The question of baptism

On 07 Jul 2005 04:15:11 GMT, "Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home.

hmm... I only raise kids, veggies, dust and hell in mine...

I think most folks true baptism is their first experience using a good power
tool.. YMMV


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Chadwick Stone© <[email protected]> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: YES
>Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
>[email protected]
>
>> "Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out
>>> of the box and scribbled this in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...
>>>
>>> Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle
>>> is nuttier than a fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant
>>> troll.
>>>
>>> Which one are you?
>>
>> I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that,
>> Peter. Considering that YOU fall into both categories.
>
>I'm certain that you can present evidence that "Ross" is "Peter J. Ross" eh,
>k0oKy faux-Christian?

This k0oKsign is so common it should be included in Teh Way of Teh k0oK:

<http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm>

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
{aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
HTH.
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology

"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer

Sean Monaghan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> Art Deco wrote:
>>
>> it is time for you to leave
>>
>
>How do you expect Art Deco to see your message if you snecked all the
>groups except for rec.woodworking?
>
>>
>>
>> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Tom seems to be taking the coward's way.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
{aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
HTH.
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology

"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer

Please don't feed this obvious troll. The only thing this has to do
with woodworking is what he does on Saturday night.

Robert

AMEN, Upscale....

AMEN. Their are plenty of coffee shop style groups that would find
this topic fascinating. There is enough off topic baloney here
already.

Robert

If you are really concerned about your child then you and your wife
need to first make sure that Jesus is in your lives since you
essentially inherited the denominations that you are now in. And you
need to put your faith in Jesus if you only understand Jesus
intellectually at this time. I would also start studying and
discussing the Scriptures with each other regularly just so your child
notices you studying and discussing them as he or she grows up.
Finally, have a King James Version (KJV) handy but New International
Version (NIV) and other modern Bible versions are easier to read.

"What any church says does not matter. It is what
the Bible and the Bible alone says, that is our ruler
of faith."

I don't understand three things here:
1) Who, exactly, determined that "what the Bible and the Bible alone
says, that is our ruler of faith"?
2) Which Bible? There are significant differences, or so I've read, and
finally,
3) Who is "our": your denomination, Christians in general, or everyone?

Regretfully,
H

Excellent! Plain common sense amongst a sea of dogma.

The Title is "rec woodworking" What the hell has baptism got to do with
woodworking???? Do us all a favor and take you conversation to some
other group more appropriate for the subject matter.

Pastor Dave wrote:

>>1) Who, exactly, determined that "what the Bible
>>and the Bible alone says, that is our ruler of faith"?

>When we read the Scriptures, we can see that
>the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles, all
>referenced the word of God to support their
>claims and that the Scriptures are true.

By this reasoning then, we ought to use as a "rule of faith" the same
"scriptures"--and those only--that Jesus and his apostles used, right?
That would relegate the entire New Testament, and much of the Old
Testament, into the realm of "non-scripture". I don't think that's what
you had in mind.

My question is directed more to questions of authority and
canonization. Let's assume here a canon of texts known as the Bible
(question #2): since you assert that it is the "rule of faith", I want
to know who authorized that collection of texts to be the rule. Are you
saying it's you? If someone else, then who was it? And where, exactly,
can I read about this someone authorizing (on God's behalf, I guess)
this particular collection of texts?

>>2) Which Bible? There are significant differences,
>>or so I've read, and finally,

<snip>
>2) A literal translation is what should be sought.

My experience with foreign languages tells me there is no such thing as
a literal translation for most any word from one language into another.
Closer and further away from a literal meaning, but never the exact
literal meaning. That would be important when it comes to theological
terms and narrative, no?

<snip observations on the original texts>

Why not require, simply, texts in the original languages? Muslims have
it right here, it seems....

>5) I only consider translations that are as literal
>as possible, meaning word for word. Who is
>man to say that God wanted His word to read
>differently than He gave it to us? That seems
>to me, to be the highest form of arrogance.

...which is a good argument to read only the original Hebrew and Greek,
no?

<snip specific translation recommends>

Among your recommendations--the KJV??? Don't get me wrong, it's my
favorite translation. But it may be the furthest away from the criteria
you set up. It's easily the most literary, but probably the least
literal, IMO.

<snip observation about Jesus' use of "scripture", which was not my
concern>

>>3) Who is "our": your denomination, Christians
>>in general, or everyone?

>I am of no denomination. I believe they are
>division and <snip Pauline text denouncing division>

>I am only speaking of the Christian faith, not of
>denominational beliefs, which may or may not
>be correct.

Your switch from "our" to "I" had me confused. I'm still not clear what
you mean. You're no doubt sincere in not wanting to foment division,
but that attempt is about 2000 years (1500 from another perspective)
too late, isn't it? For example, I suspect you'd readily acknowledge an
appreciable difference between Catholic and Protestant: I suspect
you're the latter, and that the distinction is not insignificant to
you. How am I batting? Even among Protestants, we've seen in the past
500 years some rather bloody differences arise; as a consequence, it's
hard to believe anyone can portray those differences as minimal or
insignificant. I take it you try to encompass all beliefs and try not
to exclude based on doctrine, is that correct? Your assertion about the
"rule of faith" belies that, of course, thus my confusion.

I suppose that when you say that you are "speaking of the Christian
faith", I can't help but wonder if you're using circular reasoning by
assuming what "the Christian faith" is in the first place--since so
many disagree what that means, despite your attempts to side with Paul.
Who knows what Paul would say were he here today? --but if he
maintained the same thing, then clearly he would exclude the majority
of what the majority consider "Christian". That seems like a problem to
me.

But my original question was given only to establish who the "our" was
that held "the Bible" as a "ruler [sic] of faith". The answer to that
might clear up for me the reasoning behind your assertion about the
Bible being such a strict standard.

>>Regretfully,
>>H

>Regretfully?

I always regret asking theological questions, and ever revere the
wisdom of Ben Franklin, who said that "many an argument among divines
may be thus abridged: It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so."

>Btw, let me know which group you are in, as there
>are groups included that I know are not Christian
>groups.

...heretic or Christian, depending on your perspective. That's why I
hesitate to wade into this. Those groups you happen to know are not
Christian: do they consider themselves Christian? How would they
consider your exclusion of their faith? Are you a Christian in their
eyes? Again, it comes back to authority: who is authorized to say which
word in which collection of sacred texts has which particular doctrinal
meaning that excludes which other adherents to the (often same) sacred
texts?

Not too regretful yet, but waiting...,
H

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:24:13 GMT, Pastor Dave
<[email protected]> wrote the following in
alt.fan.art-bell:

[...]

>Baptism was something that was done
>AFTER someone converted to Christianity, NOT
>before.

So the people that John the Baptist had baptized before he met Jesus
were already all Christians?

{snip}

---
Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
AFA-B Vote Rustlers Local 102

"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a
stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million
years .."

"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)

On 10 Jul 2005 05:51:16 +0200, "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]>
wrote the following in alt.fan.art-bell:

>"Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> spake thusly and wrote:
>>
>> > When a person is
>> > baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit enters the
>> > body and the person is granted eternal life.
>>
>> No, those baptised into the man made catholic trinity usually end
>> up deceived into hell.
>>
>> Pastor Winter http://www.onegodsermons.com
>
>You're about as much of a Pastor as Al Sharpton. Spreading disinformation
>like that, intentionally or not, is going to earn you an express ticket
>to the place you mentioned along with anyone else that is challenged
>enough to fall for your hog wash.
>

Religious k00k Fight !!!!1!!!!

---
Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
AFA-B Vote Rustlers Local 102

"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a
stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million
years .."

"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:51:29 GMT, Bookman <[email protected]>
wrote the following in alt.fan.art-bell:

>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:50:37 -0500, Carl Wilson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:24:13 GMT, Pastor Dave
>><[email protected]> wrote the following in
>>alt.fan.art-bell:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Baptism was something that was done
>>>AFTER someone converted to Christianity, NOT
>>>before.
>>
>>So the people that John the Baptist had baptized before he met Jesus
>>were already all Christians?
>>
>>{snip}
>
>Looks like that didn't count, Carl. We must presume that John the
>Baptist went to eternal torture in Hell, because he wasn't baptized
>right.
>
>ESL!

Sent to Hell on a minor technicality. Now that sucks!

---
Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
AFA-B Vote Rustlers Union Local 102

"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a
stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million
years .."

"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:46:50 -0400, "Apostle Keith Williams"
<[email protected]> wrote the following in
alt.fan.art-bell:

>Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown, and I'm glad I saw your post.
> God wants a good Father and faithful children kind of relationship with
>us.
>God wants everybody to be water baptized and Holy Spirit baptized. Both
>baptisms,
>water baptism, and the Holy Spirit baptism, are of God. We don't have to
>wait for our
>children to understand anything. Everybody needs God, and a child is
>somebody.
>Yes! Get your child water baptized. John Baptist was filled with the Holy
>Spirit
>while yet inside his mother's womb. God saw baby John's need. Nobody
>asked John,
>God blessed those holy parents' baby with some of God's Holy Spirit. We
>can feed,
>clothe, bathe, and shelter our children, and we can get them water baptized
>too.
>We also can pray for God to save them and baptize them with the Holy Spirit.
>Yes we can. This is God's will. Beware of God's enemies; God will burn
>them soon.

Burn them soon? Is that anything like the claim that Jesus is
returning *real soon*? You know, the claim that they've been making
for nearly 2000 years now?

How about we burn a few witches in the meantime? You know, to keep the
public interest in burning people going until then?


>God bless you to do His will.
> Apostle Keith Brown.
>"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
>> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
>> but I lean toward agnosticism.
>>
>> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
>> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
>> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
>> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>>
>> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
>> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
>> by other Christian disciplines?
>>
>> Thanks, in advance.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sean Monaghan
>>
>

---
Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
AFA-B Vote Rustlers Union Local 102

"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million years .."

"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2005 19:57:54 -0700, "hylourgos"
> <[email protected]> spake thusly:
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >>>1) Who, exactly, determined that "what the Bible
> >>>and the Bible alone says, that is our ruler of faith"?
> >
> >>When we read the Scriptures, we can see that
> >>the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles, all
> >>referenced the word of God to support their
> >>claims and that the Scriptures are true.
> >
> >By this reasoning then, we ought to use as
> >a "rule of faith" the same "scriptures"--and
> >those only--that Jesus and his apostles
> >used, right?
>
> No. That would assume that God was done.
<snip>
...which was my point (perhaps we agree on this issue?). You wrote
above that the prophets, Jesus and the apostles used scriptures to
support their claims. Since they used only some of the books that you
refer to as the Old Testament, and none of the New Testament books,
then you cannot say that they were the ones who determined this rule
that you assert (namely, that "what the Bible and the Bible alone says,
that is our ruler of faith"). Or can you tell me where I can read about
their doctrine that the KJV (or any canonized version) should be the
rule of faith?

The "Bible", whichever one you prefer, is a collection of books
assembled long after the time of Jesus and the apostles, from what I
understand. Many Christians such as yourself believe and assert exactly
as you do, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith. I simply don't
understand why you believe that. Jesus and the apostles did not
assemble the Bible as you know it. Do you know who did, and how they
were divinely sanctioned in their work? The answer to that would lead
us to a better conclusion about its rank of the sole standard of faith,
no?
>
>
> >My question is directed more to questions
> >of authority and canonization. Let's assume
> >here a canon of texts known as the Bible
> >(question #2): since you assert that it is the
> >"rule of faith", I want to know who authorized
> >that collection of texts to be the rule.
>
> Jesus and the Apostles.

Please cite the location of this authorization so I can read it.
>
>
> >>2) A literal translation is what should be sought.
> >
> >My experience with foreign languages tells me there is no such thing as
> >a literal translation for most any word from one language into another.
> >Closer and further away from a literal meaning, but never the exact
> >literal meaning. That would be important when it comes to theological
> >terms and narrative, no?
>
> You are trying to say that almost no words
> can be translated literally. That isn't true.
>
[Ben Franklin redux?....] All right. Let's try it out. Pick a word or
two from the KJV that has some moderate theological significance. We'll
investigate to see if there is an *exact* correspondence in the
original, or if the original can shed more light on its meaning because
it's used in different contexts in that other language.

My favorite sentiment on this matter is as follows: "Poetry is that
which in translation is lost" (Frost, I think). Goes equally well for
good prose too.

I have to wonder if you know any other languages fluently--?? I have
met no fluent speakers of other tongues who believe in literal
translations. More and less literal yes; exactly literal, no. That's
just not how words and languages work.
>
> >Why not require, simply, texts in the original languages?
> >Muslims have it right here, it seems....
>
> We have them and anyone who wishes
> to, can learn them.

Ah, yes, there's the rub.

> And you forget, Muslims
> are raised knowing the language they read
> their holy book in.

You're joking, right? All, or even a majority of, Muslims grow up
speaking Arabic, is that what you're saying?
>
<snip>
> >Among your recommendations--the KJV??? Don't get me wrong, it's my
> >favorite translation. But it may be the furthest away from the criteria
> >you set up. It's easily the most literary, but probably the least
> >literal, IMO.
>
> That's not true at all. It's far more toward
> literal, than anything else.
>
So I am to understand that you read Greek and have compared them?
>
> >>>3) Who is "our": your denomination, Christians
> >>>in general, or everyone?
> >
> >>I am of no denomination. I believe they are
> >>division and <snip Pauline text denouncing division>
> >
> >>I am only speaking of the Christian faith, not of
> >>denominational beliefs, which may or may not
> >>be correct.
> >
> >Your switch from "our" to "I" had me confused.
>
> No, the question said, "our". Someone asked,
> "Who is 'our' your denomination?"

?? Please look above at the thread. You began by using "our" in
asserting the Bible as "our ruler of faith." I (not "someone") asked
"Who is "our": ... [NB: you left out the colon when quoting me, and the
subsequent clauses too, which renders the question illogical] then gave
three choices. Your answer was essentially the second (Christians in
general), but you switched from the plural to the singular in a way
that was confusing. It's right there above, have a look.

Regards,
H

Prometheus wrote:
> Shoulda stayed out of it myself, but I had a moment of
> weakness (tacere).

Dear (temporarily) Epimetheus,

Good to hear from you!

Ego etiam tacitus conatus, sed quam Juvenali, tam mihi.

Ridens,
H...qui homo Horationus saepius esse debet.

Pastor Steve Winter wrote:

> infant baptism is just one more scam of the false-christian
> church since an infant cannot know or repent.
>

This is not false doctrine... nothing on behalf of the one being
baptized brings about the promise that Jesus Christ gave us in the
sacrament. If you are saying "I must do THIS or THAT in order for Jeus'
promise to be there" you are saying that Jesus needs YOUR HELP... This
is a lie of the worst kind. Infant baptism is the perfect example of
how helpless we are without Christ as our intercessor.

Hope this helps,

--Carl

Richard Frank Dick Foot wrote:
> "Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > If we baptise the child in, say, an Anglican church, would
> > the baptism be recognised by other Christian disciplines?
>
> Catholicism Lite, Anglicanism if you want to call it that, is not
> Christian.
>
> Here are the general rules for being a Christian.
>
> The following violations will result in a monetary fine of no less than
> =A3200 as to be determined by Church Pastors and Elders:
>
> 1. failure to attend church on time,
> 2. failure to attend a church service without written permission from
> a pastor or other agreed upon authority,
> 3. church parking lot violations,
> 4. single males or females caught in the houses of members of the
> opposite sex without proper supervision,
> 5. out after curfew,
> 6. failure to tithe,
> 7. failure to perform Christian Service obligations,
> 8. use of a church key without proper permission,
> 9. sleeping and/or horseplay during church services, reading of 'crime
> oriented' comic books, possession of alcohol outside of Post Communion
> Party regulations,
> 10. idol worship,
> 11. inappropriate dress in town or in church, dress related to
> 'counter-culture' movement,
> 12. possession of a beard (except with special permission from Pastor
> Dick Foot),
> 13. long earrings on women,
> 14. use of tampons is strictly prohibited,
> 15. men with earrings or jewelry of any kind, hugging,
> 16. possession of pornographic material (except for widowed or single
> men over the age of 65),
> 17. failure to identify oneself to a church authority,
> 18. failure to answer a call slip,
> 19. witchcraft,
> 20. dancing and/or skipping,
> 21. association with Catholics, John Mark "ministries", Presbyterians,
> Mormons, Methodists, Unitarians, Episkypols, or any other occult activity
> (unless under supervision by Rev. Dr. Richard Frank Dick Foot),
> 22. failure to conform to rules and regulations,
> 23. failure to submit to authority,
> 24. questioning of church authority,
> 25. failure to bring at least one new guest to church a week,
> 26. failure to win at least one soul a week,
> 27. disrespect,
> 28. lying (other than in the cause of Broomleigh),
> 29. stealing,
> 30. cheating,
> 31. plotting,
> 32. failure to have a demon-possessed infant sterilized,
> 33. attendance at non-Christian owned public houses, and
> 34. rock music.
>
>
>
> --
> Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot MA, DD, FFD
> The Guardian of English Christianity
> Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Z=FCrich)
> 111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
> http://www.broomleigh.com/

Please stay where you are. Goddamned fundamentalist Southron Baptists
are a big enough pain in the ass.

Richard Frank Dick Foot wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Please stay where you are. Goddamned fundamentalist
> > Southron Baptists are a big enough pain in the ass.
>
> Arse dickhead, we're God's own people: English.
>
>
> --
> Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot MA, DD, FFD
> The Guardian of English Christianity
> Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Z=FCrich)
> 111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
> http://www.broomleigh.com/

WD wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 06:38:36 -0700, "Charlie Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Please stay where you are. Goddamned fundamentalist Southron Baptists
> >are a big enough pain in the ass.
>
> God will punish you for using foul language.

Sure he will. Idiot.

Hey, have you ever wondered if they stop and drain that baptismal font
if the first kid gets nervous and pees in it?

Richard Frank Dick Foot wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1121560270.421485.267040
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Hey, have you ever wondered if they stop and drain that
> > baptismal font if the first kid gets nervous and pees in it?
>
> I do know that you will be pleading with us True Christians=AE in heaven =
for
> an oh-so-cooling golden shower, when you are eternally burning in hell,
> being sodomised by Satan, and having your flesh gnawed by deranged beasts
> the dear Lord Jesus made specifically for the purpose.
>
>
> --
> Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot MA, DD, FFD
> The Guardian of English Christianity
> Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Z=FCrich)
> 111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
> http://www.broomleigh.com/

Yawn. Burp.

Richard Frank Dick Foot wrote:
> WD <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Blind "Faith" always leads to disaster.
>
>
> Faith is when you believe something that is not true.
>
>

Wow... that is a sad statement... you call yourslf a PASTOR?

--Carl

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> but I lean toward agnosticism.
>
> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>
> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
> by other Christian disciplines?
>
> Thanks, in advance.
>
> --
>
> Sean Monaghan

Sean, I guess the whole thing boils down to whether there's any saving
effacacy of baptisim. I do not believe there is, but there are those who
disagree with me. With respect to this disagreement, each side tends to
discount the baptisims performed by the other camp.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the RCC and the Anglican Church are on the
same page regarding infant baptisim.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:20:19 -0400, in rec.woodworking, Pastor Steve Winter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Carl Wilson <[email protected]> spake thusly and
>wrote:
>
>>So the people that John the Baptist had baptized before he met Jesus
>>were already all Christians?
>
>Actually they had to be re-baptised in Jesus Name in order to
>become Christians.
>
>Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost
>since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as
>heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
>3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
>they said, Unto John’s baptism.
>4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
>repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on
>him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
>5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
>Lord Jesus.
>6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost
>came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
>
>Too bad that account doesn't fit with so many folk's religion.
>
>Why would those with a non-Biblical experience and a non-Biblical
>religion imagine themselves to be Christians.

and what makes you think you are a Christian, Stebie...

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:12:44 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Parents should have their children baptized as soon after birth as
>> possible. If the child dies before being baptized, he will go to Limbo

>Where is 'Limbo', Vito? Find a Bible verse to support your assertion that
>such a place exists.

It's stated in John 3:5.

>> instead of straight to Heaven.

>So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the verses
>that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while awaiting the
>Second Coming?

Except for those that die in the perfect friendship of God.

>> When a person is baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity...
>Ooops! This will raise the ire of The Good Pastor, you trinitarian.

That IS what the bible say.

>> ...the Holy Spirit enters the body and the person is granted eternal
>> life.
>Where is the personal confession of sin and the acceptance of Jesus as
>Saviour?

That comes with maturity. Until then, actual sin is impossible so baptism
suffices.

>> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their children.
>So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?

No actual sin is possible of the infant/child until maturity. What do you think
Jesus is - a cruel heathen?

>...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.

He disagrees with Christ.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 14:49:32 -0400, "gw" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ken Muldrew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
>> >the appropriate age.
>>
>> I assume by "baptising" you're talking about buying a child his or her
>> own set of woodworking tools. I believe the appropriate age is when
>> the child is able to put a good, serviceable edge on a chisel or plane
>> blade. Those children who are baptised as infants never learn to
>> properly care for their tools, so I believe you would do a diservice
>> to the child by having a premature baptism.
>>
>> Now, the more important question: What tools are appropriate for a
>> baptism? I believe this is the area where you will find a schism
>> between the major religions. Especially fractious is the ongoing
>> debate about the tools of choice for Jewish carpenters. The church of
>> Norm believes that the church has a right to great wealth and they
>> condone its use for outfitting the shop. Whereas there are those who
>> feel that Jesus didn't even own the simple hand-tools that he worked
>> with. This latter group preaches the simplicity of non-corded tools,
>> but if you examine their accounts with the Temples of L(e/i)e (Valley
>> or Neilson), you will find that Mammon is not far from their practice,
>> if far from their beliefs. Then too, there are the pagans who will
>> insist that the wood must be the guide; the tools being mere artifacts
>> of the way.
>>
>> Woodorkers, please help this wayward soul, and provide suggestions for
>> the baptismal right.
>>
>
>I think a ritual blood-letting needs to be worked in somewhere. Also,
>rigorous schooling in the tenets of Crapsman vs. Grizzly, The Staining of
>Cherry, and the sins of the SawStop.
>
let's not forget the sacrifice... bring on the young virgins!
(oh, and find something to kill)


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On 8 Jul 2005 12:42:18 -0700, "RichD" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The Title is "rec woodworking" What the hell has baptism got to do with
>woodworking???? Do us all a favor and take you conversation to some
>other group more appropriate for the subject matter.

Well, many Baptismal Fonts are made of wood. The few immersion-type
Baptism pools that I have seen all had wood trim, at least. HTH.

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/index.html

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:24:57 -0500, Carl Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:46:50 -0400, "Apostle Keith Williams"
><[email protected]> wrote the following in
>alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>>Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown, and I'm glad I saw your post.
>> God wants a good Father and faithful children kind of relationship with
>>us.
>>God wants everybody to be water baptized and Holy Spirit baptized. Both
>>baptisms,
>>water baptism, and the Holy Spirit baptism, are of God. We don't have to
>>wait for our
>>children to understand anything. Everybody needs God, and a child is
>>somebody.
>>Yes! Get your child water baptized. John Baptist was filled with the Holy
>>Spirit
>>while yet inside his mother's womb. God saw baby John's need. Nobody
>>asked John,
>>God blessed those holy parents' baby with some of God's Holy Spirit. We
>>can feed,
>>clothe, bathe, and shelter our children, and we can get them water baptized
>>too.
>>We also can pray for God to save them and baptize them with the Holy Spirit.
>>Yes we can. This is God's will. Beware of God's enemies; God will burn
>>them soon.
>
>Burn them soon? Is that anything like the claim that Jesus is
>returning *real soon*? You know, the claim that they've been making
>for nearly 2000 years now?
>
>How about we burn a few witches in the meantime? You know, to keep the
>public interest in burning people going until then?

"Burn the witch!

How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a newt!

A newt?!?

I got better..."

(Paraphased from M. Python)

>
>
>>God bless you to do His will.
>> Apostle Keith Brown.
>>"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
>>> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
>>> but I lean toward agnosticism.
>>>
>>> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
>>> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
>>> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
>>> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>>>
>>> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
>>> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
>>> by other Christian disciplines?
>>>
>>> Thanks, in advance.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Sean Monaghan
>>>
>>
>
>---
>Official Junior Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
>AFA-B Vote Rustlers Union Local 102
>
>"Subashuka Footoo Dave Swyden, let us hear your questions. I'm a stranger to this planet myself, but we are here since 6.5 million years .."
>
>"N.B.: We use to call ourselves Plejarer/ Pleiadiens"
>~ Charles D. Bohne (a few hours after his medications wore off)

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/index.html

On 16 Jul 2005 17:31:10 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> God will punish you for using foul language.
>
>Sure he will. Idiot.
>
>Hey, have you ever wondered if they stop and drain that baptismal font
>if the first kid gets nervous and pees in it?

.....a short real life story:

My kid was 11 when a Born again Christian family took her to church
every Sunday, later they invited my wife to the church and spend two
evening a week indoctrinating her. A year or so into the episode they
wanna baptized my kid. I say "NO", she was too young.

All the while I stood by the sideline. Once in a while I attended the
church's services. The matter took a different direction when her best
classmate who incidentally invited her to church insulted and abused
my kid in school. Both my wife and kid learned for themselves without
me interfering.

I believe: Practice what you preach. Actions speak louder than words.
Blind "Faith" always leads to disaster.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:05:19 GMT, "Richard Frank Dick Foot"
< emaildickatbroomleighdotorgorcomor@name        .net> wrote:

>I do know that you will be pleading with us True Christians® in heaven for
>an oh-so-cooling golden shower, when you are eternally burning in hell,
>being sodomised by Satan, and having your flesh gnawed by deranged beasts
>the dear Lord Jesus made specifically for the purpose.

I know (Boston, San Diego etc...) your "True Christians®" being sued for what
Satan does in hell. pleading, you must be kidding?

Satan spake thusly and wrote:

>and what makes you think you are a Christian, Stebie...

I must be doing something right to have so many of the Satanic
gutless anon cowards upset with me, eh?

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?

[email protected] wrote:

> Please don't feed this obvious troll. The only thing this has to do
> with woodworking is what he does on Saturday night.

Excuse me, but the woodworking group was added because I am looking to
hear opinions from a diverse range of individuals. I do lurk here, at
times, and I respect the opinions of the ww regulars.

[It isn't like the subject of religion never comes up.]

Besides that - Jesus was a carpenter. <g>

--

Sean Monaghan

"Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It is appropriate to "dedicate" a child to the Lord but really
> what is happening there is the parents dedicate themselves to the
> Lord.
>
> Jesus Name Baptism is part of the new birth whereby one becomes a
> Christian and is not appropriate without repentance. Therefore
> infant baptism is just one more scam of the false-christian
> church since an infant cannot know or repent.

I STRONGLY disagree with you. Parents should have their children baptized
as soon after birth as possible. If the child dies before being baptized,
he will go to Limbo instead of straight to Heaven. When a person is
baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit enters the
body and the person is granted eternal life. Parents should not take
chances with the souls of their children.

VK

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 07 Jul 2005 04:15:11 GMT, "Sean Monaghan"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> > girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> > but I lean toward agnosticism.
>
> So, non-practicing and agnostic.

He's an atheist and he's full of hot air.

> Why worry about baptism, then?

He isn't WORRIED about it. He's making a mockery out of Christianity.
Sadly enough, the children suffer in cases like this because of immoral
parents.

VK

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
>the appropriate age.

I assume by "baptising" you're talking about buying a child his or her
own set of woodworking tools. I believe the appropriate age is when
the child is able to put a good, serviceable edge on a chisel or plane
blade. Those children who are baptised as infants never learn to
properly care for their tools, so I believe you would do a diservice
to the child by having a premature baptism.

Now, the more important question: What tools are appropriate for a
baptism? I believe this is the area where you will find a schism
between the major religions. Especially fractious is the ongoing
debate about the tools of choice for Jewish carpenters. The church of
Norm believes that the church has a right to great wealth and they
condone its use for outfitting the shop. Whereas there are those who
feel that Jesus didn't even own the simple hand-tools that he worked
with. This latter group preaches the simplicity of non-corded tools,
but if you examine their accounts with the Temples of L(e/i)e (Valley
or Neilson), you will find that Mammon is not far from their practice,
if far from their beliefs. Then too, there are the pagans who will
insist that the wood must be the guide; the tools being mere artifacts
of the way.

Woodorkers, please help this wayward soul, and provide suggestions for
the baptismal right.

Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 07 Jul 2005 04:15:11 GMT, "Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home.
>
> hmm... I only raise kids, veggies, dust and hell in mine...
>
> I think most folks true baptism is their first experience using a good
> power tool.. YMMV

Christianity is not a joking matter, and neither is the soul of child.

VK

"Perttu Pulkkinen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 1) God loves You both (you & girlfriend) very much

I agree, but that alone won't save Sean's soul. First of all, they
shouldn't even be HAVING children as long as they are not married. Second
of all, God loves ALL his creatures, even trolls like the OP. But you
should be alerted to the malicious nature of the OP and take that into
consideration before you waste another key stroke on him. He changed his
email address in this posting. His "NORMAL" email adresses are
[email protected] and [email protected], do a groups search by author
in Google dot com for those addresses and you'll see what kind of a
corrupted soul you're replying to.

VK

"Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> spake thusly and wrote:
>
> > When a person is
> > baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit enters the
> > body and the person is granted eternal life.
>
> No, those baptised into the man made catholic trinity usually end
> up deceived into hell.
>
> Pastor Winter http://www.onegodsermons.com

You're about as much of a Pastor as Al Sharpton. Spreading disinformation
like that, intentionally or not, is going to earn you an express ticket
to the place you mentioned along with anyone else that is challenged
enough to fall for your hog wash.

VK

"Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and
> scribbled this in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...
>
> Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle is nuttier
> than a fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant troll.
>
> Which one are you?

I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that, Peter.
Considering that YOU fall into both categories.

VK

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:11 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Where is 'Limbo', Vito? Find a Bible verse to support your assertion
>>>that such a place exists.
>> It's stated in John 3:5.
>???
>John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
>be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
>God.

By your way of thinking, the unbaptized are doomed to hell for all eternity.

>Where is the reference to 'Limbo'? Hint: the word does not appear in the
>Bible.

But Of course, for most Latin words don't nor do any English or Cambodian words.

>>>> instead of straight to Heaven.
>>>So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the
>>>verses that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while
>>>awaiting the Second Coming?
>
>> Except for those that die in the perfect friendship of God.

>...and where is this stated in The Bible? 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 52
>states that those who sleep (are dead) will rise at the Last Trumpet:

Yep, that's those that destined for heaven, but are not clean enough to stand
before God. Rev 21:27.

Those that are go straight there.

>Nowhere in The Bible does it say anything about being "baptized in the
>names of the Holy Trinity". It mentions being Baptized in the Holy
>Spirit, but nothing about a trinity.

Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
always, to the very end of the age."

>> That comes with maturity. Until then, actual sin is impossible so
>> baptism suffices.
>Your Bibilical support for this would be...?

Infants and children cannot actually sin because they are incapable of
understanding sin, and the bible says until they are baptized, they cannot see
the kingdom of God. Unless something covers this period, they are destined to
hell if what you say is true and they die before they are baptized. Why would
Jesus do that to the children?

>So far, you are 0 for 3 on your Biblical references.

0 for 3 at being wrong.

>>>> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their children.
>>>So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?

>> No actual sin is possible of the infant/child until maturity. What do
>> you think Jesus is - a cruel heathen?

>Have you reviewed what God instructed Moses to tell Israel in Numbers 31?
>God and Jesus (by extension) have decidedly cruel moments.

Uh, actually I'm a Christian. What God told Moses is for the Jews. You know,
OT vs NT.

>>>...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.
>> He disagrees with Christ.

>You actually mean: your constructions of Jesus, which are based on
>millenia of myth-making.

Nope, actually the bible.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:26:41 -0500, duke <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:47:05 GMT, Bookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Then you explain what happens to the prebaptized who die. Scripture clearly
>>>says one cannot see the kingdom of God unless one is baptized.
>
>>But since Jesus didn't mention this "limbo" place, then there's only
>>one other alternative in your lexican, is there?
>
>He didn't mention it by Latin name, but he certainly stated it was there in John
>3:5. Unless the new born is baptized, he cannot see the kingdom of God. So
>that leaves only hell and some other intermediate place of more than hell but
>less then the kingdom as possible choices. Of course, we don't know the mind of
>God, so there could be other "places" also.

What "some other intermediate place of more than hell but less then
the kingdom"? Chapter and verse, please.

>
>>>>>>Where is the reference to 'Limbo'? Hint: the word does not appear in
>>>>>>the Bible.
>>>>> But Of course, for most Latin words don't nor do any English or
>>>>> Cambodian words.
>>>>OK, so what word is actually used? What word in Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew
>>>>is used?
>>>
>>>A "word" isn't necessary. The bible is very clear. But a person such as you
>>>can always wish for more. I just listen to Christ.
>>
>>Where does Christ say or describe "limbo"? Chapter & verse, please.
>
>John 3:5.

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

KJV, from: http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

Nothing about this "limbo" place. Or are you using a different
version?

>
>>>>Revelation 21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that
>>>>defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but
>>>>they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
>>>>Where does it say that the those clean enough to stand before God go
>>>>straight there?
>
>>>It says that those that aren't don't.
>
>>IOW, nothing about this "limbo" place.
>
>See John 3:5.

I did. There's nothing about "limbo" in that verse.

>
>>>>>>Nowhere in The Bible does it say anything about being "baptized in the
>>>>>>names of the Holy Trinity". It mentions being Baptized in the Holy
>>>>>>Spirit, but nothing about a trinity.
>>>
>>>>> Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
>>>>> 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on
>>>>> earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all
>>>>> nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
>>>>> of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have
>>>>> commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the
>>>>> age."
>>>
>>>>So you throw a rope around three concepts and call it "The Trinity". How
>>>>very inventive of you, Duke.
>>>
>>>Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Godhead. Three. Trinity. If you don't like the
>>>title, make one up for yourself.
>
>>It didn't say "Godhead" or "Trinity", you did.
>
>Lots of words aren't in the bible. Like rapture.

Ah, so you accept extra-biblical sources? To what limits?

>
>>>Christ said to baptize all nations in the name of the "three".
>>nope, it said "in the name of the Father and of the Son and
>>of the Holy Spirit", not "the three".
>
>The three have one name as you point out (name, not names), and it is God
>almighty.

No, the verse used three names, it didn't say "Almighty God".

>
>There you go - the Holy Trinity, the Godhead.

The extra-biblical concept, the revision.

>
>>>>Both of us are unable to speculate on the motives of Jesus. That is
>>>>merely conjecture and hoping on the part of anyone who tries such a
>>>>foolish exercise.
>
>>>Well, that's what a Christian is. We Christians take his words and live by
>>>them. Jews take the words of the OT and live by them.
>
>>So you don't accept the OT as scripture?
>
>Of course I do. But I also recognize that the OT prophesies the coming of the
>Messiah, 2000 years ago he came, and he said that he has fulfilled the old
>covenant and started a new one.

But you still accept the old covenant, too, right? So you have two
covenants?

>
>That's God's words.

While we're at it, which creation story is the correct one?

>
>>>The OT is God introducing himself to man, and to establish the coming of his
>>>kingdom. 2000 years ago, his kingdom arrived in the person of Jesus, God become
>>>flesh. Jesus completed the old covenant and started a new one. Heb 8:7-13.
>>>That's the one I live by. I'm not Jewish.
>
>>Oh, so you view the OT as obsolete. Thanks for the info.
>
>You're welcome. I'm following the words of the Messiah.

Plus others that don't come from him.

>
>>>So's my Christian knowledge.
>>No, I haven't seen much evidence of your "Christian knowledge".
>>Nothing there to note.
>>ESL!
>
>Well, you'll wise up one day.

Will that be the day that your 'loving, merciful God" starts to
torture me for all eternity for the 'sin' of guessing wrong?

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/index.html

On 8 Jul 2005 19:57:54 -0700, "hylourgos"
<[email protected]> spake thusly:

>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>>>1) Who, exactly, determined that "what the Bible
>>>and the Bible alone says, that is our ruler of faith"?
>
>>When we read the Scriptures, we can see that
>>the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles, all
>>referenced the word of God to support their
>>claims and that the Scriptures are true.
>
>By this reasoning then, we ought to use as
>a "rule of faith" the same "scriptures"--and
>those only--that Jesus and his apostles
>used, right?

No. That would assume that God was done.
Jesus wanted His message spread and said
so and the Apostles were ordained to instruct.


>My question is directed more to questions
>of authority and canonization. Let's assume
>here a canon of texts known as the Bible
>(question #2): since you assert that it is the
>"rule of faith", I want to know who authorized
>that collection of texts to be the rule.

Jesus and the Apostles.


>>2) A literal translation is what should be sought.
>
>My experience with foreign languages tells me there is no such thing as
>a literal translation for most any word from one language into another.
>Closer and further away from a literal meaning, but never the exact
>literal meaning. That would be important when it comes to theological
>terms and narrative, no?

You are trying to say that almost no words
can be translated literally. That isn't true.


>Why not require, simply, texts in the original languages?
>Muslims have it right here, it seems....

We have them and anyone who wishes
to, can learn them. And you forget, Muslims
are raised knowing the language they read
their holy book in.


>>5) I only consider translations that are as literal
>>as possible, meaning word for word. Who is
>>man to say that God wanted His word to read
>>differently than He gave it to us? That seems
>>to me, to be the highest form of arrogance.
>
>...which is a good argument to read only the
>original Hebrew and Greek, no?

That would be the best way, yes.


>Among your recommendations--the KJV??? Don't get me wrong, it's my
>favorite translation. But it may be the furthest away from the criteria
>you set up. It's easily the most literary, but probably the least
>literal, IMO.

That's not true at all. It's far more toward
literal, than anything else.


>>>3) Who is "our": your denomination, Christians
>>>in general, or everyone?
>
>>I am of no denomination. I believe they are
>>division and <snip Pauline text denouncing division>
>
>>I am only speaking of the Christian faith, not of
>>denominational beliefs, which may or may not
>>be correct.
>
>Your switch from "our" to "I" had me confused.

No, the question said, "our". Someone asked,
"Who is 'our' your denomination?"

--

Pastor Dave

Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

http://tinyurl.com/ce97m

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:50:37 -0500, Carl Wilson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:24:13 GMT, Pastor Dave
><[email protected]> wrote the following in
>alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>[...]
>
>>Baptism was something that was done
>>AFTER someone converted to Christianity, NOT
>>before.
>
>So the people that John the Baptist had baptized before he met Jesus
>were already all Christians?
>
>{snip}

Looks like that didn't count, Carl. We must presume that John the
Baptist went to eternal torture in Hell, because he wasn't baptized
right.

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/index.html

Disqualified, discredited, self appointed pastor Steve Winter wrote:

> Jesus Name Baptism is part of the new birth whereby one becomes a
> Christian and is not appropriate without repentance. Therefore
> infant baptism is just one more scam of the false-christian
> church since an infant cannot know or repent.

Many infants I have known speak in tongues, which is a sign of having
received the holy spirit, according to you. That'd mean that they have
the new birth.

The gibberish these infants speak sounds the same as the gibberish you
speak, which you blame on the holy spirit and call it "speaking in tongues".

Quartus, a brother, but not your brother

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:04:06 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:iVkze.69716$oK.56457@okepread02...
>> Troll or not, this one got the group going!!!!!!!! 36 messages in about 7
>> hours.
>
>Bah! Not even worth honourable mention. :)
>
not nearly as active as the K&N air filer debates at alt.auto.dodge.trucks


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On 17 Jul 2005 14:28:16 -0700, Carl Walther put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>
>Richard Frank Dick Foot wrote:
>> WD <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > Blind "Faith" always leads to disaster.
>>
>>
>> Faith is when you believe something that is not true.
>>
>>
>
>Wow... that is a sad statement... you call yourslf a PASTOR?

For the benefit of anyone reading this who hasn't yet come across the
individual calling himself "Pastor Dick Foot", or variants of it, you
should be aware that this is an assumed name of someone who bears a
grudge against the real Pastor Foot and is deliberately trying to
blacken his name. The actual name of the person behind these postings
is Tom Moore, who has a website at <http://www.tom-moore.com>. See
also <http://www.broomleigh.org>.

Mark
--
http://www.CorporateContact.info - for when you need to get in touch
"When you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown"

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 21:41:26 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> spake thusly:

>On 07 Jul 2005 04:15:11 GMT, "Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
>>girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
>>but I lean toward agnosticism.
>>
>>We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
>>the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
>>count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
>>Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>>
>
> The difference is whether one believes that baptism is something God does
>for us, or an act that man does for God. Infant baptism is practiced
>because when Christ gave the great commission "go and teach all nations,
>baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", he said
>"all nations", not "all nations who are above a certain age".

He said to...

1) Go and teach all nations.

This came first and means that they must be
able to learn. An infant is not capable of learning
the Gospel.

2) ...baptizing them.

Baptizing whom? Them. Who is them?
Those who have been taught.

There is zero support for infant baptism
into the Christian faith in Scripture.

--

Pastor Dave

Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

http://tinyurl.com/ce97m

Whoever started this thread, and decided to crosspost/annoy people, need to
be baptized themselves. Immersion type is the only way for them and they
should be immersed for no less than fifteen minutes or until they are cold,
whichever comes first.

"RichD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Title is "rec woodworking" What the hell has baptism got to do with
> woodworking???? Do us all a favor and take you conversation to some
> other group more appropriate for the subject matter.
>

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:32:27 GMT, [email protected] (Lawrence
Wasserman) wrote:

>OK, I'll bite.
>
>
>You're not married, your GF is "non practicing", you are an
>agnostic, former catholic, and the 2 of you are expecting a child,
>presumably while you are STILL unmarried...
>
>
>I'd say baptism was irrelevant at this time. Why not let the child
>grow up and make his/her own choice, as the 2 of you apparently have?

hmm... some damn good points there...
add something about woodworking and pickup trucks, and it's not only on topic,
it might make a great county-western song.. *g*


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:29:35 GMT, Pastor Dave
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8 Jul 2005 19:57:54 -0700, "hylourgos"
><[email protected]> spake thusly:
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>1) Who, exactly, determined that "what the Bible
>>>>and the Bible alone says, that is our ruler of faith"?
>>
>>>When we read the Scriptures, we can see that
>>>the prophets and Jesus and the Apostles, all
>>>referenced the word of God to support their
>>>claims and that the Scriptures are true.
>>
>>By this reasoning then, we ought to use as
>>a "rule of faith" the same "scriptures"--and
>>those only--that Jesus and his apostles
>>used, right?
>
>No. That would assume that God was done.
>Jesus wanted His message spread and said
>so and the Apostles were ordained to instruct.
>
>
>>My question is directed more to questions
>>of authority and canonization. Let's assume
>>here a canon of texts known as the Bible
>>(question #2): since you assert that it is the
>>"rule of faith", I want to know who authorized
>>that collection of texts to be the rule.
>
>Jesus and the Apostles.
>
>
>>>2) A literal translation is what should be sought.
>>
>>My experience with foreign languages tells me there is no such thing as
>>a literal translation for most any word from one language into another.
>>Closer and further away from a literal meaning, but never the exact
>>literal meaning. That would be important when it comes to theological
>>terms and narrative, no?
>
>You are trying to say that almost no words
>can be translated literally. That isn't true.

No, he's not, Dave. Don't put word in his mouth.

>
>
>>Why not require, simply, texts in the original languages?
>>Muslims have it right here, it seems....
>
>We have them and anyone who wishes
>to, can learn them. And you forget, Muslims
>are raised knowing the language they read
>their holy book in.

Not all of them.


<Snip>

ESL!

--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook­faq/afa-b/index.html

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Why do you respond to this? How about removing rec.woodworking from the
sent-to list?

X-No-Archive: YES
Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> "Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is appropriate to "dedicate" a child to the Lord but
>> really what is happening there is the parents dedicate
>> themselves to the Lord.
>>
>> Jesus Name Baptism is part of the new birth whereby one
>> becomes a Christian and is not appropriate without
>> repentance. Therefore infant baptism is just one more
>> scam of the false-christian church since an infant
>> cannot know or repent.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with you. Parents should have their
> children baptized as soon after birth as possible. If the
> child dies before being baptized, he will go to Limbo
> instead of straight to Heaven. When a person is baptized
> in the names of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit enters
> the body and the person is granted eternal life. Parents
> should not take chances with the souls of their children.

Parents should never do ANYTHING that a k0oK like you would recommend,
Frito.

--

Chadwick Stone©

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet©
March 2005, Hammer of Thor recipient
No longer anonymous but still immune
Usenet's most helpful netizen

SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208
A mean and nasty bastard
I am the New World Order

> No, God is testing you, and you keep failing. HTH.
>
>
That's exactly right.

Anger, "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians) but pastor, you are exercising "anger"
against other people, which you have a right to do and you can be forgiven for
it too... but as far as you doing such within Christ and his salvation, neither
YOU nor anyone can escape actual GUILT for it within the court of Jesus Christ.
Even if you're forgiven for it. I sincerely hope that if you are a Pastor, the Word
makes sense to you, as follows from the NASB:

Eph 4:26
BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let
the sun go down on your anger,

Mat 5:22
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry
with his brother shall be guilty before the court;
and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-
for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme
court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be
guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Eph 4:31
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and
clamor and slander be put away from you,
along with all malice.

Jam 1:19
This you know, my beloved brethren. But
everyone must be quick to hear, slow to
speak and slow to anger;

Jam 1:20
for the anger of man does not achieve the
righteousness of God.

Amen?

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

X-No-Archive: YES
Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> "Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out
>> of the box and scribbled this in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...
>>
>> Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle
>> is nuttier than a fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant
>> troll.
>>
>> Which one are you?
>
> I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that,
> Peter. Considering that YOU fall into both categories.

I'm certain that you can present evidence that "Ross" is "Peter J. Ross" eh,
k0oKy faux-Christian?

--

Chadwick Stone©

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet©
March 2005, Hammer of Thor recipient
No longer anonymous but still immune
Usenet's most helpful netizen

SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208
A mean and nasty bastard
I am the New World Order

Another fish fuck troll.

lew

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:[email protected]...
> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> but I lean toward agnosticism.
> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
> by other Christian disciplines?
> Thanks, in advance.

More important issue is that:
1) God loves You both (you & girlfriend) very much
2) Everyone is a sinner - so you are also sinners
2) Jesus died for Your sins
2) You need to ask God forgiveness, repent and be born again form the Spirit
of God

Babtism issues will be more clear after this. They are probably hundreds of
millions of (child)babtised people, who are not saved, because they don't
know Jesus as their savoir. And I am pretty sure that there are a good
number saved people who have not yet for some reason (circumstances etc)been
babtised in any manner.

Child babtism bears this fruit: many people don't know if they are saved or
not, because they are not encouraged to decide. They can also feel that
their opinion was never asked.

P P, Finland

Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown, and I'm glad I saw your post.
God wants a good Father and faithful children kind of relationship with
us.
God wants everybody to be water baptized and Holy Spirit baptized. Both
baptisms,
water baptism, and the Holy Spirit baptism, are of God. We don't have to
wait for our
children to understand anything. Everybody needs God, and a child is
somebody.
Yes! Get your child water baptized. John Baptist was filled with the Holy
Spirit
while yet inside his mother's womb. God saw baby John's need. Nobody
asked John,
God blessed those holy parents' baby with some of God's Holy Spirit. We
can feed,
clothe, bathe, and shelter our children, and we can get them water baptized
too.
We also can pray for God to save them and baptize them with the Holy Spirit.
Yes we can. This is God's will. Beware of God's enemies; God will burn
them soon.
God bless you to do His will.
Apostle Keith Brown.
"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> but I lean toward agnosticism.
>
> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>
> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
> by other Christian disciplines?
>
> Thanks, in advance.
>
> --
>
> Sean Monaghan
>

And how the hell many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

In article <110720051943516938%[email protected]>,
posted Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:43:51 -0600,
Art Deco <[email protected]> said:

> Chadwick Stone© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive: YES
> >Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
> >[email protected]
> >
> >> "Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out
> >>> of the box and scribbled this in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...
> >>>
> >>> Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle
> >>> is nuttier than a fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant
> >>> troll.
> >>>
> >>> Which one are you?
> >>
> >> I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that,
> >> Peter. Considering that YOU fall into both categories.
> >
> >I'm certain that you can present evidence that "Ross" is "Peter J. Ross" eh,
> >k0oKy faux-Christian?
>
> This k0oKsign is so common it should be included in Teh Way of Teh k0oK:
>
> <http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm>

What's this? Ross is Ross? Ross isn't Ross! Most people know
Ross spells his name different from how Ross spells his.

--
Cm~

In article <[email protected]>,
posted Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:49:07 -0500,
Ross <[email protected]> said:

> Barbara's Cat pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled
> this in news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <110720051943516938%[email protected]>,
> > posted Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:43:51 -0600,
> > Art Deco <[email protected]> said:
> >
> >> Chadwick Stone© <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> This k0oKsign is so common it should be included in Teh Way of Teh
> >> k0oK:
> >>
> >> <http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm>
> >
> > What's this? Ross is Ross? Ross isn't Ross! Most people know
> > Ross spells his name different from how Ross spells his.
>
> Of course. I don't roll my R's the way a good Scotsman does.
>
> R.

And you don't wear your PJs in public either. ;o)

--
Cm~

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Please don't feed this obvious troll. The only thing this has to do
> > with woodworking is what he does on Saturday night.
>
> Excuse me, but the woodworking group was added because I am looking to
> hear opinions from a diverse range of individuals. I do lurk here, at
> times, and I respect the opinions of the ww regulars.

NO, you're damn well not excused. Following your sentiment, it would be
appropriate to make this newsgroup as the catch all for messages from all
80,000 usenet news groups? Fine, you respect many of the members here, but
that doesn't for one minute mean that your question belongs here. There's
enough crap here from threads that migrate to off topic conversations.
There's absolutely no reason to intentionally add to it.

From an Evangelical perspective, baptism is rooted in the following:

There is "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:4). "Go therefore and make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). "He who believes and is baptized will
be saved" (Mark 16:16). "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). "And now why
are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on
the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

It's my personal belief that baptism should not be considered for the pure
ritual of it. It's a meaningless gesture without one's heart being turned
to Christ. There is infant dedication, but that is more about parental
commitment to raise a child on a God-centered enviroinment. I guess you
could have the ceremony, but aside from the ceremonial nature of it, why
bother?

As an agnostic, why does it matter to you? However, if you are starting to
feel Christ's tug on your own heart, then you need to heed Him first. and
your own salvation, for the sake of your child and your partner Your child
is already in His heart and until your child is personally accountable for
his or her personal decision about Chirst, your child is safe.

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> but I lean toward agnosticism.
>
> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.
>
> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
> by other Christian disciplines?
>
> Thanks, in advance.
>
> --
>
> Sean Monaghan
>

X-No-Archive: YES
Vito Kuhn has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> "Perttu Pulkkinen" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 1) God loves You both (you & girlfriend) very much
>
> I agree, but that alone won't save Sean's soul.

Worry about your own soul, ya phony fuck!

--

Chadwick Stone©

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet©
March 2005, Hammer of Thor recipient
No longer anonymous but still immune
Usenet's most helpful netizen

SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208
A mean and nasty bastard
I am the New World Order

X-No-Archive: YES
CW has offered into testimony
[email protected]

> Whoever started this thread, and decided to
> crosspost/annoy people, need to be baptized themselves.
> Immersion type is the only way for them and they should
> be immersed for no less than fifteen minutes or until
> they are cold, whichever comes first.

Make sure to do that with a properly waterproofed wooden baptismal font. I
know someone who could recommend a good varnish for that.

> "RichD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Title is "rec woodworking" What the hell has baptism
>> got to do with woodworking???? Do us all a favor and
>> take you conversation to some other group more
>> appropriate for the subject matter.

--

Chadwick Stone©

Formerly the AFA-B Sovereign Sockpuppet©
March 2005, Hammer of Thor recipient
No longer anonymous but still immune
Usenet's most helpful netizen

SovereignSockpuppet at Yahoo dot com
Benevolent Order of the Pointy Stick
Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208
A mean and nasty bastard
I am the New World Order

Dream on!

"Vito Kuhn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is appropriate to "dedicate" a child to the Lord but really
>> what is happening there is the parents dedicate themselves to the
>> Lord.
>>
>> Jesus Name Baptism is part of the new birth whereby one becomes a
>> Christian and is not appropriate without repentance. Therefore
>> infant baptism is just one more scam of the false-christian
>> church since an infant cannot know or repent.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with you. Parents should have their children baptized
> as soon after birth as possible. If the child dies before being baptized,
> he will go to Limbo instead of straight to Heaven. When a person is
> baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit enters the
> body and the person is granted eternal life. Parents should not take
> chances with the souls of their children.
>
> VK

> The issue of baptism has recently been raised in my home. My
> girlfriend is a non-practicing Anglican; I was raised Roman Catholic,
> but I lean toward agnosticism.

There is a difference, structural man made religion does not provide
automatic salvation, not by any means. Only your choice to accept Jesus
is this decision.

Agnosticism is one micro step up from atheism, it gives God that 1% chance...

> We are thinking about baptising our first child, but we aren't sure of
> the appropriate age. Some people believe that infant baptism "does not
> count" because the child is too young to understand what is happening.
> Others believe that infant basptism is a *must*.

Baptism by water is accepted by the person who has made a conscious
decision. Babies cannot make this decision. It is also done in front of and
in full view of witnesses. Baptise a Baby in water or by whatever technical
means, and it won't mean much... compared to the willful decision of a
thinker.

> Also - does it matter in what church the baptism occurs? If we baptise
> the child in, say, an Anglican church, would the baptism be recognised
> by other Christian disciplines?

It just doesn't apply. Baptism that is true and involves prayer that is true is
done by born again believers, the type of sheep that actually hear the voice
of Jesus... no matter if any other type of like function performs the same
task, though God will do what he will or not.

There is only one Christian discipline, that which is deriven and obeyed of
the four gospels, and actually, such are the aft teaching books of the new
testament.

It is never the "church" as a structure created by man and it's social order or
creed basis. It is the people that are in and one in the body of Christ, those
which make up the true Church that are the bride of Christ, in salvation.

The truly saved are the church.

There is no title such as "Angelican" or "Catholic" that makes up to be
anything other than a man made social order, and Jesus is the divider of his,
between sheep and goats.

The goats are fake Christians, artificial. The true sheep got saved for real, are
hidden in Christ and are prayerful, are truly changed, they avoid sinning
wherever possible, and are known for their love. At the same time, any human
including the born agains, are still sinners.

You must be born again, and wait for the baby to grow up and make his or
her own decision, but the bible says that the family of a saved man is also
saved.

Click the link in my sig, and congrats on having a new baby!

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

> Thanks, in advance.
>
> Sean Monaghan
>

Vito Kuhn pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> "Pastor Steve Winter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is appropriate to "dedicate" a child to the Lord but really
>> what is happening there is the parents dedicate themselves to the
>> Lord.
>>
>> Jesus Name Baptism is part of the new birth whereby one becomes a
>> Christian and is not appropriate without repentance. Therefore
>> infant baptism is just one more scam of the false-christian
>> church since an infant cannot know or repent.
>
> I STRONGLY disagree with you.

Vito, how dare you disagree with the Pastor Winter! Check up on
www.prime.org for a reality check.

> Parents should have their children baptized as soon after birth as
> possible. If the child dies before being baptized, he will go to Limbo

Where is 'Limbo', Vito? Find a Bible verse to support your assertion that
such a place exists.

> instead of straight to Heaven.

So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the verses
that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while awaiting the
Second Coming?

> When a person is baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity...

Ooops! This will raise the ire of The Good Pastor, you trinitarian.

> ...the Holy Spirit enters the body and the person is granted eternal
> life.

Where is the personal confession of sin and the acceptance of Jesus as
Saviour?

> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their children.

So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?

...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The difference is whether one believes that baptism is something God
> does
...

Yeah, I know this has something to do with pointy sticks or pukey ducks.

duke pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 11:12:44 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Parents should have their children baptized as soon after birth as
>>> possible. If the child dies before being baptized, he will go to
>>> Limbo
>
>>Where is 'Limbo', Vito? Find a Bible verse to support your assertion
>>that such a place exists.
>
> It's stated in John 3:5.

???

John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.

Where is the reference to 'Limbo'? Hint: the word does not appear in the
Bible.

>>> instead of straight to Heaven.
>
>>So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the
>>verses that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while
>>awaiting the Second Coming?
>
> Except for those that die in the perfect friendship of God.

...and where is this stated in The Bible? 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 52
states that those who sleep (are dead) will rise at the Last Trumpet:

(15:51) Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed, (15:52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at
the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

>>> When a person is baptized in the names of the Holy Trinity...
>>Ooops! This will raise the ire of The Good Pastor, you trinitarian.
>
> That IS what the bible say.

Nowhere in The Bible does it say anything about being "baptized in the
names of the Holy Trinity". It mentions being Baptized in the Holy
Spirit, but nothing about a trinity.

>>> ...the Holy Spirit enters the body and the person is granted eternal
>>> life.
>>Where is the personal confession of sin and the acceptance of Jesus as
>>Saviour?
>
> That comes with maturity. Until then, actual sin is impossible so
> baptism suffices.

Your Bibilical support for this would be...?

So far, you are 0 for 3 on your Biblical references.

>>> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their children.
>>So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?
>
> No actual sin is possible of the infant/child until maturity. What do
> you think Jesus is - a cruel heathen?

Have you reviewed what God instructed Moses to tell Israel in Numbers 31?
God and Jesus (by extension) have decidedly cruel moments.

>>...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.
>
> He disagrees with Christ.

You actually mean: your constructions of Jesus, which are based on
millenia of myth-making.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

duke pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:26:11 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Where is 'Limbo', Vito? Find a Bible verse to support your
>>>>assertion that such a place exists.
>>> It's stated in John 3:5.
>>???
>>John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
>>man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
>>kingdom of God.
>
> By your way of thinking, the unbaptized are doomed to hell for all
> eternity.

No, by my way of thinking, some Christians believe this; other
Christians, such as you, 'invent' a loophole in the Scriptures to avoid
this.

>>Where is the reference to 'Limbo'? Hint: the word does not appear in
>>the Bible.
>
> But Of course, for most Latin words don't nor do any English or
> Cambodian words.

OK, so what word is actually used? What word in Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew
is used?

>>>>> instead of straight to Heaven.
>>>>So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the
>>>>verses that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while
>>>>awaiting the Second Coming?
>>
>>> Except for those that die in the perfect friendship of God.
>
>>...and where is this stated in The Bible? 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 52
>>states that those who sleep (are dead) will rise at the Last Trumpet:
>
> Yep, that's those that destined for heaven, but are not clean enough
> to stand before God. Rev 21:27.
>
> Those that are go straight there.

Hmmm....

Revelation 21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but
they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Where does it say that the those clean enough to stand before God go
straight there?

>>Nowhere in The Bible does it say anything about being "baptized in the
>>names of the Holy Trinity". It mentions being Baptized in the Holy
>>Spirit, but nothing about a trinity.
>
> Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
> 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on
> earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all
> nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
> of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have
> commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the
> age."

So you throw a rope around three concepts and call it "The Trinity". How
very inventive of you, Duke.

>>> That comes with maturity. Until then, actual sin is impossible so
>>> baptism suffices.
>>Your Bibilical support for this would be...?
>
> Infants and children cannot actually sin because they are incapable of
> understanding sin, and the bible says until they are baptized, they
> cannot see the kingdom of God. Unless something covers this period,
> they are destined to hell if what you say is true and they die before
> they are baptized. Why would Jesus do that to the children?

Both of us are unable to speculate on the motives of Jesus. That is
merely conjecture and hoping on the part of anyone who tries such a
foolish exercise.

>>So far, you are 0 for 3 on your Biblical references.
>
> 0 for 3 at being wrong.

Perhaps in your own imagination.

>>>>> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their children.
>>>>So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?
>
>>> No actual sin is possible of the infant/child until maturity. What
>>> do you think Jesus is - a cruel heathen?
>
>>Have you reviewed what God instructed Moses to tell Israel in Numbers
>>31? God and Jesus (by extension) have decidedly cruel moments.
>
> Uh, actually I'm a Christian. What God told Moses is for the Jews.
> You know, OT vs NT.

Oh, so nothing in the OT applies? So much for the Ten Commandments,
Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Daniel and a whole host of others: all of it,
straight into the trash.

>>>>...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.
>>> He disagrees with Christ.
>
>>You actually mean: your constructions of Jesus, which are based on
>>millenia of myth-making.
>
> Nope, actually the bible.

Your arrogance is noted, Duke.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

CW pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> Whoever started this thread, and decided to crosspost/annoy people,
> need to be baptized themselves. Immersion type is the only way for
> them and they should be immersed for no less than fifteen minutes or
> until they are cold, whichever comes first.

Your killfile is your friend.


--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

duke pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:20:47 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> By your way of thinking, the unbaptized are doomed to hell for all
>>> eternity.
>
>>No, by my way of thinking, some Christians believe this; other
>>Christians, such as you, 'invent' a loophole in the Scriptures to
>>avoid this.
>
> Then you explain what happens to the prebaptized who die.

They are dead -- just like everyone else who dies.

> Scripture
> clearly says one cannot see the kingdom of God unless one is baptized.



>>>>Where is the reference to 'Limbo'? Hint: the word does not appear
>>>>in the Bible.
>>> But Of course, for most Latin words don't nor do any English or
>>> Cambodian words.
>>OK, so what word is actually used? What word in Aramaic, Greek or
>>Hebrew is used?
>
> A "word" isn't necessary. The bible is very clear.

????

The Bible is anything but clear. Note the thousands of sects and the
countless who have died at the hands of those with a sword in one hand
and a Bible in the other. Listen to a handful of televangelists who
earnestly preach 'from the Word' and note on how many points they
disagree. If The Bible was very clear, then there wouldn't be all these
Christian sects.

> But a person such as you can always wish for more.

What do you mean, someone "such as me"? A critical thinker? One who
doesn't accept a truck-load of myth (known as Christianity) as literal
truth? One who uses his Creator-given gift of logic and discernment?

Really, Duke, that was a very pleasant compliment. Thanks.

> I just listen to Christ.

Well, Pastor Winter (and a whole host of others) would say you need your
hearing checked.

>>> instead of straight to Heaven.
>>>>>>So, you mean that Heaven exists at this time? What about all the
>>>>>>verses that support the concept that those who die, 'sleep' while
>>>>>>awaiting the Second Coming?
>>>>
>>>>> Except for those that die in the perfect friendship of God.
>>>
>>>>...and where is this stated in The Bible? 1 Corinthians 15:51 - 52
>>>>states that those who sleep (are dead) will rise at the Last
>>>>Trumpet:
>>>
>>> Yep, that's those that destined for heaven, but are not clean enough
>>> to stand before God. Rev 21:27.
>>>
>>> Those that are go straight there.
>>
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>Revelation 21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing
>>that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a
>>lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
>>Where does it say that the those clean enough to stand before God go
>>straight there?
>
> It says that those that aren't don't.

Balderdash. You are making up things that fit your hopes and wishes.

>>>>Nowhere in The Bible does it say anything about being "baptized in
>>>>the names of the Holy Trinity". It mentions being Baptized in the
>>>>Holy Spirit, but nothing about a trinity.
>
>>> Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
>>> 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on
>>> earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all
>>> nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
>>> of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have
>>> commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of
>>> the age."
>
>>So you throw a rope around three concepts and call it "The Trinity".
>>How very inventive of you, Duke.
>
> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Godhead. Three. Trinity. If you
> don't like the title, make one up for yourself.

Fine. ...and I always thought that Christianity was monotheistic. It is
clear you view Chrtistianity as a polytheism.

> Christ said to baptize all nations in the name of the "three".

"Three" Gods, you mean.

>>>>> That comes with maturity. Until then, actual sin is impossible so
>>>>> baptism suffices.
>>>>Your Bibilical support for this would be...?
>
>>> Infants and children cannot actually sin because they are incapable
>>> of understanding sin, and the bible says until they are baptized,
>>> they cannot see the kingdom of God. Unless something covers this
>>> period, they are destined to hell if what you say is true and they
>>> die before they are baptized. Why would Jesus do that to the
>>> children?
>
>>Both of us are unable to speculate on the motives of Jesus. That is
>>merely conjecture and hoping on the part of anyone who tries such a
>>foolish exercise.
>
> Well, that's what a Christian is. We Christians take his words and
> live by them. Jews take the words of the OT and live by them.

It is so sad that you have such a limited vision of yourself, other
Christians and those who follow Judaism.

>>>>So far, you are 0 for 3 on your Biblical references.
>>> 0 for 3 at being wrong.
>
>>Perhaps in your own imagination.
>
> You need to work on your points.

Your irony is noted, Duke.

>>>>>>> Parents should not take chances with the souls of their
>>>>>>> children.
>>>>>>So baptism is the only thing required for salvation?
>>>>> No actual sin is possible of the infant/child until maturity.
>>>>> What do you think Jesus is - a cruel heathen?
>>>>Have you reviewed what God instructed Moses to tell Israel in
>>>>Numbers 31? God and Jesus (by extension) have decidedly cruel
>>>>moments.
>
>>> Uh, actually I'm a Christian. What God told Moses is for the Jews.
>>> You know, OT vs NT.
>
>>Oh, so nothing in the OT applies? So much for the Ten Commandments,
>>Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Daniel and a whole host of others: all of it,
>>straight into the trash.
>
> The OT is God introducing himself to man, and to establish the coming
> of his kingdom. 2000 years ago, his kingdom arrived in the person of
> Jesus, God become flesh. Jesus completed the old covenant and started
> a new one. Heb 8:7-13. That's the one I live by. I'm not Jewish.

Oh, so God needed to have a warm-up period. He needed some toss a few in
the bull-pen before He hit the mound. Otherwise, Christ would have been
sent to earth to fulfull his mission just after Adam and Eve's original
sin.

Why would he let all those generations of Israel live a hopeless life?
After all, they weren't in a position to experience Baptism and are,
therefore, not bound for the Kingdom of God.

>>>>>>...Pastor Stevie Winter will most likely disagree.
>>>>> He disagrees with Christ.
>>>>You actually mean: your constructions of Jesus, which are based on
>>>>millenia of myth-making.
>>> Nope, actually the bible.
>>Your arrogance is noted, Duke.
>
> So's my Christian knowledge.

A legend in your own mind, I see.

You see, Duke, this is what happens when you take the mythology of
Christianity and attempt to wrap it in purported actual events. The
cognitive dissonance that arises from the issue of, for example,
unbaptized children that die, leads to creative invention just so you can
reconcile that dissonance. The problem is that you (and those Christians
before you) invent theology around The Bible just so the dissonance
resolves in your own mind.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

duke pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:40:18 -0500, Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Then you explain what happens to the prebaptized who die.
>>They are dead -- just like everyone else who dies.
>
> Oh, I didn't realize you aren't a Christian?

No. I was sucked into that scene in my early teens, but I was able to
extract myself from the that religion.

>>> A "word" isn't necessary. The bible is very clear.
>>????
>
> I understand.
>
>>The Bible is anything but clear. Note the thousands of sects and the
>>countless who have died at the hands of those with a sword in one hand
>>and a Bible in the other. Listen to a handful of televangelists who
>>earnestly preach 'from the Word' and note on how many points they
>>disagree. If The Bible was very clear, then there wouldn't be all
>>these Christian sects.
>
> No, the bible is VERY clear. Love one another as I have loved you.
> John 13:34.

Cherry picking verses. What I am refering to are the multitudes of
varying interpretations and confliting beliefs that stem from those
interpretations and the extrapolations of The Bible. It's all fine to
give a big broad, general statment like "Love one another as I have loved
you."; the devil (take your pick: literal or figurative) is in the
details.

>
>>> But a person such as you can always wish for more.
>
>>What do you mean, someone "such as me"? A critical thinker? One who
>>doesn't accept a truck-load of myth (known as Christianity) as literal
>>truth? One who uses his Creator-given gift of logic and discernment?
>
> If John 13:34 doesn't do it for you, what does?

See above.

>>Really, Duke, that was a very pleasant compliment. Thanks.
>
> Ok.
>
>>> I just listen to Christ.
>
>>Well, Pastor Winter (and a whole host of others) would say you need
>>your hearing checked.
>
> Pastor winter does not appear to believe in Jesus.

He believes he does, as do countless others -- some have dedicated a
great deal of effort in study of things Christian. Yet, there are
fundamental disagreements, with each camp bringin out their own cherry-
picked verses to back it up.

>>>>Revelation 21:27: And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing
>>>>that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a
>>>>lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
>>>>Where does it say that the those clean enough to stand before God go
>>>>straight there?
>
>>> It says that those that aren't don't.
>>Balderdash. You are making up things that fit your hopes and wishes.
>
> You posted Rev 21:27 above. Either you believe it or you don't. I
> do.
>
> Other bibles are much clearer as follows:
>
> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is
> shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the
> Lamb's book of life.

There is nothing there to indicate that the Kingdom, as a place where
souls of the dead dwell, presently exists in the passage you mention.
This is at the end of Revelation, after all, where John is describing the
Kingdom of God to come.

> Now you back that us with:
>
> Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)
> 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
> knowledge of
> the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful
> expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the
> enemies of God.
>
> That clearly shows you that those that know God but keep on sinning
> are booked to go, and it isn't to the kingdom of God.

With few exceptions, Christians tend follow something like this (at least
by word and not necessarily by deed).

>>Fine. ...and I always thought that Christianity was monotheistic. It
>>is clear you view Chrtistianity as a polytheism.
>
> Nope, clearly not. It's in the NAME (not name[s]) of God.

"A rose by any other name..."

>>> Christ said to baptize all nations in the name of the "three".
>>"Three" Gods, you mean.
>
> Nope. There is only one God almighty - who presented himself to us as
> 3 distinct persons - loving Father, saving Son, and sustaining Holy
> Spirit.
>
>>> Well, that's what a Christian is. We Christians take his words and
>>> live by them. Jews take the words of the OT and live by them.
>
>>It is so sad that you have such a limited vision of yourself, other
>>Christians and those who follow Judaism.
>
> Remember, there is no salvation in Judaism.

So those who follow that faith are doomed to hell? Sad. Very sad.

> Jesus is the only way to
> the Father, and he saves Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists alike.
> It's his decision.

So a Muslim must accept Christ (and therfore turns his/her back on a
major part of Islam), as a practicing Jew must to be saved?

>>> The OT is God introducing himself to man, and to establish the
>>> coming of his kingdom. 2000 years ago, his kingdom arrived in the
>>> person of Jesus, God become flesh. Jesus completed the old covenant
>>> and started a new one. Heb 8:7-13. That's the one I live by. I'm
>>> not Jewish.
>
>>Oh, so God needed to have a warm-up period. He needed some toss a few
>>in the bull-pen before He hit the mound. Otherwise, Christ would have
>>been sent to earth to fulfull his mission just after Adam and Eve's
>>original sin.
>
> You're really not making any points by acting dumb.

I'm curious. Moses didn't 'accept Christ", nor did Abraham, Noah, Jonah
David, Solomon, Daniel or <rest of very long list redacted>. Neither are
they Baptized. Are they doomed to hell?

> The divine Lord is not time dependent.

Jesus' appearance on the earth is, according to Chritianity.

> He existed before the Jews. God simply didn't
> become flesh until 2000 years ago.

So God in flesh existed before the birth of Christ?

>>>>Your arrogance is noted, Duke.
>>> So's my Christian knowledge.
>>A legend in your own mind, I see.
>
> No, but I clearly know more than you do. But that's your fault, not
> mine.
>
>>You see, Duke, this is what happens when you take the mythology of
>>Christianity and attempt to wrap it in purported actual events. The
>>cognitive dissonance that arises from the issue of, for example,
>>unbaptized children that die, leads to creative invention just so you
>>can reconcile that dissonance. The problem is that you (and those
>>Christians before you) invent theology around The Bible just so the
>>dissonance resolves in your own mind.
>
> One question. This cognitive dissonance you refer to - it is all
> directed to God, OT and NT, or just to the post resurrection of
> Christ?

None of the above. It is a function of the inherent contradictions in
The Bible (hundreds of them) and extrapolations that are in conflict with
each other.

Example: trying to reconcile the 'necessity of Baptism for salvation'
with the idea of a merciful God when considering the death of unbaptized
infants: this leads to convenient inventions like 'Limbo'.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and
scribbled this in news:[email protected]:

> Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...

Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle is nuttier than a
fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant troll.

Which one are you?

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Vito Kuhn pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled this in
news:[email protected]:

> "Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Apostle Keith Williams pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and
>> scribbled this in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > Hello, I'm Apostle Keith Brown...
>>
>> Anyone arrogant enough to refer to himself as an Apostle is nuttier
>> than a fruitcake or is an obscenely blatant troll.
>>
>> Which one are you?
>
> I'm surprised you don't already know the answer to that, Peter.
> Considering that YOU fall into both categories.

Would Jesus approve of your petty post? Vito, if you want to hold others
to a higher standard, start setting an example.

BTW, I'm not Peter, even though I spell the word 'colour'.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Barbara's Cat pulled a bright blue crayon out of the box and scribbled
this in news:[email protected]:

> In article <110720051943516938%[email protected]>,
> posted Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:43:51 -0600,
> Art Deco <[email protected]> said:
>
>> Chadwick Stone© <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> This k0oKsign is so common it should be included in Teh Way of Teh
>> k0oK:
>>
>> <http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm>
>
> What's this? Ross is Ross? Ross isn't Ross! Most people know
> Ross spells his name different from how Ross spells his.

Of course. I don't roll my R's the way a good Scotsman does.

R.

--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

"Sean Monaghan" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If we baptise the child in, say, an Anglican church, would
> the baptism be recognised by other Christian disciplines?

Catholicism Lite, Anglicanism if you want to call it that, is not
Christian.

Here are the general rules for being a Christian.

The following violations will result in a monetary fine of no less than
£200 as to be determined by Church Pastors and Elders:

1. failure to attend church on time,
2. failure to attend a church service without written permission from
a pastor or other agreed upon authority,
3. church parking lot violations,
4. single males or females caught in the houses of members of the
opposite sex without proper supervision,
5. out after curfew,
6. failure to tithe,
7. failure to perform Christian Service obligations,
8. use of a church key without proper permission,
9. sleeping and/or horseplay during church services, reading of 'crime
oriented' comic books, possession of alcohol outside of Post Communion
Party regulations,
10. idol worship,
11. inappropriate dress in town or in church, dress related to
'counter-culture' movement,
12. possession of a beard (except with special permission from Pastor
Dick Foot),
13. long earrings on women,
14. use of tampons is strictly prohibited,
15. men with earrings or jewelry of any kind, hugging,
16. possession of pornographic material (except for widowed or single
men over the age of 65),
17. failure to identify oneself to a church authority,
18. failure to answer a call slip,
19. witchcraft,
20. dancing and/or skipping,
21. association with Catholics, John Mark "ministries", Presbyterians,
Mormons, Methodists, Unitarians, Episkypols, or any other occult activity
(unless under supervision by Rev. Dr. Richard Frank Dick Foot),
22. failure to conform to rules and regulations,
23. failure to submit to authority,
24. questioning of church authority,
25. failure to bring at least one new guest to church a week,
26. failure to win at least one soul a week,
27. disrespect,
28. lying (other than in the cause of Broomleigh),
29. stealing,
30. cheating,
31. plotting,
32. failure to have a demon-possessed infant sterilized,
33. attendance at non-Christian owned public houses, and
34. rock music.



--
Rev Dr Pastor Dick F Foot MA, DD, FFD
The Guardian of English Christianity
Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Zürich)
111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
http://www.broomleigh.com/