₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Is it that you cannot read?

You are the one that cannot read. That's why you started the argument.

Dtruthspeaker:
That is what I said

So, why did you argue against what the Bible does not condemn?

bandad:
Please ask
Google Oga.
This is everywhere in Nigeria.

Madam, I would have asked Google the question if I read the post on Google. I asked the question where I saw the post. And the question is not an attack to the post.

Dtruthspeaker:
That is not how Law works.

Everything that is bad The Law, condemns it and this is the principle of law saying "When The Law did not want it, it Spoke"

And that is why I clearly said that you guys have not violated any Law here save that you have not followed it either.

But however, no one can rightly say you guys are Wrong rather child baptism is a vanity as we all know that a child will grow up to become guilty. And then he would require repentance and baptism and all those things we all have pointed out

The Bible is the law in this case. The Bible has not spoken against it.

paxonel:
You mean, if the child is not baptized, he or she does not have Christian identity?

No part of my comment sees this. You are the one that manufactured it in your mind.

paxonel:
You are very right!
A student can go to school without school uniform and still perform better academically than those with the school uniform and identity.
Afterall, the essence of going to school is to acquire the knowledge and not necessarily to project the school identity since there are other schools that can still offer the service of imparting the same knowledge.

This is why the question reasonable Christians ask:
Of what use is the identity of the church denomination in a society that is dominated by Christians which is the body of Christ?

A student can as well wear the school uniform and become the best student. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with a student wearing school uniform to school.

Dtruthspeaker:
If you watch my tone you would see that I am not exactly attacking the practice of child baptism. And neither did I say it violates any Law in the bible.

But it does not directly violate a Law, it however, does not follow The Law but departs from it.

As you said Baptism and your holy communion are 2 separate matters in your church. So according to your church baptism is not about your holy communion.

However, I dispute in support of others that baptism means a person qualified to break bread with Christ and to eat the body and blood of Christ which your church technically calls your holy communion.

Which is what I stated above

One, whatever does not follow the law goes against the law. Tell us how infant baptism goes against baptism in the Bible. Two, point out where the Bible says that baptism and communion must follow together.

creolehunt:
Wrong, unless your own Roman Catholic church is different.

What qualifies one to revceve holy communion is the ceremony of First Holy Commuinion which is preceded by Catechism classes. Of course one has to be baptized, perform penance and recieve First Holy Communion before receiving recievwing Holy Communion.

Confirmation is a totally different ritual and isn't a prerequisite for Holy Communion and serves as a Confirmation of Faith by adults. Confirmation too isn't a mandatory requirement for Catholics and most Catholics didn't end up being Confirmed

Thank you for pointing it out. I omitted it in my correction. But you saw a part that says that those who become adults before baptism do not need the confirmation.

Disenfranchised:
Baptism is a conscious decision by the person to be baptized. A child can not make conscious decision.

Another error by the Catholic is baptism is by emersion in water and not by sprinkling of water.

Education is a conscious decision. But you take your child to school before the child becomes conscious enough to decide whether to be educated, the same way you take the child to Church or even dedicate the child on the Alter before the child becomes conscious enough to decide whether to be a Christian.

So, what is your logic?

paxonel:
You mean, if the child is not baptized, he or she does not have Christian identity?

A pupil of a school going to the school without the school uniform does not mean the pupil is not a member of the school. But wearing the school uniform helps to project the pupil's identity as a member of the school. The Catholic Church has never sent anybody out of the Church for not being baptised. So, do not twist things unnecessarily. When Christian parents fail to do child dedication in church, it does not change the Christian identity of the family. But the child dedication helps to project the family's Christian identity. This is the same thing that infant baptism can do in the Catholic Church.

Dtruthspeaker:
And this why they will always argue against the Catholic view. For you have pointed out the purposes of baptism but you guys err on its application.

You have said that baptism does not mean that the baptized has promised to abstain from sin. Meanwhile, baptism naturally means that for all intents and purposes, the baptized intends to abstain from sin.

So, something is wrong when baptism does not cleaned.

Then, secondly, on original sin, the Catholic is wrong again for generally, no person can be liable for the offences committed by another. ("no liability without fault”,).

Thus, no one is liable for Adam's offences and no man inherited that.

So, I argue that a baby does not need baptism since he has not yet committed any offence.

Baptism is for people who have committed offences.

First of all, I saw this response after correcting the mistake I made in my response that you quoted here.

Read my comment again.

And you have not pointed out exactly what is wrong with infant baptism. Infant baptism would have been wrong if it qualifies the baby to start receiving the holy communion. The Bible does not in any way say that baptism should be for only adults. Jesus Christ invites everyone including babies. The Bible does not say that baptism must be accompanied by holy communion. So the Catholic does not go against the Bible in any way by practising or believing in infant baptism. What exactly is your point?

Who said that polygamy began with Islam?

Let me understand the purpose of this post.

Dtruthspeaker:
So, what is the purpose of baptism?

In Pentecostal churches, baptism qualifies one to start receiving the holy communion because all the members become adult or almost adult before going for baptism. But in Catholic, baptism does not qualify one to start receiving the holy communion if the person received infant baptism. This is why the arguement often takes place.

Baptism is a ritual performed to cleanse original sin and demonstrate Christian identity. Baptizing an infant is a way that parents give the baby Christian identity. The parents, by doing so, are saying, "We are laying a Christian foundation for our baby".

What makes the difference is confirmation which is done by only those who did infant baptism and have become cognisant enough to differentiate sin from good and have promised to abstain from sin. It is called confirmation because the person does it to show that he or she has examined, understood and chosen the Christian foundation laid for him or her. The person by doing so is saying "I have confirmed that the Christian foundation laid for me or I laid for myself is right for me and I am dedicated to it".

Let me use something non-spiritual to explain it further. A medical or nursing student starts wearing a white clothe. The white clothe does not make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. It only shows that the student has chosen the profession and is willing to develop himself or herself in that field. The student is using the clothe to say, "This is who I want to be". This illustrates baptism. Graduation is what will make the student a qualified nurse or doctor. The graduation can be used to illustrate the purpose of confirmation in the Catholic Church.

In the Catholic Church, members who become adults before getting baptised may not go through a separate formation for confirmation before receiving the holy communion. They can receive the holy communion the same day they get baptised. This is similar to Pentecostal members who start receiving communion immediately after being baptised because they had become old enough to differentiate sin from good before they went for the baptism. Members of the Catholic Church who did infant baptism are the ones that must go through confirmation when they become adults before they start receiving the holy communion. Biblically, there is no contradiction between the way the Catholic does it and the way the Pentecostal Churches do it. It is human sentiment that created the arguement.

This arguement goes on because people do not understand the meaning and purpose of infant baptism in the Catholic Church. I mention Catholic here because that is the denomination that is constantly criticised for infant baptism.

Send her airtime immediately she misses your call. That's a way to prove that she is dishonest.

I give this suggestion because there was a time I as a man missed girls' calls and didn't have airtime to return those calls.

Not everything mentioned in the Bible is godly. Some things not mentioned in the Bible are godly.

So, be specific, what is secular music? Give examples.

Explain "living in sin", since you already said the person is serving God faithfully.

Any instances? I mean, has any university changed its name after graduating some students?

sexxxyprince:
Why are those frozen chicken in justrite cheaper than live ones ?
I bought a full frozen chicken for about 10k and live ones goes for more than 15k

Cost is highly affected by supply chains.

Justrite either has a large-scale poultry that reduces production costs in so many aspects or has suppliers that offer chicken in large quantities and at low prices.

Send your children to schools in other regions. This is even safer for your family.

If other regions act the same way, then the suspicion will be that the federal government is using J*MB against you. If other regions act differently, the suspicion will be that the Northern region is the one acting up.

ibechris:
The one statement I don’t want to hear is ‘Don’t let money control you,’ because when I was broke and poverty was controlling me, you said nothing.

When poverty had me in chains, nobody called it control.” Now money listens to me, and suddenly it’s a problem.

Those who are controlled by money rarely make so much money, they are fond of being puppets to those who control money.

Meaning it is by violence and thuggery?

Politics has never been a clean game.

Native doctor no fit use juju produce real currency.😂

I no read the post. But wetin the tanker carry?

PulaPower:
Just like say make person buy bike or motor, con put ham out for drivers make them dey deliver money..

In this case, the Tanker nah hin dem bring over to Nigeria with the delivery agreement of $900,000 biannual. To their surprised, nah $25,000 nah hin dem remit give dem tanker owners for USA and since then, the tanker varnished..

The petition names John George Igor, Leonard Kwentua, Okoye Okezie Jude, Oluwagbemiga Ebenezer, Ampliar Resources Ltd, and Ebenco Global Link Ltd as parties connected to the alleged offences.
... Do not be surprised that these scammers have been calling Nigeria bad names..

This doesn't answer my question.

Kobojunkie:
What child support? The N5000(less than $4) that some men don't even pay? Why does she have to gain from retaining the man's name even if for that measly amount?

At least, she gains your support.

Kobojunkie:
What logical reason would a woman have to want to retain the name of the man after divorce? 🥱🥱

She continues to enjoy his money in the name of child support.😂

So, Madam 40 seconds is not law-abiding?😂

Most women don't marry for love. They marry for...

The same way it tops in banditry in West Africa.

I will celebrate the acquisition if the air craft defeats banditry.

Do onto others what you want to be done onto you.

Later, she will snatch another woman's husband out of desperation.