I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I just want to know
How do we consider a cult as a cult and a religion as a religion?

They're all cults, really.

Some of them just get more "respectable" and get called religions.

Generally speaking if they religion you are looking at does not preach/teach the bible and the whole bible as the true and only inspired word of God I would be very suspicious. To learn about a cult one only need look at the teachings/actions of people like David Coresh, Jim Jones and see what the effects of false teachings or the twisting of the Bible does and how to spot it.
Do you have a specific group you are asking about?
Here is a listing I found on the internet that is quite interesting. Maybe it will be some help to you.
They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.
Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.
The group's leaders claim to be God's prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive “divine revelations.”
They teach that all other churches and groups are lost unless they surrender what they have and join them.
Their leaders are dictatorial and demanding, either directly or subtly.
They claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Members are expected to attend study sessions where they are firmly indoctrinated (“brainwashed”) with the group's mundane creeds and human theories.
They resent having their doctrines and creeds questioned.
They believe salvation and afterlife are found only in their camp.
Those who desert the group are judged evil and apostates.
They dictate almost every facet of the members' lives—sexual, social, domestic, political, and spiritual.
They deny that God has other children scattered over the hills and valleys of sectarianism.
They believe God's elect are found only within the borders of their own enclosure.
Honest dissidents are disciplined, avoided, and excommunicated.
They insist on strict conformity to the group's doctrinal standards.
Their teachings contradict plain truth.
Their source of authority is of human origin.
They require a new convert to be rebaptized, even though he was sincerely baptized previously.
They have devised their own translation of the scriptures and prohibit any translation not approved by them.
Members are expected to give large amounts of money and ample energy and time to the group's activities.
They allege to be the only legitimate interpreters of scripture.
They wrest scripture to foster their belief system.

It is a cult by virture of popular belief and social and moral values.

A cult does not have to be a religion by the terms we would think of it, it could be any social or economic or political group also that operates outside of society norms.

Many religions today were considered cults at the time they started.

Simply put: a cult isn't faith-based, religious sects are. A cult is any social group who gather based on similar interests like punk rockers, metal-heads, skinheads, The Crips, even the jocks in your high-school. Generally, high school jocks would be considered a clique just 'cause it's size is small, a cult is reserved for the larger sub-cultures in a society.

And faith-based meaning believing in something unknown.

All religious sects are cults, but not all cults are religious

Here are some definitions found on the net:

•followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
•fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
•followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
•a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"

MRS.S

Generally speaking if they religion you are looking at does not preach/teach the bible and the whole bible as the true and only inspired word of God I would be very suspicious. To learn about a cult one only need look at the teachings/actions of people like David Coresh, Jim Jones and see what the effects of false teachings or the twisting of the Bible does and how to spot it.
Do you have a specific group you are asking about?
Here is a listing I found on the internet that is quite interesting. Maybe it will be some help to you.
They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.
Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.
The group’s leaders claim to be God’s prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive “divine revelations.”
They teach that all other churches and groups are lost unless they surrender what they have and join them.
Their leaders are dictatorial and demanding, either directly or subtly.
They claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Members are expected to attend study sessions where they are firmly indoctrinated (“brainwashed”) with the group’s mundane creeds and human theories.
They resent having their doctrines and creeds questioned.
They believe salvation and afterlife are found only in their camp.
Those who desert the group are judged evil and apostates.
They dictate almost every facet of the members’ lives—sexual, social, domestic, political, and spiritual.
They deny that God has other children scattered over the hills and valleys of sectarianism.
They believe God’s elect are found only within the borders of their own enclosure.
Honest dissidents are disciplined, avoided, and excommunicated.
They insist on strict conformity to the group’s doctrinal standards.
Their teachings contradict plain truth.
Their source of authority is of human origin.
They require a new convert to be rebaptized, even though he was sincerely baptized previously.
They have devised their own translation of the scriptures and prohibit any translation not approved by them.
Members are expected to give large amounts of money and ample energy and time to the group’s activities.
They allege to be the only legitimate interpreters of scripture.
They wrest scripture to foster their belief system.

I just can't pass this up---

So... the Christian church is a cult then, right, by the very definitions quoted here?

A cult
The leader wants you to trust him over God
Most claim to be self taught or fake education credentials
No independence -cult leaders totally overshadow other leaders within their organization and exhibit lack of trust to members. -
They usually have a commune where everybody lives and forbid you from friends and family
-most claim to be self taught or fake education credentials and their teachings are not backed up by any other beliefs or they are taken out of context to fit their own agenda.

They're all cults, really.

Some of them just get more "respectable" and get called religions.

Syenne I could not AGREE with you more:D

NO faith based religion believes in this:
Those who desert the group are judged evil and apostates.
Or this:
They dictate almost every facet of the members' lives—sexual, social, domestic, political, and spiritual.
Or this:
They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.
Or:
Their source of authority is of human origin.
Or:
Members are expected to attend study sessions where they are firmly indoctrinated (“brainwashed”) with the group's mundane creeds and human theories.
So to Synnen and lighterrr I guess your anti faith comments are just that, anti faith, and have no basis at all!

NO faith based religion believes in this:
Those who desert the group are judged evil and apostates.

Oh really? Since I left Christianity for a pagan faith, I've been spit on, called evil, been told I was going to hell, been threatened with disinheritance, and been told that I will suffer eternity in hell.


or this:
They dictate almost every facet of the members' lives—sexual, social, domestic, political, and spiritual.

Tell me one single religion that doesn't have extreme influence on those aspects of their members' lives.
Sexual: birth control? Yup, there's an opinion. Sex before marriage? Yup, opinion there too. Divorce? Oh, you can be excommunicated for that!
Social: I'd say that being influenced by your church to try to convert OTHER people to join would have an impact on social lives. Plus--to be really "involved" in the church, much of your social life is taken up with other members of the church.
Domestic: How about having to raise your kids in the faith? How about some sects that refuse to allow members to celebrate any holiday except those that involve the church? Political: Two words: Gay Marriage.
Spiritual: This is the ONE area that I would hope any cult would have influence over. Since most cults are ABOUT spiritual well-being, I'd be surprised to find one that didn't have that influence.



or this:
They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.
Are you going to deny that you proselyte to others? Have you NEVER tried to convince someone to come to Jesus? Perhaps the separatism is not so prevalent, but I know of a few sects that DO practice it.


or:
Their source of authority is of human origin.
You going to tell me that some GOD sat down and wrote the Bible? What about church leaders--are they demi-gods? If not, then how do they have any authority here on earth?


or:
Members are expected to attend study sessions where they are firmly indoctrinated (“brainwashed”) with the group's mundane creeds and human theories.

Sunday church. Wednesday church. Sermons. Bible studies. Sermons. Prayer groups.


So to Synnen and lighterrr I guess your anti faith comments are just that, anti faith, and have no basis at all!

Tell me that my points have no basis, and I'll call you an idiot.

MY point was that ALL religions are cults. Just that not all cults are religions. Call it what you like, but EVERY religion is a cult. It's just that members of some religons get touchy if you point that out.

You know all religions are cults. YES, I believe that but is that such a bad thing to be labelled as a cult. The media seems to put such a NEGATIVE spin on the word making it seem like a taboo. I to left the christian faith for SO MANY reasons and now I don't belong to ANY organised religion I just have a spiritual belief in the existence of God. My point is looking at christian or members of the church now I see them as being hopelessly and completely brainwashed. Hmmm that reminds me of jim jones he had his followers brainwashed also? Then we have what the media calls "muslim extremist" suicide bombers etc. Once again all these are members of a specific religion. The point I'm trying to make is there are similiairites in all of theses example. So you ask is religion a cult well in my opinion YES.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[16]
1. Formal religious veneration
2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;
5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

See religion was man made and it is SO FLAWED and that is why all of this problems wars etc are happening and will still happen, because religion is suppose to bring us closer to our creator instead it divides and sets us apart. But I don't blame some of the members on here that think their religious beliefs have no similarities to a cult. Their only victims of their beliefs that does not allow them to think outside of their very limited and marginalized box.
If people just believed in God and didn't have so many rules or church doctrines to follow, we would not be faced with many of the problems we have today. A christian would not look at a muslim thinking they are not going to heaven because they don't believe in jesus and don't accept him as their saviour. Why do they do this? Because every Sunday this Christian goes to church and is repeatedly told by their pastor " no one shall enter the gates of heaven without accepting the son of god" come on if that is not brainwashing I really don't know what is. I know what your saying but the scripture says, a scripture that was written by man, and is being upheld by the church. But like the saying goes ignorance is bliss.

Hit a sore spot did I?
Synnen wrote
"Tell me that my points have no basis, and I'll call you an idiot."
Name calling only degrades your points to the garbage can where the feeble minded and children go when they have no valid points to make.

Name calling only degrades your points to the garbage can where the feeble minded and children go when they have no valid points to make.Well I guess you're both going to the same place. :)

I just can't pass this up---

So....the Christian church is a cult then, right, by the very definitions quoted here?

Some churches / sects which call themselves "Christian" might qualify under the definition of cults. But not churches which abide by the Bible.

I can't resist joining this thread.
There are more religions out there that DON'T follow the Bible.
Yes, ALL religions are cults, but why is there that stigma. Who is to say what beliefs are wrong. We are all individuals (at least I am) and (supposedly) have our own minds to think. What works for you just might not work for me and vice versa. I just might think that what you believe is down right evil, while you swear by it and think it's the greatest.
Open-mindedness is what it's going to take to break down these VERY TRIVIAL bickerings- I have yet to see the more"mainstream" religions open up to a possibility that they might be wrong.
I'm only human, so what I believe might not be the "truth", but it works for me and I don't have to live my life in fear that what I do is going to damn me for all eternity. Lmao!
I find it hilarious that the more prominent religions like to pick fights using tired, old, rehearsed words that aren't even theirs. Look for some originality and there you will find a free thinker. Lol

i can't resist joining this thread.
there are more religions out there that DON'T follow the Bible.
yes, ALL religions are cults, but why is there that stigma. who is to say what beliefs are wrong. we are all individuals (at least i am) and (supposedly) have our own minds to think. what works for you just might not work for me and vice versa. i just might think that what you believe is down right evil, while you swear by it and think it's the greatest.
open-mindedness is what it's going to take to break down these VERY TRIVIAL bickerings- i have yet to see the more"mainstream" religions open up to a possibility that they might be wrong.
i'm only human, so what i believe might not be the "truth", but it works for me and i don't have to live my life in fear that what i do is going to damn me for all eternity. lmao!
i find it hilarious that the more prominent religions like to pick fights using tired, old, rehearsed words that aren't even theirs. look for some originality and there you will find a free thinker. lol

So true mugger:)

Some churches / sects which call themselves "Christian" might qualify under the definition of cults. But not churches which abide by the Bible.

I see so if you ABIDE by the bible then you are exempt from being called a cult? Look there is nothing wrong with the word cult people.

I'd like a list of the religions that aren't cults, that's what I'd like. :)

I see so if you ABIDE by the bible then you are exempt from being called a cult? Look their is nothing wrong with the word cult people.

Have a look at the definition given earlier. Those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

Cult checklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist)


It is a cult by virture of popular beleif and social and moral values.

A cult does not have to be a religion by the terms we would think of it, it could be any social or economic or political group also that operates outside of society norms.

Many religions today were considered cults at the time they started.

On the first look, if I see group of people in hood, praying with candles around in the dark, that's the one I'll consider cult. Any group that I think creepy.

I was born into a religion called "Church of Christ" (Iglesia ni Kristo) founded in 1914. Their teaching is based on the bible but have stricter guidelines like and different interpretation from catholic church like::::: minister is allowed to marry, during worship, men's seat is separate from women, women must dress more conservative, Like Jesus is human and the God is his father, they don't have Christmas because Christ was born in summer, they don't have communion, last supper is once a year where everyone can have wine and host, the leader chooses who's politician to vote, later they do support artificial birth control.

Members are mocked due strict guidelines and "funny" beliefs, a cult. By the end of on the century, it became one of the most respected and most influential churches in the archipelago because members are highly disciplined.

See Jesus. He was executed because he preaches.

When I turned 15, I left them and no longer attend any church.

Have a look at the definition given earlier. Those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

I see well here is what I think. Going to a church every Sunday to listen to the BIBLE being preached does not except you from belonging to a cult. ALL religion is a cult whether they follow the bible or not. (just my opinion)

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[16]
1. Formal religious veneration
2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;
5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

I see well here is what i think. Going to a church every sunday to listen to the BIBLE being preached does not except you from belonging to a cult.

Agreed. That is not what I said. I said that those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

I'm still waiting for a list...

Hit a sore spot did I?
Synnen wrote
"Tell me that my points have no basis, and I'll call you an idiot."
Name calling only degrades your points to the garbage can where the feeble minded and children go when they have no valid points to make.

Something like you did to me in the posts that were deleted, when we originally argued about this?

I MADE my valid points. I don't see your valid rebuttals, though.

Agreed. That is not what I said. I said that those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

As long as they were following the BIBLE, but not an organized religion---I would agree with you.

The second they join a church, though--they've joined a cult.

As long as they were following the BIBLE, but not an organized religion---I would agree with you.

The second they join a church, though--they've joined a cult.

Not if that church adheres to the Bible.

Not if that church adheres to the Bible.

Tom, you have a right to your opinion, it's just that others, many others, disagree with you.

By the way, reddies are only allowed for factually incorrect information. Synnens post was opinion, therefore it doesn't warrant a reddie.

Tom, you have a right to your opinion, it's just that others, many others, disagree with you.

As do many many others disagree with you. That is what it is like in a free society, Alty.


By the way, reddies are only allowed for factually incorrect information. Synnens post was opinion, therefore it doesn't warrant a reddie.

Exactly why I gave it. If you have an issue with it, the public board is not the place for complaints.

How does the Bible make one exempt from being a cult?

A cult is, simply, a group of people that follow the same belief in an organized manner.

Frankly, the very IDEA that Christians think they are exempt from the same status as EVERY OTHER RELIGION scares the heck out of me.

As do many many others disagree with you. That is what it is like in a free society, Alty.

I realize that and accept that Tom.

Freedom of religion is important. I just find it amusing that many religious people don't feel that freedom not to practice religion is acceptable. Funny how that works.

But, back to the topic. I think Synn has a very valid point. The bible does not exempt a group from being a cult. As soon as a group is organized it is by very definition a cult.

I realize that and accept that Tom.

I am glad to hear that.


Freedom of religion is important. I just find it amusing that many religious people don't feel that freedom not to practice religion is acceptable. Funny how that works.

I am strong proponent of freedom of religion. I have noted some on here who feel that those who disagree with them have no right to their views, but I for one firmly believe that everyone has a right their views.


But, back to the topic. I think Synn has a very valid point. The bible does not exempt a group from being a cult. [quote]

I already stated my agreement. Many cults mis-use the Bib;e.

[quote]As soon as a group is organized it is by very definition a cult.

That does not make any sense. If a group of 20 people meet to study the Bible - that is okay, but you declare them a cult if they formally organize. It makes no sense. Nothing changes in between.

Tom, I'm not using the word cult in a negative way. I'm not saying that organized religious groups are all negative, although I have to say there are many out there that are.

A group of 20 people meeting to study the bible don't fit into the definition of a cult, but a group of 200 people meeting to learn of the bible in a organized manner such as church are considered a cult. Not a "burn all the witches" cult, but a cult nonetheless.

I think you're taking the word cult to mean something negative (which again, it can) but that's not the way I'm using it here.

There are positive definitions of the word, it's just that most people hear it and feel negatively towards it.

Honestly, I'm not arguing with you, not this time. ;)

Tom, I'm not using the word cult in a negative way. I'm not saying that organized religious groups are all negative, although I have to say there are many out there that are.

Negative or positive - it does not matter. Your claim is wrong. It does not align to the definition.


A group of 20 people meeting to study the bible don't fit into the definition of a cult, but a group of 200 people meeting to learn of the bible in a organized manner such as church are considered a cult.

You seem to be forming your own definition. So it is no longer just that they are organized, but it is now numbers. So we know that your definition does not have 20 as a cult, but 200 is. So tell us, is 30 a cult? 40? 80? 150? What, according to your definition is the number at which an organized group becomes a cult? What is your basis for this claim?

You seem to be forming your own definition.
So it is no longer just that they are organized, but it is now numbers. So we know that your definition does not have 30 as a cult, but 200 is. So tell us, is 30 a cult? 40? 80? 150? What, according to your definition is the number at which an organized group becomes a cult? What is your basis for this claim?

Okay, obviously my post wasn't really clear. For that I apologize.

No, it's not the numbers. Your example was 20 people meeting to study the bible together.

You're right, it's not about numbers. If those same 20 people became an organized group where the bible was taught to them instead of them studying the bible independently then yes, they would be a cult, again, in my opinion and not in a negative way.

I only said 200 because it's very rare to see a church group or other organized group that consists of merely 20 people. Once again, sorry for the confusion.

It has NOTHING to do with numbers--with the exception of the numbers 1 and 0. It takes at least 2 people to be a cult.

A cult is NOT a negative thing. It is a DEFINITION of a group of people that believe the same thing.

How can you twist that definition to say that Christianity is NOT a group of people that believe the same dogma?

According to the defination of a cult that I found and gave in my post number 3 there is no where that a number of people is or is not defined as a cult. I think everybody should go back and read the list. Christianity does NOT align with the list. However the Mormon, the JW do fit the bill perfectly. So again I don't see why you are spending such a large amount of time trying to persuade people that Christian churches, that is any church that teaches the whole and complete word of God as found in the Bible is or can be a cult? So lets be honest and tell us why you feel it is necessary to convince people that not going to church is the only true and correct way to seek God?

Those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

"Adhere" in this sentence means what, exactly?

No, it's not the numbers. Your example was 20 people meeting to study the bible together.

I said 20 people meeting who subsequently become formally organized.


You're right, it's not about numbers. If those same 20 people became an organized group where the bible was taught to them instead of them studying the bible independently then yes, they would be a cult, again, in my opinion and not in a negative way.

That is what I said last time. But now you add a new twist. Now you are saying that the key factors are:

- That they are organized
- That the Bible is taught to them.

So by that definition, you consider all schools to be cults - right?

Where are you getting your definition from?

"Adhere" in this sentence means what, exactly?

Abide by the essential teachings of the Bible.

Christianity does NOT align with the list. However the Mormon, the JW do fit the bill perfectly.
You seem to be completely unaware of how absurd of this statement will appear to a non-Christian. You really aren't advancing the ball for your team.

I notice CowboyFriendly hasn't been back since she poked this hornet's nest. When they disappear like that, I always wonder why.

So by that definition, you consider all schools to be cults - right?

Not all schools teach the bible Tom, only the Christian schools do it with regularity. Seeing as most kids that attend Chrisitian schools are in fact members of Christian church, yes, I consider them a cult.


I said 20 people meeting who subsequently become formally organized.

Then I misread your original post. Sorry, human, I sometimes miss things.


Where are you getting your definition from?

The Catholic school that I went to. We did a very long study on cults in religion class, and yes, we determined that all organized religious groups, including the Catholic church are indeed cults.

Once again, you seem to think that stating that these groups are a cult is a negative thing and in this case it isn't. It's just a definition, why are you all so upset about it?

I can't argue with fanatics.


Main Entry:
fa·nat·ic
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈna-tik\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
Date:
1550

: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>

Taken from here: fanatic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic)

Please take the time to read post #3 again with an open mind this time.

Not all schools teach the bible Tom, only the Christian schools do it with regularity. Seeing as most kids that attend Chrisitian schools are in fact members of Christian church, yes, I consider them a cult.

Okay so now we have a third leg of your definition - the organized group must teach the Bible, not anything else. If they teach the Koran is that okay or is that a cult? What about the Bhagavat Gita? What about science? What about evolution? What abolut literature in general? Where are the boundaries of what they can or cannot teach to be considered a cult under your definition, and upon what do you base this?

Agreed. That is not what I said. I said that those who do adhere to the Bible would not comply with the definition for a cult.

Look let me make this very plain and extremely simple reading and applying the bible is irrelevant when every church or religion is a cult. Just get use to the name. I dot see cult as a bad thing and because of the many definition I have been able to see that its really the media that puts such a bad stigma on the word

Look let me make this very plain and extremely simple reading and applying the bible is irrelevant when every church or religion is a cult. Just get use to the name. I dot see cult as a bad thing and because of the many definition I have been able to see that its really the media that puts such a bad stigma on the word

I am just trying to understand this unique definition that you and Altenweg have, and where you got it from.

I can't argue with fanatics.


Main Entry:
fa·nat·ic
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈna-tik\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple — more at feast
Date:
1550

: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>

Taken from here: fanatic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic)

Please take the time to read post #3 again with an open mind this time.

Its OK buddy you tried, there will be more in the not to distant future, you know its like the saying goes you can't teach an old dogs new tricks.

Actually, yes, Tj3---people who are devoted to the belief of Darwinism are also a cult.

So are people who are devoted to a movie (look at the Star Wars movies as an example) or a book (The Lord of the Rings, anyone?).

ANY belief is subject to being a cult--whether that is the belief in Jesus, the belief in Allah, the belief in evolution, or the belief that the roast beef sandwich is the best invention ever. It's when a group gets together and DEFINES the belief, and disallows any variance of the belief to be the "real" belief that you have a cult.

its ok buddy you tried, there will be more in the not to distant future, you know its like the saying goes you can't teach an old dogs new tricks.

Calling yourself an old dog, now? ;)

Okay so now we have a third leg of your definition - the organized group must teach the Bible, not anything else. If they teach the Koran is that okay or is that a cult? What about the Bhagavat Gita? What about science? What about evolution? What abolut literature in general? Where are the boundaries of what they can or cannot teach to be considered a cult under your definition, and upon what do you base this?

You all brought the bible into this! You all claimed that people who adhere to the bible aren't cults, that's why I'm discussing groups that teach the bible. No one ever mentioned the Koran or anything else because I'm sure you all believe that they are cults in a negative way.

Any organized group that follows a certain religious belief is a cult.

My God Tom, are you running out of arguments, is that why you're nit picking everything to death?

I'm done.

I agree with Synnen, there is no sense discussing things with fanatics! I might as well just run in circles, I'd get further.

Over and out. Why don't you all just discuss things amongst yourselves?

I stick to what I believe, you stick to what you believe, it won't effect me anyway.

Bye now.

You all brought the bible into this! You all claimed that people who adhere to the bible aren't cults, that's why I'm discussing groups that teach the bible. No one ever mentioned the Koran or anything else because I'm sure you all believe that they are cults in a negative way.

First, don't try to assume what you think that I believe - you don't do well at it.

Right - I said people that adhere to the teachings of the Bible do not comply with the definition of a cult. It was then that you came up with a different definition which appears to be that every organized group that teaches the Bible is a cult. I am trying to understand your definition, what the limits are around it, and the basis for it.

To be quite honest, the definition sounds quite arbitrary and I have never heard anything remotely like it before.

Abide by the essential teachings of the Bible.

Whose canon and which translation, and "essential" according to whom?

And just to save us all some time, don't serve up yet another heaping pile of that "the-Bible-interprets-itself" crap that you're so fond of. Where there's a reader, there IS an interpreter. If you aren't willing to claim it as your own, don't expect other people to take your interpretation seriously.

How does the Bible make one exempt from being a cult?

A cult is, simply, a group of people that follow the same belief in an organized manner.

Frankly, the very IDEA that Christians think they are exempt from the same status as EVERY OTHER RELIGION scares the heck out of me.

I could not agree more, scares me to

Whose canon and which translation, and "essential" according to whom?

There is one canon historically accepted by all Christians. In the last few hundred years, a few denominations (very few) added to the canon for their specific denominations. That does not change the canon accepted by Christianity as a whole.

Translation does not matter. Where differences occur, we go back to the original Greek. But translations have not affected essential teachings in any case.

We can go back to the 1st entury church and see what was essential to them.


And just to save us all some time, don't serve up yet another heaping pile of that "the-Bible-interprets-itself" crap that you're so fond of. Where there's a reader, there IS an interpreter. If you aren't willing to claim it as your own, don't expect other people to take your interpretation seriously.

Just because you have difficulty reading without interpreting does not mean others do.

Calling yourself an old dog, now? ;)

Lol no I'm only 30 didn't you hear 30 is the new 20. I commend you on your post and agree with you 100% ALLL THE WAY

Not all schools teach the bible Tom, only the Christian schools do it with regularity. Seeing as most kids that attend Chrisitian schools are in fact members of Christian church, yes, I consider them a cult.



Then I misread your original post. Sorry, human, I sometimes miss things.



The Catholic school that I went to. We did a very long study on cults in religion class, and yes, we determined that all organized religious groups, including the Catholic church are indeed cults.

Once again, you seem to think that stating that these groups are a cult is a negative thing and in this case it isn't. It's just a definition, why are you all so upset about it?

Alti I agree completely I also went to catholic school my entire life. Yes the church is a cult and there's nothing wrong with that. Most importantly there is nothing wrong with the word cult

Just because you have difficulty reading without interpreting does not mean others do.

Everybody who reads, interprets, even you. The notion of reading without interpreting is preposterous. Give it up.

Everybody who reads, interprets, even you. The notion of reading without interpreting is preposterous. Give it up.

Like I said, if you find it hard, don't assume that no one else can just read and accept what it says.

Like I said, if you find it hard, don't assume that no one else can just read and accept what it says.

If you think you can read something and understand "what it says" without interpreting it, you're deluding yourself. A literal interpretation is a choice you make, and if you're satisfied with it, that's fine. But it IS your choice, so don't pretend you aren't making it.

If you think you can read something and understand "what it says" without interpreting it, you're deluding yourself. A literal interpretation is a choice you make, and if you're satisfied with it, that's fine. But it IS your choice, so don't pretend you aren't making it.

If I say "The sky is blue" - tell me your interpretation.

If I say "The sky is blue" - tell me your interpretation.
http://truejournals.com/Image043.jpg

If I say "The sky is blue" - tell me your interpretation.

What SHADE of blue? There's gray-blue, cerulean, sky blue, baby blue, midnight blue, blue with white clouds in it, blue with whiter edges, blue-green, sea blue, azure----isn't blue just a little vague?

In a cult,. subversive means and measures are used to bring you in and to keep you there... they usually try to appeal to your feelings and emotions.. and even come to you as a pair or group to make you feel as though you belong. A religion in general asks you to join.. or may invite you with no strings attached. Some religions are pseudo cults though.and members may belong to micro organized factions.. which have a cult influence.. best to do your homework and ask others for direct knowledge about each organization that approaches you.

In a cult,..subversive means and measures are used to bring you in and to keep you there...

yes indeed by inviting you to church and telling you that you are heaven bound because you are a beleiver in God and Christ


they usually try to appeal to your feelings and emotions..and even come to you as a pair or group to make you feel as though you belong.

yes again by telling you that jesus or god has all the answers to your problems just come into the church and leave your worries at the alter of God, the church is your channel to reaching god

A religion in general asks you to join..or may invite you with no strings attached.

Of course no strings attached but by the time your in for the full service on sunday they have general collection, missionary collection, outreach collection and my favorite pastor appreciation collection etc.

Some religions are pseudo cults though.and members may belong to micro organized factions..which have a cult influence..best to do your homework and ask others for direct knowlege about each organization that approaches you.

yes best to do your research indeed, cause either way you slice it RELIGION IS A CULT.

What SHADE of blue? There's gray-blue, cerulean, sky blue, baby blue, midnight blue, blue with white clouds in it, blue with whiter edges, blue-green, sea blue, azure----isn't blue just a little vague?

That is not an interpretation - you have chosen to add to what I said. You have chosen to suggest greater precision was required. That was your addition, but it was not necessary to understand the intent.

What SHADE of blue? There's gray-blue, cerulean, sky blue, baby blue, midnight blue, blue with white clouds in it, blue with whiter edges, blue-green, sea blue, azure----isn't blue just a little vague?

Alti make sure to make it a double, I take the left and you on the right cheek ok:)

... but it was not necessary to understand the intent.Ok, I give up - what is the intent behind "the sky is blue"?

To prove that you can't interpret a "fact".

And frankly--if the INTENT is all that matters---by all intents and purposes, every religion is a cult.

And then too--how is the intent of the Bible interpreted (yes, I'm going to use that word too!) differently by you (A Christian) and by me (a skeptic of the Bible)? Don't you think the same words mean two different things to two different people?

We as Christians believe that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God. As a skeptic you do not have to believe that. And as a skeptic you will find it difficulty to understand some if not most of what the bible teaches. Mainly because it requires faith to accept and as a non believer you may have faith in yourself, in your ability to do your job, but you probably do not have faith in God and Jesus Christ as lord and savior.
Bottom line you have an opinion that all religion is a cult by your definition. But so far have offered no proof of that, just conjecture. So until you can come up with some proof I guess I will still stick by my original post number 3 as a good list to explain or determine what is and is not a cult.

And I'm telling you that I refuted your list with examples of HOW the Christian church fits those criteria.

Should I do it again?

ALL religions--including yours--are cults. The DEFINITION of the word "cult" makes it so.

You haven't "proven" that Christianity alone is exempt from cult status to me, either. Isn't that rather arrogant in general, really?

Yes, please do. For so far all I have seen is opinions and nothing that indicates anything other.

Yes, please do. For so far all I have seen is opinions and nothing that indicates anything other.

Ditto Donn, but why do you assume that your opinions are more valid then ours?

They practice separatism and devote much of their time trying to proselyte others.
What is asking people to come to Jesus, or telling people they will be damned if they do not come to Jesus, but proselytizing? What is elevating the Christian religion above ALL other religions if not practicing separatism?
Their efforts to convert others are underhanded and manipulative.
Telling someone that they will be damned forever if they do not convert is pretty underhanded, in my opinion. Saying that Christianity is the only TRUE religion is manipulative in that it's an opinion—but Christians repeatedly try to vet it as the truth.
The group's leaders claim to be God's prophets or messiahs or apostles who receive “divine revelations.”The Pope isn't God's voice on earth? The Bible isn't about the prophets and messiahs and apostles who received “divine revelations”? Seems to me you base your entire religion on a book that is about EXACTLY that—claims of prophets, messiahs, or apostles drive the entire New Testament.
They teach that all other churches and groups are lost unless they surrender what they have and join them.
Um…I think this one speaks for itself, but just in case you don't see it---Christians REPEATEDLY state that all other churches and groups are wrong, and that ONLY through Christ and giving up the physical plane for the spiritual can you enter the gates of Heaven.
Their leaders are dictatorial and demanding, either directly or subtly.
Telling people HOW they can get to Heaven is pretty demanding, to me. Telling people which rules they have to obey from the Bible, and which are okay to ignore (like, say, killing someone for cursing their parents—Exodus 21:17) because they are obsolete is pretty dictatorial. The church leaders TELL people what rules they have to obey—or we'd have a LOT more people sitting in jail for following the Bible.
They claim to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Do you believe that any other religion is correct? No? I rest my case.
Members are expected to attend study sessions where they are firmly indoctrinated (“brainwashed”) with the group's mundane creeds and human theories.
Again—Bible study groups. Church on Sunday. Church on Wednesday. Catechism classes. Confirmation classes. Sunday school. And before you argue that people are not “indoctrinated” with the “mundane creeds and human theories”, let me just point out that those sessions are usually led by a church leader, who, as a human, points out his or her interpretation (or the church's interpretation in general) of the theories about God humans have based on a book written by humans—even if it WAS inspired by God, it was still WRITTEN by humans. Multiple translations of the Bible make interpretation even MORE necessary. Ex. 22:18, for example, is commonly translated as “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. That particular translation only came about in the King James Bible, since King James had a thing against witches. It was generally thought to have loosely translated as “Don't let users of black magic live”. So—human theories (since we're not God, we don't know how he thinks, and he didn't write the Bible himself) about the “Word of God” abound, and are commonly taught at churches worldwide, usually on Sundays.
They resent having their doctrines and creeds questioned.
This thread is proof of that.
They believe salvation and afterlife are found only in their camp.
Can a follower of any other religion be saved? Can someone go to Heaven if they don't believe in Jesus? No Christian I ever met thought so.
Those who desert the group are judged evil and apostates.
Again, I know this one first hand. I left the Christian church (mostly because of the hypocrisy), and was shunned by people I had once called friends, spit on by “TRUE believers”, been bodily threatened, been told over and over that I'm going to hell and that God is going to judge me and find me wanting (when in reality, it is THEY who are judging me), been told that I'm evil because I practice Wicca, which is OBVIOUSLY evil *sarcasm* because we use spells. Tell me how anyone leaving the church is NOT judged evil?
They dictate almost every facet of the members' lives—sexual, social, domestic, political, and spiritual.
Birth control, gay marriage, which holidays to celebrate, how a man should treat his wife and a wife her husband, how one treats his or her parents (heck, that one is one of the Ten Commandments!)…EVERY aspect of a Christian's life is dominated by the rules set forth in the Bible, because there is a rule for every aspect of life.
They deny that God has other children scattered over the hills and valleys of sectarianism.
Again—if I don't believe in Jesus, I'm outside of the fold, and damned, and not one of god's children.
They believe God's elect are found only within the borders of their own enclosure.
Would you choose someone to lead you who was not from your religion? Your “enclosure” is metaphorical rather than literal. Your “borders” are really belief in God, Jesus, and the Bible. Anyone else is to be shunned because God would not choose someone who didn't BELIEVE in him to be a leader in the church.
Honest dissidents are disciplined, avoided, and excommunicated.
Until recently in the Christian church, divorced people were ex-communicated. So were people that refused to follow the church leaders. The avoidance thing? I got that often enough when people found out I wasn't Christian. Invitations to events, office parties, etc, were not forthcoming once it became known that I was a Wiccan.
They insist on strict conformity to the group's doctrinal standards.
Why in the WORLD would you think there are so many different variations of the Christian church if it were not for the fact that someone didn't' conform to the doctrinal standards and started their own splinter of the church? Martin Luther did it with his 500 theses, and Joseph Smith did it with his vision of Jesus visiting the American Indians.
Their teachings contradict plain truth.
Well, now---that depends on how you define “plain truth”. I think that most plain truth is nothing but someone's opinion. But I also find it hard to believe that with so many fallacies in the CHURCH, so much hypocrisy through the ages, that the Christian church has even managed to survive. Love your neighbor, kill the infidels in the Middle East in Crusades. Judge not, yet the Spanish Inquisition did nothing but. Thou Shalt not Kill, yet missionaries DID kill native peoples in the new world for not converting. Buying penances, killing innocent women because they were smarter than the men in the church, giving power within the church to those who could BUY the power—it's all hypocrisy, and these are the men who determined the course of the interpretation of scripture!
Their source of authority is of human origin.
The Bible was written by humans, and church leaders are human. Your god has no more authority over me than my god has over you—authority on earth is determined by those who live on earth. HUMANS determine church leaders, not gods.
They require a new convert to be rebaptized, even though he was sincerely baptized previously.
I've actually been TOLD this by a pastor. If I want to sincerely re-join the Christian church at any point, I must publicly renounce any other religion, and then be re-baptized into Christ.
They have devised their own translation of the scriptures and prohibit any translation not approved by them.
Again—if I were to translate something from the Bible, I'm absolutely positive that I would get a different meaning than a believer in the Bible. Therefore, since I'm not a true believer, my opinion is tossed out, unapproved, regardless how fluent I am in the language being translated FROM.
Members are expected to give large amounts of money and ample energy and time to the group's activities.
Collection plates in church, church dues, church picnics, sitting through the service on Sunday, volunteering time to help with church-sponsored events, teaching others, being an outreach committee, sewing diapers for children in El Salvador, or doing a food drive for kids in Ethiopia, whatever. If you don't give of yourself, you aren't considered a “true” Christian.
They allege to be the only legitimate interpreters of scripture.
See my above points on translation. My idea of Paul is that he was a misogynist with nothing better to do than wrest power from the women who held it in many religions of the time. Your idea (probably) is completely different, and is probably based on the ideas of Paul as the apostle of Christ.

They wrest scripture to foster their belief system.
Again, interpretation of scripture is so crucial. What of the Apocrypha? What of the Dead Sea Scrolls that are turning out to be other Gospels of Christ, but were obviously left out of the Bible? Isn't that someone deciding scripture to foster a belief system? Barring that, wouldn't you say that most Christians use scripture on a regular basis to “prove” their moral high ground? When arguing theology, dosen't it usually come back to “The Bible says so!”

I maintain my stance that ALL religions are cults—and every single cult out there may someday be called a religion, if it gets enough followers and public credibility.

Again, a cult is not a bad thing! I think you're just offended that someone would point out that your religion is no better (or worse) than any other religion. And I'd point out yet again, that I'm including ALL religions in this—including my own.

That is not an interpretation - you have chosen to add to what I said. You have chosen to suggest greater precision was required. That was your addition, but it was not necessary to understand the intent.

Of course interpretation was required, as ordinaryguy (among others) has explained many times. When you utter the sentence "The sky is blue" I assign semantic value to the terms contained in the sentence: I interpret "sky" to refer to the same thing to which I refer when I use the word "sky"; I interpret "blue" to refer to a color or range of colors to which I refer when I use the word "blue"; I interpret the copula "is" to introduce a predicate (I interpret your statement as a predicative judgment rather than as an identity claim, and so assign the appropriate function to "is"). In other words, I interpret your statement, "The sky is blue", by translating it into my own idiolect and it is in this way that I am able to understand your utterance. I will regard your statement that "The sky is blue" to be true if and only if the sky is blue, that is, if and only if the thing to which I refer with the word "sky" has the property to which I refer with the word "blue". This is how language works.

Now why would matters be any different when reading a text? The answer, of course, is that they aren't. When I read the sentence, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", I interpret the shapes and squiggles on the page as sense-bearing linguistic devices by interpreting them as words. I interpret the shapes and squiggles as words. But the interpretation doesn't stop there since, as I've said, I also have to assign semantic values to the words by interpreting them as referring to objects, etc. I interpret the word "Word", for instance, to refer to the second Person of the Trinity; I interpret the word "God" to refer to what I refer to when I use the word "God"; and so on.

Interpretation is unavoidable and ineliminable wherever language is used as the medium in and by which sense or meaning is conveyed. The only way around this conclusion is to embrace a gerrymandered definition of "interpretation", so that interpretation necessarily involves some sort of distortion (this is how I've seen you define it in these contexts). But, of course, that's just silly since most interpretation gets it right (if it didn't we couldn't communicate with each other). The problem, then, isn't interpretation; the problem is bad interpretation, sloppy, lazy, intellectually dishonest interpretation. That's where you should direct your ire.

Ok, I give up - what is the intent behind "the sky is blue"?

I'll leave it at that. If you have kids (even a 3 or 4 yr old would do nicely) ask them what it means to say "The sky is blue".

*************coolness****************

Of course interpretation was required, as ordinaryguy (among others) has explained many times. When you utter the sentence "The sky is blue" I assign semantic value to the terms contained in the sentence: I interpret "sky" to refer to the same thing to which I refer when I use the word "sky"; I interpret "blue" to refer to a color or range of colors to which I refer when I use the word "blue"; I interpret the copula "is" to introduce a predicate (I interpret your statement as a predicative judgment rather than as an identity claim, and so assign the appropriate function to "is"). In other words, I interpret your statement, "The sky is blue", by translating it into my own idiolect and it is in this way that I am able to understand your utterance. I will regard your statement that "The sky is blue" to be true if and only if the sky is blue, that is, if and only if the thing to which I refer with the word "sky" has the property to which I refer with the word "blue". This is how language works.

All I have seen is great examples of how it is possible to complicate something that needs no interpretation by adding a private interpretation to it. Perhaps that is why God told us not to interpret the Bible.

All I have seen is great examples of how it is possible to complicate something that needs no interpretation by adding a private interpretation to it. Perhaps that is why God told us not to interpret the Bible.

But Tom, the very nature of the bible begs interpretation, just like any other written work.

If both of us read the same book we may get the same story, but we will each interpret it differently, that's just human nature.

Perhaps only God knows the true meaning of the bible. Goodness knows that mere mortal men cannot hope to understand or comprehend what God inspired! Right?

But Tom, the very nature of the bible begs interpretation, just like any other written work.

I gave an example, and all that others could do is complicate and obscure the meaning by interpretation. Whereas the meaning without interpretation is so clear that any child who can read will understand it.

You say that all written work needs interpretation. I disagree.

I will add, that with the Bible, though you will disagree, there is an interpreter give by God to believers and that is the Holy Spirit.

But Tom, the very nature of the bible begs interpretation, just like any other written work.

If both of us read the same book we may get the same story, but we will each interpret it differently, that's just human nature.

Perhaps only God knows the true meaning of the bible. Goodness knows that mere mortal men cannot hope to understand or comprehend what God inspired! Right?

The bible is a code that needs to be deciphered there is only one correct meaning to the code of the bible, just like a combination lock only one set of numbers will open it.

the bible is a code that needs to be deciphered their is only one correct meaning to the code of the bible, just like a combination lock only one set of numbers will open it.

Paul said that the gospel is simple:

2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
NKJV

Paul said that the gospel is simple:

2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
NKJV

Ohh yes lets talk about christ and his simplicity it lies within all of us.:) and you don't need the bible to find something that's en-ate and part of your basic human nature.

I gave an example, and all that others could do is complicate and obscure the meaning by interpretation. Whereas the meaning without interpretation is so clear that any child who can read will understand it.

You say that all written work needs interpretation. I disagree.

I will add, that with the Bible, though you will disagree, there is an interpreter give by God to believers and that is the Holy Spirit.

You gave an example yes, a very basic easily understood sentence, what you are missing is the fact that everyone, even a child, will read that sentence and view it differently.

Is the sky really blue? What if you're color blind and don't know what the color blue looks like? How can you be sure that the blue you see is the same color as the blue I see? What if you live somewhere that has winter 99% of the time, the sky won't look blue, it will look white (trust me, I live in Canada, I know).

What happens when you say that same sentence in another language, does that change the meaning of the sentence? You bet it does.

Are you starting to understand what I'm saying?

Yes, it's a simple sentence, and yet there are so many ways to interpret it. So, how can a mortal man such as yourself hope to interpret correctly the "word of God"? You can't.

But, once again, we've gotten off topic, and for once I didn't start it (yeah me!)

The topic is about religion and whether it is viewed as a cult.

I still don't understand why the fanatics have such a problem with that word, after all it's only a word, a very basic word, one that even a child can understand.

ohh yes lets talk about christ and his simplicity it lies within all of us.:) and you don't need the bible to find something thats en-ate and part of your basic human nature.

Scripture is clear that it is only those who believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour who receive the Holy Spirit.

You gave an example yes, a very basic easily understood sentence, what you are missing is the fact that everyone, even a child, will read that sentence and view it differently.

Grab 10-15 kids off the street, show them the sentence, ask them what it means, and check out your theory.

I never said that people could not complicate things if they wanted to.

Well, there aren't that many kids in my neighborhood, but I'll ask my 6 year old daughter.

Okay, I asked her to read the sentence.

She said and I quote "Mommy, there are also clouds in the sky, so it's not all blue, it's also white, but not always, sometimes it's all blue like today, but tomorrow it's supposed to rain so the clouds will be grey and the sky won't be as blue".

Happy, or should I ask my 10 year old when he gets home?

Paul said that the gospel is simple:

2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
NKJV

Yes, but I thought I pointed out that I think Paul is a misogynistic little beast with very little thought in his head other than empowering the church, therefore empowering himself.

THEREFORE--my interpretation is that Paul was pointing out that men are better than women (the serpent deceived EVE, not that Adam didn't just go "Okay George--can I pet him and love him and squeeze him after I have the apple?"), and that MEN find simplicity in Christ because Paul's directives give them power over the women in their lives, and help them to overthrow the matriarchal societies that were in existence at the time.

See how my "interpretation" is different than yours, simply because I think Paul is a jerk and you don't?

Scripture is clear that it is only those who believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour who receive the Holy Spirit.

And there you go being superior again based on a book written by men.

Well, there aren't that many kids in my neighborhood, but I'll ask my 6 year old daughter.

Okay, I asked her to read the sentence.

She said and I quote "Mommy, there are also clouds in the sky, so it's not all blue, it's also white, but not always, sometimes it's all blue like today, but tomorrow it's supposed to rain so the clouds will be grey and the sky won't be as blue".

Happy, or should I ask my 10 year old when he gets home?

Got to spread the rep, Alty, but kisses right back atcha.

Well, there aren't that many kids in my neighborhood, but I'll ask my 6 year old daughter.

Okay, I asked her to read the sentence.

She said and I quote "Mommy, there are also clouds in the sky, so it's not all blue, it's also white, but not always, sometimes it's all blue like today, but tomorrow it's supposed to rain so the clouds will be grey and the sky won't be as blue".

Happy, or should I ask my 10 year old when he gets home?

You must have taught her how to interpret :confused::D

Yes, but I thought I pointed out that I think Paul is a misogynistic little beast with very little thought in his head other than empowering the church, therefore empowering himself.

Since he is now in heaven with God, I suspect that he is not too concerned about your demeaning comments concerning him.


See how my "interpretation" is different than yours, simply because I think Paul is a jerk and you don't?

Since your interpretation is not found in scripture and since I go solely by what scripture does say, it is not an issue of interpretations.

I get a chuckle out of those who don't like me allowing the Bible to speak for itself and absolutely demanding that I interpret it:D.

Many people who say this no doubt would be terribly upset at anyone who told them what they must believe. :p

Since he is now in heaven with God, I suspect that he is not too concerned about your demeaning comments concerning him.



Since your interpretation is not found in scripture and since I go solely by what scripture does say, it is not an issue of interpretations.

So your problem with the whole thing is that the BIBLE doesn't define Christianity as a cult, so therefore it can't be?

So your problem with the whole thing is that the BIBLE doesn't define Christianity as a cult, so therefore it can't be?

Biblical Christianity does not meet the criteria for a cult.

You must have taught her how to interpret :confused::D

As your parents taught you. :D

She's a smart little girl, takes nothing at face value, so yes, I've taught her well. She's growing up learning to ask questions and demand answers, answers I never got in the Catholic school I attended. I found those answers on my own, but not in the bible that I grew up learning.

My only hope for my children is that they find their own path, not conform to what others say. I'm not raising sheep, I'm raising wolves. :D

Biblical Christianity does not meet the criteria for a cult.

I thought that I had just shown, on the last page, that Christianity DOES meet the criteria for a cult.

If nothing else, your stubborn refusal to believe ANYTHING but what the Bible says reinforces that.

I thought that I had just shown, on the last page, that Christianity DOES meet the criteria for a cult.

If nothing else, your stubborn refusal to believe ANYTHING but what the Bible says reinforces that.

And I have to spread the rep. Darnit!

Something tells me that Tom didn't even read your list, or he interpreted it incorrectly. :)

Cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult)

As your parents taught you. :D

My parents taught me to think for myself. That is why when someone demands that I do thing their way by adding interpretations, I do not feel obligated to defy what scripture says.

I wonder why people are so insistent that other must do things the way that they think that it must be done.

Scripture is clear that it is only those who believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour who receive the Holy Spirit.

OK that's is your opinion & your interpretation, but it's certainly not mine

To the OP, here read this and tell me what you think...
Cult:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. A group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. Religious rites.
8. Archaic. Strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom9. Get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Cult, religion as defined in the, religion definition | Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) , site.

Huh, so our own interpretation of the word, and the stigmas we associated to it are now folding in on us and proving us to be liers. How so you ask?

Think about it... You'll realise that every word that is said is nothing, and only the meaning behind it matters. Stop arguing pointless facts that are niether true nor false, and start opening your own eyes to that wisdom that we all share. The wisdom that is GOD, Spirituallity, LIfe, Life stream, Gia (is that it? ), The source, The force, or other wise. Any thing you say these to be is both true, and false. I've never ever met any one who cold convince me other wise and that I feel is because, "There is more to truth than just the facts."- Unknown

"There are many things in this world I do not understand, but it seems to me that there are many things in this world that do not understand me. So rationality is as fleeting as the thoughts that make it so..."- Nestorian, Benism.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
Socrates

So believe what you will, but the moment you think you are right, is the moment you are wrong. “It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.”
-Thomas Huxley

May peace and kindness be with you.

I thought that I had just shown, on the last page, that Christianity DOES meet the criteria for a cult.

As someone else said, you have shown that is your opinion.

ok thats is your opinion & your interpretation, but it's certainly not mine

Not my interpretation. Scripture says it.

My parents taught me to think for myself. That is why when someone demands that I do thing their way by adding interpretations, I do not feel obligated to defy what scripture says.

I wonder why people are so insistent that other must do things the way that they think that it must be done.

But Tom, you're the one insisting that we do things the way you think it must be done.

You can't have it both ways, it's give and take, not take, take, take.

You don't have to defy your interpretation of scripture, it's your right to believe what you want, as it is our right to believe what we want.

You see, I too think for myself, that seems to bother you. Why is that?

Not my interpretation. Scripture says it.


It is your interpretation of what you think a specific scripture says. It is fact that different people will read the same scripture and each person will take something different from it. Or sees it in a different way then somebody else.

Joe

Not my interpretation. Scripture says it.

SCRIPTURE is an opinion!

GAH!

Seriously--I don't believe that the Bible is anything more than the religious OPINIONS of a bunch of guys that sat down together over some supper with bread and wine!

So--MY opinion is equal to the opinion of the BIBLE, since all OPINIONS are equal.

THAT is what you don't get--scripture is nothing more than an opinion from Joe Schmoe for those who do not follow the cult of Christianity.

As your parents taught you. :D

She's a smart little girl, takes nothing at face value, so yes, I've taught her well. She's growing up learning to ask questions and demand answers, answers I never got in the Catholic school I attended. I found those answers on my own, but not in the bible that I grew up learning.

My only hope for my children is that they find their own path, not conform to what others say. I'm not raising sheep, I'm raising wolves. :D

Alti I tried to give you a greenie :mad: but I have to spread the love. Anyhow I agree from one catholic girl who attended catholic school from age 4-18, I came out off high school completely lost and confused:confused: I also found the answers I needed on my own and will not under any circumstances step into a church again

But Tom, you're the one insisting that we do things the way you think it must be done.

Not at all. Anyone is welcome to interpret the Bible if they wish. It is the Bible that says that we should not.

S

So--MY opinion is equal to the opinion of the BIBLE, since all OPINIONS are equal.



I would suggest that God's opinion carries more weight.

Not at all. Anyone is welcome to interpret the Bible if they wish. It is the Bible that says that we should not.

Where exactly in the bible does it say that it is not up to interpretation? People who read it on a daily basis including you interpret what it says. If we were not allowed to interpret the bible we would not be able to read it.

Synn, I still have to spread the rep, apparently I'm not loving enough other people, only you. ;)


So--MY opinion is equal to the opinion of the BIBLE, since all OPINIONS are equal.

This says it all!

Tom, what you don't understand is that there is no absolute proof that the bible is anything more then an interesting read. You cannot prove that God wrote it, or inspired it or that God even exists.

You're basing your entire belief on a book that you believe is "Gods word" and, like everyone else, you are interpreting that book to suit your beliefs. That's fine, it's your right, but it is also our right to follow a different belief, to state that the bible is not the "word of God" because there is no proof that it is.

You can sit on your high horse all day and state that scripture speaks for itself, but it doesn't. If it did then there wouldn't be all this arguing even amongst fellow Christians. None of you seem to agree, why is that? Is it perhaps because you all interpret it differently?

You won't accept the fact that you do indeed interpret what you read, just like every other fallible human being on this planet. Unless of course you are going to tell us that you're God and that's why your interpretation is correct.

Tom, what you don't understand is that there is no absolute proof that the bible is anything more then an interesting read. You cannot prove that God wrote it, or inspired it or that God even exists.

We've been through that. At one time you refused to consider evidence if it supported the Bible being divinely inspired. There is a great deal.

I would suggest that God's opinion carries more weight.

My goddess was around way before your god. HER opinion carries more weight with me than an upstart book written by a bunch of men in a cult.

Do you GET it yet? The Bible is nothing more than a book to me. An interesting book, sure. But it was written by MEN, not GOD, and therefore is flawed.

We've been through that. At one time you refused to consider evidence if it supported the Bible being divinely inspired. There is a great deal.

Are we going backwards again?

Tom, evidence from the bible isn't evidence because I believe that the bible was written by man, not God.

Also, you're forgetting, I believe in God, I don't need you to prove God to me, I just don't believe that the bible is the "word of God" and I don't believe in organized religion.

I've said it before, I'm not a sheep, never will be. You see, I have a brain, yes, a brain, and I intend to use it, not follow someone else's line of thought simply because they say I have to.

Tom, we've already been here, and we didn't get anywhere. Heck, there is no getting anywhere with you, and I guess there's no getting anywhere with me either. Are you German? ;)

So why are we arguing, We'll never convince each other that the other is right. I just wish that once, just once, you'd listen instead of criticize everything that doesn't follow your strict guidelines and beliefs.

You've proven time and time again that an equal conversation, where you actually listen to what I say without judging, isn't possible. I really don't know why I even bother. Maybe I hope that one day you'll actually read what I say, get off your high horse and admit that my opinion holds merit. That won't happen though, so why are we here?

I honestly think that you love arguing, heck, maybe I do too, after all you sure do get my knickers in a bunch. But you see, there's a difference between the two of us. If you actually said something I agreed with, I'd be big enough to admit it. You never will.

I'll be watching, but now I have to go. My head hurts, I've had enough.

Peace.

Cowboyfriendly,

Forget about all this Religious BS, or Cult stuff. Every one's got their opinions, which have been poisoned by social conditioning.

Think for yourself,

"Believe nothing no matter where you read it, no matter who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.

First rely on the spirit and meaning of the teachings not on the words.

Second rely on the teachings not on the personality of the teacher.

Third rely on real wisdom not superficial interpretation.

Fourth rely on the essence of your pure wisdom mind not on judgmental perceptions."- Buddha

It's your life, so live it. Look with in yourself and dig deep as deep as you can, past the fancy cloths, makeup/spray on sent, the hair style, past the skin/muscle/bone and right on into your inner soul.

“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” ~Andre Gide

“Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.” ~Aesop

“Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying.” ~Baba Ram Dass

“Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.” ~Ludwig Börne

May peace and kindness be with you.

Are we going backwards again?

Tom, evidence from the bible isn't evidence because I believe that the bible was written by man, not God.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right.

So books written by man are not acceptable as evidence?



Also, you're forgetting, I believe in God, I don't need you to prove God to me, I just don't believe that the bible is the "word of God" and I don't believe in organized religion.

So it would not matter what evidence was brought forward.


Tom, we've already been here, and we didn't get anywhere. Heck, there is no getting anywhere with you, and I guess there's no getting anywhere with me either. Are you German? ;)


No, not German.



So why are we arguing, We'll never convince each other that the other is right. I just wish that once, just once, you'd listen instead of criticize everything that doesn't follow your strict guidelines and beliefs.

I do listen, apparently more than you realize. But that does not mean that I am required to agree, anymore than you are required to agree with me.

Tj3 she means why do you need to comment and argue against her comments when they do not agree with you.

I just wish that once, just once, you'd listen instead of criticize everything that doesn't follow your strict guidelines and beliefs.

Listen and be still. Whne it comes to some things that she says, or others, that you disagree with.

However, she'd have to do the same. Or ignore one another's posts.

Does that make more sense?

Tj3 she means why do you need to comment and argue against her comments when they do not agree with you.

Interesting approach. She original directed her comments to me, and I responded. Maybe you should ask why does she need to comment and argue against my comments when they do not agree with her. On the other hand why bother? Everyone, myself included, has the right to disagree and comment. Or do you think that that right does not extend to me?

That's just it Tom, you did respond, but in a belittling holier then thou manner.

If what you had to say was just your opinion then I'd be fine with that, but you state your opinions as fact, and they aren't.

Opinions I can accept, your "I'm right you're wrong" attitude is the problem.

You even said it, you claim to have proof that God exists, that proof is in the bible that you believe was inspired by God. When I state that I don't believe that the bible was inspired by God then you claim that I'm unwilling to see the truth. The truth according to who? You?

You even deny that you interpret the bible. Apparently you are the only human being on the face of this earth that does not interpret things, you see the truth, and only the truth. Once again, holier then thou.

You constantly talk down to others, you won't get your point across that way, it doesn't work.

The sad thing is, if you and I both agreed to just talk, listen, discuss, I think that we could actually have a very interesting conversation. But, until you are actually willing to listen, that's not going to happen.

I'm guilty too, but I'm not alone in that guilt Tom. I'm big enough to admit it, are you?

Interesting approach. She original directed her comments to me, and I responded. Maybe you should ask why does she need to comment and argue against my comments when they do not agree with her. On the other hand why bother? Everyone, myself included, has the right to disagree and comment. Or do you think that that right does not extend to me?

I actaully believe that rights are as fleeting as a thought. They don't excist unless everyone agrees upon them. Thus majority rules. So nope, you me, Alt, and all the rest have no right to do anything. Perhaps this is on account that we are all irresponsible with what we "think" we "know".

Even if you are considered wrong by one, doesn't mean that you are indeed wrong. When some one says, "this is how it is, there are no other possibilities." or something as such, they leave no room for the other people who believe or think other wise. This "implies" to them that they are insignificant in your eyes, thus they feel the need to prove other wise. As I have warned many be for, "Don't under estimate the value of one, for one may very well be more valuable than any combined..." - Nestorian

We will not know the truth until we become one with the truth. When that happens it won't matter what others think, or that we were right or wrong; all that will matter is that we accept it and embrace it. No?

So let us be still with our disagreeing and fear of being less than to some one else, and focus on why we are hear. To give those who ask us for information the best information we can. Should we disagree, then simply state so, and move on. Only explain why if you intend to give a Red mark for some one's "inaccurate" answer. Please provide evidence/proof before giving red marks, as to my knowledge no one has yet, but it's misleading to others if we careless, reckless, and angerly start bashing one another. We are not here to convert others, we are here to give information in what I understand is s'pose to be a neuteral way, and yes our opinions do often get pulled into this.

"Nobodies right if everybodies worng."-Buffalo springfield (I think that's how it goes, I may be wrong. Relatively speaking. ;))

That's just it Tom, you did respond, but in a belittling holier then thou manner.

Judging again?


If what you had to say was just your opinion then I'd be fine with that, but you state your opinions as fact, and they aren't.

No, I state opinions as opinions.

But I see that every discussion with you ends up with you going after me personally. Why not just stick to the topic?



Opinions I can accept, your "I'm right you're wrong" attitude is the problem.

You mean like when you telll me that I am wrong that I must interpret the Bible because that is your opinion?


You even said it, you claim to have proof that God exists, that proof is in the bible that you believe was inspired by God. When I state that I don't believe that the bible was inspired by God then you claim that I'm unwilling to see the truth. The truth according to who? You?

I said that when you said that you would reject any evidence that supported the Bible as inspired. In that case, it is true that the person who rejects evidence because it disagrees with what they want to believe has rejected truth.



You even deny that you interpret the bible. Apparently you are the only human being on the face of this earth that does not interpret things, you see the truth, and only the truth. Once again, holier then thou.

I know many people who don't interpret the Bible - or are you telling me that you are right and I am wrong? Have you spoken to every person on earth?


You constantly talk down to others, you won't get your point across that way, it doesn't work.

You are welcome to your opinion.


The sad thing is, if you and I both agreed to just talk, listen, discuss, I think that we could actually have a very interesting conversation. But, until you are actually willing to listen, that's not going to happen.

Why must you always attacj the person when they disagree with you?


I'm guilty too, but I'm not alone in that guilt Tom. I'm big enough to admit it, are you?

Then why do you do it every time? Why don't you bury the hatchet and discuss. Or if yolu cannot bring yourself to do so, why not just ignore those who you cannot tolerate discussing things with?

DONE!

I won't do this anymore.

Good luck Tom, I wish you all the best.

Alty out.

(Tj3 be so kind as to skip this part and read your recommended behavioural training. You may not like what I have to say to her.)

Altenweg: Check this out, He sees things as in the bible is "the one and only guide" to God. However, you've found a different guide, and that pertains to you. He can not see your path, because it's not a possibility. There is only one way to God for Tj3, but that doesn't make him right, nor wrong. You have the ability to choose your path, so feel free to do just that, choose your path. Generate compation and prey for him so that he may go to heaven or be happy. (ok alty, stop reading now, please. You maydisagree with what I'm about to say.)


Tj3: Alt is on a path that does not require the good bible. Generate compation for her, and prey for her so that she may go to heaven too, or be happy. Do not prey for her to change, it would be foolish to expect such things. This is your choice, and I'm not sure what Jesus said, but I'm sure he asked us to be compationate toward our fellow brothers and sisters, so why not do what he asked of you? THe choice is your's.

As buddha said, "Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared."

As I say, "Love is my ally, Life is my goal, Respect is my accomplishment."- Nestorian Two different things that mean the same thing, as surely people realise by now that words are not important, only the meaning. GOD, Goddess, GODS, Spirituallity, our mother earth, the force, the source, energy, life, life stream, Gia, and so on. They are one and the same, you just need to be still and listen long enough to realise it.

Let go of your illutions.

DONE!

I won't do this anymore.

Good luck Tom, I wish you all the best.

Alty out.

Good luck, Alty!

BTW, I hold nothing against you, and if you ever feel that you can accept disagreement and discuss without negative comments about others, the door will always remain open.

...if you ever feel that you can accept disagreement and discuss without negative comments about others, ...
More of your persecution complex. She made no negative comments about others.

Thread closed.

I hesistate to remove any posts here because they all seem to be opinion, based on what others have posted. But when a thread becomes more an issue of personalities then the topic being discusses as this one seems to have become, it will be closed.