Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

getz

first time child baptism came into the christian church was in the 2nd century,the first time it became the law of the church was in the 5th century,when emporor constantine made christianity the state religion,infant baptism became law of the land in 416 AD ,those who did not believe on child baptism were called anobaptists [ baptists]the law ment that every baby in the roman empire had to be baptized at the hands of a authorized roman priest or else, those who disagreed with the teaching were persecuted without mercy,for 30 miles on the road leading out of rome there were stakes with the gory heads of anobaptists on them, i had my child dedicated in a baptist church not baptized like in the catholic and anglican churches [both my wife and my self are baptized catholics and we are against child baptisms] it has nothing to do with being a christian

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

He also proved it ... by His miracles and by His resurrection ... that was witnessed by over 500 people.

Historically (Mythologically) speaking, Jesus was not the only one who supposedly Resurrected at this time, and certainly not the only to perform miracles with numerous witnesses.

It was actually quite a performance piece on the streets, ye Old David Copperfield kinds of thing.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

I was referring to some of the other contents of his posts. We could do without a lot of it:


What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.

Come on now Phil, that was clearly a joke. I don't think he meant any harm by it.

MrPudding

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Another myth peddled about why Christians believe what they do to make Atheists feel smugly superior. Life would be much simpler if I was not a Christian. Yes my faith gives me comfort, but it is not the reason for it.

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes its been added and found wanting, or perhaps all the apostles and all other eyewitnesses were ALL mad or lying as well.

Seriously? It is a damn sight more likely that people lied, exaggerated and simply made stuff up than half the crap you believe actually happened. Given the lack of first hand eye witness accounts it would be very easy.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The strawman is all your own, I work with a guy called Jesus from Brazil, who happens to be an excellent football player on our 5 a side team, but I think we all know we're discussing Jesus Christ of Nazareth.



Jesus (Christ of Nazareth for the strawman attempters) declared it.

Sorry, not my strawman. You are arguing against people say Jesus, the man, did not exist. No one here, that I can see, is arguing that. People are arguing that Jesus, the son of a sky wizard did not exist, or specifically, the bits about Jesus the man (who did exist) being the son of a sky wizard and doing magic tricks is bollix.

And really, because Jesus (apparently) said he was the son of a sky wizard he was the son of a sky wizard? Stop for a second, have a look around, remember what forum you are on and then catch yourself on.

MrP

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's not tripe, he's actually correct. People believe in all kinds of crazy things, UFOs, monsters, the walking dead, angels, fairies, gods, Joe Coleman. All of them believe their supernatural passion/entity must be true, yours happens to be a belief in a Christian god, but that doesn't afford you any grand level of respect from a non believer. Why would it?

Could I suggest that a better way is to respect and listen to everyone ... but check everything out ... before you believe it!!!

J C

getz wrote: »

first time child baptism came into the christian church was in the 2nd century,the first time it became the law of the church was in the 5th century,when emporor constantine made christianity the state religion,infant baptism became law of the land in 416 AD ,those who did not believe on child baptism were called anobaptists [ baptists]the law ment that every baby in the roman empire had to be baptized at the hands of a authorized roman priest or else, those who disagreed with the teaching were persecuted without mercy,for 30 miles on the road leading out of rome there were stakes with the gory heads of anobaptists on them, i had my child dedicated in a baptist church not baptized like in the catholic and anglican churches [both my wife and my self are baptized catholics and we are against child baptisms] it has nothing to do with being a christian

... so what exactly is your point???
I accept that legally enforced child baptism is wrong ... but so too is the legal proscription of child baptism.

Quite young children can be Saved ... and if they are, I see no reason why they cannot be Baptised. In any event, as it is a spiritual matter, I don't see that anybody (other than the child and its parents) should have any say in it, one way or the other.

... and BTW whether you call it a 'dedication' or a 'baptism' ... the Atheists on this thread would like to proscribe your right as a parent to do either!!

Please stop sweating the small stuff ... and qubbling over minor theological points ... while the Atheists are advocating the proscription of all Christian teaching to your children and mine.

As a Baptist, you of all people, should recognise 'the bigger picture' of what is happening here ... but you seem to be stuck in history, fighting the battles of the early Roman Church!!!

I must say that I have to admire the unity of the Atheists on this forum in prosecuting their views ... and I must also deplore the disunity of Christians ... as they squabble over theological 'gnats' ... while ignoring the 'camels' that threaten the transmission of all Faith.

J C

philologos wrote: »

What the problem is with the concept of Christians and atheists simply sharing about their point of view in a respectful manner is I'll never know. Until we hit that point a lot of our discussions will be simply futile.

... I don't think such discussions will be futile ... but they certainly will be needlessly antagonistic.

Let's respect each other (liberal Atheism has a long and noble tradition) ... I think they are wrong ... and they me.
... but this is no reason that we cannot look at the strengths and weaknesses of our respective Faiths in a civil and respectful manner.

... and calling the ideas or the people (on either side) rude names doesn't add one iota to the case ... it merely confirms that the person using such language is unable to fully express themselves in proper English. Things like the following gems from Mr P

wrote:

Mr P
It is a damn sight more likely that people lied, exaggerated and simply made stuff up than half the crap you believe actually happened ...
... the bits about Jesus the man (who did exist) being the son of a sky wizard and doing magic tricks is bollix.

getz

J C wrote: »

... so what exactly is your point???
I accept that legally enforced child baptism is wrong ... but so too is the legal proscription of child baptism.
Quite young children can be Saved ... and if they are, I see no reason why they cannot be Baptised. In any event, as it is a spiritual matter, I don't see that anybody (other than the child and its parents) should have any say in it, one way or the other.
... and BTW whether you call it 'dedication' or 'baptism' ... the Atheists on this thread would proscrible your right as a parent to do either!!
Please stop sweating the small stuff ... and qubbling over minor theological points ... while the Atheists are advocating the proscription of all Christian teaching to your children and mine.

As a Baptist, you of all people, should recognise 'the bigger picture' of what is happening here ... but you seem to be stuck in history, fighting the battles of the early Roman Church!!!

I must say that I have to admire the unity of the Atheists on this forum in prosecuting their views ... and I must also deplore the disunity of Christians ... as the squabble over 'gnats' ... while ignoring the 'camels' that threaten the transmission of all Faith.

first of all i am not a baptist,i believe i am a christian ,but i dont care for closed shop churches, baptism comes from a pagonistic jewish sect,the greek word baptist means emerge ,if its going to be done,do it right. and they are not minor theological point,ask the roman church

J C

getz wrote: »

first of all i am not a baptist,i believe i am a christian ,but i dont care for closed shop churches, baptism comes from a pagonistic jewish sect,the greek word baptist means emerge ,if its going to be done,do it right. and they are not minor theological point,ask the roman church

Baptism comes directly from Jesus Himself (in the Great Commission)
e.g. Mt 24:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
... but, as Baptism is not essential to be Saved (one way or the other)... it is a minor theological point that you are pursuing!!

... so if you are a Saved Christian, like you say you are, then you should be Baptised together with your houshold ... but if you're not Baptised, this will not affect you Salvation ... because once you are Saved you remain Saved.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... I don't think such discussions will be futile ... but they certainly will be needlessly antagonistic.

Let's respect each other (liberal Atheism has a long and noble tradition) ... I think they are wrong ... and they me.
... but this is no reason that we cannot look at the strengths and weaknesses of our respective Faiths in a civil and respectful manner.

... and calling the ideas or the people (on either side) rude names doesn't add one iota to the case ... it merely confirms that person using such language is unable to fully express themselves in proper English. Things like the following gems from Mr P

The problem is, JC, that people like you are so invested in the delusion that there isn't anything that can be said, civily or otherwise, that will make any difference.

Added to this, when you have a poster that has been spouting utter sh1t for years, been called on, continues to spout the same crap, declares victory when none is apparent and consistently refuses to answer simple questions, then things get a little frustrating. In the interests of avoiding doubt, that is you that is.

MrP

getz

J C wrote: »

Baptism come directly from Jesus Himself.
... but, as it is not essential to be Saved (one way or the other)... it is a minor theological point!!

unless you want to put your children into a school in a catholic school,or wish to marry someone from another religion,or bring up you children in another faith, in the new testament years it was it not exceptable to baptize children

Sarky

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

getz

Sarky wrote: »

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

to be baptised is that you understand and believe in and is a act of your faith,the word understand is the point,young children and babies do not understand,so untill they themselves can decide it is wrong to baptise them,yet the catholic church tell us,that it is a mortal sin to delay the baptism of babies ,

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

If Baptism comes directly from Jesus, what the hell was all that John the Baptist stuff for beforehand? And, y'know, all the other baptism ceremonies from other religions predating christianity by millennia.

I don't think baptism comes from Jesus. It comes from the Jewish practice of mikveh. John the Baptist baptised for the repentance of sins - an external symbol of forgiveness.

The difference between John's baptism and Jesus' is in John the Baptist's own words:

John 1:32-34 wrote:

And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

John's baptism was a sign of repentance. Getting people ready for the coming of Jesus.

Jesus' baptism was a sign of actually being born again by the Holy Spirit (see John 3). I.E Dying to sin and rising to new life in Him. That's the meaning behind Jesus' death and resurrection in Christianity (see Romans 6).

Jesus gave baptism a significance which didn't exist otherwise. John the Baptist was the figure prophesied to make a way for Jesus' ministry. All this stuff can be found at the start of Mark or John's Gospel. A reading of Isaiah 40, and Malachi 3 will also give you a good start into looking into it.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

So what? That doesn't make it any more believable. I'm sure there are psych-houses filled with people who declare the same.

Indeed, as there was a the time of Jesus, and as there is today. Funny how us rational skeptics can tell the difference.

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

... if you wish to love Jesus try doing it platonically.

Neither claimed to be God ... and, as far as I know, neither raised themselves or anybody else from the dead.

Yes but do you believe Joseph Smith had super powers as they were witnessed in person and there is written record of such?

philologos wrote: »

ShooterSF: Is it really necessary to post that kind of tripe or could we actually look at the topic seriously?

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

philologos

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

It doesn't present your point of view in the most positive light, and it makes people less willing to engage with your point of view in a constructive manner. In short, it's a turnoff.

My POV is that blasphemy should be legal, but it still doesn't make it any less obnoxious particularly in Christian - atheist dialogue. I find atheism absurd, but I don't descend into ridicule.

The Quadratic Equation

ShooterSF wrote: »

It is not only necessary but imperative! If one takes a subject like religion serious all the time one might forget how ludicrous it really is. It's good to keep my perspective or I'd have an aneurysm talking with (if you can call it that) JC.

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

Sigh... you really have an amazing ability to intepret things exactly how people didn't mean them.

JCs arguments are so bad and troll like if you don't laugh at them you'd cry. Much the same as any skeptic with a particularly deluded conspiracy theorist.

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't present your point of view in the most positive light, and it makes people less willing to engage with your point of view in a constructive manner. In short, it's a turnoff.

My POV is that blasphemy should be legal, but it still doesn't make it any less obnoxious particularly in Christian - atheist dialogue. I find atheism absurd, but I don't descend into ridicule.

Well phil I can tell you now in grown up discussions in real life I tend to tone the ridicule down though I still have no problem blaspheming. I won't mock someone for their beliefs but I probably will end up mocking the belief if it's silly.
More importantly though you did catch me quoting JC and if you can see anything about an atheist's communication with his good self it is that it is anything but a dialogue!
By the way as for presenting my view in a positive light: I have long given hope of changing the mind of anyone who finds my mildly blasphemous comments offensive so the positivity of the light is irrelevant..

philologos

Well at least I made my point ShooterSF. Those are the margins I'm going to work in.

ShooterSF

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Intresting reaction. Perhaps it's because I'm secure in my own beliefs, but I've never seen anyone elses belief/non belief/philosophy rattle me in that way, and I'm still able to discuss it with them.

If I didn't let steam off now and then I'd just resort to posting bitter sniping one liners all the time and that would be a low for me.

Anywho, I appear to be pulling this thread apart.

The Quadratic Equation

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sigh... you really have an amazing ability to intepret things exactly how people didn't mean them.

JCs arguments are so bad and troll like if you don't laugh at them you'd cry. Much the same as any skeptic with a particularly deluded conspiracy theorist.

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

His remarks were directed at philologos's posts, but equally I don't think trying to pick on JC, rather than debate the issue is fair or adult.

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

His remarks were directed at philologos's posts, but equally I don't think trying to pick on JC, rather than debate the issue is fair or adult.

He quoted and named JC in the post.

It's funny you don't think it's fair, seeing as so many of your posts are thinly veiled slights such as the one above.

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed, as there was a the time of Jesus, and as there is today. Funny how us rational skeptics can tell the difference.

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

J C

getz wrote: »

unless you want to put your children into a school in a catholic school,or wish to marry someone from another religion,or bring up you children in another faith, in the new testament years it was it not exceptable to baptize children

My understanding is that there is no impediment to enrolling children in primary schools under RCC patronage, whatever their religion (or none) ...
... the issue of RCC baptism would only arise if and when you want them to receive RCC First Communion or Confirmation ... and I guess, if you want to be in the army ... you will need to wear the boots!!!

... and it has always been acceptable ... even encouraged to baptise children ... once they were Saved.
Acts 16:14-15 gives an account of the Salvation of Lydia ... and confirms that both herself and her household (which would have included her children) were Saved and Baptised.
Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

I've studied many beliefs and philosophies, and have always been open to them, it just so happens I find Christianity the most compelling, so your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

J C

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I would be about 99% sure he rattles exactly zero people here's beliefs.

The only duty of a Christian is to witness for Jesus Christ and present the truth ... whether anybody gets Saved as a result is a matter entirely between themselves and God ... i.e. no pressure ... no pack drill !!!

... and the same applies to you Dr Doom ... what a name!!!:eek:

... are you a pessimist ... or just a 'realistic' optimist???:D

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I've studied many beliefs and philosophies, and have always been open to them, it just so happens I find Christianity the most compelling, so your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

It's not ad hom at all, it's an observation. I also doubt you've studied- in the true sense of the word - 'many beliefs'.

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

fatmammycat wrote: »

No, you can't, that's what is so amusing about your arrogant claims otherwise.

[...] your ad homiem taunts of amusing and arrogant are wasted on me, and are not discussing anything.

FYI, ad hominem comments are directed at people (and are cardable misdemeanors in this forum), while fatmammycat's comments were directed at your ideas.

Many religious people, perhaps from a misplaced sense of the politics of identity as it related to religion, appear to have great difficult in distinguishing the two.