Here is a poll for suggested forum names

[SumTinWong]

Why don't Quakers baptize when Jesus told us to?

I don't know.

Why don't many Baptists love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart and mind? That I believe was a command.

 

[theseed]

I don't know.

Why don't many Baptists love their neighbor as themselves and love God with all their heart and mind? That I believe was a command.

Because they're sinners.

Why are you being so caustic?

 

[CrystalBrooke]

why is "we dont splash babies" even an option?

 

[theseed]

why is "we dont splash babies" even an option?

Because it fits, and its funny.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

since when is making a mochary of other religions funny? i wasnt aware that it was even ok.

 

[eldermike]

since when is making a mochary of other religions funny?

I think you misunderstand.
The name we now have, was mocking us. it's funny in a historical way.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

could you please explain i dont understand what you mean? I didnt mean it was mocking us, i was talking about Catholics and Lutherans, people who still baptize infants, if i were one of them i would be fairly offended, actually being baptist im offended and quite disappointed.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

The name we now have, was mocking us. it's funny in a historical way.

i misread this part, but i dont understand the "its funny in a historical way"

 

[theseed]

could you please explain i dont understand what you mean? I didnt mean it was mocking us, i was talking about Catholics and Lutherans, people who still baptize infants, if i were one of them i would be fairly offended, actually being baptist im offended and quite disappointed.

And bible believers would not be offensive? Implying that others don't believe the bible?

 

[eldermike]

i misread this part, but i dont understand the "its funny in a historical way"

Well actually i am not defending it, only explaining it. But now that I consider your point I'll have to defer to the one who proposed it, they may have a different context than I do.

 

[SumTinWong]

Because they're sinners.

Why are you being so caustic?

Why are you trying to possibly start an argument with the Quakers?

You said "Why don't Quakers baptize when Jesus told us to?" .

Why add in the "when Jesus told us to"? Why not just ask the direct question of why Quakers don't baptize? Why take a jab at them with the latter half as if they don't care what Jesus said?

So I asked why don't Baptists love their neighbors... as Jesus said, to personalize it the way you did.

But to answer your question:

The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper have no place in Quaker Meetings. All life being considered a religious sacrament, occasional ceremonies were thought to obscure the need for continual spiritual striving, and just as a special oath was dispensed with by speaking the truth at all times, in the same way special sacraments were considered unnecessary. Sidney Lucas, The Quaker Story (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers 1949), 52.

 

[CrystalBrooke]

And bible believers would not be offensive? Implying that others don't believe the bible?

Well if you want to put it that way, then any of the names that we can choose from could be offensive.

 

[theseed]

Why are you trying to possibly start an argument with the Quakers?

I would only possibly be trying to start an argument if I only possibly wanted to argue.

Why add in the "when Jesus told us to"? Why not just ask the direct question of why Quakers don't baptize? Why take a jab at them with the latter half as if they don't care what Jesus said?

Am I not allowed to have 2 part questions? It should be quite obvious and seeming logical on why I would add the clause. If I did not think Jesus told us to, then I would not even have asked it. If I asked only "Why do Quakers not baptize", only later to have to ask "But Jesus told us too", would be inefficent.

Moreover, where does the bible say that we should not arue at all? I believe it only says that we should avoid useless arguments--there is a difference.

So I asked why don't Baptists love their neighbors... as Jesus said, to personalize it the way you did.

And if this question is analagous to mine, then that would mean that the Quakers are not true to The Bible.

But to answer your question:

Thats all I wanted, thanks.

 

[SumTinWong]

I would only possibly be trying to start an argument if I only possibly wanted to argue.

But you are a grown up and now how the game is played. Making statements the way you did, normally leads to arguements / fights / disagreements.

Am I not allowed to have 2 part questions? It should be quite obvious and seeming logical on why I would add the clause. If I did not think Jesus told us to, then I would not even have asked it. If I asked only "Why do Quakers not baptize", only later to have to ask "But Jesus told us too", would be inefficent.

Ahh so it is efficiency you want. Then why not do as I did and type in Quakers and baptism on google, and get the same answer I did, and avoid all this nonsense to begin with? That would have given you what you desired: The knowledge of why without the extra work involved.

Moreover, where does the bible say that we should not arue at all? I believe it only says that we should avoid useless arguments--there is a difference.

No, but it does speak of at all times try to make peace. Romans 12:18 "If it is possible, as far as is in you, being in peace with all men." You do what ever you want and take what I say with a grain of salt. Just ignore me.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Maybe Quakers cannot be correctly associated with us?

 

[Bulldog]

I believe in infant Baptism, and would not be offended one bit by the title "we don't splash babies".

It actually sounds scond best next to "Word and Water".

 

[Crazy Liz]

Maybe Quakers cannot be correctly associated with us?

Baptists tend to think of every association as voluntarily, and tend to disassociate themselves from those with whom they disagree more readily than most Christian denominations (as evidenced by another thread that is currently active.

As I have pointed out before, we do have many things in common as Free Church Protestants. The greatest core belief we hold in common is that no one may be compelled by other humans to be a Christian. This includes both parents and governments. That's why none of us "splash babies."

(BTW, I posted that to be humorous, not as a serious proposal for a forum name. It is simply a true statement we all hold in common. I certainly don't want a forum name that sounds derisive in any way.)

 

[seebs]

Maybe Quakers cannot be correctly associated with us?

I think we fit better here than with the other groups; clearly an offshoot of the anabaptists.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think we fit better here than with the other groups; clearly an offshoot of the anabaptists.

Could define an anabaptist?

 

[seebs]

On second thought, maybe the Quakers should be put in a separate Congregation forum. I think there are maybe three of us on the site, although I'm the only regular poster.

But it'd be sorta cool to have a Congregation forum where people weren't allowed to debate my position unless they were Quakers.