Religion Thread

[CorgiShinobi]

It did, however, get me thinking: are Christians, who believe that God is all-knowing and ever-watching, ever truly "in the dark"? And if not what does that say about their character? (I know that question sounds like an accusation of bad character, but really I only mean it as something to think about/discuss.)

It's like asking about the social masks people put on, or for a more relevant example, how people are online as opposed to offline.

 

It's a very valid question, especially for Christians. Anyone who believes in an Almighty God must also recognize that He is all-knowing. You can not hide your actions from Him, no matter how sly you are to hide it from your fellow man. Anyone can go to church on Sunday and act like the perfect role model, but what they do in their own privacy speaks louder about their character than what others see on a given day.

[TheMightyEthan]

But say a person truly believes in God to the very core of their being, and act like a good person all the time, even when not in the presence of any other humans or monitoring devices or anything. Are they really a good person, or is it just because they believe God is watching so in their mind they're never actually alone? How could you determine what such a person's true character is?

 

I mean, obviously this question is entirely philosophical, with little to no practical significance.

[MasterDex]

Isn't that the same sort of argument you here from some religious people - athiests are immoral because they don't fear the wrath of God? I imagine there are a lot of people who would otherwise do bad things did they not fear God would judge them but I think most people don't do bad things simply because they're good people with or without God.

[Battra92]

But say a person truly believes in God to the very core of their being, and act like a good person all the time, even when not in the presence of any other humans or monitoring devices or anything. Are they really a good person, or is it just because they believe God is watching so in their mind they're never actually alone? How could you determine what such a person's true character is?

 

I mean, obviously this question is entirely philosophical, with little to no practical significance.

 

Most Christians believe that no man is ever truly good. Calvin referred to this as Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) but it derives from the Augustinian concept of Original Sin in that man is incapable of living a life without sin. As we are incapable of living a life without sin, God has provided a way through Christ to be saved. The honest Christian understands that he is not perfect and that he is not able by his own acts or works to be saved and must instead turn to Christ and be saved through Grace alone (Sola gratia.)

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh I definitely agree that nobody's perfect, and ordinarily I wouldn't try and reconcile two seemingly unrelated philosophical outlooks like this, but since the sign was a church's sign it got me to thinking about how it would interact with their religious views.

[deanb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/mormons-posthumous-baptism-anne-frank_n_1292102.html?ref=tw

 

A bunch of Mormons have post-humously converted Anne Frank. For the 9th time.

 

Any body able to explain why anyone would want to do this?

[CorgiShinobi]

http://www.huffingto...102.html?ref=tw

 

A bunch of Mormons have post-humously converted Anne Frank. For the 9th time.

 

Any body able to explain why anyone would want to do this?

As a Mormon, I can tell you.

 

It's not the Church itself, but individuals (as written in the article) who submit a name for a proxy baptism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

 

You can look through the Wiki article to see the details, but it comes down to allowing souls into the Kingdom of God. See, unlike all other sects of Christianity, Latter-day Saints believe you can be baptized even after you've passed away. The problem is that it's not regulated and famous people, like say Abraham Lincoln, have been done multiple times.

 

Of course, people who want to baptize Jewish people are entirely unaware of how big a problem it is in the Jewish faith. The article itself mentions:

 

"Negotiations between Mormon and Jewish leaders led to a 1995 agreement for the church to stop the posthumous baptism of all Jews, except in the case of direct ancestors of Mormons, but Radkey says she found that some Mormons had failed to adhere to the agreement."

 

So, really, it comes down to salvation and members of my Church being ridiculous.

[deanb]

Yeah I didn't want to make it sound like it was something being actively done by the church of a whole (hence "a bunch of mormons").

 

Seems an odd thing to do, and understandably highly controversial. My understanding of baptism is it does tend to require the a-okay of the person(or their parent's since most are done young), so being dead that probably makes it really damn hard.

[CorgiShinobi]

The only people someone should be doing a proxy baptism for are 1) relatives, and 2) those who's relatives have given permission, which yeah, can be rather difficult.

 

I can't say what portion thinks what, but you'll either get people who don't care given they think it won't do anything, religiously or not, and those who are strictly opposed to it even though we're a "false" church.

 

A little history on Atomsk88:

I wasn't always Mormon, in fact for 17 years of my life I was Catholic. My father's side of the family was as Catholic as it could be; most of my ancestors being priests and nuns meaning usually a single brother or sister would have kids while the rest committed their lives to the Catholic Church.

 

So when one of my uncles who converted did a proxy baptism for my grandfather, my grandmother was upset, but I think mainly because her Catholic family had turned 90% Mormon and 5% Unaffiliated.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Atomsk88

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I think it is really bad that anyone should be baptised without consent, including babies and dead people. Like Romney posthumously baptising his staunchly atheist father in law, if you couldn't convince him in life it seems treacherous to go against his wishes. If you want to have yourself baptised, that is your choice, but something so important should not be undertaken without the person's permission.

 

Here's some redress. You can convert dead mormons to homosexuality.

 

http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

[TheMightyEthan]

Based on what I read on the practice, the Mormon theology is just that baptism by proxy of a dead person gives the spirit of the dead person the option to convert to Mormonism, but doesn't forcibly convert them, they still have the option to reject.

 

Emotionally I agree though, it seems dishonest.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

saying the dead person can reject it doesn't really make it seem any better in my eyes. The only way I'd find it acceptable is if a dying person said they wanted to be baptised but died before it could be done.

[deanb]

New question:

 

Dinosaurs?

[Yantelope V2]

With lasers?

 

[Hot Heart]

...and Cadillacs?

[WTF]

Man I had those toys when I was a kid...

[Mister Jack]

I don't know if you guys have already seen this ad but I had to share it.

 

[excel_excel]

Tch, UMDs are sooo 2005. Its all flash memory now, get with the times Jesus.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

at her mother's funeral? Pick you moments...

 

Blame the victims

[Battra92]

at her mother's funeral? Pick you moments...

 

I'm not Catholic so I may be wrong, but I do know that Catholic Priests can refuse to give someone communion. In doing some Googling, I found this:

Q. 2. Under what circumstances can a Catholic priest deny someone the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?

A. It can be denied under the following circumstances:

1. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to members of other religions, and

2. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist cannot be administered to those who voluntarily continue to live in grave sin.

I'm not a Priest (heck, I'm not even Catholic!) so I can't vouch for this entirely. I do know that the Roman Catholic church does excommunicate people so essentially this is what happened.

 

I'm a Methodist and double checking the UMC's website I get this joyful little message on their FAQ:

 

Should I receive Communion if I feel unworthy?

Two thousand years ago Jesus ate with sinners and those whom others scorned. He still does. None of us is worthy, except by God’s grace. Thank God we don’t have to earn worth in God’s eyes by our goodness or our faith. Your sacred worth, and ours, is God’s free gift. No matter what you have done or what your present condition, if you want Christ in your life you are welcome at his table. Communion provides the opportunity for you to confess your sins, to receive forgiveness, and to indicate your intention to lead a new life.

 

Catholics must do as they feel is right and despite the fact that I disagree with their practice (I wasn't allowed communion at my grandmother's funeral - the priest specifically said "Only Baptized Catholics.") I solve this issue with not being Catholic. I guess if I agreed with them, I'd probably be one.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Battra92

[TheMightyEthan]

The communion thing seems kind of dickish but not all that terrible considering Catholic beliefs, but the rest of it is pretty terrible IMO. Granted we don't know the whole story, maybe he actually was sick.

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, bit of an insensitive move, but if that's how he interprets the dogma, it's his church. Perhaps he could have handled it better by letting her know in advance that he would not offer her communion.

 

I've always held to the belief that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, maybe religions mainstream Christianity wouldn't be dying out if they weren't so busy being dicks to everyone not in their particular club.

 

Edited for WTF.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Thursday Next

[WTF]

To be honest with these sort of cases it's more to do with individuals as opposed to the strictest religious rules and yeah the guy chooses to interpret in a way that's not welcoming. Sort of anti-natural to what most religions begin with.

 

As for religions dying out, honestly? If anything the religious population of the world has increased more so than ever. It's definitely dying out in certain western nations, particularly most European nations but EU is getting ready for the phase of negative growth of its populous. I hate to be one of those doom and gloom sort of people but if the EU as a whole doesn't improve you're going to find more people heading towards a faith in the next generation (As in the one our kids belong to - people like to believe in something and like to accept that there's a guiding force). However if it does improve we're going to see a significant decline in the birth rate and an increment in longevity as what can already be witnessed in Japan and Germany. There's not going to be a reduction in those who subscribe to a religion. There's never been in terms of population ratios. There might however be new religions and hey there are plenty that are less than 100-150 years old with populations in the millions almost rivalling the irreligious.

 

What's happening in terms of religions is that, while one group of people have stopped believing, another has taken up the mantle. It's like a migratory pattern. Also several religions can't exist simultaneously in large numbers so it's pretty much like say corporations in video games if you want to take it that way. The middling ones and the lesser ones will die and the existing largest ones will grow as long as there are people who subscribe to the faith and of course we'll have the 'indies'.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

To be honest with these sort of cases it's more to do with individuals as opposed to the strictest religious rules and yeah the guy chooses to interpret in a way that's not welcoming. Sort of anti-natural to what most religions begin with.

 

As for religions dying out, honestly? If anything the religious population of the world has increased more so than ever. It's definitely dying out in certain western nations, particularly most European nations but EU is getting ready for the phase of negative growth of its populous. I hate to be one of those doom and gloom sort of people but if the EU as a whole doesn't improve you're going to find more people heading towards a faith in the next generation (As in the one our kids belong to - people like to believe in something and like to accept that there's a guiding force). However if it does improve we're going to see a significant decline in the birth rate and an increment in longevity as what can already be witnessed in Japan and Germany. There's not going to be a reduction in those who subscribe to a religion. There's never been in terms of population ratios. There might however be new religions and hey there are plenty that are less than 100-150 years old with populations in the millions almost rivalling the irreligious.

 

What's happening in terms of religions is that, while one group of people have stopped believing, another has taken up the mantle. It's like a migratory pattern. Also several religions can't exist simultaneously in large numbers so it's pretty much like say corporations in video games if you want to take it that way. The middling ones and the lesser ones will die and the existing largest ones will grow as long as there are people who subscribe to the faith and of course we'll have the 'indies'.

Yup. Based on the current rates of growth and expansion, I think that Islam will take over as the #1 religion in the states as it has in most other countries. In addition, were I to return to a life of faith, I would most certainly choose Islam.

 

I had the pleasure of studying Islam a couple of semesters ago, and frankly, it seems like a much nicer religion.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DukeOfPwn

[TheMightyEthan]

If I were going to pick a religion solely on the appeal of its ideas, I would probably pick something animistic. Or more accurately, I would probably make up my own and borrow a lot of animistic ideas, and probably some reincarnation too.

 

But, like I've said before, belief is an involuntary act, not something that you can choose to do just because it's appealing.