Un-Baptism

[Bluraven]

Wow, I never thought I could find someone who could actually embody the phrase "take out of context", but you've managed it nicely Sybarite.

Firstly, when I made the statement that you can't go putting God's hand into everything...the sentence continues...just because its mentioned. By this, I mean that unless the Bible specifically STATES that God did something, or even implies it, then you cannot go putting His hand into it! You know this, even if you think you don't.

In the Lord of the Rings, Gandalf was a great help to the Fellowship...but would you say that it was Gandalf who made Frodo take up the Ring? Or that it was Gandalf who sanctioned Boromir's attempt to steal it? No, obviously not, because Gandalf is never mentioned as doing so. Taking things in context is a common literary device that is essential for understanding and appreciating any work-fiction or non-, and it simply cannot be forsaken merely because someone has emotional reasons for disagreeing with it.

And SFG75 is very correct in his analysis of the Deut. passage. The reason such a fuss is made of "crying out", is because its establishing "consent". The choice of words as presented in English are merely the Hebrew idiom used to express the idea. If a woman, in that time, didn't "cry out" then the affair was of mutual consent (hence why the application begins by stating "if a woman who is engaged to be married"); but if she resists or "cries out" then she was not consenting to the act, and is faultless. See, it doesn't really matter if you're born into a Christian family or not...works of antiquity (whether the Bible or Plato or Homer) need to be studied with its ancient historical/cultural context in mind. The society of ancient Israel had different idioms and customs than we do today, and you need to become familiar with them before you'll be able to understand the events described therein.

Oh, and as for Lot's wife, its really quite simple why she was turned to Salt. The Angels told her, directly, NOT to turn back. It was a command which she broke. The reason is because God was destroying the city, and "no man may see the face of God and live". She violated a commandment and suffered the consequences. It was not as though she just looked back and God, out of a capricious whim of bloodlust, killed the poor woman. And Lot being saved was not because he was so righteous...but because he was Abraham's nephew. Abraham was righteous, and just before God was going to destroy city, Abraham pleaded with Him to spare it on account of Lot. That's why the Angels came to rescue him. But...you'd know that if you actually read the story in its context, and without the roadblock of Subjectivity hindering your study.

 

[Bluraven]

Sorry for the double post, but I did actually wish to address the OP. Concerning un-baptism, Biblically speaking, any Christian rite, from Baptism to Communion to Prayer and Fasting, if not actually mixed with faith or belief in God, are merely empty forms...about as meaningful as dust on a log. Not to say that the person doing them is insignificant, but religiously, all rites should be mixed with faith, or they will not profit the practitioner. So, really, the question shouldn't be can you be un-baptised, but were you really ever baptised to begin with?

(In case you couldn't tell, I don't believe in Infant Baptism)

 

[Sybarite]

... Firstly, when I made the statement that you can't go putting God's hand into everything...the sentence continues...just because its mentioned. By this, I mean that unless the Bible specifically STATES that God did something, or even implies it, then you cannot go putting His hand into it! You know this, even if you think you don't...

That's fine. So when Moses tells soldiers to rape and murder women after a battle, it's Moses telling them and not God. So if this book isn't really God's word, then people shouldn't go around thinking that this book has such relevance for modern life than the Niebelungen, the Greek myths or any others.

... In the Lord of the Rings, Gandalf was a great help to the Fellowship...but would you say that it was Gandalf who made Frodo take up the Ring? Or that it was Gandalf who sanctioned Boromir's attempt to steal it? No, obviously not, because Gandalf is never mentioned as doing so. Taking things in context is a common literary device that is essential for understanding and appreciating any work-fiction or non-, and it simply cannot be forsaken merely because someone has emotional reasons for disagreeing with it...

Yes. And the context is that the Bible is supposed to be a divinely-inspired book or the actual, revealed word of God.

And the God of the Bible is a nasty, sadistic piece of work. There are countless places that show this, from the story of Abraham and Issac to the story of Job, let alone, as I mentioned previously, the story of Lot. If this is a book that we're supposed to base our lives on and live according to, then there are huge problems with it. You can say that times were different etc until the proverbial cows come home, but you're still left with the question of how a supposedly omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient god could create something that would be limited to one point in time. It doesn't show much in the all-knowing and all-powerful stakes. If God was perfect then, then how can God's word – the Bible – be less than perfect now? If God's creation is perfect, how come He then had to tell his followers to alter it (circumcision)? It doesn't say much for that process of creation, does it – let alone the idea that it's 'intelligent' design.

Either God is perfect, in which case the Bible – His word – is perfect for all times or He is not perfect. In which case, why worship an imperfect god? Pascal's Wager? How intellectually dishonest would that be?

And SFG75 is very correct in his analysis of the Deut. passage. The reason such a fuss is made of "crying out", is because its establishing "consent". The choice of words as presented in English are merely the Hebrew idiom used to express the idea. If a woman, in that time, didn't "cry out" then the affair was of mutual consent (hence why the application begins by stating "if a woman who is engaged to be married"); but if she resists or "cries out" then she was not consenting to the act, and is faultless. See, it doesn't really matter if you're born into a Christian family or not...works of antiquity (whether the Bible or Plato or Homer) need to be studied with its ancient historical/cultural context in mind. The society of ancient Israel had different idioms and customs than we do today, and you need to become familiar with them before you'll be able to understand the events described therein...

Right; we're getting there. What was relevant in the context of the time is not relevant now. Thanks. I'm delighted to see you grasping it. The next step is to analyse why God's 'holy' book – His word – is not relevant today, if God is supposed to be perfect. You see – it isn't really logical, is it?

Oh, and as for Lot's wife, its really quite simple why she was turned to Salt. The Angels told her, directly, NOT to turn back. It was a command which she broke. The reason is because God was destroying the city, and "no man may see the face of God and live". She violated a commandment and suffered the consequences. It was not as though she just looked back and God, out of a capricious whim of bloodlust, killed the poor woman. And Lot being saved was not because he was so righteous...but because he was Abraham's nephew. Abraham was righteous, and just before God was going to destroy city, Abraham pleaded with Him to spare it on account of Lot. That's why the Angels came to rescue him. But...you'd know that if you actually read the story in its context, and without the roadblock of Subjectivity hindering your study.

Ah. So the moral of the story is that family matters more than justice, even when it comes to the rape of girls. If someone in my best mate's family offers a virgin girl or two to strangers for their sexual gratification, I should help them escape justice because they're related to someone I like.

Yes, I can see how that's a great example of how to live one's life.

Yep, partial-birth abortion is perfectly humane right?

It's more humane than letting a women die by refusing to treat her, yes. And as you perfectly well know, the issues of late-term and partial-birth abortion (both of which are extremely rare) are deliberate attempts (usually by fundamentalists) to obscure the issue.

In Nicaragua, women who will die unless they have an abortion are now being denied abortions. Guess what? Women are dying. Women are dying needlessly, leaving families to grieve, when there was no need for them to die.

In the same country, nine-year-old rape victims have been forced – via blackmail by the church – to carry a pregnancy to term. A child, a victim of rape, forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It's obscene – and if that's what the Judeo-Christian God thinks is moral, then it's another illustration of why any such being is a nasty piece of work.

Sorry for the double post, but I did actually wish to address the OP. Concerning un-baptism, Biblically speaking, any Christian rite, from Baptism to Communion to Prayer and Fasting, if not actually mixed with faith or belief in God, are merely empty forms...about as meaningful as dust on a log. Not to say that the person doing them is insignificant, but religiously, all rites should be mixed with faith, or they will not profit the practitioner. So, really, the question shouldn't be can you be un-baptised, but were you really ever baptised to begin with?

(In case you couldn't tell, I don't believe in Infant Baptism)

Yes, but an enormous number of people do believe in infant baptism. Who are you to say that their beliefs are wrong and yours are right? Has God spoken to you personally on the issue or is it just your interpretation of scripture and theology? And if the latter, why is your interpretation any better than anyone else's?

 

[Bluraven]

As I can see that you have no intention of actually evaluating the work without a personal agenda, debate with you will prove to be nothing but an exercise in vexation. I can do without more vexation in my life, so I'll gracefully bow out of such silly bantering.

Suffice it to say that your arguments are cycling in upon themselves. No, I have received no special "illumination" from God. Nor do I need any in this regard. When I said "Biblically speaking", I meant just that. The Bible is clear that faith and works must be combined for either to have any effect. I'm not going to do your homework for you, so you'll have to look this up for yourself (I'll leave you a hint: try James and Hebrews).

Also, and for the last time, neither Moses, David, Joshua or any of the good kings/leaders in Scripture, ever commanded people to rape and murder. The Bible is the Word of God, and it is a (if you can grasp the word) HIS-TOR-I-CAL account of events that transpired in the past. To break this down even further, so that your obstinate mind can lift itself up to our level: the Bible tells of actual events that people once did a long time ago. Some of these events happened because God commanded such-and-such a person to do such-and-such a thing. Other events happened because some person decided on their own (i.e., apart from Divine commandment...you do understand APART?), and so the events which play out are the results of men's own actions. Not God's. It was Amnon who decided to rape his sister Tamar...and he was killed for it. God never told him to, David never told him to, nor did any prophet. Amnon was a sick person who chose to violate his own sister. HE CHOSE TO. You do understand the concept of human choice, don't you? For example, I have made the choice to be rather sarcastic and prolix in my response to you, and this is a reflection on me...neither has God told me to be so, nor any prophet of Christendom. I, Bluraven, have made this choice.

And this is what you'll find...or, rather, would find (if you could grasp Objectivity) when you read the Bible. You would find that some parts are merely documentary, while others doctrinal, and yet still others full of stories meant to be illustrative (i.e. parables or metaphors and similes). Just like any book. So, in parting, read the whole thing. From Genesis to Revelation. Grab a Bible Dictionary or Bible Encyclopedia so that you can get some good historical background assistance, and then read it all to better understand it. You don't have to believe it all, or agree with it. But at least disagree because you've done your research with a sound hermeneutical approach.

 

[Sybarite]

As I can see that you have no intention of actually evaluating the work without a personal agenda, debate with you will prove to be nothing but an exercise in vexation. I can do without more vexation in my life, so I'll gracefully bow out of such silly bantering...

I'm delighted to see that you'd do not have an "agenda". So refreshing.

Suffice it to say that your arguments are cycling in upon themselves. No, I have received no special "illumination" from God. Nor do I need any in this regard. When I said "Biblically speaking", I meant just that. The Bible is clear that faith and works must be combined for either to have any effect. I'm not going to do your homework for you, so you'll have to look this up for yourself (I'll leave you a hint: try James and Hebrews)...

All of which does nothing to address the points that I raised – we hadn't touched on the question of faith. Unless you're now implying that it's acceptable in God's eyes to be prepared to murder a child as long as you show faith.

Also, and for the last time, neither Moses, David, Joshua or any of the good kings/leaders in Scripture, ever commanded people to rape and murder. The Bible is the Word of God, and it is a (if you can grasp the word) HIS-TOR-I-CAL account of events that transpired in the past...

Well, apart from the fairy tales such as the Creation, Noah, Jonah, virgin births etc.

... To break this down even further, so that your obstinate mind can lift itself up to our level: the Bible tells of actual events that people once did a long time ago...

Apart from the Creation, Noah, Jonah, raising people from the dead, dividing the Red Sea ...

... And this is what you'll find...or, rather, would find (if you could grasp Objectivity) when you read the Bible. You would find that some parts are merely documentary, while others doctrinal, and yet still others full of stories meant to be illustrative (i.e. parables or metaphors and similes). Just like any book. So, in parting, read the whole thing...

Well done for assuming that I haven't.

... From Genesis to Revelation. Grab a Bible Dictionary or Bible Encyclopedia so that you can get some good historical background assistance, and then read it all to better understand it. You don't have to believe it all, or agree with it. But at least disagree because you've done your research with a sound hermeneutical approach.

Yes dear. I do comprehend what reading a book and studying it entails. I always found a concordance of help.

And it is still a book of fairy tales about something that does not exist – ie god.

On the subject of reading suggestions, though, you might find this useful.

 

[Motokid]

I'd like to recall some of the glory days once again....

Bible: Fact or Fiction Thread <-- please click

Anybody seen sirmyk, Kook, novella....?????

 

[Stewart]

Anybody seen sirmyk, Kook, novella....?????

novella, as knovella, has been posting sporadically on Palimpsest of late.

 

[Motokid]

I miss her fuzzy pinkness...and her ability to cut me off at the knees in so many not-so-subtle ways....please tell her she's missed.