Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


["As they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Intention is not a justification for action. The parents of those that believe in faith healing over modern medicine do what they do out of concern for their children, but it still hurts people in the long run.
Unless they decide to actually make a conscious decision and either change religion or forsake religion. Then this simple act has long term consequences.
How does infant baptism help anyone with anything? All it does is force them into a religion that they didn't choose and that they're a part of by the chance of their birth.']

again they are ALREADY called Holy at birth simply by the Power and Authority of the Name Jesus by just one believing parent. kinda cool when you think of the term born again by the Power of The Word

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.-1Corinthians7.14

reply to post by Rock Ape


I don't see why it could possibly matter.

There are significantly more Christians who do not practice their religion who were babtised than practicing Christians, hence there would not appear to be any significant alteration to adult practices based on baptism.

Baptism is basically a celebration of the birth of a child, a time for family and friends to get together, at least thats they way I have always thought of it.

reply to post by Rock Ape


Baptism is a promise and a sign of dedication from an individual to God. A baby cannot dedicate themselves to anything except eating, sleeping and pooping.

If you are a Christian and your conscience is troubled over infant baptism I'd like to offer a few points to consider:

1. Just as circumcision was the Old Testament mark of God's people, Baptism is the New Testament mark for the Church. Jewish infants were circumcised and so are Christian infants.

"In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)

2. Hippolytus offers the earliest reference to infant baptism around 215 a.d. (Apostolic Tradition 21:15)

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."

3. Not only Catholics but Protestants too:

Martin Luther--(1537 a.d.)
"Of the baptism of children we hold that children ought to be baptized. For they belong to the promised redemption made through Christ, and the Church should administer it to them."

John Calvin--(1559 a.d.)
"If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom."

So please, do not be troubled! Follow your conscience, just know that is not wrong to have your infant baptized.

reply to post by Rock Ape


Well if religion really means nothing, then all you got was a free bath.

No big deal.

Should babies be dressed in shamefull sailorsuits?
Diffrent question same diffrerence imo.

reply to post by monkcaw


Jesus or Apostles never alluded to unknowledgable babies being baptized. That was a teaching that came later from the Roman Empire.

Infant baptism is Catholic, not necessarily Christian.

Most Christians (not Catholics) do not believe that infants should be baptised.

It is not scriptural. The bible does not advocate baptising babies.

reply to post by Staben


Many things are not alluded to in scripture. For example, the idea that baptism is only for those of a certain age and who give their consent has zero scriptural support.

However, baptizing infants is most definitely alluded to:

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Acts 2:38-39 (NIV)

"... she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized..."
(Acts 16:15)

"... immediately he [the jailer] and all his family were baptized."
(Acts 16:33)

"... I [the apostle Paul] also baptized the household of Stephanas..."
(I Corinthians 1:16)

Surely it's reasonable to think that some children and infants were baptized even by some Apostles.

In my opinion, this is a Christian only debate (as in it only effects Christians). I'm not a Christian so my views on the matter are quite casual.

Each denomination of Christianity has different beliefs. Some believe in baptizing babies or young children; others believe that a person needs to be old enough to willingly choose that path. For me, that is the equivalent of some people believing in God while others believe in Allah. Who is to say which belief is right or wrong?

This is why I believe that this is a Christian only debate. You first have to believe that a person needs to be baptized in order to be "saved" for the issue to have any importance. Like others in this thread have stated, if you are not a Christian, then why does it matter?

reply to post by Rock Ape


No babies should not be baptized because even the scripture doesnt support it. Also I believe a parent should make what they feel is the best choices for their children based on their "knowledge". A parent is really, besides God, all a child has. Now as far as God is concerned I know no God but the one I see in everyone else and myself when I care to look. No dogma can be ascribed except the dogma of knowledge and acquiring it. I respect all scripture but I do not the dogma, belief system and following.

Life is what you make it at the end of the day.

When I have my child someday, he or she will not be baptized. My wife and I will educate him or her when they get older on various religious institutions. They will have the choice to pick one they feel most comfortable with.

It's absolute child abuse to enforce your Mythological Ideologies upon someone who has no choice.

reply to post by Freeborn


What about circumcision? I realize it is not the topic, but it is a religious ritual (for many) and no doubt a medically unnecessary procedure that modifies a person body irreversibly and arbitrarily without their consent.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr


I have read that the body produces enough K on the eigth day to heal properly naturally and for some a hygiene issue like yeast infections? but when contempalting righteousness before Love I mean God-

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.-Romans2.25

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.-29

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.-Galatians5.6

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.-1Corinthians13.6

First off, the very thought of a mythological character is even with us is lunacy! Secondly, it has been said within the christian faith that one must make the decision for themselves on whether or not to embrace the faith. So how is a baptismal not forcing a religion on a child? A child mind you, who at the present time cannot make choice on whether or not this religion is for them?
The Holy bible states that one must make the decision for themselves as I said above, forcing a child into a baptism much less going to church doesn't sound much like a choice ~

Originally posted by lifeform11
i never said it was a big deal, i said it is certainly more than just having a bath, i believe in choice, what does it matter if you have water splashed on your head as a baby or as an 16 year old agreeing to it?

Yes mate, I think the fundamental point of my post came across wrong. I apologise if it did.

My initial point - replying to your post - was that if a baby was baptised, and labelled as ''a son of Christ'', or whatever other title that was bestowed upon it; then that term would mean absolutely nothing to the child, unless the child grew up and became a Christian.


The rest of my post was not aimed at you.

I was just commenting on the debate, as a whole.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
It's absolute child abuse to enforce your Mythological Ideologies upon someone who has no choice.

Hang on a second...

If we are to accept that there is no ''God'' and no moral arbitration to our existence, then where do you get ''child abuse'' from ?

Who, or what, defines ''child abuse'' ?

I'm fascinated to hear your response.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I have to agree with you~ I think the individual chose the wrong terminology for his/her response.

reply to post by Rock Ape


Simple answer to your question; No.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I would also like to know where this "myth" stuff comes from? that Jesus was a myth? or that his teachings were based on mythology? lol " a prideful heart leads to much strife"