THE ABOMINATION OF INFANT BAPTISM
Infant baptism is often called Christening. In other words, it is reckoned to
make a child a Christian. But if God commanded infant baptism he might not
regard it as making a child a Christian or a member of the Christian family. He
would demand it as something that the child could accept later on and which will
not make the child a Christian until then. God has no respect for freedom if he
makes a child a Christian when it cannot think for itself. He may need to force
some things on a child like who its parents are and what kind of place it lives
in but with religion and spiritual matters it is different for he has no need to
force them on anybody. That is why it would be immoral. Unnecessary forcing is
bad.
The Church says that we were made without our consent so we can be baptised
without it to for baptism is birth into the family of God. It is us being
regenerated or spiritually reborn.
But God could not ask us before he made us if we wanted to be made so that is
different. He could ask us if we want to be born into his family. So he could
let us die as babies and then ask us or he could let us grow up to decide for
ourselves.
Dignity is seen as a gift from God and dignity is given in baptism too.
Baptismal regeneration is linked to the notion of God making man in his own
image. The baby becomes the icon of God in baptism. The unbaptised is an image
of God in a sense but there is no qualification in how the baptised person
images God. The unbaptised being the image of God is so vague that it is
meaningless and as good as saying the unbaptised is nothing to God at all.
To baptise a child is to take advantage of her by putting her in a religion when
she can’t speak for herself. What happens is that the child is superficially a
member for joining a religion is about what is in the heart. What happens is
that a person who is not a member at all is counted as a member. Some would
reply that it is theft or spiritual kidnapping. If the child is baptised as a
Catholic, and then circumcised as a Jew then what religion does it belong to for
it cannot belong to both. If it cannot belong to both then it belongs to
neither.
To raise a child to believe in religion is conditioning and trapping her. No one
has the right to do that to a child which is why infant baptism exists so that
there might be an excuse for doing it. It fulfils its function for it makes
people fail to see how abhorrent this is. Don’t baptise babies and let them grow
up to decide for themselves. When there are so many different religions about it
has to be up to each person themselves. Infant baptism and other religious
initiation rites preformed on children are wrong. They are an insult to the
child and no truly loving parents would put their baby through it. The Catholic
tradition is particularly possessive and holds that once you are baptised an
indelible mark is put on your soul forever marking you out as belonging to the
Church of Christ even if you later want to remove it.
What makes it ten times worse is the fact that the vast majority of the children
will grow up to reject most of what the Church teaches. They seem to reject it
quicker if they know it well. Most know enough to make a negative decision. The
Roman Catholic Church insists that the babies born in a mixed marriage must be
made and raised as Catholics which is cruel towards non-Catholics. Why cause so
much trouble over babies being baptised Catholics when they will more than
likely cease to be authentic Catholics anyway? How can the Church with its
cynicism based on Jesus Christ and Romans 3, which say we are more likely to do
bad in God’s eyes than good and more likely to refuse to accept the word of God,
say that babies should be baptised for they will probably serve her as true
followers anyway? This is the religion that decrees that babies should not be
baptised if their “Catholic” parents will not make true Catholics of them.
Church tradition says that babies should only be baptised if the parents or
godparents will indoctrinate them.
Children are not given any real chance to freely accept the faith and have real
belief for they are not told about any alternatives. And the Church says that
free will to choose God or reject him is not conferred until about seven years
of age. It converts children before that which amounts to manipulating them to
serve God and herself without concern for their will or dignity. How could such
faith be real when it is not free? The children were brainwashed. How can
religion say that free will explains why God can love us and let us suffer when
children who don’t have it suffer and don’t have a protective force field around
them? Is it right to baptise children into a religion that is that inconsistent
about the rightness of their being allowed by God to suffer?
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of prejudice against people who do not get
their babies baptised. We must fight against prejudices against goodness instead
of going along with them for they will always be around but will get fewer when
our outrage gets more common.
Infant baptism is only a priestly scheme to win power. When people are baptised
it is easier for the Church to get to them and influence them because they think
of themselves as belonging to the Church. The Church is unsure of themselves
when they depend on exploitation to get converts. The exploitation of children
is the most cowardly method a religion can use to propagate itself. Not only is
the child treated like a being that owes the Church allegiance but is encouraged
by the mere performance of the rite to consider himself more likely to be true
to God than a person who was not baptised. It encourages looking down on the
unbaptised.
Infant baptism is diminishing the right of the child to be her own person. Your
husband or wife or mother or father or politician or president will not claim
the right to tell you what to think though they will at times tell you what it
is your duty to do but the Church in the name of God will. Therefore infant
baptism is intended to get the child dominated and controlled by the Church.
Politicians are often corrupt and yet there can be no greater corruption than
that in many of the clergy who claim the right to absolute power over the minds
of their victims. Submission to God is really about submission to his
representatives through whom he acts.
The Scientologists and the Moonies brainwash adults but it is far worse to
brainwash children and the Christian clergy use baptism as the gateway to
achieving that. The Roman Catholic Church has scarier doctrines than either of
these two sects which is very worrying. I have heard it said that the only
reason it is not recognised for the fanatical cult it is, is because it does not
have the resources to instigate brainwashing, except in the case of children,
and dares not install them with the whole world watching. If so then the Church
is too powerful and high profile to get away with starting an obvious
brainwashing program for adults. Yet it is undeniable that many Catholics are
indeed brainwashed thoroughly but many are brainwashed a bit – consider the fear
parents have associated with the thought of not getting their child baptised as
an instance. The Church has injurious doctrines such as original sin and
everlasting punishing to name but a few with which it hopes to brainwash to some
extent by implanting fear so that the victims can’t think for themselves.
Evoking fear is a powerful way to brainwash and truth be known is the essence of
what brainwashing is all about. That Catholics bring their babies to be
handcuffed to a religion using underhand tactics is sufficient proof that they
are indeed brainwashed themselves and warns us that religion is has potential
for great harm and warps the minds even of those who only get involved a tiny
bit. Religionists need help before the corruption does too much damage.
SACRAMENTAL BAPTISM UNREASONABLE
The doctrine of the Church is that baptism is not a right but a gift from God.
Yet some seem to think they have a right to get their babies baptised or the
baby has a right to get baptised! If the baby has a right parents have less
right.
Rome teaches that when adults get baptised their original and actual sin is
forgiven. It is blasphemy to say that God will delay reconciling with them until
the priest pours water on them. If he loves them he will want to deliver them
from sin and soon as they have the required dispositions of trust and
repentance.
It is belittling God to teach that he keeps babies in original sin until the
priest empties a jug on them. He does not love them when he is not anxious to
make them his children as quickly as possible. Rome says he owes the children
nothing so he can arbitrarily heal one of original sin and keep another in it if
he wants to. So his forgiveness is just generosity. But it is an insult to be
generous to one and not another for no reason. Generosity is a virtue so a truly
perfect God cannot be mean like Rome’s God. Rome has hidden her secret doctrine
that God hates babies until they are baptised for too long. One could be
forgiven for thinking the Church is the one that hates babies.
If you can’t sleep in case something bad happens to your child without baptism
then perform the baptism yourself. There is little harm in that but it is
against the rights of the child. It is indeed far worse to take the child to a
church for the Church makes you vow to brainwash the child as a Christian and to
bring it to it for indoctrination. That is part of the deal. And you have to pay
for it as well which is utterly degrading. Remember though by baptising your
child you are promising to make the child a Christian for that is what baptism
does, it is picturing the washing away of what God forbids and it is done in the
name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit meaning you are bringing the child into
the authority of God and his Church. That is actually wrong if you intend to let
the child make her or his own decisions when she or he gets older.
It is not a very nice person who would praise a God who will not regard innocent
babies as his friends and children until an eccentric in strange robes splashes
them with holy water. The Catholic Church defends her this God claiming that the
babies do not deserve salvation. But the babies haven’t done anything. The
Church agrees and then informs us that it is because they haven’t that God has
the right to look upon them with wrath. But he could look on them with love.
When he has a choice he should pick the best. He would pick love if he were
love.
The Church says that if you would be baptised but can’t be God will understand
and you will be made as good as baptised the very moment you die but under very
strict conditions.
As long as you delay making your child a friend of God you are willing the
child’s separation from God and that must be a sin. And it must be child-abuse.
Rome says it is worse to abuse the soul than to abuse the body. No wonder some
feel that if they have abused a child’s soul they might as well abuse them
sexually for they have done worse.
Why don’t Catholics baptise babies in the womb with syringes as a rule?
At the end of the day, though baptised believers in infant baptism claim that
they do not consider themselves any better or worse than an unbaptised baby they
do. If you have God in your heart you are better than the person who has not.
The doctrine of baptism they have is the stuff from which racism is made.
Religious fanaticism is when a religion fails to live and believe in such a way
that no harm is done if the religion turns out to be untrue. This is fanaticism.
It is no better than the spirit that leads the Catholic Church to inflict the
fear of a priest not coming in time on a dying person.
Most so-called Christians have no problem contravening the rules of the Church
on marriage so it is hard to see how they put so much emphasis on getting babies
baptised.