I think technically, if it were a legit baptism you'd get through the gates automatically. Can't speak for the Episcopalians, but I grew up Catholic and my understanding was baptism was a clean slate.

Sent.

Poland9324 Posts

August 31 2016 18:45 GMT

#9823

On September 01 2016 03:38 Thouhastmail wrote:
I`m episcopalian and gonna be baptised this Sunday. What if I drowned?

I really want to make a Game of Thrones joke here

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

August 31 2016 21:14 GMT

#9824

Episcopalians aren't crazy and actually do read the Bible. So they don't think the dunking is what saves you.

farvacola

United States18866 Posts

August 31 2016 21:28 GMT

#9825

On September 01 2016 06:14 Yoav wrote:
Episcopalians aren't crazy and actually do read the Bible. So they don't think the dunking is what saves you.

I'm Episcopalian. Does that change your analysis?

Liquid`Drone

Norway28874 Posts

August 31 2016 21:33 GMT

#9826

why would it? :D I'll easily admit to not being particularly well versed in the various church communities found in the US or around the world, but the Episcopalian has struck me as particularly sympathetic- more so than any other really.

farvacola

United States18866 Posts

August 31 2016 21:36 GMT

#9827

My experience tends to affirm your intuitions, Drone; the church I was baptized in performed then-prohibited gay marriages and had a congregation full of pretty much every minority imaginable. Sadly, St. Marks in Toledo closed a few years ago

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

August 31 2016 21:47 GMT

#9828

Yeah. Episcopalians were way out in front of the culture on gay marriage. My own Presbyterian Church is on the right side now, but took longer. (Partly because we vote on everything... Anglicanism is much more top-down, and as you probably know, the more familiar people are with the Bible the more socially liberal they tend to be. In a church functionally run by Bishops like the Episcopal church, you move faster on social issues.)

Thieving Magpie

United States6752 Posts

September 03 2016 13:07 GMT

#9829

On September 01 2016 00:12 Cascade wrote:

Show nested quote +

Or you know. You need to actually go out and do stuff to prevent that one murder. With potentially severe real life consequences to you. While pretend to try to change the policy can safely be done from your computer chair without any considerable risks.

Sort of? That's all part of optimization problems right?

Like, what is the reward of putting yourself at risk of consequences going out there versus the risk voting for policies. Then you take into account the rewards of putting yourself out there versus the reward of your policy winning.

Some people care a lot, so they picket/firebomb planned parenthood. Some people don't care as much, so they stay at home.

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

September 03 2016 13:37 GMT

#9830

--- Nuked ---

Liquid`Drone

Norway28874 Posts

September 03 2016 13:43 GMT

#9831

I think 'excessive caring' is oftentimes defined as crazy.

Yoav

United States1874 Posts

September 03 2016 14:39 GMT

#9832

I dunno. I think if I thought our state had legalized widespread murder, my technique wouldn't be firebombing. Not in a democracy where I thought I could push for real change that would last. Terrorism is, as has been pointed out, a spectacularly unsuccessful way of attaining anything. + Show Spoiler +

I almost wrote "except independence," but then when I stopped to think of my examples, they largely used terrorist methods against military targets. Targeting civilian targets often set the cause in question back, or at least didn't advance it.

Trying to convince your fellow citizens of a moral imperative is probably a better way to go.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28874 Posts

September 03 2016 14:56 GMT

#9833

oh I totally think firebombing is stupid and unproductive, but I also think it indicates that you really care about the issue at hand.

Thieving Magpie

United States6752 Posts

September 03 2016 15:45 GMT

#9834

On September 03 2016 22:37 JimmiC wrote:
Firebombing does not show caring it shows crazy.

Crazy people care a tonne

JimmiC

Canada22817 Posts

September 03 2016 15:45 GMT

#9835

--- Nuked ---

KwarK

United States44204 Posts

September 03 2016 15:59 GMT

#9836

Playing by the rules that the state murdering all the babies sets would be absurd. It comes down to ongoing baby genocide and how far you're willing to go to stop it. And throwing a bomb in an empty abortion clinic would definitely save a lot of babies. It's not a vague terrorist political gain or raising awareness of the issue, it's like sabotaging the gas chambers. The outcome is the goal. The only reason not to is a social agreement the state claims it has with you that demands your consent to its genocide.

Thieving Magpie

United States6752 Posts

September 03 2016 16:01 GMT

#9837

On September 04 2016 00:45 JimmiC wrote:
It doesn't show you care more then others it shows you have different morals then others.

Well no, the axiom of the question was why don't more people take active action to stop a murder (the murder being abortion)

Some people care enough about saving that one life right in front of them that they take physical action to stop it. Others would rather try to "fix the system" instead of saving that one life in front of them. The same thing happens if you talk about an actual murder as opposed to abortion.

Do you run in and help the victim being stabbed?
Do you call the police and hope things work out?
Do you just vote during election time and complain about there not being enough police?

Each level shows a different stage of commitment to the cause versus the event of the incident. Fire bombers do what they do because they want to save a baby NOW, and they want to save the babies RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. They don't have the patience to allow X million murders to happen while they negotiate with murderers about when does something not count as murder--because that sounds crazy to them.

If you don't think Abortion is murder, and you want to try to negotiate with pro-life people, then it feels much more natural for you to openly discuss why this ambiguous grey area of what counts as a life should be figured out before actions are met. But to someone who is pro life, every second of every day that things don't change people are dying. Dying by the thousands, by the millions in a government sanctioned killing field. So of course they care about forcibly changing it. There's not much difference to them between pro-choice and ISIS when it comes to mass murder. And hell no do they want to "negotiate" with ISIS.