countmeout.ie

prinz

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

Sorry for commenting as a series of questions, I'm just interested in your position.

No problem whatsoever. It actually makes it easier to respond.

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

By "increase", do you mean that more children are being born with the propensity to be homosexual, or that more self-indentified heterosexual people are switching to homosexuality?

Either way. The nature v. nurture debate is still wide open and inconclusive. IMO the number of people identifying themselves as other than heterosexual is on the increase.

countmeout.ie (Cormac) wrote: »

Do you believe there is an upper limit on the percentage of the population that can become homosexual?

I wouldn't know if there is a figure to be put on that. Depends what you mean "can become homosexual".... for population reasons or social harmony / structure?

Yup apologies.Posted before I saw the post above.

countmeout.ie (Cormac)

PDN wrote: »

This thread is about countmeout.ie

If anyone wants to debate homosexuality take it to another thread. The topic under discussion should get interesting enough without the tired old cliches, strawmen and misrepresentations we get every time the gay issue is discussed.

I agree. Apologies; I wasn't sure what exactly he meant in his earlier comment and was allowing him to tease it out a little. I think his stance is a lot clearer to everyone now.

But its off topic, you're right.

dapto1

This site is a great idea, I'm going to do it.

countmeout.ie (Paul)

PDN wrote: »

No, that is also wrong. I think you might have a better chance of running a successful campaign (something I wholeheartedly support in regards to the separation of church and state) if you understood what separation of church and state actually means.

Separation of church and state is when the church is given no preferential treatment in the legislation or administration of the state. That does not however, prevent TDs from allowing their decision making to be influenced by an ideology, a philosophy, or by a religious belief.

Ok, sorry. My original example was poor, I was rushed (trying to do a million things this morning!).

Suffice it to say: I know exactly what is involved in secularism and church-state separation. I know how they've gone about it in France (banning religious wear in schools). I know how we've attempted to go about it in Ireland (removing the 'special relationship' clause yet maintaining the preamble). I think Ireland has a fair bit to go before it can regard it's society as secular. And of course a TD can use their religious beliefs to inform their views on legislation, no problem with that and that's not what I meant in my original point. For me, the quote from the Aussie PM would be fairly close to the mark i.e. remove church from state but don't silence it.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fine, do we finally have a god admitting that it cares not one wit about peoples actual beliefs, that all it cares about is people labelling themselves the correct label (or, as I'd imagine is the case for nearly every catholic in ireland, being labelled by someone else at an age when you have no say) because that is what gives them the most power?

People can believe whatever they wish, however ultimately God's standard is the one which will count at the end of time. He has given us a means and a path to follow if we desire, people can either say yes, or no. There will be consequences if they say no because God is the ultimate authority, not humanity.

It's nothing about labels, it's about living according to how God has revealed to us, and acknowledging His role in our lives. You can label yourself whatever you want but that isn't what matters. Knowing what is good is not the same as doing good despite what Greek philosopher Socrates said.

Romans 2:13 wrote:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous, in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

About labels the quote from John the Baptist in Matthew chapter 3 comes to mind. John the Baptist says, "Bear fruit worthy of repentance" and says that being a Jew or claiming to be descended from Abraham is not enough:

Matthew 3:9 wrote:

Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

People can believe whatever they wish, however ultimately God's standard is the one which will count at the end of time. He has given us a means and a path to follow if we desire, people can either say yes, or no. There will be consequences if they say no because God is the ultimate authority, not humanity.

It's nothing about labels, it's about living according to how God has revealed to us, and acknowledging His role in our lives. You can label yourself whatever you want but that isn't what matters. Knowing what is good is not the same as doing good despite what Greek philosopher Socrates said.

So you agree with me then? Look, I originally responded to someone saying that in gods eyes, once you are baptised, you are always baptised, regardless of what you actually believe. Well this means that in gods eyes, once you are welcomed into the christian church, you can never leave, regardless of wether you still (or ever) believed in whatever it is you are supposed to believe in to be a christian. This means that god doesn't care what you believe, only that you have baptised yourself (been labeled as a christian)

Jakkass wrote: »

About labels the quote from John the Baptist in Matthew chapter 3 comes to mind. John the Baptist says, "Bear fruit worthy of repentance" and says that being a Jew or claiming to be descended from Abraham is not enough:

Matthew 3:9 wrote:

Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Obviously he said that, he wanted to baptise people because thats all that god actually cares about, people labelled the right way (and being labelled a jew or descendant of Abraham is not enough)

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Obviously he said that, he wanted to baptise people because thats all that god actually cares about, people labelled the right way (and being labelled a jew or descendant of Abraham is not enough)

No, obviously not.

What he was saying was that repentance and change of heart was what mattered - not a ceremony or a ritual.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

No, obviously not.

What he was saying was that repentance and change of heart was what mattered - not a ceremony or a ritual.

Then why, in the eyes of god, are you always baptised if you were ever baptised even if you no longer believe? If god is only interested in peoples beliefs (and their actions based on their beliefs) then why would god care about baptism at all?

Flamed Diving

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why, in the eyes of god, are you always baptised if you were ever baptised even if you no longer believe? If god is only interested in peoples beliefs (and their actions based on their beliefs) then why would god care about baptism at all?

Because...

*Hey, look over there!!!*





*runs away*

countmeout.ie (Paul)

Guys, can we please get back to the substantive issue:

Do you, or do you not, like Fanta Lemon?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why, in the eyes of god, are you always baptised if you were ever baptised even if you no longer believe? If god is only interested in peoples beliefs (and their actions based on their beliefs) then why would god care about baptism at all?

You're not. I believe that a baptism of an infant is a waste of time and water. Then again, I'm not a Catholic.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you agree with me then? Look, I originally responded to someone saying that in gods eyes, once you are baptised, you are always baptised, regardless of what you actually believe.

This view depends on a once saved, always saved mentality. One can label themselves a Christian without having a spiritual transformation take place in their lives. A mere label isn't what this is all about. I can call myself anything I want, but whether or not I am actually something is a different question. Hence why I have used the phrase "nominal" in my assessment of the numbers.

N.B I do not wish to discuss who is genuine from who is not. That is God's job, not mine.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well this means that in gods eyes, once you are welcomed into the christian church, you can never leave, regardless of wether you still (or ever) believed in whatever it is you are supposed to believe in to be a christian. This means that god doesn't care what you believe, only that you have baptised yourself (been labeled as a christian)

Being a Christian is not just something on a piece of paper. It is a living every day reality. I don't think one can revoke a baptism, but I do think that one can lose their faith if it has not developed and grown enough (see Parable of the Sower). It does not matter whether or not you are a Christian on paper, that is not how we will be judged.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Obviously he said that, he wanted to baptise people because thats all that god actually cares about, people labelled the right way (and being labelled a jew or descendant of Abraham is not enough)

It's nothing about labels, it's about genuine repentance of sins. John the Baptist didn't care whether they were Jews, he cared about them turning from their former ways and embracing new ones.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

You're not. I believe that a baptism of an infant is a waste of time and water. Then again, I'm not a Catholic.

This all arises out of the concept of being re-baptised so to speak. Something which has become a bit of a contentious issue regarding conversions from one Christian faith to another, i.e. the need for a second baptism so to speak. I was wondering if one could question the validity of your original 'infant' baptism, defect from same, and then look to be once again baptised as an adult, what's the position on that. Could one argue for a 'conditional baptism' by the CoE or RCC later on in life if one wishes to return to the congregation?

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Guys, can we please get back to the substantive issue:
Do you, or do you not, like Fanta Lemon?

No. Club Lemon ftw

philologos

countmeout.ie (Paul) wrote: »

Guys, can we please get back to the substantive issue:

Do you, or do you not, like Fanta Lemon?

I'd have a bit of it if it was going and if it were free

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

This view depends on a once saved, always saved mentality. One can label themselves a Christian without having a spiritual transformation take place in their lives. A mere label isn't what this is all about. I can call myself anything I want, but whether or not I am actually something is a different question.

My original post in this vein was in response to prinz' post here and my repsonses have been in terms of that original idea. If you dont hold to this idea then I suppose that prinz should be the one to respond to me.

Jakkass wrote: »

Being a Christian is not just something on a piece of paper. It is a living every day reality. I don't think one can revoke a baptism, but I do think that one can lose their faith if it has not developed and grown enough (see Parable of the Sower). It does not matter whether or not you are a Christian on paper, that is not how we will be judged.

If being a christian is a living every day reality, then wouldn't a baptism be automatically revoked if you stop being a christian (by ceasing to believe in the things that christians are supposed to believe)?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing about labels, it's about genuine repentance of sins. John the Baptist didn't care whether they were Jews, he cared about them turning from their former ways and embracing new ones.

But then why is baptism needed? What is the point of the ritual? Do you need the physical act of water being poured over your head by a priest to become a member of the christian family? Do you believe that someone would be stopped from entering heaven if they weren't baptised even if they believed all the rest of the christian doctrine (and for what ever reason they couldn't get baptised)?
If the baptism is just superfluous to the actual repenting then what is the problem with people renouncing it? You are renouncing it anyway if you deny gods/jesus' existence arent you?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

You're not. I believe that a baptism of an infant is a waste of time and water. Then again, I'm not a Catholic.

Fair enough, as i said above my posts have been in resposnse to prinz' claim that in the eyes of god, once you are baptised, you are always baptised. I'll wait and see if he can answer me then.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fair enough, as i said above my posts have been in resposnse to prinz' claim that in the eyes of god, once you are baptised, you are always baptised. I'll wait and see if he can answer me then.

And I have already clarified the angle I was coming from with that. Baptism as a sacrament cannot be given twice.

1272, 1273 and 1274 of Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

And I have already clarified the angle I was coming from with that. Baptism as a sacrament cannot be given twice.

1272, 1273 and 1274 of Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If what I'm reading from the catechism is right, why is baptism given to children? If it cannot be given twice, if its compulsory to be baptised to get into heaven but being baptised doesn't automatically get you in (you still have to avoid sin) then why are infants baptised? Why not wait until they are old enough to make the decision for them selves. What necessary effect does baptism have on an infant that must be their for a just god to let them into heaven should they die young?

countmeout.ie (Paul)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If what I'm reading from the catechism is right, why is baptism given to children? If it cannot be given twice, if its compulsory to be baptised to get into heaven but being baptised doesn't automatically get you in (you still have to avoid sin) then why are infants baptised? Why not wait until they are old enough to make the decision for them selves. What necessary effect does baptism have on an infant that must be their for a just god to let them into heaven should they die young?

If I may field this one: it's all about Original Sin, innit? Remember the times when babies used to be refused a burial service if they weren't baptised? I had an email debate with a priest about the concept of original sin and it is essentially regarded as a sin that all humans have dating back to Adam's little 'transgression'. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

philologos

Mark Hamill: The baptism issue is one that could be discussed ad nauseum by Christians on this forum and how it should be done and the like. I personally was baptised as an infant, I have attended teenage / adult baptisms too. I feel the latter were quite meaningful, and I find myself wondering if I could say the same about the former.

Entire families including children were baptised in the Bible (Acts chapter 16), and adults were also baptised in the Bible. This leaves us wondering what model do we think is best rather than the Biblical text openly condemning either.

I think a lot of Christians would be willing to discuss it instead of saying either or.

ocianain

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If what I'm reading from the catechism is right, why is baptism given to children? If it cannot be given twice, if its compulsory to be baptised to get into heaven but being baptised doesn't automatically get you in (you still have to avoid sin) then why are infants baptised? Why not wait until they are old enough to make the decision for them selves. What necessary effect does baptism have on an infant that must be their for a just god to let them into heaven should they die young?

Baptism is how one enters the Christian Covenant. Under Judaism circumcision is how one was covered under the Old Covenant, as mentioned earlier it was done before the 8th day. Yo don't wait because sans baptism you are not covered under the New Covenant

ocianain

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because...

*Hey, look over there!!!*





*runs away*

Because, Baptism leaves an unalterable mark upon the soul

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Entire families including children were baptised in the Bible (Acts chapter 16), and adults were also baptised in the Bible. This leaves us wondering what model do we think is best rather than the Biblical text openly condemning either..

Sorry, Jakkass, I can't let this old chestnut slide by. I've often heard people try to use Acts 16 to justify infant baptism, but it is a misuse of Scripture to do so.

Firstly, Acts 16 does not mention infants or children at all. It simply says that the jailor's whole family were baptised (verse 33).

Secondly, it says that Paul preached the Word of God to the jailor and all the others in his house (verse 32) - so the family were old enough to listen to Paul's preaching.

Thirdly, it tells us that the jailor and his whole family had come to believe in God (verse 34). This specifically rules out babies who, obviously, would not be capable of exercising such faith.

So, although paedobaptists often cite Acts 16 in support of their practice, they rarely encourage you to read Acts 16 for yourself. That is because the passage actually describes the baptism of believers, not infants.

Flamed Diving

ocianain wrote: »

Because, Baptism leaves an unalterable mark upon the soul

So, once baptised, there is no way back.

Do you think that it is a bit cruel to force this on an infant?

Are you saying the website is pointless, in that case?

philologos

PDN: Is it not a possibility that there were children capable of hearing Paul's words in Acts 16. I'm with you in that it doesn't refer to babies or toddlers, but it could refer to children. Many or our critics on this forum would easily say that this is just as much indoctrination as before.

Thanks for the clarification though, much appreciated.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

PDN: Is it not a possibility that there were children capable of hearing Paul's words in Acts 16. I'm with you in that it doesn't refer to babies or toddlers, but it could refer to children. Many or our critics on this forum would easily say that this is just as much indoctrination as before.

Thanks for the clarification though, much appreciated.

As far as I'm concerned a child is just as capable of believing the Gospel as an adult. I see no scriptural reason why an 8 year old child, for example, cannot accept the Gospel and choose to be baptised.

However, Acts 16 is useless as a proof text even for this, because children are not mentioned. 'All his household' could be two teenage kids, a layabout sponger of a son who still lived at home after his 21st birthday, or the mother-in-law. We simply don't know because we aren't told.

We cannot base Christian doctrine and practice on, or justify it with, a assumption reading between the lines that children might have been there.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned a child is just as capable of believing the Gospel as an adult. I see no scriptural reason why an 8 year old child, for example, cannot accept the Gospel and choose to be baptised.

However, Acts 16 is useless as a proof text even for this, because children are not mentioned. 'All his household' could be two teenage kids, a layabout sponger of a son who still lived at home after his 21st birthday, or the mother-in-law. We simply don't know because we aren't told.

We cannot base Christian doctrine and practice on, or justify it with, a assumption reading between the lines that children might have been there.

Godwins law about to be invoked here. Do you think an 8-year old child is capable of becoming a member of the Nazi party (and fully grasping all the implications of this), without manipulation being involved?

Do you think that 8-year olds are capable of independent, critical thought, such as an adult?

Do you think 8-year olds should be allowed to vote?

To procreate (if possible)?

philologos

PDN wrote: »

However, Acts 16 is useless as a proof text even for this, because children are not mentioned. 'All his household' could be two teenage kids, a layabout sponger of a son who still lived at home after his 21st birthday, or the mother-in-law. We simply don't know because we aren't told.

We cannot base Christian doctrine and practice on, or justify it with, a assumption reading between the lines that children might have been there.

This is my exact point. This is the reason why we cannot definitively rule out anything either. It is to be openly discussed within the Christian community. Philippians gives useful advice for dealing with what is not clear or what is not revealed:

Philippians 3:15-16 wrote:

Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

We can discuss the merits of adult baptism vs infant baptism in a clear manner without reading too much into the lines at all. There could have been teenagers there, and there could have been children. We can't base it on assumptions so we have to be open to other forms surely?

It's not the clearest of subjects

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote: »

Baptism is how one enters the Christian Covenant. Under Judaism circumcision is how one was covered under the Old Covenant, as mentioned earlier it was done before the 8th day. Yo don't wait because sans baptism you are not covered under the New Covenant

So do you believe that if an infant dies unbaptised, god will prevent it from entering heaven because it isn't baptised? How do you square that with a god that is supposed to be just?

Mark Hamill

ocianain wrote: »

Because, Baptism leaves an unalterable mark upon the soul

Shouldn't it only be given to adults then, who can make the decision fully understanding its implications, knowing they cant undo it?