Why don't Christians agree?

[nkb]

Lily wrote

Since you repeat this particular stupidity just about every day, instead of the 5-10 times a day that it deserves to be repeated and since the forum blowhard does repeat it 5-10 times a day (like everything else) yes, it is a bloody miracle that I "finally" got what he was talking about.

Let me get this straight: We repeat this issue all the time, therefore you didn't get it? You are the sorest loser, ever!

[Sternwallow]

A. Stupid Cow wrote

No one can be made a Christian against his wishes. If you were so weak-willed as to be baptised while an atheist, well, what can I say?

It is seldom a matter of will. Many people are baptized against their very strong will.

Let me see if I can spell it out in a way that you who have shown no grasp of much simpler matters might understand. The mode of baptism and when it should take place is one of those matters that is not spelled out in the Nicene creed. The early Church baptised by immersion and, since the earliest converts were adults, of course, it was adults who were baptised along with their households. Did that include children? Apparently so, though the record is not perfectly clear. What is clear is that infant baptism was regularly practiced from very early on -- as soon as Christians began reproducing. Now, those who hold with the necessity of infant baptism liken it to circumcision's place among Jews-- it marks them as members of the community. So too does infant baptism indelibly mark an infant as a member of the community. However, that baby must assent to becoming an actual member of the community when he is old enough to do so. Thus his baptism is confirmed.

Congratulations, you agree with me. You may have some potential after all. Babies are given (consecrated), body, soul and heart to the Church though they do not yet know their noses from their toeses.

Christian groups that practice adult only or "believer's baptism" hold that only adults can be baptised and they are baptised, usually, immediately or as soon after as makes no nevermind, upon their profession of faith in Christ. Thus their baptism is the initiation into the Christian life and does finalize/ratify their decision to become a Christian. While all groups baptise because scripture demands it, not all agree on its significance. Some think it is just ceremonial; others think it is more than ceremonial.

So, which is it? Are those who think it is only ceremonial committing a grave sin that could send them to Hell? Or is it inconsequential so belief that it is more than ceremonial is just benign wasted effort?

Of course they thought you were a Christian! Why would a sane adult allow himself to be baptised if he had not made a decision to become a Christian? There must be quite a story here, eh?

You make too many leaps of inference and that is why you are so very wrong on this point.

[over 90% of Christians I know were baptized against their will]Oh please, what a silly thing to say. You are going to have to offer some proof of this or, at least, an interesting story. (If it is semi-believable, so much the better.)

If you have ever heard a baby scream in panic and rejection at being held under water or having icy cold water sprayed suddenly on their head, you would recognize how bogus and demeaning baptism can be.

Has never happened in the entire history of the world.

Lies do not become you, no matter how much you rely on them. Catholic teaching says that any person, finding another person severely injured or otherwise close to death (after doing all of the emergency things to help) should do their best to baptize the victim. It says that, even without water and even if the baptizer is not a Catholic, even if the victim has actually died, it will be a bona fide baptism. Now a sad bovine will probably say "nonsense, it can't happen", but that is exactly what I was taught by a priest. I admit his credentials were a bit shaky since he never approached me for inappropriate behaviors. I am miffed at that. Wasn't I cute enough for him?

Only the Mormons baptise the dead. And they are not Christians.

You are not entitled to decide that Mormons are not Christians when they proclaim that they are, because you deny the right to others to judge your claim to Christianity. As it stands, we have one group of Christians (theirs) saying another group are not Christian and the other group (yours) saying that the first group is not Christian. Neither one is elegible to arbitrate the issue, being co-defendants.

I suppose there may be other small weirdo cults that do something like that but so what? I can very well imagine that Jewish families might protest.

Why do you think they would protest? Not a single thing happens to their loved ones or their loved ones' souls by being baptized Christian, not a single thing! You can't desecrate what is not sacred, and only things that exist can possibly be sacred.

What effect do you think there would be if a Bishop sloshed a gallon of "Holy" water on my grave while saying many Latin words? Not a damned thing; I have no grave.

You might want to consider that calling anyone stupid is a compliment coming from you. I have said what the Church says. It is printed on the inside cover of every missalette published, in this country why non Catholics and non-Christians cannot be admitted to Communion.

Again you appeal to a self-proclaimed, but unfounded authority. Tsk tsk tsk.

But do tell. Why would you want to participate in a rite you reject and despise? Something does not compute.

I reject but I do not despise the rite. The rite is not right; it has no real effect on anything and only a self-induced effect on the mind of the participant. I only wanted the free booze.

I am only calling you stupid if you accept your characterization as a (vile and wretched) cow.

Stupid cow.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Even Jesus wasn't a Christian , so it isn,t fair for him to expect everyone else to be one. God isn't either. It owuldnt be fair on all his other children. All 4 billion plus on this planet

[nkb]

Sternwallow wrote

Lies do not become you, no matter how much you rely on them.

In Lily's defense, she wasn't lying on this point. She was simply too fucking stupid to understand your point.

Sternwallow wrote

It is seldom a matter of will. Many people are baptized against their very strong will.

No, they are not.

Congratulations, you agree with me.

No, I do not. It is a fatuous statement and repeating it doesn't help.

Babies are given (consecrated), body, soul and heart to the Church though they do not yet know their noses from their toeses.

So what? The don't know their rumps from their arms either. Shall we withhold vaccinations, until they are old enough to understand the need for them and consent to them?

So, which is it? Are those who think it is only ceremonial committing a grave sin that could send them to Hell? Or is it inconsequential so belief that it is more than ceremonial is just benign wasted effort?

We are commanded to be baptised. We are not commanded to sign off on an understanding of the reason why.

If you have ever heard a baby scream in panic and rejection at being held under water or having icy cold water sprayed suddenly on their head, you would recognize how bogus and demeaning baptism can be.

Demeaning?? You can't be serious!!! Wait! What am I saying, of course you can! So babies have a sense of pride that can be outraged by their proud parents and beaming grandparents bringing them into the greater community, fussing over them, photographing them and knocking back ice cream and cake afterwards, eh? Poor abused infants!!!

Ever heard a baby scream when vaccinated? Ever heard a baby scream at being bathed? Ever heard a baby scream at the attempt to feed him strained peas? (Now that really is demeaning!) Shall we withhold vegetables, baths and vaccinations?

Lies do not become you, no matter how much you rely on them. Catholic teaching says that any person, finding another person severely injured or otherwise close to death (after doing all of the emergency things to help) should do their best to baptize the victim. It says that, even without water and even if the baptizer is not a Catholic, even if the victim has actually died, it will be a bona fide baptism.

Oh? Where is this to be found? You can point to an actual official source of this information, can you not?

You are not entitled to decide that Mormons are not Christians when they proclaim that they are, because you deny the right to others to judge your claim to Christianity.

We are not going to revisit this. Chess players who insist on playing by the rules of checkers, are not admitted to the chess club.

What effect do you think there would be if a Bishop sloshed a gallon of "Holy" water on my grave while saying many Latin words? Not a damned thing; I have no grave.

Exactly right. So what is your point? Who has claimed otherwise?

This is starting to be fun, Senilio. You sure you want to keep it up?

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

We are commanded to be baptised. We are not commanded to sign off on an understanding of the reason why.

Well, yeah. You're commanded by people who don't give a fuck whether or not an infant can consent to being baptised.

Of course, infants can't give their consent to being baptised any more than they can give their consent to being bathed. It is their parents' prerogative to ensure that their child is eventually indoctrinated into their culture's superstitions. The pertpetrators of infant baptism don't actually get around to indoctrinating the kid until much later on, of course, when the child is old enough to be coerced into it.

And you can keep rationalizing your point of view on real Christians vs. heretics, but you still don't get to define Christianity for other people. You can open you big, gaping maw and declare whatever you want, but it don't mean shit if the groups that offend you "can and do" apply that appellation to themselves.

Christianity is not analogous to a chess club, by the way.

Roman Catholicism, with its very specific sets of rules and procedures, is a club. But Christianity ain't. It's free to whomever wants to adopt it and shape it how they like. Thirty-eight thousand different groups of people (none of them atheists, apparently), agree with us. So suck it.

[Choobus]

Irreligious wrote

Well, yeah. You're commanded by people who don't give a fuck whether or not an infant can consent to being baptised.

Put it into perspective Irre, many of these same people don't care whether or not an infant can consent to sodomy either.

[Kate]

[nkb]

Lily wrote

We are commanded to be baptised. We are not commanded to sign off on an understanding of the reason why.

Classic! What happened to all those educated Christians Lily keeps telling us about?

Lily wrote

Ever heard a baby scream when vaccinated? Ever heard a baby scream at being bathed? Ever heard a baby scream at the attempt to feed him strained peas? (Now that really is demeaning!) Shall we withhold vegetables, baths and vaccinations?

How fucking retarded does someone have to be to try to equate infant vaccinations with baptism? Without the former, a baby can get very sick, and possibly die. Without the latter? Well, nothing really.

Lily wrote

We are not going to revisit this. Chess players who insist on playing by the rules of checkers, are not admitted to the chess club.

Bad Lily, bad! No analogies for you, you're a bad girl!

Chess players who insist on calling the rook a tower, or the knight a horse, are still playing chess, no matter how hard the traditionalists chess players protest.

[Choobus]

They are not true chess players though are they?

[Irreligious]

Choobus wrote

They are not true chess players though are they?

Well, no. At least, not until there are 38,000 different chess clubs, each with its own idiosyncratic rules.

[nkb]

Choobus wrote

They are not true chess players though are they?

Not if they're referring to the pieces with the wrong name, absolutely not!

If you are playing by all the major rules of chess, but call the diagonally moving piece a "child-molestation cover-up official", instead of a "bishop", you're obviously not playing Real Chess.

[Choobus]

Maybe you're playing "too real" chess.

Irreligious wrote

.

Roman Catholicism, with its very specific sets of rules and procedures, is a club. But Christianity ain't.

Yes, it is, if you want to use such a dumb analogy. We do get to say who is one of us and who isn't. We disagree over some things. But no outsider will tell us we are wrong about what we agree on. So butt out, ignoramus. Not that it matters in the least whether you continue to ignorantly prattle about issues you know nothing about. So, I have changed my mind in midstream !

Go ahead and blither. What is one more blowhard in this neighborhood?

[nkb]

Lily wrote

Go ahead and blither. What is one more blowhard in this neighborhood?

Come on, Lily, you're making this entirely too easy for me. Off to the quote thread with you.