Spirituality
07 Oct 06
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHow is baptism by desire/blood "NOT" an exception to the necessity of [sacramental] Baptism for salvation?
Those are not exceptions to Baptism. Try actually reading your own doctrine; Baptism by desire and blood IS NOT an exception to the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Your "logic" is truly a joke.
Now it's your logic that's the joke.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaIt only shows that you're a brainless parrot. Again, no "strawmen" is presented; rather YOU are trying to argue by implication against specific wording that indicates Baptism is necessary for salvation.
As long as you keep making statement about the RCC's position that contradict this text, I'm forced to keep quoting it.
I guess that makes it at least 6 times that you've misrepresented the RCC's position. Could that be a...strawman technique? Gasp. Horror.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaIf that is true, the original sin doctrine in its present form must be scrapped. That was the original question I asked. perhaps you'd care to discuss it.
Nor am I claiming it.
I'm claiming that 'hoping' for salvation means that it is NOT a logical necessity for the RCC that they are not saved.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderKeep up the derogatory comments. They're both entertaining and telling.
It only shows that you're a brainless parrot. Again, no "strawmen" is presented; rather YOU are trying to argue by implication against specific wording that indicates Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Misrepresentation of a position to attack it IS a strawman. And that's what you keep doing over and over.
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. Because it applies for all people except in those that fall into the exceptional cases described.
If that is true, the original sin doctrine in its present form must be scrapped. That was the original question I asked. perhaps you'd care to discuss it.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaExplain the RCC position on original sin. Then explain how somebody can be granted salvation without its remission by Baptism. And try to make one post without the same quote and/or the word "strawman".
Keep up the derogatory comments. They're both entertaining and telling.
Misrepresentation of a position to attack it IS a strawman. And that's what you keep doing over and over.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI already did that several times.
Explain the RCC position on original sin. Then explain how somebody can be granted salvation without its remission by Baptism. And try to make one post without the same quote and/or the word "strawman".
And why can't I quote the Vatican? Isn't that what this is all about: the RCC's position?
Again, your attitude is telling.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaExcept no exceptional cases have been described. That is the point. Traditionally the only debate has been whether unbaptized infants go to Hell and A) Suffer; or B) Not suffer or go to Limbo. The Church doctrine still does not allow one to say that one can be saved without Baptism; that is an official doctrine. The Council of Trent declared it is heresy to believe otherwise. It allows you to hope otherwise. See the difference?
No. Because it applies for all people except in those that fall into the exceptional cases described.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen you actually start addressing some points, I'll respond. You continue to refuse to. Quoting a line of the Catechism over and over and over again because you apparently can't think of anything cogent to say isn't "debating'.
I already did that several times.
And why can't I quote the Vatican? Isn't that what this is all about: the RCC's position?
Again, your attitude is telling.