Christening/ baptism should I or shouldn't i?

poet123

Mupette wrote: »

Ok shoot me down, i am an atheist.

What i say don't take it personal as this is how i feel..

MIL (to be/would of been) she was a lasped Catholic, and on her deathbed she asked for a catholic funeral, she had alread choosen to have a natural burial, OH and me even went with her to choose her new home.....

And so the day of the funeral all went well and as to be expected, apart from the service from the priest (or what ever they are called)

I had to bite my tongue becuse of the nastyness from the priest, the words choosen, 'forgive her for her sins' - what the... is this how catholics welcome back into the flock....

Probably why i choose to stay athiest i can't stand the way these 'preachers cast aspertions'

When she had her boys she was asked to make them catholic, she said for the first 5 years they can and then they can choose... when each child turned 5 they left the church.

Maybe because i am a free spirit... child of the late 60's i don't know, but I would never make someone feel uncomfortable and force them to do something they didnt want to do...

Take DS he at the present time is atheist, I didn't force him to be, have said many a time if he chooses to go CoE or Catholic or which ever denomination (sp) then i would support HIS choice.

Children need guidance yes, religion forced down their throat in this day and age.. no

I don't mock those who choose religion and seek guidance, but when they start preaching to me... the door closes.


OP sorry for the mini rant, have you asked your children what they want.... I understand you might want them to join you but have they told you how they feel.

With respect maybe it is that as an atheist you were just unused to this form of "religious" language. Being forgiven for "sins" is an integral part of religion, what you may see and categorise as behaviour/actions that are inadvisable, unfair, immoral etc, those who are religious see as "sins". That is, they go against their religious moral code. It would have entirely in accordance with what your MIL expected from such a service, and indeed she would have felt let down had that not been a part of it.

Person_one

poet123 wrote: »

With respect maybe it is that as an atheist you were just unused to this form of "religious" language. Being forgiven for "sins" is an integral part of religion, what you may see and categorise as behaviour/actions that are inadvisable, unfair, immoral etc, those who are religious see as "sins". That is, they go against their religious moral code. It would have entirely in accordance with what your MIL expected from such a service, and indeed she would have felt let down had that not been a part of it.

Its the baptism service I have a huge problem with. Even if it can be argued that an adult needs to be 'forgiven' by another flawed human in the name of an intangible deity, a baby? Really?

It took all my self control not to leap out of my seat and snatch my baby nephew out of the arms of the 'minister' referring to him as a sinner when he was christened, I don't know how his parents stood it.

Person_one

Lotus-eater wrote: »

But it's pleasureable whether it's circumcised or not, isn't it? Or have you been a man with an uncut penis, then had it circumcised, then become a woman. I must admit, that would give some weight to your words.
If you haven't, you've never a penis, you have no idea what it feels like, so stop guessing.

And I'm sorry, but it really isn't a fact :rotfl: just because you state something is a fact, does not make it so. You could do worse than having a look at the glands section of the wikipedia circumcision page, it has a list of comparison tests completed.

The glanDs section? Maybe you should have a look at that too.

poet123

Person_one wrote: »

Its the baptism service I have a huge problem with. Even if it can be argued that an adult needs to be 'forgiven' by another flawed human in the name of an intangible deity, a baby? Really?

It took all my self control not to leap out of my seat and snatch my baby nephew out of the arms of the 'minister' referring to him as a sinner when he was christened, I don't know how his parents stood it.

Because the belief is that as descendents of Adam & Eve we are all born with the stain of (the) "original" sin. Not that the child has personally sinned.

Mupette

Yup the child born of sin... that gets my goat... sorry

poet123

Mupette wrote: »

Yup the child born of sin... that gets my goat... sorry

And that is fine, it wouldn't do if we were all the same. Believers are quite comfortable with the concept, and expect that kind of language.

Mupette

poet123 wrote: »

With respect maybe it is that as an atheist you were just unused to this form of "religious" language. Being forgiven for "sins" is an integral part of religion, what you may see and categorise as behaviour/actions that are inadvisable, unfair, immoral etc, those who are religious see as "sins". That is, they go against their religious moral code. It would have entirely in accordance with what your MIL expected from such a service, and indeed she would have felt let down had that not been a part of it.

yes it maybe is because i am not used to 'religious' language, but saying that i don't like the wording used, lot's of sin's... as far as that goes there is no one on this planet who is pure..

also i do find catholic church quite condesending... they want your money, they want you to breed so that your offspring will also give money, yet the have 'sinned' quite a lot.. yet ignore what their own get up to.

Understand this isnt a dig at those that are Catholic/or which ever religeon anyone chooses, again sorry if i have offended.

Lotus-eater

Person_one wrote: »

The glanDs section? Maybe you should have a look at that too.

Maybe you could explain, because when I look at the page and at the list of research, it seems to show there is no overall picture, one way or the other?
In fact the biggest research tests, show "no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men" and that was over 4000 subjects of adult circumcision.

Just admit it. You talk about it as being mutilation, you state "facts" as though you know what you are talking about, you don't listen to people who are circumcised, in fact you just put them down as not knowing what they are talking about.
A bit rich really, coming from a woman, who has no medical background re this "mutilation"

You state that it's because of the USA's puritan thoughts that the majority of males are circumcised, yet your argument is not only flimsy, you merely say weakly, " I didn't mean it like that" when pulled up for it. Yet you clearly did, it's in black and white up there ^

I think you should stick to what you know and before you have such a strong opinion of something, you should get some background from people who really know what they are talking about. I would suggest sending a few emails to LIR's OH and telling him he is "mutilated."

Person_one

poet123 wrote: »

Because the belief is that as descendents of Adam & Eve we are all born with the stain of (the) "original" sin. Not that the child has personally sinned.

Yeah, I do understand it, I stil think its appalling.

Person_one

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Maybe you could explain

Its glans, no D. A gland is something different.