Heaven

[asterroc]

I don't know which bothers me more: religious people saying that so-and-so will never get to Heaven because they aren't of their religion, or smug assurance that the soul of so-and-so will or did see the light and turn from their religion to the proper one and thus *will* be in Heaven. Along with the latter is the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. In this practice, the living vicariously baptize the dead, regardless of the religion and wishes of the dead person while living, and then supposedly God then gives the dead soul the opportunity to accept the Gospel of Christ. *Grr*

Comments

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

What could be worse than to be a Holocaust victim and then go to Hell?

Hm, what's the Jewish opinion of baptism, will a post-mortem baptism un-Jew someone? If that were the case, what's worse than being a Holocaust victim and then going to Hell would be being a Holocaust victim, going to Heaven, and then being yanked out of it through a vicarious baptism!

Honestly I find the whole concept of being super-"respectful" of others' beliefs implies a serious disrespect for one's own beliefs.

Unfortunately that argument also applies to fundamentalists of all religions. It would be disrespectful of Islamic belief for Muslims to *not* call for the death of people who make cartoons of Mohammed, or for the death of a man who converts away from Islam.

Where do we draw the line between appropriate tolerance of others' beliefs and adherence to one's own beliefs? I suspect civil discourse such as we are having is the closest we can come. Of course, that's just my belief... :-P

[sammka.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure that, according to most Jewish tradition, baptism doesn't do anything at all. It's just a stupid and heretical thing to believe in. Since post-mortem baptism doesn't involve the participation of the person in question and doesn't even touch the body, I can't see why it would impugn the baptized person one way or another.

Unfortunately that argument also applies to fundamentalists of all religions. It would be disrespectful of Islamic belief for Muslims to *not* call for the death of people who make cartoons of Mohammed, or for the death of a man who converts away from Islam.

But see, my beliefs say that that murder is a serious sin, and because of my beliefs, I can endeavor to show them that that's entirely wrong. I respect my own beliefs and therefore don't respect the beliefs of others who are willing to kill anyone who isn't a danger to anyone else.

See, I can see that fundamentalists believe what they believe, and I don't blame them for their mere belief. However I can also think they're dead wrong. And if they do something, in their belief, that shows love or compassion for others, such as baptizing the dead, I can praise them for that because, according to me, acts of love and compassion are good even if I'm pretty sure they don't actually do anything useful. And acts of anger and vengeance are bad even/especially if they arise out of the sense that God wants you to do them.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

*nods* The problem that I have is that my own beliefs are not self-consistent. On the one hand, I feel as you do about good and bad acts; on the other hand, I believe one of those good acts is respecting others' beliefs. Unfortunately this means that I have two different beliefs that confict: that killing is bad, and that respecting their desire to kill is good. To reconcile my beliefs, I must further rank them in terms of which bads are worse and which goods are better. Not a pleasant thing when intellectually I'd rather believe there's no absolute good and bad in the first place. Bleh.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

*nods* it is sort of weird.

A possible way around this that I just thought of: perhaps value understanding others' beliefs, and also respecting other people in general? Thus when someone wants to do something based on a belief that conflicts with yours, you can understand and respect their decision as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else (since, of course, you have to respect those who may be harmed as well).

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I think what it comes down to in the end is that I respect others beliefs and their right to practice them as long as practicing their beliefs doesn't interfere with anyone else practicing their beliefs. Of course, then we go to the fuzzy definition of the word "interfere" - the Danish cartoonist interfered with Islamic beliefs, but sharia law interferes with the Western belief in freedom of expression - so I'm not sure that I've solved anything. The way I rank things is which action ends up being "more interfering," which again, is a value judgement that can't be objectively determined.

[(Anonymous)]

My personal disgust with the idea of baptisms for the dead is not because of what it means to the dead person or their relatives. Rather, it's because of what the baptism process means for those performing it. In their eyes, they're erasing the subject's prior faith for something new. Holocaust victims, in particular, and many others, in general, died specifically because of their beliefs. Many had the option of turning their back on their faith but chose not to because of the strength of their beliefs. To dishonor that sacrifice, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, is, I think, tasteless, in the least.