Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My sister? How odd. I said nothing about a sister. I said I was told by one of my closest friends that despite my wishes I would be given an LDS proxy baptism as soon as permitted after my death. Odd that you are thinking of a make-believe sister, and proposing that the LDS Church should baptizes the make-believe.I know you love your sister.
Don't suggest to me that none of your eight-year-olds later reject their LDS baptism. I know better. And guess what, even though he rejects the baptism, he is not a follower of Satan.You can baptize a baby who later in life throws it away and follows Satan. What's the difference?
Exactly. So why do you speak for them. You have not that authority.So, since we do not know the people, can't talk with them
Shrug. Plenty of space for you to continue your own discussion. Somehow, even what you have brought into the thread has little to do with Ash Wednesday, but carry on.Well look at this I have been gone a short time and typical burial and coverup tactics by those who wish to flood the board with rediculous off topic discussions… If you want to have a discussion about baptism and the like start your own thread instead of wrecking this one on purpose..We have seen these tactics on many occasions to say the least..
So you agree, by mocking Judaism through creating the image & lifting up the adversary makes Rome's one world religion called Christianity the same ********I rarely agree with you, but spot on here.
So you agree, by mocking Judaism through creating the image & lifting up the adversary makes Rome's one world religion called Christianity the same ********
as Anton Levay's satanists mocking Christianity.
-oops
In Judaism there doesn't have to be, hence not venerating the body of Moses and where he's buried, it's because the characters are not venerated the message/lessons/rules to live by are focused on instead. It's not about the Tablets it's about the structure to be more stable and complete in the rules (laws) to live by inscribed on them.they are all the same, there never were etched tablets from the heavens - their origin for all three from the beginning never existed.
What's the difference between the two?Mocking religion in general is good and fine but mocking a person's personal faith marks you as an asshole.
Everyone knows the ritualistic mumbo-jumbo they practice is a bunch of spiritual busywork. Meaningless. The part that really matters is the belief that their dead loved ones still exist without suffering in heaven and that they will see them again some day. Mocking that part is a kind of unnecessary psychological cruelty. It's how they have managed to deal with their inevitable death and be happy. I'm an atheist for sure but I'm not going to be a dick about it.What's the difference between the two?
In Judaism there doesn't have to be, hence not venerating the body of Moses and where he's buried, it's because the characters are not venerated the message/lessons/rules to live by are focused on instead. It's not about the Tablets it's about the structure to be more stable and complete in the rules (laws) to live by inscribed on them.
We see the result of lawlessness, there's no comparing the free get away with sin card in venerating an image of a man as opposed to those structured in laws and orderly functioning suggestions and precepts.
Still not seeing the difference between you mocking one's faith and you mocking one's religion. Those two things are related.Everyone knows the ritualistic mumbo-jumbo they practice is a bunch of spiritual busywork. Meaningless. The part that really matters is the belief that their dead loved ones still exist without suffering in heaven and that they will see them again some day. Mocking that part is a kind of unnecessary psychological cruelty. It's how they have managed to deal with their inevitable death and be happy. I'm an atheist for sure but I'm not going to be a dick about it.
One is impersonal social commentary and the other is a personal attack on the most visceral level. Churches are social institutions that exist in the public sphere and are therefore fair game. Existential dread is so strong in some people they really need a coping mechanism to get through the night. I used to be pretty obnoxious mocking people about it until a girl I was dating told me that when I said there was no God and Heaven I was saying that her mom was nothing but bones in a box.Still not seeing the difference between you mocking one's faith and one's religion religion. Those two things are related.
Still not seeing the distinction between mocking one's religion and one's faith. Or why you would want to mock either.One is impersonal social commentary and the other is a personal attack on the most visceral level. Churches are social institutions that exist in the public sphere and are therefore fair game. Existential dread is so strong in some people they really need a coping mechanism to get through the night. I used to be pretty obnoxious mocking people about it until a girl I was dating told me that when I said there was no God and Heaven I was saying that her mom was nothing but bones in a box.
I said "personal faith" but you don't seem to be catching the "personal" part. I can say I don't believe in God or that organized religion is corrupt but I'm not personally attacking anyone. Mockery of personal faith is a deep psychological attack that really hurts their feelings. That's not something I want on my conscience.Still not seeing the distinction between mocking one's religion and one's faith. Or why you would want to mock either.
Fair game? What say you, should fair rules be observed when going after fair game?Churches are social institutions that exist in the public sphere and are therefore fair game.
Do you also add that every organization has its own corruption? Most parishes, religious groups and cultures, are more diligent than many secular organizations at fighting corruption.or that organized religion is corrupt
There's no real difference. It's a distinction of convenience you created to rationalize what you have done.I said "personal faith" but you don't seem to be catching the "personal" part. I can say I don't believe in God or that organized religion is corrupt but I'm not personally attacking anyone. Mockery of personal faith is a deep psychological attack that really hurts their feelings. That's not something I want on my conscience.
As organizations that seek social influence or even political influence churches should be judged by the rules they would have us all live by. I don't care about the rituals or dogma that govern the practice of faith. I do care when these organizations abuse their followers or attempt to exercise power over the secular world. I don't tell them how to worship and they shouldn't tell me how to party, who to love or require me to lip serve a God I no longer believe in.Fair game? What say you, should fair rules be observed when going after fair game?
For example, both Testament of the Bible have accounts of sackcloth and ashes being used as symbols of grief and lowliness--and also of penance. Jesus commented that had his miracles been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In the Old Testament the practice is noted in the Books of Job, Esther, Jonah, Jeremiah, and Daniel. As early as the second century, there is a record of some Christians swearing they could repent without demeaning themselves by the use of sackcloth and ashes.
Yet some here--quite familiar with Jewish roots of repentance and grief using sackcloth and ashes--look up non-Jewish roots of pagan religions also using ashes and testify that Christians follow the pagan roots, not their Jewish ones. Yet, they cannot even get their stories straight about which pagan roots can be traced to Christianity.
In the late 1800s, some atheists tried to trace Christ's death and resurrection back to Greek and Roman mythology. When I came across this as a teenager--being a huge fan of Greek and Roman mythology--I decided these people had been idiots--or to be kind--simply ignorant of Greek and Roman mythology. Later I was happy to see the late 1800s work had been debunked in the early 1900s.
The problem with nearly everyone of no faith or of a different faith is that they want to tell the world what others "really" believe--and/or their "real" history. They also want to tell the world why believers believe--the most popular nonsensical "reason" being because believers obviously fear death.
The true answer is much more simple. We have met (or noted) God in our midst. Non-believers, for whatever reason(s), lack this perception.
If faith, religion, Church, Temple, Synagogue, are fair game, then let the rules for criticism, attack, be fair.
Do you give those in power over the secular world a pass? I suggest taking a peek at Big Business and Career Politicians.I do care when these organizations abuse their followers or attempt to exercise power over the secular world.
Criticizing those people is hardly controversial. If they are trying to screw us it's not because God told them to.Do you give those in power over the secular world a pass? I suggest taking a peek at Big Business and Career Politicians.
