Jump to content

Baptism Negates Jesus


Recommended Posts

Baptism Negates Jesus

Why do christians do this?

 

While I was in the shower this morning, thinking how terrible its going to be for Troy to spend an eternity suffering in a Muslim hell for worshiping Jesus as a messiah and not just a mere prophet, my mind turned to baptism.

 

Why do Christian baptize children again?

 

I know there is historical precedence from pagan religious customs, but what purpose does this first of all sacraments supposed to accomplish anyway? I don't get it. If its to abate sin and to be born again by the spirit, how does water that's been mumbled over by a few magic words make a difference to a baby? (To those churches that are pedo-baptists that is.)

 

" I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. "

 

Aren't children supposed to be innocent and sinless? (Does this also make infants and childern Gods? or Jesus-like too? hmmm....) Baptism is suppose to forgive you of all your sins and get you to heaven and any sin henceforth is negated. So if that's the case, why Jesus again? Even if the poor infant is going to grow up depraved and guilty of being descended from Adam and Eve and a wretched sinfull creature created by God.

 

On New Advent in both the Positive and Negative arguments for baptism agree that "the effect of this sacrament (baptism) is the remission of all sin, original and actual" and "all sins committed after baptism are either forgiven." So again, why Jesus if this ceremony seems to take care of your sins forever and forever?

 

And why was Jesus baptized? Pagans were the only ones doing similar things at that time. Perhaps Jesus was being indoctrinate in some other god's cult, other than Yahweh's, since we are too assume according to Christian doctrine that he was sinless and that for some reason being sinless pays some debt to his pappy God. (Must work out somehow on the celestial balance-sheet. Sounds like bad math to me.) In other words, going through this motion is really unnecessary if Jesus was in fact sinless. So he was either being inducted into a cult, or he was a sinful wretched creature like us all. Ha. (So much again for hanging out to dry on the cross.)

 

So, again what function does this rite serve? Seems to do more harm theologically against the passion narrative and the dogma of Jesus salvation then it helps to strengthen this silly dogma.

 

Well, unless its for mind-control to make you apart of the team before you have a chance to analyze why you "have always" been a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



I think most protestants would agree with you. I was always taught that baptism was just a public declaration of your commitment. It was not necessary for salvation and it should be done at an age where you can reason it out for yourself. It's the Catholics and Orthodox that baptise their infants; and some of the protestant churches that are closer on the family tree to the Catholics, such as Lutherans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard baptism is a central concept in the Essene faith. They get it each week. It is the symbolism of cleansing from sins. They wash of the past weeks transgressions. And in that light, it does not make sense that Jesus would do the same thing. John "Dipper" Baptist was an Essene (IIRC), so Jesus got dipped to get cleansed from sin. Christians of today have a different view on it, but I think that was the original intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do it because it is good theater...it impresses the rubes in the pews. This is also a way of showing that they love jesus so much....because jesus makes them just so soppy wet :Sheep: (much easier to Poke the faithful :poke::wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a member of a denomination that believed baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation... the Independent Christian Church/Church of Christ. They wouldn't marry my husband and I because I had only been sprinkled as a baby, so we had to find an evil liberal Methodist church to marry us. If you hadn't been immersed as an adult, you weren't saved according to them.

 

These guys don't even like Billy Graham because he doesn't immerse everyone who accepts the message.

 

But yeah, I was with the denomination for five years or so, and never got immersed, because I thought that claiming baptism was essential for salvation was an erroneous doctrine. I didn't care that they called me rebellious because of it. Oh, they even kicked out my husband as a middle school youth worker because he started a discussion one day that (slightly) questioned immersion as necessary for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Christianity total lack of an explanation of what baptism by Spirit means. If the current Christianity continues what was going on in the gospels, why do they still baptize with water when John the Baptist says that there "will come one who baptizes with Spirit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the church I was raised in (Pentecostal, associated with the UPCI), baptism in Jesus name (titles wouldn't do) put sins "under the blood" once you repented of them. What saved you was being filled with the Holy Ghost, which they taught is evidenced by people babbling nonsense ("speaking in tounges"). I think the baptism element is redundant in terms of theology. It seems to me now to be nothing more than a vacant ritual (and would seem so even if I were a beleiver).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholics, Lutherans and others believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and they also believe in original sin. While an infant is innocent of its own sin, it is not innocent because of inherited sin. If you don't baptize it, it will not enter heaven. (My parents rushed to get my youngest brother baptized on a Wednesday, because they didn't think he was going to live. He did, the old fart.) These sorts of denomonations get around the "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" via the process of confirmation. Your parents and god parents believe for you until you are old enough to confirm your own belief.

 

The Church of Christ does not believe in original sin (Zeke18). Therefore, the candidate for baptism must be able to believe at the time of baptism. And for them it must be by immersion, because that is what the word βαπτίζω means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madness.....

 

You know, I was baptised, actually immersed as a baby in a cistern as a drone of Serbian Orthodox faith. (It's the true faith of Christianity to debunk, not the other sects :P and I have to admit I find that cool cause its such niche-cult.) So even though I don't believe any more, according to orthodox doctrine I am cleared of my own sins...right? Or is it the other?

 

In any event, I was also confirmed as Luthern (WISynod- the only true Luthernism :P gotta have the homestate pride...) so I seem to be covered on both ends.

 

I bet there are some Christians who cover all the bases just to be sure. Dunk 'em when their infants, get reborn and sprinkled or dunked again. How is this not different than carrying a lucky-rabbits foot (sure didn't bring the wabbit any luck tho) or throwing salt over ones shoulder to scare away the boogeyman?

 

Still seems silly though. I mean, if the simple ommission of not being baptised disallows you from the mortage on your heavenly real-estate, what good was Jesus and all his alledged "suffering" anyway? To me, it still seems to negate Jesus in any event.

 

Or am I being simply to reasonable here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard baptism is a central concept in the Essene faith. They get it each week. It is the symbolism of cleansing from sins. They wash of the past weeks transgressions. And in that light, it does not make sense that Jesus would do the same thing. John "Dipper" Baptist was an Essene (IIRC), so Jesus got dipped to get cleansed from sin. Christians of today have a different view on it, but I think that was the original intention.

 

HanSolo... as usual... you're right! I always thought it was symbolic of being born again, born anew as coming from a mother's womb when the water broke. Looking it up, you seem to have the right take on it. Looking at it up here where it says:

 

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

Meaning John was just cleaning our hearts with what has always been here, to change our mind; but "Jesus" was going to clean our hearts with the perspective of the character of God and what gets rid of the trash in our lives.

 

Hey, you know, rituals can be very powerful! I don't know why they are not used in rehabilitation facilities more... not religous ones. Even ones like "the burning bowl," where everyone in the group writes down what they want to get rid of in their lives and puts it in the bowl after they set fire to it with the candle inside the bowl. Then everyone writes down what they want to replace that with, and keeps that in their pocket. New Years Resolutions are another one. Maybe those rituals had such a significant impact, that is what kept these different mutating religions around for so long? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.