We got married at her church and now she is suggesting for a baby girl to be baptised at her church but, I kind of want her to have her christining at my church?

This religion thing between us didn't come to my mind at all when I married her. I truly love her but need some advice.

I honeslty don't go to church as much as she does (I stay at home on sundays, while she takes our baby to her church)

I really need some advice on what to do and maybe someone can clear my head on what the difference is.. I know it sounds stupid!

ANY opinions regarding this matter will help!

I have another question:

We bought a house over the summer and she wants to house bless it twice. Have her priest and my priest come and bless the house (not at the same day)

Any comments on that?

To answer question 1: If she is more religious and takes baby to church, have it baptised in her church. There shouldn't be a problem as long as the baby is baptised. If you are not particularly religious and don't attend church as regularly as she does, this should not really be a problem.

Also, Catholics ARE Christians too.

#2 So, what, have the house blessed twice. No biggy.

1. You are both Christian.
2. Since you are not as active as her, I'd suggest go and be active at her Church.

In my opinion you owe it to the child to be as one on the faith issue. Not that it would be "bad" if not, but certainly better.

All of the above is just my opinion.

To answer question 1: If she is more religious and takes baby to church, have it baptised in her church. There shouldn't be a problem as long as the baby is baptised. If you are not particularly religious and don't attend church as regularly as she does, this should not really be a problem.

Also, Catholics ARE Christians too.

#2 So, what, have the house blessed twice. No biggy.

Ya I kind of figured that! I was just being real stubborn like always! I really needed to hear that other than from our friends. Just cause sometiimes I think they take her sides more than mine... I don't know.

Thanks J_9 she will be real happy to hear my answer :D

1. You are both Christian.
2. Since you are not as active as her, I'd suggest go and be active at her Church.

In my opinion you owe it to the child to be as one on the faith issue. Not that it would be "bad" if not, but certainly better.

All of the above is just my opinion.

Your right. I don't go to my church as much as I would like but, maybe going to her church as a family would make us a little closer than we already are :D

Something I should really think about! Damn, WHY AM I SO STUBBORN WHEN IT COMES TO THIS!! Kind of pisses me off but, I can't help what I feel I guess...

Thanks you 2 :D

Some people in these situations wait until the child is old enough to make their own decisions about which faith or denomination they wish to be.

I have another question:

Should I consider myself as christian? Why am I labelled as catholic when the posts stated above mentioned that they are the same??

Can someone school me on what the deal is please! Maybe if I can get more understanding on the topic, I can be more understanding to my wife as well.

I think like everyone says, if she is more active then you should go to her church. Baby dedication to the lord more biblical than Christianing, because the child is not old enough to make the choice of babtism herself a baby dedication can be done

[QUOTE=icecream]
Should I consider myself as christian? Why am I labelled as catholic when the posts stated above mentioned that they are the same??
QUOTE]

Me and my Catholic flatmate just discussed this.
Point one - do you worship Christ? Then you are a Christian. Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#Who_is_a_Christian.3F)

Point two - why do non Roman Catholics (I'm looking at the protestants here) never say their denomination but just say they are Christian in certain countries such as Northern Ireland? My personal theory was that it was because many of these breakaway denominations believe themselves to be worshiping 'the one true version of Christianity' and if you believe yourself to be doing this then why would you say you were anything but just Christian?

I just thought of another point- are you the Catholic?
You should note that not raising your child catholic could get you excommunicated- as happened to by grandmother for the terrible crime of raising protestant sons. Things might be a bit more relaxed now, but worth a look into.

I have another question:

should i concider myself as christian? why am i labelled as catholic when the posts stated above mentioned that they are the same???

A christian is someone who believes in Christ. Certainly all christian denominations, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and all protestant denominations such as baptists, methodists, lutherans, episcopalians, congregationalists, etc etc have christian memberships. However, some of the more fundamentalist sects have tried to coopt the word to mean specifically a person who is "saved," that is those who in their view have has made a personal commitment to the Lord. This seems to be more prevalent in the midwest and southern parts of the US (i.e, in the bible belt).

This sounds kind of dumb but roman catholics are christians. They believe in Jesus, and the new testament just like any other christian.
Being baptised or christened are very similar can happen in almost any church. If it really bothers you talk to your wife, she'll understand. If it's really a problem you need to discuss what religon you want your daughter to be, perhaps you should both speak to your preacher or pastor and get all of the facts and have them help you decide. They will both lean towards there own religon, but they can help you make a well informed decision if you don't know about one anothers religon.

A christian is someone who believes in Christ. Certainly all christian denominations, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and all protestant denominations such as baptists, methodists, lutherans, episcopalians, congregationalists, etc etc have christian memberships. However, some of the more fundamentalist sects have tried to coopt the word to mean specifically a person who is "saved," that is those who in their view have has made a personal commitment to the Lord. This seems to be more prevalent in the midwest and southern parts of the US (i.e, in the bible belt).

I don't know what bible you are reading but it says for you to become a child of God (christian) you must be born again hence receive Christ as your personal savior hence being saved. The Bible says who so ever shall call upon the lord shall be Saved. Its not about religious ceremonies like taking communion, attending church, recitin the aposels creed reading the catacism, baptism etc. all that is god but it does not bring you one inch close to heaven. Confessing your sin, repenting and inviting christ into your life as your personal savior makes you a Child of God. It is through Christ (not religious practices) that we become reconciled to God and that is how we become children of God.

I dont know what bible you are reading but it says for you to become a child of God (christian) you must be born again hence recieve Christ as your personal savior hence being saved. The Bible says who so ever shall call upon the lord shall be Saved. Its not about religious ceremonies like taking communion, attending church, recitin the aposels creed reading the catacism, baptism ect. all that is god but it does not bring you one inch close to heaven. Confessing your sin, repenting and inviting christ into your life as your personal savior makes you a Child of God. It is through Christ (not religious practices) that we become reconciled to God and that is how we become children of God.

Romans 10:9-10

9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

For whatever that's worth.

Just out of curiousity.

Can I ask all the people that posted or will post on my topic to state what your religion is please.

Yes, yes!

I am a christian, I do not like to say I belong to a denomination because I think it causes division in the body of christ. But I Guess my beliefes would be close to being pentacostal.

Thank you beatlejuice and kinj.

Any roman catholics out there? If so, how do you feel about this whole thread? Anything at all!!

Sorry can't help you. My husband claims Catholic and I am Charismatic.

You see when people ask me what my beliefs are, I just say I am a follower of Jesus, because the word christian is just... well you get what I mean

Catholics first are Christian, and I did not see what church you are talking about that she goes to,

Honestly this sounds like a fake post,

I don't think Catholics are Christians. Other people have their opinions. Catholics are like Christians, but there are some diffrences.

I am a Catholic and yes, I am a Christian. There are many differences between the Christian denominations, but in my opinion if one loves the Lord Jesus Christ and wants to do his will, then one can be called a Christian.

In my opinion about the baptizing of your baby, congratulations by the way! The most important thing here is to have the baby baptized. Which church? Well this is what the married life is all about. You and your wife will have to work this out together. I would suggest praying about it together as well.

just out of curiousity.

can i ask all the poeple that posted or will post on my topic to state what ur religion is please.

I don't know what I am actually?? Hmmm, not atheist, not catholic (I went to prochial school for a while though), not protestant well not anymore anyway.
I guess I'm just a person who likes to read the bible and knows a little about a bunch of religons.
If you don't mind what makes you ask this question? :rolleyes:

Amen, Wangdoodle! Congratulations, IceCream, on the baby and the choice to raise it following Christ's example.

I am a Catholic. My wife recently chose to go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) which is the process that people become part of the Catholic church. As her sponsor, I learned that the Catholic church fully recognizes baptisms performed by other Christian denominations, provided there is official record of it (certificate, file, etc.). So fear not. Baptise the kid at your wife's church. If you want the little one to be in full communion with the Catholic church, make sure she goes to Catechism and receives the sacraments.

As for the difference between "Christian" and "Catholic" I use this metaphor. In baseball, the original league, that is the National League was founded in the 1800s. The American League was founded in the 1900s. Both play baseball. Both observe the same basic rules. Likewise, the Catholic church is the original league, and the protestants came later. If you're a purist and want to follow the game of the original founders, Catholic is the way to go. But in the end: Does it really matter? Isn't it really more important to be out there playing ball??

Im Christian...
Rusty: It was my opinion...
IceCream: I think you should baptise her at your wife's church. Only because your not that active in your church. Though, it probley wouldn't matter much. Just do whatever feels right I guess.

Hi,

You said that you don't go to your church. Why you want your child to be batized in your church? Baptisism is not a ritual; rather, it is to embrace one's faith. If you don't even go to church, how come you want to baptize your child in your church.

My advise to you is live your faith first, then, talk to your wife about baptisism.

Fallen: Understood. I was just stating a fact that I thought you might have wanted to know.

Fallen: Understood. I was just stating a fact that I thought you might have wanted to know.


Yeah, I knew people would jump me on it too. >_< Thanks though.

First let me say that I am Roman Catholic, and yes, I am a Christian.

Now, Christians believe in Christ... there are many denominations in Christianity... Protestants, Baptists, Christian Reformed, Presbyterian, etc.

Then, there is Judaism. Just as in Christianity there are different denominations, sects, or branches... Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, to name a few.

Icecream, since you have a Christian background - and are open to being more involved with her, here are two places to do some reading on some explanations of things that are different about the Catholic Christian faith from other Christian groups:

1. Here (http://www.catholic.com) - the articles in the upper left under "Library".
2. Here (http://www.catholictruths.com).

Situations just like this could have been avoided well in advance by heeding the Bible's counsel that Christians "marry only in the Lord", meaning that people are to marry fellow believers, not those of different faiths. Problems such as this (and a host of other ones as well) were well foreseen for interfaith marriages... hence that clear-cut scriptural counsel.

Situations just like this could have been avoided well in advance by heeding the Bible's counsel that Christians "marry only in the Lord", meaning that people are to marry fellow believers, not those of different faiths. Problems such as this (and a host of other ones as well) were well foreseen for interfaith marriages.....hence that clear-cut scriptural counsel.

They did marry into the same faith! THEY ARE BOTH CHRISTIANS. Did you not read the other posts? Did you read the question?

*shakes head in disbelief*

Sorry TL, but they did NOT marry into the same faith. Yes, they are both Christians, but he is a Roman Catholic and she is a "christian" (whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian or the like).

Christianity engulfs a wide array of denominations. In the Catholic faith it is frowned upon to marry outside of the Catholic religion. This is the same with other denominations. A Baptist is to marry a Baptist, a Methodist is to marry another Methodist, etc.

They did marry into the same faith! THEY ARE BOTH CHRISTIANS. Did you not read the other posts? Did you read the question?

*shakes head in disbelief*

I suggest YOU learn how to read... they're NOT in the same faith. One is a Catholic and one isn't.

Did YOU not read the posts or even the question?

*doubly shakes head in disbelief*

Ah we seam to have a different defination of what 'faith' is. I think all Christianity is one faith separate form say Judaism. But I would consider a Baptist and a Catholic to be of the same faith but different denomination. This is where I have got confused.

I still can't see how if they are both Christian they managed to not "marry only in the Lord" seeing as they both worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Isn't that still marrying into the Lord?

I know it's frowned upon to marry outside Catholism because it caused a lot of strife for my own family. The whole messy situation just really annoys me so much trouble has been caused where I live form Sectarian tensions of this description.

EDIT

Sorry for any offence caused, I'm getting all worked up over this and I don't know why. Too much history I suppose.

[QUOTE=templelane]
I still can't see how if they are both Christian they managed to not "marry only in the Lord" seeing as they both worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Isn't that still marrying into the Lord?
[QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Many people today claim to follow Christ (we don't worship him, he is the mediator between God and man), but then they won't do certain things that Christ commanded his followers to do (i.e. go out preaching to others about God's Kingdom), or they engage in activities and things that go against the Scriptures. If they married truly "in the Lord", then something like this wouldn't be a problem. They'd be of the same scriptural understanding as to what is required of Christians and what they are to refrain from, and so on and so on. It wouldn't be a question of "well he views it this way and I view it another".

I know some (maybe even all) of this has been covered.

1. Do you both worship the same Jesus as Lord? You're both Christians.

2. Baptism, in my humble opinion and I believe scripture concurs, means nothing if it isn't a conscious, voluntary choice. Nevertheless, if you both want to baptize the child it couldn't hurt. Or pick one, it doesn't really matter in this case in my opinion. Just give the kid a good family, raise her to know Jesus and encourage her to make her own decision regarding her faith. God wants people to WANT to know Him.

3. It really would be better for you to agree on one faith, but not impossible to deal with.

4. Bless the house twice then go have some ice cream. :)

Catholics first are Christian, and I did not see what church you are talking about that she goes to,

Honestly this sounds like a fake post,

WHAT?! Kind of weird for you to post that.

Well I would like to thank everyone that posted in my thread. I now have a bit of understanding towards religion. It's crazy all of your posts really got to me! I would have never think that religion can be so complicated. IM SERIOUS! Its pretty crazy from my point of view. I have never actually learned my own religion or anyone else's.. I don't know... im confused... suprised... and OVERWHELMED on what you all posted.

I think I know what to do NOW! Thank you so much guys. You all actually knocked some sense into me... I don't know... IT'S A VERY WEIRD FEELING!

Thanks again!

My wife and I both started Roman Catholic, got married in a church then we had our first child. Her mom, who is a bit of a bible thumper, made the christening experience so much a pain in the arse that we never bothered to christen our second. We finally got her to understand that we are the parents and we make the decisions for our kids. We don't even bother going to church anymore. My wife is a family lawyer and she sees enough 'good christians' in a day want to have so much revenge and so full of nastiness that we both agreed that our criteria for friends is "being a good person" and not being a christian although they are not mutually exclusive of course. My $0.02 worth. :)

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.

Cool Silent, we totally agree on that! :)

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.

Hmmm didn't know that. Thanks for the info silent. I was wondering if it's possible to get baptised more than once? And what will be the reason for that?

Baptism in the Catholic church was originally done to remove original sin. When we get older we go through Confirmation, which is like a second Baptism, only this time we are choosing our religion.

I basically agree with Tempelane here
Often people say they are Catholic simply because their parents were but have no other real reason for being Catholic. I think it might be a good idea to get involved with your wife's church and question why the big difference and if you do not find anything that goes against your "own personal" belief maybe you could find it within yourself to switch to her faith and then you could all three have the same religion.

Baptism in the Catholic church was originally done to remove original sin. When we get older we go through Confirmation, which is like a second Baptism, only this time we are choosing our religion.

And upon examination of the Bible, there is no scriptural basis for any of that.

And upon examination of the Bible, there is no scriptural basis for any of that.

You are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Rather than C&P the entire explanation, I will provide a link...

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin (This Rock: February 2005) (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp)

Actually, this is why babies should not be baptized:

Baptism—Is It for Infants?

“WHEN I had my babies,” said one parent, “I hurried to have them baptized. . &#160;.&#160;. I wonder sometimes if I did the right thing.” Why? Two of her three children have rejected her faith.

Perhaps you as a parent have entertained similar doubts about initiating an infant into your religion. If so, you likely know that church leaders—Catholic and Protestant alike—have done little to put your mind at ease. They nurture skepticism by arguing over infant baptism. Reformers call it a vestige of medieval superstition. However, traditionalists call denying baptism “repugnant to Christian feeling.”

By reasoning that way, church leaders have merely “indulged in rhapsodies of emotion as a substitute for substantial argument.” (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, by Paul K. Jewett) Where, then, can you look for authoritative answers to your questions about infant baptism? These answers must be looked for in God's Word.

Consigned to Hell?

Infant baptizers for the most part attempt to base their case on Jesus' words at John 3:5: “Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” They argue that since water baptism is a requirement for entrance into heaven, infants should be baptized to avoid suffering in a fiery hell—or lingering in limbo.

However, the Bible says that “the dead .&#160;.&#160;. Are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; compare Psalm 146:4.) Since the dead are unconscious, they are incapable of any sort of suffering. Parents, therefore, need not fear gruesome consequences if they do not baptize their infants.

Still, there is the concern that unbaptized ones cannot enter heaven. This, however, does not mean that they cannot be saved. Jesus said: “And I have other sheep, which are not of this [heavenly] fold.” (John 10:16) Here, and in a parable recorded at Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus indicated that there would be saved ones who would not go to heaven. Where would they go? Jesus told the wrongdoer impaled alongside him: “You will be with me in Paradise.”—Luke 23:43.

Had that wrongdoer ever been “born from water” by baptism? Obviously not, and heaven was thus closed to him. Where, then, would “Paradise” be? Recall that God placed the original human pair in an earthly paradise, with the prospect of living there forever. (Genesis 1:28; 2:8) Adam and Eve, though, chose to rebel and were put out of their beautiful garden home. Was earthly Paradise lost forever? No, for the Scriptures make plain that God will eventually restore Paradise on earth. (Matthew 5:5; 6:9,&#160;10; Ephesians 1:9-11; Revelation 21:1-5) And it is to this earthly Paradise that most of those who have died—including infants—will eventually be resurrected.—John 5:28,&#160;29.

Must an individual be baptized to share in this earthly resurrection? Not necessarily. Many have died in spiritual ignorance. (Compare Jonah 4:11.) Since they never had an opportunity to learn about God, they never dedicated themselves to him. Are such ones forever lost? No, for the apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Doubtless included among those resurrected throngs will be infants. Therefore, claims that baptism is necessary to save infants are entirely unfounded.

Circumcision and Baptism

Those favoring infant baptism, however, point out that infants in Israel were circumcised shortly after birth. (Genesis 17:12) They reason that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as a means of saving infants.

However, did circumcision serve as a means of salvation? No, it was a visible “sign of the covenant” that God made with Abraham. (Genesis 17:11) Further, only males were circumcised. If baptism parallels circumcision, would it not be logical to refuse baptism to baby girls? Clearly, the parallel is invalid. It must also be remembered that the Scriptures specifically ordered Jewish parents to perform circumcision on their sons. If salvation were involved, why no similar command to Christian parents regarding baptism?

True, Jesus did say: “Let the young children come to me .&#160;.&#160;. For the kingdom of God belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mark 10:14) But Jesus was hardly saying that heaven would be populated by children. Interestingly, Protestant theologian A. Campbell said regarding the heavenly Kingdom: “It is not composed of children, but of those who are like them in docility, humility and meekness.”

Children of a Believer Are “Holy”

Jesus instructed his followers to “go .&#160;.&#160;. And make disciples [or, taught ones] of people of all the nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) It is therefore those old enough to be disciples, or taught ones, who should be baptized. Thus, true Christians today endeavor to train—not baptize—their children from infancy. (2&#160;Timothy 3:15) As children are brought up “in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah,” they develop their own faith.—Ephesians 6:4.

In the meantime, parents need not fear that the eternal welfare of their young children is endangered if they are unbaptized. At 1&#160;Corinthians 7:14 the apostle Paul provides assurance that the children of a Christian parent are “holy.” This is not because of their undergoing some formalistic rite but because God mercifully extends a clean standing to them—as long as at least one of their parents remains faithful as a Christian.

The faithful example of parents, along with the Biblical training their children receive, can in time move young ones to make a dedication of themselves to God and symbolize this by baptism. Their appreciative hearts move them to follow through by rendering 'a sacred service with their power of reason.' (Romans 12:1) These are things a tiny infant simply cannot do.

I'm not here to banter one religion against another. I have my beliefs, you have yours. They are both valid to our individual faiths.

I am not a holy roller who tries to push my religion down someone else's throat (I am not saying you are either), I was just making a point as to why we do believe in infant baptism.

We, as members of different faiths, have every right to believe our individual doctrines.

Heck, Jews and Muslums don't believe in Baptism at all (at least as far as I can remember), are we going to try to convince them that we are right and they are wrong? Nah. So be at peace with your faith, I'll be at peace with mine.

I'm not here to banter one religion against another. I have my beliefs, you have yours. They are both valid to our individual faiths.

I am not a holy roller who tries to push my religion down someone else's throat (I am not saying you are either), I was just making a point as to why we do believe in infant baptism.

We, as members of different faiths, have every right to believe our individual doctrines.

Heck, Jews and Muslums don't believe in Baptism at all (at least as far as I can remember), are we going to try to convince them that we are right and they are wrong? Nah. So be at peace with your faith, I'll be at peace with mine.


I knew you couldn't defend the practice of infant baptism. There isn't one.

Look, I am not here to argue with you. This post was not meant for that. If you want to take it elsewhere, please do. But do not steal this thread or it risks being closed.

Incidentally, there is no Biblical provision for baptizing infants. If you'll notice, everyone that was baptized, according to the Bible, was of a proper age in which they could decide for themselves that they wanted to be dedicated to God. An infant does not have that capacity to make that decision for themselves based on knowledge.

Not only is baptizing an infant not correct, but the method in which it's done is also incorrect. For someone to be baptized, they must be fully immersed in the water, not just have some water sprinkled on their heads. Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan, and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he was fully immersed under the water as well. Again, nowhere does the Bible say baptism is to be done by any other means.Some of your "facts" here are incorrect. You'd better go back and re-read the scriptural passages that address this a little more closely.

Protestant theologian A. Campbell said regarding the heavenly Kingdom: “It is not composed of children, but of those who are like them in docility, humility and meekness.”
Anybody who has actually raised a bunch of kids would have to wonder if the good Reverend had ever spent much time around children. "Docility, humility and meekness" aren't the first words that spring to mind when I think about how kids act, especially when there's more than one of them.

In fact, the disciples were trying to shoo the kids away precisely because they weren't being meek and docile. I think Jesus was commending their boisterous enthusiasm and radical openness rather than their supposed docility and meekness. I wouldn't be surprised if the kingdom of heaven turns out to be a lot livelier place than a lot of religious people are expecting.

As far as infant baptism goes, it's not really for the baby. It's a ritual that reminds the parents of their awesome responsibility, and gives them the opportunity to state publicly that they recognize and willingly assume it. Pretty good, as rituals go, I'd say.

In fact, the disciples were trying to shoo the kids away precisely because they weren't being meek and docile. I think Jesus was commending their boisterous enthusiasm and radical openness rather than their supposed docility and meekness. I wouldn't be surprised if the kingdom of heaven turns out to be a lot livelier place than a lot of religious people are expecting.

As far as infant baptism goes, it's not really for the baby. It's a ritual that reminds the parents of their awesome responsibility, and gives them the opportunity to state publicly that they recognize and willingly assume it. Pretty good, as rituals go, I'd say.


Ok, that's just absurd. The disciples were trying to wave off the children, not because they weren't "being meek and docile", but because they didn't feel the Lord would want to waste his time with them, that he had more important things to attend to. No, children were welcomed by Jesus because, unlike the older Jews, the children weren't all-consumed by their position and self-importance. They harbored no such traits among them.

If it's not really for the baby, then why is the baby the one thrust in the spotlight to have the "holy water" ladled onto their heads? The whole ritual is ridiculous. The parents have the responsibility to train and to teach their children in God's ways... yet ultimately the decision to live that kind of life will be made by the child at some stage. Every person will be accountable for their own decisions. The parent can't make that choice for the child.


Some of your "facts" here are incorrect. You'd better go back and re-read the scriptural passages that address this a little more closely.

None of them are incorrect. I suggest YOU be the one to go back and re-read those passages.

Silentrascal, we are very tolerant of your religion, whatever it may be, you haven't clarified. I am wondering why you can't be tolerant of ours. As I stated before, we all have our own beliefs, we are of different faiths obviously.

Catholic Update - The Sacrament of Baptism by Sandra DeGidio, O.S.M. (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0389.asp)

In defense of OG I will c&p this, and I will post my source, as you have not done.


Baptism and babies


Obviously, infants cannot respond immediately to the call/response aspect of the sacrament. Nor can an infant understand the change of allegiance, the putting off the old and putting on of the new, the dying and rising, the new life, or the sharing in the life of Christ. However, the parents of those infants can understand and live those values and pass them on to their children. They can also experience the support of the community in living those ideals, and that is extremely important.

Infant Baptism only makes sense if parents are true Christian disciples. If they are not, then it makes little sense to initiate their children into a Church which calls for a commitment to living the mission of Christ.

The Rite of Baptism for Children emphasizes the importance of faithfulness on the part of parents when it says to parents: In asking to have your children baptized, "you are accepting the responsibility of training them in the practice of the faith." That word practice is crucial; it calls for Christian modeling on the part of parents.

Considering the future orientation of Baptism and the fact that we are marked for a lifelong journey of discipleship, it is important that parents be strong role models and lead the way. It is equally important that the children's sponsors (godparents) do the same. They are significant supporters of parents and the ones who can first begin to reveal to their godchildren the value of the Christian community.

Children learn to be Christian by osmosis, by experiencing Christianity at home. The "domestic church" prepares children for the local and world Church. It is in the home, in the domestic church, that children first learn basic trust which is the foundation of faith. Without the experience of faith, hope and commitment in the home, children will not be able to know and understand the larger Church.

Vatican II's Declaration on Christian Education points this out quite emphatically: "Since parents have given children life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators. This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied when it is lacking....It is particularly in the Christian family...that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship him and to love their neighbor."

Ok, that's just absurd.

The whole ritual is ridiculous.
Nobody's trying to make you baptize your baby. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. No need to hijack the thread and start an argument about it.

I got to spread the love OG. You are SOOOOOOOO on the mark here.

Nobody's trying to make you baptize your baby. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. No need to hijack the thread and start an argument about it.


Then don't do it.

If you are a christian you should have a biblical basis for any religious actions. There is no biblical basis to baptise infants.

There is absolutely no biblical basis for baptising an infant. None what so ever. If you are a christian the Bible should be you point of reference. Baptism was to people who were old enough to make the decision.

Silentrascal, we are very tolerant of your religion, whatever it may be, you haven't clarified. I am wondering why you can't be tolerant of ours. As I stated before, we all have our own beliefs, we are of different faiths obviously.

Catholic Update - The Sacrament of Baptism by Sandra DeGidio, O.S.M. (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0389.asp)

In defense of OG I will c&p this, and I will post my source, as you have not done.

Why don't you give some biblical reference for your argument instead of just quoting info from websites which we don't even know how credible they are. Lets here it from God's Word itself. Do you have any scrioptures that can prove that infants are to be baptised? As far as I am concerned if you are doing a religious ritual that is not indorsed in the bible you are waisting your time because it has not spiritual signficants. Baptising an infant has not signficants. If parents are just wanting to dedicate their child to the lord, that is what Baby Deduications are for.

This question has been closed as it steered way off topic and became a mudslinging match.