[Josh] I deny you the right to publish or post my material on your website. If you persist in doing so I shall discontinue this exchange ad infinitum.

[Josh] Sadly I am currently in a location that denys me access to any theological texts, so I am unable, at this time, to furnish you with your desired names and dates. Nonetheless, our topic of conversation is on Infant Baptism which I should like to return to forthwith.

[Josh] Your eagerness to demonstrate your own knowledge has unhanded you, for the writings of Irenaeus are considered historically unreliable, textually impure and all of his major contributions were valiant stands against heresies within the Christian community. In a historical context, it is not even known exactly when he died or was born. Do you intend to base your spiritual convictions on such historically unreliable sources? Evidentally so. Therefore even should we discuss the aforementioned Church Father, you would be forced to base your commentary on faulty, textually impure documentation, of which has been derived from fragments of original manuscripts or quotations made by third parties.

[Josh] This comment is ridiculous. You are confused only as you take my comments out of context. I did not quote the Church Fathers as a bloc or a singular identity and, as you are well aware, such an undertaking would be highly foolish given the disimulation and difference of opinion among the many Church Fathers of the period. I cited a number of Church Fathers who maintained the important essence of the baptismal rite. You have attempted to misrepresent my commentary for your own expediency.

[Josh] It is certainly not irrelevant to my argument. I am attempting to illistrate that the Infant Baptism you defend so staunchly, was not a concept that emerged fully-formed from the mouth of Jesus Christ, or the pen of any Apostle or Church Father.

[Josh] The Infant Baptism you experience today in your local church is the product of hundreds of years of theological and philosophical argument, controversy, debate and discussion.

[Josh] I notice too that you've not only skirted the essence of my point, but you've avoided responding to my point concerning the clinical, scientific elaboration of these simple rites. I pointed out that Catholic Church law provided, by 1442, a time limit for Infant Baptism. I found this somewhat perplexing because it rendered what was originally a spontaneous action carried out by a joyous convert and an equally joyous "converter" into something more akin to a stodgy, scientific and proceedural rite, governed by laws, regulations and rules.

I was merely citing my text in which the theologian asserted that Cyprian based his idea on a single passage of Paul's scripture. I reject the concept of Original Sin on the basis of the writings of another theologian, who asserted that Jesus didn't believe any such concept as "Original Sin", (very Pharisaic philosophy) but rather saw sin as a dynamic, ever-changing, ever-moving force in the lives of men and women. In short, Satan is not a static force and neither is sin.

[Clay original] > It was not the "norm" for the canon of Scripture to > exist formally until the end of the 3rd Century. > It was not the "norm" for the Trinity to be accepted > until the 4th or 5th Century. The fact that a > doctrine developed over time does not automatically > disprove it.

[Josh replies] However, in a historical context, creating ideas (doctrines) on the basis of events that occured hundreds of years prior, which are in turn recorded in books and letters written after the events took place, leaves some room for faulty interpretation and therefore faulty doctrines. The rule of thumb when analysing historical texts, is that the closer the text was compiled to the event that it depicts, the more likely the text will accurately portray reflections of that event, or sequence of events. For example, if you were to write about the life of Moses now, in the 21st century, your assertions and conclusions are likely to be increasingly erroneous given the chronological removal from the actual event. Therefore, a doctrine comiled 6 or 7 hundred years after the life of Christ may not be automatically in error, but may well contain significant margins for error. One would imagine this is where the concept of Papal infalibility was derived from, if indeed it did not emerge from a fit of unfounded enthusiasm on the part of some obscure theologian.

[Josh] Interestingly, when the Catholic Church was burning, and killing in the name of Jesus, and persecuting various groups they had identified as heretical, it was all in the name of the doctrines created by the Church and it all rested on the basis of Papal infallibility.

[Josh] Take for example this quotation: "The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces." The Albigenses were a peaceful people practicing simple Christianity. The Catholic Church couldn't leave them alone and, upon aquiring a taste for blood (it seems) continued their rampant persecution throughout Europe: "In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."" And, "At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."" The point I make here, Clay, is that Catholic doctrines are not worth the paper they're written upon if they result only in wanton bloodshedding.

[Josh] And all the whitewashing used by Catholic apologeticists, such as yourself, ("It wasn't that bad", "There really wasn't that many deaths", "It was only REAL heretics" etc), doesn't change the fact that Catholic doctrines are soaked in the blood of martyrs.

[Clay original] Ok, I'll play along.

[Josh replies] Your comment here makes it impossible for me to carry on this discussion with you Clay. Clearly you are aiming only to discredit, to disparage and to be downright impolite. I should have been glad to carry this discussion on, but your lack of ability to refrain from making cunning and snide remarks makes it a fruitless activity for me. I shall not waste my energy. I shall end by saying that I see the Catholic Church as one of the most monstrous organisations ever concieved by the mind and heart of man. I therefore cannot accept your viewpoint, just as you cannot accept mine.