 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
Boris:
Regarding your homework!
quote:
Issue #1). The thorny issue: if salvation is only through Christ, what happens to all the billions of people who lived and died without ever even hearing of Christ?
|
I've already answered this.
I suggest you read up in the thread, or at least read Romans, chapter 4, that answers this question.
Or I could recommend several excellent books on this question, from both Catholic and Protestant viewpoints.
Whichever you prefer. 
quote:
If Paul were making fun of a questionable, pagan practice, why would he cite it as evidence supporting the teachings of Christ?
|
Point 2.
I've already had 1 PM request on this quote, so I'm not surprised to find this here. I'll give you the same thing I gave them, the interpretation of the passage from Dr. Constable.
From the NIV:
The passage: 1 Cor 15:29
"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"
First of all, the Mormon interpretation cannot be correct. The passage does not talk about baptising the dead, but seems to talk about baptising believers for the dead. The Mormons do not baptise others for the dead, but baptise the dead themselves.
Secondly,
I'm going to give you the source that I prefer for most biblical interpretations, unless I have some experience of my own studying the particular question.
I rather like Dr. Constable, who's volumnious works can be found online here:
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm
Now, from his notes on 1st Corinthians, the passage at hand.
.....................................................................................
Other arguments for resurrection 15:29-34
Paul turned from Christ's career to the Christian's experience to argue ad hominem for the resurrection. The Corinthians' actions, and his, bordered on absurdity if the dead will not rise. This paragraph is something of a digression, and the main argument resumes in
verse 35.
15:29
This verse probably refers to proxy baptism, the custom of undergoing baptism for someone who died before he or she could experience baptism. Evidently the Corinthians were practicing this for people who
became Christians on their deathbeds or under other conditions that made it difficult or impossible for them to undergo baptism in water. Paul's mention of the custom is not necessarily an endorsement of it. On the
other hand, he did not specifically condemn it either.
Whether he approved of it or not, the Corinthian believers were evidently doing it. Paul used this practice to argue for the reality of resurrection. His point was that if there is no physical resurrection it is foolish to undergo baptism for someone who had died because in that case they are dead and gone forever. Suppose, on the other hand, there is a resurrection. When God will raise those baptized by proxy, they would not suffer shame for failure to undergo baptism while they were alive. Those who had not benefited from proxy baptism would suffer embarrassment.
The Corinthians may have carried proxy baptism over into the church from pagan religions. That is a distinct possibility since we have seen that they had done this with other pagan practices. There is nothing in Scripture that encourages this practice, though some have interpreted this verse as an encouragement. Some Christian groups that believe water baptism contributes to a person's salvation advocate it. Today the
Mormons do. However the mention of a practice in Scripture does not always constitute endorsement of it. We have seen this in chapters 8—11 especially.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
The fact is there can only be one true religion. (I sure hope its mine), so if someone from a false religion does some ceremony over you, it doesn't mean a thing because their teachings, ceremonies and rites are false and meaningless. If you follow the true faith, then I think your religion is gonna win out over some meaningless superstition. You've nothing to worry about.
If however you are following a false religion, wouldn't you appreciate it when its all said and done that you were given the chance to join the true faith? Rather than picking one out of 650 religions, following it faithfully all your life and then finding out after death that you had bad luck and choose poorly and will now be spending an eternity in hell. Wouldn't you want that safety net?
If, as many people seem to imply, Mormons are "stealing souls" or bringing deceased individuals into their church against their will this means there are more than one path, more than one "true faith" and indeed more than one god. This I think is the worst possible explination. I can't imagine Jesus up in heaven ready to welcome you in and at the last minute a group of Mormons baptise you and steal away your soul to their private heaven club across the river where John Smith hooks you up with another wife. If there are multiple gods, multiple paths, and multiple truths, then that really contradicts all of religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
The fact is there can only be one true religion. (I sure hope its mine), so if someone from a false religion does some ceremony over you, it doesn't mean a thing because their teachings, ceremonies and rites are false and meaningless. If you follow the true faith, then I think your religion is gonna win out over some meaningless superstition. You've nothing to worry about.
|
That's a strong view, and I agree with you, in my own case. I know that whatever the Mormons want to do to me will have no effect on me whatsoever.
What worries me more, are their claims to be Christian, and the confusion some people who do not understand why things do not work this way, why the Mormons should not be baptising the dead.
For not everyone is strong in their faith, and these sorts of things can cause a stumbling block for the others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
I think I'll make sure Verto gets a posthumous baptism to the glorious Church of Communism. Despite the his mistaken ways during his life, we must make sure he can get a glorious salvation along all our comrades. Verto will be made a communist after his death, when he won't be able to oppose it when he'll understand what the afterlife really is |
Go for it. I would not be bothered by this, as I do not recognize the glorious Church of Communism as having the authority or power to do anything binding.
quote:
Finally, I do not believe that what Mormon priests consider 'valid ordination' is indeed valid, although I have not really heard a Mormon defense of this position, and I would be curious as to why the Mormons insist that they are the true priesthood. |
From Joseph Smith's Testimony:
We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:
"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."
He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me--after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood--for so we were commanded.
The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.
Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.
quote:
Then they reject all of the ecumenical councils of the church, defining the nature of Christ's incarnation, and other doctrines. |
This is enough to make us non-Christians? By disagreeing with the interpretations and councils of the Catholic Church?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
quote:
The fact is there can only be one true religion. (I sure hope its mine), so if someone from a false religion does some ceremony over you, it doesn't mean a thing because their teachings, ceremonies and rites are false and meaningless. If you follow the true faith, then I think your religion is gonna win out over some meaningless superstition. You've nothing to worry about. |
That's a strong view, and I agree with you, in my own case. I know that whatever the Mormons want to do to me will have no effect on me whatsoever.
What worries me more, are their claims to be Christian, and the confusion some people who do not understand why things do not work this way, why the Mormons should not be baptising the dead.
For not everyone is strong in their faith, and these sorts of things can cause a stumbling block for the others. |
Well I'm still not sure about the whole Christian thing, when I went to Salt Lake City, and indeed to Navoo I heard lots of LDS folks say their faith wasn't Christian. I was under the impression that Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian. But if they say Christian now, so be it.
So its more a doctrinal dispute. Ok. Are there any other Christian denominations that have a sufficiently estranged view of baptism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Baptist_baptism
quote:
Baptist baptism
Baptist groups derive their name from the restrictions that they traditionally place on the mode and subjects of the ordinance of baptism. Immersion is regarded as the only legitimate, biblical baptism; and baptism is not administered to children. Those who hold views influenced by the Baptists, may perform the ceremony indoors in a baptismal, a swimming pool, or bathtub, or outdoors in a creek or river: as long as there is water, nothing prevents the performance of Baptism. Protestant groups influenced by these convictions usually emphasize that it memorializes the death and resurrection of Jesus, which by a gift of God has become the principle of repentance and new life for those who have professed belief in Him, symbolizing spiritual death with regard to sin and a new life of faith in God. They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything, but is an outward sign or testimony, a personal act, indicating the invisible reality that the person's sins have already been washed away as a result of their profession of faith. Rather than by what they say baptism is, Baptist views are distinguished more by what they say it is not (not for children, not by sprinkling, not a sacrament, not a means of grace).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Nobody's forcing them to call themselves Christian. They do that on their own. Why should they be surprised when the other Christians examine their doctrine to determine whether they do so or not? |
Maybe I just have higher expectations than Christians have when it comes to tolerating variations on Christian faith? 
quote:
And neither is Mormonism the works of just one man.
Mormonism is not restricted to just baptism, Boris. |
No, but this is not the point of this strand of the argument. You've lost sight of the original point, which was that you objected to the vicarious baptism partly because you thought it wasn't "innocuous" since it might influence others to see baptism in a different manner than what you believe is its true purpose. My response is that traditional baptism isn't in any danger from Mormonism, as it remains an isolated minority. The same currents that brought forth the Reformation simply aren't present to have the same happen with Mormonism.
quote:
If they baptise me, then that means that I am involved, am I not? If they don't want to bother other religious folks, then don't baptise them. |
No, you're not involved, as has been explained by the others. They aren't baptising you, they're baptising someone else as a stand-in. The ceremony doesn't involve you, because you'd be dead. Deceased. Kaput. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. You believe the unwilling, uncomprehending (infants) and the dead can't be baptised, ergo you should realize they aren't baptising anyone!
quote:
Yes it does, when you consider what baptism means to these other groups. That's why you don't see this as infringing on their religious practice, because you do not understand the role of baptism. |
No, I understand what baptism means to other groups, thanks for the condescension. It STILL doesn't meet the level of impinging on religious freedom. Religious freedom means you are free to practice your beliefs without interference so long as your beliefs don't restrict the religious practices of another (and obeys the laws). Vicarious baptism isn't infringing on your ability to practice your beliefs whatsoever, no matter what kind of ludicrous logical stretch you're trying to make.
quote:
Eh? No. I've argued at length against that notion, which is why I found it interesting that you agree with me on this point. |
Then this completely undermines your claim it violates your religious freedom, since the only effect it has is to offend your sensibilities.
quote:
Then we have a conflict. They infringe on our baptism rites, in practicing the baptism of the dead. |
No, they don't infringe on anything. Their practice in no way effects you, as you've acknowledged, since you don't belief the vicarious baptism works. In order to infringe on your beliefs, that have to somehow be preventing you from practicing your religion. They aren't doing that. You would be dead!
quote:
I have no problem with them 'baptising' the people who die in their own church, just leave my church, and the rest of us out of the rite.
That seems a reasonable compromise. |
Except that you're completely unwilling to see their point on the matter, which is that they are commanded to do this as a moral perogative. If they don't do it, according to their beliefs, their own souls are in danger. They must to do it to save everyone from spiritual prison. This is an integral part of their faith, so to them not doing isn't reasonable at all--it is, instead, a great moral failure that causes souls to suffer. The entire point of the their ceremony is ensure all souls will go to heaven. Saying they should stop is no different from someone making you stop attempting to save people's souls by convinvcing them to become Christian.
quote:
Yes I did. Again, they cannot decline the baptism! To them, baptism implies a commitment to Christ, and to the beliefs of the one doing the baptiser.
But that assumes that the Mormons are correct in their beliefs, and that the Christians are incorrect. It does not consider how the Christians view baptism. |
YES, they CAN! This position makes no logical sense whatsoever! If the Mormons' view is right, then the dead souls can opt to accept the baptism or decline it. If they're wrong, then the baptism has no effect whatsoever! You yourself have said unwilling people can't be baptised, so if the soul is unwilling, the baptism isn't accepted! So basically the only thing it is doing is futilely performing a nonworking ceremony for a dead person who doesn't even know
quote:
No, because we believe the dead to have immortal souls. |
You entirely missed the point. According to your beliefs, once a person dies they either A) go to heaven if they believe the right religion or B) go to hell if they believe another religion. Once they die, you don't believe people get another chance. They dye is cast. If that's true, there's no freedom of religion after death, now is there? Hindus, Muslims and Jews aren't being welcomed into heaven and their own beliefs tolerated, are they?
quote:
You are claiming your own authority in the area of Mormon theology, when you say that Mormons believe this. |
My reporting Mormon beliefs as I understand them is not a claim to authority on them. Under this silly premise, anyone who argued about something would be making an appeal to authority! That's not the definition of the fallacy.
An Appeal to Authority is to argue by saying "Expert A says so, and he's an expert, so he's right" without making any other supporting arguments. A variation, which you used, is "You're not an expert on it, so I don't believe you." Both are fallacious in that they don't address the substance of an argument but rather deflect the argument by bandying about an (erroneous) conceit that only a recognized "expert" can debate the matter.
quote:
Which I promptly do after making that comment. You seem to be drawing fire away from my response, and back to this one point that has nothing to do with my case. |
Except that I responded to your responses, I didn't "draw fire away" from them (interesting metaphore usage...).
quote:
I already did. The REASON why the OT prohibits |
All well and good, but it's STILL doesn't contradict the Mormon notion that the Book of Mormon is, to them, scripture. It's divine revelation, and it's tenets are just most important to them. As the link I provided shows, this is something that has reasons behind it, although you may reject them. Too bad your rejection is based just as much on your particular biases and interpretation as the Mormon's reasons are.
quote:
You simply state that all holy books are the same, which is absolutely useless when trying to discuss the point at hand, how one reconciles apparent contradictions. |
Reconciling apparent contradictions isn't of interest to me nor of particular relevance to my argument. Religions are allowed to have contradictory beliefs and practices--the all do. None of that changes the Mormons' right to practice their beliefs as they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Vicarious baptism does not do such a thing whatsoever, so doctrinal discussions are moot.
We've already delved too far into discussing these petty doctrinal disputes between you and Mormons, and I can see where that is going. I'm not surprised there's the usual resort to the argument that they aren't "true" Christians. Sad as it is to say.
The crux of it for me at this point is your silly claim they're violating your religious freedom by vicariously baptising the dead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The two are inseperable, with respect to the ecumenical councils of the church.
To say that these are 'Catholic' apologists, presumes divisions, where none exist, between Scripture, and the traditions of the church. |
This is BS. So were those who claimed to be Christian before these ecumenical councils not really Christians? If this be the case, then any claims Nero persecuted Christians must be false, since there were none to be persecuted yet! 
Seriously, though--Mormons believe the true Christian church died out in the 2nd century CE, and they are the inheritors of its legacy.
You're again asserting that if it isn't your brand of Christianity, they aren't really Christian. But this is not the case, as Mormon's believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God. How could they not be Christians, then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Or none of them. |
Right. It didn't say that one of them WAS correct, but that ONLY one of them COULD be correct.
quote:
Or several/all of them are right to some extent, while wrong on other accounts. Or you can count religions that do not pretend explaining the whole universe, but only part of it (polytheism and animism come to mind). Or, or, or... |
If part of the doctrine is wrong, then the entire thing is wrong. Individual parts may be correct, but as a whole it is false.
quote:
The "you'll worship no other Gods" gambit is a religious teaching, that is not even universal, but rather specific to the three big monotheistic religions. There is no reason to believe this teaching more than any other. |
"You'll worship no other gods" isn't a denial of the existance of those gods, it is a moral statement. However, every religion conceived of has contradicted every other in some way.
In fact, if they don't contradict each other, then they really aren't different religions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Imagine a God - of such puissance as to create the magical universe around us - who decides to arrange matters on the basis that if some guy manages to find the name by which you were known when alive in a record and goes through some ceremony lasting a nanosecond or so your soul is saved and you experience eternal bliss; whereas if they don't your soul is damned for all eternity. |
This is not what happens. The LDS concept of hell is referred to as Outer Darkness - given this name due to the fact that because God has removed himself from it, there is no light. One must commit a grave sin to go here - for example, having a perfect knowledge of Christ and denying Him.
Mormons do not automatically attain exaltation, and non-Mormons are not automatically numbered for enternal damnation.
Last edited by Verto on 17-04-2004 at 02:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-04-2004 09:02
. I was just cringing a bit at the word "fact". The idea that there is only one right religion, is no more factual than any other religious teaching: it is a matter of belief.
ACK!
|