Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Cult

Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 1:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Brilliant observation. Today what makes a "cult" in the public understanding seems to have more to do with the amount of land a group professing a faith happens to own. However, there is another side to it.

The God image used to represent what is ultimately real, uncreated, and incomparable, would naturally represent something more true than what an impermanent and created "cult" communicates effectively.

God's nature as described by the prophets makes clear that God is something far beyond the mystery "cult". Unfortunately, the nature of language makes it to where cults become necessary tool in order to give common ground for communication among disciples.

An Idol represents the attempt of capturing an essence, or a representation of something else. They leave behind created statues, graven images, concepts, and words. The fallacy of the pagan errs in balancing the grand equation by believing that anything equates to anything else in the realm of created things. Mistaking their method of communication for God most high, they doze into stupor. Idol worship happens as people start mistaking these created things for being what it is they represent, in effect letting a type of unreality take precedence before the Ultimately Real. Their hearts are clouded by their own vanity, and every understanding a burden to their heavy laden false ego until that critical mass finally takes effect, and the truth blows all fortresses away like smoke, as mountains melt and the sky rolls back like a scroll!

A cult represents an attempt to preserve a system of abstractions, or unite a common understanding.

So you see, when you accuse a group of being a cult, it is like calling them a bunch of superstitious pagan sandcastle worshipers. Why? They are on the way out, they aren't going to last.

The cults that have the most land, or the most followers, however, have a great deal of investment in preserving and maintaining something, even if they don't understand what it is. To those who diligently study and meditate on these things, communication of the divine is possible. Scripture represents true testimony of this divine. The prophets were messengers from the same source, and in the ways they could in the environments they were in, they were mouth pieces for God in ways that are recognizable to those with like revelation.

Cults are very necessary for civilization to exist.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist."
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
clickclock
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:11:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist." : :

The word "faith" doesn't have the same meaning as it did with God's servants. Christians think they have faith when in fact, all they have is belief. Faith is only known to God's servants called prophets and saints.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:14:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"

The "dictionary definition" is over-simplified. "Cult" is an ill-defined word along the same lines as "pornography". What is "pornography" to me may be "art" to you. I have seen perhaps 15-20 descriptors, characteristics, which may be employed in identifying a cult - and no single group possesses every one of the characteristics as far as I know.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:17:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:14:38 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"

The "dictionary definition" is over-simplified. "Cult" is an ill-defined word along the same lines as "pornography". What is "pornography" to me may be "art" to you. I have seen perhaps 15-20 descriptors, characteristics, which may be employed in identifying a cult - and no single group possesses every one of the characteristics as far as I know.

Agreed, my sister. (I have to admit that I do enjoy a bit of pornography videos with my girlfriend once in awhile. Just to set the mood, ya know! LOL
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:17:44 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:14:38 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"

The "dictionary definition" is over-simplified. "Cult" is an ill-defined word along the same lines as "pornography". What is "pornography" to me may be "art" to you. I have seen perhaps 15-20 descriptors, characteristics, which may be employed in identifying a cult - and no single group possesses every one of the characteristics as far as I know.

Agreed, my sister. (I have to admit that I do enjoy a bit of pornography videos with my girlfriend once in awhile. Just to set the mood, ya know! LOL

Then you are taking it in "for medicinal purposes."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:11:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 2:11:26 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist." : :

The word "faith" doesn't have the same meaning as it did with God's servants. Christians think they have faith when in fact, all they have is belief. Faith is only known to God's servants called prophets and saints.

Hi Brad.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
clickclock
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:16:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:11:29 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:11:26 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist." : :

The word "faith" doesn't have the same meaning as it did with God's servants. Christians think they have faith when in fact, all they have is belief. Faith is only known to God's servants called prophets and saints.

Hi Brad. : :

You should be proud of yourself.

Psalms 22:
27: All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
28: For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
29: Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:23:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:16:55 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:11:29 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:11:26 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist." : :

The word "faith" doesn't have the same meaning as it did with God's servants. Christians think they have faith when in fact, all they have is belief. Faith is only known to God's servants called prophets and saints.

Hi Brad. : :

You should be proud of yourself.

Psalms 22:
27: All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
28: For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
29: Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive.

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
clickclock
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:23:14 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:16:55 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:11:29 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 2:11:26 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 1:52:04 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

Even though I am a Christian I have to admit that if we go by that dictionary definition, than Christianity could be very arguably called a Cult. To this I say, "Sure. If that's what you want to call it, go for it!"
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with the term. It has just been branded with a negative connotation over the past 100 years or so. Satanic inferences and all that. Another example of how a perfectly good term has been cast in the negative over the past decade or so is "Liberal." And also with religious people (some) the word "Humanist." : :

The word "faith" doesn't have the same meaning as it did with God's servants. Christians think they have faith when in fact, all they have is belief. Faith is only known to God's servants called prophets and saints.

Hi Brad. : :

You should be proud of yourself.

Psalms 22:
27: All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.
28: For dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
29: Yea, to him shall all the proud of the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he who cannot keep himself alive.

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:28:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM, clickclock wrote:

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.

Oh, okay. Well, as long as you're happy.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
clickclock
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:32:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:28:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM, clickclock wrote:

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.

Oh, okay. Well, as long as you're happy. : :

Are you happy?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:34:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:32:27 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:28:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM, clickclock wrote:

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.

Oh, okay. Well, as long as you're happy. : :

Are you happy?

It doesn't matter Brad, it's just a dream. Remember?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
clickclock
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 3:36:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:34:51 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:32:27 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:28:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM, clickclock wrote:

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.

Oh, okay. Well, as long as you're happy. : :

Are you happy?

It doesn't matter Brad, it's just a dream. Remember? : :

I'm having a great time looking at all God's illusions that I know aren't real at all. I know for a fact that I'll never see these kinds of illusions in Paradise including the way our bodies look.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 2:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 3:36:45 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:34:51 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:32:27 AM, clickclock wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:28:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 7/31/2015 3:25:49 AM, clickclock wrote:

Shame on you Brad. You know Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. : :

And you will die because of it. I have already died to pride that blinded me from my true created existence. Now I know that I will never die again.

Oh, okay. Well, as long as you're happy. : :

Are you happy?

It doesn't matter Brad, it's just a dream. Remember? : :

I'm having a great time looking at all God's illusions that I know aren't real at all. I know for a fact that I'll never see these kinds of illusions in Paradise including the way our bodies look.

I thought you were proud of your body because God changed your DNA and made you sinless.

You wrote"My life now is being homeless and preaching the only true gospel in this world. God forced me from every worldly desire I had and then changed my DNA to make sure I wouldn't go back to those desires. Without the sin of lust, a saint doesn't have any desire for sex so he becomes a eunuch. "

And here is how you lost your pride.

You wrote:". He removed my lust about three years ago (2008) and my pride went at the same time."

So what did you replace your prude and impotency with?

Brad wrote:"The desire God put into my heart and mind to preach is so strong that it's the only thing I want to do. I preach wherever I'm accepted until I get banned. I've been banned from many forums in the past six months and before that, I only preached in MySpace where it's almost impossible to be banned. "

Other handicaps your struggled with.
Brad wrote:" My memory wasn't any good from drinking at such a young age that I couldn't remember one verse in the Bible the whole time I was a Christian. So I wasn't cut out to be a preacher or pastor. "

Brad wrote:"My English skills in writing and speaking are about the fourth grade level, although I was a terrific speller back then. I've gotten bad at that, also, and now I look up words on Google for spelling purposes. "

No one can blame you for wanting a new body and mind.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 10:16:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
kasmic
Posts: 1,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 10:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:39:05 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on the correct definition of "cult". The definitions appear to have changed greatly from their origins to conveniently accommodate the modern prejudices and hypocrisies of religious fundamentalists.

Any dictionary will do, but I favor the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers the following definition:

cult, n.

Etymology: < (i) Middle French, French culte, "cult religious homage paid to a divine being or saint (1570), body of practices used to worship God (1592), veneration of a particular person or thing (1690).

1. The action or an act of paying reverential homage to a divine being; religious worship. Now rare.

In later use chiefly in historical or anthropological contexts.

2.
a. A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Freq. with of or modifying word.

Chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts.ancestor, cargo, rain, river cult, etc.: see the first element.

b. A relatively small group of people having (esp. religious) beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members.

3. In extended use: a collective obsession with or intense admiration for a particular person, thing, or idea.

Phrases

cult of personality: a collective obsession with, or intense, excessive, or uncritical admiration for, a particular public figure, esp. a political leader; the instigation of such an obsession; cf. personality cult n. at personality n. and adj. Compounds 2.Freq. associated with totalitarian leaders (esp. Stalin) and their idealized portrayal by means of propaganda, manipulation of the mass media, etc.

The site requires registration, so I'm not sure this will work, but here's the link: http://www.oed.com...

As can be seen from the etymology, 'cult' was once applied to any form of worship, including that of God. But in this post, we will concentrate on definition 2. b. You will note that it begins with "A relatively small group of people..." Right away, we see that religious fundamentalists are incorrect, because they point accusing fingers at religions with millions of members. The definition ends with "...practices regarded by others as strange or sinister, or as exercising excessive control over members". The word I would like to focus on in that line is "regarded", which is another way of saying, "in someone's opinion", as opposed to "established fact".

Nearly all religions, (most notably, Protestants), point at any other religion that doesn't believe or practice their particular doctrine, and accuse them of being a cult. Because any religious practice or belief not recognized by their particular religion is most certainly "strange or sinister." Therefore, all who accuse others of being a cult are hypocrites, because they are also, by their own definition, a cult through the eyes of differing beliefs. It does not matter that their religious practices are not strange and sinister to themselves. As long as they are strange and sinister to others, they belong to a cult. If those who belong to a cult are condemned to hell, then basically everyone is doomed.

I feel obliged to point out that those religions that are highest on the Protestants' cult list (which I'll leave unmentioned [Google it if you're curious]) do not appear to reciprocate with accusatory fingers. They seem to have an attitude of "Believe and let believe." It's a shame the Protestants can't share that attitude.

I could go on about "brainwashing" etc, but this is already too lengthy, so I'll probably address all that, which will most likely show up in the responses that disagree with this post, if I need to. However, I would like to make it clear that I realize that there can be "cult" attitudes in "non-cult" religions. The example given in another post about a man abusing his daughter while quoting from the Bible is sufficient proof of that. But loose cannons do not make an entire church a cult.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that it is a very rare religion that can be called a cult. The word, over all, is horribly, ignorantly, and commonly misused.

I made a dinky video about this some time ago...

https://www.youtube.com...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 6:04:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.

to my knowledge only the lds and Jw's expect you to go door to door and keep an account of who and when you visited, like a time sheet really...

only the lds and Jw's rely on teaching books outside of the bible claiming only their books will help you understand...

Only the jw's and lds practice shunning on members who leave or are disfellowshipped..

for these reasons I would consider them cults...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 6:24:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 6:04:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.

to my knowledge only the lds and Jw's expect you to go door to door and keep an account of who and when you visited, like a time sheet really...

I'm not sure about the JW's , But the LDS members have what is called Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching, where they visit assigned families to ensure they are doing well. Families may opt not to be visited without being shunned. I used to do the same thing for the Church of the Nazarene in Hawthorne, California, and then report to the pastor. Does that make them a cult?

only the lds and Jw's rely on teaching books outside of the bible claiming only their books will help you understand...

The JW's altered their Bible a bit, but the LDS read the KJV Bible, and the Book of Mormon is called another testament of Christ, not the only testament of Christ. LDS believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Only the jw's and lds practice shunning on members who leave or are disfellowshipped..

I don't know any members disfellowshipped from the JW's except MCB, but I do have a neighbor who was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He still attends meetings each week, and I have met the leaders from his ward who have come to see how he is progressing on several occasions. They even paid his mortgage once. Oh yea, he's horribly shunned.

for these reasons I would consider them cults...

That's because your own cult has brainwashed you into believing such nonsense.

Don't you get tired of talking like the Sadduccees and Pharisees? Your attitude is severely unChristian, which is why it is so ironic that fundamentalists like you tell me I'm not Christian.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 6:29:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 6:24:07 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:04:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.

to my knowledge only the lds and Jw's expect you to go door to door and keep an account of who and when you visited, like a time sheet really...

I'm not sure about the JW's , But the LDS members have what is called Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching, where they visit assigned families to ensure they are doing well. Families may opt not to be visited without being shunned. I used to do the same thing for the Church of the Nazarene in Hawthorne, California, and then report to the pastor. Does that make them a cult?

only the lds and Jw's rely on teaching books outside of the bible claiming only their books will help you understand...

The JW's altered their Bible a bit, but the LDS read the KJV Bible, and the Book of Mormon is called another testament of Christ, not the only testament of Christ. LDS believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Only the jw's and lds practice shunning on members who leave or are disfellowshipped..

I don't know any members disfellowshipped from the JW's except MCB, but I do have a neighbor who was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He still attends meetings each week, and I have met the leaders from his ward who have come to see how he is progressing on several occasions. They even paid his mortgage once. Oh yea, he's horribly shunned.

for these reasons I would consider them cults...

That's because your own cult has brainwashed you into believing such nonsense.

Don't you get tired of talking like the Sadduccees and Pharisees? Your attitude is severely unChristian, which is why it is so ironic that fundamentalists like you tell me I'm not Christian.

both the lds and Jw's have time sheets for their door to door activities..

shunning is well known in both the lds and jw's , it includes not talking or associating with the disfellowshipped person if you are still an "active" member of the cult..

the jw's altered their bible to omit any deity of Jesus...

the book of mormon and their other pieces of made up writings take authority over the bible ...

both cults add extra doctrines to the bible, making them dangerous...

you know nothing about me, I am actually saved by Grace, i am not lawful and never will be....
Bless you...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 6:41:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 6:29:56 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:24:07 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:04:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.

to my knowledge only the lds and Jw's expect you to go door to door and keep an account of who and when you visited, like a time sheet really...

I'm not sure about the JW's , But the LDS members have what is called Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching, where they visit assigned families to ensure they are doing well. Families may opt not to be visited without being shunned. I used to do the same thing for the Church of the Nazarene in Hawthorne, California, and then report to the pastor. Does that make them a cult?

only the lds and Jw's rely on teaching books outside of the bible claiming only their books will help you understand...

The JW's altered their Bible a bit, but the LDS read the KJV Bible, and the Book of Mormon is called another testament of Christ, not the only testament of Christ. LDS believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Only the jw's and lds practice shunning on members who leave or are disfellowshipped..

I don't know any members disfellowshipped from the JW's except MCB, but I do have a neighbor who was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He still attends meetings each week, and I have met the leaders from his ward who have come to see how he is progressing on several occasions. They even paid his mortgage once. Oh yea, he's horribly shunned.

for these reasons I would consider them cults...

That's because your own cult has brainwashed you into believing such nonsense.

Don't you get tired of talking like the Sadduccees and Pharisees? Your attitude is severely unChristian, which is why it is so ironic that fundamentalists like you tell me I'm not Christian.

both the lds and Jw's have time sheets for their door to door activities..

I live among the Latter-day Saints, and I know that is absolutely untrue. But the burden of proof is on you, feel free to prove it.

shunning is well known in both the lds and jw's , it includes not talking or associating with the disfellowshipped person if you are still an "active" member of the cult..

I just provided proof of that being untrue. But feel free to provide proof that it is true.

the jw's altered their bible to omit any deity of Jesus...

That's probably true.

the book of mormon and their other pieces of made up writings take authority over the bible ...

Untrue. They consider the Book of Mormon more correct than the Bible, but not more authoritative than the Bible.

both cults add extra doctrines to the bible, making them dangerous...

The LDS offer what they believe are inspired corrections to the Bible, but added no doctrine. I don't know about the JW's. But considering how wrong you've been about the LDS, I strongly doubt you're correct about the JW's.

you know nothing about me, I am actually saved by Grace, i am not lawful and never will be....

I know what you post here, and I know you keep spouting lies, and liars aren't saved, with our without Grace.

Bless you...

I don't need blessings from a hypocrite.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 6:54:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 6:41:19 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:29:56 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:24:07 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:04:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:33:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I don't think their is any reason to discount a religion out of the term cult, jw's and lds do exert great control and pressure over their members...

I have been to both of those religions, and am well acquainted with people from the LDS religion, so I know that is not even remotely true. The fact that both religions have hundreds of ex-members is enough to show that those religions do not exert "great control and pressure." The three pastors I knew from the Church of the Nazarene, and two others from the Southern Baptists exercised a great deal more control over their congregation (especially the youth) than any LDS or JW leader I met.

to my knowledge only the lds and Jw's expect you to go door to door and keep an account of who and when you visited, like a time sheet really...

I'm not sure about the JW's , But the LDS members have what is called Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching, where they visit assigned families to ensure they are doing well. Families may opt not to be visited without being shunned. I used to do the same thing for the Church of the Nazarene in Hawthorne, California, and then report to the pastor. Does that make them a cult?

only the lds and Jw's rely on teaching books outside of the bible claiming only their books will help you understand...

The JW's altered their Bible a bit, but the LDS read the KJV Bible, and the Book of Mormon is called another testament of Christ, not the only testament of Christ. LDS believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Only the jw's and lds practice shunning on members who leave or are disfellowshipped..

I don't know any members disfellowshipped from the JW's except MCB, but I do have a neighbor who was disfellowshipped from the LDS Church. He still attends meetings each week, and I have met the leaders from his ward who have come to see how he is progressing on several occasions. They even paid his mortgage once. Oh yea, he's horribly shunned.

for these reasons I would consider them cults...

That's because your own cult has brainwashed you into believing such nonsense.

Don't you get tired of talking like the Sadduccees and Pharisees? Your attitude is severely unChristian, which is why it is so ironic that fundamentalists like you tell me I'm not Christian.

both the lds and Jw's have time sheets for their door to door activities..

I live among the Latter-day Saints, and I know that is absolutely untrue. But the burden of proof is on you, feel free to prove it.

shunning is well known in both the lds and jw's , it includes not talking or associating with the disfellowshipped person if you are still an "active" member of the cult..

I just provided proof of that being untrue. But feel free to provide proof that it is true.

the jw's altered their bible to omit any deity of Jesus...

That's probably true.

the book of mormon and their other pieces of made up writings take authority over the bible ...

Untrue. They consider the Book of Mormon more correct than the Bible, but not more authoritative than the Bible.

both cults add extra doctrines to the bible, making them dangerous...

The LDS offer what they believe are inspired corrections to the Bible, but added no doctrine. I don't know about the JW's. But considering how wrong you've been about the LDS, I strongly doubt you're correct about the JW's.

you know nothing about me, I am actually saved by Grace, i am not lawful and never will be....

I know what you post here, and I know you keep spouting lies, and liars aren't saved, with our without Grace.

Bless you...

I don't need blessings from a hypocrite.

lol..you live among the lds, are you lds??

have you not seen the cards they carry with info of where they have been and for how long, do yu not know they must give testimony of the truth of jo smith so many times a day, you'll be saying they don't were magic pants next..lol

I have seen shunning and disfellowshipping, if you would like to go on any exmormon or ex jw sites they will all explain how it works, including the made up stories by some to make them look like terrible people when they had just simply begun to question the lds or Jw's...

the jw's and lds have doctrines which are not biblical...

the lds add all sorts of things to doctrines, including temple marriage or you cannot be saved, actually jo smith said you must be married several times to be saved but hey he made it up as he went along...

becoming gods when you die as an lds doctrine...

god was a man before he was god is another classic from the lds..

and god had sex with mary to get jesus is another lds classic..

the list goes on ...

certainly the lds is a cult...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:18:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 6:54:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:

lol..you live among the lds, are you lds??

No, I'm Kyle the Heretic.

have you not seen the cards they carry with info of where they have been and for how long, do yu not know they must give testimony of the truth of jo smith so many times a day, you'll be saying they don't were magic pants next..lol

No such cards exist. But feel free to show me one. I have been with them many times, many days, all day long. No such testimonies were given during that time. They wear what are called "garments", not "magic pants". How incredibly rude and unChristian you can be.

I have seen shunning and disfellowshipping, if you would like to go on any exmormon or ex jw sites they will all explain how it works, including the made up stories by some to make them look like terrible people when they had just simply begun to question the lds or Jw's...

I'll venture to say that you have seen no such thing. You wouldn't go near a Mormon. You have simply read the lies that are spread on anti-Mormon sites and by other hypocrites like you. I, on the other hand, have already related a personal observation, that contradicts your lies. There is a member of this site (kasmic) who was LDS, who is now an atheist. He still attends meetings with his family. How is that being shunned?

the jw's and lds have doctrines which are not biblical...

The Bible contradicts itself. One of those contradictions must not be Biblical. Should we condemn the Bible?

the lds add all sorts of things to doctrines, including temple marriage or you cannot be saved, actually jo smith said you must be married several times to be saved but hey he made it up as he went along...

Because such doctrine fails to meet with your approval, it must be false? Funny, our Savior had the same problem with the Sadduccees and Pharisees. And just for the record, there is no Mormon doctrine about having to be married several times to be saved. But feel free to show me otherwise.

becoming gods when you die as an lds doctrine...

Partly true. The LDS believe that the obedient will inherit all that the Father has. But then, that's in the Bible; heirs and joint heirs with Christ.

god was a man before he was god is another classic from the lds..

And how do you know He wasn't ?

and god had sex with mary to get jesus is another lds classic..

Untrue. But again, feel free to prove otherwise.

the list goes on ...

The list of ignorant lies? Why yes, yes it does.

You keep spouting nonsense as if simply saying it makes it true, but you have proved not a shred of it. Again, that is something for which the Sadduccess and Pharisees were notorious, and our Savoir repeatedly condemned for hypocrisy.

certainly the lds is a cult...

No, clearly you are the cult, as you believe it to be.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:58:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:18:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 8/1/2015 6:54:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:

lol..you live among the lds, are you lds??

No, I'm Kyle the Heretic.

have you not seen the cards they carry with info of where they have been and for how long, do yu not know they must give testimony of the truth of jo smith so many times a day, you'll be saying they don't were magic pants next..lol

No such cards exist. But feel free to show me one. I have been with them many times, many days, all day long. No such testimonies were given during that time. They wear what are called "garments", not "magic pants". How incredibly rude and unChristian you can be.

I have seen shunning and disfellowshipping, if you would like to go on any exmormon or ex jw sites they will all explain how it works, including the made up stories by some to make them look like terrible people when they had just simply begun to question the lds or Jw's...

I'll venture to say that you have seen no such thing. You wouldn't go near a Mormon. You have simply read the lies that are spread on anti-Mormon sites and by other hypocrites like you. I, on the other hand, have already related a personal observation, that contradicts your lies. There is a member of this site (kasmic) who was LDS, who is now an atheist. He still attends meetings with his family. How is that being shunned?

the jw's and lds have doctrines which are not biblical...

The Bible contradicts itself. One of those contradictions must not be Biblical. Should we condemn the Bible?

the lds add all sorts of things to doctrines, including temple marriage or you cannot be saved, actually jo smith said you must be married several times to be saved but hey he made it up as he went along...

Because such doctrine fails to meet with your approval, it must be false? Funny, our Savior had the same problem with the Sadduccees and Pharisees. And just for the record, there is no Mormon doctrine about having to be married several times to be saved. But feel free to show me otherwise.

becoming gods when you die as an lds doctrine...

Partly true. The LDS believe that the obedient will inherit all that the Father has. But then, that's in the Bible; heirs and joint heirs with Christ.

god was a man before he was god is another classic from the lds..

And how do you know He wasn't ?

and god had sex with mary to get jesus is another lds classic..

Untrue. But again, feel free to prove otherwise.

the list goes on ...

The list of ignorant lies? Why yes, yes it does.

You keep spouting nonsense as if simply saying it makes it true, but you have proved not a shred of it. Again, that is something for which the Sadduccess and Pharisees were notorious, and our Savoir repeatedly condemned for hypocrisy.

certainly the lds is a cult...

No, clearly you are the cult, as you believe it to be.

lol i could post a whole load of lds writings that have shown them up for what they are but I know the lds answers...

excuse no 1 that was just a leaders opinion...

no2 exxcuse that was never official doctrine...lol

a true cult in motion...

do they not believe good was a man before he was god?? are you sure..
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:40:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 7:58:13 AM, graceofgod wrote:

lol i could post a whole load of lds writings that have shown them up for what they are but I know the lds answers...

You have clearly shown that you know nothing. You just make it up as you go along to accommodate your ignorance. Then you miserably fail to provide even a wisp of proof. A common fundamentalist tactic.

excuse no 1 that was just a leaders opinion...

Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker were both adulterers. According to your logic, all Christian fundamentalists should be accused of adultery, since we must blame an entire religion for the actions of a few, much less the opinion of one. More hypocrisy.

no2 exxcuse that was never official doctrine...lol

Well gee, I wonder what would happen if you actually quoted official Mormon doctrine instead of one man's personal opinion. You are a true example of someone who just doesn't get it.

a true cult in motion...

No, just another example of fundamentalist ignorance in motion.

do they not believe good was a man before he was god?? are you sure..

Well gee, let's see. Christ is God, and Christ was a man. I do believe that's called a no brainer.

Be grateful that your imaginary Hell doesn't exist. Because of it did, you would certainly be heading there.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.