Whats in a Name?

[_Doctor Steuss]

I recently heard (water) baptism put so incrediably amazingly - it is the wedding ring of Christianity. Just because you are not wearing your ring doesn't make you any less married. :)

But your spouse might question your loyalty.

[_Selah]

I recently heard (water) baptism put so incrediably amazingly - it is the wedding ring of Christianity. Just because you are not wearing your ring doesn't make you any less married. :)

But your spouse might question your loyalty.

Yes that was mentioned too. And that's why it was said that baptism is such a good thing - a beautiful declaration to the world - "I am YOURS God!"

Edited: But still, not required to be married. :)

[_Doctor Steuss]

I recently heard (water) baptism put so incrediably amazingly - it is the wedding ring of Christianity. Just because you are not wearing your ring doesn't make you any less married. :)

But your spouse might question your loyalty.

Yes that was mentioned too. And that's why it was said that baptism is such a good thing - a beautiful declaration to the world - "I am YOURS God!"

Edited: But still, not required to be married. :)

I see it as more of a marriage certificate (performed by a Judge [i.e. a representative of Christ]) than as a wedding ring. The non-necessity of baptism doesn't seem to be something supported by early Christianity.

[_Selah]

I recently heard (water) baptism put so incrediably amazingly - it is the wedding ring of Christianity. Just because you are not wearing your ring doesn't make you any less married. :)

But your spouse might question your loyalty.

Yes that was mentioned too. And that's why it was said that baptism is such a good thing - a beautiful declaration to the world - "I am YOURS God!"

Edited: But still, not required to be married. :)

I see it as more of a marriage certificate (performed by a Judge [I.e. a representative of Christ]) than as a wedding ring. The non-necessity of baptism doesn't seem to be something supported by early Christianity.

Interesting. I respectfully disagree that we need water baptism to have Jesus Christ in our lives, or to enter into that covenant with our Father in Heaven - it is by that covenant that the Savior's blood covers us and allows us to enter into the kingdom of heaven. However, I do see water baptism as a sign of a believer who is taking their relationship to a deeper level (as well as publicly declaring to the world their alliance to God).

[_Doctor Steuss]

Interesting. I respectfully disagree that we need water baptism to have Jesus Christ in our lives, or to enter into that covenant with our Father in Heaven - it is by that covenant that the Savior's blood covers us and allows us to enter into the kingdom of heaven. However, I do see water baptism as a sign of a believer who is taking their relationship to a deeper level (as well as publicly declaring to the world their alliance to God).

I can understand why many began to shy away from the necessity of baptism circa 1500’s, and continue to do so today. Without the authority of the Catholic priesthood, the authenticity and efficacy of said baptisms could be questioned.

Also, if baptism is seen as a necessary action in order to enter into G-d’s kingdom (i.e. if someone doesn’t [mis]interpret John 3: 5 to mean physical birth), there are two options. Either vicarious baptism is a necessity, or everyone that hasn’t been baptized will necessarily end up in Hell (much like all of those who had the misfortune to never hear of Christ). Since vicarious baptisms were ceased/banned in Christianity (or at least within the “Catholic” church) around 393 C.E., the only other alternatives are to say everyone who isn’t baptized goes to hell, or that baptisms aren’t necessary. It doesn’t surprise me that Protestantism seems to prefer the latter path.

[_Roger Morrison]

I recently heard (water) baptism put so incrediably amazingly - it is the wedding ring of Christianity. Just because you are not wearing your ring doesn't make you any less married. :)

An interesting thought... The "ring" is symbolic. A human created ritualistic transaction. Little to do with "love". Is that how you understand the analogy? Welcome to the site. Warm regards, Roger

[_Gazelam]

Very well said.

[_Gazelam]

The first principles and ordiances of the gospel are (1) Faith, (2) repentance, (3) Baptism and (4)receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. These ar ewhat are known as the Articles of Adoption.

Mentioned in the articles are two types of baptism, that of the body and that of the spirit. (Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:16; Acts 19:1-6; D&C 20:38-60) It is plainly obvious that this ordinance was a requirement.

To receive a witness of the Spirit is to be born again, the witnes of the Spirit alllowing one to see the kingdom of heaven and desire to be a part of it, but one must be baptised and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost if they wish to enter in at the gates of the Holy City and be a member of the house of God. (John 3:3-5; Romans 6:1-12)

Gaz

[_The Nehor]

Thank YOU! By this logic next time my Bishop asks who I'm dating I can point out that I'm already married. ;)

[_skippy the dead]

Mendacity

Lets say you were going to open your house up to a renter, you had a spare room in the house and could use the extra money.

Now lets say that the one you let rent the room was a Black man who loved his rap music, didn't see your problem with the thumping bass and the explicit lyrics. He was paying his rent, why should you care if he brought women over and let them stay the night. How about his shelf in the fridge with his 40's and the smoke from his pipe flowing out of the room when his homies came out to use the bathroom?

Could he stay? isn't it just a matter of opinion, a minor cultural problem? Why would you feel the need to be judgemental about his culture?

Would people who see the comings and goings out of your home begin to run down your name and judge you by this mans associates who frequent your home?

Gaz

Racial stereotyping, much?