ZBB Census 2013

[ObsequiousNewt]

Religion: none, but underwent a Catholic emergency baptism after birth - does that count?

I realise this is an emergency baptism that was Catholic... but I do like the idea of a Catholic emergency. "Quick, quick, there's a Catholic emergency! We need more baptisms, people! EMERGENCY!"

I've been baptized as a Catholic myself... is it possible to get un-baptized? Or am I stuck as "technically a Catholic" for life?

[Hallow XIII]

given your username I should have thought you were mormon

[Pthagnar]

you cannot get unbaptised.

maybe satanists do it or something, but satanists say a lot of things

you will probably also end up getting pissed on

[Astraios]

Znex, Sal, Drydic: Thanks!
That's what happens when I want to avoid the perfect because it sounds too German...

It sounds just fine to say 'didn't .. since' colloquially though, at least to me.

[Ars Lande]

you cannot get unbaptised.

maybe satanists do it or something, but satanists say a lot of things

you will probably also end up getting pissed on

Actually, it is possible to get unbaptised. I think the procedure consists in writing to the parish you were baptised in and to the corresponding bishop.
They will then add a "renounced baptism" mention to the baptism records. You also get automatically excommunicated in the process.
This is pretty pointless, but it can be done and some people insist on it. (This is pointless because the only practical consequence of a Catholic baptism is that your name appears somewhere on the records of the local church. The Church then proceeds to do absolutely nothing with these records. Well, I think they do check it once if you get married religiously. Around here, people seem to think that the Church uses these records to estimate the number of Catholics. They don't.)

[Torco]

I hear the vatican has an official declaration of apostasy you can mail your bishop, but it may be bullshit

[Pthagnar]

that isn't being unbaptised. the initiatory sacraments (baptism, confirmation, holy orders and kind of sort of matrimony too) have an indelible effect on the soul. sure, you can put a mark on somebody's file saying that this person rejects their baptism, but normally in history (and indeed, elsewhere in the world today), when religious authorities have kept special lists of apostates, people act like this is a Bad Thing.

it is not entirely silly and pointless to do this if you do not believe in baptism -- take the example of marriage. there are plenty of people who do not believe in holy matrimony who have taken the idea of 'marriage' and turned it into something entirely secular -- it has gone from being an eternal spiritual union of two souls -- one male, one female -- which cannot be broken by any secular authority, to a contract between any two people (at present), overseen by secular authority, and which has something to do with romantic love and probably cohabitation.

catholics disagree, of course, and say 'marriage' still refers to the first thing, but they WOULD, wouldn't they? if the same trick of changing the meaning of 'baptism' (in the speech-community of people who use the word in much the same way that the meaning of 'marriage' has changed ) from 'the grace of god washing away original sin from the soul of the one baptised, giving them new and eternal life in christ' to 'your name is included in a database of people who are called catholics' then this is another victory for secular folk against catholics, and so there is every reason to do this if you are determined to win such a victory.

ne: there are also good reasons to do this, just like there are good reasons to change the definition of marriage. there are lots of reasons why people may want to get baptised, or have their children baptised. some of the better schools in britain tend to be church schools, who only let, or preferentially let, children in who are baptised in the church. if 'baptism' stops being a weighty irrevocable spiritual matter, and is simply a matter of subscription, people will feel happier about baptising their children to this end. christenings are also a nice initiatory rite -- the child is the centre of attention and an important person -- or at least a person in important clothing -- names the child and does something special to it, and all your friends get to watch and gifts are given. discard the spiritual aspect and you still have a nice ceremony.

nne: of course, advocacy by nice means *does* work to destroy the authority of the church in the exact same way that the anti-papist atheists who hate religion and explicitly want to destroy it work, because they are working towards the same end: which is how hateful atheists can use nice people who don't hate god and the church and are indeed probably vaguely for both (they still see some value in being baptised, after all, whereas your dawkinsite is spitefully against the whole pot of beans) to work politically in their favour.

[Torco]

I'm sorry, pthug, but pretending Mother Church invented matrimony is just silly, mainly because it did not... hell, it didn't even invent baptism.

[Pthagnar]

see, there are all kinds of arguments which you can tediously bring up when you see the right words, no matter what the fuck the person you are talking to is saying, and it makes you feel good to say them.

[Torco]

Fair enough, I suppose... on topic only catholics think baptism is a sacrament that does indeleble stuff to the soul; for noncatholics, its just one of the rites of one of the religions of our world. then again, from that perpsective anyone could undo their baptism simply by thinking about it, but if baptism is formal inclusion into the catholic community, apostasy would be its undoing, right? formal exclusion from the catholic community?

[Pthagnar]

where did i make any claim where what you said counters anything? fuck who invented what originally -- the idea of sprinkling water on things at least goes back to elephants. the point is, the west used to be a christian society, before the 1950s or the 19th century or quibble as you will -- baptism would be understood as what i said, marriage the same. now they are not. pagans are irrelevant because *i am talking about contemporary politics here and now*, not in eternity.

[Radagast revived]

Basics
Username:Radagast_revived, formerly Radagast
Other nicknames: Maunus
Birthplace: Holbæk, Denmark
Place of residence: US, Mexico and Denmark alternately
Occupation: PhD student in linguistic anthropology

Identity
Gender: Male
Sexuality: Yes
Relationship: 7 years of marriage
Brain: 44% left 56% right
Nationality: Danish
Ethnicity: undecided, perhaps latino
Religion: No thank you.
Politics: pinko

Measurements
Age: 35
Blood type:O+
Handedness: right

Languages
Native language(s): Danish
Other languages: English, Spanish, Nahuatl, German, Greenlandic, Otomi, Latin,
Your conlangs: Mélw (inactive)

Favorites: 1 each!
Favorite language: Sindarin
Favorite color: green
Favorite food: grilled animal meat and potatoes
Favorite drink: coffee, Mexican coca cola in glass bottle, beer
Favorite sport: watching: WWF and Ninja Warrior (watching), practicing: none
Favorite book: hmmm so many to choose from

Extra credit
Name one interesting talent you have: I play the Mandolin (Irish and Choro) and gutar (folk and blues fingerpicking) quite well
Your favorite pun: No thanks.

[Pthagnar]

On topic only catholics think baptism is a sacrament that does indeleble stuff to the soul; for noncatholics, its just one of the rites of one of the religions of our world. then again, from that perpsective anyone could undo their baptism simply by thinking about it, but if baptism is formal inclusion into the catholic community, apostasy would be its undoing, right? formal exclusion from the catholic community?

no
there is no formal undoing of the process which is achieved in baptism: the formal structure is all set out in catholic doctrine and has been for centuries. people have accepted and lived in this formal structure.

if you *reject* the formal structure, then you reject the formal structure -- fine and good. but if you then go on to come up with your *own* formal structure which does allow an undoing of baptism, then you are *replacing* it. one system replaces the other, and the proponents of the new system win, those of the old system lose. this is uncontroversial, and you have no reason to quibble about this.

i was explaining why it is *not* pointless for secular radicals to "get unbaptised", because this is an incorrect thing i have heard said before, including just now. if you have anything to say on this, it will be worth listening to you, until then you are shitposting.

[kanejam]

the last one was started 2 and a half years ago so i think we need a new one. fill it in, with as much as you're comfortable giving away on a publically accessible website (ie, you don't need to fill in every section).

Basics
Username: kanejam
Name:
Other nicknames: DaveAchmed, leperspawn
Birthplace: Auckland
Place of residence: Auckland
Occupation: Student

Identity
Gender: Male
Sexuality: Bi
Relationship: Yes
Nationality: Kiwi
Ethnicity: Pakeha
Religion: None, really
Politics: Leftish

Measurements
Age: 19
Height: about 6'2"
Weight: about 75, nearly 12 stone
Shoe size: 9
Blood type: The common one, O-?
Handedness: Left

Languages
Native language(s): English
Other languages: French, basic Chinese
Your conlangs: Mulessuax, Bresano, Ketzumin

Favourites: 1 each!
Favourite language: ummm.... Mongolian maybe
Favourite colour: Red or blue
Favourite food: Fried noodles
Favourite drink: Whiskey sour or Lemon lime bitters (I think that's an Australasian thing, you should all try it if you haven't)
Favourite sport: Rugby or underwater hockey
Favourite book: Discworld series
Favourite movie: Gran Torino or The Intouchables
Favourite game: Skyrim

Extra credit
Name one interesting talent you have: I can play the piano pretty well
Your favourite pun: Look, a graveyard. I hear people are just dying to get in!

[Torco]

so wouldn't the case be that baptism *was* irreversible and now it is ?

[Pthagnar]

it is still not the case that *marriage* is irreversible. we're not in utopia yet, comrade.

[Salmoneus]

so wouldn't the case be that baptism *was* irreversible and now it is ?

De re or de dicto?

De re, baptism-1 is not and never has been reversible, aiui, although I may be wrong.
De re, baptism-2 is reversible.
De dicto, baptism-nonumber was irreversible and now is reversible, iff the primary meaning of 'baptism' has shifted from baptism-1 to baptism-2.

I don't think it has. I think it has probably shifted to baptism-3, meaning something like "having a priest shake water over you". IME, people mostly talk of baptism as an event, rather than as a state of being.

[ObsequiousNewt]

given your username I should have thought you were mormon

I... what... okay, this stereotype is new to me; care to elucidate?

[Drydic]

given your username I should have thought you were mormon

I... what... okay, this stereotype is new to me; care to elucidate?

I think it's the semi-obscure learnèd adjective + noun. I dismissed it based on you being from the midwest, barely any mormons left there.

[ObsequiousNewt]

given your username I should have thought you were mormon

I... what... okay, this stereotype is new to me; care to elucidate?

I think it's the semi-obscure learnèd adjective + noun. I dismissed it based on you being from the midwest, barely any mormons left there.

Huh, did not know that was a thing. Rather humorous, how many stereotypes I unwittingly trigger; most of my friends think I'm secretly Sheldon Cooper when I haven't even seen the show.
If you're curious, I got "obsequious" from Steve Martin's "Grandmother's Song". "Newt" I just picked at random. I figured it was a bit more creative than tacking a bunch of numbers onto your name.

[Ars Lande]

Pthagnar:
Sure, in Catholic doctrine, baptism has an indelible effect on the soul. But that's besides the point, because people that would like to get unbaptised probably reject Catholic doctrine.
In other words: I'm an atheist. I'm pretty sure souls don't exist. Why should I care about imaginary effects on an non-existing soul?

I imagine ObsequiousNewt is similarly unconcerned (or he wouldn't ask about unbaptism in the first place). What he actually wants to do is reject all implications of Catholism that might arise due to his baptism.
Like I said, that is fairly easy to do; all you have to do is renounce baptism. You can even get the Church to recognize this officially, if that really troubles you.

You're also saying that not so long ago (before the 1950s or 60s or whatever), people took Catholic doctrine a lot more seriously and would not even consider rejecting baptism. That is entirely true, but besides the point.

As it happens, people get unbaptised, or renounce baptism relatively often. (Though after some half-assed googling, apparently this is mostly a French thing, unsurprisingly)
This is pointless, because just like you said, people seem to assume that baptism is a matter of subscription.
Except that it's not; the Catholic church does not treat baptism as a subscription, you don't get a membership card, and baptised children are not entered in the Vatican master database. There is no such database and baptism is a spiritual matter, which IMO atheists and agnosticists should be unconcerned about.

Perhaps we should move this discussion to a separate thread.

[Salmoneus]

You're missing the point.

Baptism is a Thing only within the theoretical structure of the Church (let's keep it to the Catholics for now, no doubt things differ among the heathens). You want to reverse the Thing. But within the theoretical structure of the Church, there is no way to reverse the Thing. And outside the theoretical structure of the Church, there is also no way to reverse the Thing, because the Thing does not exist outside the Church. If baptism were recognised by the state, the state might have a way to let people get unbaptised. But it isn't (at least, not the states around here), so it doesn't. The state doesn't have a way to get unbaptised, and the church doesn't have a way to get unbaptised.

Now, you can invent a ritual to go through to make yourself be unbaptised, but that's just your own little ritual. It has nothing to do with baptism. It's the equivalent of those american nutters who believe they don't have to pay taxes if they send the state the right coded message. If it makes you feel better, sure, but it's not actually reversing baptism - you can't make up a ritual to reverse baptism, because you weren't the one who did the ritual of baptism in the first place. Baptism is just a matter of how the Church sees you, and it's up to the church how it wants to see you, not you - no ritual you do can magically change other people's minds.

[Torco]

But baptism is a thing outside the church. like, it has cultural and social meaning to the societies Mother Church embeds itself into: It may mean a whole lot of spiritual and transcendental things about god touching your soul or whatever within the framework of Catholicism, but it also means stuff outside of it, just like getting a ID document may mean a bunch of stuff within the legal framework of the State but it can also be a Thing with Meaning for that tribe the Brazilian government gave documents to that hypothetical one time. And, from their perspective, that Thing that is the ID-giving is a Thing and can be reversed by ritually burning it just like from the perspective of the State the inclusion into its databases cannot be undone.

In the end, I suppose, whether baptism can really be reversed or not is a nonsense question... its like asking how many angels you can fit in a pinhead or -real case- whether or not vampires, if they hibernated, could be awakened by a sort of internal clock after a preset amount of time: Maybe baptisms, vampires and angels are just stuff people imagine, and as such they have exactly the traits people imagine them to have. I know this sounds incredibly postmodern but hey, its not like you can be positivistic with regards to imaginaries -unless you go with their *real* distribution in *real* meatspace, like "catholics think it can't be reversed, 78% of everyone else thinks its silly of them to say that" or something like that.

[hwhatting]

In order to side-track this thread even more:

there are plenty of people who do not believe in holy matrimony who have taken the idea of 'marriage' and turned it into something entirely secular -- it has gone from being an eternal spiritual union of two souls -- one male, one female -- which cannot be broken by any secular authority,...

Concerning the part I underlined - can any of the experts on Catholic doctrine on this board tell me whether this is indeed so and how eternal spiritual union of two souls squares with (a) the Catholic church allowing widowers / widows to remarry and (b) with the whole "no marriage valid after resurrection" issue (Mark XII, 25)? Does the church allow multiple soul unions after death? Does resurrection resolve those unions? Does only one of the unions count for eternity? (I assume Mark XII, 25 is one of the reasons why the Protestant churches don't count marriage / matrimony as a sacrament).

[Ars Lande]

Maybe I haven't been clear enough...

People who get 'un-baptisms' or however you call it feel that as a consequence of their baptism, they are unwillingly Catholics, even if it's in the most theoretical sense of the word and would like to officially renounce it.
That is also how I understood ObsequiousNewt's question.
It turns out there is a recognized procedure to do exactly that.