Avatar

Precisely. Their claims are no more ludicrous than thise of the Catholic church. Catholic claims and dogma have a history of changing with the times, just like clothing fashion.

With the remainder consisting of rituals and ideas that got pilfered from the European pagans that the early Church conquered. Acutally part of my "problem" is that I see little difference between the claims of one religion and another.

Actually, it's not "my" fixation. I'm talking about the claims of validity of the many faiths. Not one has any more validity than any other. In the end, it all comes down to "who do you beleive". Even the Catholic Chruch comes down to that--utterly unconvincing claims of infallibility and monopolized morality further stretch credulity. BTW: Are you any less "indoctrinated" by your own faith than any Protestant?

And the wafers, the sacristy, the chalaces, ribbons, crucifixes, rosaries, wine, water, etc... aren't idolatrous. And people wonder why Protestants and Catholics can't get along...

Actually, my experience with the Catholic Church is the furthest thing from that...you are not expected to "deduce" a philosphical understanding of God's nature. The Church does it for you...or else you get excommunicated, shunned, or (in mideaval days) burned or hanged.

Awmte

Sorry for jumping on you there, but I still find the topic particularly sensitive. I guess that shows in the post. Again I apologize; however, I would no more expect people to comment lightly on the Tsunami than I, myself, would comment on 9/11.

I'm working from the basic assumption that Christian God does indeed exist, and the Bible is indeed his word. Given this, God's responsibility is self-evident and proving it would be as futile as proving the sun shines.

Um, not to be anal-retentive, but have you read the Bible lately? Can you still claim that God does not intervene?
A promise that applies only to Christians, not those heathen Hindus, Muslims, etc. who will all burn in Hell...

John A. Broussard

But you claimed earlier that the Church got the notion of infant Baptism from the bible. That's what I'm asking for. I have Protestant friends who insist that Jesus was baptized as an adult, and if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for them. How can I convince them they're wrong?

Evoken

So they are equating themselves to Jesus? They are forgetting that Jesus was born without Original Sin, Jesus didn't need baptism he was baptized by John only because: "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" Mat 3:15. Notice that John didn't want to baptise him.

Jesus said:""Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 19:14. And also: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Again: "Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." John 3:5. He makes no distinction between adults and infants.

Luke also refers to infants: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16)

We are all born with Original Sin, baptism removes it, the sooner the baptism the better, because of this the baptism of children has been the tradition of the church since it started.

If they deny the baptism of children, they are denying that we are born with Original Sin and make Jesus sacrifice of no consequence.

John A. Broussard

Thanks. That clears it up. The protestants I know simply claimed that infant baptism was never mentioned in the bible. Assuming you have exhausted the possible references, I'll have to admit they are correct.

Evoken

Here are some bible references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/bap...ml#baptism-III

Also if they are so obsessed about what The Bible says, why don't they show where baptism for infants is excluded or where does it shows the age for baptism that excluses infants? Circumcision was done at the eight day after the child was born, baptism is the new circumcision and just like in the old covenant it was done to children so too is baptism done to children under the new covenant.

John A. Broussard

I've never heard that one before. Where is that said in the bible?

Thanks for your prompt and complete answers.

Albert Cipriani

Asimis, do John a favor by not answering him. You feed an anti-intellectual monster by playing the "show me where in the Bible" game. Rather, the question should be, why do you have such a strange epistemology?

Who made up the rules of his game that all doctrines must be stated in a book written 2000 years ago? And if we were meant to play such a game with such silly rules, why don't the practioners/promoters of said game, the Protestants, ignore or spiritualize away every singly Catholic dogma based upon the clear words of the bible e.g., who sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. -- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Avatar

Sounds like an invitation to vampirism to me. :wave:

Seriously, why would God really care whether your head got wet or not? It is a ritual, nothing more.

Awmte

That's nothin. Cutting off pieces of your dick has to be even worse.