Cults

[Pandora]

That's my point: the doctrine of eternal progression satisfies the question of how we could live in a perfect world forever and not get bored. After a while, even doing perfect wheelies and never falling off of your motorcycle would get boring. A million years, or a billion of working toward a goal would never get old.

But why do people think that the afterlife is sitting on a cloud praising God or anything of the sort? No scripture says anything like that or even suggests or hints that so where are people getting these ideas from?

 

[PLC1]

But why do people think that the afterlife is sitting on a cloud praising God or anything of the sort? No scripture says anything like that or even suggests or hints that so where are people getting these ideas from?

It's just modern folklore, not really based on anything. What do you see yourself doing in this perfect heaven?

I'd love to be able to talk to my grandfather, and ask him what he's been doing for the past half century, but, it is not given to us mortals to be able to do that sort of thing.

 

[Pandora]

It's just modern folklore, not really based on anything. What do you see yourself doing in this perfect heaven?

I'd love to be able to talk to my grandfather, and ask him what he's been doing for the past half century, but, it is not given to us mortals to be able to do that sort of thing.

I can’t really imagine what I would be doing. I can’t imagine a world without pain or struggling exc. I am not sure I believe in "heaven" like most people do. Revelation talks about the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven and a city that needs no sun or moon because God himself will be our light and a tree of life that’s leaves are for healing the nations and it has 12 types of fruit. It sounds like good music and good food and good company. Perhaps it’s a place where there is lots of learning done and that is what fills our time, if time is even the same kind of thing as we now understand it, that and helping others. Not sure I could be content there in my current state of mind. It takes hard work for me to appreciate rest, bad times for me to appreciate the good times. I am nowhere near ready mentally for such a utopia

 

[dogtowner]

But why do people think that the afterlife is sitting on a cloud praising God or anything of the sort? No scripture says anything like that or even suggests or hints that so where are people getting these ideas from?

maybe here ? John 14:2

In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

 

[Pandora]

maybe here ? John 14:2

I love that vs but having a great place to live wouldn't necessarily mean you just sit on a cloud all day singing bible hymns would it?

Here is something I wonder about. Is this house with many rooms that Jesus is speaking of the same as the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation that comes down out of heaven?

 

[dogtowner]

I love that vs but having a great place to live wouldn't necessarily mean you just sit on a cloud all day singing bible hymns would it?

Here is something I wonder about. Is this house with many rooms that Jesus is speaking of the same as the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation that comes down out of heaven?

prolly.

but a world without death and pain and God among us (in a more physical sense ala Burning Bush) might seem pretty fluffy and nice.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thanks now next time you feel like throwing a hissy about the direction of a conversation you are not a part of remember this.

I will and do remember that I cannot forbid you from going off on a tangent.

In my initial comment on this I made no attempt to forbid you. I asked using words like "Please" that you would no derail my thread.

If you choose to have little respect I can't change that either.

 

[Dr.Who]

You do realize the the copies were made for over thousands of year using scribes who at time made mistakes. Over such a long time of copying by this method it's meaning was surely altered. Translating these texts have also led to changes in meaning. These two things alone are enough to question the reliability of these text and I havent even mentioned that the texts were edited and added to for political purposes... Why do you think their are scores of different versions of the same damn text. Hell Harry Potter is a more reliable text at least it remains consistent from text to text.

To suggest the bible has not been subjected to copying errors, translation errors, and political augmentation is just folly not to mention ahistorical.


They don't have the originals, and if they did would you trust the opiate induced ramblings of a desert tribe

I never suggested that an interpretation of a translation today is 100% accurate. I said that the original was 100% accurate.

You failed to make the distinction between a translation, an interpretation, a copy and an original in your earlier statement and I was trying to point out the distinction.

The originals are 100% accurate as I said.

A copy is usually very accurate and in the case of the OT this has been proven.

A translation of course contains many faults, not that they are necessarily important faults.

And lastly, an interpretation contains even more faults, not that they are necessarily important faults.

Regardless of all of that what I did not say before but what I will say now is that the translations of copies that we have today are still very useful. Again, what I did not say is that the Bible we have today is 100% accurate and one would have to be obtuse to think I said that.

 

[Dr.Who]

They don't have the originals, and if they did would you trust the opiate induced ramblings of a desert tribe

Do you have any evidence at all that the Hebrews had access to opium or are you just attempting a baseless smear?

Additionally, no one claims the Torah was written by a tribe, making your statement a strawman. The claim is that it was written by Moses - a person educated in the best institutions of his day as a prince of the Egyptian court.

Do I trust the bible written by not just Moses but a number of other authors too? Yes, but not just because the manuscript evidence strongly supports it as a trustworthy source but because God reveals it to be true to those with soft hearts. I fully well realize that this is my own subjective experience and I do not ask you to accept it.

I do ask that you are accurate in your smear campaigns.

Going back to post #59 you said:

"The fact that it has as many interpretations as people reading it should tell you it is not a very reliable document. "

To which I still respond that the problems in an interpretation are completely irrelevant to the question of the accuracy of the original. The original remains 100% accurate no matter what has happened to the interpretations. Your statement was false and I corrected it. Why did I compare the original to the documents we have? To make the point that an interpretation is what people say about a document and are not the same thing as the document itself. The documents we have are at worst translations (though we do possess copies in the original language so that is a moot problem).

Your statement here about Moses was also false and I corrected that too.

 

[Dr.Who]

No. The bible says there is ONE Living God. That is not open to interpretation. You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

If the original written by Moses said there was one living God that would not be an interpretation until we tried to form our own opinion of what the words said.

Likewise if the bible says there is one living God that too is not an interpretation even though the copy in my living room is a translation of a copy. It does become an interpretation as soon as I state an opinion of that.

In fact every single written word we have on any subject written by any one is subject to interpretation. That does not mean that any particular interpretation is wrong.

I believe there is one living God, I believe my interpretation is consistent with the NIV translation I have. Likewise with the NSRB and the RKJV... But I do not think it is consistent with the NWT or the various publications one branch of of the Mormon church.

 

[Dr.Who]

The two most credible dictionaries around disagree.. You merely dislike the definition so you redefine the word.

1. Since when is dictionary.com one of the most credible dictionaries?
2. While Merriam webster is credible it would be illogical to think they are right just because they are an authority. They are obviously wrong this time. In fact if they were right then no one at all would be complaining that anyone said Romney belonged to a cult because all that would mean is that he belonged to a religion. Are you really arguing that people are upset because someone said Romney belonged to a religion.
3. You yourself rejected that definition in your first post when you said "the difference between a religion and a cult is a numbers thing". If you believe there is a difference between a religion and a cult then how can you be supporting a dictionary definition that says there is no difference?

Well firstly the premise for the merit of these definitions is flawed, just because culture defines a world differently, and is commonly thought to meant that doesn't mean it is right.(Appeal to common practice) In the 19th century in the us blacks were commonly defined as livestock? Does that mean that was right?

When it comes to what words mean then common practice is exactly what dictionaries do - they define how words are commonly used.

 

[Dr.Who]

Except that, as Pandora points out, the name of god actually meant gods in Hebrew.

Why would there be only one god? What else is there that is single?

and, if we're children of god, why wouldn't we grow up to be like our parents?

At this moment it does not matter what is the best interpretation.

What matters is that there is an orthodox interpretation and that a branch of the Mormon church is a cult theologically because they have a different interpretation.

 

[Dr.Who]

I mean if people can argue the serpents seed theory then anything can be argued in scripture to any degree

I agree anything can be argued but some of those arguments are clearly silly.

 

[Dr.Who]

my temple educated friend assures me this is poppycock. at a minimum, not ALL Mormans ascribe to that stuff. but like Christianity there are some who dream up some pretty whacky stuff and convince others its real. this is the flaw in trusting man over God.

I think it would be a mistake to attribute that characterization of mormon theology to a lone ranger mormon and to think that all the others have more traditional thinking. In fact that "poppycock" is pretty representative of mormon thinking in general.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mormons believe that god, the father was once a man, who lived a life just like any other man. He died, was resurrected, and obtained a perfect body in that resurrection. He, through unknown periods of time, gradually repented of all of his sins and became perfect. They believe that there is a heavenly mother, as well as a heavenly father, and that we are all the spirit children of the heavenly couple. They believe that, after we die, we will also be resurrected and will obtain perfect bodies. If we seek perfection, we, too, may become perfect over time and given the chance to create and populate our own worlds.

To me, that sounds much more attractive than sitting on a cloud and singing praises for eternity. We'd have a goal to work for.

Where do you see yourself in a million years?

Then you agree that it is different than orthodox thinking?