|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 14, 2009 8:19:01 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7941817.stmIs de-baptism the new black?. John Hunt is apparently on a mission to get his name off the baptismal register. He's even started his own certificate of de-baptism and recited it in the grounds of the church '"I, John Jeffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy... hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite. I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin." What a miserable plonker!
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 14, 2009 9:21:33 GMT
I think for once I must slightly disagree with you Humphrey, but that may be because we are coming from different places.
While my parents were not believers, they had us baptised, sent us to Sunday School, and 3 out of 4 children believed. But with almost half a century as a believer, I think nominal belief and the establishment of the church (both formally as an arm of the state, and informally as a pillar of society) has produced many unfortunate results. I can't help feeling anything which makes it clearer whether people are committed believers or only have some cultural belief can't be a bad thing, and if it brings the issue to public attention as these guys are doing, that can only be good.
I think it would be really good if christians could be genuinely friendly and accepting of non-believers on a personal level, and the path from unbelief to belief could be smooth and without cultural barricades, but that the difference between belief and unbelief was nevertheless quite clear.
But I must confess that I'm not sure if I would want to spend too much energy on the matter if I was in his position. Would I not have better things to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 15, 2009 19:19:52 GMT
The gentleman in the article seems a little confused not to mention an attention-seeker: 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 wonder what these noises are? And recent changes in European legislation? If he means non-discrimination legislation that does not prevent criticism of religion(s). Still, none take religion (or themselves) so seriously as atheists. Surprising how the meaning and significance of baptism varies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 18, 2009 7:43:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Mar 22, 2009 18:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 23, 2009 2:41:36 GMT
My understanding of the New Atheism is that religion's main offence to them is that it's not liberal enough. They want to get rid of something standing in the way to their secular, hedonistic heaven. No liberty for enemies for liberty, etc. My feeling was quite different to this. I thought they were opposed to anyone who doesn't subscribe to scientific naturalism, and quite pissed off at the idea that a God might exist to spoil their naturalistic scientific worldview and interfere in their lives. I think their anger against illiberal religion is real enough, but if it was illiberalism per se they were primarily against, there are illiberal atheists and liberal christians, and many tend to gloss over that. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 23, 2009 15:21:48 GMT
It is a very confused movement to say the least. My impression is that it has materialised because several threads have come together. The first is the long-standing battle between intelligent design advocates and the scientific community. The second is the legacy of the Bush administration and the ascendancy of the Christian right. The third is the complete and utter failure of the great secular ideologies of the 20th century, including Hitchens's beloved Marxism. Instead of the 20th century seeing the death of religion as many had predicted, it has resurged. Instead of the 'sea of faith' withdrawing as the Victorians saw it, the tide is beginning to come back in. We don't see this in Europe of course, but we do in countries where communism has collapsed, China and Russia where the changes are breathtaking. I think there has also been a sense of frustration in the academic community that, despite scientific materialism having been dominant for so long, religious worldviews remain entrenched in the wider public. Even the general public in supposedly atheistic countries such as the UK, generally believe in a whole host of supernatural entities such as ghosts and spirits (e.g the many ghosthunter programmes on digital TV). Put all these things together and you can see why there's a perceived need to transform us all into 'freethinkers' (devout atheists).
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 25, 2009 8:42:48 GMT
I must say that I don't think it is all bad. I have long been of the view that when God wants to change us christians, or the church, and we refuse, he brings the change in via the secular world. We should have always been less materialistic and capitalistic, but it took the hippy and associated 60s movements in the US to bring in a counter cultural approach to wealth that caught some people's imagination. We should always have been environmentalists, but the modern green movement was mostly secular, or new age pantheist, at first, and christians generally only got on board later. (Not sure if you historians agree, but that's how it has seemed to me.)
So, Humphrey, I think you are correct that the new atheism is partly reacting against George Bush and the christian right. But the christian right seems to me to be a very sus, and often unchristian movement, and US christianity not a very attractive thing in some of its forms. And the new atheists certainly take great delight in pointing this out! So I suspect God wants to shake us all up a bit, and I think the new atheists will eventually lead to some good reforms in christian thinking and practice.
unkleE exits humming "Always look on the brighter side of life".
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 25, 2009 14:54:15 GMT
So, Humphrey, I think you are correct that the new atheism is partly reacting against George Bush and the christian right. But the christian right seems to me to be a very sus, and often unchristian movement, and US christianity not a very attractive thing in some of its forms. And the new atheists certainly take great delight in pointing this out! So I suspect God wants to shake us all up a bit, and I think the new atheists will eventually lead to some good reforms in christian thinking and practice. Yup I certainly agree with that. For instance the top blog entry on P Z Myer's Pharyngula is a link to an article written by a Christian who said that the recent aircrash in Montana where the six children died was caused by God because the father of some of the kids was an abortionist (or at least had links to a family planning outfit). Real sensitive. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 30, 2009 17:14:53 GMT
Own goal for the atheists? Try this on an atheist messageboard or two? The resultant atheist embarrasment is almost embarrassing: www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5izOlRUJt_WnUlIZhrFwFcazsIY7gRise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism' LONDON (AFP) — More than 100,000 people have recently downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith. "We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds a pop," said NSS president Terry Sanderson, 58. Sanderson meanwhile remains resolute. "The fact that people are willing to pay for the parchments shows how seriously they are taking them," he said. |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 30, 2009 20:29:17 GMT
My first thought was that it shows "a fool and his money are soon parted". My second "damn, I wish I'd thought of that".
I've been reading Bonhoeffer (the cost of discipleship")recently, and the quote that struck me after reading this thread was
"....this this cheap grace has come back upon us like a boomerang... The price we are having to pay today in the shape of the collapse of the organized church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available at too low a cost. We gave away the word and sacraments wholesale, we baptized, confirmed and absolved a whole nation unasked and without condition. Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving".
|
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Apr 1, 2009 14:25:21 GMT
I bet it's not real parchment either. That would cost about 10 times as much. Maybe they can be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act (if there still is such a thing). Maybe someone could set up an atheist "devotional" shop with all kinds of atheist paraphernalia.
Here in Austria you have to pay church tax (introduced by Hitler, I'm told) so that if you don't want to pay it you have to officially leave the church. This is somehow an official equivalent of being debaptized because if you want to join again you have to do so officially. Most people still have their kids baptized and first holy communion is a big social event with parents vying with each other to see whose child has the most beautiful dress and most ornate candle. The reason I didn't want to have my kids baptized or take communion is precisely because I see it as something very meaningful and feel it would have been an abuse just to do it because it's the done thing. I'm afraid that the church's complicity in it's being degraded to a Volksfestsverschönerungsverein makes it hard for me to respect it. The general consenus is that confirmation is only for the hard core. Children just aren't cute enough at that age, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Apr 16, 2009 11:36:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 16, 2009 13:25:38 GMT
Wow A stunning victory over this country's fascist theocracy. I hope he displays his de-baptism certificate with pride. Now I'm going to demand my parents apologise for sending me to Catholic school and exposing me to all that 'superstitious cracker eating'. |
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Apr 17, 2009 9:35:31 GMT
Just an update to my previous incoherent rant: my 17 year old son reproached me at the weekend for NOT having him baptized as a child. I said he could get baptized now if he wanted to but obviously he doesn't feel that strongly about it - that is, he feels like most adults do that a public commitment to Christianity would be a bit "embarrassing". That's probably how I feel too. So unless I'm 99.9% sure I'm going to continue sitting on the fence. Real Christianity is obviously not for lily-livered poltroons like me!
|
|
