If Vatican Catholicism is mystery Babylon what are the daughter religions spun from her that have been accepted back?

Wonder why you said "If you are that intrigued by non-biblical Jewish customs," because I made no reference at all to "non-biblical Jewish customs" In fact I quoted verses to show that all the customs I mentioned were rooted in the Bible.

Oh brother, here we go again. I obviously mentioned some non-biblical Jewish customs, yes?
 
I said: "Apparently the Pharisees and some other sects did something like the baptism of some utensils and possibly some type of ritualistic baptism for some people for different reasons without divine authorization? Also not sure if it involved complete immersion?"

You then said: "The subject is very intriguing and full of curiosity.

I then gave research tools as to your possible interest: 
"If you are that intrigued by non-biblical Jewish customs,..."
"If you wan't to know more about the Mosaic Law Covenant and the anointing of certain utensils like in the Holy and the Most Holy ..."
"Or just the Bible:..."

I don't know about you, but I think, as I have shown in my posts above, there's enough intrigue in the Bible itself to keep one occupied without looking for intrigue in non-Biblical sources.

Fascinating book

With that being said, your first entry in this thread to me is a bit curious:

My comment: "I would have to research that as I don't know that Jews were baptized before the first century? "

You will notice that I did not contradict your "before the first century" phrase but stuck to what I was sure of - that it was present "before Jesus"

However, I hinted that the practice must have been common. I said "...what is significant for our purposes here is that when the priests confronted John they were not concerned with the act of baptism, and therefore did not question it, but questioned the capacity in which John was baptizing. They ask, according to John 1:25, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?”

How far back it went before the first century or when it started, the Bible appears to be silent about that. Baptism, like anointing, was a ritual process of consecration, of making holy. The latter, we know for sure from the Bible, goes well back before the first century. Perhaps the former, consecration with water, evolved from the latter, consecration with oil, and became common and acceptable by, or just before, the first century. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't help to pinpoint that.

"there's enough intrigue in the Bible itself to keep one occupied without looking for intrigue in non-Biblical' speculations.

EDIT: [what is significant for our purposes here is that when the priests confronted John they were not concerned with the act of baptism, and therefore did not question it, but questioned the capacity in which John was baptizing. They ask, according to John 1:25, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?”]

That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing? 
Also, if all of this baptizing was commonplace, why was John known as the baptist? According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?

This post was edited by texasescimo at January 26, 2018 9:46 PM MST

For me it is clear from the reaction of the Pharisees that the act of baptising itself did not strike them as strange or heretical. They did not question it at all.

If they had said something like, "What is this ritual that you are carrying out on people? Is it of Moses?" then it would have been clear that they had never heard of the practice before. But they said nothing like it at all. That seems to indicate that the ritual was nothing new. Either that, or

the ritual was not supposed to be carried out except by one of the three awaited persons, the Christ, Elijah or that Prophet.

Not sure you replied to the right comment or perhaps at least missed part of it?

"there's enough intrigue in the Bible itself to keep one occupied without looking for intrigue in non-Biblical' speculations.

EDIT: [what is significant for our purposes here is that when the priests confronted John they were not concerned with the act of baptism, and therefore did not question it, but questioned the capacity in which John was baptizing. They ask, according to John 1:25, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?”]


Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?

That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing? 
Also, if all of this baptizing was commonplace, why was John known as the baptist? According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?

Not sure what points you're trying to make, but let me clarify the points I was trying to make.

1. We can see from the text that
a- the Pharisees had a name for and were familiar with what John was doing. They knew it was baptising, and
b- they didn't question the meaning, purpose or validity of baptising

All they wanted to know was the capacity in which John was baptising. It is obvious that to them there were only three more prophesied  persons that were left to come, Elijah, the Christ and that prophet foretold by Moses, and only these three were qualified/authorised to baptise.

2. I don't know why you asked "Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?" because I made no such references. However, it's an interesting point so I'll comment on it.

We can see from Mark 6:15 that some people on hearing of the works of Jesus said, "He is Elijah". At Mark 9:13 Jesus himself confirms "But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they chose to abuse him, just as the Scriptures predicted.” And according to Matthew 17:13 "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." But the Gospel attributed to John tells us that John the Baptist denied that he was Elijah.

You didn't really respond to what I asked, did you? 
Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?

That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing? 
Also, if all of this baptizing was commonplace, why was John known as the baptist? According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?


See if this helps:

Questions From Readers

When Jewish religionists asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah he said, “I am not.” But Jesus told his disciples that John was Elijah. Why the disagreement?—J. C., England.
The record of John’s reply is found at John 1:19-21 (NW): “Now this is the witness of John when the Jews sent forth priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him to ask him: ‘Who are you?’ And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed: ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him: ‘What, then? Are you Elijah?’ And he said: ‘I am not.’” Over two years later Jesus said just the opposite: “The disciples put the question to him: ‘Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ In reply he said: ‘Elijah, indeed, is coming and will restore all things. However, I say to you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him but did with him the things they wanted. In this way also the Son of man is destined to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples perceived that he spoke to them about John the Baptist.”—Matt. 17:10-13, NW.
The Jews questioning John thought that Elijah would be resurrected to return and fulfill Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah would come and do a preparatory work before the arrival of “the great and terrible day of Jehovah.” (Mal. 4:5, 6, AS) But John was no resurrected Elijah; so he correctly denied that he was Elijah. But when Jesus said that “Elijah has already come” and the “disciples perceived that he spoke to them about John the Baptist,” Jesus knew that Malachi’s prophecy did not mean Elijah himself would come again, but that one like Elijah would come to do a work similar to that done by Elijah, a work of turning sincere Israelites to true repentance. Jesus knew that before John’s birth it was foretold that “he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother’s womb, and many of the sons of Israel will he turn back to Jehovah their God. Also he will go before him with Elijah’s spirit and power, to turn back the hearts of fathers to children and the disobedient ones to the practical wisdom of righteous ones, to get ready for Jehovah a prepared people.”—Luke 1:15-17, NW.
Thus John was to fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, and he did, and therefore he was the Elijah to come according to that prophecy. So Jesus gave the correct answer. But in view of the fact that the Jews who questioned John had in mind a resurrected Elijah, John was also correct in denying he was the prophet in that sense.

I did not use the word "commonplace" so I don't think your comments refuting that are addressed to me

I expect the Holy Spirit did not want to inspire either Jesus or John the Baptist or the Gospel writers with the explanation given in your post. John was thus left not knowing why he was baptising.

Quote: [I did not use the word "commonplace" ...]

Okay, your exact words were: "However, I hinted that the practice must have been common"
See if this helps:


n

Oh yes, I forgot, you are not allowed to reason on the scriptures.

To be clear, lets use your style: 

1) Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?

2) That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet?

3) Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing? 

4) Also, if all of this baptizing 'was commonplace', why was John known as the baptist? (use 'must have been common' in its place to help you)

5) According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?

I think we're going in circles.

I simply quoted several verses from the Bible about Elijah. These were what the people said, what Jesus said, the Pharisees and John the Baptist too. There was obvious confusion and some apparent contradictions. You then quoted an apologetic who tried to smooth it all up by suggesting that the second coming of Elijah was not of Elijah himself but of someone else as Elijah and that this someone else was John the Baptist [would that,.I now wonder be similar to the archangel Michael coming down not as himself, the archangel Michael, but as Jesus?] This prompted me to say that this apologist must have been inspired with the explanation by the holy spirit who for some odd reason did not inspire that explanation to Jesus, John the Baptist, the Pharisees, the people or the Gospel writers.

But I already said all that before, anyway.

It's called reasoning. With your unreasonableness, who was lying, John or Jesus?

[Work Prophetic of Things to Come. About 450 years after Elijah’s time, Malachi prophesied that Elijah the prophet would appear “before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah.” (Mal 4:5, 6) The Jews of Jesus’ day were in expectation of Elijah’s coming to fulfill this prophecy. (Mt 17:10) Some thought that Jesus was Elijah. (Mt 16:14) John the Baptizer, who wore a hair garment and a leather girdle around his loins as did Elijah, denied that he actually was Elijah in person. (2Ki 1:8; Mt 3:4; Joh 1:21) The angel had not told John’s father Zechariah that John would be Elijah, but that he would have “Elijah’s spirit and power . . . to get ready for Jehovah a prepared people.” (Lu 1:17) Jesus indicated that John did that work but was not recognized by the Jews. (Mt 17:11-13) After John’s death a visionary appearance of Elijah along with Moses occurred at Jesus’ transfiguration, indicating that there was something yet to take place as represented by the work that Elijah had done.—Mr 9:1-8.]

Jesus said we can know the truth. We have to pray for Holy Spirit to help our understanding, read with an open mind, and be willing to let go of any preconceived ideas as we find out that they are not really from the Bible. The Ethiopian Eunich was humble enough to accept help from Philip and the Beroeans were humble enough to listen to Paul and check the scriptures closely to see if what Paul was saying was so as he reasoned with them from the scriptures.

(Acts 17:2) So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

(Acts 17:10-11) Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. ¹¹ Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

(Acts 8:26-40) However, Jehovah’s angel spoke to Philip, saying: “Rise and go to the south to the road that runs down from Jerusalem to Ga′za.” (This is a desert road.) ²⁷ With that he rose and went, and, look! an E·thi·o′pi·an eunuch, a man in power under Can·da′ce queen of the E·thi·o′pi·ans, and who was over all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, ²⁸ but he was returning and was sitting in his chariot and reading aloud the prophet Isaiah. ²⁹ So the spirit said to Philip: “Approach and join yourself to this chariot.” ³⁰ Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” ³¹ He said: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?” And he entreated Philip to get on and sit down with him. ³² Now the passage of Scripture that he was reading aloud was this: “As a sheep he was brought to the slaughter, and as a lamb that is voiceless before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. ³³ During his humiliation the judgment was taken away from him. Who will tell the details of his generation? Because his life is taken away from the earth.” ³⁴ In answer the eunuch said to Philip: “I beg you, About whom does the prophet say this? About himself or about some other man?” ³⁵ Philip opened his mouth and, starting with this Scripture, he declared to him the good news about Jesus. ³⁶ Now as they were going over the road, they came to a certain body of water, and the eunuch said: “Look! A body of water; what prevents me from getting baptized?” ³⁷ —— ³⁸ With that he commanded the chariot to halt, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. ³⁹ When they had come up out of the water, Jehovah’s spirit quickly led Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him anymore, for he kept going on his way rejoicing. ⁴⁰ But Philip was found to be in Ash′dod, and he went through the territory and kept on declaring the good news to all the cities until he got to Caes·a·re′a.

(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to [what we are in the] flesh. ⁴ For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. ⁵ For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;

(Nehemiah 8:8) And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.


(1 Corinthians 2:14, 15) But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.



EDIT: If you want to see some contradictions, perhaps you can explain these few, here ya go:
https://carm.org/contradictions-quran

The Qur'an states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22).  If the Qur'an is a perfect book from Allah, then there shouldn't be any contradictions in it.  Of course, the Muslims will deny any contradictions exist in the Qur'an, but they do.  Some of the contradictions below could be debated, but some of them are clearly contradictions.

A contradiction occurs when one statement on a subject excludes the possibility of another.  The first one here is a good example.  In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing.  In 15:26, man is created from clay.  Since clay is something, we have a contradiction since "nothing" excludes the possibility of "clay."  Both cannot be true.

All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online.

1. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
   1. "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
   2. "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
   3. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
   4. "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
   5. "He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).
2. Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an? 
   1. "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
   2. "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,--that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
   3. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
   4. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).
3. The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
   1. "And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
   2. "When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
   3. "And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).
4. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods? 
   1. Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48).  Also 4:116
   2. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).
5. Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
   1. "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
   2. "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
   3. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
   4. When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
6. Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning? 
   1. "We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!  This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee!but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
   2. Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!"  So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).
7. Is wine consumption good or bad? 
   1. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,--of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
   2. (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell forever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
   3. Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).

This post was edited by texasescimo at February 10, 2018 9:04 AM MST

"who was lying, John or Jesus?" >>> I did not use the word "lying" that's your introduction here. 

I benefit from my statements being challenged. Copy pasting tons of material about the Qur'an does not challenge any of my statements.

So what is your point if both were being truthful?

Never got a clear answer:

To be clear, lets use your style: 

1) Also, were you expecting Elijah himself to come back at that time or someone in a role like that of Elijah?

2) That's a really odd way of reasoning. If baptism was commonplace before John, why would they reason that John had to be the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? 

3) Were all of these people doing all of this baptizing the Christ, Elijah or the prophet? If not, why were they baptizing? 

4) Also, if all of this baptizing 'was commonplace', why was John known as the baptist? (use 'must have been common' in its place to help you)

5) According to you, John was doing what everyone else was already doing, yes?



Quote: "I benefit from my statements being challenged. Copy pasting tons of material about the Qur'an does not challenge any of my statements.

"If it has made you feel better then good for you." >>> in a subject under discussion and debate if one person's claims are not convincingly challenged then naturally that person feels better. If they ARE sensibly challenged and the person is open minded and free enough to change his/her understanding then again he feels better. So such debates and discussions are win/win situations for free and open minded people. My Bible based narrative about Jesus has improved through discussions, debates and independent studies of the Bible. Not belonging to any group whose interpretations I have to follow or face the consequences I am free to learn and grow in my understanding. So yes I do feel better.

I guess it's best to not make your position clear on of some of those 5 points.

Please don't try to pretend that you are open minded. All of your various taunts are based on stubbornness and ignorance. You don't even accept that Jesus said he was to be killed. In fact, you never admit a mistake but gloss over it and move on to your next taunt.

my position on the five points is that I have not given them thought because they are not important to me. For me there are far more important and exciting things in the Bible than those 5 points. Because the subject of Elijah arose in our discussion I just quoted some relevant Biblical verses which pointed to some confusion and apparent contradictions over the issue. You found someone who had an explanation that smoothed over the problems. I read it and said that if that explanation was holy spirit inspired then it might have avoided the problem if the holy spirit had inspired Jesus, the Baptist, the people and the Gospel writers to say and write with that explanation in mind. 

"Please don't try to pretend that you are open minded." >>> I believe that if there is a God who created the universe then He loves the universe and ALL in it and would have sent His guides to ALL not just a chosen few. I believe salvation would be granted to ALL who followed the guides sent by Him to them wherever in the world they were and whichever period in history they existed. You think that's not open minded then you are on a much higher level of open mindedness or have a very different view of open mindedness on the issue of salvation. [btw if you bear in mind that that is where I'm coming from then it might help you understand my posts better]

"All of your various taunts are based on stubbornness and ignorance." >>> my reaction? unkind remark and unfortunate and sad you feel that way.

"You don't even accept that Jesus said he was to be killed." >>> I know it's difficult for you to understand my perspective, but where I come from it is not true that I don't accept that Jesus said he was to be killed, but it is true that I see it completely differently to how you see it.

"you never admit a mistake" could be because I don't see it as a mistake but I appreciate that it may be a glaringly obvious one from your point of view. If it's a mistake in my narrative, a weakness in my version of the Biblical Jesus story, and I ignore it, then I am the loser for not correcting that mistake and not making my version of the Biblical Jesus story stronger.

Quote: "my position on the five points is that I have not given them thought because they are not important to me"
Not even going to read the rest of your krap right now. You start off with your taunts and you make like you are so inquisitive so you can open mindedly adjust your position if need be and then you come up with that? Lol
Maybe later

"Not even going to read the rest of your krap right now" >>> but you already know it is "krap". With omniscience like that why read, eh?

Thank you for your confidence in me but I don't look at it like that. 
It's just that from all of our conversations and you starting out with: "my position on the five points is that I have not given them thought because they are not important to me", I can refer to the whole comment as krap and probably be right. If I've been to the same restaurant several times and 4 out of 5 times their tea is watered down, I don't have to drink the whole glass after the first sip to discern that the whole glass is likely watered down.

the solution is extremely simple - knowing you'll only get watered down tea from the restaurant don't go to it. Problem solved. Similarly, knowing you'll only get "krap" from me don't respond to my posts. Problem solved.

On the restaurant illustration, I don't know the tea will always be watered down, just around 4 out of 5 times. The first sip don't make me sick but if I drink the whole glass, I may want to throw up.

In this case, you brought up something you likely thought would stumble me and then when questioned about your thoughts, you throw this out there: "my position on the five points is that I have not given them thought because they are not important to me". 

If we knew exactly how each is going to respond to the other's post then there would be no point in having a conversation.