[NeedKarma]

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

[Synnen]

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?

[bustoutking]

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.

[lighterrr]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[lighterrr]

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:)

[NeedKarma]

... but it was not necessary to understand the intent.

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

[Synnen]

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?

[450donn]

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.

[Synnen]

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?

[450donn]

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

[Alty]

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?

[Synnen]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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".

[Pokerface5]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Alty]

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?

[Tj3]

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.

[lighterrr]

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.