Has Ank gone off the deep end?

[grumbler]

I think that is the least of it - the narcissim implicit in religion goes beyond that. The idea that there is an omnipotent being who created a universe the size of which renders humans a tiny spec, and it was all created JUST FOR YOU, and said omnipotent being cares about nothing really much more than your own adulation of it.

I mean, that is almost breathtaking in its arrogance. The creator of the universe made the entire thing just so YOU could worship HIM.

I believe none of this. Weird since it is 'implicit' and all.

Yeah, Berkut goes too far in his generalization.  Lots of religions don't even have gods, let alone omnipotent creators.  Now, he hits the nail on the head for Judeo-Christian-Muslims, but not for anyone else I know of.

[Berkut]

It is - the only thing more amusing than overly sensitive guys like Ben is actual, real examples of people who actually get offended that other people don't call some decoration the name THEY want it to be called. The narcissism of the idea that only YOUR name is the acceptable name is amusing, to say the least.

I just said that people are totally free, this being a free country, to go chop down a Norwegian fir, stand it up in their living room, put a Star of Inoffensiveness at the top, hang a couple of winged statues of Lowest Common Denominator from the branches, and call it a Tree of Interfaith Dialogue if they want.  But as is your wont when that vein in your forehead starts a-twitchin', you ignored that.

The tree in question is not your private Tree of Interfaith Dialogue, it is partly my tree, and therefore I have a say in what it is called.

But the point is that your whine is that other people don't call it what you want it called.

You, of course, are free to call it anything you like. But apparently others are only free to call it what YOU like.

The problem lies not in not conforming to what Yi or I think it should be called, but in being too politically correct to call it what it is.  That's what political correctness is all about at its core, you do realize, don't you--trying to avoid giving offense to anyone by either using euphemisms or by avoiding unpleasant truths altogether.  I thought you were opposed to political correctness.

It is, as always, a balance of course.

Like I said, if I was President, I would call it a Christmas tree. Certainly the tree in my living room is called that.

But I am terribly amused that if someone calls it anything else, the Christians get all upset - because it somehow is seen by them as an attack on...what exactly?

Boy, that would be narcisiitic, good thing I am not doing that, and simply taking them at their word on what they believe.

Uhm, no.  I've certainly never constantly insisted that God only created the universe so that I personally can worship him;  indeed, I don't think I've ever claimed that at all, though I suppose it's possible I've made some joke about it or maybe brought it up as a hypothetical in a discussion about epistemology.

It is the claim implicit in the monotheistic religions, certainly within Christianity. God created the universe, and the Earth, parked humans on it, and said "Worship me!". Of course you don't all couch it in such stark terms, but they are the terms nonetheless. I've certainly never heard any other purpose given for God creating humans, and certainly in my own religious education it was made very clear to me that our purpose was first and foremost the worship of god.

You still see that all the time - Christians commonly say something like your priorities should be "1. God, 2. Family, 3. Work" or whatever. But God is always right there at Numero Uno.

[Berkut]

I think that is the least of it - the narcissim implicit in religion goes beyond that. The idea that there is an omnipotent being who created a universe the size of which renders humans a tiny spec, and it was all created JUST FOR YOU, and said omnipotent being cares about nothing really much more than your own adulation of it.

I mean, that is almost breathtaking in its arrogance. The creator of the universe made the entire thing just so YOU could worship HIM.

I believe none of this. Weird since it is 'implicit' and all.

Yeah, Berkut goes too far in his generalization.  Lots of religions don't even have gods, let alone omnipotent creators.  Now, he hits the nail on the head for Judeo-Christian-Muslims, but not for anyone else I know of.

I was very careful to note that already.

Yes, there are certainly religions that do not have such a epistemology, but they don't seem to be very popular...

[Razgovory]

Ah, theology I got from a Robert A. Heinlein book!

[Valmy]

Mormons are allowed to baptize their relatives after death. The controversy comes from when they baptize someone completely unrelated to them.

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

Huh. I guess to emphasize the spiritual powah of family or something.

[Valmy]

Yeah, Berkut goes too far in his generalization.  Lots of religions don't even have gods, let alone omnipotent creators.  Now, he hits the nail on the head for Judeo-Christian-Muslims, but not for anyone else I know of.

Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.

[Syt]

Mormons are allowed to baptize their relatives after death. The controversy comes from when they baptize someone completely unrelated to them.

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

Yeah, my Mom was pissed when my oldest sister had our dad posthumously baptized during her hardcore Mormon years (They're now not-practicing, I think, or with another non-Mormon church, since coffee & alcohol feature prominently in her Facebook feed; don't know, don't care). My sister said that Mom and Dad would be reunited in the afterlife and that he would be how he was when he when they met and married.

My Mom's response was something along the lines of having had to spend 30+ years with the fucker and that that had been enough for the rest of this life and the next.

[11B4V]

 

[Martinus]

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

[Martinus]

The outrage is a little silly.  Why would an atheist care at all what someone tries to do to them after their death?

I had an impression these were actually religious relatives of the deceased who care, not atheists.

To me, of course, this seems indeed like nothing I could care about when I am dead so this should be treated the same way as other "crimes" against the deceased, such as necrophilia or desecration of corpses.

[Tonitrus]

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

Makes perfect sense.

- If they've become Morman in the afterlife, all is good.
- If they're some other Christian, they can just roll their eyes from their cloud-recliner.
- If they're an atheist...does it even fucking matter?  They're just gone.
- If they're Muslim...they're probably too busy with the virgins to even care.

[Martinus]

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

Makes perfect sense.

- If they've become Morman in the afterlife, all is good.
- If they're some other Christian, they can just roll their eyes from their cloud-recliner.
- If they're an atheist...does it even fucking matter?  They're just gone.
- If they're Muslim...they're probably too busy with the virgins to even care.

I just question the ability of the dead to give an informed consent. We certainly feel this way about having sex with them, no?

[11B4V]

It is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.

Makes perfect sense.

- If they've become Morman in the afterlife, all is good.
- If they're some other Christian, they can just roll their eyes from their cloud-recliner.
- If they're an atheist...does it even fucking matter?  They're just gone.
- If they're Muslim...they're probably too busy with the virgins to even care.

I just question the ability of the dead to give an informed consent. We certainly feel this way about having sex with them, no?

That doesn't stop the nut jobs.

[Jaron]

The idea is that after death those who did not prepare their souls in life go to a spirit prison. Proxy baptism is a way to release loved ones from this spiritual prison and allow them to continue to their afterlife in heaven.

[Martinus]

I think this opens a broader question to what extent we have a right to expect our wishes being followed after our death if there are no relatives to enforce them.

Say, I wish to be buried in a certain manner (and leave money for that) or I don't wish my name to be used in relation to a cause I disagree with - assuming I leave no relatives or loved ones, should the society respect these wishes (and prevent others from violating them, e.g. if they wanted to use my name for some cause I found abhorrent in life) or not?

I believe, for the sake of psychological wellbeing of people still alive (who may be distressed by someone fucking over their memory after they die, even though strictly speaking it is irrational), such wishes should be respected. To me, post-mortem baptisms come very close to violating this principle.