Justify infant baptism to me

[ButterflyBlood]

Serious question. I've been pondering this for awhile. I was baptized as an infant, in the Catholic church which I'm not a part of anymore. Now I know that leaving your church doesn't invalidate your baptism and other ones accept it as valid and won't require you be rebaptized as long as you were baptized in accordance with their tradition. But I'm not a fan of the Catholic views on baptism because I don't believe in Original Sin and even though the Catholic church doesn't exactly teach anymore that infants that die without baptism go to hell or some type of "lesser heaven" (like Limbo), it's still kind of the origin of the tradition which I find pretty offensive. Now I know that other churches that do infant baptism that never held this type of view don't insist on baptism right away after birth and often wait several months, so I'm interested in hearing other positions.

Now where I'm pretty torn is if I should be rebaptized. On the one hand there's the stuff above, and the fact that I'm not a huge fan of any ritual someone can't consent to that in theory connects them to any organization. Of course I find the "indelible mark on the soul" and "once a Catholic always a Catholic" stuff to be complete bullshit, I am not a Catholic, and am no more a Catholic than someone who was never involved in the church so that way of thinking doesn't bother me. However I also know that it's not the right thing to do to get rebaptized just because you don't like the church you were baptized in. I know that if someone received an adult baptism in some crazy fundamentalist church and then fled to a more liberal mainline church, they won't insist on a rebaptism despite all the disagreements with that church. Baptism shouldn't be a statement against your former church. I've asked myself if I was baptized Lutheran like the other side of the family, and the church I identify with more culturally (and that my family even started going to more often after I was confirmed, my teen years were pretty free of Catholicism), would I care so much? The answer is probably not. So I can't help but feel if I were to get rebaptized it'd be for the wrong reasons, but my doubts about infant baptism still remain.

Now the church I'm going to now actually does do adult baptism, but their position if you were baptized as an infant (which probably applies to most people in my church, which is mostly made up of other ex-Catholics and people bored with mainline Protestant traditions) is that while you are definitely open to being rebaptized, it isn't something you should feel obligated to do because God isn't some type of bureaucrat who condemns people based on whether or not they did any rituals the "correct" way (another thing I was never do fond of in Catholicism.), they are definitely not fundamentalist or big on condemning other churches with different traditions like it seems a majority of the churches doing adult baptism are. They also do it only once a year, and did last month, so I have almost a year to consider it. I'm just wondering what alternate perspectives are on infant baptism and if I should acccept mine as valid, flawed church regardless.

[HopeHoops]

1. The parents feel obligated to do it and the congregation and church leaders just see "future money"

If the kid's baptized then he'll HAVE to grow up in the church and throw money at the silver-plated tin bowl they pass around.

[Thats my opinion]

19. What a cynical judgement,

Outsiders who think they know the motivations of others sometimes let their prejudices get in the way.

[deacon_sephiroth]

45. and SOMETIMES...

they're dead on super slam dunk right. After all, like I've said many times, it's WAY easier to just indoctrinate vulnerable ignorant youth than it is to rationalize with thinking adults.

[elocs]

2. This is very simple. In the context of Christianity you are saved by faith + nothing else. Period.

Different churches throw in their own little +s: infant baptism, adult baptism, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, baptism in the Name of Jesus.

Stick with the simple.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Catholics throw in some pretty big +s. Like deeds.

Actually a pretty big sticking point in some of the schisms. Works/deeds are important to the catholic notion of salvation.

[pnwmom]

12. Yes. nt

[elocs]

27. Most religions of the world involve some way for the believers to work their way

into favor with the deity or deities.

As Isaiah 64:6 says, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

That's pretty clear no matter how it is attempted to be explained away.

[pnwmom]

11. You are stating the Protestant position, not the only Christian position.

The main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the varying emphasis they put on the importance of faith versus deeds. The Protestants believe you are saved by faith alone; but Catholics believe that genuine faith is accompanied by deeds.

[qb]

3. The idiocy of this practice was highlighted at the baptism of my partner's infant nephew.

Minister: "We know this little fella can't speak for himself, so the congregation will speak for him."
He then proceeded to the printed responsive reading where the congregation parroted the responses intended to be spoken by the one being baptized.

[Warpy]

4. The party line is that we're all born with original sin

and that's enough to send an infant to hell if it's unbaptized. Lovely sentiment, isn't it, that concept that we're all born evil. The justification was protecting the infant from hell as soon as possible. It was also a vestige of sealing Abraham's pact with god in infancy by circumcising males at the age of 7 or 8 days.

Even the church realized this was dirty pool in a way, so they had another ceremony, a confirmation of the faith, when the kids were still very young and malleable, around the same age as the Bar/Bat Mitzvah, when a gawky barely teenaged child would announce to the assembled relatives that s/he was an adult. Nobody really bought that but it made the thing done to them in infancy seem more legitimate.

I do know it took my Irish grandmother a full 8 months to guilt my mother into getting me sprinkled and Irish grannies can lay guilt on pretty thick.

I still had nothing to say about the whole thing and I consider it a largely meaningless event, something done for parents and grandparents that has no effect on the child. I regard it with a certain amount of amusement, although I resented it horribly when I was stuck in Catholic school. Fortunately, the nut hadn't fallen far from the tree, so I was sprung at the age of 10 and never looked back.

So there's the justification together with the lasting effect: a feel good act for parents and grandparents that has absolutely no meaning in later life for those of us who don't believe a word of it.

[cleanhippie]

5. It's all part of the brainwashing and indoctrination. Pressure the parents into baptizing the child,

and the parents will pressure the child to conform to the faith.


It's all just part of the scheme to "get 'em while they are young."



And it's all a small piece of the bigger puzzle that IS institutionalized child abuse.

[Ineeda]

6. I guess you have to ask yourself

what the purpose of baptism (in general) is. If you think it's to get into heaven, you're already covered. If it's to pay fealty to your church of choice, and it's important to you, what harm would it do to be re-baptized in that church? Frankly, I don't understand your dilemma. My daughters were baptized in the Catholic church out of respect to my very Catholic in-laws. But I refused to subject them to further indoctrination and they never went to church again, except for weddings or funerals. BTW - they're now more-or-less well-adjusted adults.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Dude, get re-baptized if you want. No big.

Not like your religion is saying you CAN'T be re-baptized.

I think it is much worse to tell a kid they are going to burn in hell for eternity if they jerk off, steal a candy bar, or don't honor their mother or father.

[kestrel91316]

9. I was baptized as a toddler. It's probably my earliest memory.

It holds no particular spiritual meaning for me, and is irrelevant to my life. My sister is the only other living person who even knows it occurred.

Whether or not it is "valid" for getting me into a "heaven" I have no evidence of is also irrelevant to me.

I live my life trying to make the world a better place and treating people like I'd want to be treated (with occasional lapses). I do happen to agree in theory with the Anabaptists that baptism really only makes sense for those emotionally mature enough to understand what it means, lol.

[pnwmom]

10. Having gone through it as a parent, I will tell you

that standing at the altar with my baby and having him welcomed into the community was a surprisingly touching experience -- I could almost feel the waves of loving energy coming from the hundreds of people in the pews toward the young families on the altar. Of course, this could have been accomplished without the baptism, but there is something to be said for the power of ritual.

The Catholic Church also has the sacrament of Confirmation, at which time young people affirm their infant baptism. However, I believe your baptism was valid, just as I, as a Catholic, accept the baptisms of other Christian religions as being valid. It works both ways.

[ButterflyBlood]

13. I was confirmed, but it was meaningless to me

I only did it because my mom wanted me to. I wasn't even sure if I believed in God at the time and wouldn't be considered a Christian. I didn't really rediscover my faith in that sense until about the time I finished high school.

[pnwmom]

18. Now they recommend that teens wait till they're in the later years

of high school, instead of doing it at age 12. So there are fewer kids doing it merely to please their parents, I think.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. This wasn't that long ago. Around 1997.

My youngest brother was confirmed at the same age in 2003.

I think even high school is a bit too young. My two brothers no doubt would've been confirmed then, but one is now only a purely nominal Catholic in that he lists it on his Facebook page, but doesn't take the sacraments and only goes to Mass if it's a holiday with family or his current girlfriend happens to be a Catholic who goes, and the youngest one I mentioned is now an atheist-leaning agnostic. Besides one is making not just a theoretically lifetime commitment as a Christian, but to that particular denomination (at least in that case), clearly not going to happen. One might have no problem saying that in high school until they get married young and then divorced a year later and are now told they are a sinner who can't ever get remarried or take communion just for one example.

Quite frankly there are some things I think evangelicals do better, and their less bureaucratic handling of this sort of thing is one of them. My current church which is actually a neocharismatic evangelical one (but FAR more liberal than those terms typically imply, not all charismatics are like the Jesus Camp people or Benny Hinn) offers relatively non-formal religious education until 8th grade during the adult services, and at that point they can either get baptized or not. If they decide not to, they're always free to in the future for the rest of their life. Even if someone opts not to or was infant baptized and not re-baptized that doesn't disqualify them from any of the adult programs if interested once they come of age or even greater church involvement like small group leadership or playing the worship band except for actual formal pastoral positions and internships leading to that. But this church's congregation skews so young (average age is like 25) there aren't many with teenagers anyway...

[cleanhippie]

15. The power of ritual. +1.

[bengalherder]

14. Don't worry about it.

You really aren't damned to hell if someone doesn't shake water on you, really. Infant or not.

You don't need a 'church' to follow Jesus or anyone else.

My mother, who was basically spirirtual but agnostic used to fret about my son's lack of baptism. I asked her (to just do it and shut her up), 'OK, what would I have to do?' She replied, 'They ask you if you will raise the child as a christian and you assent.' I said, 'Sorry, Mom, I'm a pagan, I can't do that. You can do it if you want to but I can't'. She never did. I don't think my kid is hell-bound in any sense for our oversight, he's a better human than I most of the time.

If you desire it as a reaffirmation of faith, then by all means do it, but I woudn't worry too much about the piddling technicalities of the ceremony.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. There are two strains of doctrines about baptism

In the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most traditional Protestant view, baptism is not something the person does; it's what God does. One analogy often used is that it's like setting up a trust fund for an infant. The infant doesn't know about, may never withdraw from it, but it's still there.

Those denominations usually have a second step called Confirmation, in which teens or young adults take instruction and affirm the baptismal vows that were made for them.

In the Anabaptist traditions (Baptists, Mennonites, etc.), baptism is something the person does, so they require that the person be old enough to understand the ceremony (usually over the age of 12). They also baptize by full immersion.

Depending on the minister, a Baptist church might require you to be rebaptized in order to join.

A Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or mainline Protestant church would most likely not require you to be baptized unless you hadn't been baptized as a child. Instead, you would either go through confirmation or reception, which follows a period of instruction.

I was baptized and confirmed as an ELCA Lutheran, but when I became an Episcopalian officially in 1991, I went through a six-week period of instruction and then was "received" by the bishop (since I'd already been confirmed as a Lutheran) when he visited our parish to confirm a 13-year-old and some adult converts.

[MADem]

17. You have to do what you feel you have to do. That's really the bottom line.

But if you want a "justification," all you need do is look to the customs of the church and the wishes of the parents--can't have that child dying without the magic, after all.

So, if you want advice, I weigh in with the "Do what you feel" contingent.

[hunkerdowndawg]

20. Consider God in this

What a great question!  Baptism is serious (and wonderful),
and I'm glad you are giving it some thought.  I hope that you
will consider that it isn't just the pastor or priest and the
one being baptized (or his parents) that is work in baptism. 
God is present and active as well.  In fact, I'd say he is the
main actor in baptism because it is a means of the grace which
he gives us.  I would encourage you not to be too concerned
about the "human-ness" of your baptism but instead
focus on the divine in it.  God works in the lives of
believers even before they come to faith, and infant baptism
is a sign of that grace.  As to why many churches baptize
infants, there is some evidence that the early church would
baptize the young present in the scripture.  Entire households
would be baptized when the leader of that household came to
faith.  Also, the scripture compares baptism with
circumcision, and as the earliest church was Jewish, they more
than likely would have considered it odd not to baptize early
as they circumcised on the eighth day.  Plus, it seems to me
that Jesus likes children pretty well and is happy to have
them in the fold!

[Iggo]

21. In case they die.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Probably showing my age, but I was taught that if an unbaptized baby dies,

he or she goes to "Limbo", because the "original sin" has not been removed from the soul. Baptism ensures that the baby will go to Heaven in the event of a premature death. Limbo is better than Purgatory but not as good as Heaven. I guess the clouds are not as comfortable and perhaps the harps are a bit out of tune.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. That was never really official Catholic teaching and is abandoned now

It was just a theory of some medieval Pope. The current one has basically done away with it altogether: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/world/europe/21briefs-limbo.html

For the record it was also something that was never taught to me in Sunday School or confirmation class. I wasn't aware of it until after I left the church, though it didn't improve my opinion of it any.

But as stated I don't believe in original sin, which is also part of the reason it bugs me.

[struggle4progress]

25. Why don't you discuss this with the members of your church, face to face, and decide

on that basis what you want to do, instead of asking anonymous posters on the internet?

[ButterflyBlood]

26. As noted my church doesn't do infant baptism

so it wouldn't be the best place to ask about justifications for it.

[struggle4progress]

43. As I understood your post, you were deciding whether to be rebaptized in the process

of joining a particular church -- and since you're joining that particular church, maybe it would be appropriate to discuss there how important anyone thought that was

[skepticscott]

28. Unless I'm mistaken

you are as anonymous a poster as anyone else here. If the advice from any of the rest of us is of questionable value here, why is yours any less so?

[laconicsax]

29. He has the icon of authority.

Automatically makes whatever double standards he wants to push beyond reproach.

[struggle4progress]

30. Internet chats are a poor substitute for actual human contact, and the content of Christianity

(as I understand it) involves interaction of real humans in the flesh and in the blood, not merely written texts transmitted between them

Moreover, the OP belongs to some church, which is some collection of actual people who find the teachings of that church meaningful, and they will perhaps be prepared to discuss their views of the matter with the OP, as actual individuals in actual human contact

So, as you can see by rereading my prior post, I actually took no stand on the matter; I did not explain my own views on the subject, or why I thought his church's stance might be right or might not be right; I simply suggested he clarify his own thinking through face-to-face conversations with other church members about the subject

[skepticscott]

31. You implied that asking

"anonymous posters on the internet" for advice wouldn't be of much value, and yet you offered him advice as one of same, presumably thinking that yours WAS valuable. Maybe he was just looking for advice such as you presumed to give him. So what was wrong with him asking here, again?

[struggle4progress]

36. Yes, shockingly enough, I have for years regularly suggested to posters that they might want to seek

answers, to various particular questions, from sources other than anonymous posters on the internet; there are a number of circumstances in which I brazenly do this: for example, when people post with legal questions, I (and others) feel free to suggest that the questions might be addressed better by a lawyer, than by anonymous posters on the internet

[skepticscott]

40. Irrelevant non-answer

Since this situation did not involve a legal question, nor any of the other circumstances in which you "brazenly do this". Obviously you think that this situation is open to potentially useful advice by a layperson with no personal acquaintance with the original poster or his situation (i.e. an "anonymous poster on the internet"), since you felt justified in offering some yourself.

You know all this. Doesn't it embarrass even someone like you to offer up arguments that you know are baloney? And that you know that we all know are baloney?

[WolverineDG]

32. How you view your own baptism is up to you

if you feel it was sufficient, then 'nuff said. If you want to go through the ceremony as an adult, then by all means, do so.

dg

[tama]

33. Swimming and diving is fun

Communion with the water element (or fluid aspect of matter) is age old initiation and rite together with earth (solid), fire (plasma) and air (gas) (plus the fifth element of Bose-Einstein condensate ;). No inherent need to give water rite a specific religious interpretation and you can do it also by yourself, but if some social community with specific religious interpretation is your cup of tea and what you want, then by all means.

[Deep13]

34. Some churches do require rebaptism...

...When I was confirmed in the Episcopal church, I have to get documentation from the Ep. church that originally dumped magic water. They would accept baptism from the RC church or any church they considered to be in apostolic succession, but not from most Protestant churches.

I can't defend the practice either for infants or anyone else. People are not sinners and if they were, it can't just be washed away.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Hmm, I always thought it was other churches' Confirmations that they wouldn't accept

I was baptized Lutheran and didn't have to be rebaptized.

There is a string of "original Anglican" churches that broke away from the Episcopal Church USA over the question of women's ordination. They tend to make up their own stricter rules, such as not giving Communion unless one has been confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession.

I attended one out of curiosity once, and it is the only Episcopal church I have ever attended in nearly 40 years that had a notice in the bulletin saying that only people who had been confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession could receive Communion.

Perhaps you were in one of that variety?

My own parish's practice (and that of most Episcopal churches I know) is that if you want to receive Communion, you may, but if you're from another religion and don't feel comfortable doing that, you can come up and receive a blessing in the name of the one God.

[Deep13]

37. It was the Episcopal Church of the United States, the "real" E.C.

It was also more than 20 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Or maybe you just had a weird rector

because when I was a graduate student in the 1970s, a student who had been baptized Presbyterian asked if the chaplains would rebaptize her, and they refused, saying that a Presbyterian baptism was valid.

The reason is that baptism is a sacrament that anyone can perform. It doesn't have to be a member of the clergy.

[Deep13]

39. I think I see the issue.

I think it depends on whether or not your church is high Episcopal or low Episcopal. High Episcopal, like the C of E, follow the forms and liturgy of R. Catholicism. Low Episcopal is more evangelical and follows the forms of other Protestant churches. Our priest and parish were of the high variety, like most of the E.C.s in New England.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. These chaplains were very high, and I was on the East Coast

and the Catholics accept Protestant baptisms.

Some high church Episcopalians try to be more Catholic than the Catholics in ritual and persnicketyness, so you may have gotten one of those.

[Deep13]

42. Maybe, I'm out of guesses at this point. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

44. That seems pretty odd. I technically qualify but I would refuse to take communion

Since I don't consider my Catholic confirmation valid.

That type of bureaucratic nonsense bugs me so much. The church I'm going to now's programs say that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ can take communion. Another one I've gone to around here said in their bulletin that they welcome anyone without exception.

My mom went with me about two weeks ago, and she took communion which might be fine with this church but violates the Catholic Church's rules.

[jeepnstein]

46. Simple, really.

If you suspect that your baptism wasn't done for the right reasons, then you should study a bit and see if you are convinced you need to be baptized. It's not a slam against anyone's "religious traditions". If your study of scripture convinces you that you aren't really baptized yet then there you go.

My understanding of scripture leads me to believe that infant baptism isn't really what they were talking about in the New Testament. I'm surprised that your church is resisting your effort to be baptized.

[ButterflyBlood]

47. They aren't, I haven't even asked about it

Like I said, they do it only once a year in August. So I have almost an entire year to ponder it. I was referring more to mainline Protestant denoms in refusing to rebaptize someone.

[jeepnstein]

48. Once a year?

Shoot, I do it whenever someone is ready. What's so special about August?

[ButterflyBlood]

49. They have a mass baptism ceremony

People line up and get into the baptismal one by one to get dunked, after which the crowd cheers and the next person gets in. I suppose it's just more of an event the more people there are.

Are you a pastor? What denomination?

[jeepnstein]

50. I'm not a pastor.

I'm a non-denominational Christian with roots in the Restoration Movement from the 1800's. We firmly believe that denominational lines are a barrier that needs to be broken. Problem is some times we act just like a denomination in the process. It's that old plank in the eye trick coming back to bite us.

There's nothing in the Bible that says you have to be some kind of ordained or licensed professional to baptize. Or that it has to be a man. The only requirements I can find in the Bible is for the person being baptized has to be willing, has studied what they're getting into, and professes their belief. Of course the person performing the baptism has to be a baptized believer. We encourage members of our congregation to take part in baptizing new believers. Any hour, day or night. If I get a call to meet someone so I can unlock the church at 2:00 in the morning I'll do it.

I'm not giving your congregation a hard time about doing Baptism Sundays but I do like to point out that something so essential to becoming a Christian isn't something that I feel comfortable putting off for a year. I would like to lovingly encourage you and your congregation to do baptisms more frequently, that's all. We wouldn't put off a marriage that way so why should we delay something so much more important? I've been to those Baptism Sunday services before and they are quite a bit of fun.

[ButterflyBlood]

51. My non-denominational church sounds kind of similar to that thought

It's from an evangelical/neo-charismatic tradition, but definitely not fundie. I've come to a realization that the more liberal evangelical churches are the only ones that'll fit me because while I agree with the mainline denominations more theologically they tend to be too stuffy and ritual-driven and their services are boring. This one has mostly people my age dressed in jeans and T-shirts doing a lot of that hand waving and jumping in place and looking like we actually want to be there, which is awesome. I've never been to a traditional style service that didn't bore me to pieces.

The fact that we meet in a rented out warehouse might be part of the thing here, it's just easier to do baptisms once a year rather than deal with a setup to dunk people frequently. Dunno. Should note though that denominations that do confirmation typically do it only once a year too though.

[cleanhippie]

56. I would like to know more about your liberal evangelical church. What its name?

What sets it apart from other evangelical churches?


Do they accept GLBT people? Are women allowed to hold positions of authority? Are there any women in positions of authority?


I've curious about these things because I have never heard of a liberal evangelical church. Please tell me about it.


On edit: After posting this, I did some google-fu and found this: http://www.liberalevangelical.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=28

Would you say this describes your church?

[ButterflyBlood]

57. It's a church from the Vineyard Movement. Not all Vineyard churches are liberal though.

Some in fact are ultra-conservative and quite fundie especially down south. But it's a very loose movement and association of churches rather than a hierarchical denomination.

Yes we are accepting of GLBT people. I've never once heard any condemnation or negative comments about homosexuals. I once sat behind what I'm pretty sure was a lesbian couple. I've also seen HRC bumper stickers in the parking lot.

Yes we allow women to hold positions of authority. The co-lead pastors are a married couple. The man does most of the sermons, but I know that his wife is equally active, usually in administrative stuff or going to conferences. She has given sermons before too, I love it when she does because she has a unique perspective being raised a Buddhist in a family of immigrants and not becoming a Christian until she was in college, she also has a great down to earth style talking about things like the guilt she sometimes still feels after being rude to an outcast girl in middle school. One of the associate pastors who does a lot of work is also a woman, but she is on leave now because of her pregnancy. She has given sermons too, as have other women.

As stated before it's not a typical evangelical church. It was founded by a church plant group of 20somethings about 7 years ago, and hence the congregation is still quite young (which is a big factor in what I like about it, as I am still young myself.) A lot of these people came from a more conservative evangelical background, but wanted to keep what they liked about that in a more accepting and progressive context. Hence it fits more in the evangelical tradition because it's a grassroots church plant, and isn't connected to an established church full of rituals and tradition and all that which the more liberal mainline churches tend to be like. They also have a worship style mostly found in evangelical churches, modern music instead of the organ and hymns and people raising their arms and shaking and jumping in in praise instead of just standing still.

I don't think that site is a good example of what they're about, though it's not entirely incompatible. Their message is decidedly apolitical instead of agressively liberal, but the type of stuff you only end up hearing from liberals today, such as about accepting others and concern for social justice. Last week's sermon was about a metaphor comparing middle school cliques and "insiders and outsiders" to separate groups today and people who oppress others over divisions and can't get along, but how we should and can still reconcile, and compared that despite centuries of oppression of blacks by whites they were still able to reconcile and work with black churches and about how these categories and ways we divide ourselves mean nothing to God. So while they definitely fit on the liberal side in comparison to other churches from an evangelical tradition and even churches in general today, they aren't trying to frame that as an inverse of the fundies and "You must be a good liberal to be a good Christian" type of message.

[jeepnstein]

58. The Church isn't about politics.

That is lost on a lot of people, conservative and liberal, who view their world through a political filter. It's quite possible to be "scripturally conservative" and still be a raging-full-blown-unashamed liberal. I find that most "politically conservative" churches are kind of making it up as they go along. Speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where it is silent has worked pretty well for me. Anyone who thinks Christianity is a good basis for a political party is barking up the wrong tree.

[ButterflyBlood]

59. Yep, that sounds like what my church's stance is

At the entirely non-partisan pre-election sermon the pastor said "Yes I do have a side and there's no way you'll find which one it is." and then made a joke about how he had to make sure not to wear a blue shirt or red shirt today to avoid looking like he's trying to send a coded message.

(I don't doubt he was voting for Obama though.)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

52. John Calvin barbecued Michael Servetus over this.

Servetus was against infant baptism and he was also the first Unitarian.
Calvin lured him to Geneva for a "debate". Servetus went to a church service and was recognized immediately and arrested.
And later barbecued at the stake. Protestants can be just as persecuting as Catholics.

[ButterflyBlood]

53. More reason to dislike Calvin.

I already found his theology and Calvinism pretty horrendous, but he was a dick personally too.

[iris27]

54. You said you identify more with Lutherans - they teach that as long as you were baptized "in the

name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", you do not need to be re-baptized. At least the Missouri Synod does anyway.

But then they also believe in and practice infant baptism (with adult baptism mostly being for those who have never received it). I'm pretty sure that much is common to all branches of Lutherans. According to their doctrine, baptism doesn't connect you to a particular church organization, but rather is just a conduit for God's grace. The church I grew up in not only didn't insist on rebaptism, they actively discouraged it, because it's seen as almost like saying God's grace somehow isn't good enough if Proctols X, Y, and Z aren't followed.

I no longer believe, so I guess take this advice for whatever it's worth, but I'm pretty sure my old pastor would tell you that God would consider your infant baptism as valid, flawed church regardless, but that if it continues to cause you spiritual turbulence, then getting rebaptized would not be "for the wrong reasons".

[ButterflyBlood]

55. I've never even been to a Missouri Synod service. I'm talking about ELCA.

They have the same view on baptism though.

Actually that's a big part of my issue, I may have been baptized in the Catholic church but was just as much "raised Lutheran" as "raised Catholic", perhaps even more to the Lutheran side in my teens when it mattered and I could remember it. I've been to an ELCA service at least once a year my entire life (even if just on Christmas), I haven't been to a Catholic Mass since I graduated high school, almost a decade. I'm going to my cousin's Lutheran confirmation at the end of the month, but I have refused to attend any Catholic sacraments for family members, including my own brother's confirmation (I've agreed to go to weddings or funerals but there haven't been any on the Catholic side of my family since I graduated high school.) But if I had been baptized in the ELCA, a relatively liberal denomination I probably wouldn't care about the whole thing at all.