quote:It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people.
Isn't that the argument from both sides?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, as I said, based on my experiences with LDS here, I don't expect most of you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Your experiences with LDS here are unique, probably having a lot to do with your approach which frequently lacks the things you're apparently insisting on, respect and understanding.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, the way to get posthumous revenge would be for some Jewish synagogue to posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew. I mean, you have people who are considered Jews who are way further out in their beliefs, philosophies, religions (or lack of same). If athiests can still be considered Jews then surely there is some way you could get Joseph Smith in there, since he was at least, we assume, religious.
Look, nobody else that I know of minds what the Mormons are doing. They've been doing it for years. We don't believe there is any reality to what they are doing, so we don't need to pay any more attention to it than we would to meat sacrificed to idols. Not that Mormons believe in idols, of course. But it's the same principle.
Besides, in a way the Mormons are doing us all a helpful service, by compiling their massive database that they intend will encompass the entire family tree of the human race, when they are done. I had a distant relative who is a Mormon contact our family requesting what genealogical information we had, and in exchange she gave us very interesting data she had on some parts of our family tree we knew little about.
I think we can just grin and ignore what Mormons say they are doing with their super genealogy. After all, if you believe their beliefs are mistaken, then what they are doing means nothing. It must be costing them megabucks.
It might have shown better discretion if this Mormon "baptizing" of Simon Wiesenthal had not been given so much publicity, I will admit.
Just wait until they get around to baptizing the Patriarch, Abraham!
Catholics in a way try to impose their beliefs on everyone else too, by claiming that anyone who was ever baptized as in infant in the Catholic church remains a Catholic forever, even if later they choose to join a different church. This is showing disregard for the freedom of choice of individuals as well. But no one really cares. They can claim what they want. That is not going to make people who have converted to Protestant churches still be Catholics in fact.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
posted
Zal, I didn't know much of anything about LDS (had one friend in college, but that was it) prior to coming to Hatrack. My descriptions of this thread were a result of watching a pervasive, but generally unconscious, disrespect towards other people's beliefs by many (but by no means all) of our LDS members.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wonder what will happen when Mormons have the nerve to baptize Jesus Christ and make Him a Mormon. I bet there will be a firestorm then!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis: As much as I disagree with MrSquicky's general bias against Mormons [really, dude, your bias and painting with your broad brush strokes were pre-existent and not just the result of what has taken place here at Hatrack], his analysis is correct.
LDS can hardly claim that it doesn't hurt anyone when we devote time and resources to it. It's a symbolic act that we believe has some sort of efficacy. Inasmuch as it has a symbolic effect others are well within their rights to claim symbolic damage from it. And, as rivka has demonstrated, because of a few particular aspects of Jewish theology, for that faith it could possibly have more than a symbolic effect.
That said, I like much of what you said here, Marlozhan. You have been one of the most civil and productive contributors to this thread.
Thanks. And I do agree that the Jewish faith has good reason for claiming symbolic damage and I respect their reasons for it. I guess I am just trying to wrap my mind around the other side, which is that the LDS faith also sees great symbolic harm if not all people are given a chance to accept or reject LDS baptism. I am not saying I have more of a right, I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance on my side of the argument. Both sides are important, and I don't think there is any easy solution to this.
Part of the solution, though, is not putting people's names on the records if they specifically request it (though this can get complicated when descendants from the same ancestry have different beliefs regarding proxy baptism. What do you do then?)
And please stop, those of you who continue to make blanket statements regarding my faith's level of respect, or what have you. I will not make such statements about anyone else, so please show me the same respect. I am trying to contribute to mature discussion here, and I just get accused of being incapable of having respect for others (I am only speaking to some).
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
But how can you PROVE they "didn't want" it, they are dead.
The entire nature of the ordinance takes this into account. The person is still at complete liberty to reject or accept the ordinance. If conversion rates among the living are any example of the choice people take when offered I submit that those in favor of accepting outnumber those who are offended at even being given the option, the largest number most likely being those who choose no but are not upset either way. Even if 1 in every 1000 accept it that is such a blessing to them even if the other 999 say, "meh no thanks."
I can't help but see similarities to those in Utah who got upset when at an art museum there were depictions of the nativity from foreign artists using their culture. There were African Massai tribal nativities, feudal Korean depictions, etc. Maybe I am biased as my mom collects nativities including those kinds, but I was indignant that people would get bent out of shape over something like that.
"But Jesus was a JEW!!!!! Not an AFRICAN! Its a disgrace to who the man really was." It would be pretty easy for me to be snide and say, "Well if he had blond hair and blue eyes you would have said nothing." But I think those comments are just as useless.
And I already related the story of the idols from multiple faiths at the Daoist temple. Again this question phrased two different ways,
Should my father have demanded the idols be taken down and obtained a written agreement that the shrine would never display idols from other religions that are not in complete agreement with the tenets of Daoism?
Were the people who eventually got those nativities taken down from the art museum right to demand that only Jewish themed nativities be displayed in the museum?
The only point that I could find that would help me understand why Jews would be upset about all this is the idea "It is blasphemous to suggest that Jews cannot be received into heaven on Judaisms merits alone."
Well we could argue its blasphemous to suggest that we listen to you instead of our God. But apparently God is of the mind that it is better that the dead wait for the right time to have their ordinance work done, rather then offend you, the living, to the point that you will not even listen to the other virtues our religion offers.
I certainly hope that tempers cool and nerves are less high strung in the next life.
On a side note, I would be interested in hearing ideas as to how a spirit is harmed by actions done on this side by the living.
edit: Nevermind, Rivka has got me covered, but I am interested in hearing other takes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I just wonder what will happen when Mormons have the nerve to baptize Jesus Christ and make Him a Mormon. I bet there will be a firestorm then!
No need. We believe that John the Baptist had the proper priesthood authority to baptize, so Jesus does not need to be baptized again. Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: The logic, to me, seems to be pretty clear. Either your faith is right and what the Mormons are doing is meaningless, or your faith is wrong and what they're doing is beneficial.
So, you can put me in the camp that doesn't get what the big deal is.
I guess I don't want to say that I don't get what the "big deal" is, because I can certainly understand that this looks like insult to people of the Jewish faith. However, I do agree with the first part of your statement. If you're religious, then it's pretty safe to assume that you either are a Mormon or are not a Mormon. So if you believe that baptisms for the dead are just a bunch of bunk anyway, then I'm afraid I don't understand the logic behind being so angry over this, although I do understand the emotion behind it.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that one religion should not be doing this to another religion. It's that a false religion should not be doing this to God's true chosen people.
Isn't that the argument from both sides?
Exactly. That's what I find so amusingly ironic about most of these sorts of inter-religious debates.
Of course, when this kind of reasoning snowballs into centuries of mutual attempted genocide, it becomes somewhat less amusing. But on a forum such as this, it's fantastic entertainment. Viva la Internet! Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Look, nobody else that I know of minds what the Mormons are doing.
Now you do. I mind.
quote:
Catholics in a way try to impose their beliefs on everyone else too, by claiming that anyone who was ever baptized as in infant in the Catholic church remains a Catholic forever, even if later they choose to join a different church. This is showing disregard for the freedom of choice of individuals as well. But no one really cares. They can claim what they want. That is not going to make people who have converted to Protestant churches still be Catholics in fact.
Could I see something on this? I have never heard this and if we are doing it, we should stop. My understanding is that to be a member in full standing, one's baptism needs to be confirmed as an adult. (Adolescent, anyway.)
edit to add: Good to see you, BTW. I'm curious about your response to the "coat question" from the other thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, thanks for the clarification, Squick. I should have been more civil and not taking that sideswipe at you. Funny how past history tends to flare up.
In terms of unconscious disrespect towards others beliefs, I think most of us suffer from that. I don't think it's confined to the Mormons on Hatrack or Mormons in general. And it's sad really.
At the very least, Hatrack has been good for all of us to bring some of these unconscious attitudes to the fore. I just wish we were all a little better at taking that into account in our discussion.
I had actually written this whole pedantic civility post earlier today for this thread, but decided against posting it. I think I've done it enough around here. I will say that people should go back an re-read my posts and rivka, MrsM, dkw and Belle's posts in the first thread on this subject. Some good stuff there, really. Much better than what we're seeing here.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rivka posted a link on the first page that details her beliefs as to why the Jewish dead apparently can't choose. In this context, I can intellectually see where she and Jews who have similiar spiritual beliefs are coming from.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
I think they mean meaningless to the person who is dead Dag, obviously the living have reasons for being upset, as evident in this thread. The dead person is not forced in anyway by the ordinance, in fact many argue the true purpose of the ordinance is to turn the minds of the living towards the dead.
I admit its a temptation to believe, "The dead couldn't possibly mind, why do you?"
But if there are religions that believes my acts can negatively effect the situation of a person already dead, it does introduce a dynamic that I was not aware of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't speak for Lisa (obviously) but I would be offended if my church was doing this to people who didn't want it. I am offended by what my church has done along these lines.
But how can you PROVE they "didn't want" it, they are dead.
I would take the fact that people have chosen death over being baptized when they were alive and could make the choice to be pretty persuasive. The next of kin - friends and family should be able to make that determination.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I would totally agree that many people have a major problem with this and singling LDS out for it would be unjustified. I was reacting to a statement that said that the only people who think that LDS are contemptuous obviously don't many LDS. I took exception to this, as it runs counter to my experience here nad I wanted to make the point that most of what I've seen has been an unconscious form of disrespect that I'm sure most of the people exhibiting don't even realize they are doing it.
As someone who sticks up for "crazy" religious beilefs (the jedi thing from a while back comes to mind or the people who as a religious ceremony dipped pretzels in chocolate), I deal with the more overt mockery that people put out too (incidentally, lots of LDS mocking on both of those), but a lot of what I see is like this thread, where people come out with "This is an offensive desecration." and are met with people who aren't even trying to see their point but rather explain why they are wrong and things in a similar vein.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with not respecting other people's beliefs, if you are right about those beliefs being false, but I don't think people should claim that they do respect them when they clearly don't.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could someone explain to me why the assumption seems to be that if the Mormons are wrong about posthumous baptism then what they do is meaningless? A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on this assumption, and I can't see where it comes from.
Maybe it would be good to discuss how it does hurt people. If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion. If it does hurt someone, they don't see why, so some discussion on this might be helpful.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to admit I'd find it terrifying to belong to a religion that believes that no matter how you live your life, once you die and for the rest of human history any lunatic, sociopath or con artist who finds out your name can radically effect the quality of your eternal afterlife. Yikes! Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
I honestly would not care if they performed their own version of posthumous baptism or what have you. It does not affect my own beliefs. I may find it annoying, but I wouldn't say anything about it.
Now, if they were pouring wine on a grave of my ancestor, I might object if I had a right to the property of that gravestone (or are gravestones public property? Not sure about that).
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
To answer your first question, being a Mormon, I can say I would be okay with it. Cuz either they are right and I'm "saved" or I'm right and it doesn't matter.
I would be very sad if somebody poured wine on my loved ones grave in the name of Satan. But it wouldn't matter. Satan doesn't save souls.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Has anybody asked if this were reversed how Mormons would feel? If some new group that came along with a belief system very foreign from Mormon's performed a version of posthumous baptism can they honestly say they would be ok with it?
What if I were to form a religion, it caught on and became major, that said we must pour wine on the graves of the dead in the name of Satan to save their souls?
I was fine with it until you were actually physically desecrating the body or a memorial erected in their memory, neither of which Mormons do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion.
Is it out of disrespect for their religion? Probably not. Is it disrespectful of their religion? Yes, it is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I've got to admit I'd find it terrifying to belong to a religion that believes that no matter how you live your life, once you die and for the rest of human history any lunatic, sociopath or con artist who finds out your name can radically effect the quality of your eternal afterlife. Yikes!
Are you implying that we believe that the baptism alone saves them? There is much more to it in our doctrine. Baptism is a necessary ordinance, but it means absolutely nothing if you have not exercised faith in Christ, repented of your sins and actually changed at a core level. We don't give free rides to heaven no matter your sins just because we performed a posthumous baptism. You are still the same spirit when you die and have to go through the same changing process as people do in mortality. The only reason we perform these baptisms for all deceased persons (who were not baptized by proper priesthood authority during mortality) is because we don't take it upon ourselves to judge who is worthy and who is not. We leave that judgment up to Christ. We just perform the work, and let that person, as well as God, decide whether or not the baptism actually accounts for anything.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it would be good to discuss how it does hurt people. If an LDS person gets baptized for someone, it is not out of disrespect for their religion. If it does hurt someone, they don't see why, so some discussion on this might be helpful.
My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
That's what I don't get.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Baron was actually talking about Judaism as it appears that "I" could influence the situation of a dead person in a tangible and adverse way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Baron was actually talking about Judaism as it appears that "I" could influence the situation of a dead person in a tangible and adverse way.
If so, then nevermind. Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Because I honestly hadn't thought along those lines and see why it may be an important point to raise.
quote:Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
quote:My question was at a much more basic level. I'll genericize:
Given a premise: Action X causes result Y.
From what I'm seeing, many people are assuming that if this premise is false, it means:
Action X does nothing.
Why are people making this assumption in general? That's what I don't get. Why are the conclusions of the form
Action X causes result _ (for all _ <> Y)
not even considered?
Just for clarification (and because my head exploded in a messy fashion when I first read that post) are you saying "even though action X does not result in Y, action X may still result in Z, where Z may be undesirable"?
Because I honestly hadn't thought along those lines and see why it may be an important point to raise.
--j_k
You wouldn't be the only one Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Waves dead chicken in direction of all theists, cursing them in the name of the IPU*
Hah. Eat hot atheist curse, theist scum. And you can't even take offense, because the IPU doesn't exist!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
What kind of logical process is really all that useful in matters of faith? I don't get your confusion. When the premise is a matter of faith, then what kind of logical proofs are there that can show that one 'assumption' is worse than the next?
If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
One of the more interesting aspects of this discussion is the place of outrage within the context of proselytization. After all, if the concern is legitimate that Mormons not baptize Jewish souls after death because of what could happen to their state in the afterlife, then how can Mormons, or anyone else, in good conscience proselytize when the results, in the eyes of many religions, will be that when that person dies he or she will die a permanent death, go to hell, or suffer some other kind of negative consequence?
While I understand that, from Rivka's point of view, Jewish souls don't have choice, does choice really make it o.k. for other religions to proselytize in this world when, from the perspective of another religion, luring someone away from the true church is akin to sentencing them to death or worse?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your point is that, if we can't know whether something causes harm, we shouldn't do it, then this goes back to the matter of faith under discussion, i.e. the state of a person after their death.
I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
People may not believe that X causes Y (In this case, posthumous baptism causing dead spirits to be given the choice of salvation). But that does not mean they also believe that X causes nothing.
Just because they don't believe X causes Y, it doesn't mean that they feel X has no effects. X may cause Z, for instance (posthumous baptism done in someone's name has negative consequences on their memory and their afterlife).
Just because one doesn't believe in the Mormon concept of the afterlife *does not* automatically mean they feel the act of posthumous baptism is harmless.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In such an impasse, the wishes of the deceased, as far as we can tell, should be the deciding factor. Family and friends should be the determiners of what that would be.
That's the problem. The Mormons don't care what the person's wishes were on the matter. They think the person might change his or her mind in the great beyond.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: But if I had to choose between someone in Utah taking a dip in a pool while spouting my grandma's name, and someone saying that my home is their property and I'm only allowed to live here out of the goodness of their hearts, I know which one I'd find more offensive.
Not to derail, but that blog post is a reaction to their interminable claim that they own our land. In any negotiation scenario, if A claims 100% and B claims 50%, B is screwed. And since God did give all that land to us, I figured it's about time we said so, even if it has no practical application at the current time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading this entire thread, I can tell you all that I have seldom been happier to be an atheist than today. This is insane. Not the topic of the thread itself, but the way some of you have begun attacking each other for your beliefs. The way you're nitpicking each other's personal beliefs and implying that yours is superior to theirs. Get over yourselves. Grow up. Stop acting superior to each other. Nobody here is superior.
Show a little respect for each other's beliefs, at the very least, even if you think they're completely stupid. At least respect the rights of other people to choose what they want to believe. If you want to have a civilized discussion about a controversial topic, then have one, but comments like these are disgusting and unworthy of people like you:
"If a descendent of mine were ever, God forbid, to become a Mormon and tried to have my posthumously baptised, I'd come back and haunt her. It'd make Poltergeist look like Casper by comparison."
"Keep off of my people."
"Because it will make you our enemies."
"That said-- I don't really care about your, or anyone's, opinion in regards to proxy work or any other crazy Mormon practices. I care about God's opinion."
"It isn't funnier the second time, you know." (this one in reference to a Mormon explaining his beliefs to you)
"my experiences at Hatrack have shown me that LDS are among the most disrespectful group towards other people's beliefs."
"I expect that those people would be and are offended by the fact that God gave us that land. They show their anger by blowing children up."
I want to puke all over the forum right now. This kind of talk is sickening. This kind of talk is why people start wars, and why some wars have never ended (Israel, I'm looking at you here). This kind of behavior is exactly why I and many of my fellow atheists believe that the world would be better off without religion. A shame it's too late to erase it from the human consciousness.
Why does an atheist know how to be civil and kind to her fellow humans, but some of you supposedly superior-minded religious folks act like three-year-olds throwing tantrums if somebody does something you don't like?
I'm getting off of Hatrack for a few days at least until this topic blows over. I'm so disgusted with some of you right now I don't even want to see your screen names.
Grow up and act like adults, in the name of all that's sensible.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: You know, this thread has a bunch of parallels to the Rosie O'Donell racial gaffe thread. "I did something I didn't know was offensive. I'm sorry I offended anyone. I'll probably do it again."
Though it, at times, has the added modifier of "You shouldn't be offended by this".
Actually, I think it's much more similar to the publication of the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper.
Right. Because, you know, of all the rioting and bombs and people getting dead.
quote: I think his point is that so many people seem unable to even conceive that their actions, though well-intentioned, may have negative unintended consequences.
Right. I get this. But this goes back to my question of, why would they when all they have to go on is their faith?
To put it another way, why don't Jews consider that what the Mormons are doing might have positive unintended consequences?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, the way to get posthumous revenge would be for some Jewish synagogue to posthumously adopt Joseph Smith as an honorary Jew.
You know, Ron, I often find it hard to understand you. But never so much as now. Why the hell would we want "revenge"? Do you think that two wrongs make a right? Sheesh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And since God did give all that land to us, I figured it's about time we said so, even if it has no practical application at the current time.
Lisa, you outrageous instigator, have you ever considered that maybe God didn't give anybody that land, because perhaps God doesn't exist?
Even if he does, does he want your people to prolong a bloody and vicious conflict in his name? Does God like war more than he likes compromise and caring for your fellow people?
Ugh. With that, I'm out of here. I'll be around sakeriver if anybody needs to get hold of me. Tell me when this thread has sunk into oblivion and I'll be back.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
