Baptizing infants is logical regardless; it isn’t a baptism into an organization but into Christ. This is shown by the fact that baptisms don by heretics have always been considered valid so long as they were done as the scripture instructs.
The spiritual status of infants does not depend on the “interpretation about the universal church of Christ”, it depends on Jesus saying to let the little children come to Him and what Paul and Peter say that Baptism dos, namely forgive sins, bury with Christ, etc.
That statement follows from what Paul says about children of believers; it has nothing to do with ecclesiological definitions.
The analogy said what it was meant to. Your version leaves the door open for q different understanding., It is your misunderstanding of my analogy that is at fault. I chose the comparison deliberately.
You may not agree with it, but the analogy stands. Building proteins is not the same as building a lung or a heart. If you cannot see this I am sorry for you.
In the US there is a tradition of a strict separation of church and state as described in our constitution. The current interpretation is called the Lemon test which has three prongs:
The “Purpose Prong”: The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
The “Effect Prong”: The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
The “Entanglement Prong”: The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
This is why government funded public schools tread very carefully when it comes to religious topics. We have decided that religion should be left to the individual, and the government should stay out of it. Some in the US disagree with this concept, but I think the majority still support it.
What I think we all agree on is that each person should live in a society where they are free to pursue whatever religious path they choose.
Actually SCOTUS has instructed lower courts that Lemon should be disregarded with respect to certain areas such as public schools; as I recall the current test is from Kennedy. Lemon can still be employed but is not considered sufficient (I can’t recall the reasoning).
Your comment is missing an important point: it matters what is written in the scripture that people value as divine.
I cannot read Arabic so cannot read Quran, I can only read imperfect translations. The little what I have read about the teachings of Qur’an and the accepted principles how the internal contradictions in the book should be interpreted, told by those who know the teachings, have been somewhat surprising and disappointing. I had the wrong impression that the violence stems from a questionable interpretation of the teachings in the book. That seems not to be true, it stems from a faithful, conservative acceptance of the teachings in the Qur’an.
Going into details is beyond the scope of this Forum.
The Old Testament Tabernacle and Sanctuary Service teaches that its only confessed sins that may be forgiven.
An infant cannot confess sin…nor do they sin…so there is no need for any of that for them.
Also, if we take Christs parents model…what happened? Christ was dedicated as a child, then baptised as an adult.
Luke 2
Forty days after the birth of her son, Mary’s time of purification had completed, so she came to the temple with a sacrifice, according to the law of Moses. So Mary and Joseph took baby Jesus to Jerusalem to be dedicated before the Lord.
Matt 3
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
There is an innate flaw in this notion about the original translation. Even if you speak Arabic you are still translating it into your own understanding. That still applies if Arabic is your native language.
You only have to read trough this forum to see that word understanding and concepts can be misunderstood,when using english because American English differs as does coloquialisms and local understandings. Arabic will be no different. To assume that you understand what the writer meant, just because Arabc is your native language is still a fallacy.
In making this statement, you are assuming that you are correct and declaring everyone with different beliefs to be wrong. Beware of the log in your own eye.
Declaring other beliefs to be wrong can quite easily be arrogant, but it is not inherently arrogant. Is the declaration based on good evidence, or not? Does the person recognize the high probability that their own understanding is imperfect or is the emphasis on “I’m right and you’re wrong?”
There are plenty of discoveries that I didn’t allow my son to make on his own, generally relating to physically harmful experiences. It is important for individuals to carefully examine their beliefs. But are the children adequately equipped to do such understanding? Do they know the truth claims they are inheriting well enough to be able to examine them? The fact that their parents’ beliefs have been adequate to allow them to survive to adulthood suggests that they are worth considering. Advertising demonstrates the danger of deciding for oneself what is true. Choosing for oneself what one wants to be true and insisting that others accept it as truth is arrogant and extremely popular, especially ever since the “Enlightenment” gave it the pretense of being an exercise in reason. We must each investigate the truth to the extent that we can, but we must conform to the truth rather than trying to bend it to suit ourselves.
Naturally we think what be beleive is right, otherwise we would not think it. The trick is to accept the possibilty of their being other truths that we do not know or do not wish to know.
Religion is a very personal thing. What works for one may not work for another. Some people like to be told and organised , even ti the nth degree and others desire a freedom that most religions preclude.
Acceptance of other beleifs is probably the most difficult task. The whole notion that there could be more than one way to God takes away the pride, and assurance of having found the right one. (and hinders trying to convert others to it)
A little hypocrisy is a natural thing. We are all guilty of it from time to time.
If you complain that adults shouldn’t be so reticent to allow children to be exposed to the Christian message you also shouldn’t be reticent to allow those same children to be exposed to religions other than Christianity, if you are being even handed.
I think it is not so mch exposure as indoctrination. It is hard for a child to distinguish between fact and belief when told it by an adult, especially if that adult is in a position of authority or trust. It is hard to be dispassionate when talking about religion. Whatever your personal view is, that is what will be heard and understood.
Agree with everything you describe. LIke I said (or at least tried to say), hypocrisy in this instance is completely understandable and a natural part of human psychology. You also correctly point out how children are more impressionable which is why we treat public education for children a bit differently than post secondary education.
Added: You’re also assuming that survival to adulthood, but no longer, is a sufficient criterion to make a belief system to be worth considering. Try applying that to e.g. anyone whose parents delayed getting vaccinated against COVID.
I could in theory be assuming that I’m correct that such a position is arrogant. But that’s not much of an assumption - it’s close to the definition of ‘arrogant’ - and it has nothing to do with declaring anything about anyone else’s different beliefs. ↩︎