1. The most important red flag one should consider and the first question one should ask when considering a church or religious organization to become a part of is: Does this group believe in the Christian Orthodox Historical concept of The Trinity? If they do not, then run, do not walk, away from this organization.
I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"
Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?"
(Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10)
And then the next thing to ask is: "Do they confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead?"
Three yeses and you might be onto something.
If they don't do these things - run, do not walk, away from this organization. Or website, as the case may be.
What the heck is the Chjristian orthodox historical concept of anything?
Interesting. The Roman Catholic church is pretty much a major cult too, although it sounds like if I criticize them them I'm a cult-ee so it may be a no-win topic.
They actually fit all of the criteria - if you're a trinitarian who doesn't accept the RC doctrine as developed through Thomas Aquinas and widely accepted as foundational to their theological premise.
(then there's the fact that trying to get a finanacial report out of The Vatican on their world wide holdings, assets and income would be like trying to get the saw out of Noah's hand. Not to mention their uh.....expenses. )
But not to worry - I love RC's and have nothing bad to say about them. I like lying, dishonest, ped o philiac inclined, male dominated religions, run by men who will never marry in their lives and but who have the divine wisdom to advise everyone else on how to live their marriages and to have lots of babies that they can .... administer the sacraments too. I think that's just cool.
There's a lot of water under Aguinas and lots and LOTS of detail on it that can be considered, although nearly everyone who makes statements like that of this blog make very very broad general "believe it or something's wrong" declarations. In fact many trinitarians who are members of "good" churches and are not RC's will openly condemn them as pagan and satanic. Or maybe they're really not so good, dunno.
Guess it depends on how you view it.
It kinda bugs me. I'm not a theologian, have no dedicated span of research or inquiry academically that makes me an expert on trinitarian history and doctrine.
But I have studied it enough to be suspicious of anyone who says stuff like that blog.
In all likelihood what they actually believe is a very simple and thin slice of trinitarian doctrine based on what they were evangelized with and that they really don't understand and couldn't put together more than a paragraph on, if asked to explain it in detail.
"True" Christians and Trinitarians world wide will hound me for the infidel Hittite dog that I am and that I serve no purpose other than to deceive the faithful by suggest they don't know what they're talking about and that that's what faith's for.
I was brought up in the Methodist church, where it's often not clear what they believe. I do remember I was always taught that Jesus was the SON of God, not God, Himself, and that the Trinity was what 'the Catholics' believed. Yet they always sang the'doxology' , which praised Father, Son, and Holy Ghost', but don't ask me to explain it.
Still, based on that questionaire, the Methodist church fails the cult acid-test.
...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a paycheck selling God should be an exception to paying taxes. This church against that church isn't much different than coke versus pepsi or Republicans against Democrats...This was instilled in us when our high school football team was better than the rival town's team. Us versus them seems to be woven into the herd mentality.
...and what greater thrill is there to know that YOUR God is the true God...and the other guy is really worshipping some horned demon in disguise.
Truth is...most of these big time preachers are nothing more than carnival barkers hawking money. They lie through their teeth and they would steal Christ off the cross and come back for the nails...
But not to worry - I love RC's and have nothing bad to say about them. I like lying, dishonest, ped o philiac inclined, male dominated religions, run by men who will never marry in their lives and but who have the divine wisdom to advise everyone else on how to live their marriages and to have lots of babies that they can .... administer the sacraments too. I think that's just cool.
I love you Socks.. don't take it weird or anything..
sounds almost like a description of White House "occupees" ..
well. Almost. Usually they are married first..
then the other "virtues" come later..
Sorry.. it looks like its a rampant disease..
where do we go from here?
hmmmmmm. Maybe a new law.. "Politicians shall have no children."
sorry.. just a thought..
I would be satisfied with "no incumbents shall enter"..
and if the wonderful Greasespot machine will do its job, and merge this to my former post, I won't be raking in success of inflating number of posts..
I think where that article is very correct: (because I took stabs at what I disagreed with, I should note the agreement...)
I'd restate it differently but it covers the same ground as Mssr Groucho:
Within the Christian church are several functions that are high-visibility, at least we hear a lot about them- apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists.
Each requires some context to function within to validate them. I think a case can be made, biblically and logically, for that.
I shrivel (figuratively speaking) at the idea that a historically validated stamp of approval is required because historically the only thing that seems to be validated by denominations is a tendency towards divisive rebellion and greed. Somebody else is always wrong and somebody's always getting paid and usually pretty well. But there has to be some sort of standards and guidelines to govern social behavior.
The well being of the individual and by extension the group would be a primary concern I'd look for. Less the details of the doctrine and more the effort expended to promote health and well being amongst the membership.
Interestingly - pastoring is one of functions that gets very clear line item qualifiers listed in the N.T. epistles. The others do too, but the type of person that should have that job is clearly delineated.
A good pastor is one whose flock is healthy, cared for and tended to. Look at the flock, ask them about their pastor - you'll learn all you need to know about the shepherd.
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse.
A group does not necessarily have to have a religious bent to fit the criteria of a cult
Is the group leader self appointed, charismatic and domineering? It may be a cult.
Does the group have special, privileged knowledge that drives it to fulfill a special mission? It may be a cult.
Does the group dictate intricate details of how the members must speak, dress, think, and behave? It may be a cult.
Is the group inordinately focused on recruiting new members for the purpose of generating revenue? It may be a cult.
Does the group limit and/or discourage interaction outside the group unless said action benefits the group? It may be a cult.
Does the group have its own language, encourage members to think within a narrow set of parameters and reinforce a black/white, either/or mentality? It may be a cult.
A good pastor is one whose flock is healthy, cared for and tended to. Look at the flock, ask them about their pastor - you'll learn all you need to know about the shepherd.
Amen to that..and that includes my "sphere of influence"...As a manager of a retail store, I take a personal interest in all my employees...I do my best to treat each one with respect and concern for thir personal situations...I set the example of how I want them to work and then I treat them as friends...the resonse is great! The work place is a test of our faith and how we conduct ourslves....
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse.
Not really. Not when the Trinitarian doctrine particularly is considered a foundational pillar upon which valid faith relies.
Cult definitions tend to place high value on the "charismatic leader" aspects of a group, special revelations, rituals and secrecy. A man or woman and the group that revolves around that personality.
Many denominations have personalities, people that at one time formed it's early definitions. Christianity has Peter, Paul and a non-Christian could say Christ Himself who all meet the negative connotations of "cult leaders" and establish cult like behaviors and practices. Likewise an outsider's view of the RC Pope and Papal office even as it exists today.
Yet the one single dividing line that can not be crossed is in Jesus Christ is defined. In that regard I don't see the blogger's list as unusual at all, in fact it's pretty standard.
In a list of many qualities, if there was a Trinitarian view of Christ you could still have the accepted definition of a "cult" though I agree.
The problem with the term "cult" is that it isn't meaningful. A "cult" isn't illegal or wrong or bad on face value. It might be out of the norm, socially "weird" and outside the "mainstream" but without specific reference to that individual group it has no real moral or ethical violations attached.
Put another way, a crime isn't committed if no law is broken. Societies preferences aside.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
8
4
Popular Days
Oct 1
25
Oct 2
13
Oct 3
5
Aug 21
3
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 9 posts
Ham 14 posts
waysider 8 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 4 posts
Popular Days
Oct 1 2010
25 posts
Oct 2 2010
13 posts
Oct 3 2010
5 posts
Aug 21 2017
3 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
From Cheranne's link: I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?" (Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) And then the
GrouchoMarxJr
...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a pa
waysider
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse. A group does not necessarily have to have a religious bent to fit the criteria of a cult Is
outandabout
"This God is a God in three distinct persons, all a part of the same ONE God".
1+1+1 = 1 They lost me there.
Not that TWI wasn't a cult.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
From Cheranne's link:
I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?"
(Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10)
And then the next thing to ask is: "Do they confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead? "
Three yeses and you might be onto something.
If they don't do these things - run, do not walk, away from this organization. Or website, as the case may be.
What the heck is the Chjristian orthodox historical concept of anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Interesting. The Roman Catholic church is pretty much a major cult too, although it sounds like if I criticize them them I'm a cult-ee so it may be a no-win topic.
They actually fit all of the criteria - if you're a trinitarian who doesn't accept the RC doctrine as developed through Thomas Aquinas and widely accepted as foundational to their theological premise.
(then there's the fact that trying to get a finanacial report out of The Vatican on their world wide holdings, assets and income would be like trying to get the saw out of Noah's hand. Not to mention their uh.....expenses. )
But not to worry - I love RC's and have nothing bad to say about them. I like lying, dishonest, ped o philiac inclined, male dominated religions, run by men who will never marry in their lives and but who have the divine wisdom to advise everyone else on how to live their marriages and to have lots of babies that they can .... administer the sacraments too. I think that's just cool.
There's a lot of water under Aguinas and lots and LOTS of detail on it that can be considered, although nearly everyone who makes statements like that of this blog make very very broad general "believe it or something's wrong" declarations. In fact many trinitarians who are members of "good" churches and are not RC's will openly condemn them as pagan and satanic. Or maybe they're really not so good, dunno.
Guess it depends on how you view it.
It kinda bugs me. I'm not a theologian, have no dedicated span of research or inquiry academically that makes me an expert on trinitarian history and doctrine.
But I have studied it enough to be suspicious of anyone who says stuff like that blog.
In all likelihood what they actually believe is a very simple and thin slice of trinitarian doctrine based on what they were evangelized with and that they really don't understand and couldn't put together more than a paragraph on, if asked to explain it in detail.
"True" Christians and Trinitarians world wide will hound me for the infidel Hittite dog that I am and that I serve no purpose other than to deceive the faithful by suggest they don't know what they're talking about and that that's what faith's for.
So be it.
Arf.
Arf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I was brought up in the Methodist church, where it's often not clear what they believe. I do remember I was always taught that Jesus was the SON of God, not God, Himself, and that the Trinity was what 'the Catholics' believed. Yet they always sang the'doxology' , which praised Father, Son, and Holy Ghost', but don't ask me to explain it.
Still, based on that questionaire, the Methodist church fails the cult acid-test.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I always knew something was wrong with them highway. Always knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a paycheck selling God should be an exception to paying taxes. This church against that church isn't much different than coke versus pepsi or Republicans against Democrats...This was instilled in us when our high school football team was better than the rival town's team. Us versus them seems to be woven into the herd mentality.
...and what greater thrill is there to know that YOUR God is the true God...and the other guy is really worshipping some horned demon in disguise.
Truth is...most of these big time preachers are nothing more than carnival barkers hawking money. They lie through their teeth and they would steal Christ off the cross and come back for the nails...
I'm through with all of em...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Heh heh, funny, Groucho.
Never thought I'd agree with you on anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I would agree also, it's a tri fecta!
But still, the Methodists?
Wrong. Always knew they were wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"what if you found everything you believed was WRONG.."
somebody asked me that once..
its a life long spiritual journey for some. One is born, raised in some religion or another..
never sees outside of their little box..
what does one do when the box is burned.. go look for another box?
maybe try to find one that's *slightly* more fire retardant?
heh..
seems its been one stepping stone to an island of "wrongness" after another..
the funny thing about all of this..
I knew I was *wrong* all the time..
It's like.. if someone wants to say.. "you're nuts".. I'd whole-heartedly agree..
It might be *nuttiness*.. but there is a strange peace to it..
EVERYTHING is wrong. That's the whole point of participating in this life, isn't it?
everything is *perfect* on the other side..
or is it infinitely more intricate and competitive..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe the question should be.. in regards to "red flags".. do we wear our skins, or do our skins wear us..
I've met some Roman Catholics who have worn their skins well..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so you know da truth like it hasn't been known since day one..
you'd better wear it well..
pretty ambitious if you ask me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I love you Socks.. don't take it weird or anything..
sounds almost like a description of White House "occupees" ..
well. Almost. Usually they are married first..
then the other "virtues" come later..
Sorry.. it looks like its a rampant disease..
where do we go from here?
hmmmmmm. Maybe a new law.. "Politicians shall have no children."
sorry.. just a thought..
I would be satisfied with "no incumbents shall enter"..
and if the wonderful Greasespot machine will do its job, and merge this to my former post, I won't be raking in success of inflating number of posts..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"don't trust (or vote for) anyone over thirty."
I think that's how I'll vote this time.. pick the one who is younger..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The love booooat, exciting and newwww ewww....
I think where that article is very correct: (because I took stabs at what I disagreed with, I should note the agreement...)
I'd restate it differently but it covers the same ground as Mssr Groucho:
Within the Christian church are several functions that are high-visibility, at least we hear a lot about them- apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists.
Each requires some context to function within to validate them. I think a case can be made, biblically and logically, for that.
I shrivel (figuratively speaking) at the idea that a historically validated stamp of approval is required because historically the only thing that seems to be validated by denominations is a tendency towards divisive rebellion and greed. Somebody else is always wrong and somebody's always getting paid and usually pretty well. But there has to be some sort of standards and guidelines to govern social behavior.
The well being of the individual and by extension the group would be a primary concern I'd look for. Less the details of the doctrine and more the effort expended to promote health and well being amongst the membership.
Interestingly - pastoring is one of functions that gets very clear line item qualifiers listed in the N.T. epistles. The others do too, but the type of person that should have that job is clearly delineated.
A good pastor is one whose flock is healthy, cared for and tended to. Look at the flock, ask them about their pastor - you'll learn all you need to know about the shepherd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe I shouldn't ask..
is da "pastor" over thirty..
is he da "offspring" of mog..
does he really give a damn, besides his own sordid heritage..
You might answer "yes" to only the second of the two choices here..
as far as the "love boat"..
if you think Bozo the Clown is the head of the church..
in a strange way, I must agree with you..
maybe you don't see it..
I dunno.. there seems to be a difference between a subservient and blessed flock..it's hard to divide the two..
do they "have" to be blessed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse.
A group does not necessarily have to have a religious bent to fit the criteria of a cult
Is the group leader self appointed, charismatic and domineering? It may be a cult.
Does the group have special, privileged knowledge that drives it to fulfill a special mission? It may be a cult.
Does the group dictate intricate details of how the members must speak, dress, think, and behave? It may be a cult.
Is the group inordinately focused on recruiting new members for the purpose of generating revenue? It may be a cult.
Does the group limit and/or discourage interaction outside the group unless said action benefits the group? It may be a cult.
Does the group have its own language, encourage members to think within a narrow set of parameters and reinforce a black/white, either/or mentality? It may be a cult.
http://www.caic.org.au/general/cultcrit.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If it is? It seems to be a given..
where do we go from here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
try to find a better place.. then its all the same..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
C'mon now Twinky...I simply assumed that you agreed with me on most everything!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think the whole world is fightin' about The Same Thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Amen to that..and that includes my "sphere of influence"...As a manager of a retail store, I take a personal interest in all my employees...I do my best to treat each one with respect and concern for thir personal situations...I set the example of how I want them to work and then I treat them as friends...the resonse is great! The work place is a test of our faith and how we conduct ourslves....
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ha!
I'm just lucky when I agree with myself..
that is some of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse.
Not really. Not when the Trinitarian doctrine particularly is considered a foundational pillar upon which valid faith relies.
Cult definitions tend to place high value on the "charismatic leader" aspects of a group, special revelations, rituals and secrecy. A man or woman and the group that revolves around that personality.
Many denominations have personalities, people that at one time formed it's early definitions. Christianity has Peter, Paul and a non-Christian could say Christ Himself who all meet the negative connotations of "cult leaders" and establish cult like behaviors and practices. Likewise an outsider's view of the RC Pope and Papal office even as it exists today.
Yet the one single dividing line that can not be crossed is in Jesus Christ is defined. In that regard I don't see the blogger's list as unusual at all, in fact it's pretty standard.
In a list of many qualities, if there was a Trinitarian view of Christ you could still have the accepted definition of a "cult" though I agree.
The problem with the term "cult" is that it isn't meaningful. A "cult" isn't illegal or wrong or bad on face value. It might be out of the norm, socially "weird" and outside the "mainstream" but without specific reference to that individual group it has no real moral or ethical violations attached.
Put another way, a crime isn't committed if no law is broken. Societies preferences aside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps.. that is where we agree. "Strange", "mainstream".. "normal(?)".. beliefs to me are irrelevant..
at least to the point they are willing to sacrifice me on some god's altar because I'm not exactly the same..
and for the *most* of the world, to the contrary, it seems to be asking too much..
Link 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.