The Catholic Church says we are all tainted with original sin and there is a bit of sin in all our actions and even our good works. Some Protestants say that none of our good works are really good. This problem is not mended until we get baptised.

There is an element of abuse in deciding to have your child baptised.  It involves projecting sin on a child that may not be there and then offering baptism as a solution.

But the Church will have to answer that it is worse abuse if the child is not baptised.

This assumes that baptism works. It assumes it without regard to evidence. There is no evidence that unbaptised people are any worse than baptised. Their answer is certainly evil.

A rite that does nothing about our tendency to harm people is harming. It is not neutral.

The Church assumes that baptism is not an attempt to put a dangerous and malign spiritual power into the baby. But when it does nothing for the baby, it does evil to the baby. It tells the baby he is healed of sin when he is not. The Devil will be very pleased with it.

Baptism is trying to put a power that violates the rights of the child, that encourages the child to absorb and follow a harmful hypocritical faith into the child. It is an act of worship for a despicable God.

We know most parents do not want their children to be very obedient to the Church. So they have the babies baptised under false pretences. If baptism is really the new birth then these parents are not having the baby baptised to help it but to make it defy that help. The baby must end up worse in the end than she would have been had she never been baptised.

The idea of original sin and that there is a bit of evil in all you do urges you to have that evil in your heart. Original sin itself is an evil doctrine and it is not original sin that tries to taint good works. It is belief in it. Original sin does not exist. So baptism is based on an evil doctrine. It pays homage to it and so it is evil itself.

If baptism does not work and does not heal original sin, then it is the best initiation to the craftiest kind of evil. Evil likes to have a beautiful side. It needs that to attract people. The person who thinks they are healed of sin when they are not are in the same position as the Pharisees were according to the New Testament. They were confident in their holiness though they were not holy.

If we have original sin and its effects, which include a bias towards sinning, then we are not going to lose original sin without a struggle. The bias towards sin would lead us to create an ineffective cure that would make us falsely claim to be free from original sin. We would create such a useless rite such as baptism. You would not take your child to the doctor for a vaccine when there is no strong evidence for its effectiveness. And religion says sin is worse than any sickness and at the root of all sickness. It claims that even when it is forgiven the damage is left behind and makes us sick and weak. Without the proof, baptism then is really for KEEPING a child in original sin. Though it is done in the name of God it is anti-god in that sense. It represents the view that a relationship with God is all-important and then it spits on the view in mockery.

Baptism is not so much about healing the child of the tendency to sin as it is to remove the condition of sin the child is in. It is more worried about God not having the child than the healing of the child. It says the faith comes before the child.

Christianity exercises a kind of fundamentalism that sees it as all about good/God taking over where evil was and vice versa as if there is no grading between. Thus some see removing original sin as enough to make you a child of God. The idea is that get sin out and God has to flood in. Why can’t it just wipe the slate leaving it up to you to choose God? Why does the space have to be filled necessarily? This point clearly shows that baptism is intended to be an occult ritual that controls God. The rite forces God into you when in fact you should be in a neutral state with original sin gone.

There is no law that says that coming into existence in a state of estrangement from God that is not your own fault should result in tendencies to sin. An unrepentant murderer could be made in such a way that his crime does not make him want to do more evil. Yet God blames original sin for those tendencies. He should blame himself. Baptism accuses God of evil and offers you a relationship with this wacky mad and wicked God.

Baptism implies that God and the child do not have a relationship until baptism. To have your child baptised is to give assent to the idea that God comes first and is right even when he is estranged from your baby. If you believe something so awful you can hardly complain about somebody saying your child is evil.  To call a child evil is to call that child scum.  To say your child is as guilty as Adam was when he ate the forbidden fruit is reprehensible. To call your child as dangerous as Adam even if you leave the guilt out is not far behind.  Baptism is declaring that harming and insulting are not bad in themselves but only bad when God feels like condemning them and that he may allow harm and still be good. It is declaring that religion matters and people don't.

If you believe in psychic powers and evil powers then you are dedicating your child to possibly harmful magical forces during baptism. You need to be sure what kind of powers are operating if any. If you are not or don't care then baptism is inviting evil to the child. And religion with its outrageous morality and doctrines devoid of verification cannot prove that it is good for the child. You need proof. It's your child.

The Christian religion is unable to give adequate verification of any of its claims. It claims that the followers of Jesus Christ following his crucifixion left evidence that he rose bodily from the dead leaving an empty tomb and appeared to his friends and now reigns as our king in Heaven and from there he administers the salvation he won for us. We know we have to accept the simplest explanation we can find. The gospels record the alleged evidence for the empty tomb and the visitations of the risen Jesus. If the gospels are convincing (they are not - an empty tomb and apparitions afterwards of the person who had been in the tomb still does not prove a resurrection) in relation to their claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead then where is the miracle? It is easier to believe that the miracle is in the credibility of the records and not in the miracle of resurrection. The plausibility of the records only means that the records are plausible not that they are correct. Something rather different from an actual resurrection could have been what really happened. Then some psychic or supernatural forces set to work to guide writers to tell a story that supported a resurrection story and was believable. The lesser miracle of psychic guidance of the writers is what should be accepted not the huge miracle of resurrection. The fact that the (fragile but let us put that out of our mind) plausibility of the records only means that the records are plausible not that they are correct suffices to show that the resurrection is false. Had Jesus really risen he would not have made the mistake of guiding his followers to present evidence that is useless never mind insufficient.

Baptism symbolises the resurrection. It is declaring your commitment to it as a historical fact and therefore to the gospels and the Church. It is dedicating the baby to unfair bias and irrationality for the resurrection is a ridiculous belief by any test. The child is called upon to oppose those who know how silly the resurrection idea is. And if occult forces were behind the resurrection of Jesus that is what you are opening your child up to when you commit her or him to the resurrection in baptism.

The Church certainly wants babies to be born evil. Catholics will not judge a vile murderer as evil though according to their standards he is but they judge a child as being empty of God! They have no evidence for their belief in original sin so they believe it vindictively. I wouldn't believe they intended baptism to remedy original sin but perhaps to make it look like they were trying to do something about it.

The Church teaches that doctrine and teaching is important but the healing power of the sacraments is more important. For example, the imbecile will be helped by the sacraments though he can't learn many doctrines. Parents stupidly think they should have their children baptised with a view to having them sent to Catholic schools to educate them as good people. They focus on the teaching aspect. But this is misplaced. The main focus is the healing power. Indeed it is the only focus for the Church declares that all the teaching in the world will do no good unless your heart is opened to God by the supernatural power of the sacraments. We are said to be closed to God by nature and we need his grace to get us into a position where we can choose him and his ways and receive his virtue-infusing power. The priests - because they wish to manipulate - don't warn parents to have the right reasons for having their child enrolled in Catholicism and its schools.

Baptism is doubtlessly the declaration of allegiance to evil spiritual forces and to religious whitewash and hypocrisy.


Sacramental baptism is black magic. Infant baptism insults the wonder of birth. Even magicians would consider baptism to be superstition for it does not work. It fails to cause most children to take their beliefs about matters of doctrine and morals from the Church or to value God much. If you subject your baby to a healing ritual that does nothing instead of looking for one that does, then do you love your child as much as you love the approval of the Church?


No Copyright