Christians: If God Loves Us and Wants Us to Join Him in Heaven, Why Didn't He Put Us There?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps, then, it makes sense that it is divine because it doesn't make sense.

If not making sense is the mark of divinity, then I guess I should start worshipping this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWSxhEU8KUI

 

[Mr Cheese]

Basically, Mr. Cheese, you have stated that the Mormon perspective on any topic is not worth considering. Your reasoning is that Mormonism is a young faith and you don't agree with its doctrines (or what you perceive its doctrine to be). You have shown no interest in getting your facts straight either. Why anyone would pay any attention to your rants is beyond me.

no,

I have added why I dont think mormonism can answer said questions
but I would liek to hear why mormons believe they can.... not being a mormon I would like to hear your perspective...

since it was stated that catholicism (exoteric trinitarian) was not good enopugh to answer the OP

...

In essense Zadok was stating catholicism = no good
but was unable and not willign to answer why his view, and/or the mormon view is superior , better or more able....

In fact you could argue Zadok was the one who was being a "hater" by simply stating

catholicism=bad
without counterbalancing his opinion.

Bias views are great.... by why not give a balanced view?
Or is it easier to just play the card of "Oh woe is me, I am being picked on"
It would seem it is

...

So..
I aks again

how and why is mormonism more able to answer the questions of the OP
whereas catholicism is not.... we already know why catholicism is not, that has been stated

thank you!

 

[Mr Cheese]

Is this supposed to make sense?

yes it was a dr strangelove reference...

"Dr strangelove, or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb"

its a book and a film

keep up

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If not making sense is the mark of divinity, then I guess I should start worshipping this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWSxhEU8KUI

In that light, there is a lot of divinity going on.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

yes it was a dr strangelove reference...

"Dr strangelove, or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb"

its a book and a film

keep up

How divine!

 

[Mr Cheese]

In that case, it's simple. We can tell that Mormonism is able to answer the OP because it has answered it: look back through the thread and you can see responses to the OP from a Mormon perspective. Regardless of your feelings about the LDS Church, Joseph Smith's club affiliation or "Mormon aprons", there is a Mormon response to the OP.?

how is this better than "trinitarian catholicism" which is no good, according to zadok, though?????

Now... is it a better response than the "exotertic Catholic" response? I have no idea, because so far, you haven't given the "exotertic Catholic" response. Once you actually answer the OP, maybe then we can have a discussion of whether your answer was better than Katzpur's or Zadok's. Until then, though, ranting against things you don't like about the Mormons doesn't score your answer (whatever it is) any points whatsoever.
?

the Op's ideas are those of exoteric trinitarian catholicsm...

I doubt you'd find a Catholic anywhere that would claim that there are no heretical Catholics. This doesn't change the Church's view that gnosticism is a heresy, though.

?

never said it did

And Judaism had a few millenia on top of that. Why not ditch the Catholicism and go straight to the original source?

?

well judaism isnt christianity
and unlike many, I'd argue christianity comes from a different branch than what is called Judaism in modern times, although both belong on the same tree....so to speak

Also, I disagree with your implicit claim. Either way you look at it, the ideas of Mormonism are more than "a few centuries old". Either the Book of Mormon is correct and it really is ancient, or it was a 19th-Century creation... but even then, it would have been a creation informed by the context it was created in, which included cultures and religions with centuries upon centuries of thought and scholarship and, IMO, built on the religious reformations that sprung out of American Protestantism during the period from the late 18th Century to the early 20th. Even if you argue that Joseph Smith made the whole Book of Mormon up, you can't argue that he wrote in a vacuum.


It's had centuries to ensure that its doctrines and practices are internally consistent, but that's no guarantee of accuracy.

Anyhow, if Catholicism has had such an ability to conclusively answer the questions in the OP, then I'm sure you can easily give them. What are they?


Well, it's somewhat of an irrelevant question, since Mormonism has answered the question. Look back through the thread if you don't believe me.


IOW, you think the LDS Church is too young to have the "street cred" that you think a religion needs to have before it starts answering the tough questions?

again I dont care if mormonism has answwered them or not, arbualy I doubt katzpur speaks for the enteriety of the mormon view, my question was what if catholicism (the limited facet as tated by the OP and zadok) is bunkum.... then what makes mormonism not bunkum?????

What are the catholic views....

well those expressed in the OP
and allusions to bodily ressurection, gettign a new body, as being false...
cant say I know enough at prsent, at work, to actually state them fully...given more time maybe, but I am hardly qualified

I have mentioned that Paul can be interpretted as saying the idea of getting a new physical body in heven as being hogwash.....

 

[Mr Cheese]

How divine!

how divine is you stating that other people dont know God, and that its unimportant that they dont know god, but simply that they know what god wants

and they you assume you know what god wants
assumign your interpretation is the only valid one....

:areyoucra

to me that is an act of someone who refuses to think
they are just following what they have been told

of course presuming to know what is "better" or more accuratly more useful for another person
is also divine isnt it?

Arguably you could say that is a terrible sin,
the one of presuming you are God...your ego is God
but just a thought, you probably disagree

 

[sandy whitelinger]

how divine is you stating that other people dont know God, and that its unimportant that they dont know god, but simply that they know what god wants

and they you assume you know what god wants
assumign your interpretation is the only valid one....

:areyoucra

to me that is an act of someone who refuses to think
they are just following what they have been told

You're misguided, and seemingly bitter. You want God to make sense according to your reasoning which means you will misunderstand Him just as you are misunderstanding me by applying your reasoning to what I say.

The Bible is the source for what we know about God and what He wants us to do. Perhaps if you spent more time reading it you would have a better understanding. If having been through the Bible 17 times and having studied it about 15 years gives me better insight than most, so be it. If you don't like my take then study it for yourself and prove me wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

how is this better than "trinitarian catholicism" which is no good, according to zadok, though?????

I don't know, since, as I already pointed out, you're apparently unwilling to give the "trinitarian Catholic" response to the OP. Until we know what it is, it's impossible to judge which one's better.

the Op's ideas are those of exoteric trinitarian catholicsm...

The ideas in the OP are contradictory. The OP asks how to resolve the contradiction. Well, how do you do it?

again I dont care if mormonism has answwered them or not, arbualy I doubt katzpur speaks for the enteriety of the mormon view, my question was what if catholicism (the limited facet as tated by the OP and zadok) is bunkum.... then what makes mormonism not bunkum?????

I don't know. But I think it'd be a better response to Zadok's statement to show him wrong by demonstrating how Trinitarian Christianity can answer the questions than it is to sling mud at the Mormons.

And I agree that Katzpur probably doesn't speak for the entirety of the Mormon view, but she is a Mormon and she's given her response which, AFAICT, is consistent with Mormon beliefs. Now it's your turn.

What are the catholic views....

well those expressed in the OP

The OP expressed a set of views and pointed out that they're apparently contradictory. Labelling those views as Catholic doesn't resolve the contradiction.

and allusions to bodily ressurection, gettign a new body, as being false...
cant say I know enough at prsent, at work, to actually state them fully...given more time maybe, but I am hardly qualified

I have mentioned that Paul can be interpretted as saying the idea of getting a new physical body in heven as being hogwash.....

The OP said nothing at all for or against bodily resurrection or physical bodies in Heaven.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You're misguided, and seemingly bitter. You want God to make sense according to your reasoning which means you will misunderstand Him
.

nope....

reason is a dead end....nice try..but no photograph

just as you are misunderstanding me by applying your reasoning to what I say.

The Bible is the source for what we know about God and what He wants us to do. Perhaps if you spent more time reading it you would have a better understanding. If having been through the Bible 17 times and having studied it about 15 years gives me better insight than most, so be it. If you don't like my take then study it for yourself and prove me wrong.

to you the bible is the source
many here and around the world would not agree
that, ny friend is the crux of the problem

You are stuck in tunnel vision
worhipping a book
not God
but that is your choice
not mine

 

[Mr Cheese]

I don't know, since, as I already pointed out, you're apparently unwilling to give the "trinitarian Catholic" response to the OP. Until we know what it is, it's impossible to judge which one's better.


The ideas in the OP are contradictory. The OP asks how to resolve the contradiction. Well, how do you do it?


I don't know. But I think it'd be a better response to Zadok's statement to show him wrong by demonstrating how Trinitarian Christianity can answer the questions than it is to sling mud at the Mormons.

And I agree that Katzpur probably doesn't speak for the entirety of the Mormon view, but she is a Mormon and she's given her response which, AFAICT, is consistent with Mormon beliefs. Now it's your turn.


The OP expressed a set of views and pointed out that they're apparently contradictory. Labelling those views as Catholic doesn't resolve the contradiction.


The OP said nothing at all for or against bodily resurrection or physical bodies in Heaven.

msizer has already stated he was discussing the catholic views he was brought up with...

thus to him, the exoteric catholic views (those labelled as trinitarian by zadok) are those in the Op...
this thread, however poorly stated is really a look at non thinking, exoteric catholicism....trinitartian catholicism has already answered the OP...

It believes that we get new bodys, flesh, in heaven at the judgement day!



I suggest you read the first few posts where Msizer clarifies his position...

...

shrug all I wanted to know was,
if exoteric catholic views on fleshy bodies in heaven, vie the interpretation of the bible =garbage

what makes mormon ones better?

I dont think thats a tough question to answer

or maybe it is!!!!!????

 

[Mr Cheese]

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would

--Gospel of Philip

just throwing a stone into the lake....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

nope....

reason is a dead end....nice try..but no photograph


to you the bible is the source
many here and around the world would not agree
that, ny friend is the crux of the problem

You are stuck in tunnel vision
worhipping a book
not God
but that is your choice
not mine

To quote my daughter, "Whatever!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

msizer has already stated he was discussing the catholic views he was brought up with...

thus to him, the exoteric catholic views (those labelled as trinitarian by zadok) are those in the Op...
this thread, however poorly stated is really a look at non thinking, exoteric catholicism....trinitartian catholicism has already answered the OP...

It believes that we get new bodys, flesh, in heaven at the judgement day!



I suggest you read the first few posts where Msizer clarifies his position...

I think the question of whether Heavenly bodies are "flesh" or not is largely irrelevant to the OP. It doesn't have any bearing on the question of why God would place human beings in the situation of losing the privilege of joining him if he actually wants all of us to be with him in Heaven.

And I don't think your fixation on that one fleshy point does anything to get us closer to your answer to the OP.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I think the question of whether Heavenly bodies are "flesh" or not is largely irrelevant to the OP. It doesn't have any bearing on the question of why God would place human beings in the situation of losing the privilege of joining him if he actually wants all of us to be with him in Heaven.

And I don't think your fixation on that one fleshy point does anything to get us closer to your answer to the OP.

sorry, read on from the OP

the OP is actually about the catholic doctrine of being in heaven, and involves the doctrine of ressurection after the day of judgement...which involves the absurd (in my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own)notion that christians will obtain new flesh bodies...in heaven....

:flirt:Msizer is probably in a drunken pre-new years eve stupor somewhere...
or he could answer the question

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

sorry, read on from the OP

the OP is actually about the catholic doctrine of being in heaven, and involves the doctrine of ressurection after the day of judgement...which involves the absurd (in my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own)notion that christians will obtain new flesh bodies...in heaven....

Arrgh.

Forget whatever objection you have to flesh bodies in Heaven. Let's assume that whatever form you think people will have in Heaven, that's what they have. Why would a God who apparently loves all people and wants them to be with him in Heaven place them in a situation where a large number of them would lose this opportunity? Why wouldn't he just put everyone straight into Heaven... in whatever type of body or non-corporeal form you think people would have there?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Arrgh.

Forget whatever objection you have to flesh bodies in Heaven. Let's assume that whatever form you think people will have in Heaven, that's what they have. Why would a God who apparently loves all people and wants them to be with him in Heaven place them in a situation where a large number of them would lose this opportunity? Why wouldn't he just put everyone straight into Heaven... in whatever type of body or non-corporeal form you think people would have there?

to put it simply

fish swim
birds fly

some people are birds
some people are fish

It really isnt a judgement thing, or a value thing
the wind is the wind...the wind doesnt produce rain
the wind is the wind

a snake is a snake..it does not bark like a dog

...

Although some would argue....that a "fish" can learn to be a "bird"

I'm not one for the concept of God made group A better and group B as damned
or any idea similar to calvinism and presdestination...because frankly I find that to be abhorrent... and lets look at the fruits of calvinism:

self promotion and agrandisement
capitalism and accumulation of wealth
economics...

:sarcastic
but that's just me....
again everyone is entitled to their own opinion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

to put it simply

fish swim
birds fly

some people are birds
some people are fish

It really isnt a judgement thing, or a value thing
the wind is the wind...the wind doesnt produce rain
the wind is the wind

a snake is a snake..it does not bark like a dog

Ah. So, then, God is a fool, just as someone who tries to get a fish to fly like a bird is a fool?

Or are you saying that the OP's assumption is wrong and God doesn't want all people to be with him in Heaven?

Although some would argue....that a "fish" can learn to be a "bird"

Who are "some"?

I'm not one for the concept of God made group A better and group B as damned
or any idea similar to calvinism and presdestination...because frankly I find that to be abhorrent... and lets look at the fruits of calvinism:

Whether you find it abhorrent or not, it seems like you're arguing for the Calvinist idea of "the Elect" using slightly different terms.

 

[Willamena]

... in whatever type of body or non-corporeal form you think people would have there?

"...'See, it is here!' or 'Look, it is there!'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it."

 

[Katzpur]

I have added why I dont think mormonism can answer said questions but I would liek to hear why mormons believe they can.... not being a mormon I would like to hear your perspective...

What do you mean, "Mormonism can't answer said question?" We already did. The only reasons you have given as to why you don't think the Mormon perspective on the OP is irrelevant are: (1) It hasn't been around as long as Catholicism and is therefore automatically disqualified as being valid and (2) Mormonism encompasses doctrines which, because they are extra-biblical, must be false.

since it was stated that catholicism (exoteric trinitarian) was not good enopugh to answer the OP

...

In essense Zadok was stating catholicism = no good
but was unable and not willign to answer why his view, and/or the mormon view is superior , better or more able....

In fact you could argue Zadok was the one who was being a "hater" by simply stating

catholicism=bad
without counterbalancing his opinion.

I'm going to leave Zadok out of this.

Bias views are great.... by why not give a balanced view?

Excuse me, but this is a debate forum. My bias is in favor of Mormonism, which is why I intend to present the Mormon perspective. Surely you're not expecting anyone to believe your point of view is more "balanced" than anyone else's.

Or is it easier to just play the card of "Oh woe is me, I am being picked on"
It would seem it is

What the hell are you talking about?

So..
I aks again

how and why is mormonism more able to answer the questions of the OP
whereas catholicism is not.... we already know why catholicism is not, that has been stated

You're asking why the LDS position is more valid than the Catholic position? Since when did that become the topic of this thread?

Look, in case you didn't know, the Church of Jesus Christ is a restorationist denomination. We believe that there a universal apostasy took place took place shorthly after the deaths of Christ's Apostles and that the Catholic Church -- as old as it is -- was established at a period of time after which the doctrines Jesus Christ taught had been corrupted. We believe that for many centuries after His death, the doctrines that were taught as "Christian doctrines" were, in many instances, flawed. They either presented an incomplete picture or were misunderstood by the clergy of the time and, because revelation between Jesus Christ and His Church had ceased with the deaths of His Apostles, Christian theology existed in an impure and imperfect form for many centuries. We believe that Jesus Christ himself restored the doctrines He had originally taught to a prophet He chose, i.e. Joseph Smith. Obviously, if none of this happened, the LDS position is irrelevant. On the other hand, if it did happen, our perspective on this question posed in the OP is more valid than any other one that could be presented.

What you don't seem to get is that Msizer was not asking a question about the validity of Mormonism in his OP. He was asking for the opinions of all Christians on a given question. Whether you accept Mormonism or not is beside the point.