Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[Catholic Crusader]

Not true. Here is the Mass, in Acts 2:42 "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." That is a Mass. Go to one some time. We hear scripture readings, we pray, and we receive the "bread of life", as has been done from the beginning.

Where does it say that this is the mass? The word is unknown in the new testament......

The word Trinity is unknown in the New Testament too. Whats your point?

 

[dadof10]

Wow, MEC! I don't even know where to start. There is so much apparent illogic.

dad,

I ask this; do you believe that the bread and wine are 'actual flesh and blood'?

We were told to eat in REMEMBERANCE. This is an obvious reference to the act being symbolic in it's presentation and participation.

So "in rememberance" means symbolically? How so? And what does "in rememberance" have to do with What (Who) is being eaten? This makes no sense.

If what is stated concerning Baptism IS truth, then what I have offered previous would be truth as well: one could Baptize AGAINST the will of another and it would STILL be able to cleanse them from their sins.

What are you trying to get at here? What is the parallel between the Last Supper and baptism? No. Someone could not be baptized against their will. When did I ever say they could? When has ANYBODY ever said that it would be a valid baptism? This is not what the Church teaches.

Water Baptism is a sybolic commitment to Christ.

Again, I'll ask for chapter and verse.

The apostles Baptized but it is obvious through their epistles that water Baptism came AFTER acceptance.

Yes. For adult converts it was the norm, as it is today in the Catholic Church. But it was NEVER called "symbolic".

Now, I ask you, can you show me ONE scripture that states that one MUST be Baptized in water in order to enter heaven or be 'saved'?

There are at least two:

Jn. 3:5 "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

And the verse you won't respond to, 1pt. 3 " For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him."

According to these verses, how do you "enter the kingdom of God", and what saves you?

In a perfect world and with PERFECT hearts what is offered by many may well be 'truth'. But we do not live in a perfect world and our hearts are far from perfect. I have offered numerous instances that NO ONE wishes to address. Why? If water Baptism is SO important, surely it would be able to be proven through scripture. NO, I am not referning to the offerings that people WERE Baptized. But shouldn't there be MORE concerning it's IMPORTANCE if it is indeed SO important?

I don't know what "numerous instances" you are refering to. Could you please re-post?

I think if water baptism were on every page of Scripture it wouldn't be enough for you. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is very important. Take the Great Commission. Jesus says go, make disciples of all nations, baptising them...". Jesus is making a direct connection between discipleship and baptism. Maybe you think this means "baptism in the Spirit?" If so, I would ask how a PERSON baptizes in the Spirit?

MT3 "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented."

Fulfill all righteousness. Sounds pretty important, don't you think?

There are other verses, but I think they would be falling on deaf ears.

And here I speak of 'water Baptism'. For I have yet to witness the miraculous benefits that so many place in 'water Baptism'. I have witnessed adulterers who have been Baptized in water, murderers, fornicators, theives, liars, haters of God and man........... the list goes on and on.

But, I may add that I have witnessed Baptism of 'another sort' that DOES seem to 'make a difference'. For I have also witnessed those born again through the Baptism of The Spirit and THESE seem to have come to a 'better understanding' and more LASTING commitment to Christ. And MANY that have been Baptized through water don't even understand what it MEANS to be Baptized in Spirit.

Have you ever "witnessed" anyone who calls themselves "born-again Christian" commit sin? Have you ever "witnessed" anyone who is a baptized Catholic with a good understanding and lasting commitment to Christ? Again, what are you getting at? You just seem to be rambling.

The mention of Noah, dad, is PURELY symbolic in that water was used to purify the planet.

No. Read it again. The WATER of the flood, which "saved" Noah and his family SYMBOLOIZES baptism, "which now saves you". The water of the flood symbolizes baptism!!! No matter how you twist it, you can't make it say what you want it to.

 

[dadof10]

Misfit summed it up here 390 posts ago:[Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation.

Maybe you could show me where Scripture calls baptism "an outward show of ones faith"? No one has tried yet.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Wow, MEC! I don't even know where to start. There is so much apparent illogic.

dad,

I ask this; do you believe that the bread and wine are 'actual flesh and blood'?

We were told to eat in REMEMBERANCE. This is an obvious reference to the act being symbolic in it's presentation and participation.

So "in rememberance" means symbolically? How so? And what does "in rememberance" have to do with What (Who) is being eaten? This makes no sense........

How the Jews understood "remembering" is very complex and is basically a part of the jewish culture. For example, regarding the Passover: Every Jew believes that they are 'made present at the first passover" when they celebrate it. it is not time travel, it is not just a 'memorial', but that they stand with thier fellow Hebrews [in Egypt] at the first and unique event .... the Passover of the Lord. Biblical "remembrance" is much more than just a sort of memorial: It is an actual presence.

 

[dadof10]

How the Jews understood "remembering" is very complex and is basically a part of the jewish culture. For example, regarding the Passover: Every Jew believes that they ar 'made present at the first passover" when they celebrate it. it is not time travel, it is not just a 'memorial', but that they stand with thier fello Hebrews [in Egypt] at the first and unigue event .... the Passover of the Lord. Biblical "rembrance" is much more than just a sort of memoria: It is an actual presence.

CC,

My seminarian son tells me that the Greek word Luke uses for rememberance is "anamneso", which translates into remember actively or vividly. It's not just being reminded or remembering statically. It's where we get the noun anamnesis, which loosely translates "remember through or by doing", which fits in with what you're saying. If it were a mere symbolic memorial meal Luke would have probably used a weaker version of the word, as he did for the dying thief.

Pretty interesting having a seminarian in the family.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Pretty interesting having a seminarian in the family.

I'll bet it is. I have recently considered it myself, but it seems I am too old (46). Oh well: I probably wouldnt be a good priest anyway. By the time I cracked the whip and fixed all liturgical deviations in my parish, half the people would probably leave. LOL.

 

[dadof10]

I'll bet it is. I have recently considered it myself, but it seems I am too old (46). Oh well: I probably wouldnt be a good priest anyway. By the time I cracked the whip and fixed all liturgical deviations in my parish, half the people would probably leave. LOL.

LOL, we are lucky here to not have any of those liturgical deviations. Just do what I'm going to do. Wait till all the kids are gone, then become a deacon, God willing.

 

[Paidion]

Works WILL follow faith. But it IS the faith that brings one TO a 'closer walk and understanding'.

You seem to be suggesting that baptism is a "work". It is no more "a work" than "having faith" is a "work".

Baptism is a response to God, a response of complete submission and dedication. Dying to self is symbolized by going down into the water, and becoming alive in Christ is symbolized by coming up out of the water. But it is more than symbolic. If it is a true baptism, the person being baptized actually dies to self at that time, and becomes alive in Christ. If that hasn't happened for that person, then he has not been baptized. He had done no more than get his body wet.

Mark began his "gospel" in this way:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

What was this "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"? None other than John the Baptizer proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom. What were John's requirements? "Repent and be baptized".
Christ proclaimed exactly the same gospel message, as did Peter, and also Paul.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

A quote from the tract
"Baptismal Grace"
source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further senseâ€â€certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . ."

Needless to say, this passage doesn’t say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesn’t say anything about how those who accepted Paul’s preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didn’t write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didn’t pit faith against baptism.

Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s point was not that God didn’t want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry.

In short, Paul’s remark doesn’t remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text!

The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bible’s teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21, emphasis added).

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the
universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out again ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 193–4).

To read the quotes from early Christian writings that follow the above exerpt, go here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

 

[Imagican]

Misfit summed it up here 390 posts ago:[Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.]

turnorburn

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christians do not believe that, and that view was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity

CC,

What the vast majority of Christians believe is what they have been TAUGHT to believe and this has no bearing on truth through necessity.

For over fourteen hundred years the church taught that the earth was the center of the universe; they were wrong about this too.

Scripture bears out that the churches created their OWN set of beliefs concerning Baptism. Show me ONE instance offered through scripture where an infant was Baptized.

The act of Baptism as presented through the churches today is NOTHING other than 'man-made' tradition that has little resemblance to that which is offered throughout scripture. And that MANY believe in 'false teaching' is just another 'sign of the times'. MANY would accept ANY teaching that would appease their concience and itching ears.

I have YET to read in scripture where ANYONE was Baptized in a 'man-made' pool filled with stale water constructed in a building. Yet this is what has been accepted for this is what has been TAUGHT. Dirty water able to cleanse? I wonder........... As I have read Baptism was performed in RIVERS. And there was most likely a REASON that rivers were used. For the water in a River FLOWS. Cleanses itself CONSTANTLY. Yet a standing body of water has a tendency to be STAGNANT and UNCLEAN.

And Sprinkling was NEVER mentioned in scripture. Yet the MAJORITY of Christians, as you are so apt to point out, BELIEVE what they have been 'taught' concerning this as well. In utter contradiction to scripture, they ACCEPT what they are TAUGHT by those that TELL them that THEY know BETTER.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Works WILL follow faith. But it IS the faith that brings one TO a 'closer walk and understanding'.

You seem to be suggesting that baptism is a "work". It is no more "a work" than "having faith" is a "work".

Baptism is a response to God, a response of complete submission and dedication. Dying to self is symbolized by going down into the water, and becoming alive in Christ is symbolized by coming up out of the water. But it is more than symbolic. If it is a true baptism, the person being baptized actually dies to self at that time, and becomes alive in Christ. If that hasn't happened for that person, then he has not been baptized. He had done no more than get his body wet.

Mark began his "gospel" in this way:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

What was this "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"? None other than John the Baptizer proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom. What were John's requirements? "Repent and be baptized".
Christ proclaimed exactly the same gospel message, as did Peter, and also Paul.

You mention 'John the Baptist' but ignored what HE offered. For John offered that ANOTHER would come with a BETTER Baptism. A 'different' Baptism. One that was not only able to 'cleanse' but one able to actually CREATE a 'relationship'.

And realistically, the Gospels started 'in the beginning'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and do a little research into the gospel of Mark. MOST experts agree that the last eight verses of Mark were NOT even written by the same person that wrote the REST of this gospel. That it was either never finished or lost and 'someone' filled in the missing piece. Now WHO do you 'think' would have done such a 'thing' and WHY?

MEC

Are you saying the scriptures are incorrect? Sounds like a case of "Luther-idas" :D

CC, my brother, I am not a proponent of Luther anymore than any 'other man'. But facts are facts and to ignore them is to fool oneself into unnatural beliefs. No need for ME to go into the discrepencies of the last eight verses of Mark. Anyone that so chooses is able to confirm or deny what I have offered. And ANYONE that has ever studied these verses MUST have noticed that the last eight verses do NOT jibe with the first. Anyone that is NOT aware of what I speak, PM me and I will explain. But suffice is to say that the words offered in the ending of Marks Gospel are NOT the same as the OTHERs. And Mark was NOT even an apostle but simply a recorder of words offered by 'someone else'. The same with Luke.

I am NOT saying that scripture is 'incorrect' so much as 'it HAS been altered from the original. The Spirit is STILL able to guide one through the discrepencies REGARDLESS of the attempts that have been made to alter the truth. The words that we read today are NOT the 'exact words' that were recorded two thousand years ago. Those that interpreted and translated them invariably did so with 'their beliefs' influencing HOW they interpreted or translated. And I believe EVERYONE that has 'studied' the Word realizes this.

So, as MOST scholars would recommend, so too would I: it is very edgy to create or accept doctrine based on ANY particular LINE or lines of scripture. ONLY when one has compared scripture to scripture should 'DOCTRINE' or 'belief' be attributed to the words contained within.

Matthew was THERE. John was THERE. When Christ spoke His last words upon His last meetings with His apostles, these two WERE THERE. Mark was NOT. Neither was LUKE. Yet neither Matthew NOR John wrote of the words offered in the last eight verses of Mark. This is a FACT whether it is to be considered 'incorrect information' is up to the individual to discern when comparing it to the REST of the Word.

Like most information recorded LATER, we have YET to see a number of accounts of ANY event in history agreeing completely. For AS time passes, memory alters. How many times have we experienced a 'group' of folks that ALL were present durring a particular event, yet when EACH tells their individual perspective of that 'past event', EACH varies from every other? That is simply 'the way it is'. To deny this is to deny the FACT that; even though 'divinely inspired', the Bible is NOT a 'perfectly recorded history'. And IF you say that it IS, I ask this: WHICH one? Which VERSION is the EXACT version without ANY deviation from the truth? Which version is EXACT in it's interpretation and translation?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[turnorburn]

To a world, Gods world where anything can happen

MEC wrote: [I have YET to read in scripture where ANYONE was Baptized in a 'man-made' pool filled with stale water constructed in a building. Yet this is what has been accepted for this is what has been TAUGHT. Dirty water able to cleanse? I wonder........... As I have read Baptism was performed in RIVERS. And there was most likely a REASON that rivers were used. For the water in a River FLOWS. Cleanses itself CONSTANTLY. Yet a standing body of water has a tendency to be STAGNANT and UNCLEAN.]

Maybe you didn't read it but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, the scriptures teach that Jesus did many works so many that the number of books if written would fill the libraries, granted, rivers as by definition flow with clean water, but consider the Ganges River or the river in Japan where it is said the chemical content is such you can develop film from your camera in it. :crazyeyes:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I believe Baptism is what it is, no more and no less: It is both the entrance into the covenant family with God (replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant) and the means by which we receive the remission of sins & being "born again".

Does that mean it is a guaranteed entrance into heaven? No, it is not.

 

[Imagican]

Imagican wrote:
....Introducing 'their OWN understanding' and then teaching an insistance that 'it' IS the truth. How often has this led to 'false worship' and idolotry?

Every time you post something here you are introducing your own understanding. Every time you read and intepret the Bible you are introducing your own understanding, because thats all you give us. And as far as idolatry goes, I wouldnt know about that: We don't engage in the practice.

While what you say is truth, that does NOT make what I offer WRONG. For I am NOT an institution bent on the control of others with a desire to make merchandise of them. THIS, my friend, is what we MUST beware of. For it IS the likes of these that would alter what has been altered into 'something else' to serve 'their OWN purposes'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Why is it everyone is angry?...

Excellent observation. I don't know. :

Back to the topic: I believe Baptism is what it is, no more and no less: It is both the entrance into the covenant family with God (replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant) and the means by which we receive the remission of sins & being "born again".

Does that mean it is a guaranteed entrance into heaven? No, it is not.

CC,

I don't know that i agree with what you have offered here 'completely', but the last statement varifies the point of this thread: Water Baptism, is it ENOUGH? When we disect this question down to; (enough for WHAT), then we are able to discuss it's intent.

And let me offer this: Perhaps what you have offered IS to be agreed upon IF we add that it is imperitive that one's participation in such is done so with UNDERSTANDING. That IF one understands and chooses to be Baptized INTO Christ, then this may well be their 'entrance into the covenant that has been offered. But I don't believe that it is comparable to circucision. We were 'freed' from such outward 'signs' as circumcision. But that would be determined by the understanding and beliefs of the individual. i wouldn't find myself bound to such 'works'. For while we ARE bound to the commandments of Christ concerning LOVE, I have yet to find that we are any longer bound to such ritual as either Baptism or communion. In FACT, we find that the scriptures warn that 'many have slept, (died), for improper participation in the 'meal'. i don't believe that it would be 'any different' with 'water Baptism'.

Does water Baptism ALONE 'make' one a TRUE Christian? Even IF it is able to 'cleanse one' of their sins, does IT transform a 'sinner' INTO a 'follower' of Christ? I think NOT. A 'first step' of sorts? Perhaps and for some it may well be the 'turning point' in their lives when they BEGIN to follow Christ. But this is NOT necessarily set in stone.

This thread was an offshoot of the 'sign of a TRUE Christian'. Some continued to insist that 'water Baptism' was THE sign of the TRUE Christian. My efforts were at an attempt to SHOW that 'water Baptism' was NOT such a sign in that there are many that have been Baptized in water that DO NOT follow Christ; hence, they are NOT Christians. Could it be 'a sign'? I won't argue that a bit.

But is it ENOUGH to secure one's place in 'life eternal'? PLEASE folks, if you ignore everything else that I have to offer; DON'T believe this for a second. For to do so is to offer your faith in an unnatural direction. And PLEASE, do not let my words DISCOURAGE ANY against water Baptism. IF it is able to strengthen your faith and bring you closer to Christ, if you TRULY desire to follow and be one with our God through His Son, then by all means, take the plunge. But DON'T let anyone fool you into an unnatural belief in WHAT Baptism IS.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[KenEOTE]

Actually forget about the Protestant, find the Jewish Documents it will be easier on you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Actually forget about the Protestant, find the Jewish Documents it will be easier on you.

Did I miss something?

 

[Imagican]

...While many would simply call it 'symbolism', the truth is that idolotry is a more fit description...

No, it is not. Idolatry is worshipping a false God, or placing something above God. That has nothing to do with "symbolism". The crosses hanging in church's are "symbols". If your definition were correct, then every church thast has a cross in it is idolatrous, and that would be just about ALL of them.

Ah, you're catching on CC. This is what i have been attempting to offer for many many years now. And I am NOT the 'only one' that recognizes how FAR from the 'truth' the churches have veered.

Thats the worst definition of idolatry I have ever heard.

Coveteousness IS idolotry. Either it is or it isn't. If there is such definition drawn through scripture, then WHY do you 'deny it'?

And for your mile-long quote from Jesus regarding the Pharisees, He says at the outset:

...The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do...

So He recognizes their authority and bids the people to obey. He then goes on to point out their hypocrisy.

Common sense would be able to 'step in' here and discern WHAT was ACTUALLY being offered by Christ. While He DID tell the 'people' to follow what was 'said', that does NOT mean ALL that was 'said'. ANYTHING then as well as NOW that goes AGAINST the TRUE prophets and what they have offered is NOT to be adhered to. Then AS now, the religious leaders were teaching PARTS of the truth sprinkled with LIES. And the LIES are NEVER to be heeded and followed. That would be like saying that it's OK to worship Satan SOMETIMES. Rediculous. We are expected to have SOME common sense. God DID give us the intellegence to be able to understand WITHOUT taking every word literal. Especially if the words do NOT coincide with the REST of the Word.

The Pharasees and Saducees were teaching that it was IMPORTANT to have their hands clean before eating. Christ plainly showed that this was NOT to be FOLLOWED even though they were TEACHING it. So what you have attempted to do is circumvent that which we SHOULD be able to discern OURSELVES and simply placed such discernment in the hands of those that would make 'merchandise of you' and others.


I say the same is true today: The Bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter, and I recognize his authority. And, today, just as back then, we have hypocrites in our Church too. But that does not erase the authority vested in them by Christ.

And you would offer this and you know my feelings in that direction. No need to beat a dead horse.

CC, my brother. I do NOT wish to argue with you. REALLY. But some of what you dispute is SO obvious to me that I can't let your attempts to discredit it affect those that don't know any better yet. It's unfair and if I can help it I will warn others against such 'blind folly'. You see it as you see it but i can assure you that from the outside looking in, it is folly to follow others that have nothing more to offer than YOU yourself have to offer. NO group of people can 'save' and no group of people have a monopoly on God's love.

that YOU choose to follow as you do is OK. But when your attempts are designed to influence others to 'follow the leader' as you do, you ARE evangelizing and attempting to 'pull others' into YOUR faith. That is not only against the rules of the forums but something that YOU will bear the judgement of in times to come.

Christ crucified is what I offer. PERIOD. NO pagetry. No 'man-worship'. No 'building worship'. No symbol, (idolotry), worship. God the Father and Christ the Son. Pure and simple. I take NO such shelter in 'man-made' doctrine or denominations. Everyone on this planet is EQUAL in what God has to offer and NO 'denominational church' has a monopoly on that which GOD alone has to offer through His Son.

How about this question CC, and I'm going to let this one go. James Jones. Were those Baptized and MURDERED BY James Jones SAVED?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[dadof10]

that YOU choose to follow as you do is OK. But when your attempts are designed to influence others to 'follow the leader' as you do, you ARE evangelizing and attempting to 'pull others' into YOUR faith. That is not only against the rules of the forums but something that YOU will bear the judgement of in times to come.

I would tread lightly here, MEC. This smacks of an accusation of people PURPOSEFULLY leading others away from Christ. I am pretty sure that everyone here (including you) believes with all our hearts that what we post is in keeping with the teachings of Christ.