Kermit. He's little, he's cute, he's green, he's a frog. Or is he? What unseen power allows this stuffed puppet to retain followers year after year after year? No amphibean before or since has done so well. Our collective antennae should have twitched long ago about THIS one.
Remember Kermit's slogan: "It's not easy being green." That is a secret code for something that nobody outside of the swamp really knows. I believe that the green denotes money; therefore, the amphibean is after all the monies he can get (and it's worked out very well for him) in order to hatch some sinister plot.
Well Mr. Spear, processing is slowed down substantially when we (King James usage due to the sheer magnitude and incredibleness of all of this truth and stuff) have to handle checks, mostly due to the special shielding we have to use to filter out the harmful emantions and effervations from the check coding used on modern day checks. You know the ones, the Klingon code in the lower portion of the check. Due to our extreme concern for our customers we provide, completely free of charge and at no additional cost of any kind to you of course, a translation of the code and it's real true meaning, in modern day English, printed and embossed on specially treated paper made from recycled prune skins. Suitable for framing and appropriate for seasonal gift giving, it can be yours for a handling and shipping fee of only 5.95. I'd recommend using PaySpank for this. We have a special arrangement with them, all you have to do is note the word "socks stuff" in the comments section and they'll handle all of the arrangments for free, for a small handling fee.
YIKES!!!!! Moony, that's it!!!!!!!!
"Follow the money", as always! I'm sure that once this gets the attention it deserves there will be repercussions. Watch your back there Lady!
This is my last post on here, I'm hoping for a forum that doesn't associate itself with this CULT Label System.
Jet, I thought you had been here long enough to see that most people here don't use any kind of lable system and when the word "cult" comes up, there is usually some sort of debate about the definition of cult. :) If you're looking for a strictly Christian website where people still hold to some sort of TWI doctrine, then may I suggest Raf's site: Living Epistles.
I do hope that you don't let a few threads deter you from all the other great things here at GSpot. There really are some great people here, it just gets a little heated at times and it takes a while for people to quit feeding the trolls sometimes, too. :)
I haven't read the books or authors you mentioned, but I have been delving into Elaine Pagels and "The Origin of Satan" as well as her research on the Nag Hammadi Scrolls. I've read "What Does Go Want?" and I'm currently reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by the guy that founded Skeptic Magazine. It's fascinating reading!
I've also checked out things on the Mind-Body connection (ala Candace Pert) and What the Bleep. It's been a fun, enlightening experience! I feel like a kid in a candy store reading about all these other things, beliefs, history of religion and such.... It's pretty neat to see where people go and what kinds of things they start looking at once they are free from TWI's confinement and can study anything and everything they want.
Thats just the 'nature of the beast' here Jet. I just wish the Belles of 'the spot' would be a little bit more honest.They have just as many 'labels' they spew forth..'twi.ts' 'twi.tsville' 'pfiffle' etc.. don't let it get to you, I don't.
:blink: I see how things written get MISUNDERSTOOD big time. I'm just bored with the CULT topic, and lookin for a forum where folks can be more comfortable sharing whats on their mind and why they believe certain things they do WITHOUT the need for debate or judgements.
I'm not leaving this forum because of being offended by anything, heck no. NO one has offended me, or done anything to cause me NOT to like this post. I'm just bored of this one and lookin for something else. I'm sure wherever I post next I'll be hearing from ya'll.
Judgement is for making the "Trolls" feel superior
While the "trolls" want no debate. Those of us who debate and discuss allow the "trolls" since to deny them their rights would be against our values of free and open debate.
As for the word "cult" , it is just a description--one person's opinion --having only as much validity as the recipient gives it.
For one thing, organizationally speaking, the Oneness Pentacostal [sic] denomination(s) have not come from nor originated from any Unitarian group or church.
As a theologically meaningful term, Unitarianism is characterized by dogma, not by a chain of ecclesiastical succession. Similarly, Trinitarianism involves doctrine rather than denominational lineage. For instance, a number of Baptist congregations which are Trinitarian reject any historical connection to the denominational bodies where formulated statements about the Trinity arose and were stated in church councils, creeds and confessions.
Two, all Unitarian groups, those who identified themselves as Unitarian, either by name or by belief, have either all disgarded [sic]the Diety [sic] of Christ, or with a few exceptions, have regarded him as, if you'll pardon the term, a 'lesser god' as it were.
As a theologically meaningful term, Unitarianism is characterized by the position that God is uni-personal (i.e. that God exists as a single person). Among Unitarians (who are, as a set, all people who hold that God is uni-personal), there are various Christologies—though there is not a single Unitarian who has an orthodox view of Christ. Unitarians include Jews, Muslims, Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses), Socinians (e.g. Wayfers) and Oneness adherents, each of which maintains that God is uni-personal.
(There actually might be a legitimate objection, different from the one raised by Garth, that could be made against deeming Jehovah's Witnesses Unitarian, since the JW explanation of John 1:1 portrays Christ as “a [created and ontologically inferior] god.”)
Are Oneness adherents Unitarian? Oneness adherents purport to hold that Jesus is God, but they certainly are not Trinitarian. They deny the distinct identities of the Father, his eternal Son and the Holy Spirit. They hold that God is a single person. That is the view that characterizes Unitarianism. Here is another quote from UPCI figure David Bernard (from http://christiandefense.com/one_JesusFather.htm ):
”There is one God with no essential divisions in His nature. He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes. . . . Jesus Christ is the Son of God [not God the Son]. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God [the Father] in His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. . . . Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Notwithstanding the contortions of Oneness advocates such as Bernard, Oneness theology entails a two-persons Christology. The Son of God is portrayed as the human nature of Jesus, and is emphatically denied by Oneness advocates to be eternal and divine. The divine nature of Jesus Christ is identified as the uni-personal deity who is the Son's Father. Oneness advocates deny the deity of Jesus Christ by denying his distinct divine identity. Because Oneness theology entails subordinationism, while its advocates dance around it, I used rather careful wording in asserting “Oneness advocates try, rather incoherently, to juggle Unitarianism with some purportedly positive confession concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.” [bolding now added.]
But there is a clear departure between the understanding of Jesus Christ being God re the Pentacostals [sic], and the understanding of Christ's relation to God in the Unitarian's mind. No doubt there were, and maybe even are exceptions to this rule, but by and large there are far more similarities between Pentacostals [sic] and Trinitarians regarding this issue than Pentacostals [sic] and Unitarians.
It is a mistake to attribute the Oneness beliefs of sects such as the United Pentecostal Church International to Pentecostals in general. Some Pentecostals are not Oneness adherents.
Perhaps a more thorough (and shall I say, less hostile) understanding of where Unitarians are coming from on your part would benefit you more.
P.S., to expand on what I said here, rather than portraying Oneness as a subset of Unitarianism, perhaps it can be seen as a different kind of Unitarianism;
Garth's above assertion decimates his own objection to my statement that Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. The distinction between “a subset of Unitarianism” and “a different kind of Unitarianism” is one of those distinctions without a difference. A politician promoting himself as “a different kind of Democrat,” for example, would be distinguishing himself from other Democrats, while also identifying himself as a member of the set of all Democrats.
much like Mormonism (who view Jesus Christ as the Son of God on the same order as Lucifer once was, if I understand it correctly) or Jehovah's Witnesses (who view Jesus Christ as Micheal the Archangel). And yet they have significant differences to make them distinct from Unitarianism, both back centuries ago, and today.
Mormonism teaches that the God of the Bible is a dependent being who was preceded by other gods, and that humans can become gods. LDS teaching is unbiblical, errant and weird, but it is not some "different kind of Unitarianism."
Ignorant? That you haven't as much of an understanding towards/about Unitarians as you think you do? (or beyond that which your beliefs paint for you, I should say?)
It seems that your understanding of them is just about totally colored, clouded even, by your angst against anything non-orthodox, particularly when it relates to Christology; its almost like this hostility should be important to you. This much is blatantly clear in your posts about them, even somewhat in your latest one here. ... Speak about shameless and smug!
Hypocritical? Nahhh, I don't think so.
A politician promoting himself as “a different kind of Democrat,” for example, would be distinguishing himself from other Democrats, while also identifying himself as a member of the set of all Democrats.
Actually, this example of yours only strengthens my 'different kind of Unitarian' argument, as anybody who even has a cursory knowledge of the Democratic Party knows that there are blatant factions in that political organization, ranging from Southern Democrats to environmentalists to civil rights activists to Jewish Democrats, etc. Unity among Democrats has been, for at least the past 40-50 years or so, a joke. (Which is why it was a newsworthy item during the election of 2004 that the Dems were much more unified in going against Bush.)
Some would say that it is a similar situation among Unitarians, both organizationally and doctrinally speaking. So thank you for decimating your own argument for me. :)
Actually, this example of yours only strengthens my 'different kind of Unitarian' argument, as anybody who even has a cursory knowledge of the Democratic Party knows that there are blatant factions in that political organization, ranging from Southern Democrats to environmentalists to civil rights activists to Jewish Democrats, etc. Unity among Democrats has been, for at least the past 40-50 years or so, a joke. (Which is why it was a newsworthy item during the election of 2004 that the Dems were much more unified in going against Bush.)
Some would say that it is a similar situation among Unitarians, both organizationally and doctrinally speaking. So thank you for decimating your own argument for me. :)
Garth,
My example did not strengthen your argument. Whatever significant differences exist among Democratic factions, all members of all Democratic factions are members of the set of all Democrats. If language is meaningful, the phrase "a different kind of Unitarianism" classifies whatever the phrase refers to as Unitarian.
The problem is that you are too smugly ignorant, unprincipled and manipulative to grasp and admit the point.
No doubt this an oversimplified description of the term, and there are definitely more details dealing with it, more than I want to go into here, but suffice it to say that:
1. There are significantly different forms of Unitarianism
2. There are more forms of Unitarianism than the examples provided by Cynic, both the Christian variety and the non-Christian.
3. And theologically speaking, with strict reference to the Trinitarianism/Unitarianism argument, I do stand corrected, as one can say that the Oneness is a subset of Unitarianism. The main difference is in that most other Unitarianism beliefs don't hold Jesus to be God, as Oneness folks do, as well as dealing with denominational relations. So I concede that point to you, Cynic. Altho' I don't see how much mileage you can get out of that one. Hope you enjoy it in any event.
I trust I wasn't too 'manipulative' and 'unprincipled' with this reply. ;) Altho' methinks that you bandy those terms about with more polemic hype than reason.
THE family tree of the "radical" sects (all dates are approx)
I. Radical Sects circa 1520
A. Annabaptists in 1521
1. Baptists 1609
the Baptists believe that God is an infinite and eternal spirit who is the source and support of all things. He has no form of body and is the same perfect spirit from the beginning. There is one God only --capable of manifesting three distinct and separate persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All are equal in perfection, distinct in office, but one in substance
a Church of the brethren 1719
b Free Will Baptist 1797
c Disciples of Christ 1810
d Adventist Movement 1833
i. Seventh Day Adventists 1863
the Adventists believe that God is a personal being that is invisible and spiritual in nature He is omnipotent, Omnipresent and omniscient They believe in three persons God, the father a spiritual being,, Jesus Christ a being of the same essence and nature as the father and The Holy Spirit a great regenerating power
e Southern Baptist Convention 1845
f Northern Baptist Convention 1845
g Churches of Christ 1906
h National Baptist Convention 1915
i National Baptist Convention of America 1916 ( a offshoot of the Baptists and Church of the Brethren
2 .Mennonites 1636
B .Congregationalists (brownists) 1560 (puritans)
1 1. Congregational Churches 1620
a Unitarian Churches 1825
the Unitarians Believe that God is a spirit , no tranquility or materiality, not transcendent but eminent. Do not believe in a trinity-- Christ was a Great Moral Teacher not divine
b Congregational and Christian Churches 1931
C. Quakers 1647
Belive in a faith of experience God is known by the "inward Light" which is 'Christ Within" Since Belief in God, Christ or the Holy Ghost is known by "experience" do not espouse the Trinity in any form. For Quakers there is no heaven or hell or 2nd coming or resurrection
1 Mennonite Church 1683 ( not to be confused with the Mennonites of 1536)
(Christian Religions Comparative Charts by Rex Bennett)
For the record the LDS believe that God is the Eternal Father who has a body of Flesh and bones He is an exalted personage with an immortal body. His power is Omnipresent and therefore he is Omniscient and Omnipotent. There are three distinct personages in the Godhead God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost who are one in purpose
Correct me if I'm wrong Def but VPW used to say" if we have a roof over our heads, food in the cupboard and good health, we should be so thankful"
I agree that the churches you mentioned are guilty of what you said. I like what Pat Robertson said "If a believer today expects to have all the wealth of the Jobs and Abrahams etc.. then that is irresponsible thinking, better is a little with godly contentment etc.."
I have been doing some research and I am convinced that some of the most dangerous cults out there today can be found on TBN.
Copeland, Hinn, Meyer, Hagee, White, Clement and Osteen. These guys are like vpw on steroids.
Their doctrines are dangerous because they take man and place him over God. Forget the trinity, these people make man out to be gods.
The WordFaith movement is a danger, because it promotes idolatry draped in a shell of scripture.
Just like TWI and others.
With this I have to disagree. They most certainly put God first! I was on staff with Paula White Ministry for years and can attest to her stand on God's Word. Everything that she does is to help God's people and promote God, not herself or the church which she co-pastors with her husband. In my time with the ministry, I have also had opportunity to meet some of the other people on your list and they are the most humble men and women that I've had a chance to meet. They know that God needs to come first before man in every situation.
Mormonism teaches that the God of the Bible is a dependent being who was preceded by other gods, and that humans can become gods. "
From a little reading I’ve done today about LDS doctrine, it seems that assertion was inaccurate.
A dependent being, as I am using the phrase, is a being whose existence is caused by another. It seems that Joseph Smith maintained, however, that God and men (at least as “the intelligence of [human] spirits”) were without beginning.
“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says God made man out of the earth and put into him Adams spirit, and so became a living body. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. . . . I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have anend. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.”
It seems that in LDS doctrine there is actually quite a shortage of dependent beings.
In the 1970s while I was in TWI, I was shown a book by my Brother, who at that time was going to Christ for the Nations Bible College in Dallas Texas. That book on cults Defined a Cult, this way:
A Cult is any organization, or person who believes that "Jesus is NOT God".
That was first on the list, and then it discussed "brainwashing", "people selling all their possessions to fund the Cult", "Living communally", and 'people following the teachings of One man/woman blindly without using their own thought processes, and without questioning its Leader'.
They sited the following groups at that time as being:
TWI,
JWs
Moonies
Children of God (now known as the Family)
Mormans
World Wide Church of God (Garner Ted Armstrong - who by the way use to be part of the JW organization and was one of its contributing leaders., his son now has an offshoot organization.)
The David Carresh (sp) - group
Jim Jones' group (their name escapes me)
Pardon me for going back to page one, but i hadnt read this thread before.
I assume you meant your brother showed you a book...that it wasn't a book written by your brother. Not that he is not capable of writing a book; I know nothing about him...just deducing from the way you posted. If so, I am mildly curious who wrote and/or put out that book way back then. CFNI sponsored my (future) wife's family when they came to the U.S, leading to our many excursions to TX over the years.
Anyway, the above list sounds pretty similar to what my deprogrammers threw at me. All the above named groups and others (such as Scientology) were on their "list". Now, in theory, Jesus Christ being God or not was not a factor, or so I was told...ithe methods used were supposed to define a group as a cult or not. However, in practice, it was no doubt a factor; certainly in my case, and related to the Lutheran Church through which my deprogramming was instigated.
A Cult is any organization, or person who believes that "Jesus is NOT God
in other words, a non-trinitarian who refuses to become a trinitarian
"
brainwashing",
Merriam -Webster
Pronunciation: 'brAn-"wo-shi[ng], -"wä-
Function: noun
Etymology: translation of Chinese (Beijing) xina<hacek>o
1: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2: persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
- brain·washtransitive verb
- brainwashnoun
- brain·wash·ernoun
The key here is an element of force whether physical or psychological. Someone who steadfastly believes in something is not necessarily "brainwashed" just because they won't change their minds to agree with you, who are just as steadfast in not changing your beliefs!!!!!
"people selling all their possessions to fund the Cult",
Definitely a symptom of a cult--however is you look at lists of so-called "Cults" many of them don't fall in this category
"Living communally",
In the United States probably a good indicator whereas in less economically developed areas not so good
'people following the teachings of One man/woman blindly without using their own thought processes, and without questioning its Leader'.
Definite sign--but important to differentiate between the person who refuses to think for themselves versus the person who is ordered not to think for themselves. Some people like having others do the work, the thinking, saves them from being responsible for their lives.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
27
14
Popular Days
Oct 11
24
Oct 18
13
Oct 7
13
Oct 17
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 8 posts
Allan 11 posts
jetc57 27 posts
templelady 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2005
24 posts
Oct 18 2005
13 posts
Oct 7 2005
13 posts
Oct 17 2005
12 posts
moony3424
Remember Kermit's slogan: "It's not easy being green." That is a secret code for something that nobody outside of the swamp really knows. I believe that the green denotes money; therefore, the amphibean is after all the monies he can get (and it's worked out very well for him) in order to hatch some sinister plot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well Mr. Spear, processing is slowed down substantially when we (King James usage due to the sheer magnitude and incredibleness of all of this truth and stuff) have to handle checks, mostly due to the special shielding we have to use to filter out the harmful emantions and effervations from the check coding used on modern day checks. You know the ones, the Klingon code in the lower portion of the check. Due to our extreme concern for our customers we provide, completely free of charge and at no additional cost of any kind to you of course, a translation of the code and it's real true meaning, in modern day English, printed and embossed on specially treated paper made from recycled prune skins. Suitable for framing and appropriate for seasonal gift giving, it can be yours for a handling and shipping fee of only 5.95. I'd recommend using PaySpank for this. We have a special arrangement with them, all you have to do is note the word "socks stuff" in the comments section and they'll handle all of the arrangments for free, for a small handling fee.
YIKES!!!!! Moony, that's it!!!!!!!!
"Follow the money", as always! I'm sure that once this gets the attention it deserves there will be repercussions. Watch your back there Lady!
Well, I hope this has helped.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Jet, I thought you had been here long enough to see that most people here don't use any kind of lable system and when the word "cult" comes up, there is usually some sort of debate about the definition of cult. :) If you're looking for a strictly Christian website where people still hold to some sort of TWI doctrine, then may I suggest Raf's site: Living Epistles.
I do hope that you don't let a few threads deter you from all the other great things here at GSpot. There really are some great people here, it just gets a little heated at times and it takes a while for people to quit feeding the trolls sometimes, too. :)
I haven't read the books or authors you mentioned, but I have been delving into Elaine Pagels and "The Origin of Satan" as well as her research on the Nag Hammadi Scrolls. I've read "What Does Go Want?" and I'm currently reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by the guy that founded Skeptic Magazine. It's fascinating reading!
I've also checked out things on the Mind-Body connection (ala Candace Pert) and What the Bleep. It's been a fun, enlightening experience! I feel like a kid in a candy store reading about all these other things, beliefs, history of religion and such.... It's pretty neat to see where people go and what kinds of things they start looking at once they are free from TWI's confinement and can study anything and everything they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Thats just the 'nature of the beast' here Jet. I just wish the Belles of 'the spot' would be a little bit more honest.They have just as many 'labels' they spew forth..'twi.ts' 'twi.tsville' 'pfiffle' etc.. don't let it get to you, I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
:blink: I see how things written get MISUNDERSTOOD big time. I'm just bored with the CULT topic, and lookin for a forum where folks can be more comfortable sharing whats on their mind and why they believe certain things they do WITHOUT the need for debate or judgements.
I'm not leaving this forum because of being offended by anything, heck no. NO one has offended me, or done anything to cause me NOT to like this post. I'm just bored of this one and lookin for something else. I'm sure wherever I post next I'll be hearing from ya'll.
Hugs
Jeannette
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Debate is what makes it interesting
Judgement is for making the "Trolls" feel superior
While the "trolls" want no debate. Those of us who debate and discuss allow the "trolls" since to deny them their rights would be against our values of free and open debate.
As for the word "cult" , it is just a description--one person's opinion --having only as much validity as the recipient gives it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
As a theologically meaningful term, Unitarianism is characterized by dogma, not by a chain of ecclesiastical succession. Similarly, Trinitarianism involves doctrine rather than denominational lineage. For instance, a number of Baptist congregations which are Trinitarian reject any historical connection to the denominational bodies where formulated statements about the Trinity arose and were stated in church councils, creeds and confessions.
As a theologically meaningful term, Unitarianism is characterized by the position that God is uni-personal (i.e. that God exists as a single person). Among Unitarians (who are, as a set, all people who hold that God is uni-personal), there are various Christologies—though there is not a single Unitarian who has an orthodox view of Christ. Unitarians include Jews, Muslims, Arians (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses), Socinians (e.g. Wayfers) and Oneness adherents, each of which maintains that God is uni-personal.
(There actually might be a legitimate objection, different from the one raised by Garth, that could be made against deeming Jehovah's Witnesses Unitarian, since the JW explanation of John 1:1 portrays Christ as “a [created and ontologically inferior] god.”)
Are Oneness adherents Unitarian? Oneness adherents purport to hold that Jesus is God, but they certainly are not Trinitarian. They deny the distinct identities of the Father, his eternal Son and the Holy Spirit. They hold that God is a single person. That is the view that characterizes Unitarianism. Here is another quote from UPCI figure David Bernard (from http://christiandefense.com/one_JesusFather.htm ):
”There is one God with no essential divisions in His nature. He is not a plurality of persons, but He does have a plurality of manifestations, roles, titles, attributes. . . . Jesus Christ is the Son of God [not God the Son]. He is the incarnation of the fullness of God [the Father] in His deity, Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. . . . Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Notwithstanding the contortions of Oneness advocates such as Bernard, Oneness theology entails a two-persons Christology. The Son of God is portrayed as the human nature of Jesus, and is emphatically denied by Oneness advocates to be eternal and divine. The divine nature of Jesus Christ is identified as the uni-personal deity who is the Son's Father. Oneness advocates deny the deity of Jesus Christ by denying his distinct divine identity. Because Oneness theology entails subordinationism, while its advocates dance around it, I used rather careful wording in asserting “Oneness advocates try, rather incoherently, to juggle Unitarianism with some purportedly positive confession concerning the deity of Jesus Christ.” [bolding now added.]
It is a mistake to attribute the Oneness beliefs of sects such as the United Pentecostal Church International to Pentecostals in general. Some Pentecostals are not Oneness adherents.
Vintage Garth: Smugly ignorant, shamelessly hypocritical.E tu.
Garth's above assertion decimates his own objection to my statement that Oneness theology is a subset of Unitarianism. The distinction between “a subset of Unitarianism” and “a different kind of Unitarianism” is one of those distinctions without a difference. A politician promoting himself as “a different kind of Democrat,” for example, would be distinguishing himself from other Democrats, while also identifying himself as a member of the set of all Democrats.Mormonism teaches that the God of the Bible is a dependent being who was preceded by other gods, and that humans can become gods. LDS teaching is unbiblical, errant and weird, but it is not some "different kind of Unitarianism."
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
Ignorant? That you haven't as much of an understanding towards/about Unitarians as you think you do? (or beyond that which your beliefs paint for you, I should say?)It seems that your understanding of them is just about totally colored, clouded even, by your angst against anything non-orthodox, particularly when it relates to Christology; its almost like this hostility should be important to you. This much is blatantly clear in your posts about them, even somewhat in your latest one here. ... Speak about shameless and smug!
Hypocritical? Nahhh, I don't think so.
Actually, this example of yours only strengthens my 'different kind of Unitarian' argument, as anybody who even has a cursory knowledge of the Democratic Party knows that there are blatant factions in that political organization, ranging from Southern Democrats to environmentalists to civil rights activists to Jewish Democrats, etc. Unity among Democrats has been, for at least the past 40-50 years or so, a joke. (Which is why it was a newsworthy item during the election of 2004 that the Dems were much more unified in going against Bush.)
Some would say that it is a similar situation among Unitarians, both organizationally and doctrinally speaking. So thank you for decimating your own argument for me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
My example did not strengthen your argument. Whatever significant differences exist among Democratic factions, all members of all Democratic factions are members of the set of all Democrats. If language is meaningful, the phrase "a different kind of Unitarianism" classifies whatever the phrase refers to as Unitarian.
The problem is that you are too smugly ignorant, unprincipled and manipulative to grasp and admit the point.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Unitarianism - n.
1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism.
2. A monotheist who is not a Christian.
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian.
(gotten from Dictionary.com)
No doubt this an oversimplified description of the term, and there are definitely more details dealing with it, more than I want to go into here, but suffice it to say that:
1. There are significantly different forms of Unitarianism
2. There are more forms of Unitarianism than the examples provided by Cynic, both the Christian variety and the non-Christian.
3. And theologically speaking, with strict reference to the Trinitarianism/Unitarianism argument, I do stand corrected, as one can say that the Oneness is a subset of Unitarianism. The main difference is in that most other Unitarianism beliefs don't hold Jesus to be God, as Oneness folks do, as well as dealing with denominational relations. So I concede that point to you, Cynic. Altho' I don't see how much mileage you can get out of that one. Hope you enjoy it in any event.
I trust I wasn't too 'manipulative' and 'unprincipled' with this reply. ;) Altho' methinks that you bandy those terms about with more polemic hype than reason.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
damn -- I had something to say --but I ain't a'gonna get in the middle of this one!! :P
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ahhh not to worry, Dave. Cynic is really just a good ol' pussycat, ... who just spits up a hairball now and then.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
THE family tree of the "radical" sects (all dates are approx)
I. Radical Sects circa 1520
A. Annabaptists in 1521
1. Baptists 1609
the Baptists believe that God is an infinite and eternal spirit who is the source and support of all things. He has no form of body and is the same perfect spirit from the beginning. There is one God only --capable of manifesting three distinct and separate persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All are equal in perfection, distinct in office, but one in substance
a Church of the brethren 1719
b Free Will Baptist 1797
c Disciples of Christ 1810
d Adventist Movement 1833
i. Seventh Day Adventists 1863
the Adventists believe that God is a personal being that is invisible and spiritual in nature He is omnipotent, Omnipresent and omniscient They believe in three persons God, the father a spiritual being,, Jesus Christ a being of the same essence and nature as the father and The Holy Spirit a great regenerating power
e Southern Baptist Convention 1845
f Northern Baptist Convention 1845
g Churches of Christ 1906
h National Baptist Convention 1915
i National Baptist Convention of America 1916 ( a offshoot of the Baptists and Church of the Brethren
2 .Mennonites 1636
B .Congregationalists (brownists) 1560 (puritans)
1 1. Congregational Churches 1620
a Unitarian Churches 1825
the Unitarians Believe that God is a spirit , no tranquility or materiality, not transcendent but eminent. Do not believe in a trinity-- Christ was a Great Moral Teacher not divine
b Congregational and Christian Churches 1931
C. Quakers 1647
Belive in a faith of experience God is known by the "inward Light" which is 'Christ Within" Since Belief in God, Christ or the Holy Ghost is known by "experience" do not espouse the Trinity in any form. For Quakers there is no heaven or hell or 2nd coming or resurrection
1 Mennonite Church 1683 ( not to be confused with the Mennonites of 1536)
(Christian Religions Comparative Charts by Rex Bennett)
For the record the LDS believe that God is the Eternal Father who has a body of Flesh and bones He is an exalted personage with an immortal body. His power is Omnipresent and therefore he is Omniscient and Omnipotent. There are three distinct personages in the Godhead God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost who are one in purpose
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I have been doing some research and I am convinced that some of the most dangerous cults out there today can be found on TBN.
Copeland, Hinn, Meyer, Hagee, White, Clement and Osteen. These guys are like vpw on steroids.
Their doctrines are dangerous because they take man and place him over God. Forget the trinity, these people make man out to be gods.
The WordFaith movement is a danger, because it promotes idolatry draped in a shell of scripture.
Just like TWI and others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Correct me if I'm wrong Def but VPW used to say" if we have a roof over our heads, food in the cupboard and good health, we should be so thankful"
I agree that the churches you mentioned are guilty of what you said. I like what Pat Robertson said "If a believer today expects to have all the wealth of the Jobs and Abrahams etc.. then that is irresponsible thinking, better is a little with godly contentment etc.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
With this I have to disagree. They most certainly put God first! I was on staff with Paula White Ministry for years and can attest to her stand on God's Word. Everything that she does is to help God's people and promote God, not herself or the church which she co-pastors with her husband. In my time with the ministry, I have also had opportunity to meet some of the other people on your list and they are the most humble men and women that I've had a chance to meet. They know that God needs to come first before man in every situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
From a little reading I’ve done today about LDS doctrine, it seems that assertion was inaccurate.
A dependent being, as I am using the phrase, is a being whose existence is caused by another. It seems that Joseph Smith maintained, however, that God and men (at least as “the intelligence of [human] spirits”) were without beginning.
Here’s a quote from Joseph Smith, as it appears at http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=422 (italicization is mine):
“We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says God made man out of the earth and put into him Adams spirit, and so became a living body. The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. . . . I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have anend. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.”
It seems that in LDS doctrine there is actually quite a shortage of dependent beings.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
What can I say ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Ands there lies the question--Who then Created God
Which leads to endless discussion--interesting but not to become so over powering that we neglect our lives and duties
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Word for the day: Aseity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Pardon me for going back to page one, but i hadnt read this thread before.
I assume you meant your brother showed you a book...that it wasn't a book written by your brother. Not that he is not capable of writing a book; I know nothing about him...just deducing from the way you posted. If so, I am mildly curious who wrote and/or put out that book way back then. CFNI sponsored my (future) wife's family when they came to the U.S, leading to our many excursions to TX over the years.
Anyway, the above list sounds pretty similar to what my deprogrammers threw at me. All the above named groups and others (such as Scientology) were on their "list". Now, in theory, Jesus Christ being God or not was not a factor, or so I was told...ithe methods used were supposed to define a group as a cult or not. However, in practice, it was no doubt a factor; certainly in my case, and related to the Lutheran Church through which my deprogramming was instigated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
What's CFNI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Christ for the Nations mentioned in the above quote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
"
Merriam -Webster
Pronunciation: 'brAn-"wo-shi[ng], -"wä-
Function: noun
Etymology: translation of Chinese (Beijing) xina<hacek>o
1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
- brain·wash transitive verb
- brainwash noun
- brain·wash·er noun
The key here is an element of force whether physical or psychological. Someone who steadfastly believes in something is not necessarily "brainwashed" just because they won't change their minds to agree with you, who are just as steadfast in not changing your beliefs!!!!!
Definitely a symptom of a cult--however is you look at lists of so-called "Cults" many of them don't fall in this categoryIn the United States probably a good indicator whereas in less economically developed areas not so good
Definite sign--but important to differentiate between the person who refuses to think for themselves versus the person who is ordered not to think for themselves. Some people like having others do the work, the thinking, saves them from being responsible for their lives.
Edited by templeladyLink 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.