Baptising a Child

[Sultan85]

Most people baptise their children at a very young age. By doing this, aren't you deciding what your child should believe in, instead of leaving it to be his or her choice?
When children are so young, their brain is not developed to tackle such hard issues, that we as adults cannot even come to agreement with. When you sell this story to children, they will easily believe in it (which could be a possible explanation to why anyone is religious at all). When doing this, you are by definition, indoctrinating a defenseless child; which I would argue is psychological abuse.


Question: Are Baptising and teaching religious doctrine to children morally wrong? On that grounds that it interferes with his freedom to choose.

[LiamOS]

It's necessary that you know the following, so that you may be able to better understand the answers to your questions:

What is baptism?

Why are children (or infants) baptized?

Now, I already explained both these. Naturally, Christian parents do not wish, should their child die suddenly, for their child to be denied forever the happiness of Heaven.

It's necessary that you realise that this knowledge is nothing more than opinion from my point of view. If you wish to change that, feel free to. Until then, parents only think that their child will be denied happiness.

Now, if some strange religious people had a child and removed its genitalia and left arm because they thought that not doing so would doom the child to eternal suffering, would they be right in doing so?

Is it right to take your ill child to the doctor when they are not able to decide whether they want to go to the doctor?

Yes.

Christian parents protect their children and do the very best for them by making decisions on their behalf for the very reason that they are too young to decide for themselves.

So, it is your belief that not baptising a child is akin to not bringing them to the doctor when ill?

Perhaps you'll understand when you have children of your own.

Should you ever have the misfortune of seeing me, you'll know that that's not going to happen.

First, these aren't just "others." They are flesh of the parents flesh, the offspring of their parents.

What makes the decision of a father more pertinent? Social convention?

Christian parents have a duty before God to not only look after the physical welfare of their children, but also their spiritual welfare since children are by nature to young to do either.

That is what you believe.

What kind of parents would neglect the welfare their children?

What kind of parents would force unproven remedies on a child for an illness that has never been shown to exist?

[dianaiad]

It's necessary that you know the following, so that you may be able to better understand the answers to your questions:

What is baptism?

Why are children (or infants) baptized?

Now, I already explained both these. Naturally, Christian parents do not wish, should their child die suddenly, for their child to be denied forever the happiness of Heaven.

It's necessary that you realise that this knowledge is nothing more than opinion from my point of view. If you wish to change that, feel free to. Until then, parents only think that their child will be denied happiness.

Now, if some strange religious people had a child and removed its genitalia and left arm because they thought that not doing so would doom the child to eternal suffering, would they be right in doing so?

Now that is apples and oranges indeed! While I absolutely do not agree with infant baptism, even I do not consider it to be the equivalent of amputation and castration...male or female. It's a sprinkle of water, usually. At least, I know of no parent or group that baptises infants by immersion (not that it would be a problem, babies having this really neat instinct regarding going underwater--my five kids were swimming quite literally before they could sit up...but I digress.)

Is it right to take your ill child to the doctor when they are not able to decide whether they want to go to the doctor?

Yes.

Christian parents protect their children and do the very best for them by making decisions on their behalf for the very reason that they are too young to decide for themselves.

So, it is your belief that not baptising a child is akin to not bringing them to the doctor when ill?

In the eyes of many Christian parents, it's worse. A child might well recover without seeing a doctor. In many Christian belief systems, an unbaptized child is condemned to hell. If a parent believes this to be true, how horrific an act would it be for THAT parent NOT to have his or her child baptised?

I think that it is useless...but it does no harm, unlike your example of limb and genital removal.

Perhaps you'll understand when you have children of your own.

Should you ever have the misfortune of seeing me, you'll know that that's not going to happen.

First, these aren't just "others." They are flesh of the parents flesh, the offspring of their parents.

What makes the decision of a father more pertinent? Social convention?

Christian parents have a duty before God to not only look after the physical welfare of their children, but also their spiritual welfare since children are by nature to young to do either.

That is what you believe.

Indeed, and she is entitled. I believe she's wrong about the purpose of baptism, but then I'm a Mormon. We believe weird things, I've been told.

What kind of parents would neglect the welfare their children?

What kind of parents would force unproven remedies on a child for an illness that has never been shown to exist?

Define 'proven.' As I mentioned, equating scientific medical procedures with religious ritual is, well....apples and oranges.

[LiamOS]

Now that is apples and oranges indeed! While I absolutely do not agree with infant baptism, even I do not consider it to be the equivalent of amputation and castration...male or female.

I don't consider them equivalent either.

I think that it is useless...but it does no harm, unlike your example of limb and genital removal.

From my reading of the OP, it seems like the question was aimed at children being raised Christian; baptism being the beginning of that.

Indeed, and she is entitled.

I do not believe she is entitled to make religious decisions on the part of others or assert her beliefs as true without supporting evidence.

Define 'proven.'

Having been evidenced to the degree of it being the null hypothesis.

As I mentioned, equating scientific medical procedures with religious ritual is, well....apples and oranges.

Baptism really isn't far off the use of that Scientologist machine. It claims to cleanse you of a problem which can;t e demonstrated in the first place.
This is deceptive.

[Kuan]

I think that it is useless...but it does no harm, unlike your example of limb and genital removal.

From my reading of the OP, it seems like the question was aimed at children being raised Christian; baptism being the beginning of that.

What is the difference between a child raised as an atheist and a different child as a christian?

Indeed, and she is entitled.

I do not believe she is entitled to make religious decisions on the part of others or assert her beliefs as true without supporting evidence.

So then it is never appropriate?

Define 'proven.'

Having been evidenced to the degree of it being the null hypothesis.[/quote
If it becomes the null hypothesis, isnt it the opposite of what has been evidenced?

As I mentioned, equating scientific medical procedures with religious ritual is, well....apples and oranges.

Baptism really isn't far off the use of that Scientologist machine. It claims to cleanse you of a problem which can;t e demonstrated in the first place.
This is deceptive.

Scientology is still a religion.

[Ann]

AkiThePirate,

Well, once again you clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about concerning baptism, Catholicism, and parenting. Your responses continue to show an inability, or unwillingness to take my words within context. Unfortunately, you have totally missed the boat. I can only invite you to re-read my posts and with the hope that you take them within proper context, that you will eventually understand the point I have made.

Ann

[dianaiad]

Now that is apples and oranges indeed! While I absolutely do not agree with infant baptism, even I do not consider it to be the equivalent of amputation and castration...male or female.

I don't consider them equivalent either.

I think that it is useless...but it does no harm, unlike your example of limb and genital removal.

From my reading of the OP, it seems like the question was aimed at children being raised Christian; baptism being the beginning of that.

Indeed, and she is entitled.

I do not believe she is entitled to make religious decisions on the part of others or assert her beliefs as true without supporting evidence.

Define 'proven.'

Having been evidenced to the degree of it being the null hypothesis.

As I mentioned, equating scientific medical procedures with religious ritual is, well....apples and oranges.

Baptism really isn't far off the use of that Scientologist machine. It claims to cleanse you of a problem which can;t e demonstrated in the first place.
This is deceptive.

As far as I'm aware, they don't use that Scientology machine..(can't for the life of me remember the name of the thing...'thetan remover?") on infants. Just sayin'...

So. You are of the opinion that no parent has the right to teach their children anything but that which has been proven to your satisfaction...and proven to the point of absolute knowledge ("null hypothosis")?

That could be problematic, since very few things, philosophies or cultural traditions can be classified in that way; not even language. After all, what IS the best language to teach your kid?

What about obedience to the laws of the land (is the law 'truer' here than elsewhere? How do you know that?) or patriotism or the best way to bake a cake? As far as I can see, what you are truly advocating is that everybody teach their children what you believe to be true. How is that any different from a Christian mother teaching hers what she believes?

Now, I raised all my kids to be Mormons. They were all baptized when they were eight. Every one of them. I don't think for one moment that, if you had a child, you should raise it as LDS unless you were, as well--yet you think I should have raised mine as atheist?

Isn't that a bit (just a wee bit..) of a double standard?

[LiamOS]

As far as I'm aware, they don't use that Scientology machine..(can't for the life of me remember the name of the thing...'thetan remover?") on infants. Just sayin'...

Which makes Baptism worse... ?

So. You are of the opinion that no parent has the right to teach their children anything but that which has been proven to your satisfaction...and proven to the point of absolute knowledge

No, I am of the opinion that no parents should teach children those to be fact.
You're more than welcome to teach your kids about string theory, but I'd have serious reservations about parents who teach string theory as fact.

That could be problematic, since very few things, philosophies or cultural traditions can be classified in that way; not even language. After all, what IS the best language to teach your kid?

That depends on the characteristics that languages have which can be deemed objectively good.

What about obedience to the laws of the land (is the law 'truer' here than elsewhere? How do you know that?) or patriotism or the best way to bake a cake?

While "This is the best way to bake a cake." is clearly a fallacious statement(Unless it's the best way), "This is my favourite way to bake a cake." or "This is the best way I know of to bake a cake" are both okay.

In the same way "God exists." is not appropriate to teach children.

Now, I raised all my kids to be Mormons. They were all baptized when they were eight. Every one of them. I don't think for one moment that, if you had a child, you should raise it as LDS unless you were, as well--yet you think I should have raised mine as atheist?

Isn't that a bit (just a wee bit..) of a double standard?

Well, I'm not an Atheist and I don't think kids should be raised as Atheists(What a horrible thought). Children should merely not be raised into a specific religion.
Perhaps they should be educated about what their parents believe and what other people in their society believe, but they should not be given their parents' beliefs as fact.


I also must ask, if you believe non-Christian children will go to hell(Do you?), would it not be a most horrid thing to allow children to be raised as non-Christians? IN that manner, they have absolutely no chance for salvation and it's all due to the choice of their parents.

[LiamOS]

mormon boy51

What is the difference between a child raised as an atheist and a different child as a christian?

What's the punch-line?

I was actually not talking about raising kids as Atheists, but rather not raising them such that they have a specific religious bias.

So then it is never appropriate?

What isn't?

If it becomes the null hypothesis, isnt it the opposite of what has been evidenced?

No... What?

Ann

Well, once again you clearly demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about concerning baptism, Catholicism, and parenting.

So differing opinions qualify as lack of knowledge?

I'm sorry, but the OP clearly includes more than the simple act of baptising; it concerns the raising of a child within the context of religion.

I might also add that if you think I'm wrong, showing I'm wrong is much more productive than saying I am. If you show me that I am incorrect, I will admit that I was.

Your responses continue to show an inability, or unwillingness to take my words within context.

Perhaps you should consider both the context of the opening post and the context of this sub-forum. Here, the Bible is considered no more authoritative than any other book you care to choose. You are continually asserting beliefs as truth, and when I make a point of this you call it out of context. The opening post also clearly deals with more than the simple act of baptism.

I can only invite you to re-read my posts and with the hope that you take them within proper context, that you will eventually understand the point I have made.

After a similar ordeal upon my joining this forum, I've made it a rule to re-read posts before responding.
I'm sorry if there's a context I'm missing in your posts, but if I am it's because such context is either subjective or not at all evident.

I still maintain that while sprinkling water on a child isn't wrong, the initiation of a child into a religion is. By nature, one is indoctrinating a mind incapable of reasonably objective thought. This is wrong regardless of what the parents believe to be right.

[Kuan]

I was actually not talking about raising kids as Atheists, but rather not raising them such that they have a specific religious bias.

Whats biased about teaching your kids truth?

If it becomes the null hypothesis, isnt it the opposite of what has been evidenced?

No... What?

I really have no clue. From what I know, Null hypothesis: The hypothesis that encompasses everything that the Hypothesis disproves.

[LiamOS]

Whats biased about teaching your kids truth?

Is any religion that somebody may have necessarily true?

I really have no clue. From what I know, Null hypothesis: The hypothesis that encompasses everything that the Hypothesis disproves.

The null hypothesis is the basic one which is assumed true until falsified.