Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale [LDS ONLY]

F.A.I.R. Website ^ | June 5, 1981 | John A. Tvedtnes

[Illbay]

CTR

[Alex Murphy]

You know, I'd like to offer a comment on this, but even discussing the weather might offend someone's religion in the Religion forum.

[Wrigley]

At one time this could have been an interesting discussion.

[Alex Murphy]

Hmmm...the weather's off limits. Maybe I can go at this another way.

So, how about them Dodgers?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

[LDS ONLY]

BOO!

BigMack

[Wrigley]

Dodgers?

How 'bout them Cubs?

[Illbay]

Would you like to comment? Please feel free so long as it is a discussion about the article.

[Alex Murphy]

Would you like to comment? Please feel free so long as it is a discussion about the article.

Don't do it, man. He just wants to bait you into talking about the weather, and then you've really had it.

[fishtank]

Pete has no cat's feet.

He has no mule ears.

He has no seal tail.

[fishtank]

Tell ya' what, Bill.

You get the FR moderators to change the policies to something like:

"All religions and religious figures can be criticized, but individual FR posters cannot be attacked."

Then maybe myself and others might comment on LDS posts.

[Alex Murphy]

You get the FR moderators to change the policies to something like:

"All religions and religious figures can be criticized, but individual FR posters cannot be attacked."

Then maybe myself and others might comment on LDS posts.

Don't forget to include lifting the ban on meteorology.

[RnMomof7]

Would you like to comment? Please feel free so long as it is a discussion about the article.

Some folks like to have one set of rules for themselves and another set for others.

[computerjunkie]

So THAT'S what that little kid is saying!!! I have never been able to understand him. Thank you!!!

[restornu]

Thank for the post

[computerjunkie]

I don't believe in baptism for the dead.

[Illbay]

I don't agree. I see no point in "attacking religious figures."

[snerkel]

I don't agree. I see no point in "attacking religious figures."

Would this include the Catholic hierarchy?

[Illbay]

That's not attacking "religious figures." It's criticism of church administrators.

Can you really not see the difference?

FWIW, I thought we had settled this question with the UMC thread earlier today.

[snerkel]

That's not attacking "religious figures." It's criticism of church administrators.

Can you really not see the difference?

I suppose it depends on the manner in which it is presented.

FWIW, I thought we had settled this question with the UMC thread earlier today.

WE didn't settle anything on the UMC thread earlier today. You avoided direct questions, just as you have here.

FWIW, it appears to be a double standard.