If you do not believe in the Hindu faith, the believing Hindus think you are wrong and that they know better than you. Likewise for the believing Muslims, Christians, etc. They all think they know better than you and that you are wrong if you don't believe in their respective core doctrines. If you believe in some kind of a supreme being, the atheists think they know better than you and that you are wrong. If you are a member of an organized religion, those that believe that all organized religions are the deceitful inventions of men think that you are wrong and that they know better than you. How condescending.
I have known people of many different faiths that think I am going to one kind of hell or another, according to the teachings of their religion. Some have made the effort to persuade me, motivated by a desire that I not burn in hell forever or some such. Just by virtue of their convictions being differnt than mine I know they think I am wrong and that they know better than me. So are they condescending just by being alive and having convictions? Or is the condescending part when such belief actually causes them to make some small effort on my behalf? What if they all they did was say a prayer for my soul? Is that condescending? Or does it only become condescending when I ask if they said a secret prayer for me and they admit that they did?
Mormons believe that after death people will have perspective that they currently do not have (imagine that!) and consequently they may accept beliefs that they either hadn't previously heard of or had previously heard of but did not find persuasive in their prior circumstances. The mormons then, motivated by a sincere desire for the welfare of the deceased in the hereafter, believe they can do a final act that will benefit any that by chance are persuaded in the next life. For any that remain unpersuaded it will be as though the act never happened.
The effort made by mormons is no more invasive than someone offering a secret prayer on your behalf. You would never even know it happened unless you made investigation and found out. You almost have to want to be offended to find this offensive.
And so I leave you with a quote: “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.”
I have known people of many different faiths that think I am going to one kind of hell or another, according to the teachings of their religion. Some have made the effort to persuade me, motivated by a desire that I not burn in hell forever or some such. Just by virtue of their convictions being differnt than mine I know they think I am wrong and that they know better than me. So are they condescending just by being alive and having convictions? Or is the condescending part when such belief actually causes them to make some small effort on my behalf? What if they all they did was say a prayer for my soul? Is that condescending? Or does it only become condescending when I ask if they said a secret prayer for me and they admit that they did?
Mormons believe that after death people will have perspective that they currently do not have (imagine that!) and consequently they may accept beliefs that they either hadn't previously heard of or had previously heard of but did not find persuasive in their prior circumstances. The mormons then, motivated by a sincere desire for the welfare of the deceased in the hereafter, believe they can do a final act that will benefit any that by chance are persuaded in the next life. For any that remain unpersuaded it will be as though the act never happened.
The effort made by mormons is no more invasive than someone offering a secret prayer on your behalf. You would never even know it happened unless you made investigation and found out. You almost have to want to be offended to find this offensive.
And so I leave you with a quote: “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.”
And that reason alone? Besides, parents exhibit condescension towards their children at all opportunities - it can exist w/in "love." Anyway, at the core, it's about believing you know better than someone, and deciding to do something to save their damned soul in case they Get It. That's pretty nearly the definition of condescension, even if it's done for pure love, as you state.
Limbo. So do Catholics.
Sharing one's faith is different from being actively evangelized. Whether you truly believe it (evang. and/or this posthumous baptism) is all about love or no, neither is an "unintrusive" concept. You must be a special kind of person to find it endearing when someone is treating you as though you're "wrong, heretical, stupid, etc." That doesn't mean it's not condescension. And some weak people like me find condescension between adults really effing rude.
Mormons believe there is a waiting period between death and the resurrection/final judgement during which waiting period the spirits of the dead are in various states of waiting depending on the state of their soul at death.
Limbo. So do Catholics.
Mormons believe that the gospel will be preached to all who did not accept it during this life, whether out of rebelion, ignorance, or anything in between. Baptisms are performed on behalf of all deceased, who, according to mormon belief, can choose to accept it or not. Even the mormons believe that the baptism is meaningless unless the deceased expressly accepts it.
Of course anyone can choose to be offended at this practice if they wish. But it is entirely unintrusive and done only out of sincere love for all people. You would actually have to go out of your way to even know if it had happened.
If people feel it is condescending, well it is no more condescending than someone trying to share their faith with you in an unintrusive manner. I've had people try to share their faith with me, I find it endearing, even if the tacit implication is that they think my beliefs are wrong, heretical, stupid, etc. I don't see how it is really effing rude.
Sharing one's faith is different from being actively evangelized. Whether you truly believe it (evang. and/or this posthumous baptism) is all about love or no, neither is an "unintrusive" concept. You must be a special kind of person to find it endearing when someone is treating you as though you're "wrong, heretical, stupid, etc." That doesn't mean it's not condescension. And some weak people like me find condescension between adults really effing rude.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Do you know the best way to anger an atheist?
- 28/02/2012 07:10:57 PM
1858 Views
Or, you could baptize one of them, posthumously.
- 28/02/2012 07:32:48 PM
1190 Views
I can't think of any reason for an atheist to be annoyed by that.
- 28/02/2012 11:08:44 PM
948 Views
Well, for starters, it's really effing rude.
- 28/02/2012 11:31:36 PM
986 Views
It is an act of love.
- 29/02/2012 12:34:03 AM
1010 Views
Everyone does it for that reason? (edits for clarity)
- 29/02/2012 10:27:02 AM
899 Views
I have some disturbing news for you...
- 29/02/2012 06:42:41 PM
948 Views
For anyone reading this: the guy above is wrong, and I am admitting that to you on his behalf, so
- 29/02/2012 07:15:38 PM
958 Views
Maybe without realizing it, you have articulated....
- 29/02/2012 07:24:13 PM
813 Views
I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
- 29/02/2012 08:18:35 PM
935 Views
Re: I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
- 29/02/2012 09:07:06 PM
959 Views
I cannot possibly agree more with these two paragraphs of yours...
- 29/02/2012 09:28:09 PM
970 Views
I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
- 02/03/2012 09:05:29 AM
1331 Views
Re: I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
- 02/03/2012 06:26:06 PM
1110 Views
There are 3 critical distinctions: 1) Ability to sin, 2) Awareness of sin and 3) Appreciation of sin
- 05/03/2012 04:08:36 AM
881 Views
It is not an act of love to defy the beliefs of a loved one.
- 29/02/2012 02:32:45 PM
1055 Views
Rape? That is ridiculous.
- 29/02/2012 05:26:13 PM
959 Views
It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far from it, imo
- 29/02/2012 05:45:39 PM
990 Views
"Spiritual rape" might be going a bit far, but otherwise that sounds about right.
- 02/03/2012 08:06:48 AM
1020 Views
Isn't religion different than faith, though?
- 28/02/2012 07:44:07 PM
1015 Views
Yeah that's pretty much what I said 
- 28/02/2012 08:21:56 PM
804 Views
- 28/02/2012 08:21:56 PM
804 Views
that won't work on Buddists
- 28/02/2012 09:21:48 PM
953 Views
For some reason I always imagine Buddhists as the monk class on RPG games... *NM*
- 28/02/2012 10:13:27 PM
473 Views
That's always been my view of the issue. Half-assed non-religious types are just as obnoxious too.
- 28/02/2012 10:34:12 PM
1168 Views
Seems a got both a pat on the back and a scathing rebuke. I call that a good day
- 28/02/2012 11:57:45 PM
1237 Views
Best way to anger an atheist, by declaring all atheists are the same. *NM*
- 28/02/2012 10:38:51 PM
616 Views
Common error number 1: "Atheism isn't a lack of belief, but rather a belief that God doesn't exist."
- 28/02/2012 11:18:23 PM
1099 Views
Curiously, anger at statements of simple obvious facts is a hallmark of religious fundamentalism. 
- 29/02/2012 10:27:29 AM
1038 Views
- 29/02/2012 10:27:29 AM
1038 Views
What you're doing there is defining "atheist" and "agnostic" in a way that suits you, but...
- 29/02/2012 11:50:27 AM
836 Views
What I am doing is using the terms as they were universally used until about the time I was born.
- 05/03/2012 01:11:21 AM
973 Views
So what do you call this position?:
- 05/03/2012 08:43:20 AM
929 Views
I call them both agnostic, but the former leans toward atheism while the latter has no lean.
- 05/03/2012 10:53:02 AM
984 Views
See, there you go again, defining atheism in such a way as to make it sound ridiculous.
- 05/03/2012 11:21:17 AM
807 Views
Well, is unswerving belief a good thing, or not?
- 05/03/2012 11:57:05 AM
1034 Views
What's happening
- 05/03/2012 02:24:41 PM
1017 Views
Conversationally, DKs use of "atheism" at the start of this convo is the only practical definition.
- 07/03/2012 03:10:18 AM
1323 Views
Oh really? The guy who was doing it to annoy people?
- 07/03/2012 09:53:38 PM
922 Views
The guy who was doing it to annoy atheists based on the terms technical and popular meaning, yes.
- 11/03/2012 04:04:36 AM
797 Views
Whatever.
- 12/03/2012 12:39:24 AM
1238 Views
*NM*
I understand that as "I completely agree."
- 13/03/2012 12:11:18 AM
1076 Views
- 13/03/2012 12:11:18 AM
1076 Views
I have known very few people who "believe" their religion from rearing and actually understand it.
- 29/02/2012 12:08:01 PM
1165 Views
I thought that was "best way to make an atheist roll his/her eyes at you"? *NM*
- 29/02/2012 11:05:21 PM
566 Views