AAAAHHHHHHH!!! MY PROTESTANT PARENTS DIDN’T BAPTIZE ME RIGHT AFTER I WAS BORN!!!!! HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT UNBAPTIZED BABIES DON’T GO TO HEAVEN!!!
>>18506153He's going to send babies to hell for not getting a few drops of water splashed on them, but anon, never forget HE LOVES YOU.
>>18506153All humans born before the 1st century canonically share the same fate according to the New Testament
>>18506214What passage are you citing?
>>18506243John 14:6>Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
>>18506407Huh? This says nothing about baptism. It isn't mentioned in that entire chapter. Unless you're dropping OP's point about baptism. But even then it wouldn't make sense, Jesus had already explained in chapter 6 that no one has seen the Father, and here explains "he who hath seen me hath seen the Father", and had explained in chapter 8 that he and Abraham had seen one another.Abraham, of course, is said to see God in Genesis 18. Jesus is explicit that his existence pre-dates even Abraham. And he says that those who saw God didn't see the Father, they saw the Son. Himself. The one speaking to Abraham in Genesis? Jesus. The one giving the Ten Commandments to Moses? Jesus. The very second verse of this book even says "He was with God in the beginning." So tying it to the first century with a citation of John 14 is completely absurd. The book by that point has made it extremely and explicitly clear that Jesus pre-dates the first century. That he pre-dates everything.
>>18506407Christs sacrifice is eternal. Past present and future. Mercy can still be offered to those who sought the good of their conscience, but the actual work of salvation of these people is done through the incarnate Son of God (Christ).The Logos is not bound by a calendar.
>>18506169baptism is about stealing souls from the devil to whom you belong by default. turning to God is an act of rebellion
Its fascinating how much mental illness is in religion.Its something dark from our deep unconsciouness, from the depths of the universe.Truly sicking shit if you really think about it.
>>18506529god is unable to to save those babies from the devil and eternal damnation (whom he created and caused also) unless a few drops of water was ritualistically splashed on them. very good logic anon.
>>18506555that's right
>>18506153>AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH MYSX MOTHER WAS A WHORE AND FATHER WAS A SHEMALEEEEEE WHAT I'M GOING TO DOt. OP
>>18506525>>18506528Immense cope that has zero Biblical basis
>>18506566Horrid projection.
>>18506758Surely you understand anon that the word "cope" isn't a magic spell you can write and points somebody raised count as addressed. I cited no fewer than five Biblical passages in my relatively brief reply. It carries serious Biblical weight and now requires a refutation from your stance. The book you cited explicitly states multiple times that Jesus' existence significantly pre-dates the first century.
>>18506153>>18506169If Christianity true, why me no understand it? Why me allowed believe thing obviously stupid if thing not stupid for real?
>>18507027NTA, I'm a Christian (the one posting >>18507017) but he is asking serious and legitimate questions about Catholic baptism theology. I'm a Protestant and I would say the same. The problem isn't that we don't understand, it's that we do understand. God is the best possible being and the Bible explicitly says he desires all to be saved. There's no metaphysical force above him forcing him to do what Catholics say he does where he blames babies for Adam's sin unless someone puts water on them. It is completely illogical. The water doesn't touch whatever curse-energy Catholics think sin is. It could at most be symbolic. And symbols only effect minds. In this case God's mind. Which he could simply change himself to not hold babies responsible for Adam's sin and it would make a massively better existence for the majority of humanity (most of whom who have lived so far being people who died as infants or children unbaptized).
