To Baptise Or Not To Baptise

a reply to: frayedknot

In the mean time, I will teach them about love.

Bang on the nail, my friend. I think that learning the power of love is what we are supposed to do in this life. Love creates such profound positive energies in people, and those energies positively affect everything and everyone around us.

As soon as you feel and give love, any negative thoughts and/or intentions are instantly banished from your being, and this is how it can conquer all evil. It cannot be forced, nor bought, nor sold, cannot be seen nor touched, yet we can feel it, we can give and receive it freely, and we are positively affected by it. It makes us feel wonderful, and that makes the people around us feel good too. It's so infectious.

Instead of teaching which religion is right or wrong, teach each other about love, of how powerful it is because of the good it can do and the peace it can bring. Teach them that love is powerful enough to end discrimination of all kinds, end the most raging wars, and it wouldn't cost a penny to produce.

Let's teach them about the religion of love, and about its overwhelming power, and the wonderful positive consequences.

Here where I live many used to get baptized, or baptize their children. I was baptized. Not so much anymore. This being said, I never baptized any of my kids. If when they are old enough and want to do it then that's up to them. I want them to see it from all sides before I really "educate" then about religion and this whole system that has been set up. I would never allow them to be born into debt to anyone, after all, it's my job to protect them. I fill my kids with truth and facts, no matter how bad it sounds. That's the only hope they have of making it in this world.

a reply to: seabhac-rua


Who do you believe may bully and ridicule your son at school? And why would he feel left out?

My eldest daughter was baptized but my four younger children have not been. There has never been any difference in the way in which they have been treated.
I think your dilemma is more a question of how you wish your child to be raised and what kind of school you wish them to attend which goes way beyond the act of baptism.

If you wish for your child to attend a Catholic school then yes if your child has not adhered to the Catholic traditions then they may stand out....but if he goes to a non church school then there is no reason he will stand out. I'm not sure which country you live in but in the UK most of the secondary schools which are faith schools ie Catholic and Church of England are voluntary aided schools which means they can decide their own admissions policy. So whilst in theory schools can not discriminate because of religious beliefs faith schools CAN give priority to admitting children who fit their faith criteria. So here for instance if you wish your child to attend a nearby Catholic school unless they "belong" to the Catholic Church it is unlikely they would receive a place there anyway.

Unless you are bringing your child up in a predominantly Catholic community and/or wish your child to attend a Catholic school I see the whole baptism issue just being one about your partners family and being made to feel left out by relatives. So this being said if this is the case I would simply tell the relatives to "tow the line"!

I have five children....and I can honestly say that not one of them could probably tell you which of their friends have been baptised and which of them haven't!

If you honestly don't feel led to have your baby baptised for the right reasons and after some research still don't feel any conviction. And if both you and your partner both feel the same so you are united and it isn't likely to cause conflict.....then the only problem is your partners family. Personally I would not base my decision making on how I see fit to raise my family on keeping my relatives happy!

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
teaching that a baby’s soul is “black with sin” and must be cleansed, or that an un-baptised baby’s soul is damned for eternity should the infant die before baptism,

I don't know any Christian religion that says a babies soul is 'black with sin'. The teaching is that every soul is stained with original sin. It's a stain. Not a 'black as sin' thing. I've never heard the 'black as sin' .. maybe I missed it?? And not even the Catholics said a baby would be damned if it died without baptism. They had a place called 'limbo' which isn't hell, but it's not the full beatific vision of heaven. Nice ... but not heaven. That teaching has gone away.

- The family should butt out.
- You may change your mind and decide to do a baptism. People do change their minds.
- Examine your reasons for not wanting to baptize. Is it based on religious beliefs or anger against family/church. As long as you are comfortable with your reasons ... then hang tight. But don't be afraid to reexamine your decision every so often. Situations change.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: tsingtao
i have no idea after 60yrs of being on this planet.

I think you should do some objective research on how Catholic beliefs and traditions compare to the Bible.

Just saying...

One of the reasons I steadily changed my beliefs (in my case Christianity) is because of all the contradictions etc. within the dogma, and what the actual scriptures say.

If the man and his wife have qualms with baptizing their child it's understandable. They shouldn't feel obligated to do so just because of hundreds of years of tradition, especially from an institution like the Catholic church. Luckily for them they don't have to take the threat of being burned at the stake into consideration.

i'm trying not to go out of my mind over this.

i am not catholic, anymore.

i was everything you could think of and more, before i became a christian.

the putz can do WHAT he wants. no one is pressuring him to do anything.

in my time, there was no option. try early 1950's.

i just don't like the catholic mass. lol~

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Awesome topic, and great thread so far, S/F!!

I decided to read all the way through before posting - and I have some questions for you.

You live in Ireland, and apparently your family of origin is fine with your stance. Your GF is also fine with it, and agrees with it. Her family seems to be the issue, and the pressure is coming from them.

I live in the US, so I can't really understand the Irish 'ritual traditions', but I do have extended family who are Catholic. Just this month my mother traveled 600 miles to attend the "first communion" of one of her sister's grandkids. Now - my mother's family were Episcopalian, and her sister married a seminary dropout, who insisted their one daughter be raised Catholic. So she was. One other cousin married a Catholic man, and joined the church because of him. Both have half a dozen kids - and fortunately are able to support them all with stay-at-home moms. One of them home-schools, the other (whose party was earlier this month) does not. Somehow they've made things work - and my mom's side has not 'rejected' any of the kids. Religion is a personal choice - no "Team Jesus" tee-shirts required....

I was baptized in the Episcopal church, so were my brothers. We'd have been Catholic, but my grandmother married a divorced man, so she was excommunicated and they joined the Anglican faith - therefore I was raised Anglican.

I stopped going to church in my teens, but had a huge Episcopal wedding after living with my BF for 4 years, because my parents wanted me to. I will say that sometimes I'm glad I was, but other times I think, 'meh, I'm good.' Back to my cousin's kid: this was a HUGE occasion - very much like the Quinceañera "debut" that Catholic Latinas have at 15, which mirrors Catholic Confirmation...lots of money spent, big parties, fancy dress, the belle of the ball for the girl. I can understand that any Latina who does NOT have a Quinceañera might feel left out or 'different' - and there's no question that kids are mean.

That said, this sounds like a 'status symbol' thing more than a 'ritual protection of the spirit' of your boy.

Now, the questions. How is it that with a pushy Catholic family, you have not been pressured into MARRIAGE? Your son is, by Catholic standards, a bastard - they are okay with that? If you submit to the pressure to do this, then it seems to me it could open the door for further pressure that YOU SHOULD BE MARRIED, wouldn't it? (Caps are to emphasize my impression of your GF's family - who you can't even really call in-laws at this point.) A bastard child used to be rejected from the Church (see Leonardo da Vinci for an example), but could be 'hired' by them (ironically). How will the church treat him?

And the second question - is your son circumcised?

I have two children, a girl, who was baptized as an infant, and a boy, who was not. He is not circumcised, either. That fact caused him a bit of stress during middle school, mostly because he was afraid his penis would never "grow" - now, of course, at 23, he knows better (and has not been 'rejected' by anyone because of it - at least that I know of). I told him if he wanted to, he could have himself circumcised, but I decided, along with his dad (my husband), that I couldn't stand the thought of him undergoing that mutilation as a baby. I worked in a neo-natal unit for a while, and I've seen how it's done - and I've seen how babies one or two days old are injured by it - it's barbaric, in my opinion.

This may seem off topic, but it's not, really.
If you live in a place openminded enough to allow you to comfortably have a child out of wedlock, then what's the problem with not baptizing your boy?

I agree that it should be a person's CHOICE, not an imposition, whether ridiculous superstition or not (I don't believe that it is necessary for acceptance by "God" - in fact, the babies are the way they are as "God" intended - and fwiw, I'm agnostic).

Will the boy's maternal family reject him if he's unbaptized? Also - you could always have a party for him at the same age as 'first communion' - even call it a pagan coming-of-age celebration....

Just wondering if these side-issues are woven into your dilemma. .... and in the end, it's none of their business really.
Succumbing to societal pressure and 'going along with things' is compromising your own integrity -

thanks for bringing your pov to the boards. I'll look forward to reading the rest of the thread.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

imho

1. There's NO Biblical basis for infant baptism

2. Believers consciously choosing to be "buried in Christ" and "rise again in His Resurrection" as a faith choice in a walk with Him with the baptism a major public statement and milestone in that journey is the only Biblical baptism.

3. Doing anything spiritual and certainly "RELIGIOUS" just to please man vs God is utter folly.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: seabhac-rua

Wow, for once we can agree on something.

More and more people are realizing spirituality has nothing to do with one's religion and everything to do with one's consciousness; awareness of one's thoughts, emotions and actions.

Like most Christian practices and celebrations, I'm sure baptism has its roots in paganism, and even if it doesn't, it is just one more useless practice that only serves to perpetuate and justify the existence of a useless institution.

To think one could determine the destiny of one's soul by touching one's head with water is close to ludicrous............

You are bang on about your GF's mother as well, many so called "Christians" are filled with fear and judgement............definitely NOT what the teachings of Jesus were about.............they might as well be practicing witchcraft.......not that there is anything wrong with witchcraft.

lol, are you serious>?

please, you really know nothing about this, do you?

a reply to: seabhac-rua

A couple of follow-up questions - do you live with your GF and son? How do you get away with that, if your GF's family are so traditional? Did you cohabit before becoming parents?

That's another weirdness thing about 'traditions' - some people look down on cohabitation or premarital sex - I think they are absolutely essential to determine suitability for contemplating a life-long commitment. My son said last year he didn't even know it was 'taboo' - at the time he was living with his GF; I was fine with it, his GF's family "didn't know". But he would go to church with them and have lunch every Sunday, and they liked him. At that time, my niece (his cousin) was planning a big church wedding, and was asserted to be a virgin (i have my doubts, but knowing her parents - wouldn't be shocked if it was true), and definitely did NOT cohabitate with her fiance prior to marriage.

These issues are all tangled up, all mixed in, when it comes to 'religious' persuasion and inter-faith (or faith/faithless) partnerships.
Sorry for being so nosy....just my contributions to your plight.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I'm reminded of the Christian pilgrims who flock to the Jordan river for baptism, washing, drinking and even bottling the water to bring home to friends. Of course, once the water was tested, it was discovered that there is 340 fecal coliforms per 100 millilitres, and that everyone is being baptized in the sewage of Israel.

In a sense, that's what baptism amounts to.

In my first marriage I was married to the spawn of Satan. Her family was Catholic (by label only) and insisted we be married in a Catholic church. Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't burst into flames when we walked over the threshold. Anyway, we were required to attend the pre-marriage counseling and fill-out the requisite forms. I have never been baptized and grew-up in the only Protestant family (again, by label only) in an otherwise 100% Catholic neighborhood. This was the early 50's. During my life I've studied, on my own, most of the major religious texts and have read the bible cover-to-cover a few times. I had picked out the readings for my marriage ceremony to Satan's Spawn because she had never read the Bible and knew nothing about it. Although the Catholic church officially labeled me 'Disparity of Cult' the priest commended Ms. Spawn for her thoughtful and uncommon selected passages. Neither of our children were subsequently baptized and I don't believe she has stepped into a church since that fateful day.

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: seabhac-rua

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

Being "nice" and "having morals" is great, but it won't get you anywhere after you die. If you are 100 percent convinced there is no God, then why do you even care about this whole baptism thing. You should just laugh it off as silly, and move on....shouldn't have to uphold your conviction if it's just a ridiculous archaic superstition. Not worth worrying about.

15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
17"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

According to Mark there is supposed to be a spiritual change in beings when they are baptized and they are supposed to get the healing hands and overstimulated creative sides sometimes having issues with saying words that mean somethings. Hmm is that what happens to the babies?

To seabhac-rua. I would like you to make sure that your kids are allowed to evolve spiritually so they will know the love from above. But then I am pretty sure anything I say here is not needed since I think you already have gotten it and this thread is a proof of that.

My son was not baptised because I am unconvinced by any claims of gods and his mother wanted to let him make his own search/choice regarding faith.
I had a fair bit of stick from Christian types at the time who made the usual assertions of 'place in heaven' and blah, but I replied that if there is a Christian God and he denies my son a place in this 'heaven' (or punishes him in any way) over a decision he did not make himself then that God is a #.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
1. There's NO Biblical basis for infant baptism

Actually there is. But for some reason the fundamentalists interpret it differently then the majority of Christians.

Peter said - "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Jesus said - "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him"


Infant Baptism

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

WHOLE FAMILIES were baptized.

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

n all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: schuyler
am I willing to risk my sons happiness because of this? Well that's the question. Again, thank you for your post.

That IS the question. Think about this: You are risking SOMEONE ELSE'S happiness (we can talk about what that means) for the sake of your OWN beliefs. Would you do that anywhere else in your life? If your son does, in fact, experience "non-happiness" because of your decision, it's all 100% on your shoulders. You did it when he was most vulnerable.

The next question is: What would baptism actually DO to your son? A little water on the head, some amo, amas, amat, vini, vidi, vici, and that's it. He wouldn't remember it. It wouldn't physically change him. And because of your own beliefs I'm quite sure you wouldn't let it affect him.

So be VERY clear that you are refusing to baptize your kid because of your own emotional hatred of the issue. There's nothing else really at play here except you "proving" you are "strong enough" to resist the family pressure, by God, because you're so tough! Once again, you're acting as if it's all about you.

Thanks, Dad!

And consider one other thing. When you push hard for something, you often get the opposite result. You may have heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a noted atheist who led fights against school prayer, among others. Her son William became a Baptist minister. And we all know any number of people raised deeply in the Catholic tradition who have repudiated their faith as adults. is there really any doubt that these children were reacting to the extremism of their parents?

Be careful what you ask for.

originally posted by: schuylerThink about this: You are risking SOMEONE ELSE'S happiness (we can talk about what that means) for the sake of your OWN beliefs.

Seems more about lack of belief than anything, but you obviously appear the strong believer of something.

So be VERY clear that you are refusing to baptize your kid because of your own emotional hatred of the issue. There's nothing else really at play here except you "proving" you are "strong enough" to resist the family pressure, by God, because you're so tough! Once again, you're acting as if it's all about you.

Wow now you're telling someone else what their motivating emotions are, you know it all don't ya!

As far as the rest of your rant about covering all angles in faith based decisions regarding children, I suppose we should drop into our local mosques and Hindu temples at least once as well to be on the safe side, and maybe surgically remove parts of male genitalia...just in case the Jewish faith is the 'true' faith.

Your argument falls apart with the existence of conflicting religions in the world, but then I am feeling that you espouse Christianity as the only 'true' faith...ridiculous zealotry at it's finest.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Groped extrapolated inferences

are shaky foundations to build doctrine on.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You said infant baptism wasn't scriptural. I showed that it very much was. If you wish to interpret scripture differently than it's written .... that's your choice. Scripture is clear ... baptism for everyone. But whatever ... believe as you wish.

a reply to: FlyersFan

No. I don't call several-layers-out-extrapolation and inference

"clear" by any stretch of the imagination.

To the Christians in this thread?

Are they painting a cross over the nerve-endings on the forehead connected to the third eye on all Christian baptizing or is that an unusual thing that I observed when a friends daughter was baptized?