Baptism

calamity · May 12, 2014

One of the odder aspects of religious belief is that only the baptized get to go to heaven. And, from what I gather, even evil people get to go to heaven if baptized at the last minute while accepting Christ before they die.

In some ways, I see baptism a little differently than the religious do. The religious actually put value on the baptism itself, it must be done by so and so and in such and such manner, whereas I see it more symbolic: "I give myself to God." For the most part, there is little conflict between the two. So far so good.

However, here's where it gets ugly. A child dies before being baptized--it does not get to go to heaven. Even a baby, someone who obviously knows no difference between being baptized or not being baptized, is also banned from heaven unless some holy water is sprinkled on its forehead while someone ordained mutters the proper words over it.

How does this make sense to people? Again, I can relate to the pagan aspect of it all, the symbology, the pageantry etc. But, when it apples to rational thinking, it really makes no sense. Heaven's gate is guarded by something which puts value on the fact that some water was or was not applied in the proper way or not.

I guess, to me, this baptism nonsense is a strong reason to deny heaven even exists. After all, what kind of stupid entry requirement is this baptism? "Freddy killed 13 co-eds, but he was baptized by the Holy Se. Let that boy in."

Meanwhile, up the street, Howard just died. He was a good man who fed the homeless and took in starving children. But...he wasn't baptized. "Send that man down to Hell."

Paleocon · May 12, 2014

calamity said:
One of the odder aspects of religious belief is that only the baptized get to go to heaven. And, from what I gather, even evil people get to go to heaven if baptized at the last minute while accepting Christ before they die.

In some ways, I see baptism a little differently than the religious do. The religious actually put value on the baptism itself, it must be done by so and so and in such and such manner, whereas I see it more symbolic: "I give myself to God." For the most part, there is little conflict between the two. So far so good.

However, here's where it gets ugly. A child dies before being baptized--it does not get to go to heaven. Even a baby, someone who obviously knows no difference between being baptized or not being baptized, is also banned from heaven unless some holy water is sprinkled on its forehead while someone ordained mutters the proper words over it.

How does this make sense to people? Again, I can relate to the pagan aspect of it all, the symbology, the pageantry etc. But, when it apples to rational thinking, it really makes no sense. Heaven's gate is guarded by something which puts value on the fact that some water was or was not applied in the proper way or not.

I guess, to me, this baptism nonsense is a strong reason to deny heaven even exists. After all, what kind of stupid entry requirement is this baptism? "Freddy killed 13 co-eds, but he was baptized by the Holy Se. Let that boy in."

Meanwhile, up the street, Howard just died. He was a good man who fed the homeless and took in starving children. But...he wasn't baptized. "Send that man down to Hell."

If a person repents and is baptized, he is not evil.

Baptism effects ontological change. Every person is born in original sin, and baptism removes this.

First, baptism can be performed by anyone, as long as they intend to do as the Church does, it is not even necessary that they believe. Second, your understanding of Heaven is faulty, being in Heaven is to possess the beatific vision, that is, God is directly present to one's intellect. In such a state, one fully comprehends the absolute goodness of God. Now to be in the presence of God is supernatural, that is above human nature, so no one has a claim of right to it. Those who depart the world in original sin only, without mortal sin, go to a state of natural happiness, sort of like a perfect version of Earth, but because of original sin they cannot fully understand that God is absolute goodness itself, but only that he is the absolute natural good.

Original sin bars entrance into Heaven.

If he repents and is baptized, he can be saved.

How do you know Howard was good?

calamity · May 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
1. If a person repents and is baptized, he is not evil.

Baptism effects ontological change. Every person is born in original sin, and baptism removes this.

First, baptism can be performed by anyone, as long as they intend to do as the Church does, it is not even necessary that they believe. Second, your understanding of Heaven is faulty, being in Heaven is to possess the beatific vision, that is, God is directly present to one's intellect. In such a state, one fully comprehends the absolute goodness of God. Now to be in the presence of God is supernatural, that is above human nature, so no one has a claim of right to it. Those who depart the world in original sin only, without mortal sin, go to a state of natural happiness, sort of like a perfect version of Earth, but because of original sin they cannot fully understand that God is absolute goodness itself, but only that he is the absolute natural good.

Original sin bars entrance into Heaven.

If he repents and is baptized, he can be saved.

2. How do you know Howard was good?

1. That actually makes sense. Thanks.

2. By all accounts Howard never broke the law, did as he was asked and fed stray cats.

Paleocon · May 12, 2014

calamity said:
1. That actually makes sense. Thanks.

2. By all accounts Howard never broke the law, did as he was asked and fed stray cats.

1. Are you referring to the first line only, or everything above 2?

2. While that is virtuous, being virtuous in one regard does not preclude being sinful in another. If Howard knew or was willfully ignorant of the divine command to be baptized, or if he was ignorant of it due to negligently not concerning himself with truth, then he will be guilty of mortal sin, and will be damned. Even if he was not culpable of being unbaptized, and also didn't commit any other mortal sins, he still doesn't have a claim of right on Heaven. Although, if he had perfect charity (he abstained from all mortal sins because they were offensive to God (or, if he was inculpably ignorant of God's existence, because they were immoral), rather than because he desired to avoid spiritual punishment or the pains of conscience) then God would recognize that as an implicit desire for baptism (he would desire it if he knew what it was) and would remove his original sin.

calamity · May 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
1. Are you referring to the first line only, or everything above 2?

2. While that is virtuous, being virtuous in one regard does not preclude being sinful in another. If Howard knew or was willfully ignorant of the divine command to be baptized, or if he was ignorant of it due to negligently not concerning himself with truth, then he will be guilty of mortal sin, and will be damned. Even if he was not culpable of being unbaptized, and also didn't commit any other mortal sins, he still doesn't have a claim of right on Heaven. Although, if he had perfect charity (he abstained from all mortal sins because they were offensive to God (or, if he was inculpably ignorant of God's existence, because they were immoral), rather than because he desired to avoid spiritual punishment or the pains of conscience) then God would recognize that as an implicit desire for baptism (he would desire it if he knew what it was) and would remove his original sin.

1. Everything above 2

2. I understand what you're saying. I guess the heavens are closed to those who are not cleansed of original sin. I'm not sure I accept that. We "sin"; we accept out sinful nature, if you will, repenting.This should cover us.

Paleocon · May 12, 2014

calamity said:
1. Everything above 2

2(a). I understand what you're saying. I guess the heavens are closed to those who are not cleansed of original sin. I'm not sure I accept that.

2(b). We "sin"; we accept out sinful nature, if you will, repenting.This should cover us.

2(a). By virtue of what what Heaven is, it is necessary that the soul freely choose it. A soul with original sin will not choose it.

2(b). I don't understand what you're saying.

calamity · May 12, 2014

Paleocon said:
2(a). By virtue of what what Heaven is, it is necessary that the soul freely choose it. A soul with original sin will not choose it.

2(b). I don't understand what you're saying.

B should lead to A. I'm saying that accepting that we sin and offering an honest repentance should omit the need for the symbolic cleansing by holy water, ie the soul is freely choosing it, only without the pageantry.

Paleocon · May 12, 2014

calamity said:
B should lead to A. I'm saying that accepting that we sin and offering an honest repentance should omit the need for the symbolic cleansing by holy water, ie the soul is freely choosing it, only without the pageantry.

If you are speaking of the example of a person who desired baptism but died before receiving it, then I agree. However, if a person isn't willing to do that which God has prescribed, then why would their original sin be removed? If you are referring to a person who is inculpably ignorant, then I would argue* that perfect charity is necessary to constitute an implicit desire for baptism.

*I should note that this last point is not a settled theological matter. There are some who hold, and the Church does not officially teach either way, that the absence of mortal sin is sufficient for implicit baptism by desire, this model would declare that any unbaptized person who is not damned will have original sin removed.

Baptism

calamity

Privileged

Paleocon

calamity

Privileged

Paleocon

calamity

Privileged

Paleocon

calamity

Privileged

Paleocon