New_Wineskin

Why? If I could renounce it or somehow be un-water-baptized , I would be completely rid of the thing and disassociate myself from those that won't agree on this work of the flesh in the first place . Since when does the Word of God declare the believer's baptism as a work of the flesh? Those who would choose to believe that need correction badly. Why can't people read he whole thing before posting a reply . These types of posts makes me think that a lot of christians worship water - anything remotely stated against the attitude towards this Jewish ritual is considered a heresy . I can imagine what Paul went through by taking on circumcism which was far more insisted upon by the Lord than water baptism in the Law . But , Catholics made it a huge tradition and that tradition is hard to discuss except to praise it .

edited - person had no intention of discussing the topic .

edited post - the person was had no intention of reading post

Why? Because of all of the to-do regarding it . First , people argue over whether it is necessary for salvation . Then , those that agree on that argue over what type of water is used . If they agree on that , they argue over whether one is emersed or spritzed or something inbetween . If they agree on emersed , they will argue over how many dunkings are involved . Then , there are the arguments over whether they need another to preside over the thing ; over whether a religious leader is needed ; what is the proper incantation or the whole thing doesn't take ; and , I wouldn't doubt that there would be an argument over the minimum number of witnesses needed for it to be an official public showing . So , I am sure that how I was water baptized will not be acceptable to a number of people - no matter how it was done . If I could renounce it or somehow be un-water-baptized , I would be completely rid of the thing and disassociate myself from those that won't agree on this work of the flesh in the first place .

The "absurd" remark is a response to the question of "absurd" in the OP . Did you see the quote of the OP in my post ?

Personally , I consider the whole topic of water baptism today as being absurd . If there was a way to *undo* water baptism , I would do so . However , to remain on topic , there are two ways to be water baptized by yourself . One is while taking a shower . Another is more like the Lord water baptizing you by going out while it is raining .

Humbleness would allow the search instead of showing the world how arrogant "pastors" can be .

I would not want any doctor telling my children about their god . They have a job to do - they should concentrate on that - not evangelizing . This can be life or death . For myself , we all know those "denominational issues" . They are very annoying and they will creep up eventually . That is , if they are not a Muslim or other . If christian doctors are allowed , so can they . Again , I would want them to do the best job they could for which I am paying . Anything besides that may be brought up later .

If it were not possible , I couldn't - wouldn't - be a Christain . How would one know Him without it ? "Churches" are not enough - they all teach what they want to promote themselves . Leaders are not enough - how did *they* know ? By another ? The Scriptures are not enough - they were written to others . I want to hear Him as the writers were able . I want a personal relationship with the Lord . He declares Himself to be the God of Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob - a personal God . That is want I want . The Scriptures state , "Today , if you hear His voice , do not harden your hearts ... " You can hear His voice . If He speaks Today , don't harden your hearts by thinking that He cannot speak .

"Reliable" to what extent ? How can you know that they are reliable ( depending on what extent ) without the originals ?

if that is the case none of our ancient literature is of any value because we don't have the originals. Going from necessity to value ? There are many things that are not necessary but still hold value . There is a tradition that many christians accept that says that the passage stating that the Lord would preserve His word is discussing the Scriptures . Yet , no originals exist - nothing to compare what we have to what was originally written . No preserving of any of the Scriptures has happened but the doctrine believed because of tradition remains .

My pet peeve , as well .

Yeah, it makes you wonder why God wrote in stone if it doesn't matter . . . It makes me wonder why He allowed it to be smashed to pieces before it was read if it did matter . I am just saying ... I found it a bit ironic that people look at the fact that it was written in stone as if it were to be eternal and yet , it didn't survive it's first reading/listening . Maybe to prove its necessity. God also made man a living soul to live forever. Why if Adam was just going to sin and thus die? Why does God allow many things . . . . and what logic is that to discover truth with? I see it as not showing necessity . Not only was the first set of stone writings smashed , but the second set were lost some 3000? years ago . They can't do any good if they aren't around . So, let me get this right, you basing your whole stance on the fact that since Moses sinned and broke the first tablets and the second set which was in the ark of the covenant and can't be found that it is evident that God didn't intend their authority to continue throughout the duration of humanity on earth? Perhaps you should spend a little time to both clarify and add a little more scriptural support to your argument. My whole stance on what ? I didn't say that I was basing any stance on anything . But , I will need to know what stance you are discussing to know if I am basing my stance on something . Who declared Moses to be in sin for destroying the Scriptures ? Where in the Law does it state that it is sin to do such ? Since I do not recall that being a sin of Moses , I *could not* base *any* stance on that . Perhaps , you should ask honest questions instead of making accusations . You are saying that there is no Scriptural support for the first set of tablets being broken - if you don't kow that , I would need to go to the very beginning of the Scriptures . Perhaps , you could give your stance on that "maybe" of yours that came before my post . And, how about taking your own advice about "Scriptural support" - those that demand it are usually the last to give it themselves . But , since we are discussing the Law , it becomes circular reasoning . That's ok . I don't need your Scriptural support . I can tell without the names and numbers and I know that there is no Scriptural support for demanding Scriptural support . I only wrote that because it is beyond common for those that ask/demand Scriptural support haven't done so until someone else comes up with something with which they don't agree with in a conversation . The Law cannot have authority if it isn't read . It cannot be read if you don't know where it is .

Yeah, it makes you wonder why God wrote in stone if it doesn't matter . . . It makes me wonder why He allowed it to be smashed to pieces before it was read if it did matter . I am just saying ... I found it a bit ironic that people look at the fact that it was written in stone as if it were to be eternal and yet , it didn't survive it's first reading/listening . Maybe to prove its necessity. God also made man a living soul to live forever. Why if Adam was just going to sin and thus die? Why does God allow many things . . . . and what logic is that to discover truth with? I see it as not showing necessity . Not only was the first set of stone writings smashed , but the second set were lost some 3000? years ago . They can't do any good if they aren't around .