quote:What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
posted
Yeah yeah, and you are a good guy yada yada. I just got so angry with you this entire thread that your last post was the last straw. I'd been carefully ignoring you, because I knew I'd just get angry.
It seems plain to me that you are relishing your "how dare they" attitude without one wit of trying to understand our POV when we've bent over backwards to understand yours.
quote:What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
How is what she is asking less intolerant that what you are doing by dismissing her beliefs because you believe yours to be correct?
I don't get the difference. Well, she's asking you not to take an action and you are taking an action. She's asking you to respect her beliefs and you're saying no. I'm not really sure how you think she is more intolerant.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do any of you honestly believe that people should modify their own religious beliefs and practices simply because they might offend someone by them.
If a practicing Jew were given a non-kosher cake by a friend, should she eat it to avoid offending the fried?
If a Muslem were offered a shot of whisky by friends, should he drink it to avoid offense?
If a Jehovah's Witness was invited to a Christmas party by friends, should they go to avoid offending the host?
Should an adamant athiest sing "God be With You Till We Meet Again" at graduation to avoid offending the Christians.
Should Catholics disavow the trans-substantiation of the Host because some people think its cannabalistic?
Should Sihks take off their Turban's when a prayer is said?
Should Hindus eat beef if its offered to them by a friend?
The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds if not thousands of religious beliefs and practices that may at times seems offensive to those outside the religion. But religious tolerance demands that we respect individuals rights to practice their own religions even when we find their beliefs offensive.
If I understand correctly, most people's objections to LDS baptisms for the dead, are based on the belief that these baptisms show disrespect and intolerance for other religions. Isn't it atleast as disrespectful and intolerant to insist that Mormons change their religious practices because they are different than yours?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit- "If a practicing Jew were given a non-kosher cake by a friend, should she eat it to avoid offending the fried?"
The rabbinical answer to this question, depending on circumstances is "Yes."
Amka- How is JOHN"S post more religiously intolerant then Rabbits?
My religious beliefs, such as they are, mean that proxy baptism is EXTREMELY offensive, and possibly EXTREMELY harmful. Rabbit is, essentially, asking "So what? I should be able to offend you, and possibly damage your eternal soul, because I hold different religious beliefs then you."
In case you hadn't noticed, thats essentially the premise behind the inquisition.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know the old saw about your right to swing your fist ending at my nose...?
Its the same thing. I have a right to demand you don't swing your fist into my nose, but you do not have the right to demand that I allow you to swing your fist into my nose.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If a Jehovah's Witness was invited to a Christmas party by friends, should they go to avoid offending the host?
Would the freind of the Jehovah's Witness force them to go and be then offended that the Jehovah's Witness was offended?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Rabbit, here is the thing: there are plenty of people who need their work done. Not doing one particular person's or group's work right now doesn't mean that it wouldn't get done, nor that we would be breaking a commandment. The church itself made the agreement in regards to the Holocaust victims, and I would stand by that. I'm not sure what a "do not baptize me" list would do.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you tell me how I'm being intolerant, Amka? I want people to be able to be abel to make the statement that they have made their choice, and to not meddle in the choice they have made. Isn't the proxy thing for those who have not had the chance to make the choice? Well, I've made mine, and I'm sure others wish to make their choice known. You can continue to feel free to abide by the rules set forth by the 1995 change, because apparently those rule make sure to ask relatives. If it's made clear, how is that stepping on your toes? If anything, it makes your job easier.
You see, if it's a matter of choice, and I'm offering a way to make those choices clear, in life, how is this not making the reasoning behind proxy baptisms easier?
Or is it just that the only offense that is allowable is when you or your beliefs are offended? To hell with what I feel, huh?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the stated religious beliefs, which I am not sure you believe, tell me. How does it harm you? Do you get a bloody nose everytime one of my ancestors has their proxy work done for them?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, you must realize I am not arguing against that agreement. I think it is completely valid. I support it. If you wrote yourself up on some list saying "Don't baptize me" then do it.
You condemed proxy baptism as a whole, and I'm defending that practice as a whole.
As I said before, I have bent over backwards trying to understand and compromise, and you seem to have kept yourself ignorant of that fact so that you can blissfully believe that for me, it is 'to hell with your feelings'.
posted
I don't understand the difference between those particular Jews and every other religious person that ever lived.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to know what was intolerant about John's statement Amka, since I agree with him.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, You are suggesting that it is unethical for me to follow my own religious beliefs and instead, I should follow yours? How is this any different than the evils you attribute to LDS Baptisms for the dead? You criticize Mormons for being intolerant, but how is what you are saying any less intolerant?
quote:Would the freind of the Jehovah's Witness force them to go and be then offended that the Jehovah's Witness was offended?
LDS baptisms for the dead don't force anyone to do anything. Let me offer another analogy.
quote:Joan invites Jane (A Jehovah's Witness) to come to a birthday party. Jane declines the invitation. Joan then say, well here is my phone number and address just in case you change your mind
. I can imagine that Jane might get offended that Joan would suggest she might change her mind -- but honestly I think that would be fairly petty and disrespectful to what was intended as a generous offer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, this discussion has had an impact on me. Before I am not sure I would have honored the living's request not to be proxy baptized because I wouldn't have understood their offense at it and thought, "Well, how do you know how you will feel about it once you find yourself on the other side?" which, BTW, I still kinda think.
BUT... I think now I would honor a person's request not to have that done, and therefore would respect such a list as has been proposed.
Especially in the light of my agreement with what Amka said. There is plenty of work to be done for those who haven't voiced objection, and there is the advantages of knowing more who does and does want it after the onset of the "millenium". Let's focus on the work that has NOT been objected to.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone still has the ability to choose even after death.
If, after death, a Jew that is under the group "Do not baptize" wants the work done for them, eventually God would provide a way.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, you weren't listening to Paul. He is saying Jane doesn't actually have a choice. Once you ask her, she's going. Why are you so hung up on forcing your beliefs on Paul? Paul is telling you that what you are saying, is irrelevant because of his beliefs. You are saying his concerns are irrelevant because of your beliefs. I don't understand why, even when asked not to, Rabbit would do a proxy baptism for a relative. That appalls me. That is that attitude that some are alarmed about in this thread. That is the attitude of superiority that some are complaining about. You talk about respecting all religions, but you don't. Yours is the only correct one and since we are but lowly, pathetic children, you know what's best for us.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Kayla, for judging me individually and an entire group of people based on what one person of the same religion has said. Why is it that I think you WANT to believe that we are intolerant?
posted
From what I know of John, Amka, he would not support such a law. I am not sure he is telling us not to practice this belief at all. His beef is with those who have requested proxy work not to be done.
I am curious, if any are still reading this thread, how many of the anti-religious out there would object to proxy baptism? If so, why? I understand Suneun's point of view, her mind is open to all beliefs, including ones where such a practice could be harmful. But for others of you who don't expect an afterlife at all. Let's just say you find yourself there, and eventually at some point decide this baptism represents something very significant. Would you rather "cover your bases" so-to-speak, or is the idea too offensive? Are you offended at the idea of a God who would require such a thing? (Like Fugu.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, You are suggesting that it is unethical for me to follow my own religious beliefs and instead, I should follow yours?"
Rabbit- I am suggesting it is unethical to actively and knowingly violate someone elses religious beliefs.
There is a difference between me asking someone not to violate my religious beliefs, and in so doing prevent them from fully carrying out their own religious beliefs, and on the other hand carrying out my religious beliefs and in so doing violating someone elses.
If your religion involves swinging your fist into my nose, and I ask you not to do that because its not only physically painful, but it damages my eternal soul... would you still swing your fist into my nose?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit is saying her beliefs are superior. Better? The person who is disregarding the requests of someone on their deathbed believes themselves to be superior. That is the problem that some are concerned about here.
I wasn't trying to offend you. It's seems like some of you are trying to offend some of us though. Not you, but some. And I'd still like to know what was intolerant about what John said.
posted
One more time. I should have put in a paragraph break before I started the paragraph that had Rabbit's name it in. The rest of that post was aimed at her. Not you Amka.
Sorry, didn't mean to take two posts to get that across, but I seem to have had a brain fart the first time I tried to explain it and it just sounded worse than the original.
posted
Kayla, If it is important to be tolerant of all beliefs, then why do you object to me believing the the LDS church is the only Church which can offer certain saving ordinances? On what basis can this belief be exempted from the tolerance you demand for all other beliefs.
Paul is asking that I lead my life according to his belief system rather than my own -- that is intolerance. The fist swinging into your nose analogy falls flat because if you punched me in the nose, we would have immediate physical evidence that your action has caused me harm. If I baptise your dead great grandmother by proxy, I believe that I am doing her a beneficial service and you believe that I am doing her harm. Neither one of us can produce an evidence to substantiate our beliefs, so it is only reasonable to expect that I would do what I believe to be best and you would do what you believe to be best. Asking me to violate my sacred faith in God because you believe otherwise is by definition intolerance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
edit: John replied:
Proxy baptisms.
Paul is saying here that our practice is more arrogant and intolerant than a demand that we stop that practice.
That is an intolerant statement.
If he had said: proxy baptism to those who've requested it not be done, it would be understandable.
Do I think a Buddhist who believes that it doesn't matter my religion because I'll simply get reincarnated into the true one if I'm a good person is arrogant and intolerant? I don't. I think it is a lovely belief. I don't agree with it, but I like the sentiment.
Rabbit- We have no evidence of physical harm, but that is completely irrelant. You are ACTIVELY AND INTENTIONALLY violating the religious beliefs of people. I, and others, are asking you to STOP doing that.
And I"M more intolerant then you?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be checking this thread to see what the anti-mormons were doing. Now I'm checking it to see what the mormons are doing. Soft answer, dudes.
Too bad my post about my belief *not* being better got buried at the bottom of the last page.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, You are suggesting that it is unethical for me to follow my own religious beliefs and instead, I should follow yours?"
Rabbit, what I'M saying is that this practice -- igonring the wishes of the living because you believe you know better what they'd want when they're dead -- is inherently OFFENSIVE, not unethical.
Heck, as we basically define ethics through religion, anyway, of COURSE it's ethical for your church to offend people in order to save their immortal souls.
What's wrong, in my opinion, is your steadfast denial that this IS offensive. It's BLATANTLY offensive, and you're choosing to do it anyway because you believe it's the right thing to do.
Just own up to it. You don't have to stop doing it. As you point out, it's unlikely that anyone's actually harmed in the afterlife by the practice, and no REAL harm is done by insulting people while they're alive -- no harm, that is, that's worth the chance that you're disobeying God.
I would have trouble, myself, belonging to a religion that required that I randomly insult somebody once a day in order to save that person's soul. I would walk up to them, say something like, "Please don't hate me for this, Anna Louise, but God wants me to say that you're an ignorant idiot. And you're fat." And then, when she got upset, I'd try to explain to her, "Look, I'm sorry. I don't really feel that way. And you don't have to be upset with me. I had to say that because God would make you eat Peeps in Hell after you died unless I did."
Yeah, I'm exaggerating. But I'm trying to get the idea across, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, my Jehovah's witness friends would probably like me to say "Jehovah" instead of "Heavenly Father" in talking about God. To them, "Heavenly Father" recalls our doctrine that we spirit sons and daughters of God. They feel that if people would say "Jehovah" more often, He will be more active in their lives. I don't feel quite comfortable about it, though I guess I wouldn't have a problem calling Him "Allah" if I were talking to Muslims.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, You do not understand, I do not propose igoring the wishes of the living because I believe I know better what they'd want when they're dead. I believe that when the wishes of a friend or family member are in direct conflict with what I believe are God's wishes, that I should follow God's wishes. In the hypothetical case I gave, I would not submit my Grandmother's name for proxy baptism because I believed she would change her mind after death (although I would certainly hope for that). I would not submit her name for proxy baptism because I hoped she would change her mind after death. The only reason that I would go against her wishes is becaue I believe that God has command us to do proxy baptisms for everyone -- without judgement. That is what people misunderstand. At the very basic level, Mormons don't do proxy baptisms because we love our deceased ancestors or we hope that they will accept the Mormon gospel or that we just have to get in the last word (although any and all of these may be true in some cases). The basic reason that we do these baptisms is because we believe God has commanded us to do them. At its root, it is not about our respect or tolerance for other religions -- it is about our willingness to obey God as we understand him.
If you find it offensive that I respect God and what I understand to be his will more than I respect the requests and beliefs of other individuals, then yes this is an offensive practice. I would however add that the websters dictionary defines tolerance as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own", and that your offense is the result of intolerance and arrogance.
But if you are offended because you believe that I arrogantly think I know what others want more than they do -- you are offended because you misunderstand my motivation and I ask you for understanding.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, You are angry because Mormons are violating your religious beliefs but at the same time you are asking us to violate our religious beliefs. Can't you see the irony in that? I understand that this violates your beliefs and so it offends you, and I am very sorry for that. However, you must understand that I believe this to be the command of God and that I would rather offend you than offend God. I would hope that as a religious individual you would understand and respect my decision even though it conflicts with your own beliefs. That is after all the essence of religious tolerance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, even if you don't understand or agree with a commandment, you'd do it?
Certainly not under all circumstances. However, the most basic exercise of faith is to follow God's commandments when we do not fully understand why he has given them.
[ April 14, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, You are angry because Mormons are violating your religious beliefs but at the same time you are asking us to violate our religious beliefs. Can't you see the irony in that? I understand that this violates your beliefs and so it offends you, and I am very sorry for that. However, you must understand that I believe this to be the command of God and that I would rather offend you than offend God. I would hope that as a religious individual you would understand and respect my decision even though it conflicts with your own beliefs. That is after all the essence of religious tolerance."
All I've ever claimed the right to do, in this thread, is call you an arrogant self-centered jerk for doing it.
I also think that you aren't really understanding my point.
Certainly, there is a level of irony on the religious tolerance level... but again, I am attempting to stop you from taking an action that violates my religious beliefs, unfortunately, that action you desire to take is central to your religious beliefs.
However, just as a legal analogy, I am entitled to kill you for attempting to kill me... you are not entitled to kill me because god told you to. I see this situation as the same set of circumstances, only rather then murder, we're talking about baptism.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I take it that being rude, calling people names, insulting them in public and using coercive means to prevent them from engaging in a religious practice that has no demonstrable harm is perfectly fine within your beliefs but offering salvation to the dead by performing a ceremony by proxy makes one a dangerous, self centered, jerk.
I think we understand each other perfectly now.
By the way, the killing analogy doesn't work either because killing has a demonstrable harm, baptisms for the dead have no demonstrable harm or benefit. I believe they are beneficial, you believe they are harmful but there is really nothing to support either belief. It is simply your belief versus mine.
[ April 14, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you find it offensive that I respect God and what I understand to be his will more than I respect the requests and beliefs of other individuals, then yes this is an offensive practice. I would however add that the websters dictionary defines tolerance as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own", and that your offense is the result of intolerance and arrogance.
No, see, you're still dodging responsibility. What you're saying is this: "I'm going against your explicit wishes and belittling your beliefs -- but you CAN'T consider that rude because I believe God WANTS me to do it."
Claiming that people who are offended by your deliberate rejection of their selfhood are "intolerant" or "arrogant" is just your way of acknowledging that you are, in fact, being intolerant and arrogant.
That you are being intolerant and arrogant at the behest of your God is only an excuse if your God does in fact exist -- and even then does not actually mean you're NOT being intolerant or arrogant; it simply means that you have a good reason.
For those of us who do not in fact believe in your God, the idea that you're doing something highly unpleasant at the behest of someone who does not in fact EXIST is little consolation. Of course, you may find our lack of belief in your god (and the convenient excuses for behavior provided thereby) intolerant or arrogant -- but we aren't the ones baptizing you after you die.
Seriously, Rabbit, the issue is not whether God wants you to do it or not; that's completely irrelevant, and absolutely unprovable. The issue is whether people have a legitimate right to be ticked off about it without being called "intolerant" or "arrogant."
Are you REALLY asserting that people who object to being insulted on behalf of your God are somehow flawed for doing so?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe I know better what they'd want when they're dead.
See, Amka, that's why I said proxy baptism is more arrogant than what I said. I'm dealing with something that can actually be reasoned out with living, breathing human beings. Rabbit is telling us she knows what's better for us no matter what choice we make in life.
One appeals to a party that can respond (me), while the other to a group that cannot (Rabbit's).
WAY more rude and arrogant, because you make it a point to never have to deal with opposition from the target. That is, unless you say you can talk to the dead, too. Hence my suggestion to cut out the middleman and remove all doubt by making a list of people removing all doubt and saying that they don't even want that option after death, and to leave our souls alone.
I wasn't just tossing an insult, even though your knee jerk reaction seems to imply it was.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone explain how offering someone a chance they didn't necessarily get in this life to accept Christ (ok, that's problematic for Jews, but you can't blame what Mormons are offering for being Christ-centered, we're Christians after all)after this life, and so receive salvation, is more offensive than having Jews be damned to the raging fires and pitchforks of Catholic/Protestant hell because they didn't accept Christ. Where's the sense of outrage about THAT??
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
You, however, are attempting to take an action against me that I believe to be harmful.
I am trying to get you to stop taking that action.
*Sigh* I'm never going to get through to you.
Judging from your posts on other topics, in any other situation you would see how what you are doing is unethical. However, this is a massive blind spot for you, because god told you to do something unethical.
God telling people to do something unethical is, of course, a huge ethical dilemna in itself.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Someone explain how offering someone a chance they didn't necessarily get in this life to accept Christ (ok, that's problematic for Jews, but you can't blame what Mormons are offering for being Christ-centered, we're Christians after all)after this life, and so receive salvation, is more offensive than having Jews be damned to the raging fires and pitchforks of Catholic/Protestant hell because they didn't accept Christ. Where's the sense of outrage about THAT??
Because the one is doing something to someone else, and the other is believing something about someone else.
posted
Tom, I will try one more time. Over and over again you have stated that this practice is offensive because 'we believe we know better what they'd want when they're dead.' You are mistaken. We do not do it because we believe we know anything at all about what people will do when they are dead. You misimpute our motives and misunderstand our practice. We are not deliberately rejecting anyones selfhood.
Clearly I can understand why people would be offended by such a rejection, but that is not what we are doing. I am not in denial -- you don't understand either the theory, the motivation or the practice.
What you seem to be unable to understand, is that for us this is a very sacred, beautiful, and selfless practice. Your continued insults are hurtful to us. In this atleast, I guess we are even.
[ April 14, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, it's not you that believes your religion to be superior. It's all God's fault. Got it. What a twisted God. He would make you baptise Jew's and then punish the Jew's for being baptised. That God sucks.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
