Religious Beliefs

pandora

God is Love.

For this believer.

I can not separate Love from God nor God from Love.

To ask me to do so goes against who I am and what I believe.

It is asking me to change for the Atheist.....

Ironically.

God lives in my heart...He walks with me and shows himself in the Love I share.

An Atheist can choose to take my love or not
to perceive as they want
but Love will be offered the only way I know how.

That is in Faith...God's Love.


If non-believers believe in Love...the power of Love...the faith of Love...the healing of Love
we are not so different and it is with Love that we can come together.

This would be a beautiful thing.

Godfather.

redrock wrote:

aerial wrote:

Why no tolerance for the believer of God? Why no tolerance from the atheist?

Everyone can believe in what they want, but when one starts 'imposing' - that's different. ""The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

A double glazing salesman comes to your door, he's doing his job, you're not interested, you say no thank you. No problem. He comes to your door the next day knowing you are not interested but insists on 'doing what he needs to do'. Again, no thank you. And the next day... getting annoyed? What? He's back for a 4th time???? Don't you get pissed off? Bet you do.

Same principle.

Everyone can believe in what they want, but when one starts 'imposing' - that's different. ""The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

the same can be said for a lot of things...like racism or the gay rights issues or even smoking...
most everybody is 'imposing' what they believe on somebody else at some time or another so you can put your fist in your pocket.

Godfather.

Jeanwah

redrock wrote:

aerial wrote:

Why no tolerance for the believer of God? Why no tolerance from the atheist?

Everyone can believe in what they want, but when one starts 'imposing' - that's different. ""The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

A double glazing salesman comes to your door, he's doing his job, you're not interested, you say no thank you. No problem. He comes to your door the next day knowing you are not interested but insists on 'doing what he needs to do'. Again, no thank you. And the next day... getting annoyed? What? He's back for a 4th time???? Don't you get pissed off? Bet you do.

Same principle.

People are way too friggin' uptight, it seems. (no offense redrock)

So what if some theist wants to pray for / bless some atheist. Why the need to get all that bad energy riled up and shake some fists around? People need to relax and just learn to blow people off by not letting them get to us.

Now, you're right though, if some Jahovah's Witness or salesman came to my door 4 days in a row I'd be annoyed, but how often does that happen? And is waving a fist really the way to deal with this? It's not religion that gets people hot, it's that threatened impulse; allowing others to get under our skin and the never-ending feeling of being insulted or imposed upon. It's OUR responsibility to NOT let what others believe bother us if they think differently or believe differently.

The more I age, the more I let what people think (about me or anything else) not bother me. We can't live for others, only ourselves, so why are we so easy to get our panties in a bunch about everything?

markin ball

I got a question for the catholics/protestants/general mainstream christians. Is it cool if Mormons baptize you by reading your name and dunking a surrogate in a giant bath tub in a temple? Because they are.

EmBleve

markin ball wrote:

I got a question for the catholics/protestants/general mainstream christians. Is it cool if Mormons baptize you by reading your name and dunking a surrogate in a giant bath tub in a temple? Because they are.

what?? That sounds crazy. :shock:

Godfather.

markin ball wrote:

I got a question for the catholics/protestants/general mainstream christians. Is it cool if Mormons baptize you by reading your name and dunking a surrogate in a giant bath tub in a temple? Because they are.

I don't know much about the Mormon religion but sounds a little weird to say the least.

Godfather.

redrock

Godfather. wrote:

markin ball wrote:

I got a question for the catholics/protestants/general mainstream christians. Is it cool if Mormons baptize you by reading your name and dunking a surrogate in a giant bath tub in a temple? Because they are.

I don't know much about the Mormon religion but sounds a little weird to say the least.

Godfather.

Are you speaking about baptising someone who is dead by proxy? So basically, you never got around to being baptised for a number of reasons (no time, didn't want to), it can be done on your behalf after death, just to make sure you go to heaven. The rite is as you describe, though I don't know about the bathtub in the temple bit.

EmBleve

redrock wrote:

Are you speaking about baptising someone who is dead by proxy? So basically, you never got around to being baptised for a number of reasons (no time, didn't want to), it can be done on your behalf after death, just to make sure you go to heaven. The rite is as you describe, though I don't know about the bathtub in the temple bit.

So, this is something that is done after death for a fellow Mormon? Am I understanding that correctly? Just wondering because I had never heard of this. At first I took it to mean that it was anybody.

redrock

EmBleve wrote:

redrock wrote:

Are you speaking about baptising someone who is dead by proxy? So basically, you never got around to being baptised for a number of reasons (no time, didn't want to), it can be done on your behalf after death, just to make sure you go to heaven. The rite is as you describe, though I don't know about the bathtub in the temple bit.

So, this is something that is done after death for a fellow Mormon? Am I understanding that correctly? Just wondering because I had never heard of this. At first I took it to mean that it was anybody.

Technically, any dead person can be baptised that way. I think that it is better if one is related to the deceased, but numerous dead that had nothing to do with mormons have been baptised.

But, if this is really what the poster is speaking of, you have to be dead. But then again, I don't know the 'ins and outs' of the mormon faith.

EmBleve

redrock wrote:

Technically, any dead person can be baptised that way. I think that it is better if one is related to the deceased, but numerous dead that had nothing to do with mormons have been baptised.

But, if this is really what the poster is speaking of, you have to be dead. But then again, I don't know the 'ins and outs' of the mormon faith.

Ahh..yes, I have heard of after-death baptisms but I am not sure about anything mormon either. I thought the original post meant that the Mormons were baptizing random people using their names whether or not they were involved in the Mormon faith, which is what I found odd.

pandora

I thought some might enjoy this.... I did
if not...it was not for you


I dreamed I had an interview with God.


"Come in," God said. "So, you would like to interview Me?"

"If you have the time," I said.

God smiled and said:
"My time is eternity and is enough to do everything; What questions do you have in mind to ask me?"

"What surprises you most about mankind?"

God answered:

"That they get bored of being children, are in a rush to grow up, and then long to be children again...

That they lose their health to make money and then lose their money to restore their health...

That by thinking anxiously about the future, they forget the present, such that they live neither for the present nor the future...

That they live as if they will never die, and they die as if they had never lived."



God's hands took mine and we were silent for awhile and then I asked...

"As a parent, what are some of life's lessons you want your children to learn?"

God replied with a smile:

"To learn that they cannot make anyone love them. What they can do is to let themselves be loved...

To learn that what is most valuable is not what they have in their lives, but who they have in their lives...

To learn that it is not good to compare themselves to others...

To learn that a rich person is not the one who has the most, but is one who needs the least...

To learn that it only takes a few seconds to open profound wounds in persons we love, and that it takes many years to heal them...

To learn to forgive by practicing forgiveness...

To learn that there are persons that love them dearly, but simply do not know how to express or show their feelings...

To learn that money can buy everything but happiness...

To learn that two people can look at the same thing and see it totally different...

To learn that a true friend is someone who knows everything about them, and likes them anyway...

To learn that it is not always enough that they be forgiven by others, but that they have to forgive themselves."


I sat there for awhile enjoying the moment.

I thanked Him for his time and for all that He has done for me and my family,

and He replied, "Anytime. I'm here 24 hours a day. All you have to do is ask for me, and I'll answer."

Black73

EmBleve wrote:

redrock wrote:

Technically, any dead person can be baptised that way. I think that it is better if one is related to the deceased, but numerous dead that had nothing to do with mormons have been baptised.
But, if this is really what the poster is speaking of, you have to be dead. But then again, I don't know the 'ins and outs' of the mormon faith.

Ahh..yes, I have heard of after-death baptisms but I am not sure about anything mormon either. I thought the original post meant that the Mormons were baptizing random people using their names whether or not they were involved in the Mormon faith, which is what I found odd.

I had a Mormon tell me that many people have converted to Latter-Day Saints (LDS, aka Mormon faith) both before and after death. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was baptized and converted after he died.
Sounds highly suspect to me. I learned in my youth studying Catholicism that you either accepted Jesus Christ as your savior in life, not after death. Also, no one that I know has ever been able to definitively tell me what's out there after death, let alone share the details of a founding father being baptized after death.

I took this up with a childhood priest whom I ran into some years after I left the Catholic church (I'm personally offended by the handling - or lack - of known sex offenders in the clergy), and he said, "The Catholic church recognizes all baptisms as Christian when people decide to convert to Catholicism, except for Mormon baptisms." He would not go so far as to say Mormon is not a Christian religion, but he said The Bible is the end-all writings of Christianity: there is nothing written by prophets after the New Testament, and nothing will be written again until Jesus returns to Earth (the second coming of Christ).

Since that has yet to happen, there's no more of the story to tell...yet. LDS (Mormon) is founded on the premise of a 14 or 15 year-old boy who had the Book of Mormon revealed to him on golden tablets by God and Jesus, in the flesh, in the 1800s. All the teachings I recall never had God reveal himself to anyone in the flesh, so Him choosing to reveal himself for the first time in the 1800s, in New York, to a young boy, seems a bit out there for me to comprehend.

redrock

Black73 wrote:

All the teachings I recall never had God reveal himself to anyone in the flesh, so Him choosing to reveal himself for the first time in the 1800s, in New York, to a young boy, seems a bit out there for me to comprehend.

Did he actually reveal himself? I was under the impression that a 'messenger' (angel?) was sent, that he found some plates which were the basis of the book and took it from there.

Plates. Stone tablets with the ten commandments (supposedly written by the finger of god), messenger.... hmmmm... any similarities????

whygohome

I'm not going to put any faith into a fairy tale that is based upon the luck of where I was born.

http://www.wadsworth.com/religion_d/spe ... ap_01.html

markin ball

redrock wrote:

EmBleve wrote:

redrock wrote:

Are you speaking about baptising someone who is dead by proxy? So basically, you never got around to being baptised for a number of reasons (no time, didn't want to), it can be done on your behalf after death, just to make sure you go to heaven. The rite is as you describe, though I don't know about the bathtub in the temple bit.

So, this is something that is done after death for a fellow Mormon? Am I understanding that correctly? Just wondering because I had never heard of this. At first I took it to mean that it was anybody.

Technically, any dead person can be baptised that way. I think that it is better if one is related to the deceased, but numerous dead that had nothing to do with mormons have been baptised.

But, if this is really what the poster is speaking of, you have to be dead. But then again, I don't know the 'ins and outs' of the mormon faith.

It gets weirder. My dad was was a proxy baptizer when he was a about 11. He went to the St. George, Utah temple and they dunked him in the name of about 8-12 people according to his recollection, whose names were read aloud. My dad did not now any of these people. The thing I wanted to know was how did they decide how many people a proxy could substitute for? They must have "reasoned" it out somehow.

The creepy part is that this was done in conjunction with a boy scout camping trip to Utah. We live in Las Vegas. Yes, my father's family is mostly LDS and boys and their families knew where they were going, but still. :?

Random_Wookie

redrock wrote:

Wookie - though some theits/followers of a religion do see their actions on earth as paving the way to 'paradise', the question I am asking is can a person impose a 'gift' (that they really want to give) to another person with the prior knowledge that it is not something they want and it will not be well received. Should this 'giving' person be offended/feel disrespected because this unsolicited 'gift' is unwanted? Is the 'receiver' closed hearted/minded if he/she says no to this 'gift'. Is this 'gift' still 'of the heart' / unselfish then? Or is it rather given for the benefit of the 'giver' (make them feel good?)?

A bit of a flippant example but an example nevertheless - Looking at the devastation in Japan, I see a family that have lost EVERYTHING. I have three TVs, I think 'from the bottom of my heart, I'll give them one of my TVs, I don't need 3, and they lost theirs. Then the family can gather around it and have a bit of cheer watching a funny film - just like my family do.' Do you think the family that lost everything will be grateful? Does the 'giver' have a right to feel disrespected when the 'gift' is not well received?

I know I keep on bringing up some strange concrete examples, but it seems the more abstract concepts are not fully understood.

Thats a tough one to call, my self personally would accept the gift and say thanks. If as in the instance you are doing it out of kindness and love. Though when it comes to grieving I always say something along the lines of my condolences, i am sorry for my loss, and add some variant if there is anything you need or I can do please let me know. Then offer them a hug.

I am just a cynical bastard when it comes to religion and to an extent even cynical to the atheist point of view (as they both bread fanatics and you could count atheism as a religion also). As I can not see how someone can do something and mean it when there is an apparent reward for the actions, even if they have good and kind intentions.

To jump off topic political correctness and the creation of nanny states scares me more then anything religion can do to the population as a whole now days.

redrock wrote:

I know I keep on bringing up some strange concrete examples, but it seems the more abstract concepts are not fully understood.

Nothing wrong with the example as it removes the application of religion to the act.

Black73

redrock wrote:

Black73 wrote:

All the teachings I recall never had God reveal himself to anyone in the flesh, so Him choosing to reveal himself for the first time in the 1800s, in New York, to a young boy, seems a bit out there for me to comprehend.

Did he actually reveal himself? I was under the impression that a 'messenger' (angel?) was sent, that he found some plates which were the basis of the book and took it from there.

Plates. Stone tablets with the ten commandments (supposedly written by the finger of god), messenger.... hmmmm... any similarities????

I've asked in-Laws, and read a book on LDS, and both state that God and Jesus presented themselves to Joseph Smith in the woods of New York while he was on a quest to find "the one true church." They say the messenger was sent by God to help Smith translate the golden plates.

Strange to me their baptism is not recognized by other Christian churches. Having said that, strange to me that there seems to be little to no accountability for priests preying on unsuspecting children. Religion is pretty far from perfect.

catefrances

dear wookie,

How can atheism be seen as a religion? As an atheist I am most curious about this .

redrock

Black73 wrote:

I've asked in-Laws, and read a book on LDS, and both state that God and Jesus presented themselves to Joseph Smith in the woods of New York while he was on a quest to find "the one true church." They say the messenger was sent by God to help Smith translate the golden plates.

Strange to me their baptism is not recognized by other Christian churches. Having said that, strange to me that there seems to be little to no accountability for priests preying on unsuspecting children. Religion is pretty far from perfect.

I stand corrected. I just remembered something about a messenger and 'tablets' (in class - looking at christian based religions). I know that baptism of the dead was also practiced in very early christian worship but now it's a big no-no from the pope!

Organised religion is definitely far from perfect - from the beginning of times. When man, to make sense of 'events' (thunder, maybe), had to invent some mighty force to 'understand' thing, 'worship' became collective, therefore organised.... by man. Man's rules, etc.

redrock

Random_Wookie wrote:

As I can not see how someone can do something and mean it when there is an apparent reward for the actions, even if they have good and kind intentions..

Does one believing in an afterlife live their lives on earth with an ulterior motive (either subconsciously or deliberately) ... the carrot of the reward and/or the fear of the punishment?