Religion

[philpot123]

Man, I have been out for awhile. I missed some good discussions. That was a fun read guys.

 

I'm going to bring this up from awhile back...

 

I need help with something... my parents and I are constantly arguing on whether the Old Testament laws still apply to Christians. They claim there was a passage in the bible where Jesus said they did still apply, and since I'm not very familiar with the bible I can't really argue against that. Does anyone know for sure?

 

Depends on who you ask and your interpretation of scripture. That's an issue that gets as much debate within Christian denominations as the concepts of election/predestination/free will does. Some believe we are still bound to the entire OT law, end of story, although those aren't really that common. MOST people I run into have a rather simplistic approach that "if it's in the OT, it doesn't matter anymore. If it's not mentioned in the NT, it's not wrong." Well I guess that means bestiality is okay...

 

Moving on, there's an alternative "covenantal view" of the OT/NT relationship, in that being freed from the law as is spoken of in the New Testament means we are no longer bound to the "ceremonial" portion of the law. My understanding of this view is that the arbitrary line that is drawn between "ceremonial" law and "moral" law is dependent on the punishments prescribed. Ceremonial punishments consisted of ceremonial uncleanliness? Or something of the sort? I'm sure Noble can fill in more details there, I could be off. The "moral" distinction is usually applied to laws that bore the punishment of death or monetary fines. It's an interesting issue that can get a lot of Christians worked up if you want to take the time to bring it up around them after that, just mention alcohol, and then predestination, and you're sure to have a good time.

 

 

 

 

The baptism issue is ridiculous. Infant baptism serves the purpose of baptizing a child into a church family and recognizing them as a child of believers. It's ceremonial. Even Christians don't believe is has magic powers of conversion or protection, it's certainly unethical to force it on a child whose parents have no say in the matter, and beyond that there are religions and even denominations within Christianity that would find it terribly offensive to have their infant baptized. Basically, what the heck? Where does she get off doing that?

Edited August 6, 2012 by philpot123

[prairiecrow]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the recent shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin? I haven't done any extensive reading on it yet, but I'm interested in discovering (if it's possible) what role religious affiliation played in the tragedy. Since the shooter walked into a temple, I'd say it may have played a very large role indeed.

[Aingeal]

Even Christians don't believe is has magic powers of conversion or protection

 

Some do. There are people who believe once baptised, you are protected, and no matter what you come to believe in later life, you are always saved.

[ShinyTomato]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the recent shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin? I haven't done any extensive reading on it yet, but I'm interested in discovering (if it's possible) what role religious affiliation played in the tragedy. Since the shooter walked into a temple, I'd say it may have played a very large role indeed.

From what I've heard, he's am army veteran, who is also a white supremacist. He was in a "Skinhead" band and has Neo-Nazi tattoos and ties.

[philpot123]

Some do. There are people who believe once baptised, you are protected, and no matter what you come to believe in later life, you are always saved.

No offense to those who believe that, but that isn't very supportable based on scripture.

[Kestra15]

No offense to those who believe that, but that isn't very supportable based on scripture.

Neither is quite a few beliefs supported by different sects of Christianity.

[Aingeal]

No offense to those who believe that, but that isn't very supportable based on scripture.

Scripture says you can baptise the dead into Christ

 

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?, (1 Cor. 15:29)

 

And that once saved, always saved, in some places:

 

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. (John 10: 28-29)

 

And we see repeatedly in Acts, that many times, an entire household had to be baptized. This undoubtedly included children.

 

Baptism is scripturally, the sign of a new covenant, as circumcision was of the old:

 

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh, was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

 

When was circumcision done? Shortly after birth or conversion. So it's replacement is done when? Shortly after birth or conversion.

[TCA]

My religion is completely based on things I can see and feel, or that those I completely trust can see or feel. I believe there are multiple realities, all separate from each other, that can be traveled between when you are dead. Each reality has its own god/gods/lack thereof, and we're pretty sure this particular instance of reality is not being directly commanded by a god. It could potentially be influenced by a god or gods living in another reality, though. Each person has a different purpose for their eternal existence, and you're supposed to find it. This particular world is really strange, and for me and a close friend of mine, definitely not where we're supposed to live. My friend is a goddess of her world, who came here to do something but can't remember what it was. She has no powers here because this world isn't hers. She wants to bring me to her world when we leave, and I've happily agreed.

 

Also there are evil soul-corrupting beings that are completely terrifying living in the metaphysical space between souls and oh gods they are awful to deal with.

 

I was born and raised with a Roman Catholic family, but I had always felt that their god was too distant and doesn't put effort into communicating except for with their favorite people, and totally plays favorites. I don't really like that god. They don't like me that much either, though they love my mom for some reason.

 

Also, that lady who randomly baptized some other family's baby is completely stupid :/

[Princess Artemis]

I hope she gets fired at some point, yes!

 

 

It was the same woman who spoke up about her baptism-crazy co-worker about how she played Christian music in the unit and it offended the Jewish doctors that had just had a baby and were staying in the unit, and the woman didn't understand how that was offensive. It was simply just another instance I was pointing out.

Oh, was the Jewish doctor at that time a patient? OK, see, that wasn't clear. Neither was it clear that the problem was someone not understanding what they were doing was offensive, presumably after the Jewish doctor expressed his displeasure (or his Judaism)?

 

The impression I got from your post was that of course Christian music is deeply offensive to Jews, so every decent Christian should just know not to play Christian music around Jewish people. Which seemed...really weird. Replace "Christian music" with "telling off-color Nazi jokes" to get an idea of what I was seeing. So I asked for an explanation since I figured I could not possibly be understanding what you were saying correctly.

 

It makes more sense now.

 

Because it is on the same spectrum of respecting the rights of others. I personally cannot stand Christian music anyway, but moreso why should the Jewish doctor and Muslim patient be forced to listen to that music? As Shiny said, ultimately it's pointing out how some people do not understand that their religion is not the religion that everyone else subscribes to.

 

In the US, this would not be a matter of rights, as "right not to be offended" is not one extant. Our free speech right is too fundamental for such a conflicting right to exist. It would be a matter of mutual consideration, however, and considerate people certainly should keep such things in mind. One which would be quite easily solved (one hopes, should all participants be civilized) by a co-worker requesting that another co-worker play music that all in attendance could enjoy, or by the first co-worker asking about music before playing it.

 

Do you know how many doctors and nurses chew gum in units? That's offensive on a different level to some people than music generally is. Do those people have a right not to hear gum chewing? Not really, but they certainly do have a right to ask the doctors and nurses (as co-workers or as those caring for their health) to cease. And if the doctors and nurses are considerate, they will do so.

 

I do not bring up gum-chewing facetiously. I have misophonia and generalized dystonia. Chewing gum around me causes me physical pain due to how the two conditions interact. Unlike deeply sexist rap music or Disco, say, which I would find quite offensive, but not physically painful. I have far more trouble getting health care professionals to understand that I don't want to hear them chewing gum around me than I do getting them to respect my musical taste.

 

(Also, Shiny? *looks for ShinyTomato* Oh! Haze. OK. And that is a valid point. More consideration is certainly necessary for all concerned. But, with my above explanation to Haze, hopefully you, too, will see why I was asking for followup.)

[hazeh]

Look, I can understand that the Jewish doctors did not like the music and could request something different. But to say you hope someone gets fired for playing music that they like, just because it has a Christian theme? That seems over the top, unless she consistently refused to change it (or at least turn it off) during their stay after the patients said it caused them distress.

 

Ah...

Kestra was right. I wasn't referring to that woman who played the music when I spoke of someone getting fired. I was talking about the nurse that that woman worked with that did baptisms on babies in the unit without telling the families or even asking. Sorry for being unclear, but I was talking about two different people. ^^;

 

I don't believe the woman who played the music be fired unless she did other religiously unwarranted activities against the wishes of the patients, such as the baptisms. I just hope at some point she'll realize how playing religious music in a state hospital- If it was a private or catholic hospital, I'd understand- could really make some people uncomfortable. If she wanted to listen to that music she should have put some earphones in or turned it down so the patients didn't have to listen to it.

 

 

Oh, was the Jewish doctor at that time a patient? OK, see, that wasn't clear. Neither was it clear that the problem was someone not understanding what they were doing was offensive, presumably after the Jewish doctor expressed his displeasure (or his Judaism)?

 

The impression I got from your post was that of course Christian music is deeply offensive to Jews, so every decent Christian should just know not to play Christian music around Jewish people. Which seemed...really weird. Replace "Christian music" with "telling off-color Nazi jokes" to get an idea of what I was seeing. So I asked for an explanation since I figured I could not possibly be understanding what you were saying correctly.

 

It makes more sense now.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I'd made it clear that the Jewish doctors were staying in the unit. I guess I didn't mention that very well |D Yes, it was two doctors that worked in that hospital that had just had a baby together, and were staying on the unit. They complained about the Christian music and the nurse in question was making comments to her co-workers and peers about how unreasonable they were being. Because it "wasn't hurting anything".

 

What people need to understand is that their religious freedom ends where it begins to tread upon someone else's religious freedom. At least, that's how it should be.

So yeah, pretty much everything Kestra said x)

 

(Yus, a lot of people call me Shiny. Sorreh ShinyTomato |D )

[ShinyTomato]

I don't believe the woman who played the music be fired unless she did other religiously unwarranted activities against the wishes of the patients, such as the baptisms. I just hope at some point she'll realize how playing religious music in a state hospital- If it was a private or catholic hospital, I'd understand- could really make some people uncomfortable. If she wanted to listen to that music she should have put some earphones in or turned it down so the patients didn't have to listen to it.

 

I had a roommate in a hospital once, who had her preacher come in and do loud, long, prayers with her. They were not very...nice prayers. In the end, I felt so uncomfortable that I asked to leave.

 

(Yus, a lot of people call me Shiny. Sorreh ShinyTomato |D )

 

Sokay! I always look at it like ickle shiny sister!

[diannethegeek]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the recent shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin? I haven't done any extensive reading on it yet, but I'm interested in discovering (if it's possible) what role religious affiliation played in the tragedy. Since the shooter walked into a temple, I'd say it may have played a very large role indeed.

There was also a mosque burned to the ground today in Joplin: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/06/mosque_bur...her_hate_crime/

 

I find hate crimes like these appalling, especially in a country that is supposed to stand for freedom and diversity, and I would like to see more Americans speaking out against them. Where is the outrage?

[hazeh]

I had a roommate in a hospital once, who had her preacher come in and do loud, long, prayers with her. They were not very...nice prayers. In the end, I felt so uncomfortable that I asked to leave.

 

 

 

Sokay! I always look at it like ickle shiny sister!

Uggh, I'm sorry about that. I wish people were more considerate of other people. :/ One of my moms took care of a retired catholic priest at the hospital and he was the most rude, condescending and demanding person she'd taken care of. It's like he had no thought toward the other patients on the unit. It completes baffles me how some people just don't understand the concept of respect.

 

8D Oh! I like that. Ickle Shiny! I had to look up what 'ickle' meant, ahaha...

[Ashes The Second]

Hey, I have religious friends and they dont judge me based on religion, religious people just like non-religious ones can be cool or not, however they will not consider dating outside their religion for example, and I respect their views and accept them for what they are, I understand its important to them but I still view it as a discrimination of a sort, that is IMO one of the negative elements religions have to offer, not all religions, the big three....

I would date a Christian if every party approved, and I'm an atheist after being confused/questioned on a made-up religion I decided to create because it wasn't 'real'. So, if Christians want to date Christians, and no one else, that's cool, but religion should not come into something like that if it doesn't have to, like 'you do that and this and blah blah blah because you're christian!' That would ruin a relationship really fast if it was accusing and not questioning. And you keep stating your opinions like facts. It makes you seem very narrow-minded and bigoted. Just a tip for the future. :3

[7Deadly$ins]

I am dating a Christian (I am an atheist) and we get on brilliantly... I am young, but I can easily see myself spending a long, long time with him. That said, should that become our future, the crossing of any two religions will eventually create some sort of difficulty, minor or not, in a relationship. Especially when the subject of children and how to educate them crops up.

 

He doesn't want to do Santa... and I don't want to do Jesus. So we'll see how that goes.

[philpot123]

Scripture says you can baptise the dead into Christ

 

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?, (1 Cor. 15:29)

 

That's the Mormon interpretation. Most protestant Christian commentators believe Paul was talking of the pagans who did practice baptism for the dead. "Why are THEY then baptized for the dead." Not "we."

 

And that once saved, always saved, in some places: I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. (John 10: 28-29)

 

I agree with this point of theology, although I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. My point was the idea that baptism has some sort of supernatural quality about it, especially when forcefully baptizing infants.

 

And we see repeatedly in Acts, that many times, an entire household had to be baptized. This undoubtedly included children. Baptism is scripturally, the sign of a new covenant, as circumcision was of the old: In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh, was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12) When was circumcision done? Shortly after birth or conversion. So it's replacement is done when? Shortly after birth or conversion.

 

 

Whole households were baptized in scripture, yes, but this doesn't necessitate infant baptism. Theoretically, the household might not have had an infant. I'm still not sure where I sit on the issue. Again, my gripe wasn't against infant baptism in general. I feel like it's a perfectly justifiable doctrine based on scripture. But force-baptizing infants against their parent's wishes is not.

[Aingeal]

That's the Mormon interpretation. Most protestant Christian commentators believe Paul was talking of the pagans who did practice baptism for the dead. "Why are THEY then baptized for the dead." Not "we."

 

That makes no sense if you go from the Greek. o.O. The entire chapter is talking about resurrection of the dead through Christ. I went to two schools (Mennonite and Baptist) and attended a different church (ELCA Lutheran) they both agreed that it was referring to baptising of people into the church of God, they didn't agree with the practise, except in cases of stillbirth or miscarriage, but they accepted that was what it said. Not only that but in the next sentence with an "and" it talks about Christians being in jeopardy every hour. I've never been to a protestant church that thought it referred to pagans. I've never even heard that before.

 

From a historical perspective, the idea that they're talking about pagan baptism of the dead (of which, I myself as a reconstructionist have never heard) makes no sense. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it makes no sense.

 

My point was the idea that baptism has some sort of supernatural quality about it, especially when forcefully baptizing infants.

 

And my point is that it is during baptism that the Holy Spirit is said to come upon someone and indwell, which would theologically, be a "supernatural quality."

 

But force-baptizing infants against their parent's wishes is not.

 

I agree, but I can see why someone would do it, if they believe they are guaranteeing that baby a place in a paradise.

[7Deadly$ins]

I was under the impression, from my Christian days, that babies end up in heaven regardless of baptism.

[KageSora]

I was under the impression, from my Christian days, that babies end up in heaven regardless of baptism.

Depends who you ask. I've seen people insist babies go to Hell if they don't accept Jesus as their savior.

[Awdz]

Scripture says you can baptise the dead into Christ

 

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?, (1 Cor. 15:29)

 

And that once saved, always saved, in some places:

 

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me,  for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. (John 10: 28-29)

 

And we see repeatedly in Acts, that many times, an entire household had to be baptized. This undoubtedly included children.

 

Baptism is scripturally, the sign of a new covenant, as circumcision was of the old:

 

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh, was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)

 

When was circumcision done? Shortly after  birth or conversion. So it's replacement is done when? Shortly after birth or conversion.

That section of scripture highlights the resurrection of the dead through Christ. The emphasis is that the dead are resurrected, giving people hope that performing baptisms on behalf of the dead will do some good.

 

However, I think most modern day Christians believe baptism is a welcoming of the person into the body of Christ, a commitment by their sponsors to teach them about God, and if the person is old enough to make their own decision, baptism is also a public display of their commitment to God. You can say that an indwelling of the Spirit happens; I believe God is with all of us all the time, so if something special is felt, it is because the individual opened up to God's omnipresence. Those I've spoken with about it seem to agree. It seems completely inappropriate to me for someone to baptize a baby without involving the baby's family.

 

Like any Church ritual, baptism is a means for us to grow closer to God, but not because God is distant: it is because we are oblivious to God or close God out. Rituals are to help the worshippers - to help each of us open up and connect with God, who is always with us.

 

Perhaps an analogy: I consider a worshipper following church rituals to connect with God somewhat like the writer with writer's block putting pen to paper and scribbling until he thinks of words to write. For some, the words start flowing immediately; others take a while longer for the flow to start. It's not the same timing or level of effect for everyone. Each person has their own experience.

 

Interesting take on baptism replacing circumcision. I never thought it was intended as such. For one thing, females get baptized as well as males, but I do not recall Hebrew law requiring female circumcision.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Awdz Bodkins

[Aingeal]

Interesting take on baptism replacing circumcision. I never thought it was intended as such. For one thing, females get baptized as well as males, but I do not recall Hebrew law requiring female circumcision.

 

It didn't, but neither was it necessary for women to convert in Judaism then. It's also why they make a big deal out of women being able to be baptised.

[philpot123]

That makes no sense if you go from the Greek. o.O. The entire chapter is talking about resurrection of the dead through Christ. I went to two schools (Mennonite and Baptist) and attended a different church (ELCA Lutheran) they both agreed that it was referring to baptising of people into the church of God, they didn't agree with the practise, except in cases of stillbirth or miscarriage, but they accepted that was what it said. Not only that but in the next sentence with an "and" it talks about Christians being in jeopardy every hour. I've never been to a protestant church that thought it referred to pagans. I've never even heard that before.

 

From a historical perspective, the idea that they're talking about pagan baptism of the dead (of which, I myself as a reconstructionist have never heard) makes no sense. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it makes no sense.

 

 

 

And my point is that it is during baptism that the Holy Spirit is said to come upon someone and indwell, which would theologically, be a "supernatural quality."

 

 

 

I agree, but I can see why someone would do it, if they believe they are guaranteeing that baby a place in a paradise.

I've gone through and read a couple Biblical commentators referencing that, even going back to the Greek. Here's another who claims the verse means "in the place of" and not "on behalf of," thus making it an idea of filling the ranks of the church to replace those who have died.

 

http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-corint...rinthians-1529/

 

There are alternative understandings beyond accepting that Paul condones baptizing dead unbelievers, and I would question the soundness of doctrine of anyone who says "yes it's clearly stated in Paul's epistle that X, but I choose to disagree." I can see where that could be taken from it, but upon closer inspection I don't think that's what it means.

 

 

 

And my point is that it is during baptism that the Holy Spirit is said to come upon someone and indwell, which would theologically, be a "supernatural quality."

 

The spiritual "baptism" of the holy spirit and physical baptism are two different things. The indwelling Holy Spirit comes through regeneration, "salvation," even before baptism, if the person was not baptized as an infant. In most Christian theological mindsets, baptism has no bearing on salvation. Either one is saved or they are not, baptism is simply an expression of faith.

Edited August 7, 2012 by philpot123

[Kestra15]

Do you know how many doctors and nurses chew gum in units?

Over here? None. Or at least, none in my experience and experience of my coworkers.

I was under the impression, from my Christian days, that babies end up in heaven regardless of baptism.

From my Catholic (but now CofE) girlfriend, a baby who is not baptised ends up in Limbo - in order to go to Heaven you need to be baptised. Since a baby is too young to have committed sin it will not go to Hell or Purgatory (aside from original sin). Hence why midwifes in the UK are able to perform baptisms if they think a child will not survive (provided that it is within the beliefs of the parents).

Edited August 7, 2012 by Kestra15

[Aingeal]

I've gone through and read a couple Biblical commentators referencing that, even going back to the Greek. Here's another who claims the verse means "in the place of" and not "on behalf of," thus making it an idea of filling the ranks of the church to replace those who have died.

 

All I can say is that it is not a belief I have ever heard espoused in pagan or Christian circles that it referenced paganism, nor does it make linguistic sense from the Greek, nor was it what they taught about Corinthians in seminary.

 

There are alternative understandings beyond accepting that Paul condones baptizing dead unbelievers, and I would question the soundness of doctrine of anyone who says "yes it's clearly stated in Paul's epistle that X, but I choose to disagree." I can see where that could be taken from it, but upon closer inspection I don't think that's what it means.

 

It's not the idea that they choose to disagree that it's possible, just iin the wisdom of baptising an adult who could, if they were alive, consent and never chose to be baptised, as opposed to baptising a stillborn or miscarriage, or early expired child, because the parents gave consent.

 

The spiritual "baptism" of the holy spirit and physical baptism are two different things. The indwelling Holy Spirit comes through regeneration, "salvation," even before baptism, if the person was not baptized as an infant. In most Christian theological mindsets, baptism has no bearing on salvation. Either one is saved or they are not, baptism is simply an expression of faith.

 

Not everyone or every sect agrees with that.

[zpnn]

Atheist and proud.