Featured In 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 29, Paul speaks in favor of baptizing living persons on behalf of the dead.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's my list of good points from both sides...

Proxy baptism is biblical:
1. Paul used the practice as a supporting point for the resurrection.

Proxy baptism goes against the Bible:
1. Baptism doesn't lead to salvation
2. Consent is required (dead people can't consent)

Please do tell if I missed anything... Maybe more to come.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

One good explanation I found that goes with my points in this thread... probably the best way to put it...

One explanation regarding the apparent reference to proxy baptism is, “Yes, Paul mentions proxy baptism but does not take time to address or condemn it.” He simply appeals to those who held the view of substitutionary baptism from the standpoint of the resurrection, his main subject, it is further explained.

Whatever understanding we have of I Corinthians 15: 29, we must not view the verse as teaching vicarious baptism. At the absolute most, I Corinthians 15: 29 may be referring to an unauthorized practice among some of baptism by substitution (the challenge inherent in this explanation is “justifying” Paul's oblique and passing reference). For sure, vicarious baptism contradicts every relevant teaching and example regarding water baptism and, therefore, must not even be viewed as a tenable explanation for “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead...?”

Source: BibleQuestions.org

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I think the fact that Paul uses it as an example means that Paul approves of living persons being baptized on behalf of decease relative.

I find it odd that you reject the clear doctrines of the Bible but are so dogmatic about an obscure belief that has no support. I mean you are free to believe what you want, but I just find it curious.

I think the Bible is written by human beings. And taking a good long look at the “weird” parts is an excellent way to illustrate this.

Just like Romeo & Juliet and Macbeth are written by a human being, most probably Will Shakespeare, but possibly Christopher Marlowe.

I will say that Paul is almost a modern writer.

Maybe the heart-felt letter to a group is a particularly good form. And in the hands of a good writer really shows energy and the personality of the writer. And maybe some of the ancient Romans are just as good writers, I just don’t know of any.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Consent is required (dead people can't consent)

As we both know, the Bible does not focus on consent.

I’ve think we’ve had a thread on the part in the Old Testament, that if a man rapes a young woman, he’s required to marry her, and then everything is right and proper ? ! ?

That might make sense if we only focus on the propert right of the father.

But if the young woman is your sister or someone else you care about, making her marry the man who raped her is just terrible.

============

A less awful example is the part of the Old Testament in which a man is instructed — or commanded ? ? — to marry his brother’s widow if and when the brother dies. This could have been made better by adding the word “may.” Or, by adding “if compatible” and that would give some flex to the rule.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

As we both know, the Bible does not focus on consent.

In some cases, consent or choice is not involved. You rightly pointed out examples. When it comes to being saved, I think there is an individual choice. If someone doesn't want to be saved, then God won't force them.

This is one example in Matthew 10:5-7, 14 where people can choose to reject Jesus's message:
5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, “Do not go on a road [f]to Gentiles, and do not enter a city of Samaritans;
6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as you go, [g]preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven [h]has come near.’
...
14 And whoever does not receive you nor listen to your words, as you leave that house or city, shake the dust off your feet.

[emphasis added]

 

[Scooter]

I think the Bible is written by human beings. And taking a good long look at the “weird” parts is an excellent way to illustrate this.

So are you just using proxy baptism as a way to show the Bible was not divinely inspired? Is that the goal?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

When it comes to being saved, I think there is an individual choice. If someone doesn't want to be saved, then God won't force them.

Okay, I just want us to realize that we are taking religion way more seriously than most people. I think if we would ask many, possibly most, people they’d say the point of religion is to be a good person, and that religion has inspiring stories.

But on the issue . .

Alright, the disciples are presented as dumber than a box of rocks unable to understand simon-simple parables, and Jesus often talks in mystic ways, and then the disciples get scolded for not having “faith.”

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I think the Bible is written by human beings. And taking a good long look at the “weird” parts is an excellent way to illustrate this.

So are you just using proxy baptism as a way to show the Bible was not divinely inspired? Is that the goal?

We are an agnostic site after all.

And please notice that I show respect by saying Paul is a heart-felt writer and almost a modern writer.

And I’ll directly say the Bible is due the same respect as any ancient text. As Beowulf, or as Shakespeare.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

This is a sweet movie from the year 2000.

And with some of the actors such as Marty and Angelo, it shows a light touch religion, in this case the Catholic faith.

============

And as another example,

When new parents bring a child to church to be baptized or christened, it’s a big emotional day for the parents. Probably followed by food and celebration at their house.

It’s also an exhausting day.

Yes, they want to hear the minister saying the familiar words. But they probably don’t want to hear new religious ideas or be challenged religiously, spiritually, or really any other way!

They want it to be a glorious, happy, pleasant day for themselves, for any other children they might have, for grandparents, for friends, etc.

 

[Scooter]

I think the Bible is written by human beings. And taking a good long look at the “weird” parts is an excellent way to illustrate this.

So are you just using proxy baptism as a way to show the Bible was not divinely inspired? Is that the goal?

We are an agnostic site after all.

And please notice that I show respect by saying Paul is a heart-felt writer and almost a modern writer.

And I’ll directly say the Bible is due the same respect as any ancient text. As Beowulf, or as Shakespeare.

Ok since baptism for the dead is not the real issue here we could start a thread that actually addresses your concern about the Bible not being inspired by God.