check this out... link: De-baptized
Some people are so stupid! Can you be de-baptized? Why would someone need a certificate to turn their back on God?

I can only speak for Catholicism and the answer is NO. Baptism is a Sacrament that cannot be undone by man. Catholics lapse, cross over to other faith communities and even totally give up on belief in God but, the Sacrament remains as God does not renege on His covenant with man. We even have a saying: "once a Catholic, always a Catholic."



I have always wondered about that myself and find atheists of this sort rely greatly on the "strawman argument" because they have nothing else to argue against faith.

Just to play devil's advocate here, Mormons have the practice of baptizing people without their knowledge or consent -- even Jews and members of other faiths. People have protested vociferously against this practice (I think it is confined to the dead but don't really know), pointing out that a church that places so much emphasis on the strength of family doesn't seem to be respecting others' beliefs, upbringing, and wishes.

How do mainstream Christians feel in learning that a church whose beliefs they do not share has them on their rolls? Not too good, I don't think.

While I don't subscribe to unbaptising, it's not my business. I'd assume for some folks it's like having been tattooed (spiritually) when they were children and wishing to have it removed. Or changing their names. Just because it's not important to me doesn't mean it's not important to someone else.

If they think it's so meaningless, why do they care? I don't mean to sound harsh, but really... Any ideas?

I suspect it's a matter of shock value more than anything, Dotsie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7875457.stm

I suspect a bit of shock value as well because most people who fall away from religion do so quietly, but the people quoted didn't say that baptism was meaningless. They said they rejected it and church teachings and beliefs (as well as infant baptism because it wasn't a choice), which is a different thing altogether. At least that's the way I understood the link, which is very interesting. Learn something new every day....

The bible states that baptism is by water, so how do Mormons baptize people without their knowledge? Good trick if they could do it.

If someone is dumb enough to walk away from God, why would they need to be debaptized? Just as easy for them to ignore the sacrement of baptism as easy as they do God.

what is that as an argument?

i would gess thats a good point of view on it.

Most people are baptised as infants when they have no say or choice on the matter being done in first place and also what faith they are baptised into.

As an adult who disagreed with the faith or was asamed of the faith or perhapps wanted to in a sense diowen that faith then de-baptising might be a big value to them. Or just definatlie just wanted to be non christion, perhapps. Funnie but we seem to acknolage somone as being of that faith when they become baptised into another faith and sometimes not before it. What happens to people who just don't wanbt baptised into a new faith? Their kinda left belonging to a place even if they do not want to belong to it.

A bit like what you were saying about mormons baptising people and how would one feel being "on-role" to said church. Same kinda thing only done by your owen familie.

Also perhapps to stop others overriding thir adult choise by reminding them constantlie that they actulie belong to said church. "oh your not a christion, ok but what church weer you brought up in" those types of conversasions.

Many people just won't accept some people being non christion or non anything.

If thrs a charge for this and it turnes out to be a good busness deal then perhaps we get to know how whished for this was, untill then we never know.

I think perhaps one would have to make it to a place of desiring to be non christion and reasons for that choise before getting into this mindset in the first place.

Dotsie

perhaps in an athiest life it has some meaning as well as belonging someweer they don't want to belong. Perhapps they want to protest agenst the institusion also. So reversing the baptisum might for that indivduel reverse whatever meaning they have put upon it also.

Whys is it news in the first place that some people do want de-baptised?
Why would anyone who is christion care?

Not being baptised dose't mean they turned their backs on God, just a particulare religion.

Is it confined to the dead?
Is it explicate that they have baptised someone?
Are the deads relatives nominating them for baptisum?

If last is true its almost as the indivduel is almost powerless as the infent who is baptised. The similare point is some family member thought it a good idea.

That's the point, Celtic. Mormons believe that they are offering baptism to everyone and it's up to them to accept it in the afterlife. I kind of understand this logic, even if I don't agree with it, but they have even baptized Jews and whatnot. It's the relatives, particularly of the Jews -- some of whom perished in the Holocaust -- who objected so strenuously. I have read that the Mormons agreed to stop doing this and that they still do it, so I have no idea.

I didn't mean to derail the thread, only to point out that people can feel very strongly about beliefs when they feel they have been unfairly conscripted.

If my parents had raised me in a faith that I could not live with, and the faith told me that I could not undo a sacrament that I had no choice in receiving, I would not be very happy. I would do everything in my power to undo what had been done to me by no choice of my own. Even if I felt that it had no meaning.

I don't think you derailed the thread ELLMAN i think you made a good argument for the furtherence of the descusion of the thread.

and also i am just curiouse about this as i have never heared of it before (within the mormone faith), I am always up for learning bits and bobs of facts lol even if some of them do nuthing more than just be a fact thats remembered but never used again.

Its a simlare thing (this fact) and relivent to this chat as its just about being or belonging too an organisasion the indidel din't wanna bvelong too.

the idea of getting to chose to be baptised or not in the afterlife thats a whole new idea to me to, Obviouslie they belive in afterlife and choice which is good and i also get it.

if its not the relatives who put them up for baptisum then who nominates them or makes them knowen to the church? Is thir a cereimony to do baptisum by? Like with water as chatty said? Thers seems to be a diffrense to offering baptisum to everyone and actulie baptising anyone and everyone.

Id be cross to find myself baprtised into anything i din't wanna be baptised into, so id have a few choice words in the afterlife lol.

oh i also din't relise you could click on the blue link for to read the articale, it looked to fancy for a web address and i would't know how to fancy it up that pretie.

so this came about as a joke be the atheists but it taken on a life of its owen. We never know if those people are joking or seriouse that have dowenloaded the form.

good point anno
id just assumed it had to have meaning for someone to want to undo it. Simplie about choice and personal choice alone that makes it valide point for some folks, who take personal choise seriouslie, good enough reason to have it undone. If it can be undone.

Mormons are known as some of the world's best researchers in genealogy. They are very serious about searching for roots and keep voluminous records. (As far as I know, they permit non-Mormons to take advantage of their work.) BUT, the reason they are doing the research is to get lists of people to baptize; to the best of my knowledge they work off the lists when they do baptisms and yes, I think there's some sort of ceremony.

If I got any of that wrong, someone please correct me.

Celt, the basis of a straw argument relies on a misrepresentation of a position wherein that position is refuted by substitution, which does not really refute the original position.

In this particular case, the atheist's argument relies on a false premise by misrepresenting the "matter of choice" in conferring the Sacrament of Baptism on an infant. By substituting a proposition i.e. the absence of choice, the atheist creates an illusory position that the baptism is meaningless. Where does the refutation fail? The atheistic argument does not refute the theology behind the Sacrament thereby it does not render it meaningless. The argument relies on choice. But it still fails because, where the choice was not the infant's to make in the first place, neither would it have been of any faith community. It is a parental prerogative (whereupon the original position rests).

Good points, all.

I do agree, that this is all for publicity for a cause. Agree or not, if this is the case, he won this round.

The Sacrament of Baptism is a covenant between God and man. In faith communities where the covenant between man and God is intangible and unseen, one can repudiate the faith one was raised or born into by simply walking away from it and become non-practising or non-observant. However, how does one undo a covenant with God where it is tangible and seen? There are faith communities which bear the rite of circumcision.

Yes, this is a point well-taken, Lola. There are many deeds, religious and many more others, that parents do in the best interest of their children. I know that baptism is always in the best interest of a child. Circumcision too, I believe.

There are so many deeds that some parents do that are not in the best interest of a child. Looking at it from this perspective makes this man's actions seem frivolous, at best.

Again, tho, if he wanted attention, he surely found it.

That's true, Lola, but children sometimes reject their families utterly, or reject certain aspects of their upbringing. Sometimes they have good reasons and sometimes they might not. For example, it's the parents' role to name their children, and most of us go along with it; however, some people decide -- without making a big splash like this debaptism stuff -- to go to court and change their names legally. Sometimes they do it they're sick and tired of being teased and sometimes it's because they hate the name and sometimes it's because they are cutting ties with their families. The name wasn't meaningless to them; they just don't want it anymore.

Like you said, though, people can just walk away from a church without fanfare, and most who choose to do leave quietly.

Dotsie, absolutely ... who should care... and even if they claimed 60,000 (some headlines had 100,000) downloaded the certificate, it's likely some did so out of curiosity. I'd like to see it myself.

Ellem, I'm thinking '15 minutes' or need to belong type of thing, too. But, goodness

And, I think the Mormons are doing it because they believe (and want) fellowship in the afterlife with their loved ones. If I remember correctly, they believe that non-Mormon loved ones who go to 'the next plane' are 'taught' the faith by Mormon loved ones already there. Interesting concept. The faiths that baptize babies are loving parents who think they are protecting them from some evil, right? The faith I was raised in, we accepted the Lord as personal Savior, and then we were baptized as a profession of faith, our 'certificate.'

Rebelling against authority, parents and otherwise... the "I'll show you" some 'children' do, grown ones, even.

I believe you are right on every point, which includes them being baptized for each they choose in the temple.

Whoa, Lola, I had to read that three times to understand it fully.



I need to ask - for a parent to assign the covenant... well, is it truly a binding covenant between God and the baby? Or more a covenant between God and the parents?

I hate my name, and have thought of changing it several times throughout my lifetime. It wouldn't be a step against my parents, however. It'd be simply because I don't like it. The fact is, I didn't pursue my desire, mostly, because I knew it would hurt my mom, who loves the name.

gims, I am none too thrilled with my real name either! It is beyond blah and I want to envision myself as more that that, lol! But it's not that big a deal to me. I do know a man who changed his name when he could (and still had decent relations with his parents, as far as I know). But it was a unisex name that is used far more on girls than boys and he just didn't like it.

You know, though, it's easy for me to laugh at my own name because it's a benign and silly story. For some people, however, their names are a source of pain and shame -- ridicule (you know, Heinz Ketchup isn't so funny after the first 1,000 dumb jokes). What looks pretty meaningless to me may be a big deal to someone else, who just want to 'right' him or herself.

This is the first time I saw this thread. I just ran across it.
It's a new one to me. I never heard of debaptism before. If you've been emersed in water, which is what some protestants do,
I can't imagine undoing that. Even, as other religions I've observed do, and sprinkle a baby's head, how can that be undone? How can a piece of paper, i.e., a debaptism certificate erase
that? This is some discussion you ladies have goin' here. I doubt if there are any answers, but it is an interesting debate.

your right jabber it is an intresting topic and one that progresses well.

Imersion in water...i am not sure that thats the main point, water sand ketchup lol its be all one to me, however i do enjoy the symbolisum of water and clensing. However with my faith (original one) its clensing of the idea or perception of clensing the child of original sin. I disagree with that basic premise and the storie behind it. I sadlie view it as blackmail.

If you don't baptise or christon your child and the child dies then thirs consiquinses to the childs soul. This contract with god and church (once christened) can not be broken either. So once done it cabn't be undone. If you don't do it then thirs consiqunses to child in death on the head of your childs soul for suposidlie betterment if not done neg consiquinses on childs soul. Looking it through those suposidlie only choises then what would one chose for the best intrests of the child?

13 years ago i was of the mindset after much though to have A christened, i felt blackmail but i was so in terror of what if's? and the consiquinse to his soul i went along with it. I christened him into a faith based on idea of what if i am wrong and thir is a consiquinse to him. So i played it safe in effect. This also ment i christend him into a faith that rejects me! i had to travel to another countir to have the ceerimony done and what a hoohaa was made about the cerimony. It had to be annonced at the service/mass regarding what was happening. This left us vulriable to bigotry and hate on the day.

13 years later, my minds diffrent and therfore my choise. I do not fear what i did 13 years ago, i think this is progresion. Today i don't belive i have the right to chois on behalf of anothers soul what his fait is if he weer to die. I do not belive my child was born into sin and therfore afflicted with that becouse hes not baptised.

I find the whole concept of decideng upon a perment contract with god on behalf of another soul as beyond me. Social circumstanses aside i not choising for him.

idea life or decision no. Becouse by fact of what school i send him to i choise his teaching regarding religion. However this is as far as i can go at this point. Ther come a point weer he will be expected to undego rituels in 2 years that he can't becouse he's not baptised. I make those decisions in two years time as to weather i will seperate him from his peers or not.

So i find myself in a practical situasion with social and emotional consiquinses for him and maybe or maybee his soul not depending on the view you take.

i feel more confident if their was a semi permint decision that could be made by me regarding him... semi perminent to point of "untill his adulthood" made that he could agree to or disagree with at an appropriate age.

if de-baptsisum was an option and the contract with god be altered if the soul in question decded it so then i be more happy with christing.

perapps a selfish reason i am intrested in this subject and if anyhing changed....weeras nuthing has changed and their is no semi-perminent contract.

its a cerimoniy that holds the individuel

on behalf of athiest, if they no not belive at all in god. then do they also belive thir is no contract with god?
If thats true then why not fade into the background. Perhaps not fading into the background is to do with thir belifes. Membership with a church in contra with their lifes and should't they be allowed to bring thir circumstanses into line with their personal belifes without it beeing seen as rebelion or anyhing more than an attempt to be congruant with thir life and life choises refelcted in all aspect of thir life?

perhapps coming to point of lifestyle choises.....is someone who dose not belive in god, Do they have as much right to jump about and talk and inforce thir unbelife in god as those that do belive in god?, i think its fair, its dose no harm to me and might help others who similary no not belive in god.

I think they have that right, i will descuse someones non belife as much as i would descus somones belife in god and be happy with either descusion as i grant them equality in thir belife and choise to not belive...

The bus ads... have as much validity and right to be in this world as ads glorifying or promoting god?

if all things can be equale why can't an ad exist that dose not go with the majority of belifes in the country thir advertising in?

why is it offensive for one to say i do not belive in god?
why is it offensive for one to some other i do belive in god?
Perhapps its only agreeing or disagreeing with ones owen personal choise.
I will defend my personale choises in life as you know lol but thirs no insisten that you must also belive them.

isent it a matter of tolerinse and letting the other person be..just be with thir lifes regardless of our personal choise?

I understand the idea of baptism cleansing sin, but then why
sprinkle a baby? A baby hasn't sinned, yet! Tiny children aren't old enough to sin. They do stupid stuff, but surely it isn't sin.
I can see when a person gets old enough to know the difference
between right and wrong. Otherwise I don't get it.

I agree jabber, a baby certainly hasn't reached the age of accountability (which varies by faith), nor does the baby know what sin is - it's soul might, but as human, no. They don't have the capacity or understanding to place their faith in Christ, which is what baptism is all about, a declaration of faith. [Ref Acts 2:38]
In my belief, the parents bare the sins of the child up until he/she is able to know right from wrong, again the age of accountability.
The scriptures tell it like it is: And [Jesus] said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:3) To Jesus, (the touchstone of baptism) children were of the purist nature, unmarked by sin.

celtic, I'm saying this, not because I disagree with baptisms of babies, but because I honestly believe it not to be Biblical. Without having taking on the robe (faith) of the One for which we are being baptized, baptism is just a ritual (maybe even a 'feel good' ritual for the parents). I mean no disrespect in saying that, but I know of no Biblical support for the practice... but I will certainly accept any proof given. We're here to learn, not oppose.

gims jabber, i agree too.

what i was doing was detailing the time and progresion of views and attitudes over the last 15 years or so.

accourding to faith i was born into if a newborn was to die they die with "original sin" which comes from adam and eves antices. If the child dies it soul bears the brunt of that sin. Christing/baptisum removes original sin, hence a pure unsinned baby.

13 years ago i christend A becouse of this belife.
L now is still unchristend and he's 5, hmmm imagine how that goes dowen in my familie.
If i christon on behalf of L it would be to remove the original sin from his soul, and he would also joine that church. Its the first rituale that is necasarie before other rituals can be performed. Once he is within the church he can not leave it or undo that christing, in effect...hence my reluctanse to make this desision on his behalf.

the most i have done is send him to school which will partlie shape his christio belifes BUT he dosn't belong to that church.

This is one reason why i be more inclined to make the move to christening IF it could be undone IF L disagreed with that church or its teaching, Hence the topic of this decusion

I was stating that i do not belive in original sin now, not agreeing with the newborn having been mared by original sin.

Jabber
in your church when do people typicalie get baptised?
what dose baptisum mean for your or within your church? How is the child viewed?

Gims same question to you too, also when is the age of accountability? How dose it deal with mental illness or disability weer mental functioning is effected?

Obviouslie within this church original sin and christioning of newbornes are not onlie seen as biblical its practicalie necassary, the whole faith may be based around it and it couses people some anguise in choising to christion or not...

I one frernds from mixed marrage, his wife was christoned, he wase't she is dead and buried. In order for him to be buried within her faith and be bured NEXT to her he MUST undergo christoning into this church, if he dose't then he can't be buried next to her.

I do very much like the notion of parents carry burden of childs sins untill the age of accountability of sin.....i be more than happie to do this on behalf of L, i just wonderring that if i no longer a member of my originol church BUT obviouslie can not be set free from my christoning (the church views me as a member regardless of what i think)....that i would't be held accountable to its teachings and belifes, then L would't also be held accountable in relasion to original sin.......Also for considerasion is if i christon L into this church the church disagrees with me and my lifestyle, soooooooo i gotta way up my choises verses his soul as i know my lifestyle will be forever at odds with the churches belifes. It feels more than weired fo r me to be to christoning my son into something that views me as a sinner AND how do i set L up to belives in bits but not all of this churches teachings? Or explane why i think its wrong on some bits but not others, ie breaking the rules, rember L disability has him rule bound and can't tolerate much of rule breaking, so that could be one potencialie prolonged discusion.

So being able to be Depatised and that contract my parents set me into with my church and god...could somehow be broken and or become my responsibility to reestabished at a sutable age would have been better suted to the intricases of my life.

sometimes church, rules, lifestyles arn't not always so clear cut within christianity...however its the thought meditasion and practicale applicasion that CAN bring a spiritule richness from such intricasies.

gims scripture wise.........original sin its a quote "Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19)

JBBER FOR YOU ...and from wikopedia..(trying to get a non catholic sorce for you..
DESTINCTION REGARDING ORIGINAL SIN VERSES NORMALE SIN
"Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants"
iTS THE SIN ADUM COMMITED, thats passed to us all, the sin adum commited, consiquintlie, brought into the world death...as previouslie in the world thir was no sin as no one had disobayed god...eating the apple was the first sin, disobiedeance of god...its that sin we are born with and christoning clenses from the child....but to die without that clensing brings some consiquinses too, to the new born child. Hence in practice loads of kids have been christened in hospital as they weer though to the ones who would't live long. Its taken pretie seriouslie.

heers sume linkes for it to be read in contact of practice and dogma...good reading ladies lol, judge for yourself from within its owen argument...and counter arguments. Heer GIMS you find why its biblical and from scripture and its interpritasion..:)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#I



for counter argument..... as what is descusion without opposition sometimes..http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Original-Sin.htm

JABBER...
"Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[14][15] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[16] In
" thats how seriouse its held and why kids need christend in hospitals etc..

hope that makes it clear for you JABBER AND GIMS why its held that infant need baptised..

i still don't agree with it even if i can see its ligik...but MANY DO i hope i reprisented them well enough as they genuinly belive the teaching, so respect for that ....even if its not what i belive.

I start getting really antsy when I read about inheriting sin from Adam and Eve It's an interpretation that makes no sense, and there are other possible interpretations that made more sense than the prevailing one.

We are all accountable for only one soul -- our own. We can raise our children to be upright and moral people, but they grow up to be responsible for their actions (I'd say that children actually know they're separate beings by age 5, and should be spiritually mature by about 15).

If my father were a murderer, God would hold him accountable for those actions, not me. You might have parents who aren't very good role models, but you cannot inherit someone else's spiritual baggage. That's simply an injustice that a just God would not allow.

The man who was undoing his baptism was making a public statement, not a private one. He wants people to protest against what he sees as a superstitious rite.

There are long traditions for both infant and older-age baptism that spring from different beliefs about original sin and saving grace. People who do it can point to Biblical passages about believers and their children coming to Christ; people who don't do it can point to passages about coming to Christ and declaring faith. The point is, though, they all do it at some time.

For a lot of churches -- and not just Catholics by any means -- infant baptism confers God's grace, welcomes the baby into the faith community, and washes away original sin, depending on the particular church.

You know, nobody really believes that baptism removes all sins anyway. Groups like Catholics will continue to declare sins and receive assurance of forgiveness. Groups like Baptists focus solely on God's saving grace and don't seem to call for much accounting about adult sin. It just depends on how you look at it.

The thing is, Jesus took our sins upon Himself; He died in our
stead. He already paid for our sin; thus, I'm NOT sure why we need be cleansed of sin. But then again, Jesus was baptized by John The Baptist; The Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove descended and afterward God the Father said, "This is my son, in whom I'm well pleased." Hence, if Jesus needed to be baptized, guess the rest of us ought to be too?

celtic, age of accountability varies by individual, IMO. Some faiths claim the age is as young as 8, others 18... I'm sure many others between the range. I, personally, think a child can become accountable through his/her personal connection with God... to use DJ's term 'spiritually mature.' This can come at any age. I 'found' my God at age 9. Baptism to me simply means that I am telling the world of my belief in Jesus Christ. It is my outward profession of faith. I do not have to be baptized, not in the dunking sense. My way of living can be my worldly expression of faith. What really counts is what goes on INSIDE, for those things cannot be faked (as in being spritzed with or dunked in water).

As for the original sin, to me, that's Old Testament. Under the new covenant, made available to all by Jesus, our sins are covered. This does not mean we aren't accountable for the sins we commit. We are still obligated to repent, and should do so to keep our lives 'clean.'

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, which had significance. But, because he had no sin, it was significant to the process. His crucifixion put the exclamation point at the end of the sentence.

I have more to add, but have a TAX DAY TEA PARTY meeting to attend this eve. I best get ready.

Thanks for info so far gims, whats cool is you got to chose your owen point of baptisum and 9 a cool age to do so. Can't waite what else ya gott say on this one.

jabber Christ was baptised, good point and if viewing baptisum as an public explinasion of a private desision (say belife and folling of christ) then like him it follow one would want baptised.

DJ i not sure what antsie is but i guessing its irratated or slighlie annoyed (hope i not over under estimated that)...

If the man was baptised as an infant or saw at that time no alternative way or presured by familie and now knows diffrent ...seeing his baptisum undone something he may want to do anyway.
I got the imprestion he didn't write the document for dowenloading but i may have picked that up wronglie. If he wants a public statment and "public protest agenst what he views as a superstiosiouse statment" Then id think he may have some write to make such a protest statment and legitamitlie find inflowence some others who also want out of the contract they made.

ELLAMAN, i agree each faith diffrese in bits by perspective alone on how stuffs interprited. Thrs a wide degree in diffrence of interpritasion between some and not so much between others, i guess thats what we are decussing when we descuss diffrences in belifes, just diffrence in persdpectife.

good to rember
that that it was not forgotten or daming by anyone in this descusion i am delighted to say

The parent cannot assign the covenant because the child is baptised in the faith of the Church and not necessarily in the faith of the parents. Is the covenant between God and the baby binding? Yes. But, the covenant between God and the infant must be understood against the background of the covenant which can only be explained behind the theology of Original Sin, which is NOT an inherited stain on the soul from Adam and Eve's disobedience but, the ABSENCE of Sanctifying Grace because of Adam and Eve's disobedience. Then, it must also be viewed from the Biblical history of Divine covenants from Noah, Abraham, Moses, David so on and so forth simply because it fully explains why the covenant is literally and truly a fulfillment of God's binding oath of Divine blessings. If God's Divine covenant is understood on that basis, then it poses no problem in understanding why Apostolic Churches confer infant baptism because the Grace received during the rite of initiation into a faith community becomes a mark of familial unity with God.

Setting that brief theology aside, the question that remains would be in the matter of parental prerogative. Would it be contrary to the dignity of children as persons to impose on them future religious obligations that they may, perhaps later, be led to reject? I think the question we should really ask is: Is a child born with pure human freedom immune from being influenced in any way? Even on the natural level, parents make choices for their child that which are essential to that child's life and orientation towards his/her values. If the rite of initiation to any faith community is a means established by God to a bond of unity with Him, then, would'nt the child have an unquestionable right not to be prevented from receiving that Divine gift?

I hope you won't mind if I confine the quote within the discourse on faith, Ellemm.

The rejection of aspects of a religious upbringing is part and parcel of a person's spiritual journey and personal struggles. And as you say, there are varied reasons for it. However, in whatever form a person rejects the faith which they are born into or raised as, I tend to think that a certain element of intuitions which developed accordingly as part of their formative years would always be borne by that person wherever the journey leads to.

On the side of the atheist's camp. No. Why? Because of the word "probably". If they held such a strong conviction that there is no God, then they ought to have taken a more definitive position. So, the ads came off as "taunting" rather than a respect for those who do believe that God exists.

Does a possibility exists where atheists and non-atheists can discuss common ethics? Is it possible to meet at a point where one discusses on a purely rationale point of view and the other on faith? One thing I would most certainly be keen to discuss with atheists is "Hope".

Wow. After reading all this I think that although I do not agree with organized religons as they are structured, I don't think that because I was baptised Catholic I will go get myself "de-sprinkled.!"

What a waste of time.

However,

If I were surrounded by believers and I had been baptised in their religon as a child, I might want to make a public statement to them that I was out of it forever. It's a creative way of quitting a religion, I must admit.

Who thinks of such things?

Dancer

How is it established by God? Are we speaking of something Biblical, or doctrinal?

Most definitely. It's almost as if they are using it as a 'tool,' vs. trying to bring their 'truth' to those who believe.

Probably not, it's sad to say... but, influencing them with 'hope' would probably soften anyone, no matter what choice of belief.

New question:
In faiths that baptize babies, is a child expected to profess a 'personal' acceptance later, after he/she is much older, followed by a baptism by 'choice?' When is the child/young adult/adult responsible for a personal profession? Or, does the baptism as a baby 'hold for life,' regardless of what they may do in life? Surely there is a point where they are expected to break from the cleanse and move into a personal responsibility phase.

True, Dancer. As much as I don't accept that anyone can be "de-baptised", I understand perfectly well why those who repudiate their faith go so far as to announce their repudiation. Baptisms are always a cause of celebration. A social and public affair. I think, those who seek to separate from the community are also making the same statement. For the most part, I feel sadness than anger, or even insult, because a change of heart is always brought about by personal struggles in life.

In Christian and Apostolic Churches, it was established through Jesus, Gims. Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by Jesus by which with the ablution of water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, one is spiritually regenerated. Is it Biblical? Yes. Briefly, on its institution,matter and form, there is John 3:5 together with Mark 16 where it is explicit in that Jesus himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism.

On infant baptism, there is Matthew 19:14 and its application to children is confirmed in Acts 16:15, Act 16 and 1 Cor 1:16

Oh, I'm aware of how it was established for the faithful... I was zeroing in on the baptism of infants. I guess I should have asked, How/when did God give the directive to baptize babies/children?
As it pertains to baptizing children, I'm assuming we are to read that 'household' covers them in the scriptures provided. It's not explicit as to whether the the households were baptized by choice, nor if it was 'required' of them through familial associations. Is there a piece of doctrine that supports the practice that you know of? In all of my Bible reading/studying, or other learning, I've never come across scriptural support (not that I've been looking for it).

One baptism is enough, Gims. However, the "choice" is encountered through the Rite of Confirmation where an individual who went through infant baptism can elect later, if he so chooses, for a perfection of the Rite of Initiation into the Catholic Church, or not. From childhood until the age of reason, the education of the child is the responsibility of the parent and Godparents with regards to foundation and Christian formation. The Sacrament of Confirmation imprints a character where the baptised person is bound more intimately with the Church and is elected by personal faith. As it is conferred at the age of discretion, the personal responsibility is assumed at that time. So, one who has been through baptism as an infant, Confirmation is the sole decision of the Confirmandi.

The baptism of babies/children is a tradition coming from the Apostles. Where do they find the justification for the tradition? One would be through Matthew 19:14 because the implication in contrast would effectively mean a Church in which little children are forbidden to enter as full members, would no longer be the Kingdom of Him who said: "Let the children come to me...". Why Apostolic tradition and not by Jesus? I think if we view it from Biblical and historical account, in Jesus' time, there were no cradle Christians and the Apostolic Christian Church did not come to fruition until after Resurrection.

Thank you so much, Lola. I love reading what you share. I need to read up on Apostolic Christians, something I know near nothing about.

Glad to share, Gims. Have you ever wondered what happened to the Apostles after Jesus left them? I did. The most fascinating part of the Bible for me is the Acts because that's where one can find Apostolic traditions. It is such a fascinating part of the Bible to read because apart from Scriptural theology, it brings to life people, places, events on how the Christian Church as a living, faithful community was established etc. It also gives an insight of the theological "quarrel" between Peter and Paul! For some reason, it pacifies my soul somewhat, because even Peter, who was so close to Jesus, could get it wrong by being stubborn and be corrected by Paul. And, to think that Paul joined the "gang" much later.

I went to a Catholic school for eight years called; St. Peter and Pauls. It was the most beautiful school, filled with statues of all the saints and the Virgin Mother. The church was so ornate. The newer Catholic church's are so plain and almost ugly compared to those older ones. I hate that nothing look.

I can't say that I have, Lola. I do know that all but two were martyred, tho. Judas hung himself, although my dad (a minister) once told me that isn't for certain. John (James' brother) was the only one who died a natural death. The others were killed by the hands of others - Peter, being hung upside on a cross. The famous picture depicting it is used in the YouTube E*N*D*G*A*M*E*S on another thread.
I think, until they each died, (with the exception of Judas) they helped establish the church (fishers of men), some preaching to the Gentiles, others preaching to the Jews. Could the theological struggle you speak of between Peter and Paul be because they were preaching to different sects - Peter to the Jews and Paul(Saul - a grafted Apostle) to the Gentiles.
Or, did you mean immediately after Jesus left them? If so, that would have made for a dramatic scene, I bet.

chatty, why did you stop going?

You're spot on, Gims. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall during their time. There is a Church in Rome which has a part of St Peter's chain and another which has a relic of St Thomas, which is thought to be the finger which was dipped into Jesus' wound. Catholics have a lot of these relics and sometimes I wonder whether other Christian communities are just interested in them.

Have you kept your Dad's sermons?

Even if a child's age of countability is age 8, I don't think kids understand sin or baptism. I was baptized 'round that age, and I had no idea what I was doing. I went forward, because everybody else was getting baptized. Over the years I've grown in my faith, but looking back, there was no meaningful depth to my actions. I suppose I knew I was being dipped in water to wash away sin. But how much of a concept does a youngster have of what constitutes sin? Some scripture even says all you have to do is think a wrong thought and it's sin. Well please. What human doesn't have their thoughts go off-track now and again? That's why I remark once-in-a-while, "It's hard being human!" LOL...

Thats honest of you to say jabber. I thinking that a childs understanding of sin the rites or ritules thir undergoing all might be helped or hindered by how centrel the church is to the childs familie and how it is descused within the familie. That might influenses an childs understanding at 8-13 etc.

hoever how many of us have had trouble with trulie getting to grips with everlasting or eternity or any such concepts? I not sure its possible to get it as a tenager and even if we think we did get it we certinly do get it a lot better now, with a bit of maturity in our lifes. at lest that how it should go

athiests and hope lola...

i had some kinda conversasions and hope was an earthlie thing brought about my changres of attitude and events.

the trouble i had and it was a trouble was i just could't get it with them "if thrs no god thirs no afterlife" ...so all conversasion was confined to the hear and now....

i think i inicalie couse much offense with one lad as i din't agree with him, could't stop myself (inicalie and necassarily ofensivlie) trying even subcounsilslie to talk him into a thir is a god position.

One very very good point did come out of it for me is he reallie reallie dose live a good life, good as in enjoyable and good as in good to others becouse he reallie dose belive thre onlie is an heer and now, nuthing else but heer and now.

in fact my last partner would have been agnostic or nerlie athiest but belived in auroas around the bodie and certine types of energie like thought having an energie, so that type of diffrence, could sway them on a good evening to thir being a god lol.

I think to thir constant hartach they had me,(for 10 yrs) then got engaged to marry a minister 2 years after we had split up.
ise't irony in lifestyle choises wonderfull or am i just whiked lol.

that sounds intresting, could you expand on that a bit if you have time plz?

gims could you give me the therie behind this, not necasarily the passagies but the mind set, that has us covered by christ dieing on the cross? (i do rember you said repent and obliged to do so but why ise't it necassary?)

thanks

Celt, I've just read what I wrote on discussing "hope" with atheists and realised how half-baked it was. In terms, of what I really wanted to convey which is, I would like to find out from atheists where they find "hope". Those of us with faith, we do our best with everything we have, with what we have, and leave the rest to God. I understand that each individual is born with a sense of optimism. But, surely there must be a big difference between "optimism" and "hope"?

Celtic,
I have a problem with people who say one thing and do another. Now
my adoptive parents 'n grandparents didn't go around preaching and flaunting The Bible. But they taught by their actions. They were good, hardworking, honest, loving humans. And I learnt more from their actions than I ever got from any loud, Bible pounding, preacher or daily churhgoer. As a kid, I knew folks' that nearly lived in the Church. But back at their home, they were unholy people a kid shouldn't be around. Give me the ole time farmers! Those were GODLY folks!

You've heard the term 'washed by His blood,' right? The premise is rooted in the shedding of His blood (innocent blood) for the sins of humankind. By virtue of this act, and through our belief in His Supreme Sovereignty, our sins are removed. The Bible instructs us to ask forgiveness (repent) for the sins we realize we've committed as well as the ones we're not consciously aware of. Yet, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
Couldn't help it --- had to stick one in...

Thank you, Gims! God bless.

Since atheism is its own form of belief system, those who engage in it can express themselves freely in our country, and often do. Yet those who practice other belief systems don't seem to enjoy that same freedom anymore. Hmmmmmmmm

I was raised to believe that anyone can baptize a person (even a baby) who was in danger of dying. So over the years, I used water and God's help to baptize every baby I helped bring into the world or whom I cared for at the hospital where I worked years ago.

I may have baptized several thousand brand new babies in total, a few who later passed on due to newborn illness and fragility.

My heart was in the right place....And if I ever found out that someone said a Jewish, Native American, Muslim, or another type of prayer over MY newborn, I would be honored that person respected my child's humanity and knew that my baby was truly a gift from God.