Army Chaplain allows dusty troops to take bath if they are baptized.

Aren't most Christians baptised as a baby? I know I was. Since you claim the military is moslty Christian, the only point of this is to convert non-Christians. or are there re-baptisms that you have to do every few years (like a car tune-up)?

 

Oh, right. That was you, Moniker. Sorry. Got you guys mixed up.

As I said above, I'm not an expert on Jesus or on the Baptist faith either. As I understand it (and I could easily be wrong), baptism is the ritual by which you become Baptist. I don't think that Chaplain is trying to baptise people in the name of Allah. I mean if that's what he's doing, it's meaningless right? Just let them take the bath.

It is not uncommon for people of a certain faith to resist undergoing serious rituals of a religion other than their own. I went to Catholic school in eighth grade and I resented the suggestion that I should kneel at Mass to a deity I didn't believe in. If I'd been denied the opportunity to bathe on account of that, it would have really upset me. This is much the same, isn't it?

Again though, my main point: if there's a water shortage, let the troops take baths without converting. And when there's not a shortage, let the willing be baptised to their hearts' content. It's that simple.

 

Baptism is practiced by many Christian denominations in different ways... from sprinkling to dunking.

I met an older gentleman one time. We chatted about stuff. He goes to a Baptist church and I go to a Methodist church. He cracked one on me, "Your water's not deep enough for us..."

I'm no expert, but in general it symbolizes a new creature emerged from the waters of baptism with new-found faith.

I get your point and there are circumstances and conditions under which I would be irked... I just don't know all the details. Remember, you won't convict Saddam without all the details so go easy on this Southern Baptist.

Maybe showers are only a day away, but the guy could't refill his baptismal pool for weeks. Who knows? As treeman said, if the CO is letting it ride maybe that's a better indicator than what some journalist says.

 

I just had to respond to this one bit before going to sleep.

I have no trouble at all condemning Saddam for his various crimes against humanity. I think he is a very bad man and has killed many innocent people. According to our foreign policy that is not a good enough reason to attack his country without provocation. If it were, we'd be attacking many other countries too which we are not going to attack.

But I really don't see what that has to do with this at all.

 

Goodnight. Sweet dreams... and because of the new US foreign policy you are less likely to become a victim of terrorism.

 

Some are, some aren't. If you're baptized as a baby depends more on the church/denomination more than anything else.

As far as the rebaptism, I'm Lutheran, and I know that when a couple, who had been baptized as children, began attending my church and wanted to be rebaptized in order to show that they accepted their faith, found discouragement in doing so from the pastor and congregation. Don't ask me why, that was seven or eight years ago, and I don't exactly remember why.

 

dude. isn't this illegal? discrimination based on religion?
and using a public instrument (army) to spread religion?

i smell a lawsuit...

 

Amen. How Christians get off assuming that there cult is the "right" one and then shoving it down everyone elses throat just boggles my mind. I'm a Deist, (look it up if you're unfamiliar), and I'll be damned if that preacher would deny me access just because I wouldn't convert. Now if there was other water available then so be it.

 

Christians are called upon, by the bible, to evangelize. It has to do with wanting other people to be saved. According to John 3:16, the only way to salvation is through the grace of Jesus. Christians don't have nefarious motives in missionary work. They are just trying to look out for you. Anyway, whether you want to believe that he was the son of God or not, Jesus's teachings can be broken down to two things: love God and love each other. That's really not so bad, is it?

 

Thanks for the (yet another unwanted) bible lesson. Whatever your motive is about letting others know about your beliefs...it's all good but you guys take it to a level that annoys the sh*t out of me (and i'm sure 95% of the people you talk to). I believe in God and I'm religious, but I don't need some stupid book to tell me what I need to do in my lifetime. To all the gazillion idiots that ring my doorbell and start yapping away about the "grace of Jesus"...I just tell it to them straight to their face: I don't go around telling you to believe in my God do I? and slam the door in their faces. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of doing it. I swear, next time I open my door and I see some Jesus believer holding a bible, I'm gonna take that bible and beat him on the head with it.

 

1. The question was posed by someone else outside of you.

2. I can see that your faith is doing amazing things in your life.

 

The question was asked, so I answered it. If you don't want to read it, don't. But please don't tell me it is an unwanted lesson when YOU asked "why are christians so insistent on getting people to convert or 'find the lord'?"

I am actually not big on proselytizing, I only talk about my religious beliefs when people ask, ike you and Philly did.

 

I don't see an inherent evil in evangelising (though I do personally find it annoying). My problem is, as stated several times in this thread, when there is an earthly reward for converting, and when that reward results in a denial of basic services to those who aren't willing to convert. During the Crusades people were allowed to live if they converted. Moniker, you say you don't see anything so wrong with being asked to love God, but what you mean is to love the "only true God." In other words, yours. If you really believe that, you would not like to be in a situation, while risking your life for your country, where you were told you could only bathe if you said you accepted another God into your heart. People are being asked to do this by a member of the US military who apparently has plenty of baptismal water while there's not enough for the troops to bathe otherwise. That is wrong and I assert again, Jesus, who said the meek would find their rewards in the kingdom of Heaven and not on Earth, would deplore this.

 

You call yourself Religious and refer to the Bible as a "stupid book" ?!?!

 

I have no problem with people believing in Christianity as long as they are comfortable admitting they may not be right. Religion is the best kind of lie it's one nobody can prove. Faith is great but it's also blind devotion. The only real problem I have with it is discussing it with others who take the side of well I'm right just because. They have no real idea why they believe, they just do because their family raised them that way and because it's socially acceptable. God forbid anyone would actually research a few religions and understand their teachings before discarding them all as "devil worshipping."

I challenge anyone would considers themselves Christian to study up on Deism and tell me it doesn't make more sense. Do you respect the intellect of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Quicy Adams, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, James Madison, Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein, J.J. Rousseau, F.M.A. de Voltaire, and John Locke? Yeah all Deists.

 

I told glynch that I had never heard of Christian charity that would refuse service unless you were willing to sit through their sermon. He found a counter-example. Good job, glynch.

However, I'll assert that this doesn't quite count. I think the way the chaplain is marketing himself and the way the article is written, it sounds like he is refusing service to those who won't religiously submit. With some thought, though, I think it is clear this isn't actually the case. The man is a baptist preacher (a denomination that puts a particularly high level of importance on baptism). I think his pool should be considered a 'baptism pool' not a 'bathing pool.' As a baptism pool, it should be refused to those who don't profess a saving faith in Jesus, because baptism is a sacrament. It is a tool of his profession, not a general resource.

I would criticize him for being too liberal with his water instead of being too discriminatory. I don't think he should intimate that he'll let people who are motivated only by the desire for a bath to partake in a holy sacrament. I doubt it is actually the case anyway, since the subject has to go through 1.5 hours of mumbo-jumbo. The part about fruit I only hope is a joke.

 

I'd do it then turn around and say, "Now, I've been baptized...FOR SATAN!!! MUWAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

 

Amen.

If it's his water, he has the right to do anything he wants with it. But I still think that that tactic to convert is not only stupid but wrong.

 

The meek wait for showers.

 

That said. I wonder if the write twisted something out of context in the article.