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 .

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 .

It boggles my mind , as well - just as it boggled my mind that I say that the Sabbath isn't for me and I get a reply on how could I have come to that conclusion - as if it really mattered . Has the Sabbath changed ? ( assuming the weekly ones ) - I don't see that it has . Was Sunday ordained by the Lord as THE day of meeting for Christians ? - I don't see that it has - I know that it isn't because He didn't tell me that He ordained it for me to do such things . Did the Lord tell me that I was to observe the weekly and special Sabbaths ? not yet - In fact , He didn't tell me *to* observe them - He didn't tell me *not to* observe them . As of right now , it is *my* choice and He doesn't care one way or another as long as I don't make them more imporant than Him ( yes , I know that would be ironic - yet , it is written to have happened in the past ) . Am I open to observing the Sabbaths ? yes . Could it happen in the next couple of years ? Unlikely as it would be a long process from being open to it to coming to a decision to do it and then to learn enough about how to do it . So , a couple of years at the earliest . Since *everyone* is saying that whatever day you worship is great and dandy , this certainly should be fine . ps - I wasn't referring to you before - I was replying to you about another .

Amen . But , just saying that gets you an ear-full .

Since someone has already incorrectly read something in my previous reply to you , I better not read your reply or reply in return . No offense . Unless you really think that something new can be brought forth from it . I don't mind that people have a problem with me in my not claiming to observe the Sabbath . I left the group that damned me for not meeting with them every Sunday ( incluiding family members ) . So , strangers not liking me because I notice that they don't do what they imply they do doesn't bother me . take care

edited - no message

That isn't true in the least . Work with regards to the Sabbath is a lot less than how the word "work" is used today . There are things forbidden as work for the Sabbath that takes some getting used to ( "work" and habit ) that people would not include in their idea of "work" . Without knowing that , they desecrate the Sabbath . And , did you know that a lot of "sabbath" people go to meetings on the Sabbath ? There is no way that they are doing that without most of the people breaking the Sabbath - especially those with children . Going to meetings on the Sabbath is an outrageuos thought that the Pharasees made up to violate the Law of having the Levites in charge of training the people in the Law . That is not true , either . I am grafted into the covenant made with Abraham - not Israel . My DNA has not been altered to become a physical descendant of the Israelites who refused to be near the Lord at the mountian . I am grafted into Jesus - the vine - the root . One cannot bring up the Law and Israel without bringing up the land that joins the two . This is exactly what I mean ... those that push the Sabbath the most are the biggest violators . To observe the Sabbath as a command means to observe *all* the commands of the Law referring to the Sabbath . If you take away the commands defining the Sabbath , you can call anything you want "Sabbath" . Look at me - my 15 minute break at 9:00AM Tuesday is the Sabbath - I keep the Sabbath ." If people are going to nitpick on what day the Sabbath is , they should go all the way with the whole command and what it means to observe them . Otherwise , they make a mockery of the Sabbaths . If one is using the Law to push the Sabbath , *all* the laws pertaining to the Sabbath are to be kept . Otherwise , one is desecrating the Sabbath and deserves death .

I look at the Age of Accountability doctrine as a patch for the Original Sin doctrine . Catholics declared that all people are automatically stamped with sin upon conception . Somewhere down the line someone asked "what about the babies? Why should they go to hell if not baptized ? They don't know anything ." Essentially , they are saying that babies are innocent which contradicts the doctrine of Originial SIn but it isn't presented in that manner . So , they say , "You are correct . Babies should not go to hell . We will give a pass on people before such and such an age to learn right from wrong and become accountable ." They could have sumply reversed their original sin doctrine and allow the Lor to determine when a peson commits their first sin . But , nope - time for a new doctrine .

I actually thought about having a weekly "sabbath" and started to do research to find out how to approach it Scripturally . I found that it was going to be too much work to know how to rest . Not only that , but I realized that I was a Gentile - the Sabbath laws were not addressed to me . Can I take a day of rest once a week ( even have special or "holy" days of rest ) ? Sure / I have almost every weekend off from work and I have vacation days . However , I find not having to go to work two days a week restful enough . I came from a denomination that had if you miss *one* Sunday meeting - you would go to hell if not confessed and do penance . In my 20's , I found out the Lord doesn't mandate those things to me . Now , I find that groups want me to think that I should have a "biblical" Sabbath or go to hell . I am not going back to that way of thinking . Also , Not a single group that "claims" to do the Sabbath conforms to all of the rules of the Sabbath . They have decided to ignore the rules that define the command .

I am haviing trouble voting . That's ok . I look at how the Lord set up the conversation concerning the 10 and He states that they as well as the rest of the Law was for the Israelites . I am a Gentile - they were not for me . There wasn't really an ption for this though I was attempting to vote "no - grace" . I would also add that I have yet to meet a single Christian who truly thought that they were to keep them - because , they don't . The Sabbaths are in question . To keep it simple , I won't even go into the Sabbaths not a part of the weekly Sabbaths . I have yet to know a Christian who keeps the Sabbaths . If the Sabbaths are not kept - the 10 are not kept . If one is not followed - none are followed . The Law is a singular entity . Now , I have known Christians all my life that considered that there was a change of days . Yet , if one goes by the Scriptures for this ( it doesn't matter to me if they don't but this is about obeying them ) , the weekly Sabbath was a particular day . Sundays were not called "the Sabbath" in any part of the Scriptures . Lastly , I come to those that say that the Friday/Saturday Sabbath is still in effect . Yet , none of them obey all of the rules for the Sabbath . So , they don't keep them , either . They also have their reasons why they don't obey *all* of the Sabbath commands . So , I say "no" but I also see all other Christians saying "no" , as well . I would also point out that I have heard quite a few christians who say that the 10 are to be kept but call those that attempt to keep the Sabbaths as those in a cult . That is rather wierd - don't you think ? It is as though they want to make *sure* that none keep the 10 while telling everyone that *all* must do so . This is among my top ten observations of how contradictory christians can be .