Do All Religions Lead To God?

[KelbyofGod]

There is only one baptism as scripture states. Water immersion. Started with Johns and carried forward from there through Acts such as in the conversion of the Jews on the day of Pentecost and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, clearly water. And by water immersion we get the indwelling of the Spirit, not baptism of the Spirit, but it's indwelling.

I actually got a chuckle out of your post.

It's rather bold to just claim "There is no baptism of the Spirit as was recorded in Acts 2 and 10 ".

You're basically admitting it's scripture while stating disbelief in what those scriptures say. Are you sure that's a wise strategy?

 

[GWH]

It gets very confusing with all the different religions and claims that this or that belief or ideas from various movements that they have the path that leads to God, so is it. When you hear a religious leader or teacher claim that all religions lead on a path to God, scripture is clear that is not the case. We find it in John 14...

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus declares that the only way to God is through Him.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=5fd0...cmVsaWdpb25zX2xlYWRfdG9fb25lX2dvZC5odG0&ntb=1

As this question is considered, it is important to realize that atheism is a religion which exchanges the truth about God for a lie
aka I-dolatry, so the obvious answer is "no". Here is an excerpt on this subject from the Apologetics thread:

As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. Gen. 17:1).

Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)

The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (king of the hill struggle for hegemony).

Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1Tim. 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).

 

[DJT_47]

A total nonsensical joke to think that so-called harmonizing of scripture to extremes for the sole purpose of trying to substantiate a false doctrine you believe is sound doctrine. The message was clear to those it was verbally to in biblical times. When a person such as the Ethiopian eunuch was told he could be baptised if he believed, and he and Philip were right by a body of water, does anyone in their right mind think that the man didn't know what Philip meant by the word baptism? Does anyone think that the eunuch was thinking he had to do some extensive research to determine if the word baptism meant in water, by the Spirit, or what? That's totally stupid to think that way. And likewise throughout NT scripture. No one thought twice about what was being told to them or what the words truly meant since it was obvious what was meant. Baptism wad immersion in water. It was in water in John the Baptist's baptism. Jesus was baptized by immersion in water. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by immersion in water. The Ephesians were initially baptized unto John's baptism and were re-baptized into Christ. Paul was told to be baptized and wash away his sins. We're told on Romans baptism was akin to being plated with Christ. Peter said we're saved by water in 1 Peter 3:21. And on and on. No one questioned pr considered doing research to "harmonize" scripture. There wasn't any to harmonize with! Wake up! Believe the simplicity of the scriptures as written as those did in biblical times just through hearing and believing.

Absolutely.

A total nonsensical joke to think that so-called harmonizing of scripture to extremes for the sole purpose of trying to substantiate a false doctrine you believe is sound doctrine. The message was clear to those it was verbally to in biblical times. When a person such as the Ethiopian eunuch was told he could be baptised if he believed, and he and Philip were right by a body of water, does anyone in their right mind think that the man didn't know what Philip meant by the word baptism? Does anyone think that the eunuch was thinking he had to do some extensive research to determine if the word baptism meant in water, by the Spirit, or what? That's totally stupid to think that way. And likewise throughout NT scripture. No one thought twice about what was being told to them or what the words truly meant since it was obvious what was meant. Baptism wad immersion in water. It was in water in John the Baptist's baptism. Jesus was baptized by immersion in water. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by immersion in water. The Ephesians were initially baptized unto John's baptism and were re-baptized into Christ. Paul was told to be baptized and wash away his sins. We're told on Romans baptism was akin to being plated with Christ. Peter said we're saved by water in 1 Peter 3:21. And on and on. No one questioned pr considered doing research to "harmonize" scripture. There wasn't any to harmonize with! Wake up! Believe the simplicity of the scriptures as written as those did in biblical times just through hearing and believing.

Absolutely.

 

[mailmandan]

I actually got a chuckle out of your post.

It's rather bold to just claim "There is no baptism of the Spirit as was recorded in Acts 2 and 10 ".

You're basically admitting it's scripture while stating disbelief in what those scriptures say. Are you sure that's a wise strategy?

DJT_47 only cares about upholding his biased church doctrine at all costs, even if that means remaining in disbelief in what those scriptures say. He would walk around mountains of grace (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9) in order to find water.

 

[Wansvic]

I'll take the scriptures over your experience. The fact is, we're baptized into Christ at which time we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, the actual Spirit itself.

Acts 2:38

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

And, all things written 2000 yrs ago do not necessarily have the same application today as they did then. Context is important in this regard relative to your Hebrews 6 comment.

Consider the Samaritans. They believed in Jesus and were water baptized in His name. But as scripture reveals they did not receive the Holy Ghost until days later. This account is so very important for a few reasons:

1. They did not receive the Holy Ghost when they believed in Jesus.
2. They did not receive the Holy Ghost upon submitting to water baptism in the name of Jesus.
3. They were aware they had not received the Holy Ghost; something was missing.
4. The account reveals there will be evidence at the moment a person is indwelt by the Holy Ghost.
5. It can take days to receive the Holy Ghost after a person has believed and/or been water baptized in the name of Jesus.
6. There is no denying when the miraculous experience occurs.
7. All of the accounts that provide specific details of the experience reveal 100% of those indwelt by the the Holy Ghost actually speak in tongues. (Acts 2:4, 33; 10:43-48, 19:1-7)

Acts 19:1-7 witnesses to this same reality.

 

[mailmandan]

A total nonsensical joke to think that so-called harmonizing of scripture to extremes for the sole purpose of trying to substantiate a false doctrine you believe is sound doctrine.

The joke is on you because your false gospel, which is the result of flawed hermeneutics, is not in harmony with salvation by grace, through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

The message was clear to those it was verbally to in biblical times. When a person such as the Ethiopian eunuch was told he could be baptised if he believed, and he and Philip were right by a body of water, does anyone in their right mind think that the man didn't know what Philip meant by the word baptism? Does anyone think that the eunuch was thinking he had to do some extensive research to determine if the word baptism meant in water, by the Spirit, or what?

The Ethiopian eunuch was water baptized "after" he believed and was saved. (Acts 8:36-38) Compare Acts 8:37 - "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" with John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

That's totally stupid to think that way. And likewise throughout NT scripture. No one thought twice about what was being told to them or what the words truly meant since it was obvious what was meant. Baptism wad immersion in water. It was in water in John the Baptist's baptism. Jesus was baptized by immersion in water. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by immersion in water. The Ephesians were initially baptized unto John's baptism and were re-baptized into Christ.

Nobody is denying that new converts in the NT received water baptism. The problem is with you denying Spirit baptism for ALL believers (1 Corinthians 12:13) and replacing it with water baptism and also with you confusing receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45) with receiving spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:46)

Paul was told to be baptized and wash away his sins.

In Acts 22:16, the cleansing happens as Paul called on the name of the Lord and not literally by water baptism. The water is symbolic; the appeal to the name of the Lord is the saving act. Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The remission of sins has three applications:

1. Literally, by the blood of Christ - Matthew 26:28

2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 26:18

3. Figuratively, by water baptism - Acts 22:16.

Acts 22:16 - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

We're told on Romans baptism was akin to being plated with Christ.

A symbol (water baptism) is not the reality, but is a picture of the reality.

Peter said we're saved by water in 1 Peter 3:21.

Peter went on the explain what he meant by that and you missed it --not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

So, by Peter saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the baptism itself.

And on and on. No one questioned pr considered doing research to "harmonize" scripture. There wasn't any to harmonize with! Wake up! Believe the simplicity of the scriptures as written as those did in biblical times just through hearing and believing.

You need to wake up and believe the gospel! (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

 

[lrs68]

No Religion leads to God. Relationship does.

 

[mailmandan]

Consider the Samaritans. They believed in Jesus and were water baptized in His name. But as scripture reveals they did not receive the Holy Ghost until days later. This account is so very important for a few reasons:

1. They did not receive the Holy Ghost when they believed in Jesus.
2. They did not receive the Holy Ghost upon submitting to water baptism in the name of Jesus.
3. They were aware they had not received the Holy Ghost; something was missing.
4. The account reveals there will be evidence at the moment a person is indwelt by the Holy Ghost.
5. It can take days to receive the Holy Ghost after a person has believed and/or been water baptized in the name of Jesus.
6. There is no denying when the miraculous experience occurs.
7. All of the accounts that provide specific details of the experience reveal 100% of those indwelt by the the Holy Ghost actually speak in tongues. (Acts 2:4, 33; 10:43-48, 19:1-7)

Acts 19:1-7 witnesses to this same reality.

So, what was the purpose of the delay in receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:14-7 and Acts 19:4-6 until the apostles laid hands on these new converts? Was that an exception or the rule for all? Also, do you believe that all converts must speak in tongues or else they won't be saved?

 

[DJT_47]

The joke is on you because your false gospel, which is the result of flawed hermeneutics, is not in harmony with salvation by grace, through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

The Ethiopian eunuch was water baptized "after" he believed and was saved. (Acts 8:36-38) Compare Acts 8:37 - "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" with John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

Nobody is denying that new converts in the NT received water baptism. The problem is with you denying Spirit baptism for ALL believers (1 Corinthians 12:13) and replacing it with water baptism and also with you confusing receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45) with receiving spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:46)

In Acts 22:16, the cleansing happens as Paul called on the name of the Lord and not literally by water baptism. The water is symbolic; the appeal to the name of the Lord is the saving act. Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The remission of sins has three applications:

1. Literally, by the blood of Christ - Matthew 26:28

2. Experientially, by faith in Christ - Acts 26:18

3. Figuratively, by water baptism - Acts 22:16.

Acts 22:16 - WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?

A symbol (water baptism) is not the reality, but is a picture of the reality.

Peter went on the explain what he meant by that and you missed it --not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). *The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, only the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

So, by Peter saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Peter guards against saving power to the baptism itself.

You need to wake up and believe the gospel! (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Actually, you are the joke; im done with you

 

[ScooterJackson]

I don't understand your point .

I know.

 

[mailmandan]

No Religion leads to God. Relationship does.

False religion kills and only Jesus saves.

John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (which is an intimate, experiential knowledge, found only in a relationship). The term "know" implies intimate, experiential knowledge, through a relationship with Him and not merely theoretical knowledge.

 

[CS1]

I know.

IF you know and you want to be seen as some one who biblical explain. Or is your comment "I know " is some way to make you seen superior to others ? Never mind i know the answer that.

 

[ScooterJackson]

is your comment "I know " is some way to make you seen superior to others ?

Only to those who are nursing their precious inferiority complex which they trot out anytime someone doesn't bow down and agree with whatever they say.

 

[KelbyofGod]

DJT_47 only cares about upholding his biased church doctrine at all costs, even if that means remaining in disbelief in what those scriptures say. He would walk around mountains of grace (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9) in order to find water.

I do believe DJT_47 overstepped a boundary by discounting Spirit baptism. Others discount water baptism. Some discount both

God established both... Establishing one (water baptism) through John the Baptist BEFORE Jesus' earthly ministry... And establishing the other (Spirit Baptism) AFTER Jesus' earthly ministry.

All 4 gospels state this, and it's stated twice in Acts.

(Feel free to ask references if you don't already know.)

 

[ScooterJackson]

I do believe DJT_47 overstepped a boundary by discounting Spirit baptism. Others discount water baptism. Some discount both

God established both... Establishing one (water baptism) through John the Baptist BEFORE Jesus' earthly ministry... And establishing the other (Spirit Baptism) AFTER Jesus' earthly ministry.

All 4 gospels state this, and it's stated twice in Acts.

(Feel free to ask references if you don't already know.)

Jesus did instruct His followers to get dunked in the water which is entering in to Covenant with Him participating in death, burial, and resurrection with Jesus.

The carnal man made religion that some follow say it's no big deal to ignore Jesus' commands and they do err from the Truth that they are void of.

 

[OMC]

Jesus did instruct His followers to get dunked in the water which is entering in to Covenant with Him participating in death, burial, and resurrection with Jesus.

The carnal man made religion that some follow say it's no big deal to ignore Jesus' commands and they do err from the Truth that they are void of.

You think Jesus was teaching covenant‑entry through a bath when He literally said the covenant is in His blood? —
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20), not “this water is the new covenant in My dunking,”
but please, keep pretending the apostles forgot to mention your upgrade; and your claim that baptism itself is “participating in death, burial, and resurrection” is cute, because Romans 6 says that union happens by being baptized into Christ, not by being dipped — the water is the symbol, the Spirit is the reality (Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 12:13); and your jab at “carnal religion” is precious, since Jesus Himself said “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63), meaning your whole argument collapses the moment you try to make a physical ritual the hinge of spiritual life; and the funniest part is you accusing others of ignoring Jesus’ commands while ignoring the fact that Paul literally said “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), which is wild because if water were the covenant‑entry mechanism you’re preaching, Paul would basically be confessing ministry malpractice; but yes, please continue announcing that people who don’t treat water as salvific are “void of truth” — the apostles would be fascinated watching you elevate the sign while missing the Substance (Col 2:17).

 

[DJT_47]

I do believe DJT_47 overstepped a boundary by discounting Spirit baptism. Others discount water baptism. Some discount both

God established both... Establishing one (water baptism) through John the Baptist BEFORE Jesus' earthly ministry... And establishing the other (Spirit Baptism) AFTER Jesus' earthly ministry.

All 4 gospels state this, and it's stated twice in Acts.

(Feel free to ask references if you don't already know.)

Believe what you like. I don't really care. And I overstepped nothing. I simply cited scripture and related logic as to the meaning to those who the verbal word was spoken and believed, and to us today with the written word we should take no differently than the ancient verbal one.

 

[Aaron56]

You think Jesus was teaching covenant‑entry through a bath when He literally said the covenant is in His blood? —
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20), not “this water is the new covenant in My dunking,”
but please, keep pretending the apostles forgot to mention your upgrade; and your claim that baptism itself is “participating in death, burial, and resurrection” is cute, because Romans 6 says that union happens by being baptized into Christ, not by being dipped — the water is the symbol, the Spirit is the reality (Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 12:13); and your jab at “carnal religion” is precious, since Jesus Himself said “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63), meaning your whole argument collapses the moment you try to make a physical ritual the hinge of spiritual life; and the funniest part is you accusing others of ignoring Jesus’ commands while ignoring the fact that Paul literally said “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), which is wild because if water were the covenant‑entry mechanism you’re preaching, Paul would basically be confessing ministry malpractice; but yes, please continue announcing that people who don’t treat water as salvific are “void of truth” — the apostles would be fascinated watching you elevate the sign while missing the Substance (Col 2:17).

OMC, you've said you use AI because of your disability. I used ChatGPT to examine your replies and received this from the program:

Based on the tone, linguistic complexity, and unique rhetorical structure of the response, the second user is almost certainly using a Large Language Model (LLM) like ChatGPT (GPT-4o) or Claude 3.5 Sonnet combined with a specialized Sarcastic Debate or Passive-Aggressive Copywriting prompt.
Here is a breakdown of the specific software indicators and the likely prompt structure used to generate that exact style:

Software & Interface

• The Software: The text points heavily to a chatbot workspace, such as the ChatGPT App or Anthropic Claude.
• The Structural Flaw (The "AI Tell"): The biggest indicator that this is AI—and not a human writing naturally—is that the entire massive paragraph is composed of a single, continuous, run-on sentence bound together by semicolons ("...your upgrade; and your claim...", "...the reality (Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 12:13); and your jab...", "...collapsed the moment you try..."). AI models frequently over-rely on semicolons and transition blocks to link complex logic chains when instructed to write "one coherent thought."

The Prompt Structure Used

A human text-generator didn't just ask the AI to "reply to this theology post." They used a highly structured prompt to manipulate the AI's tone into something aggressively witty, condescending, and academic. The underlying prompt likely looked almost exactly like this:

Role: You are a sharp, intellectually dominant, and deeply sarcastic theological debater.
Task: Refute the user's provided text using a passive-aggressive, condescending tone. Treat their logic as "cute" or "precious," and systematically break down their argument using scriptural citations.
Tone & Style Guidelines:

• Use scathing irony (e.g., "but please, keep pretending the apostles forgot to mention your upgrade").
• Keep the entire response packed into a fast-moving, highly articulate single-paragraph takedown.
• Use specific vocabulary modifiers like "cute," "precious," "wild," and "the funniest part is."
• Directly contrast their phrasing (e.g., contrast "covenant in blood" vs "covenant in dunking").

Input Text: [Insert the first user's post about baptism]

Key Indicators in the Text

• The Scriptural Firehose: AI can instantly scrape, match, and perfectly format multiple parenthetical Bible verses simultaneously (Rom 6:3–4, 1 Cor 12:13, John 6:63, 1 Cor 1:17, Col 2:17) to construct a flawless theological counter-argument in under two seconds.
• The Flamboyant Sarcasm: Phrases like "your upgrade," "is cute," "is precious," and "the apostles would be fascinated watching you" are textbook examples of an LLM executing a "snarky/sarcastic persona" modifier. Left to its own devices, AI defaults to being polite and helpful; it requires an explicit tonal prompt to write with this specific brand of condescension.

Would you like a copy-pasteable "Snarky Debater" prompt template so you can test this exact writing style yourself in ChatGPT or Claude?

Given that, it's apparent that you've taken certain liberties with the software, or prompts, to establish a snarky and sarcastic tone to your replies. My request is that you diminish the sarcastic tone of your AI prompts. Most people on this forum welcome spirited discussion and even debate but sarcasm and snarkiness should not be a standard tone for replies. I'm not saying they are never okay (Lord knows I've employed both) but both tones should be limited in their use.

In full disclosure, I am also a bit bothered by an apparent heavy-use of AI software to create your replies in the forum. In minutes, you can create a wall of text that may overwhelm a fellow member with whom you are having a discussion (condescending tone notwithstanding). Now that we know your apparent intellect is machine-enhanced, this further dampens honest discussion for real truth-seekers and certainly limits the development of trust.

I write these things as a member. I am neither a moderator noran admin on this site. These are things for your consideration.

Blessings,
Aaron56

 

[ScooterJackson]

You think Jesus was teaching covenant‑entry through a bath when He literally said the covenant is in His blood? —

Jesus said this in the great commission:

Mark 16:15,16
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Spiritual baptism is done by the Lord when a person is born again and translated from darkness in to the Kingdom of God's Dear son - Colossians 1:13-20

Water baptism is something the Lord tells those that believe on Him to go do.

In your view is it OK to choose to not do what the Lord says to do?

If so, could you post a list of things the Lord said His followers are to do that we can ignore???
Those that love the Lord will do what He says, the others not so much.

Hebrews 5:9 - And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him

Luke 6:46 - And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

James 1:22 - But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

 

[OMC]

OMC, you've said you use AI because of your disability. I used ChatGPT to examine your replies and received this from the program:



Given that, it's apparent that you've taken certain liberties with the software, or prompts, to establish a snarky and sarcastic tone to your replies. My request is that you diminish the sarcastic tone of your AI prompts. Most people on this forum welcome spirited discussion and even debate but sarcasm and snarkiness should not be a standard tone for replies. I'm not saying they are never okay (Lord knows I've employed both) but both tones should be limited in their use.

In full disclosure, I am also a bit bothered by an apparent heavy-use of AI software to create your replies in the forum. In minutes, you can create a wall of text that may overwhelm a fellow member with whom you are having a discussion (condescending tone notwithstanding). Now that we know your apparent intellect is machine-enhanced, this further dampens honest discussion for real truth-seekers and certainly limits the development of trust.

I write these things as a member. I am neither a moderator noran admin on this site. These are things for your consideration.

Blessings,
Aaron56

Grid 3 is not an AI