An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And btw MILLIONS of Catholic and Protestant babies are baptized yearly without first being believers. When I chose to be baptized in 2008 my mother tried to talk me out of it saying I was baptized as a baby.

And how does any of this support your point that baptism "is something saved people do"?
First you would have to offer evidence that peopled are saved pass tense before they go to judgment at the end of their lives. Of course there is no such evidence.
Rather than a Christian apologist, you are like a tricky layer finding legal loop-holes to force God to allow you into heaven in an unconverted state.
edit on 18-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
I was asked this by a friend who is a member, and thought it a good question to ask of the devout membership for an answer. Here goes:

As an Internet Preacher, we are aware your mission is to gain converts, that much is a given. What I want to ask is, how many of the ATS membership have you been able to "Save?" How many have recanted their ways and old religions, and fully embraced Christianity because of you?

Please feel free to crow here.


We don't save anyone, and tooting your own horn is forbidden because you take YHWH/Yeshua's Glory.




Kthxbai.
edit on 18-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


People don't gift themselves. Ephesians 4.


Sorry, don't know that ch/verse off the top.....but....are you saying that you believe these "channeling" prophets? Fair enough. I'm tempted to believe the channelers of the Galactic Federation of Light...really would like to! Their message is far more uplifting than the "Christian" channelers, who only warn of doom, gloom, death, and other horrible consequences for "stepping out of line."

At least the "GFL" is acknowledging those of "us" who want to help, and assuring "us" that we have an assignment. That is, to help the world realize the dire strait that we are in now.... we MUST pull together and right the world. Or perish.

So.....in my opinion, the GFL "channelers" are far more positive and attractive as "warners".

There are many people who dismiss the GFL channelers as frauds. There are also many people who dismiss the "Christ channelers" as fraud. So, all things considered, I prefer to go with the optimistic, empowering model, rather than the hell-fire extinction brimstone suffering torture destruction model.

In reality, I doubt them BOTH. EQUALLY.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And btw MILLIONS of Catholic and Protestant babies are baptized yearly without first being believers. When I chose to be baptized in 2008 my mother tried to talk me out of it saying I was baptized as a baby.

And, do you know why they are baptized at birth, or as shortly afterward as possible?

Because the RCC (and also the CofE) taught this horrendous dogma that unless a baby was baptized before they died, they would go to purgatory forever...or worse, to hell. So the rush to get them baptized. I wrote an entire novel around this precept.... They believed in the "Elect" and the "Damned", and many, many families paid "muy dinero" to have those priests and their successors pray daily for years and years and years......

people who had lost babies before baptism were terrified that their precious offspring were excluded from heaven forever. They often paid priests to "pray" on behalf of the deceased infant. One could purchase prayer 'in perpetuity' for enough money. They would agree to "pray every day to the saints for your baby to be admitted to heaven" if.....If the parishioner had enough money to buy same.

It was a scam.
edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Edit to repeat the point. For effect.
edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



I love your answer, direct from the heart! I appreciate your sincerity here, and your honest answer.

I appreciate your kind words and sentiments. We may differ in beliefs, yet we must aim to not ever allow that to take away the good spirit we are all capable of delivering with good intentions.

May Blessings and Understandings pour out in all our lives my friend.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


But the Christian quoted below says you are supposed to save people.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James 5:20

save others by snatching them out of the fire; . . .
Jude 1:23
edit on 18-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


And how do you take glory away from that which is infinite and omnipotent? Does not compute.

The song wasn't too shabby.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Yahushua the Christ also spoke of the redeeming power allowed by those 'Followers' in Him Graced by the Holy Spirit.

"And he said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
edit on 18-7-2012 by PrimeLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


But the Christian quoted below says you are supposed to save people.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path will save that person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
James 5:20

save others by snatching them out of the fire; . . .
Jude 1:23
edit on 18-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


And how do you take glory away from that which is infinite and omnipotent? Does not compute.

The song wasn't too shabby.


He calls their names and knocks on the doors of their hearts. We show them the door. For their part they have to open the door. All we do is show them the door, we don't save them he does that.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 





And how do you take glory away from that which is infinite and omnipotent? Does not compute.


Look up Herod Antipas in Acts, there's a clue
.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by autowrench
..."What I want to ask is, how many of the ATS membership have you been able to "Save?" ...


That is a trick question. It is impossible to baptize someone over the Internet and baptism is necessary to be saved.


Baptism requires immersion under water, sprinkling like catholics do is nothing but playing with water so no, you cannot baptise over the internet and no, baptism is not required for salvation. The thief hanging on the cross next to Yeshua only asked to be remembered when he came into his kingdom, being there on a cross he couldn't afford the luxury of being baptised by water. Immersion by water is merely a physical symbol of a spiritual commitment, much like wearing a wedding ring. Not wearing a wedding ring does not mean you're no longer married, you're just not showing the physical sign of that commitment. I'm married and i don't wear my ring, it doesn't mean im any less married than the day i took vows.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

. . . many families paid "muy dinero" to have those priests and their successors pray daily for years and years and years......

I was watching on PBS, Michael Wood's "Story of England Peasants’ Revolt and the Black Death"
video.pbs.org...
where after the black death went through Kibworth (one of the hardest hit areas) the people put together plots of land that the produce from would pay for a priest to do dirges and prayers for the souls of the people who died, and I suppose it was supposed to go on into perpetuity.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Baptism requires immersion under water,

It does? Hmmmm. Really? So, God only accepts those who put their heads under?

Does that mean when I'm in a hot bath, praying that the world doesn't self-destruct, and I put my head totally under...that I've got a ticket?

I don't mean to be flippant, but baptism is an age-old tradition. .....
whether total immersion or sprinkling on the infant head, its intention is the same. How do you claim authority to deny the other faiths' style as null and void?
edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


the people put together plots of land that the produce from would pay for a priest to do dirges and prayers for the souls of the people who died, and I suppose it was supposed to go on into perpetuity.

Yes, the priests have been ripping people off (for money, or labor, what have you) for centuries. It seems to me to be completely corrupt.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


If you had read his whole post, he also said that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Its a symbol. Nothing less nothing more. Ive gotten baptized once, and at the time did it regretfully and it was hypocritical of me(which reminds me, i should get another baptism...). Point is, like i said, baptism means nothing.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And btw MILLIONS of Catholic and Protestant babies are baptized yearly without first being believers. When I chose to be baptized in 2008 my mother tried to talk me out of it saying I was baptized as a baby.

And how does any of this support your point that baptism "is something saved people do"?


It isn't. It's a rebuttal to your statement about "obviously" people who get baptized are first believers. I believe infant baptism is wrong. They who do so are baptizing unbelievers. I believe before a person is baptized they must first believe, the same thing Phillip told the Eunuch. I'm completely against the practice of infant baptism, that's a Catholic invention.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Baptism requires immersion under water,

It does? Hmmmm. Really? So, God only accepts those who put their heads under?

Does that mean when I'm in a hot bath, praying that the world doesn't self-destruct, and I put my head totally under...that I've got a ticket?

I don't mean to be flippant, but baptism is an age-old tradition. .....
whether total immersion or sprinkling on the infant head, its intention is the same. How do you claim authority to deny the other faiths' style as null and void?
edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


Sigh. No, baptism does not save you, it's just a formality. I have all the authority invested in me as a servant of Yeshua ha'Meshiach to combat false doctrine and false disciples preaching doctrines of devils. The intention is not the same as sprinkling on an infant's head, an infant cannot acknowledge doing sin they are covered until they reach the age of accountability therefore they cannot be saved yet and if they died they would not end up in sheol, same as with someone with a mental defect or mental disability. Infant's cannot be saved because they cannot acknowledge sin they are found innocent, what is done must be of a person's own will and volition it cannot be forced. Catholics and methodists sprinking water means nothing at all. The Apostles taught Immersion and Christ did too.

There will be people who think just being a member of a church will save them, this is what the R.C.C. teaches, and there are those who think sitting on the front row will save them, or being a pastor's friend, or paying tithes and some think they can buy indulgences and property in heaven and theyre all wrong.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Prophets are not channelers. That would be divination, absolutely forbidden in scripture. Prophet is one of the gifting and calling of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

It's a rebuttal to your statement about "obviously" people who get baptized are first believers.

Typical example of your diversion tactics.
I never would have posted on this thread except for your ridiculous claim that people get baptized after they are saved.
Obviously babies have no free will in what their parents do, so you are getting off track muddying the water to hide your compulsive habit that you can not stop yourself from of making wild claims and pretending it is "Christian".



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


He asked an honest question. How is he bashing anything?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Baptism requires immersion under water,

It does? Hmmmm. Really? So, God only accepts those who put their heads under?

Does that mean when I'm in a hot bath, praying that the world doesn't self-destruct, and I put my head totally under...that I've got a ticket?

I don't mean to be flippant, but baptism is an age-old tradition. .....
whether total immersion or sprinkling on the infant head, its intention is the same. How do you claim authority to deny the other faiths' style as null and void?
edit on 18-7-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


You're actually more right than you realize. Infant baptism pre-dates Christianity by over 1000 years to ancient Babylon. The Christian version of immersion is only a couple thousand years old.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join