Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

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'.

You can assume all you want, whereas I'm pretty sure what I have studied and continue to study.

The Quadratic Equation

robindch wrote: »

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

Looking forward to seeing reality match that someday . . . .

robindch wrote: »

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.

Here's an accurate link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. The word prejudice is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments

getz

J C wrote: »

... so you're actually a lapsed Roman Catholic with a chip on your shoulder trying to compare yourself to the early Christian Martyrs.
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.

just where does it say children are involved ?,you are spouting the usual church rhetoric making the round peg fit the square hole ,there is very little evidence that child baptism was in use before the third century,200ce infant baptism was not common evidence from the apostolic fathers,beginning with the DIDACHE and its baptismal instructions.which by their own very nature as baptismal instuctions ;automatically ;rule out infants and little children,since infants cannot understand instructions,let alone fast for one day or two days before hand,also the shepard of hermac and the letter of barnabas both rule out children as candidates for baptism,since those texts speak only of past sins being forgiven,sins children do not carry, no i am not one of your[your words lapsed catholics] i was only baptised in a catholic church because on the insistence of the church, the only way my father could marry out of his faith is if his children were baptised in a catholic church,bottom line its wrong to insist that babies have to be baptised,

J C

getz wrote: »

just where does it say children are involved ?,you are spouting the usual church rhetoric making the round peg fit the square hole ,there is very little evidence that child baptism was in use before the third century,200ce infant baptism was not common evidence from the apostolic fathers,beginning with the DIDACHE and its baptismal instructions.which by their own very nature as baptismal instuctions ;automatically ;rule out infants and little children,since infants cannot understand instructions,let alone fast for one day or two days before hand,also the shepard of hermac and the letter of barnabas both rule out children as candidates for baptism,since those texts speak only of past sins being forgiven,sins children do not carry, no i am not one of your[your words lapsed catholics] i was only baptised in a catholic church because on the insistence of the church, the only way my father could marry out of his faith is if his children were baptised in a catholic church,bottom line its wrong to insist that babies have to be baptised,

I have edited the 'lapsed catholic' bit in my post (my apologies).

I did say children ... and not babies.
Children are quite capable of being Saved by making a personal commitment to Jesus Christ ... indeed Jesus gathered little children to Him ... and confirmed that they could be Saved and become part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mt 19:13-15 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Jesus also had a strong commendation for anybody who would receive a child into Salvation (and then Baptise them):-
Mt 18:5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

He has even stronger words of condemnation for anybody who would cause a Saved child to sin by their words or actions:-
Mt 18:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

You are swinging wildly from one extreme to another ... Infant Baptism isn't necessary (although it will do no harm) ... and if particular Churches wish to engage in it, I see nothing wrong with it ... provided everyone recognises that such people aren't Saved ... and will need to make a personal commitment to Jesus Christ, later in life.
Equally, moving to a position where you need to be 18 to be Saved and baptised is ridiculous.

As for whether you baptise your child or not ... that should be a matter for the parents and the child to decide.

recedite

J C wrote: »

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

You're preaching to the converted there, JC

J C

recedite wrote: »

You're preaching to the converted there, JC

Are you really a Christian Convert?:D

recedite

It didn't check out.

J C

recedite wrote: »

It didn't check out.

I hope you change your mind ... before you finally 'check out'.;)

getz

at the risk of being banned,anyone who believes children and babies are in sin and need to be baptised are sick,

J C

getz wrote: »

at the risk of being banned,anyone who believes children and babies are in sin and need to be baptised are sick,

... better to use the 'parliamentary' word ... 'wrong', instead of 'sick' ... but I get your point!!!
... it would also be best practice to provide some evidence or reasoning for your viewpoint ... rather than simply making an unsupported assertion, like you have done.

Anyway, Baptism is a public confirmation of Salvation ... and it is actually Salvation itself, that remits sin.

... and yes, children can abuse free-will ... and therefore are in sin ... every child, from the killers of Jamie Bulger ... to the school-yard bully, to the child who spits at you or kicks you in the shins, because you have asked them to be considerate of others, proves that you are wrong!!!:)

... and don't tell me that children can't be prideful, greedy, slothful, coveteous, jealous, angry, thieves, etc. etc.

recedite

J C wrote: »

I hope you change your mind ... before you finally 'check out'.;)

At least I will "check-out" eventually, but your "heaven" is like a Hotel California; you can check-in but you can never check-out.

getz

J C wrote: »

... better to use the 'parliamentary' word ... 'wrong', instead of 'sick' ... but I get your point!!!
... it would also be best practice to provide some evidence or reasoning for your viewpoint ... rather than simply making an unsupported assertion, like you have done.

Anyway, Baptism is a public confirmation of Salvation ... and it is actually Salvation itself, that remits sin.

... and yes, children can abuse free-will ... and therefore are in sin ... every child, from the killers of Jamie Bulger ... to the school-yard bully, to the child who spits at you or kicks you in the shins, because you have asked them to be considerate of others, proves that you are wrong!!!:)

... and don't tell me that children can't be prideful, greedy, slothful, coveteous, jealous, angry, thieves, etc. etc.

so jamie bulgers sins were washed away when as a baby he was baptised in a catholic church ? what went wrong,maybe they dident dip him in the water deep enough, the church would be better on concentrating on its own adult flock,wasent it saint peter who said,when as a child i think as a child,when as a adult i think as a adult,christianity is simple,its just power hungry churches that have added on all the crap,

J C

recedite wrote: »

At least I will "check-out" eventually, but your "heaven" is like a Hotel California; you can check-in but you can never check-out.

It is Heaven ... so, if you check-in ... you will never want to check-out!!!;)

J C

getz wrote: »

so jamie bulgers sins were washed away when as a baby he was baptised in a catholic church ? what went wrong,maybe they dident dip him in the water deep enough, the church would be better on concentrating on its own adult flock,wasent it saint peter who said,when as a child i think as a child,when as a adult i think as a adult,christianity is simple,its just power hungry churches that have added on all the crap,

Infant Baptism does no harm ... but it doesn't remove a person's free-will to do good or evil ... no matter how much water is used.

Indeed Salvation, itself, also doesn't remove our free-will ... or our sinful nature ... it merely removes the eternal consequences of sin i.e. it Saves you from eternal damnation ... and gives you direct access to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ... and the power to rebuke evil spirits, in the name of Jesus Christ.:)

Sarky

And how many evil spirits have you, ahem, rebuked?

That appears to be the only possibility even close to evidence you might not be deluding yourself.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

And how many evil spirits have you, ahem, rebuked?

That appears to be the only possibility even close to evidence you might not be deluding yourself.

Thanks.

With Christian Love to you Sarky.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Infant Baptism does no harm ...

Except the odd time

Sarky

Stop dodging the question, J C.

How many?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Stop dodging the question, J C.

How many?

Legions.

nlgbbbblth

Are the parents hipsters?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Except the odd time

Very strange.

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

It isn't actually ... we never have perfect knowledge of anything
... it is therefore logical to evaluate the risks of different actions based on the known (allbeit limited) information.
For example, if somebody tells you that there is a dangerous cliff ahead, but you are unsure if they are telling the truth ... it is logical to take an alterative route ... even though you aren't certain that the cliff is there or whether it is dangerous ... the potential downsides of proceeding ahead vastly outweigh the few extra miles involved in diverting.
This is known as the Precautionary Principle ... and it underpins all modern Environmental Safety Systems.

Equally, even if we don't know for certain that God exists ... it makes sense to act as if He does exist ... because an eternity of damnation could await us, if we refuse to believe that a Just God exists ... and we find out He does exist, when we die!!!:eek:

I guess, Christianity is the spiritual application of the Precautionary Principle.:)

But by this logic, we should naturally assume that various entities that some believe to exist are in fact real.So I should assume that Xenu, Chupacabra, Werewolves and Thor etc exist based on the grounds that I can't confirm that they don't and people have believed in them either now or in the past.. Just to be precautionary in case they turn out to be real and the **** hits the fan.:eek: There's tons of things that are impossible to prove to be entirely false even if they're highly unlikely but that doesn't make it necessary for one to believe in such entities on the off chance that they exist.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Legions.

And how many were caught on camera?

Harry the Red

Yes! A triumph for those who support free will!

nozzferrahhtoo

I would certainly favor such a ban in some cases, such as the catholic church since they closed the loop hole in canon law that prevents people leaving officially any more. If baptism was something the child could later undo my opinion might be more dilute on the matter. However since the CC cynically changed canon law this is not so. Would one, for example, think it ok to sign up their new born to a political party with whom they could never be removed from the membership list?

Signing people up to a religion when they are new born or any age before they can have a say in the matter just seems like a cynical and desperate attempt to bolster membership numbers to me.

philologos wrote: »

More and more programming on the BBC is promoting the new-atheism I'm finding.

Hang on.... you think that a writer promoting his book on a talk show.... a book that people then have the option to buy or not buy.... is somehow equivalent to Galvasean pointing out that atheists do not go uninvited door to door and/or distribute unsolicited literature on the streets and to peoples letter boxes and/or leave books in drawers of hotels?

You really do stretch comparisons in order to invent points don't you?

philologos wrote: »

Personally, I would show my hypothetical-child the case for Christianity and allow them to make their own minds up at a later date.

Maybe you could start by presenting US with the case for Christianity. It is not as if you have not been asked for it often enough. You keep talking, as you do in the 3 or 4 posts following this one I am quoting, about all the "logic" and "thought" and more that you put into it and how much evidence and sense there is in your position.

In fact I have lost count of how many threads you say these things and harp on about all the logic, thought and evidence.

Yet I can find not one single post where you present a shred of any of it. Does it really exist or is your whole approach merely to keep referring to it as if it does so often that maybe someone somewhere will fall for it and start thinking it really does?

philologos wrote: »

If you don't want to actually engage with anything other than atheism, just stick me on your ignore list as a whole, or stop reading posts, articles or anything else from believers of any form.

Not surprising to see you give this advice given that stopping reading anything that challenges your lack of any evidence is pretty much your entire strategy and has been for quite some time. Just ignoring the problems in your position, and those that highlight them, will not make them go away however.

J C wrote: »

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

Given that the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba were witnessed by many many times more than 500 people, and his powers made him so popular that 1 million people would show up to his Birthday party... I wonder do you worship him too?

Or does such reliance on anecdote to support your position only get applied when you want something to be true, and ignored when you do not?

J C wrote: »

In the case of Jesus Christ the encounters were 'up close and personal' in that Thomas,

So too were Frodos with the ressurected Gandalf during his transition by death from a Grey Wizard to a White Wizard.

None of that stops it being fiction though.

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.

Not so. We as a species have the gift of humor and it's use it not just warranted, but recommended. When an idea is ludicrous then using humor to point out exactly how, where and why it is so is a very valid approach.

philologos wrote: »

atheist dialogue. I find atheism absurd, but I don't descend into ridicule.

Probably because you can not. Calling something ludicrous and absurd is easy. Actually showing how and why it is, and using and producing humor in the process, not so much. You just do the easy bit... say it is absurd.... and then run a country mile before having to do the hard bit.

Which is sort of how you approach everything here. You do the easy bit.... say there is lots of evidence and logic in Christianity..... but run a mile before the hard bit.... adumbrating a scrap of it.

In short: You are basically in the business on boards.ie of "Say it, say it often, then run". I can not think of one post by you ever that does not fit this description.

Max Power1

J C wrote: »

You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that Atheists, for some unknown reason, have a monopoly on critical thought, logic and reason.
Christian Philosophers and Theologians spend years training in these very disciplines ... and all good Christian Education Programmes are based on these principles.

By what logic then, could one deduce the existence of any outside interference or "creator" or "divine ruler" or transubstantiation or virgin birth or *insert other religious "logic".

I have to laugh. Sorry, but logic and theology are mutually exclusive.

The Quadratic Equation

Max Power1 wrote: »

Sorry, but logic and theology are mutually exclusive.

Then logically you should have no bother proving that instead of just claiming it.

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Then logically you should have no bother proving that instead of just claiming it.

An interesting claim about theology (as robbed from sephir0th's recent post!):

Thomas Paine wrote:

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."

The Quadratic Equation

Dades wrote: »

An interesting claim about theology (as robbed from sephir0th's recent post!):

As claimed by a sun whorshipping freemason no less.



Paine also wrote "An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry", where he claimed The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.

He described himself as deist, saying: "How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical."

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Paine [...] claimed The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.

That'll be Sol Invictus you're thinking of. Was familiar with halos and had a birthday on the 25th of December, so the confusion is understandable.