aiki
Regular Member
I get not wanting to debate baptism with me - fine, I won't - and I sincerely apologize if I came across overly strong to your "modest" assertions, but you did open the door for a concise rebuttal.
It was a subject the OPer provoked, not me. I would have offered no comment on the subject but for his/her introduction of it into his/her responses to me.
That said, don't you think it a little disingenuous for someone to assert their beliefs on baptism, then turn around and question another's motives when they rebut them (and quite effectively, apparently), calling them a "pedant" and "argumentative?"
Well, you have offered your view. "Effectively rebutted" my own? Not really.
In any case, as I've explained, the OPer elicited my comments on baptism, which I kept short and light because I didn't want to become embroiled in another long (and likely fruitless) back-and-forth on the subject. You jumped into our exchange uninvited, immediately adopting the role of corrector, of instructor, of pedant, setting out a long line of points and questions only someone eager for a long debate would possibly be interested in answering (shades of the "wall o' text" tactic, it seems to me). What's disingenuous about pointing this out?
FWIW, my point was not at all to be argumentative (outside the normal use of the word, involving an honest back-and-forth of ideas) but to point out - for your benefit and everyone else's who read this thread, that the employ of the "Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize" objection to Christian baptism is a fatally flawed argument, employing a very common logical fallacy and several other transparent errors in logic that's been successfully rebutted since the second century (an objection, btw, that was first raised by Gnostics). That's all. Grace and blessings to you...
Uh huh.
And to you.
Upvote
0