| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,109 Views) | |
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 10:59 AM Post #576 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I had to google that: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/House_Elf |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 25 2011, 11:02 AM Post #577 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If you look around at everyone and there is no house elf, guess that makes you it! |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 11:05 AM Post #578 |
|
MAMIL
|
Better a House Elf than the girl who lives in the U-bend! |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 25 2011, 11:06 AM Post #579 |
|
Thanks, just curious. And yes it was done in the Trinitarian form...verbally as well as physically (dunked 3 times). |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 11:06 AM Post #580 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That, living in the U bend, would be purgatory. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | May 25 2011, 11:10 AM Post #581 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Unreal, isn't it? |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 11:11 AM Post #582 |
|
MAMIL
|
We should re-make the Harry Potter movies, but using TNCR personas in place of the regular characters. I could quite fancy myself as that sophisticated bloke with the long silver hair and the posh English accent. Then again, I'd quite fancy myself if I was bloody Hagrid. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 25 2011, 11:12 AM Post #583 |
|
Regarding the winner of this debate, I must say it was pretty clear. However, I'd rather not be so rude as to come out and say it, but it reminds me of this poem: I don't care when you fight Violet, blue, black, or white Only thing that matters is when Rare are words when there's a pen You, still, are my friend. When you see the true meaning Of this rhyme, complete scheming Now, we come, to the end. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 11:12 AM Post #584 |
|
MAMIL
|
It was me, wasn't it. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 11:14 AM Post #585 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Why don't you start a thread on that topic just to see what sort of rapturous tidings of comfort and joy will |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 25 2011, 11:18 AM Post #586 |
|
You came in 3rd.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 11:21 AM Post #587 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I suppose you are of the opinion then that infants are capable of telling their parents whether or not they are willing to be baptized? You see, you have constructed such a maze of rules and regulations that you trip over your own feet.
Again, you trip over your own feet.
Yet then your religion turns around and tries to tell me that it alone is the "one true religion".
Typical of Catholicism, this takes scripture out of context. All scripture must be interpreted in light of all other scripture - and scripture makes it clear that first you must repent, and accept Jesus Christ. THEN baptism. As we see from the quotes above, those two steps are missing.
There's that word "repent" your church says isn't necessary when they say "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude". Seems you just proved my point.
As I have just shown, you are incorrect.
No, sorry, but you are incorrect. My "theology" follows scripture, not some church interpretation of scripture. It is YOUR theology that is incomplete, which is why you feel such a need to rush out and baptize infants in order to save their souls when scripture makes it clear this is not how it works. An infant cannot "unbelieve". You just can't get that idea, because it goes completely against everything the Church has taught you.
Your inability to understand Matthew 19:14 is not my problem. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 25 2011, 11:30 AM Post #588 |
|
Cheers
|
|
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 11:30 AM Post #589 |
|
MAMIL
|
You'd make a pretty convincing Mad Eye Moody. OK, who wants to be Dolores Umbridge? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 11:45 AM Post #590 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'll have to take your Word for it, John. I hope you have some good theology to support the casting. |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 25 2011, 11:47 AM Post #591 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I was a Roman Catholic until I was 18 years old. ITs elaborations about the importance of all these acts which I consider to have purely symbolic (if any) value remind me why I left(*). (*) OK, then there's also the church tax issue, but that's a different story
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 25 2011, 11:48 AM Post #592 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Moonbat winz again. Edit: Wait I wasn't in this one. Damn. Edited by Moonbat, May 25 2011, 11:49 AM.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 25 2011, 11:52 AM Post #593 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But you were here in spirit. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 25 2011, 11:54 AM Post #594 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
My comments to you have nothing to do with getting even, and everything to do with pointing out that you're doing a really poor job of making a case for your position. I understand your position, Larry. I shared that position for a long time. In fact, I could do a far better job than you've done in this thread to make a scriptural case in favor of your position - and I don't even agree with it. IT is making his points in a far better way than you have - and there are parts of his arguments that I don't agree with either - but at least he knows how to make a cogent scriptural argument to support his position. Regardless of any potential merits of your position, if this thread is any judge, you don't.
On the contrary, I believe, as I said earlier:
And I can believe that specifically because I *do not* believe that salvation can only come after repentance for one's sins. That is exactly why I asked if *you* really believed that a person must repent of their sin before salvation is possible, as you had written. Thank you for now admitting that a person may attain salvation without having repented of his/her sin. It's good to know that we agree on this. You are gradually letting your theology of baptism eek out. On the other hand, in your quote above, you're confusing the concepts of infant baptism with "children must be baptized in order to enter heaven if they die." I believe in infant baptism, and I do not believe it is merely a symbolic "christening" or similar thing. And yet I do not believe, as you seem to think I must believe since I believe in infant baptism, that an infant who dies needed to be baptized in order to get to heaven. I do not. And I believe this whether you're talking about a newborn infant, a toddler, someone who has never even heard the name of Jesus, someone who is mentally disabled, etc. - as well as a person who has professed faith in Christ, but who dies before having been baptized. You're missing that key point when you want to argue against infant baptism. But let's continue...
Of course, there are thousands of theologians who are vastly more knowledgeable than I am who agree with you Larry. Of course, there are thousands of others who agree with me, and who have been doing so for longer than your viewpoints came about in the church, and yet thousands more who agree with IT's position, and for even longer than either your or my positions were a part of the church. And all of them, regardless of which position they hold, are vastly more knowledgeable than you, or me, or IT. But that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. IT made what should have been a relatively simple request of you - to show, using scripture, why the Roman Catholic position of infant baptism wasn't scriptural; and conversely, to show, using scripture, why your own view and no one else's, is the one correct way to see things. No need to get into how many theologians agree with whomever. No need to dive into side arguments. No need to get involved in personal slurs. Simply make the scriptural case for your arguments. Obviously, IT wouldn't agree with your conclusion, but that isn't even really the point. You needed to demonstrate that you a.)understood the actual Roman Catholic position that you were criticizing; and b.) that you could make a good scriptural argument for your own beliefs. You did neither. In fact, you've shown that you don't properly understand Roman Catholic doctrines relating to baptism, (same for Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine, but that's a side issue), and you've made only the weakest of argument for your own beliefs. As I said, I could have made a stronger scriptural case for your beliefs, and I don't even believe them. But let's continue.
I just wanted to quote that, in case that post of yours ever mysteriously "raptured" out of the thread. Okay. NOW, let's continue.
Do you really believe that's Roman Catholic doctrine? I can assure you that it is not. As to the rest of that particular post, again, you're starting to tease out what you believe baptism is. You still aren't really offering scriptural witness to support your beliefs, but at least you're starting to share your theology of baptism. So if I may be so bold as to recap what you appear to believe about it - and correct me if I'm mistaken: 1. Baptism is a sign that a person has repented of his/her sins, and is professing faith in Jesus Christ. 2. Because of that, baptism is only appropriate for a person who is above the age of reason, and who is able to consciously make a decision to profess faith in Jesus Christ. A child of any age who is below the age of reason should not be baptized. If a parent wants to recognize the birth of their child, they may have a "christening" or similar service. 3. Children who are below the age of reason are under the protection of God's grace, and if they die, they will enter into God's kingdom, without having been baptized, since baptism is something only appropriate to people over the age of reason. Are those three points correct? Would you change those statements? Would you add to them? |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 11:55 AM Post #595 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
A new religion, that'll bring you to your knees... Black Velvet, if you please....." |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 11:56 AM Post #596 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I'm sure you could, Dewey. And in another year, the halo will be visible. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 25 2011, 11:58 AM Post #597 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Well, this hasn't been about what you believe, now has it? Its been about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. So pardon me, but if you want to jump my ass about being wrong, stick with the program. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 11:59 AM Post #598 |
|
MAMIL
|
Not only did you win, you've also been picked to play Hermione Granger. Congratulations! |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 25 2011, 12:00 PM Post #599 |
|
MAMIL
|
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | May 25 2011, 12:00 PM Post #600 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No it hasn't, and yet you've made several comments assuming what I believe about it, so my beliefs seem to keep getting dragged in here by you, and so I have to occasionally make a comment about it. For the most part though, I've been pretty careful to not get into a statement of what I believe about baptism, specifically so you and IT would be free to discuss strictly your beliefs and that of the RCC. So - Have I stated your theology of baptism correctly? Would you modify or add to it? Edited by Dewey, May 25 2011, 12:04 PM.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







) I were to join a Catholic church?





11:27 AM Jul 11