Hey catholics!

Tar.Aldarion

Just a quick question, to help me solve a little argument a friend and I had.
In your religion, do you or do you not go to hell if you are not baptised, original sin and all that?
thanks.

John Doe

Hmmm. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure you do go to Hell. According to the Catholics, that is. I must warn you that not many Christians on this forum seem to be Catholics! I can't think of any offhand...

county

yes would be the anwser,you would go to hell but you can still go to hell even if you are baptised

larryone

The question of why this piece of dogma exists comes to mind...

Stark

According to Catholic teachings you go to limbo. They've stopped teaching that unbaptised babies go to limbo though, so maybe baptism isn't an "absolute requirement" anymore, just belief in Jesus. I think the pope may have scrapped the idea of limbo altogether quite recently.

Tar.Aldarion

John Doe wrote:

Hmmm. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure you do go to Hell. According to the Catholics, that is. I must warn you that not many Christians on this forum seem to be Catholics! I can't think of any offhand...

Ah ok, I'm sure some non catholics will know enough to answer this question anyway.
I was brought up in a catholic family, have read the bible a good few times and it was my view that you did go to hell or limbo or something. However my catholic friend says you do not and that it is nowhere in the bible etc.

yes would be the anwser,you would go to hell but you can still go to hell even if you are baptised

Heh, it would be sweet for them if when you get babtised that was a get in no matter what card.

larryone

Stark wrote:

According to Catholic teachings you go to limbo. They've stopped teaching that unbaptised babies go to limbo though, so maybe baptism isn't an "absolute requirement" anymore, just belief in Jesus. I think the pope may have scrapped the idea of limbo altogether quite recently.

Cant really believe in Jesus if you die at 6 weeks.

UU

I thought those who are unbaptised according to Catholic teachings go to Purgatory to await judgement from God. That's what I was taught in school anyway. I think it was once taught that the unbaptised went to hell but that was an unfair belief considering the high infant mortality rate in the past and in many Third World countries where the baby may die at birth or in the first few weeks.

I think if it is hell, it seems rather unfair but that is my liberal opinion . . . . . .

Tar.Aldarion

Stark wrote:

According to Catholic teachings you go to limbo. They've stopped teaching that unbaptised babies go to limbo though, so maybe baptism isn't an "absolute requirement" anymore, just belief in Jesus. I think the pope may have scrapped the idea of limbo altogether quite recently.

I heard something like that too...
anyway, in jesus' words, you can't get into heaven without being baptised and I think it was written, you will be condemned. Actually if you can't get into heaven there is only hell left anyway...


nice sig UU, that is her only good poem imo though.

BrianCalgary

I read recently that Limbo was never an 'official' dogma that has now been removed from RC tradition.

Baptism biblically is not required for salvation. Repentance is. Baptism is a public declaration of faith that should be done when an adult and able to make that decision on your own.

And when you come up out of the water, what a rush of the Holy Spirit. You do come up different.

My impression of Catholicism though is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that once baptised you are in, after purgatory time is served.

Tar.Aldarion

Ok answer as far as I can see, to not get baptised means you are going to hell for catholics, all I wanted to know thanks!
If anybody thinks differently, shout it out.

philologos

does this exist in the bible or is this just made up by the church. If anyone can give me any verses out of the bible that would be a real help. Thank you

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote:

does this exist in the bible or is this just made up by the church. If anyone can give me any verses out of the bible that would be a real help. Thank you

Sure, afaik I remember it being in the bible.

There are statements like this thay i could google because I remember but I'm sure there is a lot of the bible I have forgotten.

Mark 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned

John 3:5 Jesus answered, most truly I say to you, unless anyone is born from water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

larryone

BrianCalgary wrote:

Baptism biblically is not required for salvation. Repentance is.

Again I'll ask the "what if you die at 6 weeks?" question.

Tar.Aldarion

larryone wrote:

Again I'll ask the "what if you die at 6 weeks?" question.

I would infer that you go to hell?

John Doe

To be honest, if that's true it destroys the entire Catholic faith. An all-loving God couldn't possibly send babies to hell! That's just mean. :mad:

BrianCalgary

larryone wrote:

Again I'll ask the "what if you die at 6 weeks?" question.

I would say that you would be off to Heaven, since you have not reached an age where you can make the decision on whether or not to follow Christ on your own.

That is my conjecture without any Biblical back-up. I would love to hear other opinions on this.

It is my understanding that infant baptism was done to cover this eventuality when the mortality rate was quite high, especially during the plague years.

Tar.Aldarion

John Doe wrote:

To be honest, if that's true it destroys the entire Catholic faith. An all-loving God couldn't possibly send babies to hell! That's just mean. :mad:

Hey, who says he is all loving?
He doesn't seem that way to me in the bible.

I would say that you would be off to Heaven, since you have not reached an age where you can make the decision on whether or not to follow Christ on your own.

That is my conjecture without any Biblical back-up. I would love to hear other opinions on this.

I don't know if there is anything biblical to back that up either?
Anyway just from quotes like mine above I would infer, they go to hell?

It is my understanding that infant baptism was done to cover this eventuality when the mortality rate was quite high, especially during the plague years.

Hmm, that would seem to me that it is the churches position, that if not baptised, one goes to hell.

BrianCalgary

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Hey, who says he is all loving?
He doesn't seem that way to me in the bible..

I count Him as being all loving because He came from being quite comfortable in Heaven. Went through a human life, which can be quite crummy. He got himself beaten and crucified, not much fun. All for us, so that we may go to heaven ourselves.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Hmm, that would seem to me that it is the churches position, that if not baptised, one goes to hell.

As a result of the love shown, I would infer that the baby gets Heaven.

Tar.Aldarion

BrianCalgary wrote:

I count Him as being all loving because He came from being quite comfortable in Heaven. Went through a human life, which can be quite crummy. He got himself beaten and crucified, not much fun. All for us, so that we may go to heaven ourselves.

I'm talking about god god not jesus god :P
unless you are saying that because they are one in some sort of weird trinity that what jesus did, his father also did....

As a result of the love shown, I would infer that the baby gets Heaven.

hmm,you view him to be all loving so he would let the baby in?
I would say this is your opinion, much as I have mine on the matter, the only one that matters would be the one of the church/popes and I would like to know that...


If that thing you say is true about them bringing down the age because of high mortality rates in the young, then that is the reason I infer they go to hell and it is gods plan that they do or whatever.


googled and got a catholic refresher course thing. Although who knows, the net can be unreliable.

UNBAPTIZED BABIES No one can get into heaven without grace. All babies are conceived and born without grace. Babies have to be baptized to get grace. If a baby dies without having been baptized, it cannot go to heaven, because it has no grace...
God is not cruel or unjust in not allowing unbaptized babies to go to heaven, it is not God's fault. Grace is a pure gift on God's part; He does not have to give it to anyone of us on our own conditions. He gives it through Baptism.

BrianCalgary

For the purpose of your discussion with Catholicism, I think it would be Hell.

However since it is God's decision as to who gets in or not (not the pope's or the priest's, they may not even be there themselves), I would disagree with the churches position.

Yes, Jesus is God. That was discussed on another thread. But ask away. It is a favourite, whos is Jesus?:)

Tar.Aldarion

BrianCalgary wrote:

For the purpose of your discussion with Catholicism, I think it would be Hell.

However since it is God's decision as to who gets in or not (not the pope's or the priest's, they may not even be there themselves), I would disagree with the churches position.

I would have thought it was the popes decision that mattered aswell, although I'm not sure, he is supposed to be infallible in all religious and moral matters?

Yes, Jesus is God. That was discussed on another thread. But ask away. It is a favourite, whos is Jesus?:)

hmm ok, I have so many questions about that making complete sense i'll leave if for now and relax a bit. I'm rather tired. (:

John Doe

I have a vague notion that the pope is only infallible when he says 'I'm speaking infallibly' and sits on his infallibility chair. Seriously. He can't always be infallible, cos Peter was a Pope and he denied Jesus three times and whatnot. What I was saying though is that the God of the Catholic Church is claimed to be all-loveing, so if they say he sends babies to hell for no reason they're full of ****. Incidentally I think we'd all be better off if the Catholic Church collapsed. That's entirely off the point though.

UU

John Doe wrote:

Incidentally I think we'd all be better off if the Catholic Church collapsed. That's entirely off the point though.

Yeah it looks that way these days in our so-called "secular" society which Cantab. never stops going on about but that may just make more room for Islam to grow. Not that I have anything against the Islamic religion fully but the fundamentalists scare me and many countries are under strict and cruel Islamic laws which I don't agree with. Anyway, this is totally off the point!

I don't believe in Salvation anyway so I don't think a priest, who is human, pouring a bit of water over a baby's head should justify if a being goes to heaven. I believe heaven which I call Nirvana like Buddhists can only be achieved when one discovers enlightenment which often takes several lives to achieve!

Manchegan

The Doctors of the Sorbonne suggest that baptism be administered by prenatal injection - par le moyen d’une petite canulle - leaving us all to wonder

whether after the ceremony of marriage, and before that of consummation, the baptizing all the Homunculi at once, slapdash, by injection, would not be a shorter and safer cut still

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

I believe heaven which I call Nirvana like Buddhists can only be achieved when one discovers enlightenment which often takes several lives to achieve!

Carefull there UU, you are becoming more Buddist day by day:D

Fitzblado

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This is taken from the cathechism of the church.The church does not have all the answers.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

cos Peter was a Pope

I think that the jury are still out on that. I think James was the first pope and Peter never got to hold that post

John Doe

That could indeed be true. Is there any doubt that Peter was a Pope in all but name anyway? I've no idea, I'm just wondering.

Rev Hellfire

The current thinking on unbaptised children going to heaven would appear to be that they do. It would seem that it is a subject under theological investigation.

The best link from a catholic viewpoint on the subject that I can find is below
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2940

I remember asking a priest once about this subject as to if an unbaptised person can gain entry to heaven, he held the view that they can. This view was further upheld in by the current pope on 30 Nov 2005.

“Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved, even if he lacks biblical faith…With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ”.

The only transaltion I can get is :
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80896

but a search will give a untransalted version should u so wish to look at that.

Asiaprod

Who ever said that a child had to be baptized before it died? Why cant it be baptized after it died? Surly if the parents were committed to their faith that would be enough. Anyway, I believe that the issue of a child being denied a place in heaven because it died before it could be baptized is not to be taken literaly from the Bible, but is just a scare tactic by the early Church. If it was to be true, it would be the same as saying that God predispossed a child to die without getting the chance to enter heaven. Not my idea of what a loving and just God would do. I dont believe a word of it.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

I have a vague notion that the pope is only infallible when he says 'I'm speaking infallibly' and sits on his infallibility chair.

Does any one know the history of infallibility. Who said it and when?

John Doe

Rev Hellfire wrote:

“Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved, even if he lacks biblical faith…With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ”.

That's strange. If the above is true, and one would assume it is seeing as the Pope said it and he's not the most liberal guy in town, what need is there for all the Church dogma? The first part of this doesn't even mention belief in a Christian God or in the Godhood of Christ specifically. It's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard from the mouth of a Pope!
Asiaprod: my notions about infallibility are so vague as to be almost certainly wrong. I have no idea about its origins. It was probably invented so the Pope could change awkward doctrine or deal with new issues as they came up.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

Asiaprod: my notions about infallibility are so vague as to be almost certainly wrong. I have no idea about its origins. It was probably invented so the Pope could change awkward doctrine or deal with new issues as they came up.

Dont worry, it was a general question open to anyone. I am actually searching the net as we speak to track down its history

shroomfox

Hell?

Doesn't exist. Daftest notion I've ever heard of, Hell.

ferdi

not until 1870 did the vatican officially define papal infalibility in its present form.

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

I think that the jury are still out on that. I think James was the first pope and Peter never got to hold that post

This is the first time I have answered my own post.
It seem from what I can find on the net that the modern day concept of Pope does not relate to the way things were in the early church. The word pope comes from the greek word for Papa. In the early days christianity was overseen in each city by a council of elders that was ruled over by one senior elder. At this stage Bishops did not exist. The first establishment of this body is said to have occured in Rome which makes sense as it was the major commercial center at that time. According to church records, the first recorded Pope,i.e the first Bishop to hold dominion over the city of Rome was Pius 1 (142-155).

Tar.Aldarion

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The current thinking on unbaptised children going to heaven would appear to be that they do. It would seem that it is a subject under theological investigation.

The best link from a catholic viewpoint on the subject that I can find is below
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2940

I remember asking a priest once about this subject as to if an unbaptised person can gain entry to heaven, he held the view that they can. This view was further upheld in by the current pope on 30 Nov 2005.

“Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved, even if he lacks biblical faith…With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ”.

The only transaltion I can get is :
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80896

but a search will give a untransalted version should u so wish to look at that.

Whatever about babies but for adults in the least,
is that not ignoring the words of jesus, "John 3:5 Jesus answered, most truly I say to you, unless anyone is born from water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." and the other quotes like that.
It would seem the pope would be choosing to pick and choose what he wants?
if the pope is fallible it does not matter what he says?
Also since popes undoubtably disagree on theological matters the whole infallibility thing seems like nonsense, did the church just make it up in the 18th century?
I'm interested to know about the whole infallibility thing.


Also from what I see about babtism, you must believe in it as you do it, the water has no power, so would that not make all babtisms as a child void?

BrianCalgary

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Whatever about babies but for adults in the least,
is that not ignoring the words of jesus, "John 3:5 Jesus answered, most truly I say to you, unless anyone is born from water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." and the other quotes like that.
It would seem the pope would be choosing to pick and choose what he wants?
if the pope is fallible it does not matter what he says?
Also since popes undoubtably disagree on theological matters the whole infallibility thing seems like nonsense, did the church just make it up in the 18th century?
I'm interested to know about the whole infallibility thing.?

The infallability of the Pope was declared in 1870. And I agree, it's nonsense. He's only a man afterall. The Bible also says that scripture is to be used for teaching, correcting and rebuking (2 Timothy 3:16), any preacher or teacher worth his salt would ask his congregation to challenge him on any teaching that they deem erroneous. I faced that in the fall, with one of my students, turns out he really wasn't paying attention.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Also from what I see about babtism, you must believe in it as you do it, the water has no power, so would that not make all babtisms as a child void?

I would agree, hence the need for confirmation. Adult baptism is the way to go as you can make your own decision and really mean it. It was a great experience as I felt the power of God as I came up out of the water. The same type of exerience was felt by others who went through baptism.

Suff

larryone wrote:

Again I'll ask the "what if you die at 6 weeks?" question.

I dont believe they do, how a 6 week old baby could possibly ever have Sin?
they are pure until the age of maturity. 7 - 9 I would say

Tar.Aldarion

Suff wrote:

I dont believe they do, how a 6 week old baby could possibly ever have Sin?
they are pure until the age of maturity. 7 - 9 I would say

AFAIK you are born with original sin in catholicism.

BrianCalgary

I'm not sure who coined the term 'original sin' but it relates to the verse that 'all have sinned an fall short of the glory of God' Romans 8:23.

Since we have all sinned and will continue to sin, we need Christ, who defeated sin so that we can reach the glory of God.

Baptism does not wash away sin, Christ does. Baptism is an act of obedience that allows you to publically declare your decision to follow Christ.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Baptism does not wash away sin, Christ does. Baptism is an act of obedience that allows you to publically declare your decision to follow Christ.

Brian, the use of the term "obedience " here is a little worrying. Would you like to explain what you mean by it. I don't think it comes across the way you intended it to. I can go with some thing like "making a commitment", but obedience sounds to authortarian.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

Baptism is an act of obedience that allows you to publically declare your decision to follow Christ.

If that is done with / for a child that has as yet no concept of religion (or much else beyond "I'm hungry / sore") is it really worth anything though?

Certainly for an adult, capable of making a decision on their own, it would be a declaration. How do you see it in relation to infant baptism?

Tar.Aldarion

He kind of answered it on the first page, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50859679&postcount=39

I think baptism as a child is pointless, mine was pointless, bit of water on my noggin and I was probably crying because it was cold. Doesn't mean I believed anything. For catholics, it should happen when they are an adult, I assume it must just be a fear of the church that poeple will die not baptised as a lot of people would die before recieving it and therefore not get into heaven even if they had followed the rest of their guidelines.

Cantab.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think baptism as a child is pointless, mine was pointless, bit of water on my noggin and I was probably crying because it was cold. Doesn't mean I believed anything.

You obviously have no idea as to the profound meaning of a baptisim - adoption into God's family.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For catholics, it should happen when they are an adult

Says who, you? You don't seem to be a Catholic! What interest would you have in Catholic affairs anyway?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I assume it must just be a fear of the church

A fear of God perhaps.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

that poeple will die not baptised as a lot of people would die before recieving it and therefore not get into heaven even if they had followed the rest of their guidelines.

You know the whole issue of unbaptised babies dying including foetus's/zygots has been discussed quite a lot recently in Rome (I don't know an awful lot about it to be quite honest). And yes, it has certainly been an issue with those seeking to ridicule Church dogma, but you'll find, just like the rest of the Church's teachings, that everything clicks in to place (unlike in a lot of other belief systems/religions where arbitraryness and opinion can dominate).

Now, to seperate the issue of unbaptised infants/abortion victims, I will now deal with your insistance that persons must be old enough to decide for herself if she wants to be baptised (Catholic perspective):

Birth allows us to enter and join the family you were born into. Our parents picked a name, and a family name given to us (yes, adopted children included...). Of course, you can always change your name by deed poll from 18 onwards, the same way that you can refute your beliefs too. We had no choice in this, likewise Baptism is the believer's entrance and membership into the family of faith. Believers become children of God and members of the Chuch by Baptism.

Just as being born made you a member of your family, it also makes you a member of the civil community. A birth certificate establishes that you're a citizen of Ireland/Canada/Japan and that makes you a citizen of the country merely by being born on its soil. You have no choice as to what nationality you would be and yet you were born a citizen of a country that accepts you as a member. Likewis, Baptism makes you a member of God's family and the family of faith called the Church.

Parents hope for great potential and wonderful possibilities in their children which encourages them to baptise their children. It gives them an identity and a spiritual beginning. Anyway, the New Testament affirms that entire households were baptised, which means parents and the kids too. So infant baptisms have occured from the very beginning.

John Doe

Cantab. wrote:

You obviously have no idea as to the profound meaning of a baptisim - adoption into God's family.

Maybe for those that John baptised in a river, but hardly for a baby who has no idea what's going on. If Catholics really have faith in the essential truth of their religion, why do they feel they have to ruthlessly Shanghai those who have few interests past sleep and feeding?

Cantab. wrote:

Says who, you? You don't seem to be a Catholic! What interest would you have in Catholic affairs anyway?

What? What are you on about? What sort of a nutso religion doesn't want people to have interest in it?

Cantab. wrote:

A fear of God perhaps.

The emotion of fear is behind almost every negative act perpetrated in the world. Yay, let's all fear the all-loving, all-powerful creator of the human race! A deep-seated terror of infinite love keeps me awake at nights too.

Cantab. wrote:

You know the whole issue of unbaptised babies dying including foetus's/zygots has been discussed quite a lot recently in Rome (I don't know an awful lot about it to be quite honest). And yes, it has certainly been an issue with those seeking to ridicule Church dogma, but you'll find, just like the rest of the Church's teachings, that everything clicks in to place (unlike in a lot of other belief systems/religions where arbitraryness and opinion can dominate).

No. No, I won't find that at all. You see, I've tried and failed to find any hint of logic or compassion in Catholic dogma. So don't tell me what I'm going to 'find'.

Excelsior

John Doe wrote:

Maybe for those that John baptised in a river, but hardly for a baby who has no idea what's going on. If Catholics really have faith in the essential truth of their religion, why do they feel they have to ruthlessly Shanghai those who have few interests past sleep and feeding?

John, maybe the problem you have with understanding Catholic (and indeed all Christian) teaching on these core issues is that you think Christianity is about what the individual, about what the baby being baptised or what you, do. It isn't. Christianity is not actually about "doing works" to make God like you. There is a God and he deeply loves you. We can't undo the mistakes we make and so God sets about fixing that which we can't fix. That is why Jesus came. Relationship with God is not about pleasing him with good works to earn a right to be with him. He has made the way clear and you just have to step onto that way. (Now that way may have many tasks and charities for you to perform....)

Or to put it more in line with contemporary Roman Catholic teaching, we are saved by faith for works.

Now baptism of babies (or paedo-baptism) is not about locking people into a belief system. It is not about doing an act to please an angry God. It is not about the humans involved at all. For Catholics, baptism is very much about God saying "This is my child, with whom I am well pleased". It is not about us offering up a child for membership but about God embracing a child as its Father.

john doe wrote:

What? What are you on about? What sort of a nutso religion doesn't want people to have interest in it?

Take an interest all you like but there is a tendency in Ireland to think one should have a say in Catholic affairs even while outwardly hating the church and not in any way participating in it. You cannot call for reform of something you do not participate in and expect to be listened to. I think that is what Cantab is getting at. That isn't nutso at all, is it?

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

John, maybe the problem you have with understanding Catholic (and indeed all Christian) teaching on these core issues is that you think Christianity is about what the individual, about what the baby being baptised or what you, do. It isn't.

This is a good point. I have trouble extending things beyond the self, philosophically and thus spiritually. Maybe it's something to do with being a young 'un

Excelsior wrote:

Now baptism of babies (or paedo-baptism) is not about locking people into a belief system. It is not about doing an act to please an angry God. It is not about the humans involved at all. For Catholics, baptism is very much about God saying "This is my child, with whom I am well pleased". It is not about us offering up a child for membership but about God embracing a child as its Father.

This indeed makes more sense. However, I've got one question. You said that it is not an act done to please an angry God. Do you mean that it is not done to please God at all or that it is not done to appease him? If it is the former, then it is not done to please God, nor is it "about the humans involved at all". It seems a bit pointless, then. Seeing as you're a rational guy I'm gonna assume it was the latter.
Do you think that maybe the ceremony should be altered a bit in order to make it clearer that it doesn't have much to do with the baby? I think a little ritual whereby a group of people come together to celebrate the birth of a new child of God would be great. I also realise that the commitments made by the parents and godparents at a baptism could be interpreted as just meaning 'We'll try and teach the little guy/gal what's important in life'. However, the emphasis at any baptism I've attended was more along the lines of 'And he/she's gonna be a Catholic, right? You promise?'. I've probably got some fairly skewed experiences of Catholicism. My local church is really rubbish.

Excelsior wrote:

Take an interest all you like but there is a tendency in Ireland to think one should have a say in Catholic affairs even while outwardly hating the church and not in any way participating in it. You cannot call for reform of something you do not participate in and expect to be listened to. I think that is what Cantab is getting at. That isn't nutso at all, is it?

Again, you make a good point. I don't think it's unfair though to call for reform of something that you were driven from because of bad experiences, and something that you believe will have a negative effect on other young people. I don't hate the church, I just severely dislike many things about it. And I do believe it might be better all round if the Catholic church in Ireland and some other countries was forced to change in a big way.

Excelsior wrote:

Take an interest all you like but there is a tendency in Ireland to think one should have a say in Catholic affairs

This may be because for years in Ireland the only way to avoid being part of Catholic affairs, even for a heathen, was to hide under your bed. If I have to go to a Catholic church-run school to be educated then I'm kinda mixed up in the church, if not the religion.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Brian, the use of the term "obedience " here is a little worrying. Would you like to explain what you mean by it. I don't think it comes across the way you intended it to. I can go with some thing like "making a commitment", but obedience sounds to authortarian.

As a result of your commitment to Christ you follow Him and obey His command to be batised. So it is an act of obedience.

Obedience can be two fold. Obeying out of fear of reprisal from an authoritarian who demands obedience or out of love for the one making the request.

Adult baptism is latter of the two. It shouldn't be forced and should be done willingly and from the heart, otherwise it is empty.

I'll stick with obedience.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Obedience can be two fold. Obeying out of fear of reprisal from an authoritarian who demands obedience or out of love for the one making the request.

Thanks, I am fine with the latter one:)