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.