[Wondergirl]

One can only say no. The yes is the Holy Spirit.

[ActionJackson]

One can only say no. The yes is the Holy Spirit.

At least you agree that I have the option of saying no thus exercising my free will.

[Wondergirl]

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

[ActionJackson]

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

Again... free will... choice. To exercise free will or make a choice one has to know and understand what choices are available to them. Infants do not have that ability.

[Wondergirl]

No, they don't, thus we depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to begin the work of faith, to open their hearts to receive the Word. Sponsors (godparents) promise, along with the parents, to do everything they can to guide and encourage the child as it feeds on the "milk" of the Word and grows in grace until it is old enough to tackle the "meat" of the Word. Around age 12 or 13, after being fed much "milk", the child will, in the rite of Confirmation, affirm its baptism. At that time, some ask to be rebaptized; others do not.

[ActionJackson]

No, they don't, thus we depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to begin the work of faith, to open their hearts to receive the Word. Sponsors (godparents) promise, along with the parents, to do everything they can to guide and encourage the child as it feeds on the "milk" of the Word and grows in grace until it is old enough to tackle the "meat" of the Word. Around age 12 or 13, after being fed much "milk", the child will, in the rite of Confirmation, affirm its baptism. At that time, some ask to be rebaptized; others do not.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I am a Bible-only Christian and you base your faith on a mixture of Scripture and tradition. I've found that there are too many SEEMING contradictions between the two (I use the word "seeming" now so that I don't get a plethora of attacks from the non-Bible-only community later).

I was attacked earlier for not having Scriptural backing when I said that 20 was the age of accountability but I keep hearing this "around the age of 12 or 13" thrown around a lot without any Scriptural backing. I don't mean to point a finger but, come on...

[Wangdoodle]

Some might say "Ah, but weren't babies circumcised at the age of 8 days?" Yes. The reason being that vitamin K is at its peak at that age (vitamin K being a blood clotting agent). Also, circumcision was done for sanitation purposes.

You really do not think there was more to circumcision then that? Certainly you know it was the mark of the covenant between God and Abraham. Also worth noting: Gen 17 vs 14. "If a maile is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant."

Much, much more than sanitation purposes.

[ActionJackson]

You really do not think there was more to circumcision then that? Certainly you know it was the mark of the covenant between God and Abraham. Also worth noting: Gen 17 vs 14. "If a maile is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people: he has broken my covenant."

Much, much more than sanitation purposes.

Actually, I do believe that there was more to it than that. However, I used to question why it was done on the 8th day and not the 5th or 15th, etc. I thought that there might be some significance to the 8th day. Though I have never seen anything scriptural written about the 8th day, there could very well be some significance to that time. God rested on the 7th. So, the 8th day was sort of a new beginning. So, I wasn't trying to discount the greater importance associated with circumcision but was trying to explain why it was done at that particular age.

Also, sanitation is a byproduct but God's Law covers sanitation and circumcision is more sanitary than the alternative.

[Capuchin]

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)

I'm VERY uncomfortable with this question. I too was baptised as a small child, however, I have been thinking for myself for my whole life (or at least from a young age). I don't understand how you can think that your religion is anyone's choice except your own.

Faith is yours to choose. I don't believe that the fact I was baptised makes me Christian, I don't think that my parents chose my faith for me.

Christian parents SHOULD give their children a Christian upbringing. Totally. Because the child will always have a time when they can decide what being a Christian means to them, if it's something they don't agree with, they're free to leave. And if they wish to stay christian, they can be baptised if they wish to show that they are accepting the church as their own choice and not those of their parents.

[Wangdoodle]

Actually, I do believe that there was more to it than that. However, I used to question why it was done on the 8th day and not the 5th or 15th, etc. I thought that there might be some significance to the 8th day. Though I have never seen anything scriptural written about the 8th day, there could very well be some significance to that time period. God rested on the 7th. So, the 8th day was sort of a new beginning. So, I wasn't trying to discount the greater importance associated with circumcision but was trying to explain why it was done at that particular age.

Also, sanitation is a byproduct but God's Law covers sanitation and circumcision is more sanitary than the alternative.

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for clearing that up.:)

[michealb]

For non believers baptism is just getting the baby a little wet. If it involved scaring the child for life to show that they are a servant of god I would say wait until the child decides on their own but since it does no harm to the child it's up to the parents on when it's done.

[ActionJackson]

Yes--anyone can say no. Many do.

Not everyone has a chance to say no or to exercise that choice. If it is okay for a parent to make the decision that their child WILL be of a certain faith and they decide for that baby that he or she will be baptized, I'm sure that you would be happy for the decision that the parents made. What if some parents decided that their child should be a member of the church of Satan and they opted to have their child baptized in the blood of a goat. Do they have the right to make that choice for their baby?

[michealb]

Goats blood is fine it won't hurt the baby. As long as the church of Satan doesn't preach anything that is illegal in the Unite State the parents have the right to raise their child in a matter they see fit.

[Wangdoodle]

I was baptised when I was a small baby. My parents automatically dedicated my life to Christianity by doing so. In short, I wasn't given a chance to think for myself. Do you think parents should wait until an offspring can think for him/herself before being baptised?

Jeff :)

I do not believe infant baptism to be an intrinsic evil. By having an infant immersed in or have water poured over the infant in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would not be damning this child. If an infant is baptized and grows up to have a false sense of salvation or walks a way from the faith; that would not be do to the fact that the person was baptized as an infant. I believe that baptism actually confers the grace that it symbolizes. I do not believe this negates Christ’s death and resurrection, in fact, it depends upon it. I could not deny the little ones the water of regeneration. As a parent myself, I want to give my children, from birth to death, every opportunity to experience God’s grace.

[ActionJackson]

Goats blood is fine it won't hurt the baby. As long as the church of Satan doesn't preach anything that is illegal in the Unite State the parents have the right to raise their child in a matter they see fit.

So you believe that anything goes as long as it is "legal" in the United States. I suppose that would include abortion? What if a family of Nazis decide that their child should be baptized in Nazi Juice (don't know what that is but you get the point) would it be the parents' right to do so as long as no laws are broken? I know it sounds ridiculous but it still boils down to whether a parent can make that important decision. I agree with whoever said that it won't hurt the child to be baptized as long as during their life the child is taught the importance of baptism and is encouraged to be immersed again should he or she fully accept Jesus Christ when he or she is old enough to make that decision for his or herself.

[michealb]

<--Libertarian
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee
So as long as your not doing any physical or severe directed emotional harm to someone it is not my business. Religious ceremonies are ceremonies only they don't make you magically believe one thing or another. So if your parents thing is Nazi juice I hope that the rest of society has enough of a positive impact on you that you are not affected by your parents deranged believes in your adult life. Would I fight tooth and nail to protect your parents freedom of religion and speech, you bet I would.

[magprob]

So you believe that anything goes as long as it is "legal" in the United States. I suppose that would include abortion? What if a family of Nazis decide that their child should be baptized in Nazi Juice (don't know what that is but you get the point) would it be the parents' right to do so as long as no laws are broken? I know it sounds ridiculous but it still boils down to whether a parent can make that important decision. I agree with whoever said that it won't hurt the child to be baptized as long as during their life the child is taught the importance of baptism and is encouraged to be immersed again should he or she fully accept Jesus Christ when he or she is old enough to make that decision for his or herself.

Nazi Juice is illegal in the U.S.

[Fr_Chuck]

Actually most Nazis were christian, people forget that in Europe we were fighting other christians. Maybe not the leaders but the normal soldiers carried their bibles into battle just like the US soldiers did.

But a baby baptism, does not stop the child from denying the faith when they get older. But it does for the chiristian save their child till they are old enough to deny the faith.

And sadly while abotion doctors all need to be in jail, current it is legal in the US, but abotion has nothing to do with religion, it is merely murder, and against moraity in general almost reqardless of religion.

But for a parent, they have to, of they are not following the faith plain and simiple, it does not force the child into anything, except salvation till they make their choice.

[ActionJackson]

<--Libertarian
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee
So as long as your not doing any physical or severe directed emotional harm to someone it is not my business. Religous ceremonies are ceremonies only they don't make you magically believe one thing or another. So if your parents thing is Nazi juice I hope that the rest of society has enough of a positive impact on you that you are not affected by your parents deranged believes in your adult life. Would I fight tooth and nail to protect your parents freedom of religion and speech, you bet I would.

I happen to agree fully with your point here. That's why this country was founded, in part, on freedom of religion. I'm not even saying that it should be illegal or even wrong for parents to baptize their infants. But the issue here is baptism from a biblical perspective. I believe that accepting and believing in Jesus Christ is a very personal thing. Obviously, parents who baptize their infant loves their child and will probably raise the baby with Christian morals. That's good. I have no problem at all with that. I just believe that when a person accepts Christ for himself he should establish his relationship with Jesus Christ by being baptized of his own free will. I don't believe that the baptism that occurred during infancy takes the place of that.

[ActionJackson]

Nazi Juice is illegal in the U.S.

I thought only 60 proof was illegal.