Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

reply to post by Mykahel

1) The forgiveness of sins

The child is a baby, just born, and it is considered innately "unholy" - as a sinner, as evil. Nice reasoning there, suppose it is if you believe in original sin and the absolute/objective nature of morality.

2) The gift of the Holy Spirit

- Where is this Holy Spirit? I can't see it, i can't hear it? Seems to me that the invisible and the non-existent are very much alike.

3) As a public display of their faith

- The parents public display of THEIR faith. Not the baby's, the baby isn't born a christian, only taught to be one.

4) To identify with Christ

- Is a baby capable of identifying Christ without the proper study, does the baby hold that ability yet?

And like dowhatyoufear3 says, just a waste of water.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I think you missed my point there entirely. I gave the reasons that any Christian is supposed to be baptized. I then proceeded to explain how infant baptism was wrong because it was unable to accomplish most of those four things.

I'll reiterate here very briefly...

1) Forgiveness of sins - I believe we all have a sinful nature in us and given time every person will eventually sin with the only exception being Jesus Christ. If a child is too young to even know the difference between right and wrong, then they most definitely are too young to know they need to be sorry for the bad things they have done and ask forgiveness for them. I don't believe that babies are inherently evil, as God Himself said that His creation was "very good." I believe they will eventually sin and need a savior, but I do not think they are damned to Hell as soon as they are conceived.

2) Gift of the Holy Spirit - You do not see it because you do not have it. It is given as a counselor and comforter to those who are baptized. In the simplest terms, it gives us wisdom for understanding God and His will for us. I'm not the authority on it, but I don't believe infants receive the Holy spirit at their "baptism." (I say "baptism" because infants are often sprinkled or poured on, neither of which are how actual baptism takes place)

3) Public display of faith - Baptism is also a person's announcement to the world that they have accepted Christ as their Lord and Master and that they are going to live their lives for Him. Obviously an infant cannot make that decision, and neither can very young children.

4) Identify with Christ - If a child doesn't even know who Jesus is, they can't very well identify with him through their baptism. Also another reason why pouring and sprinkling simply do not suffice for true baptism.

Side note: Baptism comes from the Greek word "baptizo" which simply means to plunge, dip or immerse. The early translators (for some reason I don't remember) simply made up a new word "baptize" and "baptism" instead of translating the word.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


what about these ones?
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

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.-Acts16

and what about this one which seems to imply a time of no literal water?-

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire

and of course what if a Christian and unbeliever are already married and the unbeliever does'nt want to leave?

He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife.-1Corinthains7

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

what if one is an Indian, Mexican, White, Asian, Black or mix of all and the spouse is Jewish? or one or the other is Christian?

reply to post by Rustami


Sanctification is not salvation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That baptism is only for believers is ridiculously obvious, no one is arguing that. You step outside the veil when you assert that children spoken for by their parents and given in baptism are "unbelievers." There is no support for this view in scripture. However, these verses are implicit in sanctioning the baptism of children and infants...

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)

...unless you contend that not one child or infant was baptized in any of these households, it's only reasonable to assume they were.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


what do you mean?

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.-John17.17

for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls-Roman9.10

they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.-2Thess2.9

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.-John14.6

And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word-John17

the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified-Hebrews10

receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.-James1

when it comes to disputes among believers I always like this one-
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


It's not a case of belief, it's a case of disbelief or to be more fair, a lack of belief. I'm not trying force beliefs onto children something without evidence. I'm not hurting the child by saying "there's a lot of people who believe things without evidence, it's your CHOICE to believe in it if you want to, no one is stopping you" - I'm not indoctrinating the child, i'm not telling him Christ is the right choice when clearly a Muslim would argue that Muhammed is the true prophet. I'm just telling the child how it is. People believe many different things without evidence, it's called faith.

reply to post by Rock Ape


No. I even think 4 is too young. 8, borderline.

If the parents feel it is necessary to baptize their child then all the power to them. The parents are just looking out for the child and if they think that baptizing the child will help the child in the future, it is entirely up to the parents.

Parents should guide the child to the best path they feel the child will learn and grow best. Since these parents were baptized as kids and grew up in a loving environment they will do the same for their child.

I am not saying that growing up in other households is different, but the way the child is brought up is similar,or influenced by, the parents' upbringing.

For us Christians, we feel it is important to baptize the child, without their consent. Parents shouldn't have to get consent from the child to do what they feel is right. If it was up to child, I am sure fun is the only thing they will want to experience. But the parents are ultimately responsible for the way the child is brought up.

reply to post by Equinox99


Not all of us Christians think infant baptism is the right thing to do though. I think it should be something the child chooses to do once they have an understanding what it means. I was 10 years old when I was baptized, and while I didn't have perfect doctrine or understand what I was doing fully, I knew I was a sinner and needed Jesus and that I was supposed to get baptized to be forgiven... so that's what I did.

I'm a firm believer that parents shouldn't baptize their kids before they are old enough to decide for themselves. I think it defeats the whole purpose of it. You can do what you want of course, but I don't think it is doctrinally correct.

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by Equinox99

 

Not all of us Christians think infant baptism is the right thing to do though. I think it should be something the child chooses to do once they have an understanding what it means. I was 10 years old when I was baptized, and while I didn't have perfect doctrine or understand what I was doing fully, I knew I was a sinner and needed Jesus and that I was supposed to get baptized to be forgiven... so that's what I did.

I'm a firm believer that parents shouldn't baptize their kids before they are old enough to decide for themselves. I think it defeats the whole purpose of it. You can do what you want of course, but I don't think it is doctrinally correct.

You're forgiven when you accept Jesus as Lord. Baptism is post-justification and done to show others you identify with Jesus's death and resurrection.

If baptism were a prerequisite for forgiving sins the dialogue between Jesus and the thief on the cross would have transpired something like this:

Thief: "Lord, remember me when you enter your kingdom."

Jesus: "Verily I say unto thee, I would have gladly, but alas there is no way to get thee off that cross and into a baptismal pool.. sorry."

The only problem I see with a baby being baptized is that they don't understand what's going on. It makes more since to let your child make that decision for themselves, so they understand the symbolism and all that jazz.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I agree. As we also have the example of the paralytic to whom Jesus said "Your sins are forgiven" before he healed him. God can forgive as He sees fit as it is His infinite Grace to do with as He pleases. But we are also told baptized for the forgiveness of our sins. I'm not going to say people aren't forgiven of their sins if they aren't baptized (hence my arguments against infant baptism in my other posts) but they are connected somehow.

Acts 2:38 (New International Version)

38Peter 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.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


["Jesus: "Verily I say unto thee, I would have gladly, but alas there is no way to get thee off that cross and into a baptismal pool.. sorry."]

hilarious

reply to post by Mykahel


I think you mean this one and yes a very interesting one indeed

“Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"-Luke5.22

reply to post by Mykahel

But we are also told baptized for the forgiveness of our sins. I'm not going to say people aren't forgiven of their sins if they aren't baptized (hence my arguments against infant baptism in my other posts) but they are connected somehow.

that's why it's imperative to understand the fundamental flaw that arises sometimes when Greek is translated to English. English is a VERY lazy language, and Greek is extremely precise. In that verse the "FOR forgiveness of sins" should be rendered "BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins". "FOR" meant something a little different in 1611 when King James translated from the Latin Bible. Here is a prime example:


If you say "The judge sentenced the man to 5 years in jail FOR stealing." Does that mean the judge sentenced the man to jail so he could steal there? No.

This is the same problem with the verse in Peter. It would be nice if we all spoke Greek, then these issues wouldn't arise. It sucks English uses 1 word for many meanings oftentimes.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

The question that I was asking, was whether you think parents should be forbidden from reading their children books that use ''scare tactics'' as well ?

If you object to invocation of the supernatural and instilling fear in to children, then you surely must object to many popular children's stories, fables and fairytales, which usually depict the bad character getting his comeuppance in a rather unpleasant way.

They also scare children by showing the consequences of an ''immoral'' action, that usually results in a similarly gruesome end for one of the protagonists.

This is meant to have a strong psychological impact on a young child.


I personally disagree that morality can be achieved by logic and reason. Morality is based on emotions and feelings, and while these emotions may correlate with logic on many occasions, they work independently of it on many others.

I think teaching children morality is perfectly acceptable in whichever way the parents think is best, whether that be by personal dialogue, religious text, children's stories, or any other way.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Yeah, you're point being? So what if?

My point is obvious: do you object to indoctrinating a child with morality ?

How is that any different from indoctrinating the child with religion ?

You appear to base you argument that children should not be guided in the direction of a particular religion, and should make up their own mind when they are older.

Logically, the same should apply to morality, as they should be allowed to make up their own mind on what's moral and immoral, when they are old enough to do so.

What's the difference between a child growing up to be an atheist, and resenting the fact that they were brought up in a religious manner, and a child growing up to be a nihilist, resenting the fact that they were brought up in a moral manner ?

Your double-standards on this issue are clear.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

That's just not true.

Nihilism is very reasonable, and many nihilists can easily accept a moral point of view, if it happens to sit well with their own personal philosophy.

A nihilist with empathy, for example, will live their life in what would generally be considered a moral manner - it's just that they don't want to be restricted by moral rules and regulations, or being moral for the sake of it.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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?

Teaching them to be friendly or teaching them to hate, are both examples of indoctrination.

By your own argument, any attitude towards this situation should be left neutral, until the child is old enough to make up their own mind on the matter.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
And from a subjective point of view, teaching them to be friendly could be considered as "bad".

Of course it can.

What if a stranger reciprocated this child's friendliness, by offering the child a lift in his car... ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
but kindness, commmon human decency, friendlyness, compassion, empathy are not subjective.

All of those are subjective.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

I'm afraid that just isn't the dictionary definition of ''indoctrination''.

Going out of your way to teach a child the concept of empathy is indoctrination.

To avoid indoctrination, one would explain empathy in a neutral manner, and leave the child to decide himself the importance, or not, of such an emotion.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

And morality is unfalsifiable. The benefits of empathy are unfalsifiable. So you are just echoing my point; religious indoctrination is no different to moral indoctrination.

By your own argument, you are saying that teaching a child morality is abuse of a child's mind.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The requirement for evidence to prove a belief.

But many religious people believe that they have proof and evidence for their faith. What makes your ''evidence'' better than theirs ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I can teach my child to pleasant to other people using simple reason and logic, explaining the concepts of empathy and sympathy.

Being pleasant cannot be justified by reason or logic.

To avoid indoctrination, explaining the concepts of empathy and sympathy would have to be done in a neutral manner; you appear to be actively encouraging them.

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

And what religious people do that ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The art of reasoninig and using logic in the arena of morality is the reason that blacks and women now have freedom,

No, that's based on emotion.

There's nothing illogical about owning slaves. Au contraire, that seems highly logical to me ( get someone else to do your dirty work free of charge ).

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
if we still lived by your bible

Whose bible ?

You're saying that you can use reason and logic to justify something to a child, but you are guilty for the most basic logical fallacy that you display above ?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.

LOL.

You may personally be disgusted with it, but you are sadly deluded if you believe that there's a ''we'' ( as in society at large ) that adopt your emotionally charged, bile-ridden views on the subject.

Someone once said: ''See the world for how it is, not how you wish it to be'' - or something along those lines. I suggest you heed those words.

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

As, by your own argument, is forcing your morality on to your child.

I'm afraid you've hoisted yourself on your own petard, with this one.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's not a case of belief, it's a case of disbelief or to be more fair, a lack of belief.

Of course it's a belief. Everything's a personal belief; nothing is self-evident.

A lack of belief, or ignorance of a concept, can only occur when someone is unaware of the positive claim.

An atheist - aware of the positive claim - holds the belief that there is no evidence that supports the existence of God or gods.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I'm not trying force beliefs onto children something without evidence.

People believe many different things without evidence, it's called faith.

And what makes your ''evidence'' of things that you teach a child, better than the ''evidence'' of a religious person, doing the same ?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I will admit, I was unaware of that. I can barely remember the Greek alphabet from an introductory course I took over it and Hebrew (trying to learn the basics of two languages at once is hard IMO). Never went into depth studying either language.

Either way though, it doesn't alter much my view of it because I have, for a long time now, accepted that baptism is not required for salvation, though it is required to be in perfect obedience to and identification with Christ. A believing Christian has no reason not to be baptized, and it does an unbeliever no good to be baptized... unless they need a bath...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

My point is obvious: do you object to indoctrinating a child with morality ?

Teaching my children to be pleasant to fellow human beings and animals alike? Yes, i suppose i am "indoctrinating" the child. The only other option is to let the child grow up wild and nihilistic. That's nearly as cruel as telling the child his "after life" is dependentant on him following some ancient doctrines. As it is literally letting the child grow up like a wild animal, without the guide of compassion to help with moral choices.

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.

Religion is doing what you're told regardless of what is right.

Again, religion should be considered absolute, after all religious people believe their doctrines are the word of GOD - If religious people truely believed the word of God is absolute, then they would still condemn the rights of women, homosexuals and black people .....And some still do despite human morality being much more advanced than any ancient views written down in some book.

If we can't trust God for morality due to his tyranous, angry and jelous moral views then who can we trust? Possibly the intelligence and reasoning of modern man? It may not be perfect but i'd sooner trust that than any Pseudo-intellectual exuse for a supernaturally authorised scripture.

Thank God for secular society!

Thanks for the rebuts anyway, was elementary.

Oh and one last point:-

And what makes your ''evidence'' of things that you teach a child, better than the ''evidence'' of a religious person, doing the same ?

Again, I'm not telling the child these things on the basis of the unfalsifiable nature of the "divine" - I'm not using what i can't prove to be true as a lever to instruct the child. Religion was written when man was young and immature, and barbaric. I think we are more mature now. Mature enough to know that it was written by early man, not God. God can't be proved, nor can unicorns or fairies.