Greetings Doves,
 
     We always do well to regard and examine the spiritual aspects of of our activities. Infant Baptism is no more 'irrational' than infant circumcision (of course of the male on the 8th day).
     Circumcision (Hebrew: 'mula', Greek: 'peritoma') today is oft-times done by a "mohel", and others by MD's. It was instituted in passages such as Lev.12:3,26:41 and is to represent 'circumcision of the heart' -- Deut 10:16, 30:6; Rom 2:25. In John 7:22-23 Yeshua equates circumcision 'wholeness', 'healing' and to those extents "true Shalom" itself.
     Circumcision, like infant "baptism" is decided for the child BY THE PARENTS. Parents may sometimes get too egalatarian and say something like: 'I don't circumcise, baptize, or teach my child religion as I don't want to force my beliefs on them. When they get older they can choose for themselves'. However we know we are to train up our children in the admonition and ways of the Lord. If, may it be forbidden, that there should be an outbreak of say smallpox, what parent would not have their infant immunized?  What parent would say: 'I'll not impress my medical views on him/her, I'll wait till they're older so they can choose for themselves'?
     Circumcision is the outward mark of the start of havinng a regenerated heart, as well as the sign of the Covenant with YHVH (and we know Yeshua is YHVH).
     Consider the effect: the male child is circumsized which produces a circumferential scar around the male member. Upon marriage and in the act of procreation the male seed pass through 'the scar' -- the sign of the covenant, beginning the process of securing the promised blessings for that generation.
     Baptism (which means 'washing', 'immersion') is the outward act that commences the process of spiritual cleansing and regeneration. The wise use all of the spiritual weaponry available to them. Instead of repeating anti-catholic polemics and invectives, we do well to see the spiritual impact of Infant baptism. It is excellentspiritual discernment to have the rabbi, pastor place his hands along with the Father (spiritual head of household) and wash, bless and plead the blood of Christ upon the baby to break any satanic infestation along with generational curses -- this is true wisdom. If baptism is too heardy a word, then call it a Christening, but give the infant the best possible start in the world. There are many testimonies, even books which testify to the efficacy of infant baptism and the breaking of demonic things sauch as aids, drug effects and generational curses.
     'Adults' can and should get baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ -- this also is one of the starting points for the regenerated, renewed person. The sect at Qumran (referred to by numerous scholars as the Essenes) performed 'miqvehs' often, sometimes 2-3 times per day. The Levitical priesthood did similiar. In fact, it is highly likely that John the Baptist came from Qumran. John baptized at Bethabara on the Jordan less than 2 miles from Qumran. The fact that John's parents were old when they had him, and the fact that the Essenes were noted for their taking in of orphans yield a high likelihood for his inclusion with them.
     Credit should be given where credit is due and whether one calls it a 'Christening' or baptism at infancy, theCatholics in large measure "got this one right".
 
     And in the 'spirit' of giving credit where credit is due, here's another one to contemplate. I do not believe everything invented by man is necessarily good. This includes medical proceedures. [It's time for a 'kal ve chomer' a 'light and heavy' comparison]. Again, looking through spiritual eyes, I would not get a blood transfusion from the likes of a Hitler, Stalin, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, or a local prostitute; these people are (were) infected/possessed with demons. And since 'the life is in the blood' when you take (by interveinous or savagely by drinking it) one puts into their own body what the donor has. Be sure of this at that moment you have effectively become one flesh with that person and satan now has legal right to you!! It might be safely within the realm of possibility to get a transfusiuon from one's spouse, as according to scripture you are already 'one flesh'. This might even extend to parents and children in the direct family.
    IV blood transfusions became fullblown in WWI and "saved some lives". But look at the spiritual condition of the world since then, even in our own times have things not gotten progressively worse? A blood transfusion may extend a person's life but at what cost  -- eternal salvation? It may be proper to use a direct relatives blood to save a life, but a total stranger's?  Only the precious blood of Jesus can truly save.
 
BaShem Yeshua Sarenu Shalom    TEFE