Text 4688, 93 rader
Skriven 2009-04-15 14:38:52 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 4665 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: Food for thought
========================
Bob Ackley -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 BA> Replying to a message of Ed Hulett to Bob Ackley:

 EH>> Bob Ackley -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 BA>>> Replying to a message of Ed Hulett to God Dan:

 EH>>>> God Dan -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 ->>>>>> On 10 Apr 09  10:43:33, Ed Hulett got back to Chinacat
 ->>>>>> Re: Food for thought

 C>>>>>> Your church still baptizes the dead, doesn't it?

 EH>>>>>> We baptize *for* the dead. The person being baptized is 100% live
 EH>>>>>> and they are being baptized for a dead relative. That does not
 EH>>>>>> force anyone to believe a thing.

 GD>>>>> The mere fact that your church baptizes the dead is offensive to
 GD>>>>> not just the wishes and memory of the dead but to their families
 GD>>>>> as well.

 EH>>>> We don't baptize the dead. We baptize a live person as proxy for the
 EH>>>> dead person.

 BA>>> Then spiritually you're baptizing the dead person, or that person's
 BA>>> soul.  You're making a distinction without a difference.  If that
 BA>>> isn't what's intended, then why bother doing it at all?

 EH>> Good grief, yet another atheist weighing in.

 BA> Actually I'm an agnostic.

You sound like the "atheists" here.

 EH>> What does it matter to you professed atheists? You don't believe in a
 EH>> God or a soul so why do you care what some church does?

 BA> I don't.  Others who are religionists do.

Only because they don't understand like you don't.

 BA> I simply said that you're making adistinction without a difference.

That is because you do not understand.

 BA> Baptizing a living person who epresents a
 BA> dead one is the same as a long-distance marriage ceremony where (usually)
 BA> a man (who may or may not be a relative) serves as a proxy for the absent
 BA> (usually) groom; the woman isn't married to the proxy, she's married -
 BA> spiritually and legally - to the man who wasn't able to attend the
ceremony in person.

Where on earth do they perform proxy marriages?

 BA> Likewise the dead person - spiritually and legally - is the one being
 BA> baptized regardless of who's getting doused.

Let me set you straight... there *IS* a difference since there are idiots out
there who think we actually dig up the dead and dunk them in the baptismal
font. The same idiots who think we sacrifice goats or some such in the temples.

 BA> A long time ago Christians used to (sometimes forcibly) baptize Jewish
 BA> children.

We do *NOT* forcefully baptize for the dead.

 BA> I'm not sure but I think the same thing was done to the children of native
 BA> Americans who were taken from their parents and tribes and raised in
 BA> orphanages, Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania being one of them, baptized
and sometimes
 BA> forcibly fed Christian doctrines.

And which Church did this? Not the LDS Church. There is *NO* force involved in
baptisms for the dead. The dead person still has free will not to accept it.
The only roles they are entered into are those of who have had proxy baptisms.
We do not make them members of anything. The 13+ million members counted in the
Church are living, breathing members.

Ed

-- 
"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with
restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every
break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs
that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of
rulers towards the constitution of a country."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 21 December 1787

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)