Posted on 02/09/2014 7:51:42 AM PST by daniel1212
Wrong - baptism IS the ordinary means to salvation. Read the Bible to find out more.
And there is only one baptism that leaves an indelible mark on your soul. Doing it twice can be sinful.
“If he tried baptizing my Catholic kids I would do everything I could to end the man’s career.”
And would Pope Francis approve of your vengence? How about the Lord Himself?
He did not attempt to baptize anyone. You are raising a false flag on this one.
It depends if you are talking about the real Pope Francis who is a “Son of the Church” or the Pope Francis that many pagans believe is a few weeks from ordaining female priests and blessing same sex marriages.
Don't want to get into a theological kerfuffle with you, but that's not in the Bible....that is getting baptized twice is sinful....
Lots of people get baptized in their life twice because they have backsliding and want to recommit to Christ...
An easy response to the coach not being able to lead the team in prayer......When they gather in huddle or elsewhere, prayer will be led by one of the players.
If the coach is cited for saying, AMEN then that would be a whole new challenge.
I’m an atheist and I have to say I’m ashamed of these litigious morons.
As long as the coach wasn’t horse-whipping folks into praying along with him, then I certainly have no problem with him exercising his religion, or with any students who cared to joining in.
The ‘moron’ is just an attention whore, playing the look at me game.
Nevertheless, I am still ashamed of them.
This ping list is for the “other” articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
Christians need to quit caving.
It's high time they grew a backbone.
I said that it CAN be sinful. Catholicism (the Church that Christ founded who has a papal office with the power to bind and loose -Matthew 16:18-20) allows for one baptism only. To knowingly perform a second baptism on a Catholic is a grave matter as it demonstrates a rejection of the Catholic form of baptism. The “invincibly ignorant” (look it up it sounds worse than it is) Protestant might be able to get away with the second baptism.
I do understand the duplicity, but the fact is that this prohibtion was based upon premise that allowing this amounts to state sanction of a religion:
It is a violation of the Constitution for the Mooresville High School football coach to organize, lead, or participate in prayers or other religious proselytizing before, during, or after games and practices,”
Note that leading prayer is turned into "proselytizing" but disallowing any expression dependance upon or gratitude to a creator, or even intelligent design as a possibility, is not effectively fostering atheism.
But such objective analysis is also disallowed.
Since he was not then your knee-jerk reaction is irrelevant. Read the article. This is not the infant baptizing Catholic, thus mostly liberal Northeast, but NC.
This is not like police, under orders from Holy Office authorized by Pope, taking a 6 year old boy from his family, based upon a questionable report that he had been given emergency baptism by a domestic servant during a serious infantile illness as an infant .
And then being maintained at state expense at a Roman house for "converts," while his parents were not allowed to see him for several weeks, and after this period were not allowed to see him unsupervised, with all appeals to the Church being rebuffed unless the Jewish parent themselves converted.
You should consider your own church's unScriptural history before reacting, based upon a superficial reading of the article, about some likely Prot kids being Scripturally baptized as cognizant souls (not infants). And for which permission from parents was required in my experience for kids.
Do as I say, not as I do, eh?
A sign of your integrity and a lack of same on their part.
Lies.
Indeed. Not prohibiting the free exercise of religion is exclusionary? But lacking an object transcendent standard of truth and morality, what is truth and moral can be whatever the deified atheists sees it as.
Maybe they have this line of an atheistic constitution in mind:
"ARTICLE 124.- In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church... - The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution. And we know how that "freedom" was interpreted.
See contrasts here .
You might as well ask "one wonders why a prominent homosexual activist organization (sodomy front), which considers itself to be sexually superior, would bother to attack those who believe there is a God who only sexually joined opposite genders together by marriage?
And so just what is that mark in Scripture that unbaptized but regenerate souls do not have? Chapter and verse please, unless you want to be wise and stop trying to support traditions of men by Scripture, when in reality actual evidence from Scripture is not required for such, nor is that your basis for full assurance.
Give the specifics of the case in question with 6 year old so that I can refute your argument.
Also infant baptism?
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
1 Cor. 1:16
...and most importantly the Catholic Church says so - case closed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.