<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"><updated>2007-11-01T18:32:07Z</updated><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/good-things</id><title>Comments for blog.limedaley.com/post/good-things</title><entry><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/368/1353</id><title>Comment #1353</title><updated>2007-11-01T18:32:07Z</updated><author><name>joyful</name></author><link href="https://blog.limedaley.com/post/good-things#isso-1353" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Our church has baptisms once a year (in the summer because it's in a pool.) Age is not one of the discriminating factors.  If the parents and the elder(s? you have to meet with at least one) agree that it is time, after talking with and observing the child, he is allowed to be baptized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last year the age range of those being baptized (baptees, anyone?) was 5-18.  It was actually an unusual thing that there were no adults in the group.&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry><entry><id>tag:blog.limedaley.com,2018:/isso/368/1352</id><title>Comment #1352</title><updated>2007-10-31T21:43:56Z</updated><author><name>SursumCorda</name></author><link href="https://blog.limedaley.com/post/good-things#isso-1352" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Oh, that takes me right back to the difficult times when you and Janet were certainly ready to take Communion, but the church would only baptize you on the basis of Dad's and my faith, not your own, which we found unreasonable.  If we'd wanted to do that, we'd have had you baptized as babies!  As you know, over the years I've come to appreciate infant baptism, at least as practiced in the Anglican churches, to the point where you could have gone either way with your kids without upsetting me.  :)  But I still draw the line at the sort of half-baptism you were offered at the time.&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry></feed>