Culture ‘The religious trauma is so deep’: Former Christian shows ‘unbaptism’ ritual on TikTok

Link (Archive)

‘The religious trauma is so deep’: Former Christian shows ‘unbaptism’ ritual on TikTok​

'One person is helping people break free from their faith chains!'​

There’s been a sharp decline in religiousness in the United States over several generations, with fewer and fewer people attending regular church services. In fact, studies indicate that 2021 marked the first year ever that American church membership dropped “below majority” numbers. The most dominant religion in the world is Christianity with a whopping 2.382 billion followers globally.

While it’s reported there are over 45,000 different Christian denominations globally, the religion appears to be dominated by two general sects: Catholics (50.1%) and Protestants (36.7%). While each sect has its own belief system, and then there are sub-divisions and sub sects apart of these belief systems, many of the rites, traditions, and practices across these sects are similar. A common, but not universal, practice among many Christian denominations, are baptisms.

According to Christianity.com: “If the meaning of baptism could be summarized to one word, that word would be identification. Baptism speaks primarily of personal, public identification with Jesus Christ.” This ceremony can be interpreted as a public declaration of one’s faith and there are some who argue that depending on which sect of Christianity you subscribe to, you cannot be considered an “official” member of a congregation without a baptism.

Which could be why there are people “undoing” their baptisms in ceremonies, some of which are uploaded online, like this one showcased in a viral TikTok that was originally posted by @redbirdmoon.co and later featured by Australian pop singer Peach PRC (@peachprc) in a duet on the popular video sharing platform.

In @redbirmoon.co’s video she can be seen preparing a bathtub and sipping from a cup that looks like it is filled with wine. Text overlays pop up throughout the fast-forwarded video, one reads: “Anti communion of apple and wine.”

“I recited the Lord’s Prayer backwards and chanted ‘I am free’ 23 times,” the TikToker wrote. “I declared all ties to the Christian god and The church to be broken and banished.”

@redbirdmoon.co then dunks herself into the bath water and emerges, smiling as a text overlay reads: “I did it!”

There were some users who thought the idea to “unbaptize” herself was a brilliant move.

“I never thought to unbaptize myself, this is genius,” one viewer said.

“One person is helping people break free from their faith chains ! This is simply inspiring,” another wrote.

“I was abused traumatized and used and then baptized into the Amish Church,” a third shared. “I ran so far and so fast from all of that. I’m going to un baptize myself.”

“This is such an absolutely amazing idea I hope you don’t mind that I am going to do one of these tomorrow for myself!” another user claimed.

Others referred to how much they identified with the song that the TikTok was set to, Peach PRC’s “God is a Freak.”

“I went to catholic school for 10 years. It broke me. My experience taught my mom a lot too. This song helps me with my religious trauma,” one viewer wrote.

Some of the lyrics from the song read:

“God is a bit of a freak / Like, what’s the fixation / On hating the way he creates? / So why would I spend my eternity / With God when he’s a freak? / Why’s he watching me getting railed on the couch / Staying pure for a wedding? / He’s got fucked up priorities.”

Others called the video “empowering” and said that they identified with the relief the woman in the unbaptizing video apparently felt after performing her self-ritual.

There were some, however, who expressed confusion at the @redbirdmoon.co’s ritual. “If she’s not religious anymore why would a ritual mater to her? I’m just confused with the work she’s doing? Lol,” one viewer commented.

Another user said that they were so brainwashed by religious trauma that their knee-jerk reaction to seeing the clip was to immediately ask for the woman’s forgiveness even though they aren’t religious themselves anymore.

“The religious trauma is so deep that for a split second I asked God not to punish her for this,” they wrote.

And then there were TikTokers who said that they themselves were religious and expressed their sadness for others who had such negative experiences in their own congregations.

“As I Christian woman I want to apologize on behalf of others, to anyone who has ever felt anything other than love, understanding & grace, I am so Sorry,” one user said. “It breaks my heart knowing that because you’ve encountered broken people struggling in their their own walk of faith, they have ultimately Tarnished your journey. I am so sorry & I love you all and wish you everything that is good.”

User @redbirdmoon.co (who goes by Vix) set her original viral video to “friends only” on TikTok after it began making the rounds online, according to a follow-up video.

The Daily Dot has reached out to both Peach PRC and Vix on TikTok for comment.

 

[murph]

How are you supposed to "undo" a sprinkle baptism? A spit take?

Another attention whore. Stunts like this will be the only attention she'll ever get, and she's getting it from a mentally ill man who thinks he's better at being a woman than she is.

 

[Penis Drager]

Or you can... I dunno... just stop believing in god and performing silly rituals?
If you feel like performing some sort of theatrics for "closure" or whatever gay shit, just tell your parents or call your local preacher a cunt or something.
Dumping wine in a bathtub before dunking your fat ass in it just makes you look silly.

 

[Red Hood]

"No takesie-backsies, I still forgive you." - Jesus

 

[keyboredsm4shthe2nd]

To be honest, on a theological level the baptism of unwilling infants seems unsound to me. Isn't the whole idea that the person is choosing to enter into a covenant with God? I don't see how you can do that when you're a baby.

Catholics also believed until recently we're all born with the sin of Eve.

 

[Mothra1988]

To be honest, on a theological level the baptism of unwilling infants seems unsound to me. Isn't the whole idea that the person is choosing to enter into a covenant with God? I don't see how you can do that when you're a baby.

Most protestants came to this conclusion a long time ago.

No that's the Baptist rationalization for why they don't do it the way it was done since the New Testament, where there are numerous stories of people's entire household, including small children, being baptized by the apostles.

The Catholic method for baptism wasn't introduced until the Middle Ages. Before that, it was primarily immersion of people who knew what was happening to them. This was actually a bigger cultural practice by Jewish sects in the area that John the Baptist was representative of most likely. Catholics need to get over the fact that not everything in their theology is correct. There's a lot of midrash level garbage in Catholic theology that was only created to validate their own traditions that have more relation to Roman paganism than the actual early Christian community from the Second Temple period in Judea, etc.

 

[Ser Prize]

Catholics also believed until recently we're all born with the sin of Eve.

I hate catholics but after seeing what women did with the vote they might have been right.

 

[Borscht]

I think this is how you summon a demon.

Funny you should mention that. From the point of view of Christian doctrine, the war between Heaven and Hell does not allow for neutrality, and everything not shielded by God's infinite grace is the rightful plaything of the Devil. By renouncing your love of the Lord and all of his angels, you willingly and voluntarily reject salvation and doom yourself to the eternity of Hell after you die, unless one of the fallen angels decides to have his way with you first. Which does not necessarily have to be as drastic as what you see in the horror movies.

Speaking of which.

Burnt-out Catholic exorcists complain they face long lines of 'possessed' people, and little support from bishops

 

[Breadbassket]

Funny you should mention that. From the point of view of Christian doctrine, the war between Heaven and Hell does not allow for neutrality, and everything not shielded by God's infinite grace is the rightful plaything of the Devil. By renouncing your love of the Lord and all of his angels, you willingly and voluntarily reject salvation and doom yourself to the eternity of Hell after you die, unless one of the fallen angels decides to have his way with you first. Which does not necessarily have to be as drastic as what you see in the horror movies.

Speaking of which.

Burnt-out Catholic exorcists complain they face long lines of 'possessed' people, and little support from bishops

Exorcists are the public defenders of theology. High in demand, tons of work, and usually not much of a reward.

 

[Skitarii]

That's pretty surprising actually, I would've thought that infant baptism began much later than that, post-Constantine. Just on a conceptual level it seems like a distortion of the basic concept.

The basic concept is that baptism is regenerative and neccessary for spiritual growth. The belief = baptism stuff was a gnostic concept added in at the turn of the 17th century

 

[Plunkie]

Well, if you believe in reprobate doctrine, this makes them much easier to sniff out.

 

[Allanon]

The only time I could see an unbaptism being a reasonable method of leaving the Christian faith would be if you were going Satanist, because that religion is just the hipster 'do everything the opposite of what Christians tell you to'. Everything's in black and white so I can't be sure, but the tub woman looks like she's probably witchy or Satanist so that's probably the truth of the matter for her. Still dumb, but that's because Satanism is extremely dumb. the 'traumatized atheists' unbaptizing themselves make no sense. If you don't believe, why do you need a ritual? Attention? Or are they just 'mad at their parents' atheist where they believe but reject it out of spite to hurt their parents/God because of some unspecified reason?

Which is worse? The enlightened atheist or the unbaptised one?

 

[Duke Nukem]

Deciding not to go to church is not that special, nor does it require ritual. If you believe your anti-Baptism has any impact presumably you think your Baptism did, and if that's the case then you literally just rejected rebirth and the Holy Spirit and chose to live in death, which seems to me, a mistake.

Just sleep in on Sunday like everyone else.

Personally I prefer to worship Satan, get drunk, and listen to metal, but to each his own.

 

[Chandelier]

One the one hand I can understand why Americans are abandoning the Church because the Church and the religion therein isn't in tune with genuine Christianity. Those priests of those mega churches, the ones who appear on late night TV and rake in millions so they can send it to Israel, they aren't agents of the Church. American Christianity is a bizarre mix of wanting chasteness and child brides while having strip clubs and sex parties.

On the other, these people leave Christianity for their SocJuc cult; their gender identity cult. They have their own rituals and their own Bible, their own child sacrifices and their own communion. Ms Piggy was lucky she didn't break her goddamn bathtub.

 

[Android raptor]

Religious abuse is sadly real (and still common in certain parts of the US) and leaves lasting damage. Tbh as long as it helps them heal I don't see the harm.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Catholics also believed until recently we're all born with the sin of Eve.

I'm about certain that would be "the sin guilt of Adam".

The Catholic method for baptism wasn't introduced until the Middle Ages.

Infant baptism was a discussion (not controversy-- it's one of the things there was never any controversy over) had as early as the second century, not the Middle Ages. We know for certain it was the standard practice by the third century.

Irenaeus talks about it. Tertullian isn't a fan of it, but finds it permissible. Origen observes it as normal practice. Hippolytus of Rome instructs children to be baptized first, further specifying that those who couldn't answer on their own were to have a sponsor.

At the time, many would postpone their baptisms until later-- not because they valued a willing assent to the baptism (see above; also, the epistles reference the baptism of whole families in the form of "the man and his household", the implication having been understood as children being baptised because the head of household was baptised), but because they were concerned about being baptised and then falling into mortal sin, believing that they would not be able to be redeemed by God afterwards (a belief that was formally condemned somewhere in the third century under the name "Novatianism"). Some (IIRC, some emperors in particular) also postponed their baptism in order to ensure forgiveness for prior sins.

Every (surviving, anyways) pre-Protestant Christian tradition, from East to West, has held infant baptism as orthodox, because 1) they consider it the perfected form of the initiation into the community of faith that circumcision was for the pre-Christian Jews, and 2) because they view baptism as having actual effect even beyond that-- specifically, they regard it as a contact with God's grace (along with the other sacraments) and as regenerative to the soul.

 

[Mothra1988]

I'm about certain that would be "the sin guilt of Adam".


Infant baptism was a discussion (not controversy-- it's one of the things there was never any controversy over) had as early as the second century, not the Middle Ages.

Irenaeus talks about it. Tertullian isn't a fan of it, but finds it permissible. Origen calls it normal. Hippolytus of Rome instructs children to be baptized first, further specifying that those who couldn't answer on their own were to have a sponsor.

At the time, many would postpone their baptisms until later-- not because they valued a willing assent to the baptism (see above; also, the epistles reference the baptism of whole families in the form of "the man and his household", the implication having been understood as children being baptised because the head of household was baptised), but because they were concerned about being baptised and then falling into mortal sin, believing that they would not be able to be redeemed by God afterwards (a belief that was formally condemned somewhere in the third century under the name "Novatianism"). Some (IIRC, some emperors in particular) also postponed their baptism in order to ensure forgiveness for prior sins.

Every (surviving, anyways) pre-Protestant Christian tradition, from East to West, has held infant baptism as orthodox, because 1) they consider it the perfected form of the initiation into the community of faith that circumcision was for the pre-Christian Jews, and 2) because they view baptism as having actual effect even beyond that-- specifically, they regard it as a contact with God's grace (along with the other sacraments) and as regenerative to the soul.

Credobaptists consistently-- as far as I'm aware-- deny the aforementioned.

The fact that something is Catholic and Orthodox tradition does not mean it isn't total BS. I mean according to both theologies, James the Just and Jude weren't actually Jesus's brothers by blood, which is total horse shit and is in fact one of the few historical facts that is held up as true by the record. So yeah, over a 1,500 years of being wrong about something simple like that because of obsession with Mariaology (because you know Romans had that pagan need for a goddess to worship) is why I don't take arguments like this seriously. I never said that children being baptized was incorrect, but baby baptism is completely illogical and doesn't jive with how baptism was portrayed for Jesus, the Ethiopinan eunuch, Paul, etc.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The fact that something is Catholic and Orthodox tradition does not mean it isn't total BS.

I'm not saying that it's not total BS because it's Catholic/Orthodox tradition-- I'm saying that your assertion is total BS... because it's globally incorrect. Every citation I made was second or third century. The rationalization is the conclusion of specific Scriptural evidence. It's not just Catholic belief, and it was never a matter of controversy on top of that.

I mean according to both theologies, James the Just and Jude weren't actually Jesus's brothers by blood, which is total horse shit and is in fact one of the few historical facts that is held up as true by the record.

There's no historical record for those relations beyond the traditions of the church and-- apart from its oral tradition-- its interpretation of "adelphoi" (which has broad use within the NT and the well-translated Septuagint Pentateuch), and there's no history of deviation from the assertion that they weren't related to Jesus by blood. We're talking about people who are still temporally closer to when Jesus and his relations walked the earth, who actually knew the dialect of language in which the NT was written.

So yeah, thousands of years being wrong about something simple like that because of obsession with Mariaology (becuase you know Romans had that pagan need for a goddess to worship)

If they indeed worship Mary (meaning that every other pre-Protestant sect does, as well), whatever was passed to the rest of the Europeans and the world was thoroughly and wholly not Christianity. As in, the true faith was lost from the world.

This is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about. The claim you're making isn't just heavier than what you're making it out to be-- it's categorically different than your previous claim of "not everything in Catholic theology is correct". What you're suggesting is a deviation so fundamental that every beholding perspective would be tainted in ways that couldn't be perceived, let alone recognized, let alone corrected. The earliest Reformers were big fans of Augustine and his works were their primary contact when they did their "reforming"-- meanwhile, Augustine was recognized a saint by every part of the church that supposedly worshipped Mary. He didn't even have a Mariology distinct from the church he submitted to.

And all of this is to say nothing about the "pagan needs" of those others who received this religion.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Religious abuse is sadly real (and still common in certain parts of the US) and leaves lasting damage. Tbh as long as it helps them heal I don't see the harm.

It doesn't, LMAO.

 

[armoreddinnerjacket]

Every (surviving, anyways) pre-Protestant Christian tradition, from East to West, has held infant baptism as orthodox, because 1) they consider it the perfected form of the initiation into the community of faith that circumcision was for the pre-Christian Jews, and 2) because they view baptism as having actual effect even beyond that-- specifically, they regard it as a contact with God's grace (along with the other sacraments) and as regenerative to the soul.

They also held that Christians should not serve in the military, acting, or political office. How much is a response to their society at the time?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

They also held that Christians should not serve in the military, acting, or political office. How much is a response to their society at the time?

1) You're going to have to specify who "they" is, seeing as I alluded to four distinct churches-- two of them becoming distinct as early as the fifth century.

2) It is, indeed, a response to their society... whichever society we're talking about. Everyone in it needs Christ, and induction into His body is normatively accomplished with baptism. Ergo, everyone needs baptism.

You know nothing necessitated a change in this response, because it's never been a point of controversy since Pentecost.