Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Yeh, I know. That's fine.


Because, among those who think it's a sin, most still assume it's a choice. If it's a choice, then there's no underlying homosexual orientation, so everything about homosexuality is in the action. So when they say homosexuality is a sin, they're only referring to the chosen actions, but only because they don't believe there's an orientation. That's what people seem to me to be thinking in general anyway...

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Are you so certain about that? I seem to remember a passage in which Jesus actually commends the faith of children, and tells his disciples that unless they have that kind of faith they cannot see the kingdom of God. While it may be true that they don't have a formed theology, I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that this means they have no faith.

But here's where our understanding may part anyway. I am of the belief (and believe it based on the overwhelming testimony of Scripture) that Baptism is not an act of man, but rather a gracious act of God. As such, adults have absolutely nothing to offer God in Baptism, except their own fallen sinful nature (Romans 6). Since Adults offer nothing, how can children offer less than nothing?

But my reason for baptizing children is based on a biblical mandate anyway:

_________________

I can see where you're coming from, Didy. But I think that saying "your children" does not necessarily mean babies, it could easily mean simply future generations, or children that were old enough to accept Jesus as their savior.

Furthermore, notice that Peter says "Repent and be baptized", which seems to indicate that you must repent first. On a similar note, later in that passage, it says:



You can see that only those who received the word were baptized, and there's no way a baby could have truly received the word.

_________________

Does Jesus not say, "Suffer the little children to come unto me"?

And keep in mind, the context of Peter's Pentecost Sermon. These were the very same people responsible for Jesus' crucifixion that he is speaking to.

Basically, the passage contains both Law and Gospel (i.e., condemnation of wrong with admonition for right, as well as good news of God's promise). The adults there, who were guilty of the specific sin of condemning the Lord to death most certainly must repent of their sins, as all Christians must do (and that on a daily basis, not just before Baptism). But how exactly does that then exclude the children from the promise?

As I said before, Baptism is pure Gospel: it is God's gift to us for our benefit. Last time I checked, children are also in need of God's mercy. Why should we deny them the benefit of the Sacrament? But, on the other hand, when you start trying to put prerequisites on grace, you essentially make it into a work rather than a means of grace, i.e., a Law rather than Gospel.

Keep in mind, the text says, "Repent and be baptized," not "Repent in order to be baptized." I.e, it is presenting both repentance and Baptism as important in the life of the Christian, but does not make one a prerequisite of the other. Otherwise, I would have expected the conjunction ina, rather than kai, and the second imperative to be subjunctive.

Also, notice that other part I bolded: the part that says, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Unless we're going to claim that God does not call children, then we must concede that this Sacrament is for them also.

Also, keep in mind, the Covenant of Circumcision, given to the Hebrew people as a sign of their covenant with God, was administered to newborn babies.

For more information on why I believe in Children's Baptism, see THIS LINK.

But here's a question for anyone who doubts the validity of children's Baptism: Do you believe that Baptism is a Sacrament for the Forgiveness of Sins, through which God joins people to Christ in his crucifixion and death, and then raises them to new life in Christ, thereby washing away their sins and making them a part of his family?

_________________

I've never really believed in infant baptism, seeing as I've never been baptized myself. You guys know that I have some problems with the Church (ie gay marriage, ect, ect).

I simply feel that parents should wait until their children grow, at least a little, and develop a sense of the world and religion for themselves before they make such a serious commitment to Christianity.

_________________

I was baptized as an infant.

And to be completely honest, I wish I could take it back, because I am no longer a Christian in any way.

I had no say in the matter in the first place, though.

So I'd say I disagree with the idea, too.

_________________

I'm of the same mind of AceKirby and Marshmallow Roast. I was baptized as an infant, was raised Christian, but am no longer Christian. I think a responsible parent would allow their children to develop their own opinions and thoughts regarding the various religious and philosophical beliefs the world has to offer, instead of automatically tying the child down to their own religion. In a way, I can't help but feel that it's part of religion's (at least Christianity's) nature to perpetuate itself by getting members as young as possible, playing on the weakness of a young child's mind and the effect of social conditioning.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'm with Ace. My brother & I were dedicated at a very young age, but we were only baptized after we had each given our lives to Christ.

And toastpaint. See thread title.

_________________

None of which touches on the very question I asked: Is Baptism a means of grace, or is it not? If it is a means of grace, then as one charged with administering it, I am responsible for doing just that, and in a manner consistent with my faith that it is.

Ace: rejecting the Church simply because it says something you don't like isn't very sound reason for doing so. You should ask yourself, first and foremost, are its claims about Jesus Christ true or not, and if they are, then does that not mean that he has the right to expect your allegiance and obedience?

Myrrh: whether or not you live by the baptismal grace granted you when you were a child does not seem to me adequate reason for denying it. The way I see it, the people who baptized you were likely doing what they felt to be in your best interest at the time anyway. If there's even the smallest chance that Mark 16:16 is correct, then I would hope you'd be thankful that someone gave that to you. Besides, you never know: you might just one day be thankful they did.


Pianoman, that's Rosalie reasoning right there. It is a gross exaggeration of what some perceive to be the negative aspects of us Christians raising our children according to our faith. And as I attempted to demonstrate to her, we consider our religion to be truth (and before we get into all that, I'd like to point out that EVERY truly religious person thinks this way, not just Christians), and so we see no difference between teaching our faith and "socially conditioning" children in things like mathematics and reading.

Ian: as a fellow dedicated Christian, I would have expected you to offer some biblical support for your answer, rather than simply dismissing my own case. Simply stating that this was the experience you and your brother had does not really do much to answer my question.

But there is a flaw in your reasoning: I have yet to read in the Scriptures anywhere where it said that someone "gave their life to Christ."

_________________

This whole line of thought does seem to be dying down a bit. I'm gonna let it run until tomorrow before calling in the toastpaint squad tho, just to be sure all this is out of our system and we can get back to normal 'round here. So for the next 24 hrs or so, this can still be stream-of-consciousness R&P whatever, and then I'll either start some discussion along the lines of the thread title or make it a thread only for when other threads get too broad. (I don't like the second idea anymore because it's too subjective, but you can't say it's not necessary sometimes)

The way the Catholic Church handles the Baptism issue: Babies are baptized, but when you reach (what used to be) adulthood, you go through Confirmation. When adults who are new to the church come in, it's like they do Confirmation and Baptism at the same time.

The problem I have is when parents put their children through certain permanently mutilating religious ceremonies without their consent. But just think of the uproar that would ensue if someone said that, in a secular country, circumcision should be illegal. "Obviously," anyone who would say such a thing must be anti-semitic. But I do believe that's like forcing a religion on someone. Baptism, so what? If you don't believe it, you don't believe it. You can't believe away a bodily injury. That seems like a pretty clear-cut case of when the government needs to step in, but I can't imagine that happening pretty much ever.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Keep in mind that we have a separate thread for baptism. I'll bring that back & continue or baptism discussion there.

But for now, TOAST PAINT.

_________________

By all means, bring back threads. That's definitely preferable. But I dunno, it seems things often lead one thing to another thing to another thing, always staying on the edges of a couple different topics. Maybe there needs to be a thread for that, kinda like an R&P random thoughts except not really random, more stream of consciousness. And then when the discussion moves firmly into one topic or another, it can go into a thread of its own.

Actually, I'll think this over a bit, and if there's no mod objections and I can think of a good wording, I'll change the first post and title to that idea by the end of the night.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

That's pretty much how Baptism and Confirmation are handled in our church as well. We then instruct them in the faith, and ask them to commit themselves to the faith. It is also why, several months back (maybe even a year or two?), I suggested that No Toppings not go through the Confirmation Rite if he was not comfortable with his family's faith. Of course, I also suggested he talk with his priest, and maybe at least go through the instruction before making that critical decision.

But about circumcision: I've done some reading on the practice, and it seems there's no consensus about whether the practice is medically beneficial, harmful, or neutral (differing studies seem to produce all three results). So I'm not entirely sure it can be classified as mutilation. On the other hand, I have known at least one person who, for medical reasons, had to undergo circumcision, and, well - let's just say I'd personally rather go through it as a newborn child than as an adult.

_________________

Eh, it still seems like the kind of thing someone should be choosing for themselves rather than having it imposed. I mean, cutting off a baby's small toe really wouldn't do them any harm either (all the balance occurs in the big toe), but I can't see that gaining any support, or really any other cutting of any baby for religious reasons. Think if there was some kind of ritual scarring, like as part of a birth rite, some kind of words or symbols were carved on a baby's back. If you're right there with disinfectants and use sterile knives, hey, you're not doing anything that harms the baby in the long run any more than circumcision. And in fact you're not removing anything. But would anyone support that?

I also agree that people who don't believe shouldn't go through Confirmation, and some families need to lighten up and realize that they're doing their own faith (which they supposedly love so much) a major disservice by forcing their kids to go through with it when they don't believe.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Yeah. And No Toppings took some serious flack for that from his family, too. And frankly, I think it led him to reject the faith entirely. But I don't know. I haven't been in contact with NT in like forever.

_________________

I completely disagree.

Christianity isn't something that you just "commit" yourself to. You can be commited to your job or your spouse, but Faith is quite a bit different. Faith is a belief, not an obligation.

I was not born into a Christian family. My family never took me to church or taught me about Christ or any other religion. They wanted me to "make my own decision when I was ready." And sometimes I hate them for that. They both went to church when they were younger; my mom, catholic, and my dad, lutheran. They both understood what scripture teaches about teaching your children. I believe in baptising children. As didy's probably mentioned million times before, scripture teaches us to baptise everyone. If they later refuse Christ as their savior, they can do that.

The point is, I wish I would have been brought up as a Christian, or at least having some knowledge of the Christian faith. The holy spirit worked through some of my friends to bring me to Christ, and that is the greatest gift I've been given.

And for Religion in Politics:
Our experiences influence our decions and actions.
I'm lutheran. I don't believe in gay marriage. I would vote against it because my religion teaches me so. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If you're gay, you're going to vote for allowing gay marriage. I don't see any problem with that either.

I think Pie has touched on something that I've sort of felt all along. While our nation's laws forbid government control of religion, and vice versa, it leaves plenty of room for people to allow their religion to inform their politics. And vice versa.

For example: if I were going to the polls to vote on a law regarding abortion, I would base my vote on my own beliefs that unborn children are to be considered human, regardless of their stage of development. Now, if you were to ask me to prove that scientifically, I wouldn't be able to. Why? Because the very same question can be asked regarding people with Alzheimer's: where do you draw the line between what is and what isn't considered human? But at the root of it would be my faith that God does in fact bestow a certain dignity on that unborn child, and we have a responsibility to uphold that dignity as best we can. And where do I get all that from? From God telling Jeremiah that he had formed him in the womb. And also from the unborn John the Baptist (in his third trimester) jumping for joy at the unborn Jesus Christ (still a zygote).

But to tell me, "You have to set such beliefs aside before you come into the public sphere," is just ludicrous. It'd be like me telling someone, "You have to set aside your race or ethnic origin before you can work here," or better still, "You have to set aside your homosexuality before we can allow you civil rights."

I have no illusions that this nation is now or ever will be what Robertson and Kennedy call "a Christian nation." But I do think Christians have the right - and, in fact, the responsibility - to allow their religion to inform their political decisions. But even as I say that, I would also remind my fellow Christians that we also have a responsibility to our God to be good citizens of this nation, and to uphold the dignity and honor of all human beings as best we can within the public sphere.

_________________

Being a minority religeon (Jewish), unless the government is fair to all religeons, I think religeon should have no sway on the government.

_________________
DaViD

It depends what you mean by "inform". If, for instance, you start with a faith-based point of view with no worldly-argument backing, but then build up a case for that point that can be fully defended without religious argument, then I'd agree. Or, if it's an issue of society's philosophical priorities, like abortion, where scientific or other more concrete arguments aren't really helping either side, then I'd agree. But if there are perfectly reasonable (this is, admittedly, subjective) nonreligious arguments for something and someone doesn't even try to get out from behind "well, that's just what the Bible says," the world (and faiths of the world) would be better off if they'd never speak outside of church and stayed at home on Election Day.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Hate to give my say in this matter, but I'll just go back to Myrrh's post earlier. What if you end up hating Christianity? I think kids should get an idea of what they're doing before they get into it.

_________________

I never said I was completely rejecting the Church because I don't agree with some things. I said I am simply questioning some of the things the Church teaches. I think questioning and contemplating scripture and what is taught is completely different from an outright rejection of the Church.


Now, this brings up the question, what if my parents were more committed to Christianity, had me baptized, and raised me to believe in strict Christian fundamentals? Would I not be questioning the Church now? As we know, this can never be known, but it may be possible, or even likely.

The fact that I am asking questions about the Church is one of the reasons I don't believe in infant baptism. Unlike Pie, I kind of believe baptism is a commitment of sorts to living your life in accordance to Jesus Christ and the model and lessons he has set for you. I believe being baptized means accepting Christ as your Lord and savior for all time, and I just think people need to develop an opinion for themselves first. That's simply a difference of opinion.

_________________

I think religion should only influence law if the laws are nondiscriminatory. The Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts of Buddhism, ad well as the Ten Commandments, both contain basic sets of rules on how to live.

_________________

Luther once said that the formation of a theologian was based on three things: oratio (the Word), meditatio (contemplation of that Word), and tentatio (struggling with the Word). You, Ace, are engaging in the third, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't leave out the first two, okay?

_________________

I don't think religion should influence law. We don't need an invisible sky-daddy to make laws for us, we can do that ourselves. Most religions just teach the basics, anyway, like, don't kill, don't steal, etc. We allready figured those out, it doesn't take a genious to see that things would be a whole lot better if people didn't kill eachother.

What people need to understand is that everybody don't get their morals from religion. Some do, but most don't. Even the smallest lifeforms develop basic social structures and rules.
The cells in your body don't attack eachother. Why not? Because that would harm your body as a whole.
Bees in a beehive don't attack eachother, because that would harm the beehive as a whole.
You don't see sheep trying to kill eachother, because that would harm the flock as a whole.
Most people don't kill eachother, because that harms the society as a whole.

A society where members attack eachother to increase personal profit does not survive as well and is less fit that one where the members co-operate to increase overall profit.
I might gain by stealing from other people, but I do not want to live in a society where people steal from eachother all the time.

Seems to me that there are plenty of nations on this earth that do a miserable job of it. Take Saddam Insane, for example. If he can make just laws on his own, then why the crap didn't he? Or China, when they mowed down those kids in Tiananmen Square? Or when That Really Mean German Guy put all those people into camps? You have a sadly delusional view of the sufficiency of human governments. Just be thankful you live here, and not in places like Rwanda or Afghanistan.

And, oddly enough, despite how different influences shape our modern government, the fact remains that the founding fathers were HIGHLY influenced by religious ideals when they set our Constitution in order. Those principles may not be as highly regarded today, but they did provide us at least some measure of security before they were displaced.


Are you certain of that? Seems to me that certain diseases (cancer in particular) are precisely because cells in the body are attacking each other. But I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't give you a full run down of all diseases that are essentially cells destroying each other.


Are you so certain about that? Have you ever seen what happens when there are two queens in a hive?


Are you sure about that? Seems to me that this only works in cases of domesticated animals, but not in the species as a whole. Haven't you ever seen on the Discovery Channel two rams attacking each other in the wild?


Are you certain of that? Seems to me that a huge contributing part is the fact that murder is illegal, and we do teach that it is wrong. You make a huge assumption about people's motives here. Forgive me if I tend to take more of a cynical view of people, but my experience of them is that they are vicious, arrogant, and will do anything they think they can get away with, except in those rare individuals who are motivated entirely by kindness.


Well, unfortunately, the vast majority of people are more concerned about their own immediate needs and desires than they are about some vague notion of "the good of society." That's the reason Communism fails as miserably as it has.

Now I hope that I have made it clear that I do not believe it possible that we can establish anything like a "Christian nation," in the sense that Pat Robertson and James Kennedy proclaim. With our pluralistic society, it just would not be possible to accomplish, and would likely cause more harm that good. I'm just pointing out some weaknesses in your statements here.

_________________

You contradicted yourself in so many ways there.

_________________

To my knowledge, cancer is a defect in the cell division process that the cell has failed to notice in Interphase. The cells continue to reproduce with that defect, and it spreads.

Ah, but what happens when the body begins to react to these defective cells? And that was just one example. A parishioner of mine had a rare blood disease in which his white blood cells were basically destroying his body. And he couldn't produce red blood cells at all; he had to live on transfusions. I couldn't even tell you the name of it; I'm not a doctor after all. But there are such disorders out there.

_________________

Yes, I've heard of these. Of course, these things are way more likely to happen if you have ever had any type of translplant.

Wait, what was this thread about?

_________________

Well, cancer doesn't disprove Duke's point and could actually help underscore it. Cancer is a great metaphor for how overconsumption destroys just as much as autoimmune diseases (where cells attack one another) are great metaphors for why we shouldn't attack one another. We don't need God to know that cancer and autoimmune diseases are bad things, just like, as Duke suggests, we don't need to consult a religion to know that it's counterproductive for people to harm each other in a society.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!