Cults

[Apathy]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Alias]

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

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.

 

[Apathy]

Except[sic] that the word cult and the word religion are not synonyms.

Why should should I accept the definition that you pulled out of your ass over all of the credible dictionaries? Im sorry but this is pure folly.

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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

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

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 ?

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?

Now to tackle the definitions individually, even though I shown they are faulty in premise.

1) This is based on perspective, what is unorthodox is subjective thus the definition not valid.

2) Mind control does not exist outside of bad scifi. (you should step outside the tardis every once in a while) There are certain psychological tricks that you can use to manipulate a person but it is hardly mind control. Also groups do use coercion to prevent apostasy, they can be as simple as social exile or as severe as execution. Every church coerces in some way.

 

[PLC1]

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 rest of the Bible is open to interpretation and subject to errors and revisions, why wouldn't that part be?

 

[Alias]

If the rest of the Bible is open to interpretation and subject to errors and revisions, why wouldn't that part be?

I'm talking about what is written in the bible. You don't have to believe it. All I'm saying is what the bible says and it says there is One Living God.

No interpretation needed.

 

[PLC1]

I'm talking about what is written in the bible. You don't have to believe it. All I'm saying is what the bible says and it says there is One Living God.

No interpretation needed.

It does say that, yes.

It also says that we shouldn't plant two crops in the same field, that God took a rib from Adam and created Eve, that Noah marched every sort of animal into the ark two by two, and a whole lot of other things.

 

[Pandora]

It does say that, yes.

It also says that we shouldn't plant two crops in the same field, that God took a rib from Adam and created Eve, that Noah marched every sort of animal into the ark two by two, and a whole lot of other things.

I think it says Adam's side, but we say rib out of tradition just like we say apple when it never names the fruit. The animals were two, one male and one female only for the unclean, there were 7 female and 7 male of the clean

A person could argue that God is plural in scripture. The Hebrew word Elohim has been translated to GOD in English. The Hebrew word Elohim means Gods (plural) Most Christians argue that it’s a sign of the trinity. Either way you argue it the word does mean Gods plural. Other parts of scripture like in Genesis where it says Let us make man in our image (GOD speaking) or let us go down and confound their language (again GOD speaking) so GODs could be argued if someone wanted to.

 

[Alias]

It does say that, yes.

It also says that we shouldn't plant two crops in the same field, that God took a rib from Adam and created Eve, that Noah marched every sort of animal into the ark two by two, and a whole lot of other things.

And you can either believe it or not. That's not the point. My point is what is written in the bible compared to what Mormons believe. Now that we have take that little rabbit trail and are back to the original thought, Mormons believe people can become a God, which is not biblical since the bible states there is only One Living God.

 

[PLC1]

And you can either believe it or not. That's not the point. My point is what is written in the bible compared to what Mormons believe. Now that we have take that little rabbit trail and are back to the original thought, Mormons believe people can become a God, which is not biblical since the bible states there is only One Living God.

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?

 

[Pandora]

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?

We are children by adoption

Are you familiar with the Mormon belief of who God is and how we can become gods of our own planet?

 

[PLC1]

We are children by adoption

God adopted us??? from whom?

Are you familiar with the Mormon belief of who God is and how we can become gods of our own planet?

Yes.

 

[Pandora]

God adopted us??? from whom?



Yes.

I don’t think it says who he adopted us from, just that we are adopted

When I adopted a stray dog, I didn't really adopt it from another person or another dog; I just accepted responsibility for it so I think this is one of those things you can turn into anything you want if you’re up to the argument I mean if people can argue the serpents seed theory then anything can be argued in scripture to any degree

 

[PLC1]

I don’t think it says who he adopted us from, just that we are adopted

When I adopted a stray dog, I didn't really adopt it from another person or another dog; I just accepted responsibility for it so I think this is one of those things you can turn into anything you want if you’re up to the argument I mean if people can argue the serpents seed theory then anything can be argued in scripture to any degree

Oh, I see. Yes, practically anything can be argued from scripture, even that humankind is like stray dogs that have been adopted by god.

Most Christians believe that we're god's children. If they believe that, why wouldn't they believe that we're going to grow up to be like our parents?

And, why would they believe that godly parents are single?

 

[dogtowner]

Oh, I see. Yes, practically anything can be argued from scripture, even that humankind is like stray dogs that have been adopted by god.

Most Christians believe that we're god's children. If they believe that, why wouldn't they believe that we're going to grow up to be like our parents?

And, why would they believe that godly parents are single?

For me, the nature of our being children of God has to do with with the Father aspect of the Trinity. God being the benevolent father-like figure. That we were created in God's image does not denote that we are mini-gods but rather that we have minds that reason unlike animals.

 

[Pandora]

Oh, I see. Yes, practically anything can be argued from scripture, even that humankind is like stray dogs that have been adopted by god.

Most Christians believe that we're god's children. If they believe that, why wouldn't they believe that we're going to grow up to be like our parents?

And, why would they believe that godly parents are single?

Well not all do, that’s where Mormons come in. Not only was God a man, you can be a God if you work the system correctly and tithe your ten percent to the temple and be sure to wear your magic panties you will get to have perpetual sex and your wife will perpetually birth spirit babies who will fill your planet like our God filled this one

Even though scripture says God is spirit and we must worship him in spirit and in truth some will say he is a man and when it says we are made in his image it means he has hand and ears exc.