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.

[Nameless]

I see the baptizing of children as a Xtian parent's way of saying that although the bible says that all are born in sin, and baptism is supposed to make some difference to 'salvation', the requirements of baptism require being of age to think and reason. That leaves a window that baby Johnny or Sally is going to Hell, if they die. Ever an uncomfortable concept, to think of one's beautiful sinful baby roasting in Dante's Inferno, baptising the beggar is a bit of (emotionally necessary) insurance.

If a parent sees a car barelling down on the child, they will push the child out of the way, save him. There are those who equally believe that 'baptism' is essential to their child's 'salvation'. It is their moral duty to what they see as 'truth' and 'reality', to 'push' the baby out of the 'spiritual' road. The baptism isn't indoctrination, in and of itself. I can understand them doing it. They have no 'choice'.

You're explaining their thinking but in no way justifying it. If I believe the only way to save my daughter is to remove her clitoris with a piece of broken glass, then that explains why I mutilated her, but it justifies nothing.

TC

I am in no position to 'justify' or 'judge'.
That was not the purpose of my post.

[Goat]

You're explaining their thinking but in no way justifying it. If I believe the only way to save my daughter is to remove her clitoris with a piece of broken glass, then that explains why I mutilated her, but it justifies nothing.

TC

It seems to me you are making a very large mistake in trying to equate the mutilation of a child with splashing them with water. That is quite a fallacy there.

[Thought Criminal]

You're explaining their thinking but in no way justifying it. If I believe the only way to save my daughter is to remove her clitoris with a piece of broken glass, then that explains why I mutilated her, but it justifies nothing.

It seems to me you are making a very large mistake in trying to equate the mutilation of a child with splashing them with water. That is quite a fallacy there.

Showing a parallel is not the same as equating. The parallel is that these are ridiculous actions mandated by religion. They are done to children but are not in the children's best interests.

TC

[Cathar1950]

You're explaining their thinking but in no way justifying it. If I believe the only way to save my daughter is to remove her clitoris with a piece of broken glass, then that explains why I mutilated her, but it justifies nothing.

It seems to me you are making a very large mistake in trying to equate the mutilation of a child with splashing them with water. That is quite a fallacy there.

Showing a parallel is not the same as equating. The parallel is that these are ridiculous actions mandated by religion. They are done to children but are not in the children's best interests.

TC

Paul saw it a a mystical almost magical act where the believer actually died and was raised with Christ becoming part of his body. If he thought it was real and not symbolic it is hard to tell. Other cults had similar rites where the believer became one with their god. If a group of people felt the rite was keeping their child from hell then mutilation would be preferable to hell. But this was the mind of the believer and the Church bringing new members into the fold and under their power or authority. The Jewish rite was one of ritual cleanliness and repentance as they turned from their ways and back to the Law. Some even suggest it was a rite whee the rite placed them into the kingdom of God and might have been a new army against darkness (Rome). The Anabaptist saw salvation through discipleship or faithfulness and a child didn't have what it takes to make such a choice. It was also treason as the Church and state were one even for the Lutherans.
The Catholics saw salvation through the sacraments while the protestants say it through faith and the Anabaptist though faithfulness. Given your position makes all the difference in the world as to the importance of Baptism. Wesley would have been for being baptised but I think his Moravian influence was looking for discipleship of faithfulness and therefor sought out a second blessing.
For a non-believer the rite is irrelevant while to the believer it all depends.
Circumcision is much like the rite of infant baptism and the child (male of course) didn't have much of a choice and one might wonder if Jewish Baptism may have been a rite for those beyond Bar Mitzvahs. Who knows.

[asp59]

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.

Jesus’ command at Matthew 28:19, 20: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.� Jesus did not mean to make disciples of people, even infants, by means of baptism. This command clearly means that a person would be baptized only after becoming a disciple

While the Bible does not allow for baptizing babies, it does show what parents must do to help their children to meet God’s approval. The Bible, at Proverbs 22:6, exhorts parents: “Train up a boy according to the way for him; even when he grows old he will not turn aside from it.�
The most important aspect of this training process is found in the apostle Paul’s words to parents at Ephesians 6:4: “Do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah.� That means that parents must acquaint their children with the Holy Scriptures, which set forth Jehovah’s mind on matters.—1 Cor. 2:16.
Infant baptism is not taught in the Bible. It stems from the pagan superstition that baptism “regenerates� a person and cleanses him from past sin. However, the Bible teaches that it is, not baptism, but ‘the blood of Jesus, God’s Son, that cleanses us from all sin.’ (1 John 1:7; Acts 22:16) Also, it is not baptism, but “the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah� that qualifies a child to meet God’s approval. (Eph. 6:4) If you are a parent, will you make sure that your child receives that training?



quotes taken from awaken 1974

[Slopeshoulder]

In catholicism, baptism is a cleansing and welcoming ritual of a family; it's not about choice like it is for born again christians. The choice comes later, in Confirmation (although it's still done too young and seems like a joke at age 12 or so).

[McCulloch]

In catholicism, baptism is a cleansing and welcoming ritual of a family; it's not about choice like it is for born again christians. The choice comes later, in Confirmation (although it's still done too young and seems like a joke at age 12 or so).

In the Catholic tradition, common to many protestant faiths, that have inherited it only slightly modified, their version of baptism is significantly different from what is described in the New Testament. In the NT, baptism is for those who believe and it is ritually and symbolically tied the to concept of a new birth. In the pedobaptist tradition, baptism is symbolically tied to circumcision and represents not the new birth, but membership in the community of faith.

[Gayatheist]

As others have stated, baptism is definitely wrong. Any credible parent wouldn't force their own religion on their children, just like you wouldn't force your children to follow your chosen political party. It is of more comfort to the parents, where as it serves no purpose to the child.

Another terrible thing is that because the child has been baptised they are then counted as a member of the congregation, which religions use when justifying things like faith schools and such like.

If people want to follow a religion then they should choose to do it when they are informed enough to make such decisions. Parents should encourage their children to think rationally regardless of their religious persuasion or else as a society we will never propagate.

For those wishing to 'de-baptise' and so taken off the official numbers counted by the church, you can find information here.

[Kuan]

As others have stated, baptism is definitely wrong. Any credible parent wouldn't force their own religion on their children, just like you wouldn't force your children to follow your chosen political party. It is of more comfort to the parents, where as it serves no purpose to the child.

Another terrible thing is that because the child has been baptised they are then counted as a member of the congregation, which religions use when justifying things like faith schools and such like.

If people want to follow a religion then they should choose to do it when they are informed enough to make such decisions. Parents should encourage their children to think rationally regardless of their religious persuasion or else as a society we will never propagate.

For those wishing to 'de-baptise' and so taken off the official numbers counted by the church, you can find information here.

So for mormons baptizing there children at 8, would that be wrong, is it too early to you?

[Gayatheist]

So for mormons baptizing there children at 8, would that be wrong, is it too early to you?

It certainly is. Regardless of the religion, baptisms shouldn't be performed on people pre-adult age. If they choose to be in that religion when they are old enough to make such decisions, then fine. However, for parents to push their religion on their children is not fair.