Baptism and religious family

[KichigaiNeko]

My wife is somewhat of a Catholic and we are having a child next week(scheduled c-section).

Awwww congratulations mate! Seriously. So who gets to do the 'Late night Shift'? Anyway...congrats and I hope the C-Section goes well

I recently found out that she wants to have our kid batptized and it makes me sick to my stomach. I seriously thought it was only to appease the older members of her family but after some inquiries I found out it's what she wants. Now I am really dreading the whole thing and probably will throw up a little in my mouth during the ceremony but it's her kid too. I will take the oaths seriously as I will be 'educating' him about God.

And that is ALL you can do mate. Oh yes "educate" him(?we know it a male child?) about this skydaddy but I really think the whole altar boy and maybe even religious private schooling might be questionable.

[Faith No More]

My wife is somewhat of a Catholic and we are having a child next week(scheduled c-section).

Awwww congratulations mate! Seriously. So who gets to do the 'Late night Shift'? Anyway...congrats and I hope the C-Section goes well

I recently found out that she wants to have our kid batptized and it makes me sick to my stomach. I seriously thought it was only to appease the older members of her family but after some inquiries I found out it's what she wants. Now I am really dreading the whole thing and probably will throw up a little in my mouth during the ceremony but it's her kid too. I will take the oaths seriously as I will be 'educating' him about God.

And that is ALL you can do mate. Oh yes "educate" him(?we know it a male child?) about this skydaddy but I really think the whole altar boy and maybe even religious private schooling might be questionable.

Thank you and yes it will be a him. As for religious schooling there are certian things I will concede and others I won't. If my wife wants to go through a pointless ritual of splashing magic water on our kid that is fine. There is no way in hell I would ever let my kid go to religious school or even be an altar boy. My wife has made some comments about taking him to church but hopefully since he'll question things seeing that daddy doesn't have to go. I don't want to indoctrinate my kid to automatically believe what I do but I do want him to have critical thinking skills and to know that the things he hears in church are not 'gospel.'

[OnlyNatural]

My wife is somewhat of a Catholic and we are having a child next week(scheduled c-section). I recently found out that she wants to have our kid batptized and it makes me sick to my stomach. I seriously thought it was only to appease the older members of her family but after some inquiries I found out it's what she wants. Now I am really dreading the whole thing and probably will throw up a little in my mouth during the ceremony but it's her kid too. I will take the oaths seriously as I will be 'educating' him about God.

First, congratulations on the baby FNM!

And I know how you feel. I felt sorry for the little girl, being thrust into a Catholic upbringing when she has no choice in the matter. Made me sick too. Yes, definitely educate your child and encourage questions, with any luck he'll eventually realize it's all bullshit, just like Santa Claus.

So yes, there are many ways you can do it.. if I may suggest something..try something NEW and ORIGINAL and try to make it where it includes family members helping out and getting involved instead of boring rituals (like the flower laurel or something).

Yeah, that sounds good. Another cousin is getting married soon, and apparently they don't want it to be religious either, so it'll be interesting to see how that goes, how the family reacts.

Or I suppose we can always just secretly tie the knot at a Caribbean resort, away from all those tsk-tsking Jesus lovers. They're nice people, really... mostly they just don't know any better, don't have the education. But it's my life too, and I vow to stay the hell away from religion.

[downbeatplumb]

"converting to Islam and fighting for the Taliban would only make you 'a bad catholic'" Dara o'brien

[reverendjeremiah]

Just being a catholic does not mean you have to agree with whatever the fuck the church is doing, i know many a catholic who stopped going to church as a protest to the direction it is taking (mostly because of the new Pope's retarded comments).

Actually I was under the impression that you pretty much had to do what the church told you to do..which pretty much brings us back to what Min said...but hey, I was never a catholic.

[ozgoat]

Just being a catholic does not mean you have to agree with whatever the fuck the church is doing, i know many a catholic who stopped going to church as a protest to the direction it is taking (mostly because of the new Pope's retarded comments).

It's a pity they didn't all stop going to church in protest. They should all post their rosary beads to the Vatican in protest.

[Autumnlicious]

My wife is somewhat of a Catholic and we are having a child next week(scheduled c-section).

The second I saw "scheduled c-section" I heard my medical researcher friend screaming in my head about how amazingly expensive, useless and potentially dangerous c-sections are.

Way I see it, the human body spent millions of years evolving to get out the natural way, developing mechanisms to signal and control aspects from hormones to nutrient secretions, only to be subverted by the very monkeys who think they "know better."

---

In no way does not going to Church disqualifies you from being a Catholic.

And if you admit those protesting the actions of the Church are a lot smarter than the others, then the whole "fuck ALL catholics" thing kindda falls apart.

Cath·o·lic   
[kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a Catholic church, especially the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Theology .
a. (among Roman Catholics) claiming to possess exclusively the notes or characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by the Church of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and to their faith and organization; often qualified, especially by those not acknowledging these claims, by prefixing the word Roman.
b. (among Anglo-Catholics) noting or pertaining to the conception of the church as the body representing the ancient undivided Christian witness, comprising all the orthodox churches that have kept the apostolic succession of bishops, and including the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Sweden, the Old Catholic Church (in the Netherlands and elsewhere), etc.
3. pertaining to the Western Church.
–noun
4. a member of a Catholic church, especially of the Roman Catholic Church.
Origin:
1300–50; Middle English; special uses of catholic

So it looks like if you are a Catholic, you belong to the Roman Catholic Church under this context. As belonging to an organization that indulges in crimes makes you an accomplice (a long established legal tradition), then it is obvious that if one is a Catholic (under definition 1 or 2a) then one is also an accomplice.

Thus, if a person falls under the commonly accepted definitions for being a "Catholic", then I and others clearly state "Fuck all Catholics."

Rwandrall, you are doing nothing but attempting to obfuscate the issue at hand.

At least Existentialist had the temerity to come on out and admit at redefining things.

[Rwandrall]

@reverendjeremiah

If Catholics did whatever the Church told them, they wouldnt have a 40% rate of divorce in France ^^
_________________________________
@Moros Synackaon

Yeah...no. You're arguing semantics.

First, i see nowhere in your definition anything about actually doing anything in relation to the Church except accepting its beliefs. Accepting the Church's beliefs in no way means that you support its members. I know a lot of Catholics who dislike the Pope without stopping to be Catholic.

Second, belonging to an organization that commits crimes does not make you an accomplice. At all. That is not a long standing legal tradition whatsoever. If a car salesman of Ford kills someone and the higher-ups of the company cover it up, you cannot charge the whole company's employees as accomplices to murder. It really makes no kind of sense.

Then, take people that are baptized (the main requirement to "belong" to the Church) but have had no link to the Church for 20 years. Would you say these people are guilty as well ?

See it any way you like, it is still a large generalization of a group comprising hundreds of thousands of people, many of which are really decent people.

[Autumnlicious]

First, i see nowhere in your definition anything about actually doing anything in relation to the Church except accepting its beliefs. Accepting the Church's beliefs in no way means that you support its members. I know a lot of Catholics who dislike the Pope without stopping to be Catholic.

It is patently insane to belong to an organization you don't agree with in some fashion.

Second, belonging to an organization that commits crimes does not make you an accomplice. At all. That is not a long standing legal tradition whatsoever. If a car salesman of Ford kills someone and the higher-ups of the company cover it up, you cannot charge the whole company's employees as accomplices to murder. It really makes no kind of sense.

False. An employee of Ford, if they remain part of the company while fully knowing it engages in criminal conduct and will continue to do so, is in effect helping Ford grow and is thus an accomplice. You are an accomplice if you a) know of the crime and it's nature and b) do the opposite of reporting it (e.g. helping it).

"I was just following orders"-related cases have long set down that if you know something contravenes law, morality or ethics, you have still to make a conscious decision regarding your actions. The less you know, the less you can truly be held for blame, of course. However, even that has a limit with willful ignorance, where a judge can look at you and ask "How could you have /not/ known?"

The Church has an increasing body of evidence it has routinely committed severe crimes and covered them up. Any member of that organization who is informed of those crimes must either choose to remain part of that criminal enterprise (and take the blame and flak for supporting it, for good or ill) or leave it.

This is a moral matter, as the religious always like to say.

Then, take people that are baptized (the main requirement to "belong" to the Church) but have had no link to the Church for 20 years. Would you say these people are guilty as well ?

False once again. Being baptized is a requirement to be a member of the Church (but then again, baptizement applies to all of Christendom, so technically being baptized means you are a Christian within context of the Bible), but being baptized does not automatically make you a member of the Church any more than being raised by Democrats makes you a Democrat. Only participation in an organization is the indicator of being some form of associate or member, regardless of the organizations true scotsman list of what you need to be. Participation.

Participation and support for any entity automatically states that you approve, given your basis for information, and are a part of it; in some way you have made the conscious decision to assist.

Furthermore, as information known changes over time, it is fully unreasonable for one who honestly does not know to be considered anything more than a bystander. But in today's world, that "inability" to know shrinks rapidly.

See it any way you like, it is still a large generalization of a group comprising hundreds of thousands of people, many of which are really decent people.

Many decent people in history have supported monstrous things from genocide to authoritarianism to varying degrees.

I say, Fuck 'em.

[Rwandrall]

It is patently insane to belong to an organization you don't agree with in some fashion.

The Church is not only made by its members. You can disagree with the Pope without becoming a non-Catholic. The Church has been there for 2000 years so the people in charge of it now do not represent the whole history of the Church. The Pope is only a man. And if you want to bring up the infallibility, remember that concept was used twice during the whole history of Christianity.

False. An employee of Ford, if they remain part of the company while fully knowing it engages in criminal conduct and will continue to do so, is in effect helping Ford grow and is thus an accomplice. You are an accomplice if you a) know of the crime and it's nature and b) do the opposite of reporting it (e.g. helping it).

Exactly. You just agreed with me there. You added conditions, and "ifs". So yeah, if you are Catholic, know of a priest who molested a child and do not report it, you ARE an asshole. But most Catholics condemn those actions. Again, the Church is an institution. You can disagree with its members without disagreeing with the tenants of the organization.

"I was just following orders"-related cases have long set down that if you know something contravenes law, morality or ethics, you have still to make a conscious decision regarding your actions. The less you know, the less you can truly be held for blame, of course. However, even that has a limit with willful ignorance, where a judge can look at you and ask "How could you have /not/ known?"

I agree.

The Church has an increasing body of evidence it has routinely committed severe crimes and covered them up. Any member of that organization who is informed of those crimes must either choose to remain part of that criminal enterprise (and take the blame and flak for supporting it, for good or ill) or leave it.

And again, the Church is more than just its members.

False once again. Being baptized is a requirement to be a member of the Church (but then again, baptizement applies to all of Christendom, so technically being baptized means you are a Christian within context of the Bible), but being baptized does not automatically make you a member of the Church any more than being raised by Democrats makes you a Democrat. Only participation in an organization is the indicator of being some form of associate or member, regardless of the organizations true scotsman list of what you need to be. Participation.

So to you, a Catholic:

-Goes to church regularly, and participates in the Church's life.
-Actually positively knows of the Church's crimes and still supports it

Yeah, you can call those people assholes. But the problem is, your definition of what a Catholic is, is wrong. I know MANY people who call themselves Catholics but do not meet those criteria. And honestly, i know ill sound accusative, but who are you to tell them they are not ?


There is another big problem: going to church does not mean supporting the Church. It's not an organization like the Democrat party where going to a rally demonstrates your support for their cause. Once again, the Church is not just an organization made of members, it is an institution that is considered to be Jesus' heritage, and as such you can go to church as a Catholic without supporting the Church itself. So your criteria of "if you go to church, you support the Church" is, in my eyes, wrong.