Posted on 10/31/2014 5:22:14 AM PDT by Colofornian
And when we on FR can see that you cannot or WILL not answer questions; but indulges in hyperbolic red herrings; we can see someone who has an unspoken agenda.
Yet you are commenting in the Religion Forum.
Why do so many folks take this out of context?
Matthew 7:15-16
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits.
Well, let's see now. If we were to implement this as a "strong suggestion" -- just short of a 'Heartland' edict -- then there goes 100% of religious discussion in venues such as:
TV
radio
films
Use of telephone -- landlines and cell phones/texting, unless it was Skype or something similar
U.S. Mail (Letters/packages)
Books/booklets -- both writing them and sending them
Most computer communication, including Facebook, e-mails, etc.
Letters to the editor & other newspaper/magazine content
Billboards
And on and on it goes
Hmmm...so a strict structure of compartmentalizing religious convo to face to face -- even if not enforced by law or by fiat -- would sure be pleasing to the average atheist and would represent an anti-freedom movement opposite of which this country was founded upon ...and you portend to be a conversative how?
So tell us how come Madison Avenue can do 99 point something% of its advertising/marketing in less than face-to-face schemes;
And Hollywood & other major broadcasting media can present its content (films, TV, etc.) in almost 100% beyond face-to-face...
...and you see no need to intro strictures toward that content...
...yet religious discussion is to be ghettoized?
Hmmm...
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
‘they’ are pagan; non-Christians. Have YOU any facts that show otherwise? “
so, are you suggesting that these were pagans who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, but practiced baptism? so, what then was the purpose of these pagan baptisms for the dead, as you understand it?
“That passage is not talking about baptizing the dead at all. Read the entire chapter. It says if Christ was still dead the people are being baptized in the name of a dead person. Believers are baptized in the name of Jesus who is raised from the dead. Verse 29 simply says what we do if we were baptized in the name of somebody who is dead? It would have no power whatsoever.”
i think you are on to something, as that makes a lot of sense. thanks for that insight.
what sense would it make to be baptized for Jesus, if Jesus was not the literal Son of God in the flesh, who arose from the dead after atoning for all of mankind’s sins?
Could you expand on this?
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
“...yet religious discussion is to be ghettoized?”
Have at if you feel your comments are that important and that needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.