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]

I do understand their point of view, but it's not my beliefs, and it's presuptuous of them to do. I mean, Holocaust victims! Sure it's not hurting anyone directly, but still...

I believe he was Christian, but not a strong one. Plus, I suspect that when Mormons refer to the Gospel of Christ they specifically mean *their* Gospel of Christ. Otherwise everyone who's been baptized in their own churches would go straight to Heaven, wouldn't they?

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Honestly I find the whole concept of being super-"respectful" of others' beliefs implies a serious disrespect for one's own beliefs. It's the responsibility of, say, a Christian or Atheist to try to dissuade someone from committing ritual suicide with the assumption that this will help them join aliens on Halley's Comet, since we are pretty sure that no such aliens exist. It's especially important for a Christian to do so because what's at stake, to the Christian, is not just the person's life but the person's entire eternity. Only to an atheist can a person's beliefs while living be the ultimate determinor of what that person wants.

I mean, suppose everyone does go to Hell unless they're Mormons. What could be worse than to be a Holocaust victim and then go to Hell? I would do everything in my power to baptize such dead people, especially since, if that Holocaust victim desired, they could, apparently, still reject Jesus. It's just a sort of a "now that you're in Hell, have you changed your mind?" kind of gesture. I'd sure want a chance to change my mind, no matter what I believed while living! Especially since such a chance comes at no cost to myself or anyone else, living or dead. It's a pretty good deal.

As for whether "other" Christians go to Heaven, I'm not sure what the Mormons believe. There are plenty of religions that teach "maybe you can be another religion and not be completely screwed, but our religion is better because it's actually correct."

[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.