Comrade Tassadar, Verto... Wtf is this all about?

[Nylan-Nolan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


'Our religion'?

That presumes that there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Mormonism.

Sure, so long as you don't claim to be Christians, then you don't have to talk about any of these questions.

NO, it doesn't mean I'm saying were not Christian. I have freinds who are of different Chritian faiths that refer to it as 'my religion'.

STOP SWITSING WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think a mod should close this thread. Nothing about it is positive.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Regarding your homework!

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.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think a mod should close this thread. Nothing about it is positive.

If you can't take the heat...

[OzzyKP]

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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
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.

I mean, lets say I were a kooky Eddie Izzard fan and worshiped Jeff the god of Biscuits. Lets say I wrote "Ben Kenobi" on a biscuit, dunked it in butter and chanted some prayer to Jeff commanding him to bring your soul into the land of Biscuits and Honey.

Would you honestly feel threatened by this?

If you are secure in your faith, and I believe you are, then this stupid ceremony has as much real meaning to you than the Mormon baptism. Why get upset? Unless you are secretly afraid they might be right?

[Spiffor]

I don't associate with any religion, and I'd feel upset if some cult attempted to use me after my death, when I am unable to say "I don't want your crap". Just like I suppose people won't be glad if I 'convert' them to communism right after their death to honour their memory.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
The fact is there can only be one true religion.

How is that a fact? For millenia, people believed in several gods, and foreign deities were often integrated in the official religion.

[OzzyKP]

Ok, I apologize. Of the monotheistic religions that have really been the subject of conversation of this thread (i.e. Christianity, Judiasm, Mormanism, Islam, etc).

But even so, I'd find it difficult for a polytheistic religion to incorporate a monotheistic god. Accept other polytheistic gods into its pantheon sure, but there would be no way for a pagan society to reconcile their 20 gods with one God who claims to be the only one.

[Spiffor]

Ozzy:
You're right . 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.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

The idea that there is only one right religion, is no more factual than any other religious teaching: it is a matter of belief.

It is a good thing that Christians are not required to take everything just on faith. There are many other things we are required to trust with God, but the truth of Christianity is fortunately not one of these.

I'm glad Ozzy had the courage to come out and say that he believes his religion to be the truth! Why else take these burdens?

[Spiffor]

he believes his religion to be the truth!

Precisely. It is a question of belief. Ask CharlesBHoff, and he'll tell you he believes his religion (Islam) is the truth. Take LOTM, and I expect him to tell you he believes his religion (judaism) to be the truth.

Most believers, in our societies, acknowledge that people can have other beliefs, even if they hold such other beliefs to be false.

The idea that there is only one right religion, and that all the others are wrong, is a religious teaching (and one mostly limited to monotheist religions). As such, it isn't a "fact" more than any other religious teaching. It is a belief, that happens to be shared by the three main monotheistic religions.

[Ben Kenobi]

acknowledge that people can have other beliefs, even if they hold such other beliefs to be false.

Of course.

But what people believe has nothing to do with whether or not that belief is the truth.

Christians are not making a 'belief' claim, but rather a 'truth' claim.

From the evidence that we have, it would be more probable that the Christians have it right, than all the other alternative explanations for these events.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What worries me more, are their claims to be Christian

No, what worries you is that people might actually believe that the Catholic Church is not the one true church of Christ.

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.

This is not what happens, according to LDS doctrine. And I assume you mean Joseph Smith.

[Verto]

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.

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.

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?