Political Crossfire Forums

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

cap'n queasy wrote: When you drink of Living Water you are saved. This means baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism is a ritual. I don't say don't do it. It's a nice thing to show that you are with the rest of the Church. But the ritual in itself has no salvatory power.

That's not "magic" water.

We are justified by Faith alone.

Where in the Bible does it say that we are justified by Faith alone?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

CrossEyedMary wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: I was baptized as a child but do not believe in Christianity or organized religion. If baptism is based on a public declaration of your faith then why do many churches perform this act on children who are a few weeks or a month old when they can't possible make a public declaration about anything.

Why not when someone is 13, 16, or 20 years old?
I agree with you. The person being baptised must accept that baptism for it to be valid, and babies can't do that. Baptisms come after repentence of sins, for the remission of sins, and babies certainly can't repent of sins.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you must accept baptism.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Perhaps the theif was wrongly convicted.

This thief said this:

Quote: "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

Luke 23:40

Even he did not think he was wrongly convicted. And if the act baptism itself remits sin, yet you continue to sin afterward, why do folks not get re-baptized on a regular basis?

Confession/Penance is for the remission of sin.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Saf wrote: Baptism, and the American obsession with it, is nothing but formalism (see: pharisees). People here believe that if you go to church, are baptised and don't sodomise anyone, you can be a violent, drunken, racist, hateful person and get into heaven. Do you think God is more concerned with whether you follow the moral example lead by Christ, or whether you have been dipped into some water in a ceremony?

It's not an either/or choice, it's an "and." Christ expects us to follow his moral example and go through the sacrament of baptism.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2263 Location: Washington

perdidochas wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: I was baptized as a child but do not believe in Christianity or organized religion. If baptism is based on a public declaration of your faith then why do many churches perform this act on children who are a few weeks or a month old when they can't possible make a public declaration about anything.

Why not when someone is 13, 16, or 20 years old?
I agree with you. The person being baptised must accept that baptism for it to be valid, and babies can't do that. Baptisms come after repentence of sins, for the remission of sins, and babies certainly can't repent of sins.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you must accept baptism.
Not specifically baptism, but it does warn that doing the things of the law for the wrong reasons was as bad as not doing them at all. (giving alms or fasting for personal reputation, for example, or making all those sabbath laws for power)

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

Ridiculous traditions: I was baptized and massively over-circumcised. LOL

Tradition....Tradition!!! All day long I biddy biddy bum....

Don't touch me there Tseitel. :lol:

In all of the regions outside of Judea, Jews integrated into the local "pagan" cultures, often integrating "pagan" holidays, beliefs, and rituals (such as baptism) into their religion. It was these Jews who were living among "the Gentiles" that first adopted christianity.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I thought Christian belief was a baby isn't responsible for original sin until age of accountability? If that is so, then doing it early doesn't make any sense (IE waste of time, unless it is strictly for the parent's benefit)- you should do it once you hit age of accountability I believe.
No. That is a modern innovation that comes as the result of Protestants trying to reconcile the idea of Baptism for believers AND the idea that all humans are sinful, thus they came up with the idea of the "Age of Accountability", a concept that is found nowhere in the Bible (which is interesting, considering how much many of them criticize Catholics for doing things that are not in the Bible).

In short: Most Christians, both historically as well as today, do not believe in the Age of Accountability.

So if a 3 month old baby dies, it goes to hell?

I am not sure about your 'in short' comment either.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

perdidochas wrote: Jesus_Freak wrote: If you have faith in Christ but are never baptized will you go to heaven?
Why or why not?

I'm not certain. However, the best bet is to get baptized if you have faith in Christ.

The actual act or in ritual only?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I thought Christian belief was a baby isn't responsible for original sin until age of accountability? If that is so, then doing it early doesn't make any sense (IE waste of time, unless it is strictly for the parent's benefit)- you should do it once you hit age of accountability I believe.
No. That is a modern innovation that comes as the result of Protestants trying to reconcile the idea of Baptism for believers AND the idea that all humans are sinful, thus they came up with the idea of the "Age of Accountability", a concept that is found nowhere in the Bible (which is interesting, considering how much many of them criticize Catholics for doing things that are not in the Bible).

In short: Most Christians, both historically as well as today, do not believe in the Age of Accountability.

So if a 3 month old baby dies, it goes to hell?

Well, the official position of the Catholic Church is "we don't know," however, just in case, let's baptize infants.

Hyde · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: Hyde wrote: feederband wrote: cup2006Sens wrote: Jesus_Freak wrote: i believe we are saved by faith alone but baptism is and act of obedience and a public declaration of your faith

I was baptized as a child but do not believe in Christianity or organized religion. If baptism is based on a public declaration of your faith then why do many churches perform this act on children who are a few weeks or a month old when they can't possible make a public declaration about anything.

Why not when someone is 13, 16, or 20 years old?

Yeah I was baptized when I was 6... :roll:

i was baptised at one. hardly the age to make a public declaration of my faith.

Yes another case of forced on religion...

it wasnt forced. for a long time i agreed with it.

Todd D. · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject:

Quote: So if a 3 month old baby dies, it goes to hell?
No idea, that's for God to decide.

Quote: I am not sure about your 'in short' comment either.
What part aren't you sure about? The validity of the statement? It's very true.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I thought Christian belief was a baby isn't responsible for original sin until age of accountability? If that is so, then doing it early doesn't make any sense (IE waste of time, unless it is strictly for the parent's benefit)- you should do it once you hit age of accountability I believe.
No. That is a modern innovation that comes as the result of Protestants trying to reconcile the idea of Baptism for believers AND the idea that all humans are sinful, thus they came up with the idea of the "Age of Accountability", a concept that is found nowhere in the Bible (which is interesting, considering how much many of them criticize Catholics for doing things that are not in the Bible).

In short: Most Christians, both historically as well as today, do not believe in the Age of Accountability.
I believe that "bar mitzvah" can be loosely translated as "age of accountability", but I'm not sure there's anything in the Bible about bar mitzvahs..

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: I thought Christian belief was a baby isn't responsible for original sin until age of accountability? If that is so, then doing it early doesn't make any sense (IE waste of time, unless it is strictly for the parent's benefit)- you should do it once you hit age of accountability I believe.
No. That is a modern innovation that comes as the result of Protestants trying to reconcile the idea of Baptism for believers AND the idea that all humans are sinful, thus they came up with the idea of the "Age of Accountability", a concept that is found nowhere in the Bible (which is interesting, considering how much many of them criticize Catholics for doing things that are not in the Bible).

In short: Most Christians, both historically as well as today, do not believe in the Age of Accountability.

So if a 3 month old baby dies, it goes to hell?

Well, the official position of the Catholic Church is "we don't know," however, just in case, let's baptize infants.
The 'just in case, let's baptize' is logical, but the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense. A baby can die before it's born, or an hour after it's born, etc.
Another church/bible issue that makes no sense at all.

Todd D. · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject:

Quote: the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense.
Tragically, babies die all the time from a range of diseases such as Polio, Measles, etc. Why does it make no sense? Sin is a disease, regardless of how old. Protecting yourself from that disease is no different than protecting yourself from any other disease. You wouldn't say "It's not fair that a baby caught Polio before he was innoculated", would you? So why is this any different? It's a rather strict individualist interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion, one that doesn't jive with the societies that were around in Bible times, nor what the Bible says in the first place.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: Quote: the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense.
Tragically, babies die all the time from a range of diseases such as Polio, Measles, etc. Why does it make no sense? Sin is a disease, regardless of how old. Protecting yourself from that disease is no different than protecting yourself from any other disease. You wouldn't say "It's not fair that a baby caught Polio before he was innoculated", would you? So why is this any different? It's a rather strict individualist interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion, one that doesn't jive with the societies that were around in Bible times, nor what the Bible says in the first place.

Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense.
Tragically, babies die all the time from a range of diseases such as Polio, Measles, etc. Why does it make no sense? Sin is a disease, regardless of how old. Protecting yourself from that disease is no different than protecting yourself from any other disease. You wouldn't say "It's not fair that a baby caught Polio before he was innoculated", would you? So why is this any different? It's a rather strict individualist interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion, one that doesn't jive with the societies that were around in Bible times, nor what the Bible says in the first place.

Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.

If anyone believes this than they should seek serious counseling and therapy

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24713

connermt wrote: toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense.
Tragically, babies die all the time from a range of diseases such as Polio, Measles, etc. Why does it make no sense? Sin is a disease, regardless of how old. Protecting yourself from that disease is no different than protecting yourself from any other disease. You wouldn't say "It's not fair that a baby caught Polio before he was innoculated", would you? So why is this any different? It's a rather strict individualist interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion, one that doesn't jive with the societies that were around in Bible times, nor what the Bible says in the first place.

Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.

If anyone believes this than they should seek serious counseling and therapy

It's all about power. If people believe that a certain organization holds the specific formula to God...then that organization has a lot of power. Fortunately none of it is true....the only true power is in the hands of God. And it's a misconception to believe that the Vatican is “The Church". It isn't. I may contain some people who are part of “The Church”...but the Church is the whole of believers throughout the world who are truly born again. The Church is all the people who have the Holy Spirit literally inside of them regenerating their spirit on a daily basis.

Is there an age of accountability according to God? I believe there is. The story about the Hebrews who wondered in the wilderness and couldn't pass into the Promised Land seems to paint a picture of this. The ones who were allowed to enter were all people who were under a certain age (21). Also there are the regulations surrounding the sin offering which was given each year. A man was required to offer a sin offering for himself and all of his sons until they reached the age of 21...then after each son reached 21 he was responsible for offering their own annual sin offering.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

John wrote: connermt wrote: toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: the belief that baptism is necessary and there is no age of accountability (regardless of who came up with that idea) makes no sense.
Tragically, babies die all the time from a range of diseases such as Polio, Measles, etc. Why does it make no sense? Sin is a disease, regardless of how old. Protecting yourself from that disease is no different than protecting yourself from any other disease. You wouldn't say "It's not fair that a baby caught Polio before he was innoculated", would you? So why is this any different? It's a rather strict individualist interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion, one that doesn't jive with the societies that were around in Bible times, nor what the Bible says in the first place.

Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.

If anyone believes this than they should seek serious counseling and therapy

It's all about power. If people believe that a certain organization holds the specific formula to God...then that organization has a lot of power. Fortunately none of it is true....the only true power is in the hands of God. And it's a misconception to believe that the Vatican is “The Church". It isn't. I may contain some people who are part of “The Church”...but the Church is the whole of believers throughout the world who are truly born again. The Church is all the people who have the Holy Spirit literally inside of them regenerating their spirit on a daily basis.

Is there an age of accountability according to God? I believe there is. The story about the Hebrews who wondered in the wilderness and couldn't pass into the Promised Land seems to paint a picture of this. The ones who were allowed to enter were all people who were under a certain age (21). Also there are the regulations surrounding the sin offering which was given each year. A man was required to offer a sin offering for himself and all of his sons until they reached the age of 21...then after each son reached 21 he was responsible for offering their own annual sin offering.

The story you reference about the age of 21 I don't know about (meaning I actually don't remember it, but don't doubt what you are saying). I agree with everything else you said.
I will have to look up that story sometime

Todd D. · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:33 am Post subject:

Quote: Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.
Are you having trouble with reading, or do you just not believe that babies still die of Polio? I've checked this thread, and I can't find a single person that said that an unbaptized baby definitely goes to hell. Not one.

Second of all, it's not "ignorant" in any way. I can only assume you used that word because of its negative connotation, but you didn't use it correctly.

John and I disagree slightly on the nature of the Church, but that's not suprising.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Are you serious!? For those who say that a baby goes to hell because there wasn't time to baptize, that it is a statement and belief beyond ignorant. I question any god that puts this into practice, as it is shameful and has absolutely nothing to do with a loving God. Absolutely nothing.
Are you having trouble with reading, or do you just not believe that babies still die of Polio? I've checked this thread, and I can't find a single person that said that an unbaptized baby definitely goes to hell. Not one.

Second of all, it's not "ignorant" in any way. I can only assume you used that word because of its negative connotation, but you didn't use it correctly.

John and I disagree slightly on the nature of the Church, but that's not suprising.

My post was concerning babies dying without being baptized and you mentioned babies dying of polio. There is a difference in dying physically and dying spiritually. To die of a disease is to die physically. To die without being baptized, if you believe that one must be baptized to go to heaven, means to die spiritually.
So if someone says a baby dies of polio without being baptized goes to hell, that is an [insert extremely negative word here] statement and even more [insert extremely negative word here] belief.
I understood that to be what you were saying in context to my reply. If that is not the case, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. (I admit, I was having a difficult day so I might have read more into it than was there. If so I truly apologize.)
I still stand behind my comment for those that believe this a baby goes to hell if it is not baptized and there is absolutely no way for anyone to change my mind in this regard.