Did anyone NOT baptize their kids?

My youngest brother is the only one of us kids who was baptized...and he's good and ticked about it! :lmao: He is not a Christian (neither is our mother...long story as to why he was baptized in the first place) and it really does seem to bother him that he was baptized in a faith he soundly rejects.

Why would it bother him if he rejects the faith?

It would seem that if he rejected the faith, then the meaning of Baptism would be nothing to him. It would be no more than someone just throwing some water on him.

I mean, realistically, it is the symbolism of Baptism..."washing" the sins away with water. The sins aren't actually washed away with the water. If one has no belief in the faith system, then one would think that any of its ceremonies would hold no meaning, and therefore not be cause for distress.

I mean no disrespect to those of the Jewish faith, but I will use this as an example: I am not Jewish. The Jewish "naming" ceremony, while it is lovely, would mean nothing to me, as Jewish isn't my faith. So, if for some reason, someone Jewish did a "discreet" naming ceremony for me for some reason as a child, I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that it had happened, because since it is not my belief system it would mean nothing to me, other than that maybe someone was doing something they thought was a nice thing for me. But it would hold no significance in my life and certainly wouldn't bother me.
 
Why would it bother him if he rejects the faith?

It would seem that if he rejected the faith, then the meaning of Baptism would be nothing to him. It would be no more than someone just throwing some water on him.

I mean, realistically, it is the symbolism of Baptism..."washing" the sins away with water. The sins aren't actually washed away with the water. If one has no belief in the faith system, then one would think that any of its ceremonies would hold no meaning, and therefore not be cause for distress.

I mean no disrespect to those of the Jewish faith, but I will use this as an example: I am not Jewish. The Jewish "naming" ceremony, while it is lovely, would mean nothing to me, as Jewish isn't my faith. So, if for some reason, someone Jewish did a "discreet" naming ceremony for me for some reason as a child, I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that it had happened, because since it is not my belief system it would mean nothing to me, other than that maybe someone was doing something they thought was a nice thing for me. But it would hold no significance in my life and certainly wouldn't bother me.

I *do* get your point... I really think it depends on context...There is a certain religion out there who is poshoumously baptizing Jews and in many cases counting them in the records of their religion...This was done to many holocaust victims including Anne Frank, and I (and Judaism)find it extremely disrespectful and distastful that even after being murdered Jews are still not good enough and must be baptized.
 
I resent being baptised into a religion when I didn't have any choice in the matter. :confused3 Nothing I can do about it, but I wish it hadn't been done.
 
I *do* get your point... I really think it depends on context...There is a certain religion out there who is poshoumously baptizing Jews and in many cases counting them in the records of their religion...This was done to many holocaust victims including Anne Frank, and I (and Judaism)find it extremely disrespectful and distastful that even after being murdered Jews are still not good enough and must be baptized.

Well, somehow it seems different, for the reason you stated. Because it seems disrespectful and distasteful to do that to people who had lived a life and practiced their religion of choice in that life. They didn't need to be baptized post-houmously....they had a wonderful faith that they believed. Their faith "took care of" their death, if you know what I mean.

I believe the poster I was responding to said her brother was bothered by the fact that he was the only baptized infant in his family. Basically, he had been baptized when he had no choice in the matter, though I woud assume his parents thought it was the right thing to do at the time. But if the faith holds no interest for you, then its sacraments should be meaningless.

I could have been named a high priestess in the "UbiJubi" faith by someone....it would hold no meaning in my life because I don't believe in "UbiJubi".
 

I've never heard this! Do you have more information on it??? I'd be interested to read about this.

Can I PM you?..I really don't want to start a big debate on it....I'm on my way to a doctors appointment but I'm will PM it too you right after I get home.

ETA. JFTR It's NOT Catholicism..If you type baptism of Jewish dead in google you will get lots of hits
 
I've never heard this! Do you have more information on it??? I'd be interested to read about this.

Here is some information about the cult that goes round babtising dead people


http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp
On any given day, in more than fifty Mormon temples around the world, thousands of faithful Mormons are baptized vicariously for the dead. Most non-Mormons are dimly aware that the Mormons are interested in genealogy, but they are not sure why. While there is nothing wrong with being interested in genealogy as a hobby, this is far from a hobby for Mormons.

They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a "spirit prison" until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.

Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the "spirit world" who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism.

You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates—virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church.


Baptism for the Dead v. Baptism of Desire



One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? Surely he would give them that chance. But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?

http://nowscape.com/mormon/hitler_temple_2.htm

Mormons believe proxy baptisms give the dead an opportunity to join the church in the spirit world. Similarly, dead spouses and their children can be "sealed" for eternity, just as living Latter-day Saints enter into eternal marriages and families are "sealed" together in the faith's temples. Only Mormons "in good standing" -- those who regularly tithe, live moral and law-abiding lives and adhere to the church's prohibitions against alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea -- are issued "temple recommend" cards that allow entry to temples.


Mormons are encouraged to limit submissions of names for vicarious temple work to their own ancestors.

Still, church genealogical records contain a "Who's Who" of historical figures targeted for Mormon baptism for the dead, family sealings and marriages in the hereafter.

The list spans both the noble and ignoble, famous and infamous. On one hand is a host of Roman Catholic popes and saints, among them Joan of Arc, Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier, the latter now listed as married, or sealed, despite lifelong celibacy.

Columbus also is there, sealed to a Beatriz Enriquez Harana -- the explorer's mistress; so are Buddha and the mysterious "Mrs. Buddha." King Henry the VIII, along with several of his six wives, have appeared in church genealogical records, along with the Communist foursome of Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Ho Chi-Minh.

It is harder to understand why some Mormons choose to offer posthumous salvation to history's tyrants and madmen. Herod the Great, whom the Gospels recount massacred Bethlehem's infant boys in an unsuccessful bid to kill Jesus, was baptized in the Logan Temple in 1994; Ivan the Terrible, Dracula (Vlad "The Impaler," Prince of Wallachia) and Rasputin, spiritual adviser to the doomed Romanov family of Imperial Russia, also have cropped up in church files. And then there is Hitler, whose dreams of a German Third Reich resulted in the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews and the deaths of tens of millions of others during World War II.

It took only seconds recently to retrieve Der Fuehrer's record -- and that of wife Eva Braun -- from the LDS Church's Ancestral File via the FamilySearch Internet site (www.familysearch.org). The records also listed two men as having provided the most recent of recurring Hitler-Braun files.

That is just plain rude, what gives them the right to go round "converting" dead people to their faith!!!!!!!
 
Can I PM you?..I really don't want to start a big debate on it....I'm on my way to a doctors appointment but I'm will PM it too you right after I get home.

ETA. JFTR It's NOT Catholicism..If you type baptism of Jewish dead in google you will get lots of hits

Please do! I find it interesting.
 
/
It is rude and disrespectful, I agree. And I could see how it would bother someone to have a dead loved one "exploited" in that manner...especially those victims of the Holocaust who were already so tortured and exploited.

We have an LDS Church in my town. I live across the street from a cemetery where my in-laws are buried (and where I will one day be buried). For all I know, the LDS Church could have walked through that cemetery, written down the names of everyone laid to rest there, and baptized them post-houmously.

Doesn't really faze me as LDS is not the belief system I practice, nor was it the belief system my late in-laws practiced, so their sacrament/ceremony is meaningless to me as it would be to them.
 
By and far, the majority of Christians (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, the Anglican Communion) hold to a theology in which faith in God through Jesus Christ is a gift given to us in our baptism. Infant baptism is a way of showing that we receive this gift not through any work of our own, but only through the grace of God.

Certainly, one can reject God's choice but Lutherans do not believe that we are able, through our own understanding and strength, to come to know Jesus Christ. It's all a gift of the Holy Spirit.

You, and many other Christians, hold to the Anabaptist tradition which teaches a believer's baptism. I don't think there is anything wrong with it (Martin Luther, on the other hand, had more than a few harsh words for the Anabaptists) -- it's just a different way of understanding baptism. I am not sure if all Anabaptists also teach the one baptism theology.

Now we do celebrate confirmation -- or, as it is more properly called, affirmation of baptism. This usually occurs at the age of 13 or 14 and sees the child go through 1-3 years of in-depth instruction about their faith, the Holy Bible, Luther's Small Catechism, Lutheran theology, etc., etc. The end result is a liturgy in which the confirmand "affirms their baptism" -- that is, affirms the decisions made for them by their parents and baptismal sponsors when they were baptized as an infant. Many see it as a rite of passage in the church, while others take it much more seriously and give serious consideration to whether they actually want to take on the responsibilities and obligations of adult membership in the church.

Thanks for explaining this point of view. I appreciate your understanding of my question. :)

I do not know any parents who feel the "were forced or pressured" into doing so. I would be very sad and counsel them against doing so if that's how they truly felt.
I

I do not know anyone who felt pressure either. But there are plenty of posts on this thread about people who feel they should, feel pressure from their family, etc. I think that would be terrible to feel like you "should" do something that you are not in agreement with (esp. to just pacify family/friends.)
 
We didn't baptize DD and we won't baptize #2. DH and I were raised Catholic, and we left the church at 18. My sister has also left the church and probably won't baptize her kids (if she has any in the future). My dad once asked me if I was going to baptize DD, and I asked him if he seriously just asked me that. I told him no, because I don't believe in Jesus and it would be hypocritical of me to baptize my DD in a Christian church. It felt good to finally have it out there! He hasn't mentioned it since, but that doesn't mean that he won't. My answer won't change, though. If DD wants to find religion as an adult, fine. I'm not going to force something on her as a child, though. I had that done to me, and I resented every second of it.
 





New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top