Forums » Off-Topic
Sorry smittens, I forgot. I do have an answer, and to be honest, this is one of the things that make me accept the doctrines of my church. I don't expect a born and raised Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever to accept my religion, at least not easily. If whatever doubts and questions they have aren't answered to their satisfaction by whomever they speak with or whatever they read, and they choose to continue following their own beliefs and are faithful to what they believe, and are good to all people, then what they will be held accountable for at judgement is what they believed in this life. If they are sincere seekers of truth but didn't find it here, they will find it afterward and accept it there. Of course, this gets into the sticky situation of "but they weren't baptized!" The Catholic church of course believes so strongly that you must be baptized to be saved no matter what else you do in this life, that they've taken to baptizing infants. To me, that means nothing, because the infant didn't make the choice to make a covenant with God at baptism. Even in the LDS church, where we don't baptize until at least eight years old, hardly any eight-year-old truly understands the commitment he's making. I certainly didn't! But I do now, and so am trying to get back in good standing with the church of my own free will.
Some of you probably are already aware of the practice of "baptism for the dead" (not baptism of the dead, mind you... that would be gross...). Many find this controversial, but for me it strengthens my faith because it allows for those who fall through the cracks to have a chance. It was practiced in the New Testament, though there's only one explicit reference to it (1 Corinthians 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" The crucial element of this is that it still requires personal choice and accountability. I can go and be baptized for and in behalf of an ancestor of mine who is dead, but that doesn't automatically mean the covenant of baptism is made. If, in the next world, that ancestor accepts that covenant, then it holds; if he does not, then it has no hold.
I can't think of another Christian religion that accounts for those who did not get the opportunity to accept God in their life, either because they followed a different religion (remember, most religions believe that all those in other religions are going to Hell no matter if they lived a good life or not), or they never heard the word (let me know if you can think of one, please). If Christianity is the true religion (accepting the premise that there is a "true" religion, of course, for the sake of argument), then what about Ghandi? What about all sorts of very good people who were never preached to about Christ? It wouldn't be fair to send them to Hell, especially since they are better people than so many who have accepted Christ! I don't believe God would just say, "sorry, you never did find the right religion, so you don't get in even though you spent your entire life helping others in need, just like Jesus said you should. See ya later!'
Some of you probably are already aware of the practice of "baptism for the dead" (not baptism of the dead, mind you... that would be gross...). Many find this controversial, but for me it strengthens my faith because it allows for those who fall through the cracks to have a chance. It was practiced in the New Testament, though there's only one explicit reference to it (1 Corinthians 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" The crucial element of this is that it still requires personal choice and accountability. I can go and be baptized for and in behalf of an ancestor of mine who is dead, but that doesn't automatically mean the covenant of baptism is made. If, in the next world, that ancestor accepts that covenant, then it holds; if he does not, then it has no hold.
I can't think of another Christian religion that accounts for those who did not get the opportunity to accept God in their life, either because they followed a different religion (remember, most religions believe that all those in other religions are going to Hell no matter if they lived a good life or not), or they never heard the word (let me know if you can think of one, please). If Christianity is the true religion (accepting the premise that there is a "true" religion, of course, for the sake of argument), then what about Ghandi? What about all sorts of very good people who were never preached to about Christ? It wouldn't be fair to send them to Hell, especially since they are better people than so many who have accepted Christ! I don't believe God would just say, "sorry, you never did find the right religion, so you don't get in even though you spent your entire life helping others in need, just like Jesus said you should. See ya later!'
It wouldn't be fair to send them to Hell, especially since they are better people than so many who have accepted Christ!
Dante disagrees. Though I find Paradiso so intensely boring that I'd probably be much happier amongst the virtuous pagans anyway. And because he merits it and I'm on the topic, unending respect to you, Capaneus.
Dante disagrees. Though I find Paradiso so intensely boring that I'd probably be much happier amongst the virtuous pagans anyway. And because he merits it and I'm on the topic, unending respect to you, Capaneus.
Sorry Chaos, I might've missed it, but I don't really see an actual answer? Baptism for the dead seems like a cool thing, and it's good to hear that not every branch wants conformity over virtue. But I don't really see an answer to specifically what I asked.
And Lecter, are there any updates to that story? Despite the clear teen-favoring bias of the article, it really doesn't look that simple. Other than what she and the attorney are saying, the parents sure don't seem that nasty...
And Lecter, are there any updates to that story? Despite the clear teen-favoring bias of the article, it really doesn't look that simple. Other than what she and the attorney are saying, the parents sure don't seem that nasty...
The Catholic church of course believes so strongly that you must be baptized to be saved no matter what else you do in this life, that they've taken to baptizing infants.
You may want to check your facts there, PC. That claim is incorrect.
You may want to check your facts there, PC. That claim is incorrect.
No idea, Smittens. And I doubt you have too many purely 'theological lightbulb' conversions, but then again, I doubt that you have too many people come into their specific flavor of theism via that manner in the first place. Which I think is your point, but I'm just noting a potential counter-example.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to ditch this boring God-squad of a thread and go sing along to some ALESTORM at the top of my fucking lungs.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to ditch this boring God-squad of a thread and go sing along to some ALESTORM at the top of my fucking lungs.
PC: "The Catholic church of course believes so strongly that you must be baptized to be saved no matter what else you do in this life, that they've taken to baptizing infants."
ladron: "You may want to check your facts there, PC. That claim is incorrect."
What's incorrect? Infant baptism is common in Catholicism, and it is considered essential for salvation and entry into the "Kingdom". The Bible neither explicitly condones or condemns the practice, and there are references to baptizing "the entire household". (Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic, but attended parochial schools and have had prolonged exposure to a variety of religions. I was a theology professor's worst nightmare - except for the Jesuits who are damned clever.)
ladron: "You may want to check your facts there, PC. That claim is incorrect."
What's incorrect? Infant baptism is common in Catholicism, and it is considered essential for salvation and entry into the "Kingdom". The Bible neither explicitly condones or condemns the practice, and there are references to baptizing "the entire household". (Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic, but attended parochial schools and have had prolonged exposure to a variety of religions. I was a theology professor's worst nightmare - except for the Jesuits who are damned clever.)
Yes, infant baptism is common practice in the Catholic church; they do not believe that one must be baptized to be saved though, only that it helps.
They used to; here I will again point to Dante's depiction of Hell, specifically Limbo, in Inferno.
So, were they wrong before -- or are they wrong now?
So, were they wrong before -- or are they wrong now?
There are a two official exceptions:
The oldest is the Baptism of Blood, essentially martyrdom for the faith gets you saved even if you hadn't had a chance for the usual baptism. That's a tough one, not terribly popular these days, and not so common with infants.
Vatican II (early 1960s) brought about the Baptism of Desire, which is for those who wish to be baptized and but die before it can be done. It is also for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience". That lets the "savages" of the hook, but might not excuse unbaptized Christians.
The oldest is the Baptism of Blood, essentially martyrdom for the faith gets you saved even if you hadn't had a chance for the usual baptism. That's a tough one, not terribly popular these days, and not so common with infants.
Vatican II (early 1960s) brought about the Baptism of Desire, which is for those who wish to be baptized and but die before it can be done. It is also for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience". That lets the "savages" of the hook, but might not excuse unbaptized Christians.
Hold on, ladron, I think you're going to have to be the one to clarify here. As I understand it, baptism is an essential sacrament in the Catholic church, and is necessary to be freed from original sin (i.e., Adam and Eve's "sin"). Catholics tend to baptize very young, as in infants if possible, since if a child dies before baptism he has not been freed from original sin. How can something like baptism "help" salvation but not be "required" for it? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get across.
Smittens: My answer to your question was there at the beginning of my post, and it was that I don't necessarily expect someone raised Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever to give up their religion for Christianity, and if they do, not easily. Then I went into the rest to illustrate that I believe that if they are sincere in their belief, and then they die and it turns out, as South Park claims, that "only Mormons go to Heaven" (we don't believe that quite how they say, by the way, hence my post in response to Smittens), then they will have the opportunity to accept the truth there, since as sincere seekers of truth they will recognize truth when it is presented to them perfectly as it cannot be here. Just as someone who grows up never hearing the name Christ shouldn't be damned for something not his fault, someone who hears it from an imperfect person who because of his own limitations fails to help that person overcome his own legitimate concerns with Christianity shouldn't be damned for that. Good news for all you heathens, hey? (Just kidding.... you all are totally screwed....)
Smittens: My answer to your question was there at the beginning of my post, and it was that I don't necessarily expect someone raised Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever to give up their religion for Christianity, and if they do, not easily. Then I went into the rest to illustrate that I believe that if they are sincere in their belief, and then they die and it turns out, as South Park claims, that "only Mormons go to Heaven" (we don't believe that quite how they say, by the way, hence my post in response to Smittens), then they will have the opportunity to accept the truth there, since as sincere seekers of truth they will recognize truth when it is presented to them perfectly as it cannot be here. Just as someone who grows up never hearing the name Christ shouldn't be damned for something not his fault, someone who hears it from an imperfect person who because of his own limitations fails to help that person overcome his own legitimate concerns with Christianity shouldn't be damned for that. Good news for all you heathens, hey? (Just kidding.... you all are totally screwed....)
Good news for all you heathens, hey? (Just kidding.... you all are totally screwed....)
We'll see who's saying that next human sacrifice at the solstice.
We'll see who's saying that next human sacrifice at the solstice.
Hahaha, nice, Lecter. If I'm the victim, at least see to it I'm well marinated. I would do the same for you.
You're a Mormon? Holy fuck does that explain a lot.
Aye, now you understand how we Americans view your nationality, Gav.
What, that we're all Mormons? Or that we're all as batshit insane as the Mormons? Or are you just the better part of a way through a bottle of Scottish distilled bog water?
Just that distinct sensation of mind-freezing confusion at how anyone could possibly add up all their sensory perceptions, run them through a human brain, and somehow manage to spit out that, followed by complete and total understanding -- indeed, an epiphany -- upon learning that the source of said confusion is a whatever.
I blame drugs. On both sides of this conversation.
This is not a conversation: I'm deigning to provide you with enlightenment. In PC's world, you would be recording my every word onto some golden plates or something.
Pizza boxes even.
Being a heathen is great. You should try it out sometime.
Yep, sinful, not baptized, eschewing any and all religions, and proud of it, for over a quarter of a century now. And until now, the only adverse effects I really felt (or, as it may be, didn't feel) were that I could not feel the same thing when entering a place of worship. Not that it'd change my mind.
Yep, sinful, not baptized, eschewing any and all religions, and proud of it, for over a quarter of a century now. And until now, the only adverse effects I really felt (or, as it may be, didn't feel) were that I could not feel the same thing when entering a place of worship. Not that it'd change my mind.