Reasons Why Water Baptism is not for today

[francisdesales]

Francis, the only way I can reply to your carnal charges is for us to go to a one on one because we can't debate the Catholic faith on here. My replies for you are far too confining here for me to really give you a proper and Godly reply.

Also if you decide to join me there our topic should be about salvation only for if we can't agree on that then we certainly won't agree anything else and I really don't have the time for foolish debating.

So are you willing to go one on one my friend?

Tomlane

Of course I am. Name your subject and make a post on the Debate forum, then let me know. I will then respond to whatever you write.

Regards

 

[Tomlane]

Hi Francis, first change I have some extra time I will give a nice thread on Revelations chp. 17 and 18. Thank you Francis. :yes

Tomlane

 

[Imagican]

Tom,

I guess you have already discovered that speaking out against traditionalism on this forum is a 'no no' unless you are prepared for the row.

I have read NOTHING that you have offered that is NOT significant and 'true'.

But understand, 'men' have guided the churches for a couple of thousand years now and MOST have learned to accept what has been offered by THEM rather than search their own hearts and follow where they are led by Spirit.

This is NOT a 'gig' at ANYONE. Just the 'truth' as it has been revealed to ME.

I have offered over and over on this forum that water Baptism is little more than a 'way' to 'get wet'. An 'outward admission of faith'? Certainly. But able to SAVE? Not likely. For it is NOT what we DO that is able to develope and increase our relationship with the Father through His Son, but what THEY are able to DO. God created and His Son has offered the means of our forgiveness. To even THINK that one can simply have ANOTHER SINNER dunk them in water and it is able to SAVE them is like saying that we can WORK our way into God's favor.

Tom, God Bless you, my brother, and 'good luck'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Francis good post just one question you quoted...

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

This scripture pertains to a believer why then did you associate it with the church?[/quote]

The "you" of verse 16 refers to the Apostles and Christ's closest followers, not every ordinary believer. However, why the necessity to separate the believer from the Church?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Tom,

I guess you have already discovered that speaking out against traditionalism on this forum is a 'no no' unless you are prepared for the row.

You mean speaking out against what the Scriptures say. God works through visible signs. In the case of the coming of the Spirit, He comes through the waters of baptism. It is through Baptism that we are united to Christ's death and resurrection (Romans 6:2-4)

Today's liturgy has an apt statement in this regard...

I thank God, whom I serve from [my] forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; Greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 2 Tim 1:3-6

God grants His Spirit through visible actions, in this case, the laying of hands onto a man to make him a leader of the Church - Holy Orders.

But understand, 'men' have guided the churches for a couple of thousand years now and MOST have learned to accept what has been offered by THEM rather than search their own hearts and follow where they are led by Spirit.

Has it occured to you that God's common Holy Spirit leads these men of the last two thousand years to recognize and follow the Spirit where He is found, the Church???

This is NOT a 'gig' at ANYONE. Just the 'truth' as it has been revealed to ME.

By Satan, no doubt.

I have offered over and over on this forum that water Baptism is little more than a 'way' to 'get wet'. An 'outward admission of faith'? Certainly. But able to SAVE? Not likely.

It doesn't really matter what you think, the Scriptures clearly say that Baptism saves.

For it is NOT what we DO that is able to develope and increase our relationship with the Father through His Son, but what THEY are able to DO. God created and His Son has offered the means of our forgiveness. To even THINK that one can simply have ANOTHER SINNER dunk them in water and it is able to SAVE them is like saying that we can WORK our way into God's favor.

God works THROUGH sinners. Sinners wrote the bible, sinners were called by Christ to be apostles, and sinners continue to make up the human population of the elect. God is not prevented from acting through creation, nor through a man who has sinned.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Here we go again.........

Fran, Baptism DOES save. But there is water Baptism and then there is Baptism of THE SPIRIT. You would contend, (due to what you havre been TAUGHT to believe), that they ARE the SAME. Problem is, the Bible offers the distinction in NUMEROUS places. Do you truly understand WHAT; 'a better way' MEANS?

I am well aware of what the churches TEACH. But I have found that those that offer most of these teachings are far, far away from the truth. This is apparent in their BELIEFS as well as their ACTIONS. And we ARE told to judge those that would offer us understanding. if their teachings contradict the Bible OR the Spirit then we are NOT to accept what they offer. Heck, we aren't even suppose to sit and eat with such.

Ours is to offer the truth as set down in scripture. But to those that DON'T 'believe' that they ALREADY KNOW the truth. For the world has IT'S truth most assuredly. And that truth BLINDS them from THE truth. So, rarely are WE able to alter the hearts of those that have ALREADY chosen their path. But there ARE many that have yet to come to ANY understanding, and these are often ABLE to understand and accept the TRUTH.

Now, to take this subject one step further: We have already established that there ARE other means to which God saves REGARDLESS of 'water Baptism', (this isn't our FIRST tryst through this debate). This being the case, then 'water Baptism' CANNOT hold the significance that the CHURCHES teach. Just one more way for them and those that control them to manipulate the congregation in an unnatural affection to their teachings. For IF I teach that you MUST be
Baptized BY ME, then, if you BELIEVE it, then you have no choice but to FOLLOW ME. It's REALLY that simple.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

and Fran, your 'devil' and 'Satan is my messenger' comments just go to show how 'some churches' have tried to eliminate the truth for about eighteen hundred years now. You should probably take that into consideration before making your false judgements against me or any others.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Tomlane]

Imagican, thank you for your encouragement, I marvel each time I come across those who are blind to the truth and throw away the grace God gives us.
I do believe many will be so surprised when we learn the only truth God has for man is found just in His word and that is what we will be judged by either for reward, loss of reward or for loss of one's soul to eternal torment and men's love of rejection for the Lord and in many cases rejecting the Lord with man's religons.

I'm also amazed at those who are addicted to wine of her fornication and her delicacies such as communion with wine and wafer, water baptism, the glass stained windows, pagan holy days and the list goes on.

I thank the Lord I was never a part of that after the age of 16 when I was born again.

Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

Fran, Baptism DOES save. But there is water Baptism and then there is Baptism of THE SPIRIT.

One baptized in water in the name of the Trinity is BEING baptized in the Spirit, as well. There are not two baptisms. The physical signifies the spiritual that has taken place.

You would contend, (due to what you havre been TAUGHT to believe), that they ARE the SAME. Problem is, the Bible offers the distinction in NUMEROUS places. Do you truly understand WHAT; 'a better way' MEANS?

Where is Christian baptism in the Bible separated from the Christian use of water in baptism? In every instance, the two are combined into one event. When the Spirit comes, there is water used. When water is used, there is the Spirit. I hope you are able to distinguish between John's Baptism and Jesus' baptism.

I am well aware of what the churches TEACH. But I have found that those that offer most of these teachings are far, far away from the truth.

...I am well aware of what you TEACH, but I have found that these teachings are far, far away from the truth...

See, it tells us nothing about proving your point, does it... Just more of your typical rhetoric.

This is apparent in their BELIEFS as well as their ACTIONS. And we ARE told to judge those that would offer us understanding. if their teachings contradict the Bible OR the Spirit then we are NOT to accept what they offer.

Which is why we don't accept what you have to say. Not only are your interpretations wrong, but you don't practice what you preach.

Now, to take this subject one step further: We have already established that there ARE other means to which God saves REGARDLESS of 'water Baptism', (this isn't our FIRST tryst through this debate). This being the case, then 'water Baptism' CANNOT hold the significance that the CHURCHES teach.

Wrong conclusion. Yes, we have established that God is not bound by the sacraments HE instituted. They are ORDINARY means of salvation. Those who hear God's Word are bound to follow the sacramental action to achieve union with Christ. You are trying to show the exception as the standard norm of faith. The exceptions are for those who are blissfully unaware of baptism to begin with. They don't have access to Scriptures or the Church. So God holds them to different standards. However, for you and I, those who have access to the Scriptures and the Church, there is no such exception valid. Your argument is the typical self-rationalization of your point of view....

Being ignorant and rejecting a teaching are two different things.

Just one more way for them and those that control them to manipulate the congregation in an unnatural affection to their teachings. For IF I teach that you MUST be
Baptized BY ME, then, if you BELIEVE it, then you have no choice but to FOLLOW ME. It's REALLY that simple.

You cast out the baby with the bath water yet again...

One could also say that the ENTIRE SCRIPTURES were written by the Church to "manipulate the congregations..." Your argument is no different than Karl Marx and other great atheist "thinkers".

If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then how does one avoid what it says in the Bible and pretend they can invent their own "revelations"?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I'm also amazed at those who are addicted to wine of her fornication and her delicacies such as communion with wine and wafer, water baptism, the glass stained windows, pagan holy days and the list goes on.

Another misuse of Scriptures, which I note is happening in virtually every one of your posts that quote Scriptures. No doubt, this is just a silly attempt to link up all sorts of things of the Beast to the Church.

Naturally, this is akin to calling the Christ "Beelzebub"... Our Lord warned us of people like you.

Utterly ridiculous and mind-numbing to think people have to stoop to this level to rationalize their self-schisms from the Church established by Christ. If you can't figure out John 3:5, how are you going to figure out the Apocalypse of John?


Regards

 

[Tomlane]

I'm also amazed at those who are addicted to wine of her fornication and her delicacies such as communion with wine and wafer, water baptism, the glass stained windows, pagan holy days and the list goes on.

Another misuse of Scriptures, which I note is happening in virtually every one of your posts that quote Scriptures. No doubt, this is just a silly attempt to link up all sorts of things of the Beast to the Church.

Naturally, this is akin to calling the Christ "Beelzebub"... Our Lord warned us of people like you.

Utterly ridiculous and mind-numbing to think people have to stoop to this level to rationalize their self-schisms from the Church established by Christ. If you can't figure out John 3:5, how are you going to figure out the Apocalypse of John?


Regards

Francis, thanks for giving me your opinion as that is all I can call it since you never gave one scripture to back up your view. Anytime you don't give scripture to back up what you say is just so much wind.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Romans 16:18 (KJV)

You would do far better Francis if you would try living spiritual by evey word of God than a wafer and bit of wine.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 (KJV)

Francis, read this next verse.

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
Luke 7:33 (KJV)

I guess John must be out of whack with your religion since he came not eating bread or drinking wine. How come?

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:33-35 (KJV)

Francis, Christ is the true bread of life and once you partake of Him God says you will never hunger and you will never thirst.

So if you had the true bread you woudn't need your Sunday snack.

So if you don't want to agree with that why don't you take it up with God since he is the one thta made that statement?

Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

Another misuse of Scriptures, which I note is happening in virtually every one of your posts that quote Scriptures. No doubt, this is just a silly attempt to link up all sorts of things of the Beast to the Church.

Naturally, this is akin to calling the Christ "Beelzebub"... Our Lord warned us of people like you.

Utterly ridiculous and mind-numbing to think people have to stoop to this level to rationalize their self-schisms from the Church established by Christ. If you can't figure out John 3:5, how are you going to figure out the Apocalypse of John?


Regards

Francis, thanks for giving me your opinion as that is all I can call it since you never gave one scripture to back up your view. Anytime you don't give scripture to back up what you say is just so much wind.

I gave you allusions to Scriptures, but I guess not knowing Scriptures, it flew over your head. Very well. But I'll give you a hint. It is in Matthew's Gospel. If you do a word search on "Beezlebub", you may find it that way, as well.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Romans 16:18 (KJV)

??? What's the pertinence, besides a childish effort to call me names? :gah

You would do far better Francis if you would try living spiritual by evey word of God than a wafer and bit of wine.

You would do better to read the Bible, rather than memorizing a few dozen verses and applying them out of context to anyone who disagrees with you... We don't have to go very far backwards to view your posts and find how little you actually KNOW of God's Word.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 (KJV)

The Eucharist IS the Word of God. Have you not read John 1:1?

Probably not.

Francis, read this next verse.

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
Luke 7:33 (KJV)

Taken out of context, yet again. This has absolutely nothing to do with Communion. It, and the parallel in Matthew speaks about how the Jews were dissatisfied with BOTH John AND Jesus. Like the child who mourned during the dance. Or Sectarians. Never happy with what is given. The Jews complained about John, who was too strict, and the Jews complained about Jesus because He wasn't strict enough... People like you complain that the Church is too strict, and then not strict enough... In both cases, the Pharisees said "he has a devil". And as Christ said, the student would not escape the persecution that the teacher underwent... It is not surprising, then, that people continue to attack Christ and His Church.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:33-35 (KJV)

Keep reading. Tell me when you get to John 6:51. What is the Bread of Life again??? MY FLESH, Christ says. :amen

If you want to debate that, I can gladly teach you the Word of God on this issue, as well.

Francis, Christ is the true bread of life and once you partake of Him God says you will never hunger and you will never thirst.

But you are not partaking of Him. First, you don't want to be baptized as He commanded His Church to baptize, (which means you are not baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ) then you do not want to partake of Him to have eternal life, since you refuse to eat His flesh, as Christ Himself tells us...

Keep reading John 6. It is all there, if you bother to read it.

So if you had the true bread you woudn't need your Sunday snack.

I do have the True Bread, given to me by Jesus Himself. Don't be a hater. :naughty

So if you don't want to agree with that why don't you take it up with God since he is the one thta made that statement?

Your problem appears to be reading comprehension. You need to work on that.

Regards

 

[A-Christian]

Tomlane,

Has it ever occurred to you that your self-interpretations are just that. Just becaused you discovered the bible one day does not mean that your own conclusions of it are authoritive in any way.

Francisdesales has eaten your lunch constantly in your various threads as you spread the gospel of tomlane and I suspect many non-Catholics have also been cringing as you hurl recently formed opinions like water balloons against the two-thousand plus year old wall of Christian history.

I think most were stunned as soon as they read one of your post from the New Members thread when you told one of the finest and learned members on this forum and I quote:

"I do believe you are a brother in Christ but just haven't learned yet the proper way to rightly divide God's word properly. I think perhaps I might make a thread on that."

What a way to introduce yourself :o

Time for some self reflection perhaps? Or at least some history lessons.

What is you background if you care to say? I mean how long have you been excited about the Word of God and was there an event in your life that made you seek God the way you obviously have been doing. You don't have to answer that obviously, I was only curious.

Peace

 

[Tomlane]

A-Christian, you should consider your own position before you go judging another. I give more scripture for what I believe and the hope within me than most of you. Also take a look at God's word yourself and perhaps you may find yourself in error. I thought the idea of this place is to discuss scripture not attack a person but their doctrine with doctrine not with your personal opinions.

Instead of attacking me personally why don't you do it with scripture?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14

Tomlane

 

[Free]

Both of you start playing nice.

 

[A-Christian]

As Free requested I will play nice.
Tomlane, I'm not trying to attack you at all. I am only saying that you can quote scripture all day long but remember this; your own personal interpretations of the verses you read may not actually be valid from a Christian historical standpoint. Please don't perceive what I am saying as a judgement on your salvation or standing with God. It's just that you blew into this forum with the attitude that you are an expert on Christianity without being an expert on the history of the faith.
None of us are experts and we are all sinners to some degree or another. If you want to broaden your knowledge of Christianity you will need to go outside the bible. That's the only point I was making.

Peace

P.S.
I am still interested in your testimony of your journey.

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Tomlane, have you ever been baptized??? With water?

Not that I have (yet) but... after 3 pages, I still don't understand what the purpose of your argument IS...are you saying one should not be baptized? Some of what you say might be right-on, as far as perhaps it not being completely necessary for salvation, but [my understanding of] water baptism is that it's SYMBOLIC and represents the baptism that has already taken place when you accept Christ into your life...it's reinforcement of what has ALREADY BEEN DONE, but I think you underestimate the importance, still.

Is anyone arguing here that water baptism a vassel for salvation, by itself? Even Mormons and JW's baptize... I don't think anyone could argue that they will be "saved" by this act alone...(if you can, meet me in the debate forum )

Just as a wedding ring is a "symbol" of an oath and union of two married persons, baptism is also a symbol that represents our living relationship with Jesus...

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. (It symbolizes the repentance; just as communion symbolizes the Lord's broken body and blood spilled for us all)

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I'm a Christian; I know that my price has been paid--so does God. I just need to go through the "ceremony" if you will, the same way that when two become one flesh they are united before God, but still feel the need to have a "wedding" to enforce their commitment to each other...only in stark contrast to the wedding analogy, I consider baptism more like a funeral, in which my sins are washed away, along with the dying of my old, heathen self:

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Symbols, symbols, symbols. Now if I could just get over my aversion to public displays...

 

[Tomlane]

(if you can, meet me in the debate forum )Entropic_Prodigy

Entropic_Prodigy , Ok I would love to meet you in the debate forum. I'll set it up tomorrow afternoon and you can join me whenever you like. I'll take your replies and past them in and answer them and you can do what you will with them. Only don't hit me over the head with the chair again, makes too much noise. lol

I hope you will stay and see it through. Don't worry about offending me, you can feel free to express freely yourself .

See you there and I hope you are a brother in Christ although you have been deceived by man's religions.

Tomlane

 

[Rick W]

OK.
Be advised all posts in that forum require mod/admin approval. Debates can take a while but I don't think either of you are going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Imagican]

Fran, my responses are in bold..........

Fran, Baptism DOES save. But there is water Baptism and then there is Baptism of THE SPIRIT.

One baptized in water in the name of the Trinity is BEING baptized in the Spirit, as well. There are not two baptisms. The physical signifies the spiritual that has taken place.

You would contend, (due to what you havre been TAUGHT to believe), that they ARE the SAME. Problem is, the Bible offers the distinction in NUMEROUS places. Do you truly understand WHAT; 'a better way' MEANS?

Where is Christian baptism in the Bible separated from the Christian use of water in baptism? In every instance, the two are combined into one event. When the Spirit comes, there is water used. When water is used, there is the Spirit. I hope you are able to distinguish between John's Baptism and Jesus' baptism.

We've already been through this. You would offer that I NEED be or MUST be dunked in water to -experience re-birth through the blood of Christ. I contend that this may well be POSSIBLE, but is certainly NOT mandatory. Neither YOU nor anyone else is able to TELL God what He can or cannot DO.

We've already discussed the 'man on the deserted island' scenario. It is OBVIOUS to anyone who offers such a situation the LEAST amount of consideration that God IS able to do what He CHOOSES to DO regardless of the teachings of the churches. Your lack of understanding in this regard begs question of your TRUE faith and what it pertains to; God or 'a church' and it's beliefs.

I am well aware of what the churches TEACH. But I have found that those that offer most of these teachings are far, far away from the truth.

...I am well aware of what you TEACH, but I have found that these teachings are far, far away from the truth...

See, it tells us nothing about proving your point, does it... Just more of your typical rhetoric.

Fran, what I do is offer what has been revealed. NOT by the likes of men who would profit from my following, but through Spirit which IS able to offer truth REGARDLESS of the understanding of men. That is is misunderstood or denied by those that are unable to 'see' is irrelevant in regards to it's validity. This is NOTHING NEW.

This is apparent in their BELIEFS as well as their ACTIONS. And we ARE told to judge those that would offer us understanding. if their teachings contradict the Bible OR the Spirit then we are NOT to accept what they offer.

Which is why we don't accept what you have to say. Not only are your interpretations wrong, but you don't practice what you preach.

You have yet ONCE to show that ANYTHING that I have EVER offered is in contradiction to The Word. What you have done and continue to do is attempt to subvert others into an unnatural belief in that which was created BY men. That MY understanding and yours vary is without doubt. But all that you insist to BE true is only able to be proven through the 'beliefs and teachings of men'. NOT those that penned the words that we are to follow, but those that came along LATER and attempted to 're-create' that which had ALREADY been offered in purity.

Now, to take this subject one step further: We have already established that there ARE other means to which God saves REGARDLESS of 'water Baptism', (this isn't our FIRST tryst through this debate). This being the case, then 'water Baptism' CANNOT hold the significance that the CHURCHES teach.

Wrong conclusion. Yes, we have established that God is not bound by the sacraments HE instituted. They are ORDINARY means of salvation. Those who hear God's Word are bound to follow the sacramental action to achieve union with Christ. You are trying to show the exception as the standard norm of faith. The exceptions are for those who are blissfully unaware of baptism to begin with. They don't have access to Scriptures or the Church. So God holds them to different standards. However, for you and I, those who have access to the Scriptures and the Church, there is no such exception valid. Your argument is the typical self-rationalization of your point of view....

I am bound to NOTHING of the sort. You may be. But I am CERTAINLY NOT. And the ONLY way that YOU are is that you have bought into what your church INSISTS that you must.

Once again; a man, unaware of ANYTHING pertaining to God or His Word, is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Once day while walking along the beach he stumbles upon a book. He picks it up and begins to read. Within it's pages God and His Son are revealed. The man's heart is altered and he becomes 'born again'.

From your perspective, this is impossible. The words pertaining to Baptism ARE contained within the book this man has read.

Now, ten years later, you meet this man. You attempt to TELL him that he MUST be Baptized. He laughs at your ignorance and you don't understand WHY he laughs. That's SO SAD Fran.

Being ignorant and rejecting a teaching are two different things.

I AGREE wholeheartedly.

Just one more way for them and those that control them to manipulate the congregation in an unnatural affection to their teachings. For IF I teach that you MUST be
Baptized BY ME, then, if you BELIEVE it, then you have no choice but to FOLLOW ME. It's REALLY that simple.

You cast out the baby with the bath water yet again...

Not in the least. I have simply SEPARATED the baby and the bathwater through an understanding of the DIFFERENCE.

One could also say that the ENTIRE SCRIPTURES were written by the Church to "manipulate the congregations..." Your argument is no different than Karl Marx and other great atheist "thinkers".

While SOME SCRIPTURE was OBVIOUSLY altered in order to lean in a particular direction, God has NOT allowed it to be altered beyond it's ability to bring truth and light into the lives of those that READ it.

If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then how does one avoid what it says in the Bible and pretend they can invent their own "revelations"?

That is an amazing comment considering that you follow men that would tell YOU that you are unable to understand The Word. That you MUST accept and follow what THEY tell you to pertaining to THEIR understanding.

Fran, the God that I follow is plenty able to reveal His understanding to ME or anyone else that truly loves Him and asks. The words in the Bible have little meaning to those of this world. They can be interpreted in a myriad of ways that have NO BEARING on their intent. I have simply chosen to accept them AS OFFERED without the NEED to interpret them myself.

I have invented NOTHING. What I offer has been freely given and I offer it in this same manner. Once again, I wouldn't expect you to understand most of what I offer for you have chosen a 'different path'. But for those that read these words and have not yet limited themselves to the adherance to and following of 'other men', these words are meant to be inspiration toward understanding.

Regards

Fran, you insist upon PUSHING an agenda even after having been warned over and over again that this is against forum rules. As Tom has pointed out distinctly; you continue to bring your 'religion' into EVERY discusssion knowing that we are NOT ALLOWED to debate issues in such a manner. You do NOT argue in a manner consistent with ALL denominations but continue in the manner in which you have been trained. That certainly puts the rest of us in a bind when we are unable to even argue the validity of the religion that you profess to follow.

I do not fault you for your beliefs or your religion, but the manner in which you USE it is certainly of your OWN choice.

Blessings,

MEC