Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

I suppose he was referring to the fact that there is no evidence about Jesus' existence.

EDIT: I just realised I posted a one-liner.

reply to post by Radiobuzz


Lol, there's no evidence for God, there might be evidence that Jesus was a man with a few decent guidelines for life, but theres no evidence he was God, any relation to God or that God is a nessasary causation to life on earth or elsewhere in the universe.

Anyone who says so either is lying or guessing. Just as bad as each other tbh.

Peace to you bro.

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

You give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not so lenient.

To me, it seems like just another person wanting the ''best of both worlds'', and arguing ( either intentionally or inadvertently ), from a philosophically flawed position.

In this instance, we have an atheist, incorporating a concept ( child abuse ), that doesn't really seem to make sense, unless there is some form of definitive arbitrator or moral absolute.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


No one considers it child abuse; planting fears of eternal damnation or that a higher power is necessary for a person to be moral.

That is abuse is my eyes, these things can change a person's personality for life.

The very concept of it, allows people to believe things without evidence. Do we want a society of people believing these frauds and charletons; Phycics, Mediums, Palm Readers, Tarrot Card Readers and most importantly Priests?

All of these scams rely on the unfalsifiable nature of their claims. I say God exists, no one can prove i'm wrong (or right). I say im talking to your dead aunt, you can't prove i'm wrong (or right). I say i can fly but only when people arn't looking, you can't prove i'm wrong (or right) therefore it's true, believe me.

It's what stinks about humanity, FRAUD AND DECEPTION.

reply to post by fonenyc


I believe that parents should be able to raise their children in whatever religious, or non-religious, belief they feel is best for their child.

Just as a religious person shouldn't interfere with the wishes of parents to raise their child as an atheist, then non-religious shouldn't interfere the wishes of religious parents raising their child in their particular religion.

The fundamental flaw with anyone criticising the way another child is raised, is the fact that the person making the criticism is doing so under the assumption that their beliefs are the correct ones.

This is not only intolerant and arrogant, but illogical.

EDIT: Double Post.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


see link in my signature it is no assumption

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Radiobuzz

 

Lol, there's no evidence for God, there might be evidence that Jesus was a man with a few decent guidelines for life, but theres no evidence he was God, any relation to God or that God is a nessasary causation to life on earth or elsewhere in the universe. Anyone who says so either is lying or guessing. Just as bad as each other tbh.

do understand why you would the wish such since been there done that myself UNTIL-

when I had begun to open a pocket size green Gideon NT that a woman had left on the kitchen bar a few days earlier yet before reading anything, I heard an audible voice speak as if sitting beside me to the left that said my name then- “I am Jesus, I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish” exceedingly awestruck (previous to this I was saying God and specifically Christian anything was all just something for the weakminded) I quickly stood to my feet turned towards the voice and said yes Lord, then many moons later came across these-

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.-John5.25

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.-2Corinthians5.14

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied.-Acts9.3

no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.-1Corinthians12.3

he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.-Luke12.9

Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.-1John5.10

so best(wise) not to call someone a liar over something you know nothing about nor have ever heard or witnessed

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
No one considers it child abuse; planting fears of eternal damnation or that a higher power is necessary for a person to be moral.

If you're going to get all pc about it, then we'll have to prohibit all of the children's books and stories that use scare tactics to make children accept ''correct'' morals.


What if someone grows up to be a nihilist; is it ''child abuse'' to indoctrinate it with morality ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
That is abuse is my eyes, these things can change a person's personality for life.

Precisely. In your opinion. In some other people's opinion, it is not. So where do we get the arbitration of whether it constitutes abuse or not ?

It's all down to our personal opinions and beliefs. I don't see how your personal opinion on how other people should raise their children, should possibly override or interfere with their own personal opinion on how they should raise them.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The very concept of it, allows people to believe things without evidence. Do we want a society of people believing these frauds and charletons; Phycics, Mediums, Palm Readers, Tarrot Card Readers and most importantly Priests?

Your mistake here, is arguing from the perspective that your view, and definition of evidence, on these matters are correct.

There you have the fundamental flaw, and the inescapable paradox, of anyone accepting their own beliefs as absolute fact.

There is no such thing as collective evidence, only such a thing as evidence to each individual person.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
All of these scams rely on the unfalsifiable nature of their claims. I say God exists, no one can prove i'm wrong (or right). I say im talking to your dead aunt, you can't prove i'm wrong (or right). I say i can fly but only when people arn't looking, you can't prove i'm wrong (or right) therefore it's true, believe me.

And unfalsifiability is only important to the individual that puts value in that concept.

As there is no way to argue successfully in favour of this approach, then it is wrong to assume that it is the ''correct'' one, and that other people have to abide by it.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's what stinks about humanity, FRAUD AND DECEPTION.

But then again, which one of us is deciding what is fraud, and what is deception ?

Originally posted by Rock Ape
Hi everyone,

I guess this is aimed at Christians. Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

I was Baptised at 6 months.. no one asked me or even thougth about my feelings on the matter. Later my parents told me, I was baptised so they could get me into a very good local church school. which required you to be a baptised christian. So can't blame them for that really, just looking out for my best interests.

I personally no longer believe god is here with us, he's moved on to better things.

I was wondering what other christians felt !! Is it okay to baptise your baby or should you wait until he can decide for himself, if he wants to live a life with god in it ?



Peace

Rock Ape

Absolutely not.

babies should be "dedicated" to god, but a baptism should be only administered to a believer. There is not a single reference in the NT of a person being baptized who was not a believer first.

reply to post by Rock Ape


Haven't read all the replies, so this might have been said already...

Christians are supposed to be baptized for a few things...
1) The forgiveness of sins
2) The gift of the Holy Spirit
3) As a public display of their faith
4) To identify with Christ

Please let me get into a little more detail here with these points.

Some Christian denominations believe that if you are not baptized (and some of them you must be baptized a certain way) then you are going to Hell, PERIOD. Scripture does not teach that at all, but instead says that "God will have mercy on whom He has Mercy" and that any who "call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Now, we are commanded to be baptized, and the correct mode of baptism is immersion (being lowered down into the water completely) but God is capable of saving us regardless of whether or not we have been baptized. Since we are commanded to be, it is wrong for believing Christians not to and they have no reason not to be baptized. Parents will baptize their kids for numerous reasons though. One is that they fear their child will go to Hell if they dont, and the other is simply for social benefits like those you described. God would not send an innocent child to Hell because they weren't baptized and He wouldn't send a loyal believer to Hell because they misunderstood how they were supposed to be baptized. Our God is a Loving and Just God.

Being baptized is a pronouncement that you have accepted Jesus as the Lord of your life, that you are going to follow His ways, and that you desire to be washed clean from your sins and that you will do them no more. Can a child or infant make a decision like that? No, they cannot, and therefor a huge part of the reason we are baptized is completely ignored because it was not a choice.It is when we realize we are sinners and need a savior that we should be baptized.

Jesus was killed on the cross, buried, and then rose from the dead back to life. Baptism also serves as our symbolic death as we are buried (dipped down into the water for a moment) and then raised back to life a new creation (our coming back up out of the water).

Short answer, infants and extremely young children shouldn't be baptized. They need to make the choice for themselves, and parents should have no fer of God sending their kids to Hell if they aren't baptized as infants. Those who were baptized as infants but remain believers should, in my opinion, be baptized as believing adults because they have now made the choice to follow Christ.

I'm not trying to step on any toes of other Christians here who believe otherwise, but I feel very strongly that this is what our scriptures teach.

Rock Ape, I hope that helps.

Sure.

Originally posted by rickyrich14
Sure.

On what scriptural basis?

Can you please share an example from the NT where a person who was not a believer was baptized?

Should children not be lead by their parents? Maybe we could set up state run orphanages in every state for every child born. The the government can protect them from family beliefs, morality, non approved languages, Then when a Child grows to the age of consent they can find their own way.

Well to inform those that do not know this, the denominations that do infant baptism, it is presumed said infant is going to be raised to believe. When that infant reaches the about the age of thirteen they then go through confirmation which is a ceremony in which they themselves confirm what their parents did for them on the day they were baptized.

Originally posted by Jovi1
Well to inform those that do not know this, the denominations that do infant baptism, it is presumed said infant is going to be raised to believe. When that infant reaches the about the age of thirteen they then go through confirmation which is a ceremony in which they themselves confirm what their parents did for them on the day they were baptized.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's a Red Herring.

I asked if those who believe an infant should be baptized can provide scriptural reference to this practice. I have read every verse there is that deals with the baptism in water and each and every circumstance or reference the person must first profess belief in Jesus Christ.

The practice of baptizing infants comes from ancient Babylon, not to mention those persons who administer the ritual are baptizing unbelievers.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Scriptural references work both ways, my friend, as there is also no scriptural support against infant baptism. When we are told that the Apostles baptized entire households is it unreasonable to think there may have been children and infants included?

The truth is, infant baptism has been practiced by the Christian church for a very long time. You may disagree but you have liberty in this to follow your conscience, I will not say that you are wrong for doing that. Likewise, those that choose to baptize their infants aren't wrong either.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

If you're going to get all pc about it, then we'll have to prohibit all of the children's books and stories that use scare tactics to make children accept ''correct'' morals.

Call it "PC" if you want, I didn't mention that i had a absolute list of "correct" morals. I'm merely stating morality can be discussed and debated and achieved using the tools of reason and logic without the need to invoke the supernatural or instill fear in a child using higher powers and doctrines.

What if someone grows up to be a nihilist; is it ''child abuse'' to indoctrinate it with morality?

Yeah, you're point being? So what if? The hitler youth wasn't a religion organisation yet it still can be considered as indoctrination what they taught to the children, Reasons to hate the Jews, Reasons to hate the disable, black people - This is despicable and as despicable as what the radical or extremely religious teach their children. Someone who grows up to be a nihilist has no regard for reason or using intelligence as they will not reason with any moral point of view even if it is for the better.

I see what your implying though, morality is subjective and arbitrary. So teaching my kid to be friendly to blacks rather than to hate them, is considered indoctrination in your eyes? And from a subjective point of view, teaching them to be friendly could be considered as "bad". Fair enough, that's your point of view, not mine. Good and evil are subjective but kindness, commmon human decency, friendlyness, compassion, empathy are not subjective.

If i teach my child to be pleasant to others, use empathy and consequential reasoning - You might consider that as "indoctrination". But you're wrong. Teaching a child something without reason is considered indoctrination. Giving the child freedom of his own intelligence and teaching concepts of empathy and setting an example is more than enough, and in fact NOT indoctrination.



All i'm saying religion isn't required for a person to be moral and forcing unfalsifiable beliefs into a child is not necessaary, and is, in fact, abuse of the child's mind, abuse of the child's reasoning system. The requirement for evidence to prove a belief. Or using empathy to decide by yourself whether something is morally acceptable.

I can teach my child to pleasant to other people using simple reason and logic, explaining the concepts of empathy and sympathy. Again, not indoctrination. I'm not lying to the child, i'm not telling the child it's going to burn in hell if it doesn't believe in these moral values.

I don't need to tell the child this is because an invisible man says so and that the child will burn for eternity.

The art of reasoninig and using logic in the arena of morality is the reason that blacks and women now have freedom, if we still lived by your bible, the alledged "correct" schema for morality would be to treat blacks and women with less respect, and punish many crimes with death, no hope of rehabilitation. Just bloody punishment.

No thanks, we're intelligent enough now in this modern era of science and philosophy to see through the legislation of bible and consider it as inhumane and to be disgusted with the very essense of it.

I'm not saying all of the bible is wrong, in fact i may agree with many points made....... but do i need to believe in a God or in these fantasies in order to agree? No. All i need is some common sense, to look at the consequences, to think about how the receiever of my morality may feel. That's all.

So again, forcing the child to belief any religion is in fact abuse and indoctrination of the mind.

Please do tell me, How would i be the deciever?

i don't think it really matters. baptism to me in a way is pointless. im not denying Christ in the least bit. but when you except it's in your own heart when you feel the time is right. babies know no better therefor has no effect in their relation with Christ..just a waste of water

Originally posted by monkcaw
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Scriptural references work both ways, my friend, as there is also no scriptural support against infant baptism. When we are told that the Apostles baptized entire households is it unreasonable to think there may have been children and infants included?

The truth is, infant baptism has been practiced by the Christian church for a very long time. You may disagree but you have liberty in this to follow your conscience, I will not say that you are wrong for doing that. Likewise, those that choose to baptize their infants aren't wrong either.

Infant baptism was introduced to the Roman Catholic church by Augustine. And the Bible doesn't need to directly spell out that infants should not be baptized.. it ALREADY spells out clearly who CAN ONLY be baptized. That's BELIEVERS only.

Every single instance recorded in the Word of God that deals with baptism, the person first declares faith in Jesus Christ and His resurrection. There is ZERO scriptural basis or authority for baptizing unbelievers.. which infants are.