Posted on 01/31/2012 6:49:05 AM PST by marshmallow
It’s not enough that he simply no longer believes what the Catholic Church believes; he must punish the Catholic Church for not believing what he believes.
It is when you beleive that baptism equals salvation as the baby baptism does.
Baptismal rolls are not membership rolls; they are registrations of an historical event, the baptism. No one ever goes through the baptismal records to compile membership lists. This is done through the parish census or registration records. If he wishes to remove his name from the parish census— no problem. Just send a letter to ask to have his name removed. But he cannot erase what was an historical event; he was indeed, on a certain date and in a certain church, baptized.
His birth in France probably ensures he is a French citizen. Perhaps, then, he will one day desire to renounce that citizenship and therefore demand that France nullify his birth. I wonder how the courts will make that happen?
Though I have to admit that the idea that keeping the baptism on the books as a way to pump up the enrollment numbers was an amusingly stupid one, even by hater standards.
Just some guy trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.
Think about what you just said. Let's say a baby is baptized at the age of one week. He didn't consent to be "marked." He didn't accept this commitment to be accountable for all his "doings."
I'm going to be the contrarian here. This man may be asking to be released from a contract he never signed.
There are many good arguments for baptizing a child, but no one ever addresses the fact that it overrides the free will of the child by leaving him with only two choices--adherence to a religion he didn't choose, or eternal damnation.
Because the Baptismal Record is a matter of historical fact. "On this date, John Francis Smith was baptized." What he's asking the Church to do is lie about that simple fact.
Does "count-your-change's denomination" believe that lying about historical facts is an acceptable thing to do?
That's correct.
The question of the validity of Mormon baptism got a very curt "negative" reply.
Your attempts to "counter" those facts failed, of course, so I can understand your stated unwillingness to repeat the effort.
You never did, however, address this question:
Does "count-your-change's denomination" believe that lying about historical facts is an acceptable thing to do?
Actually he kinda answers the question with his “Then why not strike the fellow’s name? Put an X beside it and a note..” theory. Magic X and a note makes things never have had happened! Yay!!! If by chance that doesn’t work, say “Beetlejuice” three times in a row and he’ll make the problem go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.