posted
I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Joking about unbaptizing Mormons was kinda funny but I guess Rivka's link rubbed me the wrong way. Mormons are not trying to expand their ranks, or obtain any personal gain from proxy baptism. Though there are blessings promised one should not do the act purely because there is a benefit to it, they do it because God commanded it.
The process of identifying all of those who have lived in the past is a monumental task that IMO will never be completed until post 2nd coming. The people who work all day everyday do it as a labor of love, there is no malice in any of them.
I've done proxy work myself and I always felt very peaceful and happy doing it. I always imagined I would like to meet the people for whom I have acted as proxy because the names I have done come from all over the place. But the overwhelming sentiment I have gleaned from the non Mormon crowd is that I can expect to be given a harsh reception by those folks.
I dunno, Ill probably lurk around this thread, perhaps even post a bit more, I just wish that perhaps opponents of proxy baptism might soften alittle as I feel I have on this question. Its hard to be looked down on by people who you look up to.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my understanding, but I feel like I'm missing something because it seems inconsistent. Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
It seems like you would get more people interested in your religion if you treated them and their beliefs with more respect. I would have problems talking to a missionary to gather more information about your beliefs. Proxy baptisms would be the elephant in the room.
On a slightly separate note, what do you believe happens if the name of a live person was accidentally submitted to the lists?
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Yes, I can see easily how the intolerance of Mormons in insisting that non-Mormons not have their wishes respected after they pass on and indignation that others simply don't understand their motive could lead too misunderstanding and disagreement about Mormonism.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
It seems like you would get more people interested in your religion if you treated them and their beliefs with more respect. I would have problems talking to a missionary to gather more information about your beliefs. Proxy baptisms would be the elephant in the room.
On a slightly separate note, what do you believe happens if the name of a live person was accidentally submitted to the lists?
Thing is, not everyone believes that it is disrespectful. I understand that there are those who do, and personally, I try to respect their beliefs. It is not universal, however.
As for a living person who's been submitted... It's happened. It's not supposed to, it's not common, but it has happened. The ordinances were performed, but because the person was living, it had no effect and the ordinances were cancelled and removed from the list of completed ordinances.
But then, this is also why I, and most others advocate better quality research and following policies and procedures properly.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
quote: "Did you just call baptism for the dead a PR stunt? *blink* "
No, I was talking about any agreements that co-opt religious beliefs or ordinances.
Well, I am glad at least that you can own up to the insincerity in respecting other peoples belief. Respect is not a core value. It is just a PR stunt.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
On the previous page I said:
quote:Why don't we just wait until then and save ourselves all this hassle? We don't know, except that we've been commanded to do the work right now, inasmuch as we are able.
quote:Do you believe there are any requirements on salvation (obviously not ordinances, but accepting Christ as your personal savior, for instance)? If so, and someone hasn't done it before they die, are they doomed?
No. I think the outward action is not important, it's what happens inside that matters. I don't put any "must haves" on it - no public profession of faith, no "walking the aisle" no praying of specific prayers. I think a person lying in their death bed, with a tube in their throat unable to speak, can understand and accept Christ's saving grace without doing anything except what happens internally in their heart and soul.
I wasn't speaking specifically about outward actions. Do you believe that if someone dies without accepting Christ (regardless of outward manifestation) they are doomed? Regardless of whether they had any access to knowledge of Christ's existence in this life? Or do you think someone could somehow accept Christ's grace without a priori knowledge of Him?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given you believe the people whose names are not on the proxy lists, will have other chances later. Why not just let everyone have their chance then, save yourselves work now, and stop treating others disrespectfully?
On the previous page I said:
quote:Why don't we just wait until then and save ourselves all this hassle? We don't know, except that we've been commanded to do the work right now, inasmuch as we are able.
Additionally, the sooner the actual ordinance occurs, the sooner the benefits thereof are realized. For instance, if someone were to have accepted the gospel, but remain unbaptized, they would not have (to my understanding of the doctrine) direct access to Christ. Only after they receive the ordinance (by proxy) would that occur. Thus, by delaying the work there is a penalty incurred, which is insignificant in the eternal scheme of things, but a penalty nonetheless.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the necessity of doing ordinances for the dead right now underscores the importance of going through them ourselves, in life.
If we promoted a sense of "it doesn't matter, it'll happen eventually, don't worry about it", not only would that be out of character for Mormons in general, but it would also imply that our living ordinances were similarly pointless and unimportant, which in turn would have an effect on how seriously we would take all of our associated obligations.
Living rituals are a critical, central part of our faith. Learning to dismiss them would be very destructive to our way of life.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point that others have made that I should underscore: Baptizing people by proxy isn't about "making them Mormons". Some people seem to get the impression that that's what it's about, which just sounds strange and foreign to me.
In a very simplistic model of the Mormon worldview, there are basically these big obstacles between your average person and heaven. Doing rituals like baptism knocks down the obstacles. The person still has to walk the distance to get into heaven, but with baptism, etc, out of the way, at least they're not impeded.
Among the living, getting baptized is tied to adding one's name to the membership roster of the Church, but that's not the only thing that it is about, and among the dead, I'm pretty sure that membership in a specific organized church isn't part of the deal. Mormonism is only one incarnation of "God's Church", from an historical perspective. In the hereafter, I think that "being a Mormon" or "not being a Mormon" is just not an issue at all.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, if someone were to have accepted the gospel, but remain unbaptized, they would not have (to my understanding of the doctrine) direct access to Christ. Only after they receive the ordinance (by proxy) would that occur. Thus, by delaying the work there is a penalty incurred, which is insignificant in the eternal scheme of things, but a penalty nonetheless.
To put this in the terms of this thread, we believe that failing to do proxy work for people now, instead of waiting to do it later, can cause suffering and anguish to the souls of those people who are waiting for their work to be done.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Don't worry about that when it comes to me. I'll be completely honest with you and tell you that despite this posthumous baptism thing, I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
I look at my fellow Jews, and I'm constantly filled with shame at our passivity. If half of us had half the commitment to get off our tails and do things that Mormons have, the Messiah would be knocking on the door right now.
Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I must confess I have bitter sweet feelings about this thread. On the one hand I am grateful to understand the oppositions view point a bit more completely. I have always been confused as to why opponents of proxy baptism get so bent out of shape over it, and always chalked it up to ignorance. My opinions on the matter have changed moderately in that I agree alittle more with my opponents. But it saddens me to see people come away from this discussion with a lesser opinion of Mormonism as such is never my intent. On one hand I expect it, as "there must needs be offense," and I am quite used to seeing misunderstanding and disagreement spawn intolerance and indignation.
Don't worry about that when it comes to me. I'll be completely honest with you and tell you that despite this posthumous baptism thing, I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
I look at my fellow Jews, and I'm constantly filled with shame at our passivity. If half of us had half the commitment to get off our tails and do things that Mormons have, the Messiah would be knocking on the door right now.
Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I dislike Occasional's attitude of screw you, we're going to do what we're going to do, but to be honest, only because Mormonism isn't true. I expect that I'd be saying the exact same thing as Occasional, including thinking of the 1995 agreement as weaselly, if I were a Mormon and thought it was the real deal.
So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: <nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
Gawd, no. I think that people are, by nature, people. With the capability to choose good or to choose evil. And with the capability to repent should they choose evil. I don't even know what "devilish" means, except when it's followed by the phrases "sense of humor" or "good looks".
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually have a lot more respect for Mormonism than any other religion (other than Judaism, obviously). If I didn't know that Judaism was true, I suspect there'd be a fair chance that I'd have become a Mormon myself.
quote:So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Jews do not accept the concept of salvation.
<nod> We don't believe in "original sin", so we don't have any need of what they call "salvation". Nothing to be saved from.
Do you believe that people are by nature carnal, sensual, and devilish? Or that without strict guidelines and laws they can't be protected from themselves?
You can believe in salvation without believing Adam and Eve tainted us all. I personally don't believe it and yet believe that I need salvation as I am not like God.
I'm not reading through this whole topic, but I don't really think that sensual and devilish belong in the same sentence! Sexual desire is NATURAL! How else can we reproduce, as we are not amebas. It's not an evil thing unless people don't control it or channal it properly. *wanders out of the topic before I say something rude as I am FRUSTRATED by modern Christinity*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS don't believe sexual desire is unnatural or evil, Synesthesia.
The definition of "sensual" used in this phrase refers to -only- being concerned with physical sensations of all kinds to the exclusion of seeing to other needs...only caring about filling the belly, sleeping, etc.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of don't see anything wrong with being sensual... Perhaps because I wish I could get more sleep. I never seem to get enough sleep. Still, it's nice to have the sensual and the spiritual together.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I'll back off here. Not because I think baptising people who didn't ask for it is anything but nasty, but because the only real response I have to it is "You're wrong, so don't do it", and I know I wouldn't listen to that in their position.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Standing on the outside looking in, other Christians seem like beggars by comparison. They have their salvation, and they don't really have to inconvenience themselves much about it. They have priests to do stuff that needs to be done, while Mormons all take part in everything. It seems like a much more participatory religion, and I have a lot of respect for that.
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for speaking well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity. So your objection to her hate-filled rhetoric and bigotry goes away when it's no longer directed at you?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They aren't thanking me for speaking well of Mormonism. They know I consider Mormonism completely false. They're just thanking me for backing off the complaints about the posthumous baptism. Chill out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, if you'll notice what I thanked her for wasn't the part you quoted. It was the part where she said she'd back off.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
The ill effects of our sins. Every sin is an insult to God, and certainly we cannot simply say, "whoops, sorry won't happen again." As a very real law has been broken and there must needs be a consequence to every action.
Perhaps I misunderstand but in the law there are penalties outlines for every trespass. But there were commandments before the law as well and people knowingly sin against their better judgment all the time. What is God's reaction to those who die with offenses they have not made amends for i.e the entire human race.
Do you believe then that people are all born neutral with neither a disposition for committing sin nor a propensity for good?
If we are God's children I can understand that we have a potential for good and evil, but lacking the discipline God has, I can't see us being as perfect as he is.
ELjay: I decided that I was more concerned with thanking Lisa for putting some of my anxieties to rest, rather then casting it aside and tanking up the mantle of "Christianity's Defender."
Call it weakness, but I'd rather not keep debating everything wrong I see in other's opinions and by so doing ignore some of the good they are trying to accomplish. Your comment reminds me of the movie Dogma where the two angels kill all those execs for gross sins and then one of them tells the woman that she is free to go for not having done anything and then suddenly points a gun at her and says, "But you didn't say God bless you when I...." and has to be restrained by the other angel.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for speaking well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity.
Me, too. What's clear to me from Lisa's description is that she's not describing the religion I belong to, or most of the Protestants I've hung out with either.
Her description might apply to some members of other denominations, but I've heard the Mormons here make similar posts about some of their own members, so it's not like it's a distinguishing factor.
Frankly, her description sounds like a cartoon version of Christianity, or describing Judaism as a bunch of rules about housekeeping.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could be. Like I said, it's the view from the outside looking in. I wasn't claiming any kind of authoritative view by saying it. Purely subjective.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
And likewise you cannot know that they were thanking Lisa for slamming others. I think it's an unfair conclusion to jump to.
------
Beverly isn't around to defend herself, but I can say with a reasonable amound of surity that she was thanking Lisa for the same thing I was.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
There's an edit at the bottom of my previous post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Salvation requires something to be saved from. What do you think that is?
The ill effects of our sins. Every sin is an insult to God, and certainly we cannot simply say, "whoops, sorry won't happen again." As a very real law has been broken and there must needs be a consequence to every action.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Repentence isn't just "whoops, sorry won't happen again". I talked about this here, only a week ago.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Perhaps I misunderstand but in the law there are penalties outlines for every trespass. But there were commandments before the law as well and people knowingly sin against their better judgment all the time. What is God's reaction to those who die with offenses they have not made amends for i.e the entire human race.
You pay for those. But not with "eternal hellfire" or any such idea. When you die, you become fully aware of what you did and all the implications of what you did. And your "proximity" to God (so to speak) is a function of how much or how little you conformed yourself to His Will.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Do you believe then that people are all born neutral with neither a disposition for committing sin nor a propensity for good?
Yes. Tabula rasa.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If we are God's children I can understand that we have a potential for good and evil, but lacking the discipline God has, I can't see us being as perfect as he is.
We're not. But we were never intended to be, either. God doesn't need to choose good; He is Good. For us, it's a matter of choice.
We don't hold with the idea that God started out as a man, you know. We hold that God existed before anything. That He created everything from nothing. That He is omnipotent (literally) and omniscient (literally), and that good and evil exist as concepts only relative to God. I know from things Geoff Card has posted that this is not the Mormon position, but it is definitely the Jewish position.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lisa, while mph's comment was clear on that, neither BBs nor beverly's was. So unless you are a mind reader, I don't think you know that.
That's how I took it. After all, I gave Mormonism the lie right in that post. Why would you think they'd take that as a praisefest?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for part of a post that speaks well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity without commenting on the slamming.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then change my bemusement as follows:
I'm somewhat bemused by the people thanking Lisa for part of a post that speaks well of Mormonism by slamming other branches of Christianity without commenting on the slamming.
sigh* very well.
Lisa thank you for your kind words concerning Mormonism and the fact you acknowledge we cannot argue this topic coming from our doctrinal backgrounds.
However it was rude of you to say such things about other Christian denominations, so much so it removes all value from the praise you offered my religion and therefore I discard it all in disgust.
Please acknowledge that you can say the good things you said in your post without necessarily saying the mean things about other Christians that you did, even if that is in fact your perception of things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baptism does not save anyone, of course. Baptism is a means of confessing Christ. Asking whether it is necessary is like asking whether confessing Christ is necessary. The thief on the cross beside Jesus, who confessed Him, was accepted by Jesus and assured that he would be with Him in Paradise. But it is undeniable that if the thief on the Cross had been given the opportunity, he would have been baptized.
It is interesting that the oldest Catholic churches in Europe and the Middle East have full-sized baptistries, designed for baptism by immersion. They are no longer used, but it is evident that at one time they were.
Baptism by immersion is the means that the Apostle Paul clearly was referring to when he said:
quote:"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—-because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him."
What we do in baptism is publicly identify ourselves with Christ in His death, burial, and ressurection, as we are buried in the water, then brought up out of the water in His name.
BlackBlade asked Lisa some good questions when he asked if it is not true that people have selfish, carnal, sensual natures. I would observe that I have yet to see a child that was not born selfish and prone to anger. I also observe that those individuals who were not sufficiently disciplined by their parents when they were children, only get worse as they grow older, and often become a burden to themselves, their associates, and all of society. When such individuals are convicted and brought to conversion by the gospel of Christ, they still have a very severe struggle to teach themselves the lessons of self-disciple that could have been so much more easily learned if their parents had taught them when they were very young.
I would also point out to Lisa that we all die. The fact that we all die proves there is sin in us. That is why we die. God did not intend that any humans should ever die, when He first created Adam and Eve. Even though Adam and Eve repented and were surely forgiven, God still banished them from Eden, and forbade them to have access to the Tree of Life, because He did not want sinners to be immortal. (See Genesis 3:22-24.)
It surely is undeniable that we need some radical change to take place in us, until all the results of sin are removed from us, and we can live forever, as God intended.
I know that many Jews, and Mormons, believe that we had a prior life, and our "souls" go on after death. For that matter, most Christians believe that our souls go on after death, having forgotten the clear Biblical teaching that death is an unconscious sleep, that is not ended until the Resurrection. And it is only God who is innately, naturally immortal: "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality...." (1 Timothy 6:15, 16).
In is only when Jesus returns that His people will be given immortality: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Corinthians 15:53, 54.) This immortality is derived from God, of course. We will continue to partake of the Tree of Life for eternity as a continuing witness that our immortality comes from God and forever depends upon Him. Only God has immortality, "unborrowed, and underrived."
[ December 20, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, Lisa saying something insulting or rude about other's religion is what we've all come to expect.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ELjay: I decided that I was more concerned with thanking Lisa for putting some of my anxieties to rest, rather then casting it aside and tanking up the mantle of "Christianity's Defender."
Call it weakness, but I'd rather not keep debating everything wrong I see in other's opinions and by so doing ignore some of the good they are trying to accomplish.
That's fine, but you should be aware that, to me at least, and apparently also Dagonee, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
quote: Your comment reminds me of the movie Dogma where the two angels kill all those execs for gross sins and then one of them tells the woman that she is free to go for not having done anything and then suddenly points a gun at her and says, "But you didn't say God bless you when I...." and has to be restrained by the other angel.
She called other Christians self-centered beggers who don't give a shit about anyone's salvation but their own. Your comparison is belittling.
-------
mph, I'm more than willing to believe you that bev probably meant the same thing you did. However, since she didn't quote what part she was referring to, I think she should be aware that it could easily be misinterpreted.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sigh* very well.
Lisa thank you for your kind words concerning Mormonism and the fact you acknowledge we cannot argue this topic coming from our doctrinal backgrounds.
However it was rude of you to say such things about other Christian denominations, so much so it removes all value from the praise you offered my religion and therefore I discard it all in disgust.
Please acknowledge that you can say the good things you said in your post without necessarily saying the mean things about other Christians that you did, even if that is in fact your perception of things.
My goodness, your sincerity overwhelms me. Up yours, too.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's fine, but you should be aware that, to me at least, and apparently also Dagonee, it makes you look like a hypocrite.
I don't know how it makes me feel - hence my approval of "bemused" - but I do know that the inconsistency of responses was noticeable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to Navjote everyone in this thread unwillingly into the Zoroastrian faith just to keep things interesting.
At least them Mormons have the common decency to wait for you to be dead, but I'm too moxious for that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A long time ago I decided to stop trying to stem the tide when Lisa or King of Men say something offensive about religion. It didn't do any good, and the moderators didn't put a stop to it, so what was there to do? The only thing that I could have accomplished accomplished was raising my own blood pressure, so I abandoned that fight. I suspect many others did as well. In fact, I know that others did.
In this thread, for the first time ever (in my recollection), Lisa said she'd back down from saying certain offensive things. That's a good thing, and I don't feel bad for thanking her for it, especially since the things she said were especially hurtful to me.
Not getting up in arms about the other offensive things that she said is not hypocritical, especially if we are not in the habit of taking her to task for every offensive thing she says.
Perhaps it would have been better if one of us got upset on y'all's behalf. Perhaps not. I'm not sure. But failing to do so was not hypocracy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, do we all have to start paying tithe to support the Zoroastrian faith? Or is it sufficient if we just learn to fence, and grow asters in our garden?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, please notice my initial phrasing -- "somewhat bemused." BB's and bev's responses to Lisa struck me as a bit odd, considering how rude her post was to non-LDS Christians. Your post made it very clear what you were reacting to, and didn't give me pause.
While I understand that if everyone called Lisa on every offensive thing she ever said the board would crash due to the traffic overload, I do find responding positively to her post without specifically deliniating what you are responding to somewhat bemusing.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
