On things theological

I'm going to toss around some theological issues here today. Firstly, I've always been of the opinion that the christian bible stopped short of telling people not to have sex outside marriage. I have therefore had some problem understanding the various christian movements which seem to promote the "no sex before maariage" philosophy. However, I've accidentally discovered a verse which partially resolves my issue.

1 Thesolonians 4:3 states, "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality". This of course does not address the issue of marriage at all. However, if we look in the JK version, we get, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication". Now I thought that fornication just meant, well sex. My father however knew better it turns out, and this weekend trust upon me a dictionary definition which actually defines fornication as sex outside marriage. So, depending on which version you like to use, bonking without the ring on your finger could be a nasty transgression. I need to learn Aramaic and look at the original. Ah, what do I care, it's too late for me anyway.

I had a discussion yesterday with a colleague of mine on the subject of baptism, which almost turned into an argument. I was slightly concerned about having the discussion at all since I wasn't sure quite which God she actually bows to. She is half Pakistani and half Welsh; it was tough to make a prediction. I was pretty sure she had some faith however, since she had previously claimed that faith was necessary for morality, a philosophy with which I cannot agree.

I'm not sure how the conversation came round to baptism, but it did, and I was prompted to do my standard speech about baptism being basically evil when performed upon a child not old enough to understand the significance of the event. I have no problem with my son being baptised, but in my view, he has to make the decision himself. However, my Welsh Pakistani friend claimed that I would have my child baptised ASAP if I really believed that he would be left for all eternity in limbo without it. I disagreed, but it's been bothering me for 24 hours. The fact is, I would baptise my child if I thought he would be denied entry to paradise otherwise because, as was pointed out to me, I want the absolute best for my son.

I'm not sure what the significance of this is. I do however want to continue this conversation. The fact that I would do the deed if I believed in it's power is not really the central issue. The point is, I don't believe baptism does anything other than push children unknowingly towards a faith about which they really should be making up their own minds.

I don't think anyone actually believes in linbo anymore do they? It's not canonical. I think only mad catholics still give it any time. Wasn't it some pope that came up with the notion? Popes are infallible of course, even when they disagree with each other. I haven't shifted position anyway. I'd never allow my son to be baptised before he was old enough to make the choice. He's going to be confused enough as it is with an ex-buddhist mother, atheist father brought up in a christian family, and both christian and buddhist grandparents. One could argue of course that he has a much bigger pool than most in which to fish for information before making an informed decision. I quite like that theory.

For the record, I was never christened, something for which I am enormously grateful to my parents for. Of course, I would say that, being an evangelical atheist, but I can always get myself christened if my position changes. I would be unhappy if I had been christened, yet I don't think I would be unhappy about not being christened, even if I were a believer. And there my position stays, for now at least.