Water baptism is not necessary for salvation

Ahoy. Likewise, before I begin I would like to give credit where credit is due and retract the final statement of my last argument. After reading your response I must say, off the record - and I'll use my character count to do it; I am pleasantly surprised at your reply. Honestly, it's not often I get a worthwhile debate opponent. Normally I just jump into the first coherent, available match that I see on the list and run with whatever side I happen to be on. I rarely ever debate because I sought out to pick a side I choose on emotional or personal grounds. And so, in full transparency here I'm in a bit of a pickle here because now I realize that I'm about to take someone who actually knows a little bit about where they're talking about, head on and my usual rhetoric isn't going to work. As I mentioned already. I don't subscribe to the faith I'm defending which means that I am going to be sort of forced to try and win this dispute while arguing for a side that I know would typically be a loser when up against the type of historical facts & logic you've presented in your response. Kudos, sir. I don't often end up in a corner. But. "When backed into a corner, a man has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds." --Marc Schiller So I will ask for your forgiveness in advance as the only choice that I have is to put on my Christian cap and try to contest this from an Abrahamic point of view, to the best of my ability. My anticipated apology is for, well y'know how those types can get sometimes and I respect your argument to a certain degree, so I hate to downplay it but I'ma have to rip your retort a new *sshole. Starting Now} To reiterate; "Water Baptism Is Not Necessary For Salvation." The title of that which you're taking a pro stance; and topic of this debate in it's entirety would lead me (and most others) to believe that YOU do in fact believe 'salvation' is attainable but that you do not believe that 'water baptism' is necessary to obtain it. If you believe 'salvation' is something that can be achieved then somewhere in your philosophy of self you must believe that something greater than yourself must exist to grant 'the salvation'. While you do not state what it is you do or don't believe in (which I will point out that I asked; and so is a question that went unanswered) - to believe in something greater than yourself, whatever that may or may not be, it would have to be assumed there is in some shape, way or form a sense of spirituality about you. Irregardless of what your spirituality and/or philosophy may be... IF you are going to argue the points & facts that you have made, for instance; commenting on the nature of the Biblical verses I quoted in an attempt to clarify what they may have "actually" meant; then I would have to point out also that it is still proving what I originally said; that your argument against scripture & debate on a whole (aside from historical references) are STILL only more of an opinion than certain fact. I did state & attempt to clarify that biblical passages should be taken at face value and understood literally as to not risk wasting time by having to argue over semantics & interpretations of said verses. Which you obviously failed to recognize or even comment on. As a matter of fact; the only attempt you made at directly responding to my argument are those which reference the Biblical verses; which would not only again prove you have only, not an opinion; but a STRONG opinion on the nature & meaning of those texts. You start your argument by discussing the context and origins of water baptism, which I respect, rightfully. But after reviewing the historical sources that may have inspired the contemporary Christians system of belief, I repeat that you go on to critique Biblical verse and attempt to correct me as if to say you do indeed know what those verses actually meant and so you believe your interpretation of those verses. And if you do not agree and believe Christian doctrine to be absolutely true, to the highest and most literal extent then your commentary and criticism on those few stated verses hold no merit at all, whatsoever because you try to argue your opinion as if it were certain fact and it just simply would not be in that scenario. Therefore you cannot rightfully discuss the factual historical origins of Baptism at any volume and then turn around and contradict yourself by stating that your interpretation of spiritual or Holy doctrine to be truth because then you would only be picking & choosing which parts you like and want to believe in and not honestly taking all viewpoints on the matter; as if what you say is and can be nothing else but the truth and the whole truth. Which - I hate to sound like a broken record, but would mean again that you are just full of opinions and half-truths, while leaving out important points and facts in these matters. So for the second time around I will ask AGAIN. IF you are going to take a pro stance on the matter of water baptism being unnecessary for salvation, please do include in your response whether you do or do not truly believe in what Biblical scripture says & has to offer, otherwise you are only arguing your interpretations of the semiotics of it all. (Aka: Your opinion, not fact). If you do not hold personal value & believe scripture to be true to your own philosophy than you have no warrant to express what you 'think' the scripture meant if you do not believe it to be true at all. Because in MY arguing FOR Biblical context on the merits of water baptism being necessary for salvation; we/you and I and spectators of this debate (and future voters) are forced to see my standpoint as solely trying to defend a Christian doctrine that very clearly states (your opinions and personal interpretations aside) a belief infrastructure that is very, very obviously; in black and white - a text recognizing that water baptism to be indeed, necessary to the fullest extent in order to obtain salvation in their honest faith in what it goes to say. Historical landmarks & origins would then be irrelevant in this specific case if you continue to state you know the true meaning of Biblical text and hold your interpretation of it to be truth because in this context; those who actually do believe in what the Christian Bible has to offer; would also then have to accept to some degree that history "has it wrong". So which is it? If you do believe in Abrahamic scripture, then please, be my guest and argue it as truth. If you do not believe in scripture; the please do not try to edit what the Bible very clearly states because then you'd be trying to rob the side I am defending of it's viewpoint, while defending only your own (again) opinion of it. And so if you do not believe - then I will again state that in this debate we MUST understand Biblical scripture as literally true as to what it says; quite literally. And while you make very cute arguments in regards to what you 'think' the Bible meant, they are irrelevant if you don't believe in what the Bible means to those who know what it clearly says. Which is yet another thing you failed to point out. You argued historical inspiration for Christian baptism & your interpretation of the passages to mean but you did NOT point out any verses or sources that specifically state and/or deny that water is NOT necessary for salvation. You only mention passages and verses that don't mention it, but do not go on to say that water baptism is not specifically needed. Trust me. I would LOVE to argue your historical merits. I read every single word of your argument and you make very interesting points that I'd enjoy reviewing. Unfortunately, I can't even touch on them until you clarify what it is and which part that you are or aren't trying to say you believe to be true. Because then I'd be accepting & entertaining your dancing around the topic as a truth; and it's not.