exactly "I would like you to be freed from concern, an unmarried man is concerned about the Lords affairs, how he can please the Lord."

Look beneath a 'Dominionist' argument and you'll usually find a rejection (or at least a misunderstanding) of the Covenant of Works--and therefore of justificatian (and eventually eschatology).

Sorry I dont quite understand what "justification" means in this context? but I think I strongly agree with your and Paul

*justificatian

Here's the Protestant/Reformed understanding of justification: ``` Q. 70. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone. Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace? A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace. Q. 72. What is justifying faith? A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness. ``` from the [Westminster Larger Catechism](https://opc.org/lc.html)

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that this post has to do with the chatter over the last few days that has taken place on NOSTR resulting from me calling out HODL for imprecisely stating something in ways that were fundamentally myopic and unloving of his neighbors who might be dealing with various traumas including physical, emotional, or mental, or even unavoidable sterility. His statement is devoid of nuance and that was the issue. As for me, I do not make a dominionist argument so if that term is meant to point towards me, allow me to inform you that you have failed to "put me in a box" with that. Also, your take on baptism is woefully lacking in anything substantive. I've got science backing me up. Baptism is Egyptian. It's about sensory deprivation which is one of the most effective forms of grounding. Grounding is meant to rhythm entrain the mind to a theta frequency. Theta frequencies are trance like states in which people experience past life memories, healing, and spiritual awakenings (enlightenment). That's why Justin Martyr said what he said about photismos being washing in chapter 61 of First Apology. That's what the real version of "lustration" is. That's what the Osiris shaft sarcophagus was for. That's what the Osireion was for. The modern Christian baptism practice is a hollow, functionless shell of the original thing. You're way out of your depth.

I'm not sure I even read your replies in that thread so this seems a tad bizarre. The careful reader will notice that I (too?) was pushing back a bit on his post--leaning against the pendulum, as it were. That said, I've heard all that about baptism before, and it's irrelevant. It means what God says it means even if the pagans meant something different and earlier. Not interested in more here because revelational authority trumps ever-tentative "science."

That's fine that you didn't know that my call out of HODL was the reason for the controversy. That's still the reason your post exists. Your post exists in response to the chatter. The chatter is because I called him out for making one size fits all claims that were frankly very unloving to a lot of people who didn't deserve that. Invincible ignorance for the win. No, you haven't heard all that about baptism before. You're a liar. I know that because it is my own theory fucktard so unless you heard it from me, you've never heard it before. You don't follow me and I don't follow you so you're a liar. Likewise, if you heard me delivering my research on any podcasts or shows, because you are a knee-jerk heresy hunting dogmatist, you never would have made it deep enough into the shows to have actually allowed me to "cook". You would have insisted on tasting my dish after 2 minutes of prep as opposed to allowing me to cook. You would have turned off the podcast long before I was able to present the totality of the research. You are full of shit and your epistemology is dogshit wrapped in catshit. You will reincarnate and suffer through at least one more lifetime until you figure out how to love your neighbors as yourself.

Thank you,. I'll reflect on that 🙏

sir. this is a Wendy's.

Have fun staying spiritually poor

Have fun pounding your podium. you're obviously really getting off to it.

As I’ve linked previously, people seriously need to watch this video, unnecessary arguments over complex topics:

You got what you bargained for with the Wendy's comment. Don't start shit, won't be shit.

Don't worry. I have a constructive outlet. There's a book in progress. It will rugpull all the dogmatists.

Ok, fair point: I haven't heard your exact theories about baptism (and I still haven't, because I only scanned your long reply). I should have said that I've heard variations on the same "pagan-origin" themes. Either way, I'm not interested. Again, I wasn't talking about you or your views in my original post.

Thanks for admitting you were dishonestly dismissive. As such, I'm not surprised that you're maintaining that dismissiveness. Do you feel loved when your neighbors dismiss you? My guess is you'll say you don't care but that's not the question.

It is not "unloving" to dismiss _ideas_ one disagrees with, and _being_ loved is more important than _feeling_ loved. Sometines the truth hurts.

You can't honestly disagree with an idea you've never explored. Prejudicially dismissing ideas is unloving.