A Baptism dilemma

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

[quote]So is a wedding ceremony for a secular agnostic couple. Completely pointless and needless. Costs money that might be better spent on the booze at the reception. But its custom, provides a symbolic gesture of their own devotion to eachother, and makes most of the relatives, religious or otherwise, feel better. And you know what? Noone gives them shit for it. You don't have 2 pages of potshots saying 'Well, ain't that silly/counter-intuitive, yuk-yuk!'[/quote]

No, That's different. It has meaning and symbolism for them independent of any prior actions.

What is odd to me about the "de-baptism" is that taking the action, whether the guy wants to or not, seems to give meaning to the earlier baptism. Something I would expect he would see as meaningless.

As I said if he wants to do this, go for it. If he finds the gesture meaningful good for him.

[The Mance]

[quote name='EHK for Darwin' post='1758241' date='Apr 17 2009, 08.22']They made a statement, I give a shit, and I'm thinking about sending off for a certificate of my own. Seems they were effective.[/quote]

Milage varies, i guess.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Cyrano,

[quote name='cyrano' post='1758242' date='Apr 17 2009, 11.23']Lets say you got married and 5 years later that marriage held less meaning than spitting into a hurricane, why would you ever get divorced? Lets assume for the sake of argument it was a secular marriage where no church was involved.[/quote]

There are legal and property ramifications to marriage. Are you saying there are legal and property ramifications to baptism?

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Silverstar' post='1758245' date='Apr 17 2009, 11.27']Well, off the top of my head, never getting divorced would prevent you from remarrying someone else if you fell in love again.[/quote]

Umm...ok, assume the person has no intention of ever remarrying again. I suppose he/she should not get divorced then.....and just maintain the status quo.

Seriously, it's an analogy to make a point.

[TerraPrime]

Haven't we come back to the Mormon's baptizing dead Jews argument now?

PS It may help people like Ser Scot to consider that some atheists see religion and faith not as much as meaningless, but more as having the wrong meanings. It's not a choice between correct and no answer, but between correct and wrong answers. It's indeed trivial to be associated with a blank answer, but it's not trivial to be associated with the wrong answers. Just because I don't believe in the monotheistic god of the Judeo-Christian tradition it doesn't mean that I think all the teachings and all the actions of all the sects are meaningless. Just as my belief that the ideology of the KKK is bunk and invalid does not translate into me not caring if I'm on their roster, so too, will my atheism not translate into me not caring whether I'm on some church's roster. Equating disbelief in something to not giving a damn about it is silly.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1758250' date='Apr 17 2009, 11.32']Cyrano,



There are legal and property ramifications to marriage. Are you saying there are legal and property ramifications to baptism?[/quote]

No...let me explain the concept of an analogy by means of an example. When I say this banana is analogous to a penis in terms of shape and texture, the appropriate response is to say "yes, I understand what a penis looks and feels like now". Not to ask "that banana has a layer of skin around it, are you saying all penises are uncircumcized?"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Cyrano,

I don't understand your proposition. Marriage has legal ramifications where baptism does not. Therefore, there are legal reasons to end a Marriage whether the Marriage has symbolic meaning or not. Given that there are no legal ramifications to baptism what reason, other than symbolism, is there to perform some ceremony terminating the baptism?

TP,

So, "de-baptism" would be this gentleman's offical proclimation to the world that you are not, in fact, Christian? Okay.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Cyrano

[quote name='cyrano' post='1758262' date='Apr 17 2009, 10.40']No...let me explain the concept of an analogy by means of an example. When I say this banana is analogous to a penis in terms of shape and texture, the appropriate response is to say "yes, I understand what a penis looks and feels like now". Not to ask "that banana has a layer of skin around it, are you saying all penises are uncircumcized?"[/quote]


Your post is incomplete without [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A"]this[/url].



Re: Ser Scot

[quote]TP,

So, "de-baptism" would be this gentleman's offical proclimation to the world that you are not, in fact, Christian? Okay.[/quote]

More accurately, I'd say that the attempt to remove oneself from the church's roster, manifested by the de-baptism certificate, serves to prevent others from mistakenly assuming that one is Christian based on a ritual performed on oneself while one is incapable of meaningful consent.

[Silverstar]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1758262' date='Apr 17 2009, 16.40']No...let me explain the concept of an analogy by means of an example. When I say this banana is analogous to a penis in terms of shape and texture, the appropriate response is to say "yes, I understand what a penis looks and feels like now". Not to ask "that banana has a layer of skin around it, are you saying all penises are uncircumcized?"[/quote]

I think the point is that there [i]are[/i] legal ramifications, property ramifications, obligations and prohibitions that come along with remaining married to someone who you no longer have a relationship with. If none of those things existed, and you could marry someone, decide one day that you weren't in a relationship with them anymore, and that decision would give you the complete freedom to do whatever you wanted with the rest of your life, then you'd probably see most people not bothering much with the whole messy process of divorce, because what would be the point?

Then it might be a good analogy with baptism.

If this man felt that symbolically, he wanted to be de-baptised, then that's fine, however, and I'm glad that he and the church were able to come to an agreement that he is happy with.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1758247' date='Apr 17 2009, 10.30']EHK,

No, That's different. It has meaning and symbolism for them independent of any prior actions.[/quote]

That doesn't make much sense. How is it different in the least? It has only the meaning and symbolism that you, friends/family, and society decide it does. Same as almost every other ritual that doesn't have tangible effect. Brand new rituals, such as debaptism, simply aren't gonna have as much societal symbolism established yet because it hasn't reached custom status.

[quote]What is odd to me about the "de-baptism" is that taking the action, whether the guy wants to or not, seems to give meaning to the earlier baptism. Something I would expect he would see as meaningless.[/quote]

Every church, most religious people, and both secular and religious society give meaning to the earlier baptism. Its ingrained in the culture even if it has no legal or practical effect. Debaptism doesn't validate shit, the thing (baptism) is already pre-validated by most of society. Debaptism is just a simple way of throwing it back and saying 'fuck no' as an individual. Not a damned thing wrong with that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with it. I was saying it didn't make sense if you didn't believe the earlier baptism did anything. Now, if as TP says, the point is to publicly declare the earlier baptism is not a delcaration of your belief, that I can understand.

[The Mance]

Okay, so i just got back from a four hour car ride and while trying to come up with some legitimate analogies to expand my position I managed to completely change my mind.

I think maybe at first I wasn't incensed enough at the idea of having some tenuous connection with an organization like christianity. But when imagining having that same connection to some overtly offensive group (I was imagining Neo-Nazis or similar) I began to see how it would be important to me distance myself from them in whatever way I could.

If someone told me that they'd heard I was listed on the roster of the KKK because as a baby my parents had paraded me around at a rally in a little white hood i know I wouldn't be happy just saying, "Well, I was a baby then, I've never believed in their tenets as an adult." And while I still think there are more effective ways to protest them as an organization, i would also definitely take the time to "de-baptize" myself from the KKK or, as John Hunt felt the need to, any other organization that might feel they could claim to represent my views.




And no, Scot, I am not saying that christianity is just like the KKK.

[HT Reddy]

Mance, do you realise that you've just broken all the rules of board religion debates by actually changing your mind on something? That's not supposed to happen.

From the article:

"The fact that we have 26 bishops in the House of Lords is an anachronism."

Lol, the whole of the House of Lords is an anachronism, not just our Lords Spiritual.

[Happy Ent]

Mance, do you realise that you've just broken all the rules of board religion debates by actually changing your mind on something? That's not supposed to happen.

We need to close this thread real quick.

“Say, I saw that Dance is listed to be released on May 25..â€

[The Mance]

Mance, do you realise that you've just broken all the rules of board religion debates by actually changing your mind on something? That's not supposed to happen.

I figured it was okay since it happened away from the board and not through any reasoned discussion.

[MinDonner]

Bit of necromancy (it's been a loooong morning): apparently this debaptism thing is really catching on...

[Paxter]

Thanks for posting that MinDonner.

I found something else that might answer Ser Scot's earlier question (about why atheists might be keen to secure a debaptism):

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them.

Mr Hunt supplies his own answer.

"Evangelical noises are getting louder and louder.

"The recent change in European legislation has led to religious beliefs not being challenged at all, and there's no limit at all on what anybody can claim as a valid religious belief.

"I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."

Sounds a bit like what EHK has been saying about atheists actively demonstrating non-belief in the tenets of the Church (or as EHK so eloquently phrased it "saying fuck no as an individual" ;) )