If memory serves, TWI used to wear the cult label proudly. They said it was the word "sect" in the bible - used of the body of believers of the time.
Acts 5:17  ¶Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Acts 15:5 Â But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 24:5 Â For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Acts 26:5 Â Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 28:22 Â But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Sect
(Gr. hairesis, usually rendered "heresy", Acts 24:14; 1 Chr. 11:19; Gal. 5:20, etc.). meaning properly "a choice," then "a chosen manner of life," and then "a religious party," as the "sect" of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), of the Pharisees (15:5), the Nazarenes, ie., Christians (24:5). It afterwards came to be used in a bad sense, of those holding pernicious error, divergent forms of belief (2 Pet. 2:1, Gal. 5:20).
I think most people on this site use the word cult in the sense of a group that is destructive to its own members, which many of us experienced.
To use the word cult in the sense of--you don't believe my truth, so you are in a cult ( or in a false religion, wrong god etc) is a power play, coercion by fear method to try to sway someone to a different theology.
That it is used by Christians against other Christians is a sad fact, and in my opinion, the great flaw of Christianity--My way or the Highway is all too ingrained, leading to so much division --not differences that are tolerated-- but actual division.
One would think that an all knowing all loving diety could have made things a little more clear. Or maybe he just thinks other things than theology are what is important, and thinks it IS obvious.
One would think that an all knowing all loving diety could have made things a little more clear. Or maybe he just thinks other things than theology are what is important, and thinks it IS obvious.
Bramble, other than saying things like God is love, Father, Creator, the Great Spirit, He so loved that he gave His only begotten Son, I don't think we can define God. Giving attributes IS one way of defining, but we can't define God in the sense of assigning him to a class or species. We can't delineate His form for He has no form. Even He can't define Himdself to us in those terms. He inhabits eternity. Doesn't help much by way of a clear definition.
I suppose God figures it is sufficient that we can know the love of Christ that passes knowledge and be filled with the fulness of God. Any attempt by man's theology to define God is IMO the height of hubris. He is God after all. Can't put Him in a box and market him; although, churches have been saying they are doing that as long as there have been churches I suppose. Pshaw!
I believe that Tom pointed out that this 'unanimous' belief of Jesus was not always unanimous. In fact they had a meeting and a vote and conveniently held the vote when most of the opposing faction could not be present. Once they had come to a conclusion and 'voted' in their version of Jesus they summarily shunned, ostricated and often killed the remaining members of the opposition. You might also find it interesting to know that there was more than one faction that in fact did not believe that Jesus was God. So you see Christianity did not always have the 'same' Jesus of which you speak.
The Arians were a huge "faction" up until the time of Charlemagne (c.800AD?); it is arguable that it was Charlemagne's support of the Roman heirarchy that put the nail in the Arian coffin.
Bramble, other than saying things like God is love, Father, Creator, the Great Spirit, He so loved that he gave His only begotten Son, I don't think we can define God. Giving attributes IS one way of defining, but we can't define God in the sense of assigning him to a class or species. We can't delineate His form for He has no form. Even He can't define Himdself to us in those terms. He inhabits eternity. Doesn't help much by way of a clear definition.
I suppose God figures it is sufficient that we can know the love of Christ that passes knowledge and be filled with the fulness of God. Any attempt by man's theology to define God is IMO the height of hubris. He is God after all. Can't put Him in a box and market him; although, churches have been saying they are doing that as long as there have been churches I suppose. Pshaw!
Giving your son for other people...that just isn't something that admirable, IMO. Speaking as an unbeliever in the Creation story/Fall of Man/need for a Savior.
What culture in the entire world would revere a parent that gave up their child instead them self? That theology right there is a good plug for the trinity--because it only seems loving when you view Jesus as god, when the sacrifice was all his to make.
But I agree with you on man's attempt to define God(or diety, in my theology). I don't think we are spiritually mature enough to have a real understanding. We just have glimpses.
The Arians were a huge "faction" up until the time of Charlemagne (c.800AD?); it is arguable that it was Charlemagne's support of the Roman heirarchy that put the nail in the Arian coffin.
You are correct the Arians were one of the 'factions' that were part of the church in the second through fourth centuries and beyond but they stopped being quite so vocal after the death of Constantine who was an Arian follower for most of his life, rather he favored the Arian interpretation only actually 'becoming' a Christian on his death bed. He ran interferrence for them quite often. Before that Bishop Arian and a huge coalition of his followers were in and around Alexandria preparing for their big meeting in Rome where they would meet with the orthodox faction so that they could vote. Something conveniently delayed them and the orthodox faction did not wait in fact they held that particular vote first.
This subterfuge caused a huge rift in the already divided church as the Arians didnt take it lying down. But as I said they lost a lot of support when they lost Constantine. And not long after his death public opinion turned against them sharply when the Nicean creed was 'enforced'; anyone professing anything other than what it said were considered heretics and subject to execution.
This however did not slow down the Gnostics who also worked from within the Catholic church but they were quite a bit sneekier than the vocal Arians. But in the end they had to run for their lives and ended up burying most of their major books in a jar in the desert to preseve them from the fires and book burnings that Rome was sponsoring.
What culture in the entire world would revere a parent that gave up their child instead them self? That theology right there is a good plug for the trinity--because it only seems loving when you view Jesus as god, when the sacrifice was all his to make.
I can truly understand the logic behind this statement and on the surface I can agree with it. But I think that the fact that Jesus gave his life freely as a sacrifice was a true statement of his love for those that he did not know. The fact that his Father stood by and allowed him to do so without wigging out shows me how much he loved and trusted his son. Not to mention the fact that God is God and he can raise anyone from the dead. So he really had nothing to worry about. The fact that Jesus walked out on a limb knowing that he could die forever makes him a more real savior to me. To think that he was really God and wasnt really risking anything because God can't die...just has never worked for me.
I was looking for other 'cults' that taught Jesus as something other than God. I found this:
If you study the O.T., you will find the one act that abhorred God above all others was human sacrifice. Israel often disobeyed God in allowing those of other nations within their midst. In fact, God even set up parameters for when and how to do so, and Moses himself was married to someone of another nation. God even set up paramenters for animal sacrafice (to meet the human need to worship via sacrafice and not God's need for a sacrafice).
But when God got really ticked off, it was when Israel began following after those who practiced human sacrifice. So, I find the notion that God practiced human sacrifice a bit difficult to believe.
Giving your son for other people...that just isn't something that admirable, IMO. Speaking as an unbeliever in the Creation story/Fall of Man/need for a Savior.
What culture in the entire world would revere a parent that gave up their child instead them self? That theology right there is a good plug for the trinity--because it only seems loving when you view Jesus as god, when the sacrifice was all his to make.
But I agree with you on man's attempt to define God(or diety, in my theology). I don't think we are spiritually mature enough to have a real understanding. We just have glimpses.
Interesting, Bramble – I never thought of Jesus' sacrifice from that Trinity angle…I don't have a point here or anything to do with our topic – but – you've got me thinking about our attempts to define God/deity. I believe in the deity of Jesus and that man was created in the image of God. As you said, what culture would revere a parent who sacrifices their child over themselves? But I do think most folks admire that self-sacrifice quality of heroes who have given their lives for a noble cause.
And that makes me think of the years TWI drummed into my head such arrogant ideas as unbelievers being nothing more than animals or empties floating by…Well, I've changed that tune somewhat…Yeah – we're ALL bozos on the same bus…all fallen creatures. But I believe we ALLstill bear the image of God. That's part of what makes us human. Howbeit, every facet of our being has been impacted by sin, even the image of God.
Ok…now feeling guilty for rambling off topic…but I'm pinning the blame on Bramble's thought provoking post - just kiddin'….thanks! :) How about I try to meld it into the end of my post # 22, by saying I think good religions and belief systems serve to improve, enhance & enlighten the individual – validating our humanity. Imho, people were created in the image of God. The admirable qualities of man testify to this and in a way provide a small glimpse of God.
BTW--- Has anyone other than VPW used anti-Trinitarian views as a defining criteria?
Uhhmmm, Geisha did, ... along with a lot of churches that make the Trinity a central part of cult-definition. Please see the links provided by Eyesopen.
And as to the dictionary meaning of the term 'cult', I distinctly remember when the dictionary defined the term to mean "A group of people who follow a person or thing. A belief system." ... Absolutely NO indication of whether or not it was according to any true or false beliefs. Ie., neutral in scope.
Ie., something which has become a loaded term since then. ... Loaded term, ... as in loading the terminology, ... something that 'mind control cults' do ...
Garth, I agree, the word "cult has become a loaded term, a pejorative; it was not always so, but today, when most people use the word "cult", they usually mean something negative, whether they come at it from theology or practice.
Easton's Bible Dictionary says the word cult "afterwards came to be used in a bad sense, of those holding pernicious error, divergent forms of belief, "but when he say's "afterwards," he is referring to 2 Pet. 2:1 & Gal. 5:20 where the word for sect or cult is the Greek hairesis, translated heresy.
A Yet Another Term that has become deliberately loaded from its original meaning, as 'hairesis' once meant 'to think differently', or 'a school of thought', along those lines. (The following quote from this link:)
HERESY - "In ancient Greek, the verb 'hairein,' meaning 'to take,' gave rise to the adjective 'hairetos' 'able to choose' and the noun 'hairesis' 'the act of choosing.' In time the noun developed the extended senses of 'a choice,' 'a course of action,' 'a school of thought,' and 'a philosophical or religious sect.' Stoicism, for example, was a 'hairesis.'
Within Judaism, a 'heresy' (our modern English equivalent and derivative of 'hairesis') was a religious faction, part, or sect, such as the Pharisees or Sadducees. Applied to such groups, 'hairesis' was used in a neutral, nonpejorative manner. In fact, when this Greek noun is used in the New Testament, it is usually translated as 'sect.' When the prosecutor Tertullus charged St. Paul with being the ringleader of 'the sect of the Nazarenes,' implying that Christianity was simply another party within Judaism, Paul responded: 'But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God.' (Acts 24:14, Douay)
When St. Paul used the term 'hairesis' in a Christian context, its meaning was pejorative, designating a splinter group within the Christian community that threatened the unity of the Church. By the end of the second century, 'haeresis' (the Latin equivalent) was being applied to an organized body holding a false or sacrilegious doctrine. From this use it took on the sense of 'a body of doctrine substantially differing in some aspect from the doctrine taught by the Church.' In the early centuries of the Church such heresies included Arianism, Donatism, Nestorianism, Manichaeism, Monophysitism, and Pelagianism, among others. Their adherents were often punished by excommunication.In Chaucer's time the noun began to take on nonecclesiastical use, being applied to any dissenting opinion, belief, or doctrine in any field.
"Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories" Merriam-Webster, Springfield, Mass., 1991)
Amazing how this differs from the oversimplified and distorted current meaning of 'heresy'.
You are correct the Arians were one of the 'factions' that were part of the church in the second through fourth centuries and beyond but they stopped being quite so vocal after the death of Constantine who was an Arian follower for most of his life, rather he favored the Arian interpretation only actually 'becoming' a Christian on his death bed.
Actually, Constantine's involvement with the doctrinal dispute between the Trinitarians and Arians was purely political in nature. Ie., the man was endeavoring to continue to build his power base. But in any event, during the Council of Nicea, he was squarely on the side of the Trinitarians, ... again, mainly from the political position.
Giving your son for other people...that just isn't something that admirable, IMO. Speaking as an unbeliever in the Creation story/Fall of Man/need for a Savior.
What culture in the entire world would revere a parent that gave up their child instead them self? That theology right there is a good plug for the trinity--because it only seems loving when you view Jesus as god, when the sacrifice was all his to make.
Just wondering here for a moment, because I think that is a great question and thought.. But, now, if God did die.. I mean, he was really dead. Died for us. Completely. Gone. Poof... Umm.. Then there no longer is a living God, and how would he come back?! I mean, he did die then right?! Or maybe, we're not talking about a real death, just being fleshly wounded?!
To me, that's what comes to my mind that certainly makes the already mysterious Trinitarian logic, even more non-sensical. That one person of this multi-person entity which is considered 100% the entity God, dying one hundred percent, but then, not really, cause it was just the Son part, and umm yeah.. Well, anyways.. Maybe someone can help explain it??
I know I know.. It's a mystery... And human minds can't know God.. Which I don't doubt we can't know God fully. But umm, isn't the point of the scripture, in fact, isn't the reason Christ came, it says is to make God known!! To bring us to Him that we might know Him. That we might have a relationship with Him?
In fact, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that one big thing that separates Christianity/Judaism from all other 'religions? This isn't a "way of life". It is a relationship with a living GOD! You find me those who have real live and living relationships with their Creator, and that's someone who I want to know!!
(On a side note, I really am not talking about those who have relationships with the devil spirits.. Had an aunt that was a witch, an the stories that could be told.. Yeah, real power.. But umm, scary power! REAL SCARY!)
Perhaps the nature of a god's death, not being human, involves a rebirth or resurrection. Some humans believe human death is a step on the path to rebirth or resurrection back into human form.
*Shrug* I know some witches and Wiccans that have relationships with their dieties (goddess). I don't know any personally who are into causing harm and evil to others or being scary. Most of them believe that causing harm is wrong and will return to them three fold, since the one weilding the power is the one responsible.
Believe it or not, Wiccans have stories of deliverance, personal journeys that lead them to peace, too.
Most folks who believe in the Trinity also believe that the dead have a conscious existance, so God dying would not present a problem for them. Just as an ordinary person experiences death and "crosses over", still alive and aware in some fashion, a dying God would also experience the physical side of death, but never really cease to exist, at least in the lifeafter death scenario.
Bramble:
I also know quite a few folks who have personal relationships with gods and goddesses (some who consider the goddess the creator), but some of the ones that I know are kind of scary, but most aren't
Heehee. I do know a witchy gal( I live in a small town, so not many to know) who is mental and someone to not let too far into your life if you don't want drama--but I think her condition would be there whatever her religion!
Geisha, you never said what denomination or "church" you belonged. Some would say false doctrine is first step in the term cult/sect/heresy, followed by immoral behavior/attitude(rape, incest, monetary fraud, vocal threatenings, physical violence, murder) done by a "charismatic" leader. If Wierwille had been in his 20's, 30's as President of TWI, and definitely Martindale ending up doing the last 2 attitudes in front of others as intimidation by bullies, would they or Geer murdered the entire staff like Jones or Koresh but escaped by not commiting suicide? BTW, what has stopped your church and pastor from not repeating many of the same attitudes. As for John Juddes, I pm'ed him reminding that TWI and it's off-shoots aren't the only Unitarians. Check out my response on the Trinity discussion in this same doctrinal forum.
Most folks who believe in the Trinity also believe that the dead have a conscious existance, so God dying would not present a problem for them. Just as an ordinary person experiences death and "crosses over", still alive and aware in some fashion, a dying God would also experience the physical side of death, but never really cease to exist, at least in the lifeafter death scenario.
So what you are saying, or maybe I'm just not understanding you right, is that you believe most Trinitarians believe that you really don't die when you die but still have some sort of conscience and awareness which in reality means you're still alive?! I do realize many believe you go to heaven or hell, but I wouldn't have thought they might have the idea you never really died, just a mere mortal flesh wound that moved you to the "other side". Just seems to much like the old reincarnation type of belief to me..
Wonder, what's the point of God then if we all will live consciencely in the afterlife despite him.. Heck, those who didn't live for him now, won't then either!
Really makes death of no purpose then, or does it? So who cares if Christ died. Or anyone. The really didn't die anyways, they just took some pain!! And we all still live! Viva death!
*Shrug* I know some witches and Wiccans that have relationships with their dieties (goddess). I don't know any personally who are into causing harm and evil to others or being scary. Most of them believe that causing harm is wrong and will return to them three fold, since the one weilding the power is the one responsible.
Yeah, I know plenty of Wiccans thats are nice people.. But, then most Wiccans I know don't weild any "real" power anyways.. Imitation witches I call em.. Course, there's plenty more Imitation Christians tooo... lol.. Yeah, we all have em!
Nah, the real "witch" I knew, my aunt, no, that was a real one.. One who could bring the other side of power to any meeting if she thought you were trying to convert my uncle (who was a relative) to Christianity. You want lightning, here's lightening. You want sounds from beyond, how about out of body visibly seen and demons in physical form..
It was enough that my mother will have nothing more to do with Christianity in the "real" sense, and her eyes will show it every time I mention it. Real fear because of real power. Verses about "greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world" just don't cut it when it's just words on a page to you, especially when you've seen the "seven sons of sceva" happen in reality. It exists despite what any atheist or agnostic may think, and when you're then in the mix of it, it can be pretty scary..
So what you are saying, or maybe I'm just not understanding you right, is that you believe most Trinitarians believe that you really don't die when you die but still have some sort of conscience and awareness which in reality means you're still alive?!
Maybe I just don't get out much, but it seems to me that most people, trinitarian or not, Christian or not, believe in an afterlife of some sort, and a post-death consciousness. (I'm not advocating for or against, that just appears to be what folks believe). If I recall my early TWI days correctly, we sure seemed in the minority, believing that the dead were truly dead, with no consciousness or existance after death.
I do realize many believe you go to heaven or hell, but I wouldn't have thought they might have the idea you never really died, just a mere mortal flesh wound that moved you to the "other side". Just seems to much like the old reincarnation type of belief to me..
That's pretty much what I was referring to, the "dead" being conscious in heaven and hell according to most people's beliefs. (Was that a Monte Python reference?)
Wonder, what's the point of God then if we all will live consciencely in the afterlife despite him.. Heck, those who didn't live for him now, won't then either! Really makes death of no purpose then, or does it? So who cares if Christ died. Or anyone. The really didn't die anyways, they just took some pain!! And we all still live! Viva death!
A valid point IMHO, but I guess the point (in this belief system) would be to end up not being tortured in hell
Garth, thanks for both links. They're very informative and the one on Arians gives a less 'religiously' charged history. Puting the two together I may come up with something closer to the actual truth.
Maybe I just don't get out much, but it seems to me that most people, trinitarian or not, Christian or not, believe in an afterlife of some sort, and a post-death consciousness. (I'm not advocating for or against, that just appears to be what folks believe). If I recall my early TWI days correctly, we sure seemed in the minority, believing that the dead were truly dead, with no consciousness or existance after death.
Gotta admit the twi doctrine that the dead are dead really was a tough pill to swallow. But then again I was raised Roman Catholic and never really gave much thought to what I believed about the dead until twi brought it up. I'm still a bit torn on the subject, given the biblical references and all...
Back to the topic of whether it's actions or theology that makes a cult, I'm going to chime in with an opinion that it is by far more of the actions that concern me in that category of TWI than it is theology. (Although the topic diversion into the Trinity is interesting reading and I started another thread on it).
To me the controlling and abusive behavior is the crux of the issue as opposed to theology or viewpoints. They break down an individual's boundaries, personal and family freedoms, and substitute the "greater good" of the group for them. They have a viewpoint of "unity" and "one accord" meaning an unquestioning belief in and support of leaders who are governed by baser motives of political power and the furthering of the group for their own baser gains. There are so many stories of individual boundaries being crossed here on this site - of course the sexual predator stories are the most despicable, but the others are just as bad - dictating who someone can date, controlling making people move from where they are, whether they can own property, pets, controlling the number of children they can have, whether or not they can have a profession or not (even though some of those is just for their way corps). One big one is the shutting down of dissenting opinion. Rather than an open discussion, debate, and investing resources into a defining result, a very few in high places determine what they think and shut down all opposing views. The debt topic is one very clear example of that. A few in high places have determined their viewpoint. Opposing research is rejected and ignored, the leadership is required to teach on the party line quarterly, and participation in classes and leadership is hinged upon not having any debt including a baseline family mortgage. Top leaders were forced to sign a paper indicating their support of the issue for fear of losing their jobs. I'll tell you the times I've most felt like I was in a cult was when I was trying to explain to other Christians why it was I didn't own a house - all relegated to one marginal interpretation of a New Testament verse. And trying to explain to someone why leasing a car wasn't debt but purchasing one on a loan was. People would just look at me and say "why do you let some group tell you what to do like that?" I don't know.
To me TWI is a cult because you can look at the wasted trail of the destruction of lives behind their leaders operations. That hasn't changed over time. That is fruit. And fruit defines the tree.
I too agree with these statements--that is also what makes a cult. My point was the Christian definition of a cult--one like TWI claiming to be Christian, is their denial of basic doctrines central to Christianity--the trinity being a main one. I didn't make it up!! That is a fact. The reaction was so telling. Same as I gave in TWI.
To All others who asked me about this:
Here are just a few definitions from several websites defining cults. I could quote 100's but why bother? We in TWI set out to redefine the church. We can't. What makes Christianity are the central doctrines the Lord's Church adheres to. It defines us as Christian. One truth. If a group does not accept these basic tenents they are on the outside looking in and have to form their own group. They can call it whatever they like--Mormon--Jehova's Witness-Moonies--The Way--it is still a cult.
In the Way it is still the same argument--Arius and his doctrine. He was branded a heretic and the way is still called a cult--we just thought he was right. The church does not believe as he did or we did. That is the entire crux--boils down to the trinity. Same darn thing 100's of years later. Where is Arius? Where is The Way??
What should be so telling is the rest of the behavior of the Way--what you mentioned--it seems to go hand-in-hand with the breaking away of basic Christian doctrine. Perhaps there is a reason? Perhaps--just possibly there is a greater understanding of the nature of Jesus--that helps us in our Christian walk. That makes His name all the more sacred and precious and truly saves. Maybe they know something we didn't. Something to chew on at the very least.
I know I have for years and come to many different conclusions than I had in TWI.
BTW--my church is a non-denominational church--goes under a baptist banner--We have sister churches all over the PLANET--I align myself with teachers like Ravi Zacharias--Matt Chandler--RC Sproul--David Jeremiah--Josh McDowell-John Piper-and more-all trinitarians--all learned men--some of you might REALLY enjoy them. You don't have to believe every word out of their mouths as God breathed. We are capable in our own right of discernment.
BTWW I can't understand why this is still a dispute--we didn't like it then--but wore it as a badge of honor(The real truth don't ya know) Maybe they have had it all along?? These are all from different Christians--differing DENOMONATIONS--all the same definition.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
10
8
4
Popular Days
Aug 7
14
Aug 6
10
Aug 8
8
Aug 11
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
Oakspear 10 posts
geisha779 8 posts
Eyesopen 4 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2008
14 posts
Aug 6 2008
10 posts
Aug 8 2008
8 posts
Aug 11 2008
5 posts
Tom
If memory serves, TWI used to wear the cult label proudly. They said it was the word "sect" in the bible - used of the body of believers of the time.
Acts 5:17  ¶Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Acts 15:5 Â But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 24:5 Â For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Acts 26:5 Â Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Acts 28:22 Â But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Sect
(Gr. hairesis, usually rendered "heresy", Acts 24:14; 1 Chr. 11:19; Gal. 5:20, etc.). meaning properly "a choice," then "a chosen manner of life," and then "a religious party," as the "sect" of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17), of the Pharisees (15:5), the Nazarenes, ie., Christians (24:5). It afterwards came to be used in a bad sense, of those holding pernicious error, divergent forms of belief (2 Pet. 2:1, Gal. 5:20).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I think most people on this site use the word cult in the sense of a group that is destructive to its own members, which many of us experienced.
To use the word cult in the sense of--you don't believe my truth, so you are in a cult ( or in a false religion, wrong god etc) is a power play, coercion by fear method to try to sway someone to a different theology.
That it is used by Christians against other Christians is a sad fact, and in my opinion, the great flaw of Christianity--My way or the Highway is all too ingrained, leading to so much division --not differences that are tolerated-- but actual division.
One would think that an all knowing all loving diety could have made things a little more clear. Or maybe he just thinks other things than theology are what is important, and thinks it IS obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Bramble, other than saying things like God is love, Father, Creator, the Great Spirit, He so loved that he gave His only begotten Son, I don't think we can define God. Giving attributes IS one way of defining, but we can't define God in the sense of assigning him to a class or species. We can't delineate His form for He has no form. Even He can't define Himdself to us in those terms. He inhabits eternity. Doesn't help much by way of a clear definition.
I suppose God figures it is sufficient that we can know the love of Christ that passes knowledge and be filled with the fulness of God. Any attempt by man's theology to define God is IMO the height of hubris. He is God after all. Can't put Him in a box and market him; although, churches have been saying they are doing that as long as there have been churches I suppose. Pshaw!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Giving your son for other people...that just isn't something that admirable, IMO. Speaking as an unbeliever in the Creation story/Fall of Man/need for a Savior.
What culture in the entire world would revere a parent that gave up their child instead them self? That theology right there is a good plug for the trinity--because it only seems loving when you view Jesus as god, when the sacrifice was all his to make.
But I agree with you on man's attempt to define God(or diety, in my theology). I don't think we are spiritually mature enough to have a real understanding. We just have glimpses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You are correct the Arians were one of the 'factions' that were part of the church in the second through fourth centuries and beyond but they stopped being quite so vocal after the death of Constantine who was an Arian follower for most of his life, rather he favored the Arian interpretation only actually 'becoming' a Christian on his death bed. He ran interferrence for them quite often. Before that Bishop Arian and a huge coalition of his followers were in and around Alexandria preparing for their big meeting in Rome where they would meet with the orthodox faction so that they could vote. Something conveniently delayed them and the orthodox faction did not wait in fact they held that particular vote first.
This subterfuge caused a huge rift in the already divided church as the Arians didnt take it lying down. But as I said they lost a lot of support when they lost Constantine. And not long after his death public opinion turned against them sharply when the Nicean creed was 'enforced'; anyone professing anything other than what it said were considered heretics and subject to execution.
This however did not slow down the Gnostics who also worked from within the Catholic church but they were quite a bit sneekier than the vocal Arians. But in the end they had to run for their lives and ended up burying most of their major books in a jar in the desert to preseve them from the fires and book burnings that Rome was sponsoring.
I can truly understand the logic behind this statement and on the surface I can agree with it. But I think that the fact that Jesus gave his life freely as a sacrifice was a true statement of his love for those that he did not know. The fact that his Father stood by and allowed him to do so without wigging out shows me how much he loved and trusted his son. Not to mention the fact that God is God and he can raise anyone from the dead. So he really had nothing to worry about. The fact that Jesus walked out on a limb knowing that he could die forever makes him a more real savior to me. To think that he was really God and wasnt really risking anything because God can't die...just has never worked for me.
I was looking for other 'cults' that taught Jesus as something other than God. I found this:
http://www.eaec.org/cults/unitarianuniversalism.htm
http://contenderministries.org/unitarianuniv.php
http://www.charlestrombleyministries.com/J...the%20Cults.pdf
I also found this cute little ditty:
"A cult is a church down the street from your church." Anon
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
If you study the O.T., you will find the one act that abhorred God above all others was human sacrifice. Israel often disobeyed God in allowing those of other nations within their midst. In fact, God even set up parameters for when and how to do so, and Moses himself was married to someone of another nation. God even set up paramenters for animal sacrafice (to meet the human need to worship via sacrafice and not God's need for a sacrafice).
But when God got really ticked off, it was when Israel began following after those who practiced human sacrifice. So, I find the notion that God practiced human sacrifice a bit difficult to believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Interesting, Bramble – I never thought of Jesus' sacrifice from that Trinity angle…I don't have a point here or anything to do with our topic – but – you've got me thinking about our attempts to define God/deity. I believe in the deity of Jesus and that man was created in the image of God. As you said, what culture would revere a parent who sacrifices their child over themselves? But I do think most folks admire that self-sacrifice quality of heroes who have given their lives for a noble cause.
And that makes me think of the years TWI drummed into my head such arrogant ideas as unbelievers being nothing more than animals or empties floating by…Well, I've changed that tune somewhat…Yeah – we're ALL bozos on the same bus…all fallen creatures. But I believe we ALL still bear the image of God. That's part of what makes us human. Howbeit, every facet of our being has been impacted by sin, even the image of God.
Ok…now feeling guilty for rambling off topic…but I'm pinning the blame on Bramble's thought provoking post
- just kiddin'….thanks! :) How about I try to meld it into the end of my post # 22, by saying I think good religions and belief systems serve to improve, enhance & enlighten the individual – validating our humanity. Imho, people were created in the image of God. The admirable qualities of man testify to this and in a way provide a small glimpse of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Uhhmmm, Geisha did, ... along with a lot of churches that make the Trinity a central part of cult-definition. Please see the links provided by Eyesopen.
And as to the dictionary meaning of the term 'cult', I distinctly remember when the dictionary defined the term to mean "A group of people who follow a person or thing. A belief system." ... Absolutely NO indication of whether or not it was according to any true or false beliefs. Ie., neutral in scope.
Ie., something which has become a loaded term since then. ... Loaded term, ... as in loading the terminology, ... something that 'mind control cults' do ...
... Right?
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Garth, I agree, the word "cult has become a loaded term, a pejorative; it was not always so, but today, when most people use the word "cult", they usually mean something negative, whether they come at it from theology or practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Easton's Bible Dictionary says the word cult "afterwards came to be used in a bad sense, of those holding pernicious error, divergent forms of belief, "but when he say's "afterwards," he is referring to 2 Pet. 2:1 & Gal. 5:20 where the word for sect or cult is the Greek hairesis, translated heresy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Amazing how this differs from the oversimplified and distorted current meaning of 'heresy'.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, Constantine's involvement with the doctrinal dispute between the Trinitarians and Arians was purely political in nature. Ie., the man was endeavoring to continue to build his power base. But in any event, during the Council of Nicea, he was squarely on the side of the Trinitarians, ... again, mainly from the political position.
Check this source out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Just wondering here for a moment, because I think that is a great question and thought.. But, now, if God did die.. I mean, he was really dead. Died for us. Completely. Gone. Poof... Umm.. Then there no longer is a living God, and how would he come back?! I mean, he did die then right?! Or maybe, we're not talking about a real death, just being fleshly wounded?!
To me, that's what comes to my mind that certainly makes the already mysterious Trinitarian logic, even more non-sensical. That one person of this multi-person entity which is considered 100% the entity God, dying one hundred percent, but then, not really, cause it was just the Son part, and umm yeah.. Well, anyways.. Maybe someone can help explain it??
I know I know.. It's a mystery... And human minds can't know God.. Which I don't doubt we can't know God fully. But umm, isn't the point of the scripture, in fact, isn't the reason Christ came, it says is to make God known!! To bring us to Him that we might know Him. That we might have a relationship with Him?
In fact, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that one big thing that separates Christianity/Judaism from all other 'religions? This isn't a "way of life". It is a relationship with a living GOD! You find me those who have real live and living relationships with their Creator, and that's someone who I want to know!!
(On a side note, I really am not talking about those who have relationships with the devil spirits.. Had an aunt that was a witch, an the stories that could be told.. Yeah, real power.. But umm, scary power! REAL SCARY!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Perhaps the nature of a god's death, not being human, involves a rebirth or resurrection. Some humans believe human death is a step on the path to rebirth or resurrection back into human form.
*Shrug* I know some witches and Wiccans that have relationships with their dieties (goddess). I don't know any personally who are into causing harm and evil to others or being scary. Most of them believe that causing harm is wrong and will return to them three fold, since the one weilding the power is the one responsible.
Believe it or not, Wiccans have stories of deliverance, personal journeys that lead them to peace, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Most folks who believe in the Trinity also believe that the dead have a conscious existance, so God dying would not present a problem for them. Just as an ordinary person experiences death and "crosses over", still alive and aware in some fashion, a dying God would also experience the physical side of death, but never really cease to exist, at least in the lifeafter death scenario.
Bramble:
I also know quite a few folks who have personal relationships with gods and goddesses (some who consider the goddess the creator), but some of the ones that I know are kind of scary, but most aren't
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Heehee. I do know a witchy gal( I live in a small town, so not many to know) who is mental and someone to not let too far into your life if you don't want drama--but I think her condition would be there whatever her religion!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Geisha, you never said what denomination or "church" you belonged. Some would say false doctrine is first step in the term cult/sect/heresy, followed by immoral behavior/attitude(rape, incest, monetary fraud, vocal threatenings, physical violence, murder) done by a "charismatic" leader. If Wierwille had been in his 20's, 30's as President of TWI, and definitely Martindale ending up doing the last 2 attitudes in front of others as intimidation by bullies, would they or Geer murdered the entire staff like Jones or Koresh but escaped by not commiting suicide? BTW, what has stopped your church and pastor from not repeating many of the same attitudes. As for John Juddes, I pm'ed him reminding that TWI and it's off-shoots aren't the only Unitarians. Check out my response on the Trinity discussion in this same doctrinal forum.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
So what you are saying, or maybe I'm just not understanding you right, is that you believe most Trinitarians believe that you really don't die when you die but still have some sort of conscience and awareness which in reality means you're still alive?! I do realize many believe you go to heaven or hell, but I wouldn't have thought they might have the idea you never really died, just a mere mortal flesh wound that moved you to the "other side". Just seems to much like the old reincarnation type of belief to me..
Wonder, what's the point of God then if we all will live consciencely in the afterlife despite him.. Heck, those who didn't live for him now, won't then either!
Really makes death of no purpose then, or does it? So who cares if Christ died. Or anyone. The really didn't die anyways, they just took some pain!! And we all still live! Viva death!
Go ahead, eat the pineapple, you won't die!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yeah, I know plenty of Wiccans thats are nice people.. But, then most Wiccans I know don't weild any "real" power anyways.. Imitation witches I call em.. Course, there's plenty more Imitation Christians tooo... lol.. Yeah, we all have em!
Nah, the real "witch" I knew, my aunt, no, that was a real one.. One who could bring the other side of power to any meeting if she thought you were trying to convert my uncle (who was a relative) to Christianity. You want lightning, here's lightening. You want sounds from beyond, how about out of body visibly seen and demons in physical form..
It was enough that my mother will have nothing more to do with Christianity in the "real" sense, and her eyes will show it every time I mention it. Real fear because of real power. Verses about "greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world" just don't cut it when it's just words on a page to you, especially when you've seen the "seven sons of sceva" happen in reality. It exists despite what any atheist or agnostic may think, and when you're then in the mix of it, it can be pretty scary..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Garth, thanks for both links. They're very informative and the one on Arians gives a less 'religiously' charged history. Puting the two together I may come up with something closer to the actual truth.
Gotta admit the twi doctrine that the dead are dead really was a tough pill to swallow. But then again I was raised Roman Catholic and never really gave much thought to what I believed about the dead until twi brought it up. I'm still a bit torn on the subject, given the biblical references and all...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Back to the topic of whether it's actions or theology that makes a cult, I'm going to chime in with an opinion that it is by far more of the actions that concern me in that category of TWI than it is theology. (Although the topic diversion into the Trinity is interesting reading and I started another thread on it).
To me the controlling and abusive behavior is the crux of the issue as opposed to theology or viewpoints. They break down an individual's boundaries, personal and family freedoms, and substitute the "greater good" of the group for them. They have a viewpoint of "unity" and "one accord" meaning an unquestioning belief in and support of leaders who are governed by baser motives of political power and the furthering of the group for their own baser gains. There are so many stories of individual boundaries being crossed here on this site - of course the sexual predator stories are the most despicable, but the others are just as bad - dictating who someone can date, controlling making people move from where they are, whether they can own property, pets, controlling the number of children they can have, whether or not they can have a profession or not (even though some of those is just for their way corps). One big one is the shutting down of dissenting opinion. Rather than an open discussion, debate, and investing resources into a defining result, a very few in high places determine what they think and shut down all opposing views. The debt topic is one very clear example of that. A few in high places have determined their viewpoint. Opposing research is rejected and ignored, the leadership is required to teach on the party line quarterly, and participation in classes and leadership is hinged upon not having any debt including a baseline family mortgage. Top leaders were forced to sign a paper indicating their support of the issue for fear of losing their jobs. I'll tell you the times I've most felt like I was in a cult was when I was trying to explain to other Christians why it was I didn't own a house - all relegated to one marginal interpretation of a New Testament verse. And trying to explain to someone why leasing a car wasn't debt but purchasing one on a loan was. People would just look at me and say "why do you let some group tell you what to do like that?" I don't know.
To me TWI is a cult because you can look at the wasted trail of the destruction of lives behind their leaders operations. That hasn't changed over time. That is fruit. And fruit defines the tree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Chockful,
I too agree with these statements--that is also what makes a cult. My point was the Christian definition of a cult--one like TWI claiming to be Christian, is their denial of basic doctrines central to Christianity--the trinity being a main one. I didn't make it up!! That is a fact. The reaction was so telling. Same as I gave in TWI.
To All others who asked me about this:
Here are just a few definitions from several websites defining cults. I could quote 100's but why bother? We in TWI set out to redefine the church. We can't. What makes Christianity are the central doctrines the Lord's Church adheres to. It defines us as Christian. One truth. If a group does not accept these basic tenents they are on the outside looking in and have to form their own group. They can call it whatever they like--Mormon--Jehova's Witness-Moonies--The Way--it is still a cult.
In the Way it is still the same argument--Arius and his doctrine. He was branded a heretic and the way is still called a cult--we just thought he was right. The church does not believe as he did or we did. That is the entire crux--boils down to the trinity. Same darn thing 100's of years later. Where is Arius? Where is The Way??
What should be so telling is the rest of the behavior of the Way--what you mentioned--it seems to go hand-in-hand with the breaking away of basic Christian doctrine. Perhaps there is a reason? Perhaps--just possibly there is a greater understanding of the nature of Jesus--that helps us in our Christian walk. That makes His name all the more sacred and precious and truly saves. Maybe they know something we didn't. Something to chew on at the very least.
I know I have for years and come to many different conclusions than I had in TWI.
BTW--my church is a non-denominational church--goes under a baptist banner--We have sister churches all over the PLANET--I align myself with teachers like Ravi Zacharias--Matt Chandler--RC Sproul--David Jeremiah--Josh McDowell-John Piper-and more-all trinitarians--all learned men--some of you might REALLY enjoy them. You don't have to believe every word out of their mouths as God breathed. We are capable in our own right of discernment.
BTWW I can't understand why this is still a dispute--we didn't like it then--but wore it as a badge of honor(The real truth don't ya know) Maybe they have had it all along?? These are all from different Christians--differing DENOMONATIONS--all the same definition.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.