A Half Joking Thread About Guerilla Baptism, and the Ethics Thereof

Asry

Good evening.

It's come to my attention that my boyfriend of 6 years hasn't been baptised/christened. I'd always thought he had been christened Protestant and then did nothing with the religion for the rest of his life, that the day had been there just for a little celebration for family and friends (as is often the way ).

This genuinely worries me. I feel like he doesn't exist. Or that God can't see him. Will he go to limbo or what?

Lord help me if anyone from A&A reads this, but I've been thinking of surreptitiously baptising him somehow. I mean, he'd never know what I'd done, and I'd be so very relieved.

I know, though, that it would probably be a really bad thing to do.

Any suggestions? Should I just flat out ask him? If I do though, he'll say no.

AhSureTisGrand

Now why would an omnipotent and omniscient god be unable to see someone who hasn't had water poured over their head?

Asry

I know, it's silly, isn't it? I know it's probably just in my head.

strobe

Asry wrote: »

Good evening.

It's come to my attention that my boyfriend of 6 years hasn't been baptised/christened. I'd always thought he had been christened Protestant and then did nothing with the religion for the rest of his life, that the day had been there just for a little celebration for family and friends (as is often the way ).

This genuinely worries me. I feel like he doesn't exist. Or that God can't see him. Will he go to limbo or what?

Lord help me if anyone from A&A reads this, but I've been thinking of surreptitiously baptising him somehow. I mean, he'd never know what I'd done, and I'd be so very relieved.

I know, though, that it would probably be a really bad thing to do.

Any suggestions? Should I just flat out ask him? If I do though, he'll say no.

I think the point of baptism is that you are supposed to accept the purification and consecration of Jesus. So if you secretly pour water on someones head in the depth of night then you are basically just making their head wet. The baptismal ceremony is just symbolism, the intent behind it is what God sees. Even if you convince your boyfriend to have a full on bells and whistles baptism, unless he feels it in his heart and genuinely repents and determines to forge a personal relationship with Jesus, then it doesn't work. If God was as easily conned as you seem to think He is we would all be going to heaven lads, wheeeyyy!

housetypeb

[QUOTE=Asry;72437251..........

This genuinely worries me. I feel like he doesn't exist. Or that God can't see him. Will he go to limbo or what?

Lord help me if anyone from A&A reads this, but I've been thinking of surreptitiously baptising him somehow. I mean, he'd never know what I'd done, and I'd be so very relieved.

.[/QUOTE]

LOL, your half joke is a full joke.

PDN

Given the problems with burst pipes etc this year it's probably better not to waste water.

Asry

strobe wrote: »

Even if you convince your boyfriend to have a full on bells and whistles baptism, unless he feels it in his heart and genuinely repents and determines to forge a personal relationship with Jesus, then it doesn't work. If God was as easily conned as you seem to think He is we would all be going to heaven lads, wheeeyyy!

Em, no? Babies don't feel it in their hearts and repent and determine to forge a personal relationship with Jesus, do they? It's not about conning God. And I'm not implying that by baptising him he'd be going to heaven, because he has a ways to go yet to get there

The existence of God doesn't depend on his consent or not. The fact of his death and his life hereafter certainly doesn't.

Asry

housetypeb wrote: »

LOL, your half joke is a full joke.

How so?

strobe

Asry wrote: »

Babies don't feel it in their hearts and repent and determine to forge a personal relationship with Jesus.

Indeed. Still Christians though...

(objection! leading the witness, your Honour.)

Asry

strobe wrote: »

Indeed. Still Christians though...

Who are still Christians? The babies? Their parents? Full sentences would be good?

Fanny Cradock

I'm coming from a non-Catholic perspective here, but it seems obvious to me that the type of baptism you suggest would be meaningless. Actually, I think it is a perspective that the earliest Christians understood. To them baptism was a culmination of a journey away from the false gods of paganism and towards the one true God. It was a very serious event. Something not to be rushed into.

David B. Hart wrote:

Ideally - again, making allowances for variations in local customs and for the unpredictability of various circumstances - one's baptism would come on Easter eve, during the midnight vigil. At the appointed hour, the baptizand (the person to be baptized) would depart the church for the baptistery, which typically housed a large baptismal pool or (if possible) flowing stream. There, in the semidarkness of that place, he or she would disrobe and--amid a host of blessings, exhortations, unctions, and prayers--descend naked into the waters, to be immersed three times by the bishop, in the name of the Father, then of the Son, and finally of the Holy Spirit. The newly baptized Christian would then emerge from the waters to be anointed with the oil of chrismation, the seal of the Holy Spirit, and to don a new garment of white, and would return to the church to see the Eucharist celebrated--and to partake of it--for the first time. On that night, the erstwhile catechumen would have died to his or her old way of life and received a new and better life in Christ. (Atheist Delusions, p112-113)

Baptism, according to Hart, was seen as a binding transference of fidelity from one master - paganism - to another - God. After going through the rite they would literally turn to the east and spit (most pagan temples had their entrances to the east) then turn to face the west and profess total faith to God.

Now compare this with a surreptitious flick of holy water onto your unsuspecting boyfriend.

Stercus Accidit

If his religion has been so absent you were unsure of it for 6 years I doubt a bit of magic water will save his soul.
Anyway, given he is a clean slate, why not secretly get him into one of the cooler religions with better gods, I saw that Thor movie lately, not great, but I like the idea of it as a set of beliefs (ice giants and all that), why not give that a bash instead?

strobe

Asry wrote: »

Who are still Christians? The babies? Their parents? Full sentences would be good?

It was a reference to the act of baptising babies who are incapable of appreciating and consenting to the spiritual decision that baptism is supposed to symbolize. I didn't think it was that abstract, really.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I doubt you will find anyone here that will think a 'stealth baptism' will accomplish anything other than a wet pillow.

You could ask him to have a baptism, and he may well consent reluctantly, ye never know, but it would hold no more religious significance than throwing a cup of water on to his head from a balcony in most Christians opinions, I am guessing.

Asry

I've been thinking about this in terms of him being like an infant who cannot decide for himself what's right or wrong so out of love or whatever, I'll choose for him.

Which of course I suppose isn't terribly nice.

I do of course realise that baptism is important, sacrementally. I hadn't really thought through a plan of action yet, just how I would go about it.

I do know that the Jewish faith have a word for forced baptisms - anuism, which translates generally as 'forced ones'.

I was sitting here in bed half thinking about him, and then the idea of baptising him plopped into my head as a solution, which, now that the sparkly magical smoke of an ephiphany-of-sorts has cleared, is really not a great idea.

But I generally don't know what else to do. He's going to be lost to God, and he doesn't care. But does this upset me because of myself, or because of him? As to that I'm unsure.

Eugh. You're getting a monologue here. Massive apologies. I just think better when I write it out to its conclusion so now you'll ALL GET TO SEE THE WORKINGS OF MY FABULOUS MIND :cool:

I can't see him as fully alive. It's an anamoly in my mind. I probably sound like a crazy rabid right-wing Catholic but it reminds me of the children in the His Dark Materials trilogy who don't have daemons anymore.

It probably comes from some misplaced, childhood idea that he'll just be...well, sad and alone. That'd suck. I just want to make sure he isn't.

Asry

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If his religion has been so absent you were unsure of it for 6 years I doubt a bit of magic water will save his soul.
Anyway, given he is a clean slate, why not secretly get him into one of the cooler religions with better gods, I saw that Thor movie lately, not great, but I like the idea of it as a set of beliefs (ice giants and all that), why not give that a bash instead?

ha.

prinz

Asry wrote: »

This genuinely worries me. I feel like he doesn't exist. Or that God can't see him..

He does exist and God can see him, would be my line of thinking. A surreptitious baptism from you without letting him know or agree or even consider it is not really achieving anything for anyone. You might like him to get baptised but without accepting and living everything that goes with it it's a hollow gesture. Trust in the Boss, and I don't mean Springsteen.

Asry

strobe wrote: »

It was a reference to the act of baptising babies who are incapable of appreciating and consenting to the spiritual decision that baptism is supposed to symbolize. I didn't think it was that abstract, really.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. You could have just said that, I'm not telepathic.

Asry

prinz wrote: »

He does exist and God can see him, would be my line of thinking.

It's probably just me being really stupid. I'm just worried

prinz

Asry wrote: »

It's probably just me being really stupid. I'm just worried

O ye of little faith

Asry

Actually, wow, that's a really apt/surprising verse you just quoted at me. I went to biblegateway and read the chapter, and I feel much better now. I'm still just. I dunno. I want him to come with me too to the mansion where there are many rooms.


He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. [Matthew 8:26]

wonderfulname

So say you did secretly baptise him, working along the babies don't know either argument, are you going to be his godparent and "help the baptized to lead a Christian life in harmony with baptism, and to fulfill faithfully the obligations connected with it"? I can see the dynamic of your relationship changing drastically...

I have a fantastic image of you doing a secret service-esque dive in front of some poor confused bloke who accidentally did something mildly unchristian...

Asry

Like dive down from the skylight and baptise everyone before they can die and go to hell

I know what you mean. But I totally could help him lead a Christian life and be in harmony and all that! It'd be great. Also, all our arguments pro/con religion would stop. That would be nice, because we always end up hating each other for a few days afterwards.

Hmmm.

Dear Jesus,

Please make my lovely boyfriend believe in you so's he doesn't get left behind when the world ends and have to endure all sorts of torture and anguish forever and ever.

Yours sincerely

Asry

prinz

Asry wrote: »

Actually, wow, that's a really apt/surprising verse you just quoted at me. I went to biblegateway and read the chapter, and I feel much better now. I'm still just. I dunno. I want him to come with me too to the mansion where there are many rooms.

I hope it helped. I think your best bet is to live your life with God in a way that makes him willing to come to God of his own accord through the front door, rather than trying to sneak in on a technicality through the back door... it worked on me, what you are describing is exactly the position my wife was in a few years back, and here I am now.. :eek: She played the long game.

Asry

Wait!!!

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [1 Corinthians 7:14]

But we're not married. Does married mean married as in .... married? Or can it mean you've been going out with him for five and a half years and living with him for three AND AND AND you have a joint bank account so therefore you're pretty much married so it's ok, he's totally sanctified. ???

I mean, the joint account part is the clincher, isn't it? Nothing says 'married' like a joint account.

Asry

prinz wrote: »

I hope it helped. I think your best bet is to live your life with God in a way that makes him willing to come to God of his own accord through the front door, rather than trying to sneak in on a technicality through the back door... it worked on me, what you are describing is exactly the position my wife was in a few years back, and here I am now.. :eek: She played the long game.

Nah I can see him never ever ever believing in anything. He's a pretty serious hardliner about Jesus in general and organised religion in particular. :rolleyes:

prinz

Asry wrote: »

I mean, the joint account part is the clincher, isn't it? Nothing says 'married' like a joint account.

Don't tell my wife that. No joint accounts in our household.:pac:

Asry

prinz wrote: »

Don't tell my wife that. No joint accounts in our household.:pac:

It's OK, it's not *too* serious - we have separate savings accounts [or will do once we get paid today and open them!] and so that's kind of like an escape clause.

Wait. That kind of shoots down my 'totally married' argument.


Dear Jesus,

Please just sanctify my boyfriend regardless of his marital status. That would be really nice of you, and he can fix your laptop all the time for free when he's in heaven because he's a techie dork.

Sincerely yours

Asry :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

I recently came across some interesting thoughts on being "unequally yoked". Although the post in question addresses marriage, I think you can extrapolate the authors meaning into long term relationships outside marriage.

Donatello

You could only baptise him yourself in an emergency, say, God forbid, he's near death, it would be a good option to present to him, but only with the utmost sincerity.

In the meantime, the best thing you can do is be a good Christian witness to him. By your life you could show him that you keep the Commandments of God, and, if you are a Catholic, strive to live by the teachings of the faith.

If he sees your life lived joyfully in Christ, with prayer and the sacraments at the centre of your life, he will be drawn to it, and then, one day, he might decide to be baptised. You should pray for his conversion to Jesus.

AhSureTisGrand

Asry wrote: »

but it reminds me of the children in the His Dark Materials

Of all the books... :rolleyes:

Captain Commie

Asry wrote: »

Wait!!!

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [1 Corinthians 7:14]

But we're not married. Does married mean married as in .... married? Or can it mean you've been going out with him for five and a half years and living with him for three AND AND AND you have a joint bank account so therefore you're pretty much married so it's ok, he's totally sanctified. ???

I mean, the joint account part is the clincher, isn't it? Nothing says 'married' like a joint account.

When the Bible talks about marriage, it means marriage, simples. have you taken vows before God? no, ergo you are not married in God's eyes and your faith will not sanctify your boyfriend.

Modern society seems to have watered down the meaning of marriage for many many people, but it simply can not be watered down this far. Whilst you may have a faith in Christ and want your long term partner to be join you in heaven when you both pass, your faith is not enough for your partner, he has to make that decision himself.

This also ties in with my personal beliefs on baptism, that a baby should not be baptized as they are unable to express faith or fully grasp what it means to them. I myself was dedicated as a child and then made the decision at the age of 21 to be baptized and I am glad that I made that choice myself as it is such a personal thing. We should only be baptizing people that want it, not because we want them to be.

georgieporgy

Asry wrote: »

Good evening.

It's come to my attention that my boyfriend of 6 years hasn't been baptised/christened. I'd always thought he had been christened Protestant and then did nothing with the religion for the rest of his life, that the day had been there just for a little celebration for family and friends (as is often the way ).

This genuinely worries me. I feel like he doesn't exist. Or that God can't see him. Will he go to limbo or what?

Lord help me if anyone from A&A reads this, but I've been thinking of surreptitiously baptising him somehow. I mean, he'd never know what I'd done, and I'd be so very relieved.

I know, though, that it would probably be a really bad thing to do.

Any suggestions? Should I just flat out ask him? If I do though, he'll say no.

Are you planning to baptise him before or after you yourself have formally renounced your own membership in the Church? After the baptism do you plan to live as christians (like obeying the 10 commandments etc) or will you continue living in sin?

Like you, I too am confused

wonderfulname

Em... I think the joint bank account thing was a joke, in all fairness now...

wonderfulname

georgieporgy wrote: »

Are you planning to baptise him before or after you yourself have formally renounced your own membership in the Church? After the baptism do you plan to live as christians (like obeying the 10 commandments etc) or will you continue living in sin?

Like you, I too am confused

That's a bit of a personal assumption to make, who said they're having sex?

georgieporgy

wonderfulname wrote: »

That's a bit of a personal assumption to make, who said they're having sex?

thanks for clearing that up. I was getting really worried about it.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

He does exist and God can see him, would be my line of thinking. A surreptitious baptism from you without letting him know or agree or even consider it is not really achieving anything for anyone. You might like him to get baptised but without accepting and living everything that goes with it it's a hollow gesture. Trust in the Boss, and I don't mean Springsteen.

*opens can of worms*

Just on the above, of which I agree with btw, but how does this differ from baptising a baby?

On a side note, my aunt and granddad allegedly carried out a stealth baptism on me when I was a kid A gesture of concern on their behalf of course, but I can't help but think of the issues with that kind of superstitious mindset. If they only knew God, they wouldn't be afraid.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

*opens can of worms*
Just on the above, of which I agree with btw, but how does this differ from baptising a baby?

He's an adult and capable of making the decision for himself.

I'd give the same advice to parents of babies, don't baptise them unless you seriously plan on raising them in the faith and living up to the things you promise to live up to. Doing it just because it's tradition/the done thing is also a hollow gesture.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

He's an adult and capable of making the decision for himself.

I'd give the same advice to parents of babies, don't baptise them unless you seriously plan on raising them in the faith and living up to the things you promise to live up to. Doing it just because it's tradition/the done thing is also a hollow gesture.

But if baptism is sacramental, and the actual baptism is an essential requirement, then be them hollow gestures or not, is it not still effective? The baby does not know whats going on, neither does the 'victim':) of the stealth splash of holy water. It seems though, that the fact that this has been done, whether they actually care or not, bestows this sacramental gift as it were. So on the personal level, is it not still the same?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

But if baptism is sacramental, and the actual baptism is an essential requirement, then be them hollow gestures or not, is it not still effective?

Perhaps but that's a bit like doing it 'just in case'. Getting the sacraments but not really bothering with the faith inbetween, does it still mean the sacraments have a meaningful impact on the persons life, I'd say not.

JimiTime wrote: »

The baby does not know whats going on, neither does the 'victim':) of the stealth splash of holy water. It seems though, that the fact that this has been done, whether they actually care or not, bestows this sacramental gift as it were. So on the personal level, is it not still the same?

Interesting point, but a bit too cold and technical for me. Reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps but that's a bit like doing it 'just in case'. Getting the sacraments but not really bothering with the faith inbetween, does it still mean the sacraments have a meaningful impact on the persons life, I'd say not.

So a sacrament only works, if the life is followed in accordance with the church?

Interesting point, but a bit too cold and technical for me. Reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.

I agree, though I would see that present in the whole subject of sacraments. The idea that you can be saved or not saved, or in a state of grace or not in a state of grace due to what I can only describe as a 'procedure' performed on you. The 'spirit' is what I find lacking in a lot of the church dogma in relation to these kinds of things. IMO, its what leads to parents asking if their babies are in limbo, or not being buried in 'consecrated' graveyards etc. Marriage is not real unless its a sacrament bestowed by a priest etc, rather than the joining of a man and a woman to become one. It makes it about rules, rather than accentuating the spirit of these things.

Anyway, I digress.....

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

So a sacrament only works, if the life is followed in accordance with the church?.....

I would say yes, more or less. Not in accordance with any particular denomination but in accordance with the broader church. I mean if you confess your sins, then walk out the door and rape and murder someone else, have you really been absolved of the first? Can we say that you were truly desiring to come back into God's fold? Same with marriage, if you get married and then start an affair on the honeymoon have you really accepted the sacrament with all the seriousness it deserves?

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, though I would see that present in the whole subject of sacraments. The idea that you can be saved or not saved, or in a state of grace or not in a state of grace due to what I can only describe as a 'procedure' performed on you.....

I agree to some extent. Particularly confession and that. Especially when you hear about deathbed confessions, and the priest acts like a few minutes has wiped an entire lifetime clean and the life long criminal was a good old skin afterall. It troubles me.

JimiTime wrote: »

The 'spirit' is what I find lacking in a lot of the church dogma in relation to these kinds of things. IMO, its what leads to parents asking if their babies are in limbo, or not being buried in 'consecrated' graveyards etc....

Well yes there is that. The sacraments are often presented as credit for heaven, but I know in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church the question of the outcome after death of unbaptised children (and presumably adults) is asked and they make no definitive claim one way or the other. Rather they say to trust in God's mercy which is all any of us can do. So I don't think it's always a case of the sacraments are seen as a ritualistic or fine print way of guaranteeing yourself a place in the good books.

JimiTime wrote: »

Marriage is not real unless its a sacrament bestowed by a priest etc, rather than the joining of a man and a woman to become one. It makes it about rules, rather than accentuating the spirit of these things......

Speaking for the RCC again for a moment, the sacrament of marriage is the one sacrament that is not bestowed by the priest and this is made very clear. Marriage is the only sacrament that one person gives to another. The priest is only there to represent Jesus, but the two people join themselves.

I think to get married in the eyes of God and the community there really should be some kind of religious ceremony with the community though, and not just marrying each other in private during a picnic for example, or on the couch during an ad break while watching EastEnders. As soon as a couple basically decide to get married they can consider themselves married I suppose, I know I did more or less, but I think the public ceremony/sacrament is an important element too.

Asry

Axis Cometo wrote: »

When the Bible talks about marriage, it means marriage, simples. have you taken vows before God? no, ergo you are not married in God's eyes and your faith will not sanctify your boyfriend.

Modern society seems to have watered down the meaning of marriage for many many people, but it simply can not be watered down this far.

I was joking.

As regards adult baptism, I agree with you. I think people should be able to make an informed choice, rather than have other people make it for them, no matter how good their intentions.

So I asked my boyfriend this evening, and of course he said absolutely not. The look on his face was worth it though So, yeah. I'll suck it up.

Asry

georgieporgy wrote: »

Are you planning to baptise him before or after you yourself have formally renounced your own membership in the Church? After the baptism do you plan to live as christians (like obeying the 10 commandments etc) or will you continue living in sin?

Like you, I too am confused

God, I don't know!!! Arrrggghhhhh /tearing out hair.

What a mess.

My parish are letting me go to WYD 2011. So I'm going to attend, and pray from now and then, and make my decision around renunciation when I get back. It's really not something I want to do lightly.

Asry

prinz wrote: »

Speaking for the RCC again for a moment, the sacrament of marriage is the one sacrament that is not bestowed by the priest and this is made very clear. Marriage is the only sacrament that one person gives to another. The priest is only there to represent Jesus, but the two people join themselves.

That's beautifully put It would almost make me want to get married myself. Although I saw what happened to my parents so....maybe not.:cool:

robindch

Asry wrote: »

Lord help me if anyone from A&A reads this [...]

Don't worry -- we're nice people

Asry wrote: »

[...] but I've been thinking of surreptitiously baptising him somehow.

I presume you're catholic, in which case the Vatican rule book certainly does allow people -- even atheists -- to baptize, even if the baptizee isn't present for the ceremony. And the baptizee don't have to be told about it either. So there's no problem from the practical front.

Asry wrote: »

I've been thinking about this in terms of him being like an infant who cannot decide for himself what's right or wrong so out of love or whatever, I'll choose for him.

Sincerely, that is the saddest and most insular understanding of love I've ever seen

.

Asry

robindch wrote: »

Sincerely, that is the saddest and most insular understanding of love I've ever seen

.

I know! I'm such a **** I was being all....but he clearly doesn't understand what he's missing so it's OK and I can go ahead and he'll be happy.....:rolleyes:

Donatello

robindch wrote: »

Don't worry -- we're nice people :)I presume you're catholic, in which case the Vatican rule book certainly does allow people -- even atheists -- to baptize, even if the baptizee isn't present for the ceremony. And the baptizee don't have to be told about it either. So there's no problem from the practical front.Sincerely, that is the saddest and most insular understanding of love I've ever seen

.

The person being baptised must be present at the baptism and must have water poured over their head three times using the Trinitarian formula. The person doing the baptism must intend to do what the Church does. Lay persons may only baptise persons in an emergency.

Asry

But it would be an emergency! His heathenism is taking over his brain! /sarcasm:rolleyes:

TravelJunkie

OP, maybe you shouldn't worry about your partner so much, and perhaps worry about yourself instead.

Asry

oh, I do extensive worrying about myself in this forum if you hunt around the introspective, emo threads I've started :cool: