Infant Baptism(Christian Brainwash)

Debate Room
1

“The practice of infant baptism ensures that belief systems are inherited, not chosen, promoting social conformity over individual exploration.”

There are scholars and critics who have questioned or critiqued the practice of infant baptism, particularly in the Orthodox Christian tradition, where it is often viewed as a ritual of initiation into Christianity without the child’s personal consent. The concerns are typically based on several points:

1. Criticism of Infant Baptism as a Non-Consensual Act
Many scholars and theologians, especially from more Protestant or secular perspectives, argue that infant baptism can be problematic because it involves a religious act performed without the infant’s consent or understanding. This ritual, might undermine the authenticity of personal belief and free will, as it is done for a child who cannot actively choose or reject the faith.

2. Theological Debates on the Nature of Baptism
Scholars from different Christian denominations (including Reformed or Anabaptist traditions) have historically debated the theological justification for infant baptism. Figures like John Calvin and Martin Luther supported infant baptism, arguing that it was a necessary sacrament, but Anabaptists rejected it, believing baptism should be a conscious decision made by an individual as an expression of personal faith.

Secular scholars critique the ritual more broadly as an example of how religious traditions can shape and limit individual autonomy, particularly when individuals are baptized into a religious identity at birth, which can later restrict their freedom of choice regarding religious affiliation.

3. Critiques of Orthodox Rituals and Naming Practices
Critics of traditional Orthodox Christian rituals sometimes point out the limited naming pool in Orthodox cultures, where names are often chosen from a set list of saints’ names, with little room for individuality. The concern here is that such practices can contribute to social conformity and the suppression of personal identity. This is often framed within larger critiques of how religious traditions can impose uniformity on people’s identities from birth.

Cultural anthropologists and sociologists also critique the way religious practices like baptism tie individuals to a particular social and cultural identity, limiting the diversity of names and ideas a child might later identify with.

4. Social Control and the Influence of Tradition
From a sociological perspective, some critics argue that rituals like baptism, particularly when imposed from birth, serve as a mechanism of social control. By incorporating children into a religious community at birth, the Orthodox tradition (like many other religions) ensures that the next generation adheres to the community’s values and practices without questioning them.

This can be seen as an example of cultural brainwashing—where an individual’s beliefs, values, and identity are formed and controlled by external institutions, rather than by personal choice or rational decision-making.

*"Religious rituals like infant baptism serve as tools of institutional control, *
cementing allegiance before an individual can even make a conscious choice."

…

“Religious institutions thrive by securing membership early, creating a generational cycle of loyalty that leaves little room for independent thought.”

This perspective aligns with a critical view of religious rituals as tools of socialization and institutional control. The practice of infant baptism in the Orthodox Christian tradition, along with other religious rituals, can be seen by some as a way to secure adherence to religious belief from a very early age, promoting the continuation and growth of the religious institution and its power structures.

From this viewpoint, the ritual of baptism serves multiple purposes for the Orthodox Church and similar institutions:

1. Reinforcing Institutional Control:
Infant baptism ensures that individuals are brought into the church community even before they can make a conscious decision about their faith. By doing so, it helps to maintain a continuous membership base, which benefits the church in terms of influence, social cohesion, and resources.

This practice can be seen as a way to cement institutional loyalty early on, ensuring that the individual’s identity is tied to the institution from birth, often without the chance for independent exploration or choice.

2. Promoting Religious Identity:
By baptizing infants, religious institutions create a religious identity for individuals before they have a chance to evaluate or even consider other belief systems. This can be viewed as a form of cultural indoctrination or brainwashing, as individuals are introduced to a set of beliefs and practices without their consent.

The limited naming conventions further solidify this identity, as individuals often inherit names of saints or religious figures, reinforcing their ties to the church and its traditions.

3. Social and Cultural Conformity:
The ritual ensures that children are raised within a religious framework that shapes their worldview, often from the earliest stages of their lives. This cultural conformity can make it more difficult for individuals to question their religious beliefs or consider other philosophical or spiritual paths later in life.
As the child grows, their cultural and social identity is reinforced by their family, community, and church, making it harder to separate from the dominant religious narrative.

4. Preserving the Church’s Power:
By baptizing infants, the church not only maintains membership but also perpetuates the importance of religious institutions in shaping people’s lives. This can be seen as a way to ensure the church’s survival and power across generations.

Over time, this leads to a system where individuals are born into the faith and may rarely, if ever, consider alternatives, as the church’s influence is deeply embedded in their social, cultural, and personal identities.

5. Challenging Religious Authority:
Some critics view practices like infant baptism as a form of manipulation, designed to secure power and control over individuals before they have the ability to challenge or resist the religious authority. This leads to a situation where religion is not a matter of personal belief or choice, but rather a social inheritance dictated by external forces.

This can be seen in broader discussions about religious freedom, where individuals should have the right to choose their beliefs rather than have them imposed by family or societal expectations from an early age.

''Baptism isn’t just a ritual; it’s a way to embed institutional loyalty into the fabric of identity, coercively ensuring the church’s influence across generations."

From my perspective, infant baptism can be viewed as a ritual that functions within a larger framework of Christian brainwashing, promoting religious conformity and benefiting the Orthodox Christian institutions by ensuring a constant supply of followers. This practice is a means to instill Christian identity from birth, securing the individual’s allegiance to the church, often without their conscious consent or choice. Critics of religious rituals like baptism often see them as mechanisms of social control that benefit the institution at the expense of individual freedom and self-determination.

“I consider ethnic, religious, and other cultural traditions to be forms of brainwashing that usually begin at a very young age.”

…

“It is wise to respect human rights and freedom by allowing children to grow both physically and mentally before introducing them to complex cognitive concepts such as theory of mind and the exploitation of cognitive mechanisms from belief systems. Only then, when they are capable of understanding these concepts, should they be educated about the nature of religious beliefs and other fiction-based constructs, such as artificial identities and the divisive nature of ‘self-belonging’ ideologies as well as logical fallacies and rhetoric methods being used to justify them. Ultimately, they should be given the freedom to decide for themselves whether they wish to believe in anything at all.”

Loren

2

You make a lot of interesting points, but I believe that the roots of baptism are a lot simpler, and I believe that we can understand the social implications of baptism if we look at where it came from

In the distant past, disease was often seen as a punishment and/or trial from God (or gods). A good example from the Old Testament is Job . . . whom was covered in boils as the result of a sadistic wager between God and Satan.

Leprosy is often mentioned in The Bible, but leprosy in Biblical times were probably many different skin diseases, and not the specific infection that we know of today as leprosy.

So, my point is that washing and bathing goes a long way toward preventing such skin diseases . . . everything from lice, bacteria that cause boils, and so forth. Many other illnesses besides skin disease can be prevented by bathing, as lice carry many diseases (such as typhus). Even today, nurses actually do coursework on handwashing, as washing one’s hands is a cornerstone of disease prevention.

In a pre-scientific culture, it seems–at least to me–that a holy, spiritual connection between bathing and a reduction in disease would set the stage for the ritualistic ceremony of baptism, as diseases are a punishment from God.

So baptism washes away sins . . . and the “reborn” religious convert is “blessed” by a reduction in the diseases that come from God’s punishment for sinful behavior.

I am not an anthropologist, so this speculation is outside of my degree, but this is what I believe.

1 Like
3

I appreciate that you acknowledge your beliefs as speculative. First of all, that was not about the origins of baptism, which, by the way, is a fascinating story (not in a good way), but rather about a modern manipulative ritual that goes against many aspects of freedom and human rights.

Me and my sister were forcibly baptized in 1995 in Athens, Greece, in order for Greek schools to accept us. That was a human rights violation against our freedom of choice. We weren’t even allowed to keep our real names; we had to adopt Greek Orthodox Christian names, which further enhanced our culture shock (as immigrants) and disrupted our personal identities.

I am not aware of Job’s story, nor am I intrigued to learn about it. I avoid theological approaches to historical events because they do not make sense to me; they are outdated and inefficient as guides for modern societal needs. I prefer to rely on valid historical facts and science.

…

Nevertheless, I can create a new topic for the origins of baptism, although the historical facts are not plentiful, especially the archaeological ones, we have some historical evidence of its implementation based on people’s beliefs even before Jesus.

What I think we should mention in this topic is that baptism was originally a ritual to wash (cleanse or forgive) the sins of adults until about the 4th–5th century CE, when the Orthodox Church started practicing infant baptism and became more widespread, using it as a manipulative tool for social control and preserving the church’s power, particularly with the influence of Emperor Constantine and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine himself was baptized later in life, but his reign, along with the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, played a significant role in shaping Christian doctrine and practices, including baptism.

Early Christian communities, especially in the first few centuries after Jesus’ death, practiced baptism primarily for adults who were able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. Infant baptism became more prominent as theological arguments developed, especially in the 4th century, with the constructed idea that baptism was necessary for the remission of original sin (a doctrine promoted by figures like Augustine of Hippo).

4

Well it depicts the biblical deity ruining a devout man’s life, taking away everything from him, even killing his entire family, and all for a bet it had with the devil. Next tie someone is claiming the biblical deity is a perfectly moral or benevolent deity, it’d be worth citing the myth of Job, just to see their reaction.

FWIW, some of the mental gymnastics are impressive in their own right, but mostly you get deflection and evasion, if not outright denial, ir it suddenly become allegorical, and god mysterious.

1 Like
5

Your point, however, seems unrelated to my main argument about infant baptism and societal control. I don’t wish to delve into theological stories like Job, as they are not relevant to the current discussion. There are plenty of biblical stories that can challenge or critique the ideas of religious morality, particularly regarding the notion that the biblical deity (God) is morally benevolent.

Additionally, we cannot be certain of the validity of Job’s story, or any other religious texts for that matter, as we don’t have original or authentic manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies, which makes it difficult to verify their historical accuracy. Let facts and reason guide our conversation within context.

6

Of course, it was just a reference for future use.

Indeed not, nor was I remotely suggesting it was in anyway true of course. Rather that the actions of the deity depicted, are at odds with some claims theists make about the biblical deity.

The RCC of course, has long used things like marriage and baptism to bully and blackmail people. I can think of few things worse than denying a baptism to the grieving parents of a dead child for example, and in their eyes at least, denying them an afterlife together.

Personally of course I find the notion of original sin utterly absurd, but as an hypothetical I find the idea morally repugnant as well.

3 Likes
7

That you can prevent many diseases by washing and observing basic hygiene should be a matter of observation, as e.g. per Semmelweiss. If rules regarding washing really were a god-given piece of advice or commandment, why the hell should not this deity’s own “holy” scriptures say so explicitly, instead of camouflaging bathing and washing as something you do to honour your sky daddy? If this god fella really meant people to wash to prevent disease, why didn’t he express it clearly in his scriptures, then, as e.g. a commandent?

  • “Thou shall wash your hands before eating or preparing food, or else fall sick yourself.”
  • “Thou shall wash your hands after caring for the sick, or else risk falling sick yourself.”
  • “Thou shall wash your hands before treating wounds, or else risk killing your patient.”

And why doesn’t the bible etc. give recipes for making soap if preventing illness is the godly reason behind bathing? And why choose a desert tribe, with uncertain access to clean water, to carry his divine knowledge? This just doesn’t compute.

2 Likes
8

Simple instructions on how to build a flushing toilet, might have saved countless billions of lives, instead the bible offers explicit instructions on how to buy, own, and beat slaves.

3 Likes
9

Marriage originated as a social contract rather than a purely religious ritual. In early human societies, it primarily served practical purposes like forming alliances between families, securing property rights, and ensuring lineage and inheritance. Even then, its purposes violated many aspects of freedom and human rights, especially for women, who were often used as tools for negotiations.

Over time, secular legal systems began to separate marriage from its religious roots, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries, focusing more on personal choice, equality, and civil rights. However, religious narratives around marriage as a sacred, lifelong union still influence many cultures today.

Religious influence on marriage emerged as organized belief systems developed. In ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece, marriage had both legal and ceremonial aspects but wasn’t deeply tied to morality or spirituality. However, with the rise of religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, marriage became increasingly spiritualized and moralized, often seen as a divine covenant.

Nowadays, in Albania and most Balkan countries, marriage usually doesn’t take place in a church or religious temple but either in the groom’s or bride’s household, often celebrated with food and Balkan folk music. Meanwhile, in Greece and, I assume, other Christian countries, marriage typically requires a church ceremony conducted by priests as representatives of God. Many people I know were married in churches mainly because their parents requested it. However, some choose a simple civil marriage at the town hall, which is much cheaper, costing around 40-50 euros.

Christianity, particularly through the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), formalized marriage as a sacrament around the 12th century CE, emphasizing its indissolubility and divine purpose for procreation and union. This shift gave religious authorities greater control over personal relationships and social order.

I personally oppose marriage: “Να ζείτε ελεύθερα, να συζείτε ελεύθερα” (Live freely, cohabit freely).

Spot on.

Very well put.

1 Like
10

I’m not convinced this is accurate.

Has it been definitively determined that this was the case for prehistoric or oral-only cultures? Was / is it the case for, say, indigenous cultures in N & S America or Pacific Islander cultures?

It occurs to me that, given the variety of cultures across the planet and across time, there’s just know way of verifying this assertion.

2 Likes
11

You’re right that there are religious groups or communities that practiced marital ceremonies before written language, and the diversity of practices complicates a straightforward narrative. However, there are examples that support the idea that marriage, in its earliest forms(the earliest we have evidence for), was more of a social contract than a purely religious act.

While we lack direct written records, archaeological evidence from prehistoric societies (such as burial sites) suggests that early human relationships were often based on practical concerns like kinship and alliances. The arrangement of marriages for social or familial ties is reflected in some of the earliest human societies, where the main concern was often establishing paternity, lineage, and the passing on of inheritance.

In ancient Mesopotamia (circa 2000 BCE), marriage contracts were written on clay tablets, formalizing agreements between families for the purposes of property, inheritance, and alliances. These agreements were legal, not inherently religious, and emphasized the securing of wealth and societal status rather than religious sacraments. While rituals were involved, their primary function was to ensure societal order and legal rights.

Ancient Egyptian marriages were often seen as contracts between two families, focusing on the protection of women and the inheritance of wealth and land. While there were ceremonies and some religious aspects (such as invoking gods for blessings), the primary focus of marriage was legal and social stability. Marriage was also crucial for ensuring lineage and succession in royal and noble families.

Early Hindu marriage practices (dating back to around 1500 BCE) were initially seen as social and legal bonds. The Vedic texts mention marriage as a duty of the individual (and family) to uphold social order, rather than as a purely spiritual or religious ceremony. While rituals were involved, they were grounded in societal needs and ensuring continuity of the family structure.

In many indigenous cultures, marriage was often a social arrangement that involved ceremonial practices, but it wasn’t always religious in the sense that later Western traditions define it. For example, in many Pacific Islander and Native American cultures, marriage was primarily about forming alliances, securing resources, and creating stable family units, with religious elements incorporated as part of cultural rituals.

As I mentioned, the religious significance of marriage became more prominent with the rise of organized religions. This happened over time as religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism introduced sacred rites for marriage, turning it into a formal, often divinely sanctioned institution. Christianity, for example, formalized marriage as a sacrament around the 12th century, emphasizing procreation, faithfulness, and divine covenant, which later influenced many cultures around the world.

That said, I agree with your point that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to verify these assertions definitively, given the lack of concrete evidence for prehistoric or oral-only cultures. What I’ve shared here is based on the archaeological and historical evidence that we do have, which suggests that marriage’s origins were rooted more in social contracts than religious or spiritual beliefs. Religious elements, as we know them, were layered onto marriage over time as societies and belief systems evolved.

It was a bold statement, and I hope this clarifies it.

12

Does this mean you are retracting your assertion?

1 Like
13

No, I’m not retracting my assertion. I just had to add ‘based on the evidence we have,’ as that’s the context in which I’m making the statement. I thought I made that clear.

14

While that can suit some people, marriage (in the form of a legal contract) can be beneficial for a lot of people regarding economical and legal questions. For example, the spouses are secured certain rights regarding inheritance, the legal rights regarding children (both the parents’ and the children’s rights) they might have are specified, and certain legal rights and responsibilities if the other spouse is hospitalised and medical decisions have to be taken.

3 Likes
15

I don’t disagree with any of your points

As usual, I didn’t express myself very well.

I meant to say that the bronze-age tribes would interpret a reduction in disease to divine will, so washing away sins becomes the foundation of baptism, as disease comes from God (in their minds).

1 Like
16

I agree with you. I didn’t make myself clear in my previous statement:

I should have added that this is a more reasonable approach to formalize a marriage when it comes to ensuring parental and children’s rights in case of conflict between the parents.

Although, the laws regarding parental rights within marriage or after divorce are far from equal in most countries. Particularly in Greece, men are often required to pay women, while women typically retain custody of the children. Fathers can only spend time with their children for a specified number of hours or days per week, as defined by the court, and often under the mother’s permission. There are ongoing protests from fathers demanding equal time with their children, highlighting the systemic issues with current custody laws. And it can get far more complicated than this.

Usually, reasonable people, in rare circumstances, don’t seek divorce unless they plan to remarry. When they do, they often share parental responsibilities, both financial and nurturing, without judicial intervention. In such cases, a simple civil marriage at the town hall could adequately protect children’s rights.

Again, I wrote a bold statement without properly grounding my views. I don’t wish to expand further on this as it falls outside the context of this topic. I oppose marriage as a ritual (not as a contract) which creates a fiction bond between couples.

1 Like
17

Their interpretation aligns with the God of the Gaps fallacy. This fallacy occurs when gaps in scientific or natural understanding are attributed to divine intervention rather than a lack of knowledge(Agnosticism).

In the context of Bronze Age tribes, associating reduced disease with divine will fits this pattern. Since they lacked the scientific understanding of pathogens, hygiene, and disease transmission, they might have linked health improvements to spiritual causes. The idea that washing away sins could prevent illness (leading to rituals like baptism) reflects an attempt to explain observable outcomes through supernatural reasoning due to limited knowledge.

However, it’s important to consider its cultural context too. These beliefs weren’t purely fallacious in their time but part of an evolving understanding of cause and effect, where moral behavior was often linked to physical health.

Moral behavior and physical well-being were often seen as connected, not purely out of ignorance but as part of an early framework for understanding cause and effect. This evolving thought process laid the foundation for both spiritual rituals and, indirectly, early public health practices.

Edit: By “reduced disease,” I mean a noticeable decrease in the spread or severity of illnesses within a community. For example, improved hygiene practices, such as washing hands or bathing, could lead to fewer infections, even if people didn’t fully understand the biological reasons, they might have observed a link between certain behaviors (like ritual washing) and better health outcomes without understanding germs. This could be interpreted as divine favor or the cleansing of spiritual impurity, rather than a scientific cause-effect relationship.

1 Like
18

Exactly my point, so thank you.

1 Like
19

I read your post again, you made your point bro, though it lacks clarity. My bad, I was confused because you mentioned Job, which felt out of context, and I read it in a hurry.

1 Like
20

Yes, the formalisation in the form of the signing of a legal contract is the essence. Cost is an entirely different aspect of it. But some people love the attention, the pomp and circumstance, and all the (imho unnecessary) rituals. Personally, I don’t like rituals and the attention exposure they bring. But to each their own, so if people really want to go through all the faff, then by all means, do it.

The real problem, as I see it, is the misguided idea that a couple is not getting “properly” married unless they also add the extra stuff with supernatural blessings and rituals, throwing a big party, etc. It’s as if the couple bereaves their friends and relatives of a party they are entitled to if they do it discretely. Same with infant baptism - I know lots of otherwise secular people who let their babies go through that because their parents and/or grandparents expect it and become disappointed if they don’t do it. Because rituals and shit.

1 Like