am, or the same Jesus who walked the earth...

the "False Christs" thing in the Bible? A LARGE part of that prophecy was the trintiy, Spock... the Trinity is a false Christ and a false god...

it is polythiesm and the ancient babylonian/assyrian gods infiltrating the church. It is baal disguising himself as the one true God and convincing the church to bow down at his feet...

and that is the scariest part... Those gods (well, that god, really) that the Jews always ran into in the OT, neoplatonian thought can be traced back to the myths and gods of the culture that that god belonged to... the trinity is nothing but the same demon that kept convincing the Jews to worship him...

 

[Franknbeans]

Ok, I see you guys aren't going to stop so could someone synopsize what the disagreement is over so I don't have to read 6 pages?

Religion

 

[Politician Spock]

are you not reading what I am saying?

YES!!! EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY WORD THAT YOU ARE POSTING!What I'm not doing is accepting the illogical conclusions that you are making. Are you even understanding that your conclusions are not logical?

The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

They are not 100% seperate, because they are all God. But the manifestations talk to each other, glorify each other, which makes it logically impossible to conclude that the Father IS the Son unless you think God is nuts and talks to Himself.

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

I don't care if the Spice Girls changed it so that they could make some cool lyrics from it. The fact is that the change in words does not change the fact that the authority (name) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same authority (name) of Jesus. Nothing is lost in the change despite any underhanded intention of the revisers.

don't you get what I'm saying?

Don't you get that what you are saying is based on illogical conclusions?

When you speak of the Trinity, you are not talking of the same God that I am, or the same Jesus who walked the earth...

the "False Christs" thing in the Bible? A LARGE part of that prophecy was the trintiy, Spock... the Trinity is a false Christ and a false god...

it is polythiesm and the ancient babylonian/assyrian gods infiltrating the church. It is baal disguising himself as the one true God and convincing the church to bow down at his feet...

and that is the scariest part... Those gods (well, that god, really) that the Jews always ran into in the OT, neoplatonian thought can be traced back to the myths and gods of the culture that that god belonged to... the trinity is nothing but the same demon that kept convincing the Jews to worship him...

Claiming it's "polythiesm" is based on your illogical conclusions. If anyone believes the Trinity is three Gods, then they are wrong, just flat out wrong. But you are using illogical conclusions to claim that anyone that believes in the Trinity believes in three Gods. You are wrong, just flat out wrong. While there may have been people in history in the Catholic church who did believe in three Gods, ask any practicing Catholic today if they believe in three Gods and they will say "No." But along will come Larry claiming "Yes you do... YES YOU DO!...... YES!!!!.... YOU!!!!..... DO!!!!!!!"

 

[Seehawk]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

They are not 100% seperate, because they are all God. But the manifestations talk to each other, glorify each other, which makes it logically impossible to conclude that the Father IS the Son unless you think God is nuts and talks to Himself.

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

I don't care if the Spice Girls changed it so that they could make some cool lyrics from it. The fact is that the change in words does not change the fact that the authority (name) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same authority (name) of Jesus. Nothing is lost in the change despite any underhanded intention of the revisers.

don't you get what I'm saying?

Don't you get that what you are saying is based on illogical conclusions?

When you speak of the Trinity, you are not talking of the same God that I am, or the same Jesus who walked the earth...

the "False Christs" thing in the Bible? A LARGE part of that prophecy was the trintiy, Spock... the Trinity is a false Christ and a false god...

it is polythiesm and the ancient babylonian/assyrian gods infiltrating the church. It is baal disguising himself as the one true God and convincing the church to bow down at his feet...

and that is the scariest part... Those gods (well, that god, really) that the Jews always ran into in the OT, neoplatonian thought can be traced back to the myths and gods of the culture that that god belonged to... the trinity is nothing but the same demon that kept convincing the Jews to worship him...

Claiming it's "polythiesm" is based on your illogical conclusions. If anyone believes the Trinity is three Gods, then they are wrong, just flat out wrong. But you are using illogical conclusions to claim that anyone that believes in the Trinity believes in three Gods. You are wrong, just flat out wrong. While there may have been people in history in the Catholic church who did believe in three Gods, ask any practicing Catholic today if they believe in three Gods and they will say "No." But along will come Larry claiming "Yes you do... YES YOU DO!...... YES!!!!.... YOU!!!!..... DO!!!!!!!"

Spock, the fact that modern trinitarians think of it differently than the original trinitarians doesn't change the fact that when it was started, WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE TRINITY (1700 years ago), it was polythiestic and they were saying that the three parts were completely different, they were adopting pagan gods and just attributing those pagan gods to Christian names, too...and that is why it is wrong... just because it isn't heresy now like it was then doesn't mean that the whole foundation of the trinity is heresy and pagan gods...

EVERYTHING that is believed that is based off the trinity is based upon a lie and a false Christ...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

but is that because your church didn't preach it or because God didn't require it??I think a big thing we are mixing up here is God's requirements and what our personal churches' preach... What God requires is plainly stated in the Bible, but our churches are not garunteed to be preaching that...

Just because your local church doesn't preach baptism is required doesn't mean it isn't, you really need to seek God and read His word... because in His word it is commanded of us and it is said to be for the remission of sin... without baptism, you are still under the penalty of your sin...

Larry, with all due respect, you are adding to the plan of salvation. I am not arguing against baptism - as i said i think it is important to follow the commands of God - do you not see that we are arguing apples and oranges here? Simple question, larry. How is a person saved? If you state baptism is a part of it I would love to see how you came to that conclusion other than through the traditions of your denomination. The thief on the cross is a pognant example of a person being saved without baptism. Baptism is a ritual larry, not a salvation requirement. Now if you presented the argument that if you do no get baptized then you are not following a command so people may question whether or not you are a Christian, then I could see your argument. But to state that baptism is a requirement of salvation is a stretch.

Out of curiosity why just this command? You were also commanded to give away your worldy positions, pick up your cross and follow Jesus. If I don't give away my possessions am I still saved?

 

[Mr. Chumley]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

No. Larry is saying that his way is the only way. Spock is saying there is no way for Larry to know that.End of story.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

I agree with Spock.

 

[Politician Spock]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Uh fellows. Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something.

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question. I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation. You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone.

Ironic isn't it.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

but is that because your church didn't preach it or because God didn't require it??I think a big thing we are mixing up here is God's requirements and what our personal churches' preach... What God requires is plainly stated in the Bible, but our churches are not garunteed to be preaching that...

Just because your local church doesn't preach baptism is required doesn't mean it isn't, you really need to seek God and read His word... because in His word it is commanded of us and it is said to be for the remission of sin... without baptism, you are still under the penalty of your sin...

Larry, with all due respect, you are adding to the plan of salvation. I am not arguing against baptism - as i said i think it is important to follow the commands of God - do you not see that we are arguing apples and oranges here? Simple question, larry. How is a person saved? If you state baptism is a part of it I would love to see how you came to that conclusion other than through the traditions of your denomination. The thief on the cross is a pognant example of a person being saved without baptism. Baptism is a ritual larry, not a salvation requirement. Now if you presented the argument that if you do no get baptized then you are not following a command so people may question whether or not you are a Christian, then I could see your argument. But to state that baptism is a requirement of salvation is a stretch.

Out of curiosity why just this command? You were also commanded to give away your worldy positions, pick up your cross and follow Jesus. If I don't give away my possessions am I still saved?

The thief on the Cross happened before Jesus died, for one... for two, the Spirit had not come yet... For three, Jesus hadn't rose yet... The Thief was a totally different situation and has nothing to do with the New Testament Plan of Salvation...I get what I believe to be the plan of salvation from a few different places.

One, Acts 2. When the people ask the apostles what they should do because they think that they are being told the truth, they are told to repent & be baptized in Jesus name for the remission of thier sins. After that they will be filled with the Holy Ghost... Baptism is commanded to people who ask how to be saved, PLUS is stated to be for the remission of sins...

When the Eunech is talking with Phillip (I think its Phillip), he gets baptized...

When Paul is in jail and saves the jailer's family, they are all baptized...

Acts 10... Why would the Jewish Christians deny baptism to the Gentiles if it didn't matter?

Acts 19... Why would Paul baptize these men in Jesus' name after asking them if they'd recieved the Spirit? Obviously there is some sort of correlation there as Paul says nothing about baptism, then suddenly, baptized them... PLUS they already believed, and yet did not have the Spirit.

Why, if baptism is not necessary, is it always commanded & done at salvation in the Bible? There is no place in the Bible AFTER JESUS' DEATH that someone is saved without baptism being involved...

So, where did you, WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR TEACHING AND TRADITIONS, see that baptism is not needed in the plan of salvation? Remember to quote your verses in context as Paul would not tell people who were already baptized that they need to be re-baptized...

Also, explain why infant baptism was started if baptism isn't needed (read: It was started because people worried about the soul's of thier children, so they had them baptized)...

also explain why very few church's don't have new converts be baptized...

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

 

[Politician Spock]

Larry, the idea that Jesus IS the Father Is the Holy Spirit is not taken out of the Bible either. One could claim that the whole reason the Pentacostals adopt it is because the denomination started apopting 20th century philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

No Larry, there is one God, existing in three manifestations. We've agreed on this before, and now you are back tracking on that agreement.

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

If the Father IS the Son, then there are other passages in the Bible that are a lie. One God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible.

Spock, I agree with you, one God existing in three manifestations does not conflict with passages in the Bible...BUT when you say that the Father is not the Son you are taking those things past being simply manifestations into seperate entities... If the Father is not the Son, there are multiple gods... they cannot be 100% seperate and there still be one God...

They are not 100% seperate, because they are all God. But the manifestations talk to each other, glorify each other, which makes it logically impossible to conclude that the Father IS the Son unless you think God is nuts and talks to Himself.

The problem is that the trinity (AT LEAST when it started) was not monothiestic and it did completely seperate the Father and the Son into seperate entities, thus three gods... Matthew 28:19 was changed in order to comply with the new baptismal formula they were using because only baptizing in Jesus' name, in thier mind, excluded 2/3 of God...

I don't care if the Spice Girls changed it so that they could make some cool lyrics from it. The fact is that the change in words does not change the fact that the authority (name) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same authority (name) of Jesus. Nothing is lost in the change despite any underhanded intention of the revisers.

don't you get what I'm saying?

Don't you get that what you are saying is based on illogical conclusions?

When you speak of the Trinity, you are not talking of the same God that I am, or the same Jesus who walked the earth...

the "False Christs" thing in the Bible? A LARGE part of that prophecy was the trintiy, Spock... the Trinity is a false Christ and a false god...

it is polythiesm and the ancient babylonian/assyrian gods infiltrating the church. It is baal disguising himself as the one true God and convincing the church to bow down at his feet...

and that is the scariest part... Those gods (well, that god, really) that the Jews always ran into in the OT, neoplatonian thought can be traced back to the myths and gods of the culture that that god belonged to... the trinity is nothing but the same demon that kept convincing the Jews to worship him...

Claiming it's "polythiesm" is based on your illogical conclusions. If anyone believes the Trinity is three Gods, then they are wrong, just flat out wrong. But you are using illogical conclusions to claim that anyone that believes in the Trinity believes in three Gods. You are wrong, just flat out wrong. While there may have been people in history in the Catholic church who did believe in three Gods, ask any practicing Catholic today if they believe in three Gods and they will say "No." But along will come Larry claiming "Yes you do... YES YOU DO!...... YES!!!!.... YOU!!!!..... DO!!!!!!!"

Spock, the fact that modern trinitarians think of it differently than the original trinitarians doesn't change the fact that when it was started, WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE TRINITY (1700 years ago), it was polythiestic and they were saying that the three parts were completely different, they were adopting pagan gods and just attributing those pagan gods to Christian names, too...and that is why it is wrong... just because it isn't heresy now like it was then doesn't mean that the whole foundation of the trinity is heresy and pagan gods...

EVERYTHING that is believed that is based off the trinity is based upon a lie and a false Christ...

If what people today believe the Trinity to be is different than what people 1700 years ago believed, then you are claiming people are not saved based on nothing more than semantics. We're people 1700 years ago saved? Probably not if they believed in three Gods. I've yet to meet one Catholic who believes in three Gods, but according to you they are not saved. Saying they are not saved because the words "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" were uttered during their baptism instead of the words "in the Name of Jesus" is apparently based in your mind as those people 1700 years ago having made claim to a phrase of words. That's ridiculous. If a person believes in one God in three manifestations, there is nothing wrong with "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" as it's completely consistent with one God in three manifestations, all with the same authority (name).

 

[larry_boy_44]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

 

[Politician Spock]

Uh fellows. Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something.

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question. I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation. You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone.

Ironic isn't it.

I've responded to Seahawk three times already.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

I know when I was baptized Catholic it was in the name of Jesus, Thor and Carrot Top.

 

[Politician Spock]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

but is that because your church didn't preach it or because God didn't require it??I think a big thing we are mixing up here is God's requirements and what our personal churches' preach... What God requires is plainly stated in the Bible, but our churches are not garunteed to be preaching that...

Just because your local church doesn't preach baptism is required doesn't mean it isn't, you really need to seek God and read His word... because in His word it is commanded of us and it is said to be for the remission of sin... without baptism, you are still under the penalty of your sin...

Larry, with all due respect, you are adding to the plan of salvation. I am not arguing against baptism - as i said i think it is important to follow the commands of God - do you not see that we are arguing apples and oranges here? Simple question, larry. How is a person saved? If you state baptism is a part of it I would love to see how you came to that conclusion other than through the traditions of your denomination. The thief on the cross is a pognant example of a person being saved without baptism. Baptism is a ritual larry, not a salvation requirement. Now if you presented the argument that if you do no get baptized then you are not following a command so people may question whether or not you are a Christian, then I could see your argument. But to state that baptism is a requirement of salvation is a stretch.

Out of curiosity why just this command? You were also commanded to give away your worldy positions, pick up your cross and follow Jesus. If I don't give away my possessions am I still saved?

The thief on the Cross happened before Jesus died, for one... for two, the Spirit had not come yet... For three, Jesus hadn't rose yet... The Thief was a totally different situation and has nothing to do with the New Testament Plan of Salvation...I get what I believe to be the plan of salvation from a few different places.

One, Acts 2. When the people ask the apostles what they should do because they think that they are being told the truth, they are told to repent & be baptized in Jesus name for the remission of thier sins. After that they will be filled with the Holy Ghost... Baptism is commanded to people who ask how to be saved, PLUS is stated to be for the remission of sins...

When the Eunech is talking with Phillip (I think its Phillip), he gets baptized...

When Paul is in jail and saves the jailer's family, they are all baptized...

Acts 10... Why would the Jewish Christians deny baptism to the Gentiles if it didn't matter?

Acts 19... Why would Paul baptize these men in Jesus' name after asking them if they'd recieved the Spirit? Obviously there is some sort of correlation there as Paul says nothing about baptism, then suddenly, baptized them... PLUS they already believed, and yet did not have the Spirit.

Why, if baptism is not necessary, is it always commanded & done at salvation in the Bible? There is no place in the Bible AFTER JESUS' DEATH that someone is saved without baptism being involved...

So, where did you, WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR TEACHING AND TRADITIONS, see that baptism is not needed in the plan of salvation? Remember to quote your verses in context as Paul would not tell people who were already baptized that they need to be re-baptized...

Also, explain why infant baptism was started if baptism isn't needed (read: It was started because people worried about the soul's of thier children, so they had them baptized)...

also explain why very few church's don't have new converts be baptized...

So you are saying that Christ death on the cross is not sufficient? Good to know. What other actions on my part do I need to accomplish to attain salvation?Romans 10

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

You bring up all of these examples of baptism, but I ask you quite simply - did the act of water baptism save these people or did the death and resurrection of Christ save them? Surely baptism is a good thing and we ARE commanded to be baptized - however, you have yet to convince me that the act of baptism is tied to salvation. To me it is a logical extension of having been saved.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

Trinitarian Oneness

The majority of Christians around the world hold the Trinitarian view of God's oneness. In the Western world, most of these Christians follow the form of Trinitarianism that is based on the Athanasian Creed. To these Christians, the term "oneness" means that three distinct deities coexist in a single divine Nature or Substance. These three distinctions are called "Persons," but are not actually persons in the true sense of the word. Here is a statement of the Trinitarian belief:

"There are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance....As a 'person' in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and function, each divine Person, while less than a separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic property" (W. Fulton, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, "Trinity," pp. 459-460).

The doctrine of Trinitarianism states that there are three distinctions, called "Persons" or "Hypostases," in one divine Substance, but only one distinction or "Person" can be manifested at any given time. This definition of God contradicts that of the Modalist, who claims that the single divine Substance can manifest itself in all three modes (or "Persons") at the same time.

Trinitarianism views God as a sort of hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo God who has neither body nor personality, but who can manifest Himself as Father or Son or Holy Spirit--only one at a time. Unlike the Trinitarian belief, the God of Modalism can manifest Himself as Father, Son or Holy Spirit all at the same time.

According to the Trinitarian statement of belief, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine "Persons," but each is "less than a separate individuality." In other words, these "Persons" are not actually individuals. This statement is confusing and contradictory because it is expressing philosophical concepts that were deliberately intended to be interpreted in different ways. These philosophic constructs have always been ambiguous statements of belief. A word or phrase used in these statements may be given a variety of philosophic definitions. The result is that more than one meaning can be drawn from the same statement.

When we read such statements, we should be aware that the problem in understanding them is not due to our own lack of intellect but to the ambiguous construction of the statements themselves. This type of grammatical structure is known as "amphiboly." Statements which are worded in an amphibolous manner allow room for a variety of interpretations. Amphiboly has long been a favorite tool of philosophers and politicians. "Amphibolously worded predictions [and philosophic constructs] have long been exploited by astrologers [ancient Magi/Chaldean philosophers], tea-leaf readers, political columnists, and even ancient oracles [demonically inspired mediums]" (Rescher, Introduction to Logic, p. 75).

To add to the confusion, the names used in philosophical statements are often vacuous; i.e., the names as they are used actually designate nothing! Names are properly used to designate a thing or entity or to describe an aspect of a thing or entity--a quality that the entity has or a relationship it bears to something else. Names that do not represent such actual things or entities are vacuous--empty and meaningless. Here is a warning against being misled by such names: "A name that literally designates nothing [the "One" or the "Hypostases" of philosophy] is called a vacuous name. Because of vacuous names, care must be taken when some name is presented to avoid the conclusion that there necessarily exists a thing which answers to this name. A subtle but important line of separation must be drawn between names with fictitious or imaginary designations [such as characters in plays, novels or movies] and vacuous names. This distinction is sometimes obscured by the fact that one and the same name may fall into either category, depending upon how it is understood" (Ibid., p. 23).

The names "One," Hypostases, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, God, Person and Being can be categorized either as authentic names or as vacuous names, depending on how they are used. These terms are vacuous as used in philosophic statements about the Trinity. These names are not vacuous when we understand them in the light of God's Word. To define these terms solely in the artificial framework of philosophic constructs and then attempt to superimpose this philosophy upon Scripture makes these names vacuous and meaningless.

Those who profess allegiance to the God of the Bible and then proceed to distort God's Word, elevating the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle above His Word, are not Christian but pagan. The paganism of ancient and modern philosophers is not compatible with the Holy Scriptures. As the pagan philosopher Mortimer J. Adler so forcefully and honestly wrote in How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan: "The God that is the object of pagan philosophical thought is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of Moses, [or] Jesus ..." (p. 28).

 

[Politician Spock]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

but is that because your church didn't preach it or because God didn't require it??I think a big thing we are mixing up here is God's requirements and what our personal churches' preach... What God requires is plainly stated in the Bible, but our churches are not garunteed to be preaching that...

Just because your local church doesn't preach baptism is required doesn't mean it isn't, you really need to seek God and read His word... because in His word it is commanded of us and it is said to be for the remission of sin... without baptism, you are still under the penalty of your sin...

Larry, with all due respect, you are adding to the plan of salvation. I am not arguing against baptism - as i said i think it is important to follow the commands of God - do you not see that we are arguing apples and oranges here? Simple question, larry. How is a person saved? If you state baptism is a part of it I would love to see how you came to that conclusion other than through the traditions of your denomination. The thief on the cross is a pognant example of a person being saved without baptism. Baptism is a ritual larry, not a salvation requirement. Now if you presented the argument that if you do no get baptized then you are not following a command so people may question whether or not you are a Christian, then I could see your argument. But to state that baptism is a requirement of salvation is a stretch.

Out of curiosity why just this command? You were also commanded to give away your worldy positions, pick up your cross and follow Jesus. If I don't give away my possessions am I still saved?

The thief on the Cross happened before Jesus died, for one... for two, the Spirit had not come yet... For three, Jesus hadn't rose yet... The Thief was a totally different situation and has nothing to do with the New Testament Plan of Salvation...I get what I believe to be the plan of salvation from a few different places.

One, Acts 2. When the people ask the apostles what they should do because they think that they are being told the truth, they are told to repent & be baptized in Jesus name for the remission of thier sins. After that they will be filled with the Holy Ghost... Baptism is commanded to people who ask how to be saved, PLUS is stated to be for the remission of sins...

When the Eunech is talking with Phillip (I think its Phillip), he gets baptized...

When Paul is in jail and saves the jailer's family, they are all baptized...

Acts 10... Why would the Jewish Christians deny baptism to the Gentiles if it didn't matter?

Acts 19... Why would Paul baptize these men in Jesus' name after asking them if they'd recieved the Spirit? Obviously there is some sort of correlation there as Paul says nothing about baptism, then suddenly, baptized them... PLUS they already believed, and yet did not have the Spirit.

Why, if baptism is not necessary, is it always commanded & done at salvation in the Bible? There is no place in the Bible AFTER JESUS' DEATH that someone is saved without baptism being involved...

So, where did you, WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR TEACHING AND TRADITIONS, see that baptism is not needed in the plan of salvation? Remember to quote your verses in context as Paul would not tell people who were already baptized that they need to be re-baptized...

Also, explain why infant baptism was started if baptism isn't needed (read: It was started because people worried about the soul's of thier children, so they had them baptized)...

also explain why very few church's don't have new converts be baptized...

So you are saying that Christ death on the cross is not sufficient? Good to know. What other actions on my part do I need to accomplish to attain salvation?Romans 10

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

You bring up all of these examples of baptism, but I ask you quite simply - did the act of water baptism save these people or did the death and resurrection of Christ save them? Surely baptism is a good thing and we ARE commanded to be baptized - however, you have yet to convince me that the act of baptism is tied to salvation. To me it is a logical extension of having been saved.

answer this question:was it the death and burning of the animal that pushed the sins of the Jews back a year, or did it happen when the blood was applied to the mercy seat???

simple repentance and belief skips the other steps of the tabernacle and the fullness of salvation...

It isn't that Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to save us, it is that Christ's sacrifice needs to be applied to us in the proper way, the blood needs to be dripped on the Mercy Seat after we wash at the basin...

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...

 

[Politician Spock]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

It’s about a personal relationship with Christ. We take things that people say to us on faith all the time. Those people are fallible and sometimes wrong. But Jesus isn't. No one will ever convince you of the existence of God. They can show you evidence but the decision to believe is yours. Kind of like the air we don't feel it or see it but it effects us. As a new Christian you are immature in your faith. As you grow as a Christian your faith gets stronger and that happens by spending time in prayer and reading God's word. Obviously Christians aren't on the same page about a lot of things but the basics are usually the same. Believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. Accept him as your savior and receive his gift of salvation. I’ll leave the argument over Baptism and the Trinity to Spock and Larry Boy, It seems like they just about have an agreement hammered out.

 

[Politician Spock]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...

The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Uh fellows. Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something.

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question. I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation. You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone.

Ironic isn't it.

I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.

so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then...

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...

The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.

no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Come to think of it, Carrot Top looks nothing like the Holy Ghost.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.

I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.

Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...

 

[Politician Spock]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.

so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???

If no one I know believe in baal, then no. Why should it?

Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then...

No one I know is worshipping demons and pagan gods Larry. It's really a reach to say a person baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" worships demons and pagan gods when they profess belief in Christ, serve Christ, and produce good fruit. You are basing your entire opinion of that person on the words that were uttered during their baptism and completely ignoring what that person professes to believes, how they live their life, and the fruit their life produces. THAT is not Biblical.

 

[Politician Spock]

you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...

The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.

no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...

So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Its about Market Share, Spock. They have to believe the Catholics are doing it wrong, otherwise, there would be far fewer potential "born agains"

 

[The Football Freak]

Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.

I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.

With the denominations came the legalism as that is how they distinguish themselves from the group they splintered off from. Larry's group must be a splinter of a splinter of a splinter with how he is parcing and tap dancing here. I find it interesting that he thinks the "father son and holy spirit" catechism (correct word?) is actually a demon by the name of Baal.

 

[The Football Freak]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.

so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then...

Larry, other than your pastor and some religious editorial arguments you have read, where does this notion of what the holy trinity represents come from? Any scholarly works or actual texts backing up research into this topic?If you have already posted this earlier in the thread could you point it out?

And I am talking about scholarly works (religious scholarly works is fine if it is footnoted), not articles or a pastor.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Just a few more and you guys can hit 7 pages.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.

I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?

Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.

I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...

Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...

I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.

so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???

If no one I know believe in baal, then no. Why should it?

Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then...

No one I know is worshipping demons and pagan gods Larry. It's really a reach to say a person baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" worships demons and pagan gods when they profess belief in Christ, serve Christ, and produce good fruit. You are basing your entire opinion of that person on the words that were uttered during their baptism and completely ignoring what that person professes to believes, how they live their life, and the fruit their life produces. THAT is not Biblical.

Matthew 24:24 - For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.Mark 13:22 - for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

II Corinthians 11:14-15 - No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Romans 16:17-19 -Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

(note: Thus, those who taught differently from the apostles (those who brought the Trinity in and those hwo changed baptism) were not following God, they were following thier own flesh and we should turn away from EVERYTHING they said)

I Timothy 4:1-3 - But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

II Timothy 3:13 -But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

so, there will be decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines... I'm the one that left the false doctrines, you are saying that its ok to stay in them because you don't believe some of the falsehoods...

now, tradition and the question, what was the sin of the pharisees??? Simply put, they neglected the command of God for thier traditions (as the modern church is doing with its baptism):

Mark 7:1-10 - The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,

and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

And when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,

BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,

TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men."

He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

the trinity was adopted through being decieved by the tradition of men and thier philosophy and is now being kept by a church that is neglecting the commands of God in order to honor its philosophy... both of those are things that we are explicitly taught NOT to do...

 

[Politician Spock]

Just a few more and you guys can hit 7 pages.

That's actually quite low for your average Larry_boy train wreck.

 

[larry_boy_44]

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?

basically, yeah...

So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.

when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...

If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.

the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...

The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.

no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...

So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?

yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.

I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.

With the denominations came the legalism as that is how they distinguish themselves from the group they splintered off from. Larry's group must be a splinter of a splinter of a splinter with how he is parcing and tap dancing here. I find it interesting that he thinks the "father son and holy spirit" catechism (correct word?) is actually a demon by the name of Baal.

Baal is the god that the Jews kept falling to worshipping in the Old Testament... beliefs affiliated with him were adopted by Babylon and Syria, and then Platonian philosophy...through neoplatonian philosophy we got the Trinity...