>>18098387
>what is the answer
the final solution hitler came up with is still the best option on the table

>>18098387
Burning them at the stake like both Catholics and Protestants did in the 16th and 17th century. Our society currently lacks 3rd places and community events. I think this could help solve this.

Mormonism .

>>18098387
What is the question?

>>18098471
Mormons practice Credobaptism.

>>18098387
the spiritual/religious portions of our brains might serve an important evolutionary purpose rather then being vestigial?

>>18098387
Is that a jak of Chris Watts?

>>18099459
Credo baptism as a practice shifts religion from being a community event with Baptism being given to infants and new comers as an introducing event to being done later and later. Converting an event that was used to show a baby to the community for 1,900 years into an event to display a single adult individual piety in an exclusive performative manner. It is violence against the social fabric and against the natural order of civilization. So we need to destroy their bodies with fire.

>>18099490
baptism is supposed to be a initiation ritual into a religious group, if its done to a baby the baby dosent know its happening it just feels it head getting wet

>>18099490
Baptism (not to be confused with baby sprinkling) is useless today as far as fulfilling God's will is concerned:

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. " (1 Corinthians 1:17)

>>18099557
>>18099502
>modernist take. The 1950s urban planning level approach to this.
You are experientially initiating the parents of the infant, not the infant themselves, with a celebration celebrating their parenthood and welcoming and acknowledging the infant as a member of the community. Baptists have no community and are completely atomized so this concept is inherently offensive to them. The baptism is akin to the circumcision of the second temple religion (it is a marker between being a member of the group and not) but it is a marker of being part of the body of Christ as a body politic. It is fundamental to the concept of Christendom as a society rather than Christianity as an object of consumption. To reject infant baptism is not only to embrace Zionism; it is to reject the possibility of a spiritual world in which all persons are included, which is a rejection of the possibility of non-jews having any value beyond being cattle for their jewish masters.

>>18099763
>To reject infant baptism is not only to embrace Zionism
You are completely insane. I'm stating a fact.
You are actively making connections between things which have no logical connection. Psychosis.
>possibility of a spiritual world in which all persons are included
????
>which is a rejection of the possibility of non-jews having any value beyond being cattle for their jewish masters.
????
All because Baptists believe infants are innocent?

>>18099763
This is Jordan Peterson tier schizobabble. Enjoy Hell.

>>18099805
>>18099828
>enter bot thread
>rubes can't figure out why OP is acting so "weird"
LOL LMAO

>>18099805
>>18099828
Sorry but you need to actually read philosophers born after 1700 to understand my point. Baptists are permanently trapped in the late 17th and early 18th century fighting battles that are retarded because they cling to a highly specific Enlightenment framework.

>>18099841
no one cares spammer

>>18099763
You can use baby sprinkling to help your social agenda if that's what you want, but it's not biblical baptism and it's not a commandment from God for us today as Paul himself very clearly states. Rituals are phased-out OT ceremonial cleansing law stuff, but we're all about the cross now.

>>18099853
Jesus isn't observable outside of the analysis of text and church tradition. Trying to do anything past that is pointless. Church tradition and text says he exists, and he exists in the text and church tradition, so there is no reason to ask any further questions about if he existed or not. The point of Jesus is Jesus within the Bible and tradition. Jesus within the Bible and tradition performs actions, as a fundamental aspect of him having meaning, that are impossible and "didn't happen" according to modernist historical methods, and so there is no relevance to his "existence" within a historical method of analysis. He is to be analyzed as a literary character according to the rules and phenomenology of his literary environment.

>>18099869
Are the Jews still a chosen people in your covenant theology? Do you accept the creeds? How does the Bible exist? Where is your bedrock point for epistemological understanding?

>>18099870
ok but you're a spammer subhuman

>>18099874
Thank you for your concession.

>>18099878
of what?

>>18099879
That you are a namefag. Meaning your posts are inherently cringe.

>>18099892
It's not a name, it's a label. You are a spammer and this is a bot thread.

>>18099872
>Are the Jews still a chosen people in your covenant theology?
Yes. God's promises never fail.

"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. " (Romans 11:28)

But I don't know what exactly covenant theology is.

>Do you accept the creeds?
I think we already had this conversation. I'm the guy that said I'm only familiar with the Nicene creed and that I confess everything there but the catholic jab.

>How does the Bible exist?
Through God's miraculous preservation thereof, which He Himself promised.

>Where is your bedrock point for epistemological understanding?
Big word, didn't register.

>>18099897
Ok. So you are dispensationalist. Got it. I am done posting itt.

>>18099900
huge if true

>>18099900
If you define it as discerning the fact that not every commandment, prophecy and promise documented in the bible applies to a Christian today, then yes.