home
RSS
October 23rd, 2013
01:24 PM ET

Baby Prince George is baptized

London (CNN) - Prince George made his first public appearance in three months Wednesday, as he arrived with his parents, Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, for his christening at St. James's Palace.

The baby prince smiled as he was shown off to family members including his great-grandparents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, before the royals entered the Chapel Royal.

George was dressed in an elaborate lace and satin christening gown that's a replica of one made in 1841 for the christening of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter.

Being baptized into the church is more significant for George than for most people, since he is in line to become king, which would also make him the supreme governor of the Church of England.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Anglican • Belief • Christianity • Church and state • United Kingdom

soundoff (190 Responses)
  1. Realist

    Why?

    Why?

    Why?

    Because...

    ----------------

    ... http://www.GODisIMAGINARY.com ...

    ... and thank goodness ...

    ... because he emanates from the ..

    ... http://www.EVILbible.com ...

    --------------–.

    October 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
  2. HotAirAce

    It's unfortunate that many/most children inherit their parent's delusions despite there not being a single objective, factual, independent or verifiable bit of evidence to support the silliness. Zohar well. . .

    October 23, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • Julius Africanus

      I often ask atheist that but I don't know what that has to do with this article?

      October 23, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        The lack of objective, factual, independent or verifiable evidence to support the concept of a personal god is surely all one needs to be an atheist – there's no evidence for the gods of religion.

        October 23, 2013 at 9:18 pm |
      • HotAirAce

        I don't see the question you claim to often ask atheists. With regard to what my comment has to do with the article, unless you can show that somehow the baby indicated he wanted to be indoctrinated into his parent's cult, I think it's obvious.

        October 23, 2013 at 11:37 pm |
  3. Lionly Lamb

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ods0fpBOqs0

    October 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
  4. Reality # 2

    And all based on a non-existent sin !! The inanity of it all !!!

    October 23, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
  5. Crom

    The "royals" only give lip service to the C of E even though it is the basis for their claimed authority and "royalness".
    Since it is all BS, their "royalty" is BS and all their claims of authority are BS.
    So they get the kid "baptised" because without a lot of empty and worthless ceremony based on "tradition" and nothing else, all their underlings who are christards won't support them, and those idiots are about all they have left as support.

    They are not "royal", not "saved", not "special" besides being part of a criminal conspiracy-based nepotistic fraud, they are liars, cheats, swindlers, thugs, terrorists, murderers, rapists, etc.
    The list of crimes against humanity done by the world's so-called "royal families" is very long indeed.

    It is long past time to seize all they claim and remove them from any and every office in the world.
    They can make do like the rest of us. No special considerations or privileges needed or called for.

    October 23, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Reality #2

      Dang, someone get Crom his pacifier. Haven't heard such whining since Obama became the President.

      October 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
      • Crom

        Stealing Reality #2's name again? Really, Russ, you have no shame, do you? Yes, I know it's you. Go suck yo mamma's dick.

        October 23, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Not Russ sweet child, but please continue to show your ignorance by guessing.

          October 23, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
        • Crom

          Swain? Eric? Mr. Baby-pants? Because you really are childish.
          Ever since someone "hurted your feelings" a few years ago, you've been more vicious and nasty than anyone I have ever seen on here, stealing names, lying all over the place, and showing you have nothing but hate and lies for everyone.
          Okay, Mr. Baby-pants, maybe you aren't Russ. Who cares? You are a piece of filth and CNN knows your IP address.
          They can step up and ban you every time they find you, or you'll just have fun stealing everyone's names so that nobody can even have a conversation. Go ahead you big baby. You want to "get back" at atheists because someone was soooooooooooo rude to you sooooo long ago. What a major case of BUTTHURT you are, my word.

          October 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
      • Reality # 2

        As noted, not from the original Reality #2.

        October 23, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • Sara

      Even though 59% of the UK claim to be Christian, only about 37% believe in God at all (and that number includes Muslims and ahindus), so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

      October 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
      • Crom

        Wow. It seems you think I am taking things too seriously. You must have skimmed my post. Have a nice day.

        October 23, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
        • Sara

          Are you trying to say you aren't taking things seriously and I misunderstood or you are and I didn't understand the seriousness? I see nothing in your OP to say to are joking, and me comment adressed the alternative.

          October 23, 2013 at 11:00 pm |
        • Crom

          *sigh*
          Let's just say I'm taking the serious stuff seriously and leaving the non-serious stuff alone for the most part.
          Too serious? I don't have much fun in me these days, so perhaps you have a point. It doesn't matter much anyway.

          October 23, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
        • Sara

          Thanks, I guess we just disagree then. Royalty brings in tourism dollars and gives people some entertainment. Few people take it that seriously. It also provides cultural continuity in times of upheaval of the real govt. Sure there's a small danger of regaining power, but I think that's only likely if faced with a worse alternative.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:35 am |
        • Crom

          I'm sorry but you gloss all that stuff over too glibly, but then perhaps this isn't really the best forum for such a discussion.
          Yes, we disagree, or so it appears.
          Sorry to have argued, let's just look at cute pictures. Nevermind anything else. Thanks for reminding me to ignore the world.

          October 24, 2013 at 1:19 am |
  6. Mount Olivet

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtOgB_oFAw&feature=player_detailpage

    October 23, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
  7. Sean Lynch

    Many doctrines include infant baptism because of the concept of original sin. Doctrine includes not only various scripture but teaching given through divine revelation. Such is the product of human imagination and fear based in ignorance that an infant requires a get out of hell free pass.

    October 23, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • JWT

      I was baptized as an infant and have never been a christian.

      October 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
      • Sean Lynch

        By virtue of your infantile baptism by some doctrines you get a pass out of hell. Original Sin is a really weird and scary concept.

        October 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
    • Science

      But wasn't the bloodline tied to the church of England ?

      DNA tests reveal Prince William's Indian ancestry
      By Peter Wilkinson, CNN
      June 14, 2013 - Updated 1648 GMT (0048 HKT)

      October 23, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
      • Sean Lynch

        I know very little of the divine authority of kings and have little recent exposure to these concepts except for what I observe of the Tea Party in the US House of Representatives.

        October 24, 2013 at 1:20 am |
  8. Traditions

    Eat this wafer. It will save you from eternal damnation.

    October 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Sean Lynch

      May I have a cookie , or a bit of pie or cake, a cup of milk and a nice nap instead please?

      October 24, 2013 at 1:25 am |
  9. Traditions

    Too bad they don't dunk people in mud or dollop mud on the babies head. That would be worth going to see once.

    October 23, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Ideas

      I vote for mayonnaise.

      October 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Crom

      Why put anything on their head? To make sure the brain is damaged while young and the skull still soft.
      If they grow up smart they'll oppose the priests, so keeping them dumb and ignorant is KEY.

      October 23, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
  10. Chalk on a Blackboard

    Why do so many people pronounce christening as "chrishening"? Even some newscasters do it.

    October 23, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Crom

      Maybe they want to sound like Sean Connery? Sure Sean Connery? Get it? lol

      October 23, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
      • Chalk on a Blackboard

        Yesh, on him it looksh good, though! I'll have to shtart pretending that'sh what they're doing.

        October 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
  11. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    More curious CNN editing.

    In a short video posted on his website, Welby spoke of the significance of the baby prince's baptism, which will see him "join the family of the church," numbering almost 2 billion people around the world.

    Two billion Anglicans? Really? Even the Catholic church only claims 1.2 billion. *All* Christians are around 2.1 billion.

    I didn't see the Archbishop's video, so perhaps by "the family of the church" he was being inclusive of all Christians, rather than just Anglicans, but according to wikipedia, there are only about 85 million Anglicans worldwide.

    October 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And indeed in this case an accurate comment.

      The Archibishop did speak of *all* Christians. He actually uses the traditionally British "two thousand million" in the video.

      "When Prince George is baptised he will join 2 billion people around the world in ‘the family of the church’, he says."

      October 23, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
  12. Irish

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8t-sQ8savg&feature=player_detailpage

    October 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Doris

      Excellent. What a range. I'll make sure Archie hears this. Bring it back for St. Patrick's Day.

      October 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
  13. Alias

    I think this is a publicity stunt more than an expression of faith.
    The would deeply offend more people by not baptizing their child than they do by baptizing.

    October 23, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It is tradition and protocol – not a publicity stunt.

      Were it a publicity stunt there'd be waving from the balcony at Buckingham Palace and the media would broadcast the event live.

      October 23, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
      • Crom

        If there's publicity, and it's a stunt, it's a publicity stunt. If they wanted to keep it private, they could have, but instead it's plastered over all the news websites. That's traditional for publicity stunts. "protocol" nothing. What stuff.

        October 23, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
        • Reality #2

          Oh yes, they could have kept it private if they wanted. Because everyone knows that the tabloids in Britain respect their privacy so.

          October 23, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Anglican, I presume?

    October 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Like you had to ask! 😉

      October 23, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
  15. Nada

    This does nothing...but it makes the parents feel better lol

    October 23, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
  16. Bootyfunk

    baby indoctrinated into christian cult.
    boy, that's news.

    October 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
  17. Did they use miracle spring water?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=XN94yO-uYf4

    October 23, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doris

      LOL. I aways know I'm up too late if this weasel shows up on my TV.

      October 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
  18. Lawrence of Arabia

    Can someone please explain to me the legitimacy of paedobaptism?

    October 23, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      As I understand it, from my (long ago now) study of the history of customs and rituals within Christianity, it came about as a means to secure the child from demonic influence. There is an entire portion of Christianity that honestly believes that one can not enter heaven without baptism, and thus infant baptism rose to ensure that even those who died as infants would go to heaven.

      This, of course, is no statement on whether this practice is sensical within the greater canon of Christian theology, nor biblically accurate (let alone what that actually means, it's relevance, the similarities of the baptism ritual to other religious rituals, etc). That's a much larger discussion that would require bigger space and participants willing to set aside belief to academically argue the means and reasons for such differences in theology, which I find to be lacking in this particular forum.

      October 23, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
      • Joey

        Lawrence didn't want a discussion he just wanted to be able to tell someone they are wrong, and not a real Christian like he is.

        October 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          2 Timothy 3:16 – All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness...

          If we Christians are not utilizing the Bible to reform where errors are present, then we are not doing our jobs. Semper Reformanda.

          October 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          I was pretty well aware of that, Joey. I wasn't actually expecting him to respond.

          October 23, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      It doesn't seem very legitimate to me at all.

      "No one can come to Jesus without being taught from the Father. This does not just mean simply hearing sounds. One must "learn"; he must understand the meaning of what is being taught."
      – John 6:44

      October 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Old Wife

      Lawrence of Arabia,

      Superst'ition... the kid could die without having been magically washed and anointed.

      October 23, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
      • Old Wife

        The same goes for 'adultobaptism' and posthumous baptism, and any others that people have dreamed up.

        October 23, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Topher

      Anyone here a Presbyterian?

      October 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Check this one for a chuckle:
        http://www.epic-randomness.com/tag/heaven-is-for-presbyterians/

        October 23, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • Lawrence of Arabia

      Here's my take on it, if anyone cares to read...

      1)Infant Baptism is not found in Scripture anywhere – therefore it is impossible to defend it Biblically.
      -Can it be approved of simply because it is not specifically forbidden in Scripture? If we use this argument, then almost anything can be added into Scripture – We must obey the Scripture, and since the Scripture gives a prescription for baptism, then that it what must be followed.

      2)Infant Baptism is NOT Christian Baptism – it is totally meaningless.
      -Christian Baptism is the full immersion into water of someone who repents of their sins, confesses Jesus as Lord and acknowledges Him as their savior. When a person believes, baptism is the public means of confessing their faith by which they identify themselves with Christ. Babies can’t do that.
      -Those who perform infant baptism as a “Christian Baptism” or as an “initiation into the Church” or as an “initiation into salvation” are in effect baptizing non-Christians – they have never come to personal confession of faith in Christ – this is NOT New Testament Baptism.

      3)Infant Baptism is not a replacement sign for Abrahamic circu.mcision. (as some have claimed)
      -Paul makes it clear that baptism is the external sign of faith in Christ ("...you were baptized into Christ..."), and that through faith in Christ the believer is part of the Abrahamic covenant ("Abraham's seed"). This provides the basis for the doctrine that baptism is the New Testament sign of God's covenant with Abraham.

      Colossians 2:9-15 – For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circu.mcised with a circu.mcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circu.mcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncirc.umcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

      4)Infant Baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.
      -It is impossible to distinguish between a true believer and a non-believer
      -It destroys the reality of a regenerate church – since regeneration requires faith, and an infant can have no faith, by baptizing infants into the church, you are merely creating a church of unregenerate people.

      5)Infant Baptism is not consistent with justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. (See: Justification)
      -If justification is through faith alone, then why would an infant be baptized if he has no capability to have faith in Christ? Baptism without faith accomplishes nothing.
      -Infant Baptism is nothing, it has no saving efficacy, delivers no grace, confers no faith, it is a symbol of nothing, it is absolutely pointless.
      -It only leads to ritualism, confusion, and false security.
      -Infants (and those without the mental capacity for self-accountability) do not need faith in order to obtain grace from God since Scripture describes a special kind of grace that is imparted to those who are without the ability to express faith in God that is activated should they die.

      October 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
      • fred

        Lawrence
        Baptism in the Spirit is something that comes from God and God can do this at any age with or without the Jordon River near by. Consider Luke 1:15 concerning John the Baptist "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth"

        October 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Fred,
          Baptism, meaning "to immerse" in the sense that God immerses us in the Spirit, or to put another way "make us a part of Him" occurs "before the foundations of the world." Through the doctrine of election, God, in eternity past, sovereignly chooses whom He will save, this is the idea that John was attempting to portray in describing John the Baptiser. This was a reflection of Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

          Obviously no water is necessary to be "immersed" into Christ, the act of Baptism is strictly an outward sign of an inward change, but God does command believers to do it.

          To therefore baptize a child is outside the dictates of scripture. Would you not agree?

          October 23, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          "child" in the sense of an infant who cannot speak, let alone profess faith and repentance...

          October 23, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
        • fred

          Lawrence
          If one is of the belief that infant baptism is part of the Old Testament covenant (Abrahamic) then it is biblical for them to do so. Paul cleared this up with:

          Romans 14:1-5
          Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

          October 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Lawrence: baptism doesn't primarily mean "to immerse" but to cleanse or wash (per Bruce Metzger, the definitive expert of the last century on biblical Greek). moreover, you have other biblical references to baptism as sprinkling and pouring, not just dunking (e.g., Heb.9:19-22; 10:22).

          October 23, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
        • Nada

          Baptizing a baby gives it extra superpowers from jesus

          October 24, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Lawrence: assuming you're not just out to mock the Bible...
      short version: NT baptism replaces OT circu.mcision.
      it's a sign God places on his people – as Augustine said: a sign on the outside of what he's doing inside.

      1) God made a covenant with his people. It included their children.
      "These secret things are for you and your children..." (Dt.29:29; Dt.6:4-7; etc.)

      2) God gave his people a physical (outward) sign of what he was doing spiritually (inward) – namely, circu.mcision (Gen.17). that sign was to be placed upon children at 8 days old – well before their own ability to articulate that faith.

      3) the mark itself was not a guarantee of faith (many unfaithful Israelites were treated as such). the sign itself does not save. note well John 8 (real children of Abraham believe by faith, not just in the ritual; some rabbinical scholars there are called children of the Devil, despite having been circu.mcised).

      4) in the New Testament, baptism replaces circu.mcision (Col.2:10-12) – it's circu.mcision of the heart. and when did circu.mcision happen? for new converts, it happened as adults (Abraham, men at Shechem, etc.). but for children of believing families...

      5) when Jesus starts his movement, baptism comes first to adults (because there were no 'Christian' families when Jesus started baptizing), but children are included. repeatedly in Acts, you see the baptism of entire households.

      even at Pentecost, Peter says: "repent & be baptized, every one of you..." and then says immediately after "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." why the talk about children if it's only adult baptism? if only for adults, isn't that an individual decision after growing up? why this carryover of the old covenant language... unless the point is that the old covenant is being carried forward, fulfilled in Christ?

      SUM: if you really want to engage this topic honestly & more thoroughly, look up "covenant theology."

      October 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
      • Realist

        ----------------

        ... http://www.GODisIMAGINARY.com ...

        ... and thank goodness ...

        ... because he emanates from the ..

        ... http://www.EVILbible.com ...

        --------------–.

        October 23, 2013 at 9:29 pm |
    • Alias

      The bible clearly states that you must be baptized to be saved.
      That is not the only criteria for salvatoin, but it is one of them.
      If your child dies before it gets baptized, it could suffer for ever by the hand of a loving god.

      October 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
      • Russ

        @ Alias: you said: "The bible clearly states that you must be baptized to be saved."
        really, what do you do with the thief on the cross? Jesus said: you'll be with me today in paradise. he was clearly never baptized.

        and then there's Rom.10:9 – what's necessary for salvation? confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart he was raised from the dead. nothing about baptism.

        does baptism naturally follow? yes. is it necessary for salvation? no. as Augustine said: it's a sign on the outside of what God is doing inside. but lots of people are baptized who aren't Christian – and some aren't baptized who are.

        October 23, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ,
          I'm not one of the idiots that say the bible has no errors.
          Mark 16:16 says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

          October 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
        • Alias

          look up these too:
          John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21

          October 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: note well what your own cited passage says: who is it that is condemned? those who don't *believe.* it says nothing about baptism.

          as i said above, baptism logically follows as an outward sign of faith – but it is not REQUIRED for salvation. technically speaking, outward baptism represents the Holy Spirit's *inward* washing of us. in THAT regard, yes, spiritual cleansing by the Holy Spirit *is* one & the same as salvation. but you seem to be fixed upon the *sign* of the sacrament. note well what the term "sign" means... it points to something else.

          October 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
        • Alias

          News Flash Russ,
          The word 'Sign' has more than one meaning. It is a logical fallacy to apply the wrong meaning of the word and argue against your warped interpretation.
          "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
          This does imply you need it as it is one of the conditions. It goes on to say that belief is also necessary, but you can change your belief more easily than you could be un-baptized.
          If god didn't think baptism was important, why did he put it in his book at all?

          October 23, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: you presuppose the bible is riddled with contradictions – but your argument is contingent on that presupposition. that's begging the question.

          i've already pointed out to you a number of passages that state salvation comes WITHOUT baptism as a necessary requisite. if you let the text have integrity (as a practicing follower would want to do – which is the whole discussion, right?), what conclusion is left? if you assume that Christianity is simply unintelligibly contradictory, not only does that functionally forget the premise (that Christianity not only exists in practice, but thrived from the outset amidst persecution), but it also avoids doing the very thing the early community would have made a point of doing – attempting to understand and practice their faith with integrity.

          in refusing to read the text with integrity, you answer your own question – but you do it at the expense of history and actually engaging the faith you're criticizing on its own terms. it's a refusal to listen. of course you dismiss the straw man that develops from that line of logic – but you've never actually forced yourself to engage the text consistently.

          consider: if the same Jesus that said this about salvation also said to the thief on the cross (who clearly could not be baptized) that he would be saved, what is a Christian left to deduce? baptism is something we should do if we believe, but it is obviously not *requisite* for salvation. to claim it is required is to make Jesus out to be a liar – and the whole faith falls. or one might claim the Scriptures are unintelligibly contradictory – in which case you lose any access to Jesus, and again the entire faith falls. that's why your premise is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and one that doesn't actually engage biblical, historical Christianity.

          October 23, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
        • Crom

          Yes, because Russ, a liar and name-stealer, is the only true authority on a book of lies. Be sure and take notes. *yawn*

          October 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Russ is correct in his theology, here. Of course the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and was indeed saved by 'the savior' himself.....in that book of fantasy and fairy tales.

          October 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Russ might believe an idiotic fairy tale with a stupid god for ridiculous reasons, but he is not a name stealer or a liar.

          Crom's trolling technique and style deserve admiration and respect; however, and we could all learn a lot from him.

          October 23, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
        • Crom

          @"Capt Obvious"
          You're either Russ again (because Russ IS a liar and name-stealer), or you're the lame-fuck "Capt Obvious" who doesn't know dick about how to be a "captain obvious" and you're still mad cause I keep giving you shit about it.
          Poor child, you have no credibility whatsoever with me, whoever you are. Here's a crying towel – I never use them.

          October 23, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Much appreciated, Crom. I am glad to be able to learn from you!

          October 23, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
        • Just Checking

          Crom,

          Why do you think that Russ is a name stealer? He says a lot of things that I disagree with (and he's often disagreeable), but I have never seen that tactic from him.

          Why are you on Cpt. Obvious's case? Are you sure that you are not mixing him up with the former troll, @captain america?

          October 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
        • Crom

          Because he's admitted to doing it at least once. You must be new here. Lycidas/UncouthSwain/Russ is a real piece of trash.

          October 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ,
          The basis for your arguement is, "That can't be right. If that were true the bible would have a contradiction."
          I have some bad news for you, there are contradictions and errors in the bible. (Try google some time, you may learn a thing or two.) I gave you several references from your holy book, and you chose to ignore them. That does not invalidate my arguement.
          I do not assume that Christianity is simply unintelligibly contradictory, I have proof. That proof can be found in the bible.

          October 23, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
        • Alias

          Noah and his arc are in the bible, I think we covered that one enough.
          Anyone with any integrity will admit that story did not happen.

          October 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
        • Alias

          Allow me to repost my thoughts on original sin – as if you other posters really have a choice.
          God wanted a garden with two people, so he created billions and billions of start, heaven, and a hell he apparently knew in advance he would need.
          Next, god put a tree in this garden for no other reason than to tempt Adam.
          He also allowed a talking serpent into his garden. I always thought he would have known better, but He did have the forethought to create hell ....
          Anyway, when the snake and Eve convinced Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge god threw a fit, and slapped everyone who had not yet been born with a sin that would send us all to hell.
          However, god didn't seem to like the rule he made. So he got a married virgin pregnant. That way he could have the romans kill his son, painfully. That was obviously necessary. If jesus had never been born, god could not have possibly judged us on our actions, but would have to send us all to hell for ever.

          Amen

          October 23, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
        • Alias

          Please Russ,
          Tell me what I have wrong, because clearly the bible has no logic fails or contradictions.

          October 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
        • Crom

          There is no such thing as sin. Arguing over what some made-up "god" did in some fairy tale is a waste of time.
          Russ is a self-important blowhard who enjoys lying and misleading people whether he's talking religion or not.
          You won't get him to admit it when you catch him. He's a nasty one, and shameless about it, too.
          Alias, you are wasting your time, alas.

          October 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
        • Alias

          It's not a complte waste of time ... it kind of feels good.
          Not as good as doin' the dance of love, but satisfying in a more mental way.

          October 23, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
        • I wonder

          Crom,

          I think that you are off track on the Russ/Lycidas/Uncouth Swain deal. Yes, Lycidas has said that he uses a few unique names (not stealing established ones of other people), but their writing styles are quite different. Yes, they both can be quite overbearing; but Lycidas uses a snappier, more conversational pace; he says 'ppl' and is careless in his spelling sometimes. He's fairly young. Russ is much more studied and pedantic, is older, and has much more education in theology and philosophy. JMHO.

          October 23, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
        • I wonder

          p.s. Recalling a bit more, I do remember Lycidas clowning around once and posting under someone else's name, but he fessed up immediately... (not that I think it's at all kosher, but I don't think either he nor Russ is the miscreant that the mods can't seem to get rid of).

          October 24, 2013 at 12:06 am |
        • Crom

          Okay, O wondrous one, we'll go with your take on it because I've only been back for about a month after a long vacation from this. Whatever the truth of the matter, CNN isn't being helpful at all, so it's all just moot crap anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
          It has been too long. My memories do get tangled at times. I don't bother keeping track like I used to, so you're probably right.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:06 am |
        • I wonder

          Crom,
          " Whatever the truth of the matter, CNN isn't being helpful at all, so it's all just moot crap anyway."

          Yep. Seems like we have to take it for what it is and just grab some enjoyment and mind-stretching here and there.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:15 am |
        • Crom

          Welcome to the internet. Twas ever thus.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:24 am |
        • Russ

          @ all...
          wow, away for 18 hours and this is an interesting conversation to return & find.

          @ Crom: for the record (sad I have to even say this, but such is the state of the belief blog currently), I have never used another handle on this blog.

          @ Cpt Obvious, I wonder: I do appreciate your 'defense' of me, even if i might object to some of the characterizations. as much as we disagree, it is good to see some mutual respect.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: you do not have to believe the bible is without errors to note that – from the outset – it was functionally treated as such by the practicing community. note well Jesus' own interpretations of the OT (even appealing to a singular word as fully authoritative).

          no, the point was not "the bible says it. i believe it. that settles it." my point was that your redaction theories actually undermine your own position. if the bible was unintelligibly corrupted & contradictory (a sentiment your ongoing arguments clearly betray), then: a) how did any functional community develop, much less the largest human movement in history? b) why are we even having this conversation about baptism when you clearly discount the whole faith? it's talking about logic on a particular when your position's premise is that the whole is illogical from the outset. again: that's question-begging.

          SUM: you don't have to be a Christian or believe the bible is w/o error to understand there are problems inherent to your own position. so, no – i am not appealing to fideism. i'm simply examining your own logic from within your position. your unwillingness to approach the text with its integrity intact prevents an honest discussion of a particular, contingent theological matter.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ
          specificly, what point have i made that you think is wrong?
          All you're saying is since i don't believe in the bible, you discard my posts.

          October 24, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
        • Nada

          "approach the text with its integrity intact prevents an honest discussion of a particular, contingent theological matter."
          .
          NO, to have an honest discussion, integrity must first be established.

          October 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: re-read my last post. the very first sentence says the exact opposite. so does the summary, for that matter.

          again: you don't have to believe the bible to read the text with its own integrity intact. read it as *one* corpus, which is exactly what practicing Christians have been doing for almost two millennia. that does not require you *believing* it to engage it on its own grounds. follow the logic of the believing community – even if you are not one. that's my point.

          for example, a student of literature or history doesn't have to believe an account is true to engage it on its own merits and note how it has functioned historically. actually, an inability to do that is a significant flaw in any academic field – secular or non.

          instead, you begin the debate by assuming Christians are idiots & the bible is clearly self-contradictory, when that presupposition makes the debate itself moot. and as long as you come to the text that way, it never will make sense – even as secular academic. to use the technical terms, you are so busily engaged in redaction criticism that you never deal with the final form (that's a methodological dodge). the debate on baptism here is a final form debate – especially as it functions within the Christian community. Christians ask: 'what does the Bible say about baptism?' – assuming it is authoritative and cohesive. you don't have to accept their premise to follow their logic (& make arguments accordingly) – not to mention that arguments made from WITHIN a system of belief are much stronger than those imposed from without.

          along those lines, that is what i'm trying to formulate for you – and that is what you keep missing. i am not arguing that you have to agree with my premise to get this (fideism). i am arguing that you are not entertaining the logic of those you critique in a genuine way, and that results in an inability to engage how Christianity has functioned historically or even (more problematic for you) any historical event with which you bring a potentially mistaken bias. that guarantees bad scholarship.

          for example, your approach to Christianity requires assuming – at a rather baseline level – that all Christians are idiots because they don't see what you regard as obvious contradictions. and yet – even by secular appraisal – history is full of intelligent, innovative Christians who have made enormous cultural contributions. the fact of intelligent Christians doesn't guarantee Christianity is historically true – but it does explode your premise (that Christians are idiots).

          moreover, you seem unaware of the historical fact of virtually 2000 years of biblical studies as an academic discipline. again, you don't have to agree with Christianity to be aware of these historically uncontested facts. if you were aware of it, you'd know that many Christians engaged your questions long before you raised them with rather thorough-going answers. but again, you begin by assuming something that discounts you ever actually engaging – much less conceding – that fact. which is why I keep pointing out to you that your argument fails on YOUR OWN TERMS, not on mine.

          i've said this multiple different ways, but your last post made it clear you are not hearing what i am attempting to say. instead, it sounds like you are projecting onto me a reciprocal version of what you yourself are doing. so i'm sorry if this sounds redundant, but I thought it was clear before. so here it is again...

          SUM: i am not claiming you have to be a Christian to follow the logic of the faith. i'm stating the opposite. your problem is a refusal to engage the text of Scripture on its own terms, both historically & literarily... and that sort of approach prevents you from doing good scholarship in general – long before we get into the debate of the veracity of particular claims.

          October 24, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Nada: no, as i just wrote (at length) to Alias, this began as a pragmatic discussion about the function of baptism in the Christian community. that is a community that (by & large) presupposes the integrity of the text. to call that into question is to undermine the premise of the debate itself – not to actually engage the debate on its own terms.

          you are questioning not just the practice of a particular part of the Christian faith, but ALL of historic Christianity. you're not just questioning baptism but the whole faith – when the question functionally assumes the givens of the Christian community. you want to object to Christianity? that's fine. but that's not the question that was asked. 'what is the Christian view of baptism' requires assuming a set of givens with which you disagree. if you are going to entertain the logic of the question, you must engage it with its integrity intact.

          in short, you are dodging the particular by objecting to the whole. you are objecting to the premise of the question when answering the question requires ostensibly engaging that set of givens on their own terms – even if you admit disagreeing. for example, see what Cpt Obvious did above (conceding my point about the thief on the cross while yet mocking Christianity as fairy tales).

          October 24, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ,
          this is getting boring.
          I was raised christian. I have read the bible, as a christian. That is why i am no longer a christian.
          I am not starting with an unfounded assumption that the bible is flawed, I am starting with proof that the bible is flawed. That proof is found within the bible.
          No matter how many times you tell me i cannot objectively read the text, I have done so.
          The bible says you must be baptized to be saved. Read it for yourself with whatever premisis make you happy. John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21
          Your point about the thief on the cross being saved does not prove I cannot read the text, it proved the bible has a contradiction.

          October 24, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
        • Alias

          Russ,
          this is getting boring.
          I was raised christian. I have read the bible, as a christian. That is why i am no longer a christian.
          I am not starting with an unfounded assumption that the bible is flawed, I am starting with proof that the bible is flawed. That proof is found within the bible.
          No matter how many times you tell me i cannot objectively read the text, I have done so.
          The bible says you must be baptized to be saved. Read it for yourself. John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21
          Your point about the thief on the cross being saved does not prove I cannot read the text, it proved the bible has a contradiction. For you to continue to say that because I view the text as flawed keeps me from reading it correctly will not change the truth.

          October 24, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Alias: your response AGAIN demonstrates you're not hearing me.
          I'm not talking about whether or not you are a Christian. simply follow the logic for those who DO adhere to the faith.

          let me give you some examples:

          I already addressed your Mk.16 appeal above. The negatively stated predicate excludes baptism.

          Acts 2: if you read what i wrote above in response to Lawrence (OP) on this, you'd already have noted my response. Acts 2:39 supports infant baptism – which connects via circu.mcision. John 8 is just one example that circu.mcision (as an outward sign) does not guarantee faith (Jesus calls the rabbis – who certainly had all the outward forms – children of the devil, not children of Abraham). Col.2:10-12 shows that OT circu.mcision has become NT baptism. Morever, if you read the rest of acts, this formula of "repent & be baptized" varies. baptism is not always included. if it is essential, it would be.

          Galatians 3:27 does not say what you are claiming it does. Paul is not saying your baptism saved you, but because you were saved you bear the mark of it in baptism. for more detail, google "ordo salutis" (order of salvation). you are misunderstanding how these things come to the Christian.

          1 Pet.3:21 – again, this is equivocation because you don't understand the ordo salutis. Peter is not claiming the water baptism saves you, but the work of the Holy Spirit which the water symbolizes. but since your position doesn't force you to read Scripture in a unified way (again, that's not saying you have to be a Christian, but that you respect the integrity with which the practicing community reads it), you cheaply dismiss the actual intent.

          Maybe the clearest place this point is made is Rom.4:9-12, where Abraham is justified BEFORE he is circu.mcized (again, the OT form of baptism). the very point Paul is making: it's not what *you* do that saves you, but what he has already done. and that's the centerpiece of Christianity. it's not what we do, but what Jesus has done for us. it's grace – the distinctive of the faith. you want to treat baptism as something directly contrary to the *most central tenet* of salvation. it requires immediately dismissing salvation comes by grace alone – which ultimately dissolves the rest of the faith.

          that works if you aren't a Christian – but not if you are a practicing believer. and the question about baptism here is one about practicing Christians.

          you believe the text is flawed. fine. but recognize the practicing community to whom the question is addressed assumes the opposite! if you are going to genuinely engage the premise, you have to suspend your position for the sake of honestly entertaining the question. that's not the same thing as accepting Christianity. it's having the academic integrity to engage your opponents' position *on their terms* – and not as a straw man.

          yes, that is hard work. you might even call it... boring... unless of course, your goal was genuine interaction in the first place.

          October 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
        • Crom

          @Russ
          My apologies for getting you mixed up with other trolls. Half-remembered offenses aren't worth getting worked up over.
          You write well and clearly enough, so I have some questions for you:
          Do you believe that all Jews will always bear the guilt given to them in the bible for the killing of Jesus, as it even gives an account of all of them yelling their full acceptance of that guilt? Do you think them guilty, sir, of being Jesus-killers?
          Do you believe that account to be an eye-witness account with holy authority?
          And if you do, why are you not seeking to slay them all or put them in prison? For what reason was the guilt put on them, and them supposedly accepting that guilt freely?
          Answer as you wish. I am more curious than interested in setting you up for some retort. How do you view such a thing in your bible? How does it all come together for you?

          October 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Crom:
          1) getting me mixed up with "other trolls"? despite that opening shot, i'm going to treat your other questions as sincere...

          2) you asked if i believe that "the Jews will always bear the guilt" of killing Jesus. you give the strong impression that you think the Bible teaches that Jews *solely* bear the guilt, as if the NT is anti-Semitic. i strongly disagree.

          note well: virtually ALL the earliest Christians were Jews. Jesus himself IS a Jew. even the Gospel of John (often mischaracterized as anti-Semitic), clearly demonstrates even Jewish leaders who follow Christ (for example, Nicodemus). it is not a singular characterization of Jews – but rather a very honest & multi-layered one.

          having said that, to give you the most direct answer to your question ("are they guilty of being Jesus-killers?"), the Bible teaches rather clearly that we ALL bear that guilt. the point of Good Friday is not some anti-Semitic failing of a particular race, but the representative heart of all humanity. to lay that guilt squarely on one race fails to understand the enormous part Rome played. no, this is not an anti-Semitic moment, but rather – as one famous theologian has said – the cross clearly shows the heart of humanity: given the chance, we will try to kill God.

          in short, it's not just a Jewish problem. it's a human problem. we all are to blame.

          3) you asked: do i believe this to be an eyewitness account with holy authority? i don't know what you mean by "holy authority" in your terms. so i'll set that aside for the moment.

          are these the earliest accounts? yes. do they come at such an early date that being eyewitnesses are even a possibility? yes. does that guarantee they were? maybe not. but consider: it is clear they demonstrate a knowledge of pre-diaspora Jerusalem (AD 70) that could only be known firsthand (e.g., pool of Bethesda, names accurately used, etc.). and they are putting these claims out at a time when the supposed eyewitnesses were still alive. in other words, they could (& considering the stakes – would) have been fact-checked.

          for example, Paul writes 1 Cor.15 w/in 20 (if not 15) years of Jesus' death. he names the names of eyewitnesses. he claims 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus in person. certainly most of those would still be alive. during the pax Romana, correspondence & travel was a given. when someone asks you to rearrange your life around such a preposterous claim, certainly many would do a little fact-checking before joining up – especially among the tight-knit Jewish community, many of whom still made regular pilgrimages back to Jerusalem for major feasts.

          4) you asked: so why are we not "seeking to slay them all in prison"? I hope my previous answers have already made this point moot. we all bear the guilt. to ask for ultimate justice in that regard is to call for our own death.

          see the two things the cross says clearly:
          a) it's worse than we want to admit (we deserve that death)
          b) it's better than we ever dared hope (he was willing to die in my place)

          the place where justice is most clearly displayed has now become the very same place where ultimate mercy is shown. having received that sort of grace, Christians are called to share that grace with others.

          5) how does it all come together for me? Jesus himself said the whole Bible (OT included) is about him.
          this short video should help you understand what that means in particular.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNa6tLWrqk

          October 25, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • Crom

          @Russ
          Thanks for that long (epistle?) that you wrote in reply to my questions, but you do not address the scene where the crowd yells or even seem to want to talk about it. That's fine. I understand your doing the other thing instead. Have a good weekend.

          October 26, 2013 at 3:51 am |
        • Russ

          @ Crom: sorry you felt i didn't directly address your question. i thought you would apply the more wide-sweeping answer to your particular example.

          as i said above: most of the first Christians were Jews. while many didn't come to faith until after the resurrection, others already were followers. it sounds like you think the bible is claiming that every single person there shouted "crucify him!" certainly there's no reason to think his own disciples did – not to mention his own mother. beyond that, *every person* (if that was your interpretation) would have included the Roman soldiers. again – not just the Jews...

          no, i don't think that interpretation has any basis. so, no – i do not hold the Jews uniquely responsible. instead, as the Bible rather clearly states: *all of humanity* is responsible.

          October 27, 2013 at 12:09 am |
        • Crom

          @Russ
          Thank you for confirming my opinion. It was not necessary, however. When I need your brand of dogma, I'll let you know. thx.

          October 27, 2013 at 12:21 am |
        • Russ

          @ Crom:
          you said: 'so you think...'?
          i said: 'no, not that, but this.'
          you said: 'thanks for confirming my opinion.'

          one of us is not hearing the other.

          October 27, 2013 at 10:03 am |
    • Doris

      Oh shush or you're going to get smeared with Rainer Bism all over the place.

      October 23, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Alias

      I've been out of the RCC fo rtoo lon gto claim to be an authority, but ..... The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion (also known as the Eucharist), Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation), Marriage (also known as Matrimony), Holy Orders (also known as Ordination), and Anointing of the Sick (also known as Extreme Unction or Last Rites).
      It seems to be important to reach heaven.

      October 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
  19. Lionly Lamb

    1 Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building."

    October 23, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Realist

      ----------------

      ... http://www.GODisIMAGINARY.com ...

      ... and thank goodness ...

      ... because he emanates from the ..

      ... http://www.EVILbible.com ...

      --------------–.

      October 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
  20. Welcome to the family....

    of 2.1 B!

    October 23, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Luke 18

      15 And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

      October 23, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
      • Lionly Lamb

        Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

        October 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
      • Harry

        What a blessing by a fantastic scripture lesson from the gospels!

        Hope you grow and always abide in the True Vine, baby Prince George.

        🙂

        October 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • John 15

      “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He [a]prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already [b]clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit [c]of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

      October 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
      • Crom

        You are the true idiot, your parents should take away your internet. Everyone that reads your crap gets sickened and want to puke at your empty and worthless lies. I give you crap because you suck, hoping you might stay away.
        You are already known to be a fool by what you post. Stay the hell away from me, you sicko. As you gibber on and on, no one cares what you think about your lies. I am Crom, and I can kick your ass without hardly trying.

        October 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
      • Harry

        What a blessing and a fantastic scripture lesson from the gospels!

        Hope you grow and always abide in the True Vine, baby Prince George. 🙂

        October 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          I suspect Mr Adorable will grow up, pretend to be christian for the sake of tradition but due to the education he is going to get, he'll be rational minded and realize it's all dark age fallacious crap written by primitive man to fool the gullible.

          October 23, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • Harry

      Luke 18 & John 15 –two fantastic passages for the royal Christening!

      October 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
      • Crom

        I'm sure they are sooo grateful to you for chiming in. Why prince Harry might even glance in your general direction someday!

        October 23, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • Harry

      @welcome to...

      1 Peter 2 🙂

      October 23, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
1 2
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.