Cults

[Dr.Who]

I have no doubt at all that he knew his remarks were incendiary. No, he isn't ignorant.

I used to have fourth grade boys call a fellow classmate "gay", then innocently declare that it just means "happy." Using the term "cult" to describe Mormons is much the same thing, and pretty much on the same maturity level.

and no, the kids weren't ignorant, at least not of that word and its impact.

Sometimes using the word cult to describe Mormons would be technically accurate and sometimes even if accurate it would also be incendiary and immature. But it would not always be incendiary or immature. This is what the debate about Jeffrees comment should always have been about and not about whether or not he was ignorant.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Bible also says that there was a universal flood, and that the human race sprang from two individuals. The Bible is open to interpretation.

It is open to interpretation. That does not mean that we cannot debate what it means with an intent to discover the best interpretation.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's an entirely different topic. I'm comparing "beliefs". Christians believe there is only one Living God and that is what the bible teaches. Mormonism believes everyone can be a Living God. That isn't open to "interpretation". That is a fact.

Those are still interpretations. Sometimes interpretations can be so close to truth that there is little doubt.

 

[Dr.Who]

Maybe there is a reason it can be applied to any religion at all...

You are also doing a bit of special pleading, before when you were unaware that is was the dictionary definition, you appealed to the dictionary as the true definition. Now that you know that you are wrong you are ok with making up your own because it is no longer helpful to your argument? You are being blatantly dishonest.

Nope.

I still say that a dictionary definition is a good place to start. But clearly even the dictionary can be wrong. The dictionary definition you provided was meaningless and therefore bad.

If the word cult meant the same thing as the word religion then there would be no need to have the word at all. And I am sure that hardly anyone would think that the word cult just means relgion. That dictionary definition just does not work.

I am not making up my own definition I am choosing the dictionary definition that has a long history of use and not choosing the dictionary definition that is meaningless. That is rational.

 

[Dr.Who]

How about you mind your own bloody business? It was a dialogue with another user and last I checked you were not a mod. If the mods have a problem with a minor deviation of the topic it is their place to say so not yours. Besides something tell me it was the opinion I was posting you wanted to stop not the minor side conversation.

I want your opinion to continue. Just not in the thread that I started which makes it my business.

I do not have a problem with minor deviations but I do recognize that one comment is minor and two or three or four are a derailement.

 

[Dr.Who]

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

Every single written word is open to interpretation. What that says is that all communication is subject to our unreliable interpretations. The written words themselves always stay the same from day to day or year to year and are therefore 100% reliable.

 

[Apathy]

Nope.

I still say that a dictionary definition is a good place to start. But clearly even the dictionary can be wrong. The dictionary definition you provided was meaningless and therefore bad.

The problem isn't that it is meaningless, the problem is that you don't like the definition. Thor forbid someone call your cult a cult.

If the word cult meant the same thing as the word religion then there would be no need to have the word at all. And I am sure that hardly anyone would think that the word cult just means relgion. That dictionary definition just does not work.

It would be clear to any child with a primary school education that this happens quite often in the English language... They are called synonyms but hell maybe you missed that day, I won't hold it against you. Well now you know.

I am not making up my own definition I am choosing the dictionary definition that has a long history of use and not choosing the dictionary definition that is meaningless. That is rational.

You are cherry picking because you didn't like what the word meant. You may try to rationalize it but it is far from rational.

 

[Apathy]

I want your opinion to continue. Just not in the thread that I started which makes it my business.

I do not have a problem with minor deviations but I do recognize that one comment is minor and two or three or four are a derailement.

It is a public forum and if you don't like the criticism don't put your thoughts up for scrutiny, it is that bloody simple.

 

[Apathy]

Every single written word is open to interpretation. What that says is that all communication is subject to our unreliable interpretations. The written words themselves always stay the same from day to day or year to year and are therefore 100% reliable.

Yes the copies of copies of translations of copies are 100% reliable, despite contradicting themselves, despite there not being any other sources to confirm these myths, despite their being scores of different versions of the same text, and despite that their are thousands of denominations with mutually exclusive beliefs about the same 33 year old virgin.... So yeah if you ignore these few minor details it is completely reliable.

 

[Dr.Who]

The problem isn't that it is meaningless, the problem is that you don't like the definition. Thor forbid someone call your cult a cult.


It would be clear to any child with a primary school education that this happens quite often in the English language... They are called synonyms but hell maybe you missed that day, I won't hold it against you. Well now you know.



You are cherry picking because you didn't like what the word meant. You may try to rationalize it but it is far from rational.

Except that the word cult and the word religion are not synonyms. The one definition you found indicates that they are but it is just wrong - it disagrees with too many other definitions. You can keep arguing that the word cult just means any religion but you are only making a fool of your comments in front of anyone reading this thread.

Given the other definitions of the word cult and the ways it has been used on this thread and in our culture in general is there anyone else at all who thinks that making the word cult mean any religion is a good definition? Is every community church in town a cult or do we reserve the word to mean 1) Theologically; a group that distorts the orthodox message or 2) secularly; a group that uses techniques like mind control or coercion to keep its followers engaged ?

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a public forum and if you don't like the criticism don't put your thoughts up for scrutiny, it is that bloody simple.

Of course it is a public forum and I cannot forbid you from posting anything at all. but I did ask politely that you refrain from continuing to make comments that don't fit the thread. I have continued be be polite and you have not. That reflects well on me and, well, not so much on you. I am sure that the people of this forum will understand that as the person who created this thread I would not like to see it derailed and that if you had continued on that particular side track if I had asked the mods to move your comments to a new thread they probably would have.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes the copies of copies of translations of copies are 100% reliable, despite contradicting themselves, despite there not being any other sources to confirm these myths, despite their being scores of different versions of the same text, and despite that their are thousands of denominations with mutually exclusive beliefs about the same 33 year old virgin.... So yeah if you ignore these few minor details it is completely reliable.

As I said before: "The written words themselves always stay the same from day to day or year to year and are therefore 100% reliable."

If someone makes a copy the original remains unchanged. If someone then makes more copies of copies and even makes translations of copies the original still remains unchanged and is therefore still 100% reliable.

Copies of copies may indeed be less than 100% reliable but the original written words always remain exactly what they were unless you go back in time and get the authors to write something different.

 

[PLC1]

It is open to interpretation. That does not mean that we cannot debate what it means with an intent to discover the best interpretation.

Of course not.

People have been debating that issue for centuries.

 

[dogtowner]

Of course not.

People have been debating that issue for centuries.

fast approaching millenia !

 

[Apathy]

Of course it is a public forum and I cannot forbid you from posting anything at all.

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