While I think that from a biblical perspective it makes more sense to view Jesus as God than not, I disagree that believing that Jesus isn't God is what makes a group a cult. In my opinion it is actions and practices that determine a cult, not their theology.
Oakspear,
A name I know well. I hear it in Geisha's prayers. Kimberly and I have known each other for years. She knows I love her. Anything I say to her reflects the fact we were great friends in The Way.
I am coming at this topic of cults from a Christian POV. That is how we define a cult in the church. Mormons, Moonies, JW etc. . . . Who they say Jesus is. Interestingly enough--each of these groups have a slightly different take on their man Jesus. To some groups He is a spirit only Jesus.
The church has diverse theology, but the SAME Jesus, the center of Christianity. Funny how we used to hear a different take on THAT one.
So any group that teaches a non-orthodox view of Jesus is a cult? Do you include Jews and Muslims in this category? Do you believe that harmful actions (i.e. sexual abuse, control trips, etc) follow necessarily from the non-orthodox view of Jesus? I've seen my share of groups who hold the mainstream, orthodox view of Jesus that are indistinguishable from TWI in their actions.
So any group that teaches a non-orthodox view of Jesus is a cult? Do you include Jews and Muslims in this category? Do you believe that harmful actions (i.e. sexual abuse, control trips, etc) follow necessarily from the non-orthodox view of Jesus? I've seen my share of groups who hold the mainstream, orthodox view of Jesus that are indistinguishable from TWI in their actions.
This is not really a debateable issue. It is how the church defines a cult. It is not how the church defines groups such as the 'emergent church" or those who follow after the "health and wealth" gospel. Catholics, Jews, Islam, are all religions. There is correct terminology to define these differences. I suppose one could readily say Islam is a cult. In fact, I have heard this said, but they do not claim to be Christian. Jews either.
A cult can be defined in many ways, by many people. For the church, the primary is "Who" they say Jesus is. Which is why the church always defines The Way as a cult.
"The Church" defines a cult in such and such a way? I was unaware of unanimity among Christians, or anyone who could claim to speak for "The Church" (well, the Pope, but not many non-Catholics think he actually does )
I'm sure that some of our unitarian GSC brethren would be very surprised to find that they are still in a cult.
Of course, you're welcome to your opinion, but what I find difficult to believe, and somewhat unsubstantiated, is that your opinion is what all Christians ("The Church") believe.
"The Church" defines a cult in such and such a way? I was unaware of unanimity among Christians, or anyone who could claim to speak for "The Church" (well, the Pope, but not many non-Catholics think he actually does )
I'm sure that some of our unitarian GSC brethren would be very surprised to find that they are still in a cult.
Of course, you're welcome to your opinion, but what I find difficult to believe, and somewhat unsubstantiated, is that your opinion is what all Christians ("The Church") believe.
Debate away my brother. As for me. ................ I am going to spend a nice evening with my sweet and VERY pretty wife.
Can't think of a better way to end the day.
Your unitarian brethren? Not my purview.
As to a Christian concensus............get out and mingle man a little church won't hurt you.
Debate away my brother. As for me. ................ I am going to spend a nice evening with my sweet and VERY pretty wife.
Ooh, la, la, how pretty is VERY pretty? What is this - gratuitous prettiness? And this has what to do with an honest conversation that is going on here?
Can't think of a better way to end the day.
Not to disparage the limited extent of your thought processes, but how about ending the day by answering the questions posed instead of being condescending, demoralizing, & all that pukey stuff that we are not supposed to be to our brethren. Oh, okay, I get it - we are NOT brethren because we don't believe in the trinity, so, therefore
Your unitarian brethren? Not my purview.
Not your purview - not the range of interest or activity that we can anticipate you to allow. But we should consider your pukey view of us and our brethren into our minds regardless of your statement that you don't even consider anything about our position. Why should we do this? Why should we give up our free will to kiss the ring? Because the church says so?
Hey, you're not interested in me? I don't care what you say if you don't care what I say. Go enjoy prettiness tonight, but don't pretend to other more spiritual concerns among our people that you won't even own up to calling brethren because you believe us condemned to hell.
As to a Christian concensus............get out and mingle man a little church won't hurt you.
If it will do to me what it did to you, I'd rather not.
Well guy, I don't think I'll be debating you, since your mind is made up, but despite that, there is a debate and the point is arguable simply due to its being debated and argued.
Mingle? I do that quite often. While I do not belong to a church, and am not a Christian, I avail myself of the company and conversation of many Christians.
Get out and mingle man, a little ritual circle wouldn't hurt you. :ph34r:
I remember when VP used to state that the defining hallmark of a cult was that they believed in the Trinity.
He, of course, was using that definition to take a back-handed swipe at those who opposed his "Jesus Christ Is Not God" theology.
So, then what about cults that aren't even religious in nature? What makes them cults?
I believe this theological criteria regarding The Trinity was just a smoke screen to hide the truth of what we were from us in plain view.
We were a cult. Get it? A cult. Not because of our theological ideology regarding Jesus Christ being God but, more specifically, because we lived a lifestyle that typifies what one would expect of cult members.
If we were "blinded", it was by VP's charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control on his enterprise.
If we were "blinded", it was by VP's charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control on his enterprise.
You make a very good point here, one that I believe Oak was also making earlier before the 'definition of cult' discussion. But in my mind this brings up yet another 'hotly' debateable issue...was vp a false prophet? If he was then does it not follow that his 'charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control' could have been part of 'his' true masters plan?
I realize that this opens a huge can of worms and I am not debating either way at this point. I am just pointing out that 'satanic blindness' could be introduced by a human element.
I am coming at this topic of cults from a Christian POV. That is how we define a cult in the church.
I am also curious what church it is that you represent. It interests me because if it is such a big church or as you intimate all of Christianity they why does the definition of 'cult' in the dictionary not reflect their specific point of view? I would think that they would at least be a foot note or a reference. But Encarta has this for a definition:
cult [ kult ] (plural cults)noun
Definition:
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false
Notice that it does not say 'what' beliefs, but it does point out that the beliefs are 'regarded by others as...' Does this make those beliefs wrong? The main factor that makes a cult a cult is the way that it is run and the type of person that runs it. The words 'misguided, unorthodox, extremest and false' are a huge part.
Sorry Dot, I know that I'm off topic but this kind of bugs me, and I am just looking for a simple answer.
Ooh, la, la, how pretty is VERY pretty? What is this - gratuitous prettiness? And this has what to do with an honest conversation that is going on here?
Not to disparage the limited extent of your thought processes, but how about ending the day by answering the questions posed instead of being condescending, demoralizing, & all that pukey stuff that we are not supposed to be to our brethren. Oh, okay, I get it - we are NOT brethren because we don't believe in the trinity, so, therefore
Not your purview - not the range of interest or activity that we can anticipate you to allow. But we should consider your pukey view of us and our brethren into our minds regardless of your statement that you don't even consider anything about our position. Why should we do this? Why should we give up our free will to kiss the ring? Because the church says so?
Hey, you're not interested in me? I don't care what you say if you don't care what I say. Go enjoy prettiness tonight, but don't pretend to other more spiritual concerns among our people that you won't even own up to calling brethren because you believe us condemned to hell.
If it will do to me what it did to you, I'd rather not.
Oh my goodness I can't believe I am going to answer this. Tom(My Tom) was talking to Kimberly because he knows her. Second To Tom here. You would have to know my husband--he has said kind words TO AND ABOUT me every single day of our very LONG marriage. That is just him--nine months pregnent and waddling like a duck--that man told me I was beautiful--weight gain--weight loss--bad haircut--sick with the flu--doesn't matter--he is just always that way--that is him and I LOVE it! He calls many people brother--or sister--the people at our church LOVE it. That is just Tom. And I see how YOU respond--feel better?
He was being polite to Oakspear. I asked him to.
Second, I think he used the word :purview: as function==he did NOT damn you to hell--HE NEVER WOULD. He was telling you the truth. In our church and many churches across the country--we are warned NOT to listen to groups like TWI and their version of "Another" Jesus. My Pastor does it EVERY week Why? Because it is denying a basic CHRISTIAN understanding of WHO Jesus is. I don't care if you like it or not. That is a hallmark of the churches warning against TWI.
I wish I knew that back in the day. Would have saved me a GREAT deal of pain. They prey on people just like me who want their ears tickled with an easy health and wealth kinda gospel. Sin--hey no biggie. Where is the transformation? The repentance?
I have an apologetics bible. Bought it in the Christian bookstore. Imagine my surprize when I was reading 2 Corinthians 11 and in the margin notes was an explanation of TWI VP and the OTHER Jesus they taught--why it MATTERS and how IMPORTANT it is. That was done by a Christain warning others against groups like TWI and why it is important--why they are CULTS.
Logically just consider without the claws coming out. How can you confess and make LORD a Jesus you deny is who He is. You have made a NEW one -- so did VP.
He took a BASIC understanding (accepted, for a reason), of the church and put his spin on it. It is NOT the same Jesus of the Moonies or of the Mormons or any other CULT. No, really--theirs is different than VPs, they put THEIR own spin on Him. So, all these groups are running around proclaiming Jesus to be this or that. The church says He is God. Different denominations same Jesus.
Why the words from Paul?? It matters. VP gave us an absent Christ and we were to set ourselves up to take His place. Our interprtation of the bible.
Do you think I am alone in this understanding of another Jesus? Or do you think VP was right and the Christian Church has it wrong? Or does it just NOT matter? Paul warned you not to suffer it lightly. We are not to be pleasers of men. To tell it like it is. What was going on in the church that Paul was warning against?
Your reaction to a short post is so telling. So similar to mine in TWI--the claws came right out and all that thin veneer of Christianity falls away when a word is whispered that you may have it wrong.
All the usual suspects come out to prop you up.
Perhaps some good solid Christian men with some sound doctrine and a deeper understanding would be a good place to run and seek counsel. You have an amazing resource here in Dr. Juedes. His door is always open. I cannot imagine him telling you it does not matter, but he is far more tactful and well versed than I am. Hank Hannagraph will take a call from you. Ravi Zacharis is a very well respected bible teacher. He also teaches at Oxford and has spoken at the UN. Josh Mc Dowell--Matt Chandler--RC Sproul. They all have open doors if you can reach them. They are some of the men of the Christian Church. Even John Piper if you are near MN.
But, I can see your reaction to just the assertion it does matter. I know it. Some people loved me enough to really explain why it does matter. I hope the same for you.
Tom and I are surely NOT the ones to do it-
Satanic blindness was the topic--I think we have stayed on track.
Second, I think he used the word :purview: as function==he did NOT damn you to hell--HE NEVER WOULD. He was telling you the truth. In our church and many churches across the country--we are warned NOT to listen to groups like TWI and their version of "Another" Jesus. My Pastor does it EVERY week Why? Because it is denying a basic CHRISTIAN understanding of WHO Jesus is. I don't care if you like it or not. That is a hallmark of the churches warning against TWI.
Geisha
I recall TWI talking about "another Jesus" and it took me awhile to figure out they were the ones teaching about the unpowerful, tag at the end of prayer, one. They had me convinced, around the time of the Jesus Freaks, that anyone speaking of Jesus too much - or talking about HIM more than God were worshiping the creature more than the creator.
I think I know where by you speak.
I had Jesus patches on my blue jeans and worshipped Jesus directly. I was corrected - by TWI. The Jesus they taught was my brother, equal to me, a requirement in Romans 10: 9-10 to be born again and a tag at the end of a prayer. I switched my prayer life to "Heavenly father...." From "Lord Jesus...." as a result of the instruction I got.
T: Would I have to? Really? I think I'd rather not. My wife loves my compliments too. So what? It doesn't belong in place of an honest answer in a discussion of this magnitude. In addition? Fine. In place of? No! Go get a thread - see who shows up. You don't care - I get it.
G: “He calls many people brother--or sister--the people at our church LOVE it. That is just Tom. And I see how YOU respond--feel better?”
T: "Brother?" Haven't heard that from him. Haven't been here for a while, so sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't see that in either of you when you post. Oh, the people in YOUR CHURCH love it. Okay, that's fine. Just trying to keep the record straight.
G: “He was being polite to Oakspear. I asked him to.”
T: Polite? Okay, well, speaking of thin veneer.
G: “Second, I think he used the word :purview: as function==he did NOT damn you to hell--HE NEVER WOULD.”
“He was telling you the truth.”
T: Okay, so, truthfully, where am I going? Hmm? Be truthful now. It shows anyway, might as well say it.
G: “In our church and many churches across the country--we are warned NOT to listen to groups like TWI and their version of "Another" Jesus. My Pastor does it EVERY week.”
T: So, I'm talking why? When you are not listening? "EVERY week!" My gosh, doesn't your Jesus lovingly have a place in your heart to the point where you don't have to be warned EVERY week?
G: “I don't care if you like it or not.”
T: Yeah, I got that. It was my 1st clue that I shouldn't care about what you're saying.
G: “I wish I knew that back in the day. Would have saved me a GREAT deal of pain. They prey on people just like me who want their ears tickled with an easy health and wealth kinda gospel. Sin--hey no biggie. Where is the transformation? The repentance?”
T: I understand SISTER. We are not TWI - at least almost all of us are not. We are not all without transformation. We are not all without repentance. Just because we are not you, doesn't mean we are TWI. I don't know - I'm thinking maybe if you understand that, it will open the door to honest discussion - regardless of your pastor's remonstrance against that. C'mon, doesn't that kind of "church" warning sound all too TWI familiar? "Geisha?" Stop acting the role of a freakin' geisha. You're more than that. Daughter of God, don't be afraid to think.
G: “Logically just consider without the claws coming out. How can you confess and make LORD a Jesus you deny is who He is. You have made a NEW one -- so did VP.”
T: The "new" Jesus, your Jesus, was introduced into "the church," the Roman Catholic church, about 300 years after the original Jesus.
G: “Why the words from Paul?? It matters. VP gave us an absent Christ and we were to set ourselves up to take His place. Our interprtation of the bible.”
T: Right, that's TWI, not me. Not many here I'll wager.
G: Your reaction to a short post is so telling. So similar to mine in TWI--the claws came right out and all that thin veneer of Christianity falls away when a word is whispered that you may have it wrong.
T: I may have it wrong? No doubt, in part, I have it wrong. But you don't even know who my Jesus is. He is not absent. He is not the Jesus of TWI. He is...well, never mind, you don't care, you said so - the "church” says it for you.
G: Tom and I are surely NOT the ones to do it
T: Then don't jump in pretending truth. If you can't teach it, you don't know it. Wisely, you would still be open to considerations – unless, there is a time when you have seen enough integrity in your teachers to accept their remonstrance on “certain” things, like the Trinity, without understanding – like VP told us to do regarding the Trinity.
G: Satanic blindness was the topic--I think we have stayed on track.
Dot, The Jesus they taught was my brother, equal to me, a requirement in Romans 10: 9-10 to be born again and a tag at the end of a prayer.
Dot, my heart goes out to you. Your original thread became exactly what you did not want it to become (all because of discussion about the Trinity - but don't tell anyone). No doubt they are sincere. So what, right? Let's not even go there. Thanks to whomever put this thread somewhere other than your own.
The Jesus TWI taught WAS & IS your brother, but maybe he is not equal to you (as in being brought down to your state), but you are equal to him (as in being brought up to his state - as he is so are we in this world). He partook of our human deficiencies in every aspect, so that we partake of his glorified divinity. Still, he is not God any more than we are - identifying as we do with his identity.
As to who he is, when he walked the earth, he asked his disciples that question - his very own disciples mind you. Peter responded that he was the Son of God. Jesus said that God revealed that to him. Well, if God had to reveal to Peter who Jesus was when Jesus was standing right in front of Peter, that's STILL the way it is.
Other than that no one knew who he was - the Son of God, what???. My gosh - if no one knew then who he was, now he is dead, raised, glorified, functioning head of the entire Body of Christ. Can our peanut brains possibly figure out who he is?
No!!!
So, some 300 years later a bunch of people get together and decide he is God. GOD!!! We are the ones. We've put God in a box, & we are going to market him. PEOPLE, deciding who God is, deciding who Jesus is. PULLEASE! They'e going to do better than the Holy Spirit did for Peter when our Lord was standing right in front of him, the Holy Spirit revealing to Peter who Jesus was? God forbid.
The "church" definition? No thanks.
One of the defining characteristics of the antichrist is that he sets himself in the temple of God & says that he is God. Jesus never did that. Why not? Was he trying to be mysterious - screwing with our brains?
No, Jesus knew better than to say he was God, or he would have said so plainly - he wasn't shy to speak the truth. So, any Jesus pretending to be God is antichrist.
He is not absent as TWI said. That doesn't make him God - as others say. He is still the Way - the Son of God, the link between man & God for those who want to go to God. Stop the debate. Stop thinking he is absent. Stop thinking maybe he is God or maybe not.
Just go through him to God - he is, after all, the way. He is not going to hold your lack of understanding against you. He is, after all, the door.
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false
This is the reason why I hardly ever use the word "cult" about a religious group (unless I deliberately want to put them down) because its true meaning is subjective and it literally means nothing more than a blanket put down of a group in someone's eyes. There is no consensus on what it means other than its sort of like someone's own spin ... if someone dislikes a movement, considers it false, extremist, misguided, evil, or any other negative one feels about a group, they may easily slap on the "cult" label.
Sort of like "I think this group is yuck".
So to try to answer the question ... "what makes a cult" appears to be nothing except what one regards (for whatever reason) as a bad group.
True, the word cult conjures different images in different minds, but that's what I'm asking: what images does it inspire? Obviously for some a cult is anyone who doesn't believe what the mainstream teach about Jesus. For others, a set of practices that are perceived to be harmful is the hallmark of a cult. Notice that I'm not asking in this thread whether TWI was or is a cult, but what determines cult status?
I looked up "cult" on http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm and saw some interesting information. I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that we are talking about the negative uses of the word "cult".
Negative Meanings:
Evangelical Christians and Counter-Cult Movement (CCM) usage: They define a cult as any religious group which accepts most but not all of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). The implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), Unification Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others would be cults. But the CCM would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian church. They view all other denominations as being in error. Thus, one group's true church is another group's cult. One group's heresy is the other group's orthodoxy.
Fundamentalist Christian usage: Some Fundamentalists would accept the Evangelical definition of cult defined above. Others brand any religious group which deviates from historical Protestant Christian beliefs as a cult. This definition would include the LDS Church, Wicca, mainline and liberal Christian denominations, Islam, Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world. The vast majority of humanity would belong to cults, by this definition.
Anti-cult movement usage: The anti-cult movement (ACM) attempts to raise public consciousness about what they see as dangerous and authoritarian mind control cults and doomsday cults. Most do not care about the faith group's theology. They target only what they see as deceptive practices, and dangerous psychological pressure techniques, such as brainwashing. The ACM appears to hold opinions about the effectiveness of brainwashing that are not shared by the mental-health community generally. They see mind control/doomsday cults as a widespread social problem.
Very negative meaning: Popular, media usage: A cult is considered a small, evil religious group, often with a single charismatic leader, that engages in brainwashing and other mind control techniques, believes that the end of the world is imminent, and collects large amounts of weaponry in preparation for a massive war. The earliest use of this meaning of the word is believed to have been in a 1965 book by Walter Martin "The Kingdom of the Cults"
We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.
One of the things that this website does very well is present the various ways some labels are interpreted. This is a very good example of what they do. So when Geisha and Mr. Geisha talk about a non-Trinitarian group who is in no way controlling or harmful being a cult, they are right according to the definition that they have chosen to use; when a second poster says that they are wrong because the hypothetical group is benign in their actions and practices, the second poster is right according to his or her chosen definition.
The problem I have with the Geisha family definition (apparently shared by at least some others ) is that it assigns a negative label to groups strictly on the basis of their theology. We have many people on this board who do not believe that Jesus is God, so they are apparently still cultists according to this definition.
Once inquiry into truth develops a political base - as in "Hey are you with us or against us?" the quest for truth ceases and becomes a play for power. Accurately desribed in the wizard of Oz analogy.
Anything certified by the wizard becomes acceptable. Anything "other" is designated by the wizard as cult.
A black & white mindset that the story, in the end, shows is fallacious.
While I think that from a biblical perspective it makes more sense to view Jesus as God than not, I disagree that believing that Jesus isn't God is what makes a group a cult. In my opinion it is actions and practices that determine a cult, not their theology.
Right, Oak - I tend to think that way as well...I believe doctrine does affect practice - but the dynamics of our belief system can put such an odd spin on even the best of theology. I've been on both sides of the Jesus is God/Not God debate - and there's something uncanny about the antagonism that flares up from either side. And it's got nothing to do with the valid Scripture references & logic from both sides - imho, it's coming from a certain mindset or attitude.
Man, when I was in TWI - I had such an arrogant and prideful attitude "knowing" I was correct in believing Jesus was not God...Now, I'm not sure...most days, I'll tell ya I'm a Trinitarian. I'm of the opinion, the whole subject is way over my head, hard to nail down, explain or abstract some significant practical consequence from such a complex bundle of Scripture related to the identity of Jesus. Honestly, my practical application of how I see Jesus is a simple desire to love & serve Him.
True, the word cult conjures different images in different minds, but that's what I'm asking: what images does it inspire? Obviously for some a cult is anyone who doesn't believe what the mainstream teach about Jesus. For others, a set of practices that are perceived to be harmful is the hallmark of a cult. Notice that I'm not asking in this thread whether TWI was or is a cult, but what determines cult status?...
.
Yup - that's the million dollar question - and you're right - everyone has a different take on what makes a cult...I like what Eyes Open posted - so I stuck it below - it runs along the lines of what I've experienced:
You make a very good point here, one that I believe Oak was also making earlier before the 'definition of cult' discussion. But in my mind this brings up yet another 'hotly' debateable issue...was vp a false prophet? If he was then does it not follow that his 'charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control' could have been part of 'his' true masters plan?
I realize that this opens a huge can of worms and I am not debating either way at this point. I am just pointing out that 'satanic blindness' could be introduced by a human element.
I am also curious what church it is that you represent. It interests me because if it is such a big church or as you intimate all of Christianity they why does the definition of 'cult' in the dictionary not reflect their specific point of view? I would think that they would at least be a foot note or a reference. But Encarta has this for a definition:
cult [ kult ] (plural cults)noun
Definition:
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false
Notice that it does not say 'what' beliefs, but it does point out that the beliefs are 'regarded by others as...' Does this make those beliefs wrong? The main factor that makes a cult a cult is the way that it is run and the type of person that runs it. The words 'misguided, unorthodox, extremest and false' are a huge part.
Sorry Dot, I know that I'm off topic but this kind of bugs me, and I am just looking for a simple answer.
Some great wisdom in your post - thanks Eyes Open...What makes TWI a cult in my book is the combination of some whacked out theology [for instance, the law of believing, or thinking one can become so spiritual that things done in the flesh are of no consequence, i.e sexual immorality] and a whacked out authoritarian leader without a conscience, who establishes self-serving agenda, policies & practices...An unscrupulous individual with their own whacked out belief system is one thing - the person leads a delusional & immoral life - their negative impact to others is on a relatively smaller scale [excluding someone like a lone terrorist or maybe a professional criminal, of course]...
But behold the power of the microphone! We put that same person in charge of a religious group - and we have an organization that entangles followers in an artificial world of life-sucking delusions; yes, a scary realm run by vampires! [now I understand why vp didn't like the cross - ]. Cult-world is inhabited by three groups of people: predators, facilitators & victims. Predators, like vampires, usually don't work in the "daylight" [out in the open like honest folks]. That's why they need facilitators [who may or may not be aware of the true nature of the masters they serve]. Facilitators provide indirect or unobtrusive assistance in keeping the flow of victims running smoothly.
I think good religions and belief systems serve to improve, enhance & enlighten the individual. It's a two-way street with benefits flowing to & from the individual - imho, that's healthy and the way a "commerce" of relationships should be run.
Bad ones.... cults usually turn the tables on folks - followers serve the cult - often to their own detriment....life-sucking to say the least - cults are parasitic - they thrive off the "valid" parts of a theology [maybe as an attractant to followers] AND the vitality & resources of their followers. It's a one-way street - the energy & benefits flow toward the cult leaders. It is a tyranny to fatten a select few.
For a little lighter perspective on the definition of a cult, I was watching Dana Carvey's latest comedy stand-up routine the other day. I believe it's entitled "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies". Which the title is a portion of a really out there mind journey he takes trying to define a religion that a Scientologist would say "now that's out there!!!". He brings in all sorts of strange and controlling behavior with weird quirks into this "cult". And honestly, after watching it, there was a part of me that said "did I believe anything that was THAT out there????? Naaaah, couldn't be." And then I walked away while sinking back slowly into denial.
The church has diverse theology, but the SAME Jesus, the center of Christianity. Funny how we used to hear a different take on THAT one.
Geisha even though you didnt answer me directly after re-reading your posts I found my answer here in this comment. 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.
It was also pointed out by Tom that Jesus' own followers didnt even know who he was until God told them. Now mind you I'm not making an argument for or against Jesus being God, I'm just saying that there is a lot more to the story here and a lot of history that you may or may not be aware of. I'm also saying that maybe it's just a bit over my head and like T-Bone I'm gonna believe that God and /or Jesus Christ are big enough to overlook some honest confusion and misconception from us mere mortals.
BTW thanks T-Bone I dont know about 'wisdom' but I thought that this needed to be said again:
we have an organization that entangles followers in an artificial world of life-sucking delusions
Great mental picture here!
Chockfull could you provide us with a link? That sounds intriging.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
4
10
8
Popular Days
Aug 7
14
Aug 6
10
Aug 8
8
Aug 11
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
GarthP2000 4 posts
Oakspear 10 posts
geisha779 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2008
14 posts
Aug 6 2008
10 posts
Aug 8 2008
8 posts
Aug 11 2008
5 posts
geisha779
Oakspear,
A name I know well. I hear it in Geisha's prayers. Kimberly and I have known each other for years. She knows I love her. Anything I say to her reflects the fact we were great friends in The Way.
I am coming at this topic of cults from a Christian POV. That is how we define a cult in the church. Mormons, Moonies, JW etc. . . . Who they say Jesus is. Interestingly enough--each of these groups have a slightly different take on their man Jesus. To some groups He is a spirit only Jesus.
The church has diverse theology, but the SAME Jesus, the center of Christianity. Funny how we used to hear a different take on THAT one.
Good to talk to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
So any group that teaches a non-orthodox view of Jesus is a cult? Do you include Jews and Muslims in this category? Do you believe that harmful actions (i.e. sexual abuse, control trips, etc) follow necessarily from the non-orthodox view of Jesus? I've seen my share of groups who hold the mainstream, orthodox view of Jesus that are indistinguishable from TWI in their actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
This is not really a debateable issue. It is how the church defines a cult. It is not how the church defines groups such as the 'emergent church" or those who follow after the "health and wealth" gospel. Catholics, Jews, Islam, are all religions. There is correct terminology to define these differences. I suppose one could readily say Islam is a cult. In fact, I have heard this said, but they do not claim to be Christian. Jews either.
A cult can be defined in many ways, by many people. For the church, the primary is "Who" they say Jesus is. Which is why the church always defines The Way as a cult.
Not really much to argue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Ah, but it's all debateable my friend :B)
"The Church" defines a cult in such and such a way? I was unaware of unanimity among Christians, or anyone who could claim to speak for "The Church" (well, the Pope, but not many non-Catholics think he actually does
)
I'm sure that some of our unitarian GSC brethren would be very surprised to find that they are still in a cult.
Of course, you're welcome to your opinion, but what I find difficult to believe, and somewhat unsubstantiated, is that your opinion is what all Christians ("The Church") believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What group or church are you involved in Geisha?
Just wondering if this is a church doctrine of your church or your own thinking, that's all. I wouldn't argue, but I can discuss.
Just because one does not call themselves a christian, that does not stop anything by God or the Spirit moving in them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Debate away my brother. As for me. ................ I am going to spend a nice evening with my sweet and VERY pretty wife.
Can't think of a better way to end the day.
Your unitarian brethren? Not my purview.
As to a Christian concensus............get out and mingle man a little church won't hurt you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Not to disparage the limited extent of your thought processes, but how about ending the day by answering the questions posed instead of being condescending, demoralizing, & all that pukey stuff that we are not supposed to be to our brethren. Oh, okay, I get it - we are NOT brethren because we don't believe in the trinity, so, therefore
Not your purview - not the range of interest or activity that we can anticipate you to allow. But we should consider your pukey view of us and our brethren into our minds regardless of your statement that you don't even consider anything about our position. Why should we do this? Why should we give up our free will to kiss the ring? Because the church says so?Hey, you're not interested in me? I don't care what you say if you don't care what I say. Go enjoy prettiness tonight, but don't pretend to other more spiritual concerns among our people that you won't even own up to calling brethren because you believe us condemned to hell.
If it will do to me what it did to you, I'd rather not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Well guy, I don't think I'll be debating you, since your mind is made up, but despite that, there is a debate and the point is arguable simply due to its being debated and argued.
Mingle? I do that quite often. While I do not belong to a church, and am not a Christian, I avail myself of the company and conversation of many Christians.
Get out and mingle man, a little ritual circle wouldn't hurt you. :ph34r:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I remember when VP used to state that the defining hallmark of a cult was that they believed in the Trinity.
He, of course, was using that definition to take a back-handed swipe at those who opposed his "Jesus Christ Is Not God" theology.
So, then what about cults that aren't even religious in nature? What makes them cults?
I believe this theological criteria regarding The Trinity was just a smoke screen to hide the truth of what we were from us in plain view.
We were a cult. Get it? A cult. Not because of our theological ideology regarding Jesus Christ being God but, more specifically, because we lived a lifestyle that typifies what one would expect of cult members.
If we were "blinded", it was by VP's charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control on his enterprise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You make a very good point here, one that I believe Oak was also making earlier before the 'definition of cult' discussion. But in my mind this brings up yet another 'hotly' debateable issue...was vp a false prophet? If he was then does it not follow that his 'charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control' could have been part of 'his' true masters plan?
I realize that this opens a huge can of worms and I am not debating either way at this point. I am just pointing out that 'satanic blindness' could be introduced by a human element.
I am also curious what church it is that you represent. It interests me because if it is such a big church or as you intimate all of Christianity they why does the definition of 'cult' in the dictionary not reflect their specific point of view? I would think that they would at least be a foot note or a reference. But Encarta has this for a definition:
cult [ kult ] (plural cults)noun
Definition:
1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false
Notice that it does not say 'what' beliefs, but it does point out that the beliefs are 'regarded by others as...' Does this make those beliefs wrong? The main factor that makes a cult a cult is the way that it is run and the type of person that runs it. The words 'misguided, unorthodox, extremest and false' are a huge part.
Sorry Dot, I know that I'm off topic but this kind of bugs me, and I am just looking for a simple answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oh my goodness I can't believe I am going to answer this. Tom(My Tom) was talking to Kimberly because he knows her. Second To Tom here. You would have to know my husband--he has said kind words TO AND ABOUT me every single day of our very LONG marriage. That is just him--nine months pregnent and waddling like a duck--that man told me I was beautiful--weight gain--weight loss--bad haircut--sick with the flu--doesn't matter--he is just always that way--that is him and I LOVE it! He calls many people brother--or sister--the people at our church LOVE it. That is just Tom. And I see how YOU respond--feel better?
He was being polite to Oakspear. I asked him to.
Second, I think he used the word :purview: as function==he did NOT damn you to hell--HE NEVER WOULD. He was telling you the truth. In our church and many churches across the country--we are warned NOT to listen to groups like TWI and their version of "Another" Jesus. My Pastor does it EVERY week Why? Because it is denying a basic CHRISTIAN understanding of WHO Jesus is. I don't care if you like it or not. That is a hallmark of the churches warning against TWI.
I wish I knew that back in the day. Would have saved me a GREAT deal of pain. They prey on people just like me who want their ears tickled with an easy health and wealth kinda gospel. Sin--hey no biggie. Where is the transformation? The repentance?
I have an apologetics bible. Bought it in the Christian bookstore. Imagine my surprize when I was reading 2 Corinthians 11 and in the margin notes was an explanation of TWI VP and the OTHER Jesus they taught--why it MATTERS and how IMPORTANT it is. That was done by a Christain warning others against groups like TWI and why it is important--why they are CULTS.
Logically just consider without the claws coming out. How can you confess and make LORD a Jesus you deny is who He is. You have made a NEW one -- so did VP.
He took a BASIC understanding (accepted, for a reason), of the church and put his spin on it. It is NOT the same Jesus of the Moonies or of the Mormons or any other CULT. No, really--theirs is different than VPs, they put THEIR own spin on Him. So, all these groups are running around proclaiming Jesus to be this or that. The church says He is God. Different denominations same Jesus.
Why the words from Paul?? It matters. VP gave us an absent Christ and we were to set ourselves up to take His place. Our interprtation of the bible.
Do you think I am alone in this understanding of another Jesus? Or do you think VP was right and the Christian Church has it wrong? Or does it just NOT matter? Paul warned you not to suffer it lightly. We are not to be pleasers of men. To tell it like it is. What was going on in the church that Paul was warning against?
Your reaction to a short post is so telling. So similar to mine in TWI--the claws came right out and all that thin veneer of Christianity falls away when a word is whispered that you may have it wrong.
All the usual suspects come out to prop you up.
Perhaps some good solid Christian men with some sound doctrine and a deeper understanding would be a good place to run and seek counsel. You have an amazing resource here in Dr. Juedes. His door is always open. I cannot imagine him telling you it does not matter, but he is far more tactful and well versed than I am. Hank Hannagraph will take a call from you. Ravi Zacharis is a very well respected bible teacher. He also teaches at Oxford and has spoken at the UN. Josh Mc Dowell--Matt Chandler--RC Sproul. They all have open doors if you can reach them. They are some of the men of the Christian Church. Even John Piper if you are near MN.
But, I can see your reaction to just the assertion it does matter. I know it. Some people loved me enough to really explain why it does matter. I hope the same for you.
Tom and I are surely NOT the ones to do it-
Satanic blindness was the topic--I think we have stayed on track.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Sounds like the geisha's are in a cult like church rut.
Another Jesus huh?
Do you want to tell what the real one is?
Since it's preached every week and all.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Why does it bother you so. Another explanation. Oh that's right--the "Spirit" works in all people EXCEPT Geisha--got it.
Typical
The fangs come out--the name calling starts.
Oh that's right you were going to "discuss" it with me.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Geisha
I recall TWI talking about "another Jesus" and it took me awhile to figure out they were the ones teaching about the unpowerful, tag at the end of prayer, one. They had me convinced, around the time of the Jesus Freaks, that anyone speaking of Jesus too much - or talking about HIM more than God were worshiping the creature more than the creator.
I think I know where by you speak.
I had Jesus patches on my blue jeans and worshipped Jesus directly. I was corrected - by TWI. The Jesus they taught was my brother, equal to me, a requirement in Romans 10: 9-10 to be born again and a tag at the end of a prayer. I switched my prayer life to "Heavenly father...." From "Lord Jesus...." as a result of the instruction I got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
G: “You would have to know my husband”
T: Would I have to? Really? I think I'd rather not. My wife loves my compliments too. So what? It doesn't belong in place of an honest answer in a discussion of this magnitude. In addition? Fine. In place of? No! Go get a thread - see who shows up. You don't care - I get it.
G: “He calls many people brother--or sister--the people at our church LOVE it. That is just Tom. And I see how YOU respond--feel better?”
T: "Brother?" Haven't heard that from him. Haven't been here for a while, so sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't see that in either of you when you post. Oh, the people in YOUR CHURCH love it. Okay, that's fine. Just trying to keep the record straight.
G: “He was being polite to Oakspear. I asked him to.”
T: Polite? Okay, well, speaking of thin veneer.
G: “Second, I think he used the word :purview: as function==he did NOT damn you to hell--HE NEVER WOULD.”
“He was telling you the truth.”
T: Okay, so, truthfully, where am I going? Hmm? Be truthful now. It shows anyway, might as well say it.
G: “In our church and many churches across the country--we are warned NOT to listen to groups like TWI and their version of "Another" Jesus. My Pastor does it EVERY week.”
T: So, I'm talking why? When you are not listening? "EVERY week!" My gosh, doesn't your Jesus lovingly have a place in your heart to the point where you don't have to be warned EVERY week?
G: “I don't care if you like it or not.”
T: Yeah, I got that. It was my 1st clue that I shouldn't care about what you're saying.
G: “I wish I knew that back in the day. Would have saved me a GREAT deal of pain. They prey on people just like me who want their ears tickled with an easy health and wealth kinda gospel. Sin--hey no biggie. Where is the transformation? The repentance?”
T: I understand SISTER. We are not TWI - at least almost all of us are not. We are not all without transformation. We are not all without repentance. Just because we are not you, doesn't mean we are TWI. I don't know - I'm thinking maybe if you understand that, it will open the door to honest discussion - regardless of your pastor's remonstrance against that. C'mon, doesn't that kind of "church" warning sound all too TWI familiar? "Geisha?" Stop acting the role of a freakin' geisha. You're more than that. Daughter of God, don't be afraid to think.
G: “Logically just consider without the claws coming out. How can you confess and make LORD a Jesus you deny is who He is. You have made a NEW one -- so did VP.”
T: The "new" Jesus, your Jesus, was introduced into "the church," the Roman Catholic church, about 300 years after the original Jesus.
G: “Why the words from Paul?? It matters. VP gave us an absent Christ and we were to set ourselves up to take His place. Our interprtation of the bible.”
T: Right, that's TWI, not me. Not many here I'll wager.
G: Your reaction to a short post is so telling. So similar to mine in TWI--the claws came right out and all that thin veneer of Christianity falls away when a word is whispered that you may have it wrong.
T: I may have it wrong? No doubt, in part, I have it wrong. But you don't even know who my Jesus is. He is not absent. He is not the Jesus of TWI. He is...well, never mind, you don't care, you said so - the "church” says it for you.
G: Tom and I are surely NOT the ones to do it
T: Then don't jump in pretending truth. If you can't teach it, you don't know it. Wisely, you would still be open to considerations – unless, there is a time when you have seen enough integrity in your teachers to accept their remonstrance on “certain” things, like the Trinity, without understanding – like VP told us to do regarding the Trinity.
G: Satanic blindness was the topic--I think we have stayed on track.
T: Indeed, the perfect examples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Dot, my heart goes out to you. Your original thread became exactly what you did not want it to become (all because of discussion about the Trinity - but don't tell anyone). No doubt they are sincere. So what, right? Let's not even go there. Thanks to whomever put this thread somewhere other than your own.
The Jesus TWI taught WAS & IS your brother, but maybe he is not equal to you (as in being brought down to your state), but you are equal to him (as in being brought up to his state - as he is so are we in this world). He partook of our human deficiencies in every aspect, so that we partake of his glorified divinity. Still, he is not God any more than we are - identifying as we do with his identity.
As to who he is, when he walked the earth, he asked his disciples that question - his very own disciples mind you. Peter responded that he was the Son of God. Jesus said that God revealed that to him. Well, if God had to reveal to Peter who Jesus was when Jesus was standing right in front of Peter, that's STILL the way it is.
Other than that no one knew who he was - the Son of God, what???. My gosh - if no one knew then who he was, now he is dead, raised, glorified, functioning head of the entire Body of Christ. Can our peanut brains possibly figure out who he is?
No!!!
So, some 300 years later a bunch of people get together and decide he is God. GOD!!! We are the ones. We've put God in a box, & we are going to market him. PEOPLE, deciding who God is, deciding who Jesus is. PULLEASE! They'e going to do better than the Holy Spirit did for Peter when our Lord was standing right in front of him, the Holy Spirit revealing to Peter who Jesus was? God forbid.
The "church" definition? No thanks.
One of the defining characteristics of the antichrist is that he sets himself in the temple of God & says that he is God. Jesus never did that. Why not? Was he trying to be mysterious - screwing with our brains?
No, Jesus knew better than to say he was God, or he would have said so plainly - he wasn't shy to speak the truth. So, any Jesus pretending to be God is antichrist.
He is not absent as TWI said. That doesn't make him God - as others say. He is still the Way - the Son of God, the link between man & God for those who want to go to God. Stop the debate. Stop thinking he is absent. Stop thinking maybe he is God or maybe not.
Just go through him to God - he is, after all, the way. He is not going to hold your lack of understanding against you. He is, after all, the door.
For me, here, argument ended.
Love ya Dot - really.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This is the reason why I hardly ever use the word "cult" about a religious group (unless I deliberately want to put them down) because its true meaning is subjective and it literally means nothing more than a blanket put down of a group in someone's eyes. There is no consensus on what it means other than its sort of like someone's own spin ... if someone dislikes a movement, considers it false, extremist, misguided, evil, or any other negative one feels about a group, they may easily slap on the "cult" label.
Sort of like "I think this group is yuck".
So to try to answer the question ... "what makes a cult" appears to be nothing except what one regards (for whatever reason) as a bad group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
True, the word cult conjures different images in different minds, but that's what I'm asking: what images does it inspire? Obviously for some a cult is anyone who doesn't believe what the mainstream teach about Jesus. For others, a set of practices that are perceived to be harmful is the hallmark of a cult. Notice that I'm not asking in this thread whether TWI was or is a cult, but what determines cult status?
I looked up "cult" on http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm and saw some interesting information. I'm assuming for the sake of discussion that we are talking about the negative uses of the word "cult".
One of the things that this website does very well is present the various ways some labels are interpreted. This is a very good example of what they do. So when Geisha and Mr. Geisha talk about a non-Trinitarian group who is in no way controlling or harmful being a cult, they are right according to the definition that they have chosen to use; when a second poster says that they are wrong because the hypothetical group is benign in their actions and practices, the second poster is right according to his or her chosen definition.
The problem I have with the Geisha family definition (apparently shared by at least some others
) is that it assigns a negative label to groups strictly on the basis of their theology. We have many people on this board who do not believe that Jesus is God, so they are apparently still cultists according to this definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Oak,
Once inquiry into truth develops a political base - as in "Hey are you with us or against us?" the quest for truth ceases and becomes a play for power. Accurately desribed in the wizard of Oz analogy.
Anything certified by the wizard becomes acceptable. Anything "other" is designated by the wizard as cult.
A black & white mindset that the story, in the end, shows is fallacious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
There was no name calling or anything else that you, Geisha, have attributed to me.
No Fangs or anything else.
What you described about your church and way of thinking, is cult-like behavior within a church.
I asked you a question, but you want war with words.
I'll pass and move on to more productive threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Right, Oak - I tend to think that way as well...I believe doctrine does affect practice - but the dynamics of our belief system can put such an odd spin on even the best of theology. I've been on both sides of the Jesus is God/Not God debate - and there's something uncanny about the antagonism that flares up from either side. And it's got nothing to do with the valid Scripture references & logic from both sides - imho, it's coming from a certain mindset or attitude.
Man, when I was in TWI - I had such an arrogant and prideful attitude "knowing" I was correct in believing Jesus was not God...Now, I'm not sure...most days, I'll tell ya I'm a Trinitarian. I'm of the opinion, the whole subject is way over my head, hard to nail down, explain or abstract some significant practical consequence from such a complex bundle of Scripture related to the identity of Jesus. Honestly, my practical application of how I see Jesus is a simple desire to love & serve Him.
Yup - that's the million dollar question - and you're right - everyone has a different take on what makes a cult...I like what Eyes Open posted - so I stuck it below - it runs along the lines of what I've experienced:
Some great wisdom in your post - thanks Eyes Open...What makes TWI a cult in my book is the combination of some whacked out theology [for instance, the law of believing, or thinking one can become so spiritual that things done in the flesh are of no consequence, i.e sexual immorality] and a whacked out authoritarian leader without a conscience, who establishes self-serving agenda, policies & practices...An unscrupulous individual with their own whacked out belief system is one thing - the person leads a delusional & immoral life - their negative impact to others is on a relatively smaller scale [excluding someone like a lone terrorist or maybe a professional criminal, of course]...
But behold the power of the microphone! We put that same person in charge of a religious group - and we have an organization that entangles followers in an artificial world of life-sucking delusions; yes, a scary realm run by vampires! [now I understand why vp didn't like the cross -
]. Cult-world is inhabited by three groups of people: predators, facilitators & victims. Predators, like vampires, usually don't work in the "daylight" [out in the open like honest folks]. That's why they need facilitators [who may or may not be aware of the true nature of the masters they serve]. Facilitators provide indirect or unobtrusive assistance in keeping the flow of victims running smoothly.
I think good religions and belief systems serve to improve, enhance & enlighten the individual. It's a two-way street with benefits flowing to & from the individual - imho, that's healthy and the way a "commerce" of relationships should be run.
Bad ones.... cults usually turn the tables on folks - followers serve the cult - often to their own detriment....life-sucking to say the least - cults are parasitic - they thrive off the "valid" parts of a theology [maybe as an attractant to followers] AND the vitality & resources of their followers. It's a one-way street - the energy & benefits flow toward the cult leaders. It is a tyranny to fatten a select few.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
For a little lighter perspective on the definition of a cult, I was watching Dana Carvey's latest comedy stand-up routine the other day. I believe it's entitled "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies". Which the title is a portion of a really out there mind journey he takes trying to define a religion that a Scientologist would say "now that's out there!!!". He brings in all sorts of strange and controlling behavior with weird quirks into this "cult". And honestly, after watching it, there was a part of me that said "did I believe anything that was THAT out there????? Naaaah, couldn't be." And then I walked away while sinking back slowly into denial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Geisha even though you didnt answer me directly after re-reading your posts I found my answer here in this comment. 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.
It was also pointed out by Tom that Jesus' own followers didnt even know who he was until God told them. Now mind you I'm not making an argument for or against Jesus being God, I'm just saying that there is a lot more to the story here and a lot of history that you may or may not be aware of. I'm also saying that maybe it's just a bit over my head and like T-Bone I'm gonna believe that God and /or Jesus Christ are big enough to overlook some honest confusion and misconception from us mere mortals.
BTW thanks T-Bone I dont know about 'wisdom' but I thought that this needed to be said again:
Great mental picture here!
Chockfull could you provide us with a link? That sounds intriging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A group does not have to have theology at its core to be defined as a cult.
For example, there is one very large, well known motorcycle club that satisfies the criteria that is typically assigned to cults.
They have a very charismatic leader whose orders are followed implicitly.
Their lifestyle is at odds with the lifestyle of the general public.
BTW--- Has anyone other than VPW used anti-Trinitarian views as a defining criteria?
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.