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".