Which of these baptisms should be considered valid? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:03:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Which of these baptisms should be considered valid? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which of these baptisms should be considered valid?
#1
Sprinkling baptism of a baby by a clergyperson
 
#2
Full immersion baptism of an adult by a clergyperson
 
#3
Full immersion baptism of an adult who was baptized as a baby by a clergyperson
 
#4
Full immersion baptism of an adult using only the name of Jesus and not the Trinitarian formula
 
#5
Sprinkling baptism of an adult
 
#6
Baptism in a Mormon temple
 
#7
"Baptism" of a dead person by proxy in a Mormon temple
 
#8
Sprinkling baptism of a baby by an unordained relative
 
#9
Full immersion baptism of an adult by a church leader "ordained" only in a very loose sense
 
#10
Full immersion baptism of an adult who was baptized as a baby by a church leader "ordained" only in a very loose sense
 
#11
Full immersion baptism of a somewhat intoxicated adult (who was probably baptized as a baby) by a somewhat intoxicated vocalist of a Christian hardcore band in a bathtub at an after show party
 
#12
NOTA/Other (explain)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 21

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which of these baptisms should be considered valid?  (Read 4841 times)
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

« on: May 23, 2012, 12:29:23 PM »

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2012, 05:59:55 PM »

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

To be fair, this was apparently J.J. Abrams's bizarre hypothetical before it was BRTD's.

Oh, right, that makes sense considering Lost seemed like it was written by a BRTD with even more severe ADHD.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 15 queries.