baptize my offspring?

Oakman

ahmed zahmed wrote:

Baptism is meant for the remission of sins (forgiving and washing clean).

And only for those who are circumcised. ;)

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

Oakman wrote:

And only for those who are circumcised

I realize you're probably joking, but, that's incorrect. Circumcision is no longer required as it was part of the law that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Circumcision of heart (a broken heart and a contrite spirit) is what is now required. Something much more internalized and life changing.

Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/

Dalek Dave

I never understood why the genital mutilation of children was so important to being a member of a social club.

------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

It was an outer symbol of an inner commitment. But, then, how could 8-day old babies commit to anything? But then who am I to question the Almighty... But yes, rather strange and incomprehensible to me as well.

Fight Big Government:
http://obamacareclassaction.com/
http://obamacaretruth.org/

Oakman

ahmed zahmed wrote:

realize you're probably joking,

Nope. Just pointing out that things change. John The Baptist and all the other Essenes would have died before they would have baptized anyone but a circumcised Jew. Saul of Tarsus, who never met John, discovered without any textual evidence, that Yeshua ben Yussif had made circumcision no longer necessary, which certainly increased the potential number of converts/donors for his brand of Christianity. Luckily (for Paul) all of the original disciples were all killed defending the Temple from the Romans, so his brand became the brand and the uncircumcised had a clear bath to heaven. I find it noteworthy that Simon the Rock in Acts(2:38-39) specifically includes children when he says that only the baptized get to go to heaven. Of course, you probably know better what Yeshua wanted than did the big fisherman, after all what credentials did he have, other than the keys to the Kingdom of God?

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin

Oakman

Better sex ;)

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin

Dalek Dave

You like to circumsize children for better sex? Ok I am being facetious, I know exactly what you mean.:) I just think you could have phrased it better.

------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[

Oakman

Dalek Dave wrote:

I just think you could have phrased it better.

I've set my phraser on stun, captain.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin

fjdiewornncalwe

Me too... (But my own wife's)

I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

William Winner

ahmed zahmed wrote:

Baptism is meant for the remission of sins

I'm not sure where you're getting that or what "version" of Christianity you are referring to. To Catholics, baptism "emphasizes the importance of faithfulness on the part of parents when it says to parents: In asking to have your children baptized, "you are accepting the responsibility of training them in the practice of the faith." That word practice is crucial; it calls for Christian modeling on the part of parents." (http://www.americancatholic.org/UpdateYourFaith/answers.asp?QC0389b[^]). To Methodists, baptism "signifies God’s initiative in the process of salvation" (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.1697379/k.9027/Baptism_Overview.htm[^]). To most Evangelicals, baptism is simply a visible witness that you have accepted salvation and should only be done when the child is old enough to understand what they are doing.

William Winner

According to American Catholic, the Catholic church would say, "Infant Baptism only makes sense if parents are true Christian disciples. If they are not, then it makes little sense to initiate their children into a Church which calls for a commitment to living the mission of Christ." But I guess the real question is, will this hurt your relationship with your parents and if so, is that of concern to you? If it's not something that you believe in, but it's something that your parents do, what's the harm? Now, if it's something that you feel is wrong, then explain that to your parents and why.

Pualee

Well said... Acts 15 records the debate in the early church, and as you stated, physical circumcision is not required: abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

Pualee

Baptists think baptism is a personal choice that must be publicly made by the individual. They will not baptise infants. This is my logic. 1 Peter 3:21 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, However, there are places in Acts where entire households (family, servants, etc) were baptised when the head of the house converted. Ultimately, whatever you do must be decided deliberately in your service to God. Accepting Jesus and communing with the Holy Spirit is what saves you, not the symbolic water. The child will eventually have to make his/her own decision.

Pualee

Oakman wrote:

Of course, you probably know better what Yeshua wanted than did the big fisherman, after all what credentials did he have, other than the keys to the Kingdom of God?

Look again at Simon... Matthew 16:28 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. Simon Peter is Petros (masculine), the "rock" is petra (feminine). While I am a complete novice at understanding Koine, I have it on good authority (multiple sources) that the rock of the church is actually the confession that Jesus is the messiah in the previous verses. You have to match the gender of the words to see to which they refer. Think about it, many of the gospels, along with Paul's epistles single out Simon Peter for behaving in ways that are a bit inappropriate. Yes, even John and Matthew's records, who were just as close to Jesus as Peter was. Peter is still a very important figure and we can learn A LOT from him, but don't confuse him with the foundation of the church. That is simply belief in Jesus. And don't discount Paul's teachings either.

Pualee

Actually, you should probably go back and read Acts 15 to see what Simon Peter (and James) thought about the whole circumcise thing. And what evidence do you have of this claim?

Oakman wrote:

John The Baptist and all the other Essenes would have died before they would have baptized anyone but a circumcised Jew.

Oakman

Firstly, it's important to remember than neither Yeshua nor Shimon spoke Greek to each other, but Aramaic. Secondly, as Greek scholars — regardless of religious tendencies — admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. Once upon a time they had indeed meant "small stone" and "large rock" - but that was four or five centuries earlier, back when Sophocles and Aeschylus were writing and centuries before the time of Christ. All languages evolve in pronunciation, spelling, and meaning (try reading Chaucer in the original, to get some idea.) In this case, the difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament, as you know, was written in Koine Greek — an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek word, "lithos," would have been used. This "discovery," like some of Saul's, is one of convenience, allow a johnny-jump-up to rewrite history by talking fast, blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. Don't discount Paul, you say? OK lets take a look at what he calls, Shimon. Turns out that four times in Galatians and four times in 1st Corinthians, he refers to him as "Cephas." Turns out that Cephas is a ransliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha" which is rendered as Kephas in Greek. And guess what it means in Aramaic - "Rock!" Not pebble, not little stone, but big motherfracking rock. So, let me suggest to you, that you tell your holy fathers or whatever they call themselves to stop robbing Peter AND Paul to pay themselves.

Pualee wrote:

I have it on good authority (multiple sources)

From a bunch of fellows whose entire claim to spiritual authority rests on denying other fellows' claim to spiritual authority. That way they can claim they get to decide who gets to heaven and who goes to hell instead of the other guy. It's an old, old story in every religion man has created. Of course, the secret answer is that no matter which set of priests you listen to, the best way of getting to heaven is to given them all your money. :rolleyes:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and

Oakman

William Winner wrote:

But I guess the real question is, will this hurt your relationship with your parents and if so, is that of concern to you? If it's not something that you believe in, but it's something that your parents do, what's the harm?

Intelligence rears its ugly head and starts asking questions that aren't sophomoric, and doesn't try to answer them by referring to translations of translations of translations. You will be hated for this, you know.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin

Pualee

Good points all around, but I am not questioning pebble vs rock... I'm questioning how to match the words together based on the endings. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, but I don't see how you addressed that point?

Pualee

I wasn't the person who 1 voted you... but whatever ;)

Oakman

Good for you, but what does that have to do with the price of Communion Wine in China?

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin