This was talking about baptism, not infant salvation. So you can see how he attempted to shift the focus when his error was shown. The verse, I quoted, by the way, said that the Holy Spirit was the promised seal of salvation, meaning that when you receive the Spirit, it confirms that you are saved. Taken in context with the verse that says the Gentiles could be baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, I have proved salvation without baptism.
I don't know what he was trying to say with his first sentence. If niggard is interpreted wrong, it doesn't change the true meaning of the word, which is exactly what I said. And, in English, can be used in an exegetive sense, such as "Did you tighten those screws enough?" "Yeah, they're good and tight.". This has rendered his closing statement impotent, but I should point out that he chose to accept somebody else's opinion in the face of explanation, with no knowledge of his own, and I as I have just shown, got it wrong. This is precisely what's wrong with the so called "rationalist" you generally meet, one of the points of this thread.
Here, he has placed infants on the same intellectual level as atheists. While I could make a witty remark, I'l let it speak for itself.
It does make sense, unless you're stupid. Here, he has failed to realize that only creating people who will be saved is removing choice, and essentially repeating the angelic creation.
He never quite got how killing wasn't such a big deal.
The only reason we don't give up sin is because we want to keep it. If a baby has no attachment to sin, there's nothing stopping God from forgiving it.
A very short sighted and culturally arrogant statement to begin with. His statement of sin shows that he doesn't know what it is. It's a shame he quit because I'd have liked to see him try to support that most people aren't attached to sin.
No, it was supposed to show how they could be sinners without sinning. Note that it's the second time I had to explain that.
His other questions become negated by the claim that babies are saved. Here, he has ignored my statements and attacked the elements of them that he was already familiar with, being unable to connect the larger picture.
Deserving hell is another thing he never quite understood despite multiple explanations. He couldn't escape the idea of Hell being a place earned by evil deeds, when it was in fact, our natural state, that being, opposed to God. If you don't go to hell, you don't deserve it, because if you did, you would have been sent. The question is, why didn't you deserve it? It's a valid question because it would have to be something quite unusual to be brought out of your natural state of being. Saying you deserve to go to hell is akin to saying you are human.
If chaos was still here, he would say "So all humans deserve to go to hell? They never did nothing!" The answer is just out of his grasp.
We didn't establish that. Notice how he can appear to have a point by building three or four effects on what is essentially a lie?
Notice here how he changed to personally attacking me when he had no valid argument left. For the record, I never claimed to care about babies at all, I made an observation based on my greater life experience.
Also see how he attempted to explain how I couldn't understand that it was no big deal when a baby dies because I don't care about babies. One of the shining lowlights of chaosrage, and he has had many.
Hey, he admitted that I have a point. Marvelous. Shame he has to undermine it with stubborn ministrations. Actually, the quote was "he that believeth not" or "does not believe", which is a conscious act, ie rejection, what I have said all along. And furthermore, putting this aside, his response didn't address what I said at all.
He proved his own point wrong.
See how he changed it from good works into perfection? He's quick, but I'm quicker. Now that this argument's shot down, he's agreed with me.
You know, I could demonstrate the proper interpretation of each of those verses, and I'm really tempted to, because it's fun, but the fact remains that this changes absolutely nothing. Just take what I said about James and say the same thing about all those verses.
Most of those verses are talking about something completely different though.
But nobody believes in God but doesn't do good works. That was James' point. The rebuttal to his ridiculous objection can be seen above.
Adam and Eve weren't babies, for one, and this analogy is just getting silly. God did not "put them on a stove and put the burner on", he told them not to eat from one tree. One tree in the whole garden. Notice also that they didn't have any intention of doing so until they had dealt with the serpent. Notice that Eve tells the serpent that she's not going to eat because God said not too. There goes the idea that they didn't know any better.
God told them specifically. The serpent told them God had lied. chaos would probably say that they had equal reason to believe God or the serpent... no... I don't think even he's quite that stupid.
It's not a baby on a stove. I tried to keep away from the metaphors with chaos because he tended to get lost in them. If God had not allowed any option to sin, he would just be making angels again.
He was right about that. He's some idiot who equates the story of Adam and Eve with a baby on a stove.
He thinks I said that God and Job had a debate throughout the book. Moses did that... but most of this book is Job saying things that are wrong. And God correcting him. My meaning would be obvious in a conversation among two people who have read the book, which this is, but this shows that he has no interest in debate, he's merely looking for inlines of superficial attack to gloat over and claim victory.
See how he pretends that the original point of this quotation doesn't exist? Job says that to die as an infant meant rest, demonstrating that it's not hell. What an idiot.
If he didn't want them to go to heaven, he wanted them to go to hell. This is another example of chaos' ignorance of Judaism. "Stop fucking talking about it" is a pretty good rebuttal. I wish I could use that.
He's agreed with my point. He knows well I dodged nothing, so he just pretends that I didn't already answer him. Killing is not the same as judging.
Interesting yet meaningless observation. Also ignores the mention of animals.
Ok, so maybe this wasn't completely obvious to any idiot, but here's the answer: he didn't kill the infants and animals specifically. If God wants to destroy a city, and spares a large group of the people in that city, they will them grow up, commit abominations, rebuild the city and continue to thrive, and God's smiting most of city before accomplished nothing except killing those specific people.
He just said that if there's a cival war story with a hobbit in it, the civil war didn't happen.
No. Wasn't he just vehemently saying that you couldn't use this logic?
If it's supernatural, you couldn't have evidence of it, because that's the nature of the supernatural. I explained that before. It was also a large part of the paragraph he's currently flailing at.
I explained this to him as well. The proof for God is spiritual, just like God is a spirit. Then, because that's supernatural, the natural side of the Bible is proven by your experience of God. If it can't be disproved (which it can't be, as my opposition has admitted, albeit under duress, as they came in thinking they could disprove it with ease), that's all the burden required because the starting point has already been gained through experience, unlike other fantastic creatures, which do not, by the way, have anything remotely comparable to the Bible.
See how he ignores what I said about the water? He thinks if I said it long enough ago, it doesn't count. This is how stupid people argue. They just go in circles.
Again, the Bible's proof is experiential, which is what sets it apart from those other things.
Notice how he uses an insulting metaphor and then continues as if that was literally what I said? Also sees how he ignores all the points he conceded and the none I conceded. Look back and see for yourself.
That's the same thing. I'd explain it but he's not here to understand.
