Having been accused of being too close to jollyblogger I decided it is time to find something to disagree with him over- but what I ask myself?

Could I disagree with his �denominational aggregator�? But on what grounds? That I am gutted that there's finally an aggregator I can't join? That seems rather more self-seeking than even my worst critics would accuse me of being. Could I criticise the reintroduction of denominational divisions online? Nonprophet chruch has some legitamate worries about this. Is it wrong to carve up the blogosphere like this?

I will have to go on record as believing it is not. It is important for people of like minds to be able to find each others blogs and interact. But impotantly no-one need be part of only one aggregator so being part of a denominational aggregator doesn't stop me from gaining readers from other groupings as well. Also, I am sure I will pop by aggregators from other groups from time to time

The more ways we carve up the blogosphere in different ways, the easier it will be for people to find our blogs. When submitted to google, aggregator pages often rank quite highly- 10 Christian Blogs is rapidly rising through the ranks for the term �Christian blogs� for example even though it is still new and many people havent had a chance to link to it yet. This should help non-bloggers find a selection of Christian blogs easily.

In any case it would be hypocritical of me to criticise David for setting up a denominational aggregator when I have just started �Reformed Charismatic Blogs�. Admitadly it is not quite denominational but does closely define those who would want to appear there. (Any submissions greatfully received)

So that just leaves one sticky point- what to disagree with David over? Well over here presbyterians tend to be paedobaptists....maybe David sprinkles babies? I could so debate on that one with him.

I know how it would go though- I would say "but the bible says believe AND be baptised in that order" he would say "but what about the households of Acts" I would say in almost every case the households are described as "believing" he would say something about covenant and circumscion, I would say but Paul says NT circumcision is what is done in our hearts at conversion. He would say something about denying babies the blessings of being in the covenant community. I would say "but what blessings exactly- what does it do for a baby". He would probably say "not very much to be honest". I would say, but on worst case scenario if I am wrong I am merely delaying my kids from enjoying baptism and allowing them to remember it, and I would ask "whats the worst case scenario if you are wrong?". He would have to say that worst case scenario thousands are ignoring Christ's command coz they believe they did it as kids. I would say, on balance even if I am wrong I would rather not take those chances and in any case loads of people have been falsely innoculated against christianity as they were christened as kids and believe they got it all at that point. He would then say "but thats not what I am talking about" and I would say short of banning baby baptism altogether "how can I make sure that non-believers dont do it?". Then I would reiterate "what have my kids missed out on?" then just maybe he'd have no real answer to give and I would go away thinking I have won and he would go away thinking I had missed the point. So maybe thats a whole argument summarised. Probably knowing my luck I will find Jollyblogger is actually a baptist presbyterian if such a thing exists and I will be back to the drawing board for something to disagree about......... But having said that, I wonder if david has the guts to own up to being a reformed charismatic and joining my latest aggregator....... Maybe thats the isssue to disagree on, although the last time we tried that one we ended up agreeing more than we thought......