He has been posting more and more weird, ultra-conservative shit on Facebook lately. I wonder what happened.
:rolleyes:
No he really hasn't.
:huh:
Classic Martinus.
Examples?
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 01:44:06 AM
He has been posting more and more weird, ultra-conservative shit on Facebook lately. I wonder what happened.
You do remember the one Ank is right? The Navy guy, the one who supports Bernie Sanders?
:huh:
Well, he posted this weird "War on Christmas" rant by Ben Stein:
QuoteBen Stein. Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year, which prompted Ben Stein, to say, on CBS Sunday Morning:
My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
and this weird article from Spectator:
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/it-is-political-correctness-not-maniacal-bigots-that-will-end-civilisation/
indicating he agrees with both.
Ben Stein is incapable of ranting. Requires emotion.
He tries to approximate it with drawn-out vowel sounds.
Bueller?
Oh, tolerance. Yeah, that might seem odd to you Mart. Ank seems to have a "live and let live" attitude.
That's tamer than I expected seeing how nuts Ben Stein has become.
Become?
He was fairly sensible before (i.e., up until some point in the Bush Admin) but he's said some nutty things since then.
Quote from: derspiess on November 28, 2015, 01:52:03 PM
He was fairly sensible before (i.e., up until some point in the Bush Admin) but he's said some nutty things since then.
Haven't we all.
While I have zero problem with someone referring to a "Christmas tree", doesn't that same tolerance demand that we have no problem if someone does NOT refer to it is a Christmas tree?
In other words...can't people just fucking call it whatever they want without someone's vagina getting all sandy?
Ben has been nutty for awhile. Do you guys not remember in the 90s when his screws came loose and he started giving away all his money?
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:17:49 PM
While I have zero problem with someone referring to a "Christmas tree", doesn't that same tolerance demand that we have no problem if someone does NOT refer to it is a Christmas tree?
In other words...can't people just fucking call it whatever they want without someone's vagina getting all sandy?
If a random dude calls a decorated tree a "Holiday tree" it's not that big a deal. I'm free to think he's just a little too hung up and ignore him. But it's different IMO when it's the White House doing it. For one thing, it's not their Christmas tree. It's our Christmas tree, the country's Christmas tree.
The flaky part of the Stein article is the part when he talks about God deserting us and bad things happening to us because we've turned our backs on him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:17:49 PM
While I have zero problem with someone referring to a "Christmas tree", doesn't that same tolerance demand that we have no problem if someone does NOT refer to it is a Christmas tree?
In other words...can't people just fucking call it whatever they want without someone's vagina getting all sandy?
If a random dude calls a decorated tree a "Holiday tree" it's not that big a deal. I'm free to think he's just a little too hung up and ignore him. But it's different IMO when it's the White House doing it. For one thing, it's not their Christmas tree. It's our Christmas tree, the country's Christmas tree.
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
The flaky part of the Stein article is the part when he talks about God deserting us and bad things happening to us because we've turned our backs on him.
Yeah, that is always awesome, when religious people basically shit on everyone who God decides to kill because they didn't pray hard enough.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
I object to him calling my tree a different name.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
I object to him calling my tree a different name.
SO the answer to my question is no, and it will get all sandy. Gotcha. :P
Quote
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
I do not understand the equivalency here. Public discussion of God pass freely through cyberspace as well and public discussion of lewd, crude, vulgar, and obscene things also get suppressed in the school and workplace.
As far the fact people do not publicly blurt out religious things well it is a pretty old tradition you do not discuss money, religion, or politics in mixed company in this country.
I am not a huge fan of dumping ancient cultural traditions and making our world blander but hey some people really love doing that. I will not be though but I will fight to the death for your right to be lame.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 07:26:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 01:44:06 AM
He has been posting more and more weird, ultra-conservative shit on Facebook lately. I wonder what happened.
You do remember the one Ank is right? The Navy guy, the one who supports Bernie Sanders?
Maybe Bernie Sanders is ultra-Conservative to some people.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
I object to him calling my tree a different name.
SO the answer to my question is no, and it will get all sandy. Gotcha. :P
If that's what you want to call an objection, knock yourself out.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
I am not a huge fan of dumping ancient cultural traditions and making our world blander
I know. I was really mad when they dumped celebrating the birth of Mithra for this new fangled "Christ-mass" shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:17:49 PM
While I have zero problem with someone referring to a "Christmas tree", doesn't that same tolerance demand that we have no problem if someone does NOT refer to it is a Christmas tree?
In other words...can't people just fucking call it whatever they want without someone's vagina getting all sandy?
The flaky part of the Stein article is the part when he talks about God deserting us and bad things happening to us because we've turned our backs on him.
:lol: I will not submit to a made up supernatural totalitarian rule.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:00:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
I object to him calling my tree a different name.
SO the answer to my question is no, and it will get all sandy. Gotcha. :P
If that's what you want to call an objection, knock yourself out.
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.
Or that Starbucks does not say "Merry Christmas" when giving out cups.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
I know. I was really mad when they dumped celebrating the birth of Mithra for this new fangled "Christ-mass" shit.
Didn't realize you were grumbler's age.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
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.
Yeah. Characters in "Fifty Shades of Grey" are more psychologically believable than that.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
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 like that.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
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 think most religious people figure the seven billion other schlubs in the world are also supposed to be worshipping HIM.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2015, 04:59:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
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 think most religious people figure the seven billion other schlubs in the world are also supposed to be worshipping HIM.
Hence the problem. :lol:
It may be a problem, but it's not arrogance on the part of the believer.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2015, 05:15:10 PM
It may be a problem, but it's not arrogance on the part of the believer.
Oh, it is most definitely arrogance.
There is zero humility in religious belief*, no matter what they might say - there is nothing "humble" about the insistence that the entire universe was created for human benefit.
*Of course I am speaking about typical, monotheistic religious belief as it is practiced. It is certainly possible to have a religious belief that is not narcissistic. You could posit a religion where humans are not the point of creation, for example, or where the god(s) could not care less about the humans.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 05:27:06 PM
*Of course I am speaking about typical, monotheistic religious belief as it is practiced. It is certainly possible to have a religious belief that is not narcissistic. You could posit a religion where humans are not the point of creation, for example, or where the god(s) could not care less about the humans.
The best one. :cthulu:
This is why the Mormon interpretation is best. It is openly acknowledged that humanity is not the only flock in God's care.
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 06:18:23 PM
This is why the Mormon interpretation is best. It is openly acknowledged that humanity is not the only flock in God's care.
Mormon's are worse.
What logic is being followed by a White House that hosts Eid el-Fitr but calls it a holiday tree?
Quote
Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
Quote
Mormon Underwear, Revealed
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/mormon-underwear-revealed/381792/
I think it simplistic in the extreme to claim to know what billions of monotheistic religious people alive today and throughout history "really" believe, and likewise narcissistic to make definitive truth claims about the universe (eg either that there is no god or, yes, that there is a god and you know exactly what everyone should do based on this) whilst damning those who think differently with negative labels.
As a seperate issue, I also find it disingenuous to not impute any significance to how the White House chooses to celebrate and emphasize various holidays.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
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.
You have a say in what
you call it. You have no say whatsoever in what
I call it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 04:10:55 PM
I am not a huge fan of dumping ancient cultural traditions and making our world blander
I know. I was really mad when they dumped celebrating the birth of Mithra for this new fangled "Christ-mass" shit.
WTF? Sol Invictus motherfucker. And they gave Jesus his sun burst anyway so it all worked out.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
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 like that.
You would, it's quite tiresome.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
That comes with the territory of being religious. I mean, is there really anything more narcissistic than insisting that there is this infinite, eternal, unknowable, omnipotent entity out there - and at the same time claiming that you know exactly what It wants not just you, but the rest of the humanity to do?
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 like that.
You would, it's quite tiresome.
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Only because tiresome people like Ben Stein write stupid articles about it which leads to tiresome internet discussions of it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Only because tiresome people like Ben Stein write stupid articles about it which leads to tiresome internet discussions of it.
They can't help themselves. It's what they believe.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Not as tiresome as Berkut ranting.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Not as tiresome as Berkut ranting.
When a shot hurts, it hurts. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:18:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 08:14:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Only because tiresome people like Ben Stein write stupid articles about it which leads to tiresome internet discussions of it.
They can't help themselves. It's what they believe.
Making whiny ass articles? My God I cannot believe I once thought Ben Stein was a smart guy. Thinking murders are happening because we have turned from God? As opposed to that time in America when there were no murders?
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Not as tiresome as Berkut ranting.
When a shot hurts, it hurts. :lol:
Seriously? Viking did this shit better. I took the time to Read Dawkin's, Harris, Hitchens and Denett (of the the four horsemen of the Atheism only Denett had anything worth a damn to say. He was also the only one who wasn't dictatorial or totalitarian by nature), to that I could understand what Viking was on about. Berkut is just being his normal childish self. Putting words in CAPITAL LETTERS is not an ARGUMENT!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
I would agree with you that religion is quite tiresome.
Not as tiresome as Berkut ranting.
When a shot hurts, it hurts. :lol:
Seriously? Viking did this shit better. I took the time to Read Dawkin's, Harris, Hitchens and Denett (of the the four horsemen of the Atheism only Denett had anything worth a damn to say. He was also the only one who wasn't dictatorial or totalitarian by nature), to that I could understand what Viking was on about. Berkut is just being his normal childish self. Putting words in CAPITAL LETTERS is not an ARGUMENT!
I took the time to read Raz, Viking, Marty and Hans and found them passe, arbitrary and unimaginative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Camerus on November 28, 2015, 06:49:11 PM
I think it simplistic in the extreme to claim to know what billions of monotheistic religious people alive today and throughout history "really" believe,
Boy, that would be narcisiitic, good thing I am not doing that, and simply taking them at their word on what they believe.
Quote
and likewise narcissistic to make definitive truth claims about the universe (eg either that there is no god or, yes, that there is a god and you know exactly what everyone should do based on this) whilst damning those who think differently with negative labels.
Again, that would be bad, and I am glad I am not making any "definitive truth claims" one way or the other.
Quote
As a seperate issue, I also find it disingenuous to not impute any significance to how the White House chooses to celebrate and emphasize various holidays.
Any signifigance? Is that the only choice here? Call it what we say, or nothing at all?
I'm praying for Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
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.
I've made an effort to be civil, but now I'm done with your spazzing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 09:03:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
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.
I've made an effort to be civil, but now I'm done with your spazzing.
You are the one self reporting as being offended. I am perfectly fine with Obama calling the White House Christmas tree whatever he wants, and you calling the same whatever you want.
How does that equate to me being the one "spazzing"?
For you to stop.
That isn't very nice.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:48:23 PM
I took the time to read Raz, Viking, Marty and Hans and found them passe, arbitrary and unimaginative.
Finally, someone read my book!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2015, 09:57:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 08:48:23 PM
I took the time to read Raz, Viking, Marty and Hans and found them passe, arbitrary and unimaginative.
Finally, someone read my book!
:D
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
Quote
Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
Quote
Mormon Underwear, Revealed
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/mormon-underwear-revealed/381792/
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.
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
Quote
Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
Quote
Mormon Underwear, Revealed
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/mormon-underwear-revealed/381792/
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.
Yea. Nut jobs.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
Quote
Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
Quote
Mormon Underwear, Revealed
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/mormon-underwear-revealed/381792/
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.
Yea. Nut jobs.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Mormon crazy sounds more crazy just because it is new crazy.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut
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.
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 28, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
Quote
Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
Quote
Mormon Underwear, Revealed
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/mormon-underwear-revealed/381792/
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.
Yea. Nut jobs.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The outrage is a little silly. Why would an atheist care at all what someone tries to do to them after their death?
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2015, 10:34:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
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?
Quote
Quote from: Berkut
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 10:47:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 04:50:35 PM
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...
Ah, theology I got from a Robert A. Heinlein book!
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 10:47:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PMIt is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.
:hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 28, 2015, 10:44:00 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PMIt is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 29, 2015, 02:27:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PMIt is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.
:hmm:
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? :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:32:21 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 29, 2015, 02:27:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PMIt is a proxy baptism and the deceased has the choice to accept or reject it.
:hmm:
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? :P
That doesn't stop the nut jobs.
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.
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.
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 02:36:13 AM
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.
Frankly I fail to see why whether it is done by relatives or not should matter. Besides, I think it's rarely the case that all one's relatives follow the same religion - who should then have the decisive vote?
Well, part of it is that the Mormon church didn't come into being until the 19th century, so proxy baptisms allow them to offer their plan of salvation to those who lived before that time.
The point I need to emphasize is the proxy baptism does not make the relatives Mormons. Its an extension of an opportunity to accept the baptism to the soul in the afterlife. It does not in any way change the religious affiliation of the person as it exists in this life.
In the end, the decisive vote is on the person.
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 02:50:18 AM
Well, part of it is that the Mormon church didn't come into being until the 19th century, so proxy baptisms allow them to offer their plan of salvation to those who lived before that time.
The point I need to emphasize is the proxy baptism does not make the relatives Mormons. Its an extension of an opportunity to accept the baptism to the soul in the afterlife. It does not in any way change the religious affiliation of the person as it exists in this life.
In the end, the decisive vote is on the person.
Is it only used for those who lived before 19th century or also recent deceased?
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:54:45 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 02:50:18 AM
Well, part of it is that the Mormon church didn't come into being until the 19th century, so proxy baptisms allow them to offer their plan of salvation to those who lived before that time.
The point I need to emphasize is the proxy baptism does not make the relatives Mormons. Its an extension of an opportunity to accept the baptism to the soul in the afterlife. It does not in any way change the religious affiliation of the person as it exists in this life.
In the end, the decisive vote is on the person.
Is it only used for those who lived before 19th century or also recent deceased?
I don't know the exact rules except I'm pretty sure they should be a direct relative. Mormons go crazy with genealogy so they have a lot of records to pull names from. I'm not sure though if someone who has just died can be baptized or if there is a waiting period.
Don't worry though - you're like a brother to me and you'll be baptized IMMEDIATELY after death.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:25:26 AM
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.
When you're alive, people aren't allowed to rape you or beat you, but they are allowed to talk about you.
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 11:17:39 PM
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...
Hinduism isn't popular? Who knew?
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2015, 12:54:21 AM
Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.
I never mentioned you, but thanks for playing.
Quote from: derspiess on November 28, 2015, 08:58:51 PM
I'm praying for Berkut.
:( :yes: At least Raz realizes that he needs to start believing if his soul and happiness is to be salvaged. Berkut hasn't even made the first step of realizing that he should be suicidal.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 28, 2015, 10:44:00 PM
The outrage is a little silly. Why would an atheist care at all what someone tries to do to them after their death?
It's jut a mark of disrespect for the person's beliefs. Dead people wouldn't care either if their corpses were militated and left outside to be snacked on by vultures, and yet we still consider it bad form.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:44:27 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 02:36:13 AM
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.
Frankly I fail to see why whether it is done by relatives or not should matter. Besides, I think it's rarely the case that all one's relatives follow the same religion - who should then have the decisive vote?
Whoever's God made them live the longest.
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 03:14:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2015, 02:54:45 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 02:50:18 AM
Well, part of it is that the Mormon church didn't come into being until the 19th century, so proxy baptisms allow them to offer their plan of salvation to those who lived before that time.
The point I need to emphasize is the proxy baptism does not make the relatives Mormons. Its an extension of an opportunity to accept the baptism to the soul in the afterlife. It does not in any way change the religious affiliation of the person as it exists in this life.
In the end, the decisive vote is on the person.
Is it only used for those who lived before 19th century or also recent deceased?
I don't know the exact rules except I'm pretty sure they should be a direct relative. Mormons go crazy with genealogy so they have a lot of records to pull names from. I'm not sure though if someone who has just died can be baptized or if there is a waiting period.
Don't worry though - you're like a brother to me and you'll be baptized IMMEDIATELY after death.
He was raised Catholic--I'm sure that he's already been baptized.
I'm making a Voodoo doll of you, Jaron.
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Allowed by whom?
The US Constitution would seem to allow them to baptize relatives and non-relatives alike, since this "baptism" is little different from a Christian church deciding to pray for somebody.
It would be different if they dug the corpse out and poured water on it.
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
The church high command
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
The church high command
How does the deceased accept or reject it.
Unfortunately, it appears the only way to really get the Mormons to stop retroactively baptizing people would be to start killing their Fruity Pebble asses first.
Then maybe if they're too busy scraping their fucked up footie pajamas off the walls, they'll be too busy to bother fucking with others.
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
The church high command
So the mormons allow the mormons to do what they want to do. Nice.
So long as they don't dig anyone up to do it, I don't really see the harm.
Jews, for example, really aren't fond of the practice. When someone discovered records that Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized by the Mormons it caused a bit of a stir.
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
Jews, for example, really aren't fond of the practice. When someone discovered records that Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized by the Mormons it caused a bit of a stir.
I was more concerned with the Ann Frank slash fiction, but what'cha gonna do?
Anne Frank/Joseph Smith
Well, I suppose it'd be more like Anne Frank/Joseph Smith/Miep/Bep.
Not as good as Anne Frank/Frau Kat. :P
Or for Marti: Joseph Smith/Brigham Young
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2015, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
Jews, for example, really aren't fond of the practice. When someone discovered records that Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized by the Mormons it caused a bit of a stir.
I was more concerned with the Ann Frank slash fiction, but what'cha gonna do?
Jewish Holocaust victims are dead precisely because they were Jewish.
To retroactively baptize them for the purpose of accepting Christ as their savior in the afterlife in order to fulfill some fruity Christian cult's End of Times masturbatory fantasy is to blithely dismiss both how they died, and why.
It is Holocaust denial and antisemitism, and it is a wholly offensive and obscene practice. So don't be so fucking dense, Raz.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2015, 05:05:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2015, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
Jews, for example, really aren't fond of the practice. When someone discovered records that Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized by the Mormons it caused a bit of a stir.
I was more concerned with the Ann Frank slash fiction, but what'cha gonna do?
Jewish Holocaust victims are dead precisely because they were Jewish.
To retroactively baptize them for the purpose of accepting Christ as their savior in the afterlife in order to fulfill some fruity Christian cult's End of Times masturbatory fantasy is to blithely dismiss both how they died, and why.
It is Holocaust denial and antisemitism, and it is a wholly offensive and obscene practice. So don't be so fucking dense, Raz.
For the Nazis the religious element was not important to why they killed Jews. They saw them as a different race. Changing their religion would not save them. Some Dingus in Utah doing a ritual doesn't change why they died, or how.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2015, 05:11:33 PM
For the Nazis the religious element was not important to why they killed Jews. They saw them as a different race. Changing their religion would not save them. Some Dingus in Utah doing a ritual doesn't change why they died, or how.
It matters to Jews.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2015, 05:05:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2015, 04:23:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 29, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
Jews, for example, really aren't fond of the practice. When someone discovered records that Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized by the Mormons it caused a bit of a stir.
I was more concerned with the Ann Frank slash fiction, but what'cha gonna do?
Jewish Holocaust victims are dead precisely because they were Jewish.
To retroactively baptize them for the purpose of accepting Christ as their savior in the afterlife in order to fulfill some fruity Christian cult's End of Times masturbatory fantasy is to blithely dismiss both how they died, and why.
It is Holocaust denial and antisemitism, and it is a wholly offensive and obscene practice. So don't be so fucking dense, Raz.
:yes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2015, 05:18:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 29, 2015, 05:11:33 PM
For the Nazis the religious element was not important to why they killed Jews. They saw them as a different race. Changing their religion would not save them. Some Dingus in Utah doing a ritual doesn't change why they died, or how.
It matters to Jews.
That very well may be, but it's a long shot from "it matters to the Jews" to "it's Holocaust denial".
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 03:52:55 PM
So the mormons allow the mormons to do what they want to do. Nice.
Yeah. the Catholics allow the Catholics to perform ritual cannibalism, the Mormons allow the Mormon to perform ritual baptism, and so forth. It's called religion. It's nice for those for whom it is nice, I suppose.
The Anne Franck posthumous "baptism" mattered greatly to the Jews determined to be offended. Fuck 'em. No disrespect was intended to extended, so if they want to get their vaginas all sandy, I'll watch and laugh.
OK, Raz and g. I'm retroactively baptizing you as Douchebags. Praise Jesus and his dinnerware place settings.
This thread reminds me why I don't want you retards on my facebook.
And by retards, I mean Mart.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2015, 06:35:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 03:52:55 PM
So the mormons allow the mormons to do what they want to do. Nice.
Yeah. the Catholics allow the Catholics to perform ritual cannibalism, the Mormons allow the Mormon to perform ritual baptism, and so forth. It's called religion. It's nice for those for whom it is nice, I suppose.
And then there's you, who isn't nice for anyone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2015, 06:43:30 PM
OK, Raz and g. I'm retroactively baptizing you as Douchebags. Praise Jesus and his dinnerware place settings.
I dunno what you want, They are dinguses, that's not illegal. Well In Missouri it is, you can kill'em if you want here, as per the extermination order, but I don't think they'll hold up in court.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 29, 2015, 02:10:52 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
The church high command
How does the deceased accept or reject it.
Presumably the proxy baptism reaches their soul and they choose to accept or deny it.
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 29, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 29, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 28, 2015, 10:03:56 PM
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.
Allowed by whom?
The church high command
So the mormons allow the mormons to do what they want to do. Nice.
Is it any different for any religion?
The Mormon high council says "These are the rules we are bound by for baptisms for the dead. Do not break these rules."
It is also of CRITICAL importance to understand that this baptism does not make the deceased Mormon. They do not get entered into membership records.
This is a much better theology then the classic Christian "You fucked up in life. Now burn forever." -- at least here there is an opportunity for redemption.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2015, 07:15:16 PM
This thread reminds me why I don't want you retards on my facebook.
And by retards, I mean Mart.
I have him on my Facebook and I'll be like talking to my co workers about some political issue of interest and in pops Martinus all "Lets put all Christians in camps."
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 28, 2015, 03:17:49 PM
While I have zero problem with someone referring to a "Christmas tree", doesn't that same tolerance demand that we have no problem if someone does NOT refer to it is a Christmas tree?
In other words...can't people just fucking call it whatever they want without someone's vagina getting all sandy?
If a random dude calls a decorated tree a "Holiday tree" it's not that big a deal. I'm free to think he's just a little too hung up and ignore him. But it's different IMO when it's the White House doing it. For one thing, it's not their Christmas tree. It's our Christmas tree, the country's Christmas tree.
So call it a Christmas tree then. So what? It is YOUR Christmas tree, and feel free to call it that. I don't think Obama will be mad.
Quote
The flaky part of the Stein article is the part when he talks about God deserting us and bad things happening to us because we've turned our backs on him.
Yeah, that is always awesome, when religious people basically shit on everyone who God decides to kill because they didn't pray hard enough.
See, God doesn't kill people. Nor do people with good theology give a shit if anyone else prays hard enough. We only care if we pray hard enough. And we mostly never do. But prayer is not for God; it is for us. Just my two cents as the token orthodox Christian on this board.
Quote from: Scipio on November 30, 2015, 12:05:43 AM
See, God doesn't kill people.
Eh, who's the one that created hurricanes and earthquakes and decaying organs?
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2015, 12:54:21 AM
Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.
I never mentioned you, but thanks for playing.
Um dude you were talking to me.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2015, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2015, 12:54:21 AM
Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.
I never mentioned you, but thanks for playing.
Um dude you were talking to me.
And this is why you don't have the grumbler point.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2015, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2015, 12:54:21 AM
Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.
I never mentioned you, but thanks for playing.
Um dude you were talking to me.
I was posting on the board. When I PM you,
then I am talking to you.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2015, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2015, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 29, 2015, 12:54:21 AM
Doesn't hit the nail on my head. But thanks for playing.
I never mentioned you, but thanks for playing.
Um dude you were talking to me.
I was posting on the board. When I PM you, then I am talking to you.
Yeah, that's when you say those weird creepy things.
Raz, just leave him alone.
He'll tell me when he's had enough.
You mean he'll post on the board when he's had enough?
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2015, 10:01:15 AM
You mean he'll post on the board when he's had enough?
Whatever. I have fun mocking him, and Grumbler likes to think he's "punishing", me by refusing to shine the light of his brilliance on me. So really its a win-win.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2015, 09:11:58 AM
Raz, just leave him alone.
Let him be. He's certainly not offending me, and I am willing to bet the board finds his little manias amusing.
I sure hope someone out there finds it amusing.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2015, 02:59:58 PM
I sure hope someone out there finds it amusing.
Really? You don't find it funny that he really believes he is tempting me to climb down into the gutter with him by posting all of these "challenges?" I mean, it
is pathetic, but I think it is funny as well. I mean,
he's accusing
me of saying "weird creepy things" while arguing in another thread that "Get elected President: LOSER!" I find it a scream.
See, we are all happy.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2015, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2015, 02:59:58 PM
I sure hope someone out there finds it amusing.
Really? You don't find it funny that he really believes he is tempting me to climb down into the gutter with him by posting all of these "challenges?" I mean, it is pathetic, but I think it is funny as well. I mean, he's accusing me of saying "weird creepy things" while arguing in another thread that "Get elected President: LOSER!" I find it a scream.
Almost like he seeks your validation.