TRADITION DOES NOT SUPPORT BAPTISING BABIES

The Roman Catholic Church claims that sprinkling water on a baby or an adult while saying, "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" does amazing things. It takes away the sin we are born with, original sin, and any other sins and grafts us on to Jesus making us his servants. It puts Jesus and God inside us to live in us and inspire us. The Church says that baptism heals the inclination towards sin that original sin causes. Baptism is a sacrament. It pictures cleansing from sin and the effects of sin and actually does what it pictures.

Early tradition does not have babies being baptised.

It does not say that if a baby is baptised that baby is saved and cleansed of sin.

It does not say that is how you become part of the church.

Jesus said that baptism is for those who believe.

Infant baptism is overridden by the tradition of religious freedom and informed choice.

Essentially, baptism is giving the child to God for it is not his until you do.  In practice that means giving the child to the Catholic version of God.  It means giving it and dedicating it to a religion that claims to be the voice of God. 

Almost the entirety of the Christian Church believes that children may be baptised to make them members of the Church. Many people today find it disturbing that the Church uses blackmail to make sure this is done thus keeping its membership up.
 
What is more disturbing is that the Catholic Church says baptism takes away much of your desire to sin but this claim is refuted by experience! If priests were doctors they would be seen for the charlatans that they are and yet they claim to be doctors for the soul with baptism as a cure for sin. What an unfair world we live in. They are the ones that say spiritual sickness is more serious than physical sickness and they have the nerve to condemn quackery! What about their spiritual quackery?
 
The Catholic Church claims that salvation or your pass into eternal life in Heaven is a gift from God that you take by baptism. The Church compares getting baptised to going to the casino to get your prize. It is not the same thing for you have to go somewhere to get your prize but God does not need to restrict the gift to baptism. The Bible says that those who think their good works earn salvation are in fact arrogantly trying to buy from God and insulting his generosity. The Church insults its God by requiring baptism for salvation. Would you really want any salvation from a God like the Catholic version of God? If you as a grown up would not want it you cannot assume that a child should be baptised into the service of such a god.
 
As baptism removes sin, it is supposed to unite your soul with God. Thus you belong to him and he to you. There are no rights without responsibilities. Baptism lays religious responsibilities on you. You must obey what God teaches through scripture and the Church. Baptism is based on scripture and Church authority. So to get baptised implies acceptance of their authority and veracity. Baptism is an oath. God and his people have taken an oath based on, "You will be my people and I will be your God". It is a two-way oath. The Church requires an oath of commitment from baptised babies before they know to what they are committing. That is outrageous...
 
Christianity says that a baptised baby has God and his goodness producing power and an unbaptised baby does not. It says that a baby comes into existence estranged from God and this is original sin and needs to be forgiven. As in racism, the innocent are slandered and insulted and called dangerous because of something they cannot help. Racists condemn because of skin colour. Christians condemn a baby for not being baptised. You can have treatment to change your skin colour and surgery to look like another race. So clearly the Christians maligning the babies is worse than racism for a baby can't get itself baptised.

Baptism was used to segregate children from paganism and that caused much family and social disruption. The pagan parent married to a Christian suffered from his or her children being baptised into a faith that they regarded with abhorrence and as immoral and narrow. [Jesus put separating people from their families into practice. Arguments that he did not are stretched and complicated. If he were innocent it would not take that amount of rationalisation and far fetched reasoning. It is an insult to the many countless victims of Christianity.]  In fact, we have lost sight of the segregation element of baptism.  That is because we don't have many old style pagans about.  But the principle still stands.
 
Christians say they condemn the parents and those responsible for the child for not getting it baptised not the child. Even if the parents don't mean to harm, they still are harming. But if it is true that God is fair, then it is fair for him to reject the unbaptised babies until they are baptised - they in some way deserve it. The child can be blamed for not being holy. In other words, the child is to blame for not embracing God and making baptism unnecessary. It is the child's fault that it needs baptism therefore we can blame the child for not being clean.
 
Even when Protestant Christians do not believe baptism reconciles the baby with God and puts God's holiness and goodness in the child, their doctrine that one must be born again by making a personal commitment of faith to Christ, is nearly as unacceptable as the Catholic doctrine that babies are saved by baptism. These Christians say that babies may go to Heaven if they die but clearly what happens is that because they die God forgives them. Babies that do not die are not cleansed of original sin and forgiven. Those Christians are still accusing babies of being rejected by God and God will keep rejecting them until some arbitrary conditions are fulfilled! A God who arbitrarily accepts or who requires silly conditions to be taken care of before he accepts is only insulting people by accepting them. Would it be a compliment if you were only allowed to work as an accountant if you had red hair? If the person really values you, they would accept you properly and not be inventing excuses for having rejected you before. Gay and lesbian rights are nonsense if racism is acceptable and racism can hardly be wrong if the idea of babies being accepted by God and rejected by him for no sensible reason is true.
 
Catholic Christianity accuses an unbaptised baby of being inferior to babies that are baptised. Since God is supposed to be fair, the baby must in some way deserve this treatment.  The baby who is baptised is a weapon even if nobody admits it.  That degrades the baby.  It degrades the baby who is regarded as being damaged and God-absent for not being  baptised.

True fans of tradition must not let the Church drag their babies to the baptismal font.

 

No Copyright