-->
@secularmerlin
Bigot
Those Battling 45,000 Denominations
Posts
Total:
308
-->
@Swagnarok
Even in the early days of the church, there was the apostolic church, that is, the church whose orders descended from the ordinations of the apostles. One of the distinguishing marks of the true church is apostolic succession. This is important, because even in the early church, yes ,there were other religions who claimed Christ. Apostolic succession was seen as an important thing that distinguised the true church from the churches of heretics.
There is only one "protestant" church that can claim apostolic succession. The Anglican church. The Anglican church has this apostolic succession from the Roman Catholic Church it broke away from. The Roman Catholic Church has its Apostolic succession from The Orthodox Catholic Church which it broke away from.
The nature of The Roman Catholic Church's schism has a lot to do with them changing essential matters of the faith that were agreed on by the entire church, things that on multiple occasions during the ecumenical councils it was said change to these alessential things would lead to anathema, or a curse. So it wasn't that The Roman Bishop was booted from the church so much as they rebelled from the church.
Protestants revolted against the schismatic Roman church understandably(because at that point, the corruption in that church had reached its height) but they never returned to The Orthodox Church. This is also somewhat understandable because the west was isolated from the Orthodox Church during this time, as we The Orthodox Church were mostly under Ottoman rule at the time and persecuted heavily or isolated geographically and politically.
The main problem with protestant Christianity is that after breaking away from the bishop of Rome, they threw out a lot of what was important with it. At the same time, they retained much of what was error in the Latin church.
The protestant reformers themselves were not saintly people, and a lot o lf their bad influences on western non-catholic Christianity stuck. Protestantism has been splintering endlessly ever since.
Meanwhile, The Orthodox Church is still practicing the same liturgy as the ancient church. We remember the saints. We have their writings and make them available rather than hidden. The doctrine the church teaches is pure and enlightened. We still understand the Mystagogy of the faith.
Protestantism is simply not the church. I spent much more time in protestant/evangelical evangelical land, and now after knowing the truth and seeing the real church it would be impossible for me to go back.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you have any evidence that he did?If it was, the thief on the cross would not make it to paradise
-->
@secularmerlin
When we discuss the cult of Christianity however we are teferencing the Christian church, a religious organization. Belief is not a cult the christian church is more than just the belief of an individual.
Belief is not a cult, following Christ is not a cult, and the Christian church is a congregation of many individuals. Do you think it's the congregating in a building that supposedly makes Christianity a cult?
By the way, people fear people that are united. We found out how powerful groups united in one cause can be via the Civil Rights Movement. So it's not really any wonder why people have a problem with the organized church. It's kind of funny because organization is a positive. But in the case of religion it's a negative. I guess we're supposed to be unorganized?
How have you deyermined that anyone has gone tp heaven? Ever?
I pointed that out because it's in scripture. Whether the thief went to heaven or not is irrelevant. The point is that Christ, whether he took the thief to paradise or not did not make any demands that he join an organization. He of course was not in a position to do so, but it wasn't at any point a prerequisite for entrance into paradise.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't know how you got the idea that I am somehow against the idea of organized religion. I am against the idea of the intigration of church and state and also against religious based discrimination and the indoctrination of the young but if like minded eople wish to gather peaceably and practice their belief I do not object indeed that would be an infringement of their freedom of religion, the same thing that protects my right to be an atheist.
so long as your cult organizes peacefully does not expect their beliefs to form legostlation and they do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother.
-->
@secularmerlin
Stheism is not an organization. Atheist organizations are not religious.
Yes it is, because it meets this broad definition.
Atheist organizations make it a lifestyle and/or career dealing with religion. From what I've seen, some are absolutely obsessed with religion.
You abhor the word religion, so of course you don't want it referenced with your particular worldview. Not any mystery.
If there are religious humanists there are also phylisophical, political and practical humanists. Religious humanism could be a cult (depending on yourdefinition of cult which I still have both seem) but humanism as a philosophy would not seem to be.
Some people actually make the same claim about Buddhism. Have you read the humanist manifesto?
The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere
revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
This manifesto doesn't represent a faction of humanists. This is a universal manifesto.
And here is the main meat of your argument. "Real" religion is religion "false" religion is a cult. Now all you have to do is prove that any religion is inspired by any actual god(s) and we have a definitivecway of telling religions from cults. Otherwise there is no functional observable difference to an outside observer.
No. I don't know if I can make it any clearer. It's not about other religions being false. I don't consider non-Christian religions as being cults. Figuring out which group of Christians are cults, and which ones inspired by God is for the Christian to consider. It's an argument for mopac perhaps, but not for you.
I object to atheism being called a religion. Since I consider cult and religion synonyms I object to that word equally and for the same reasons.
I'm not tickled pink by your reference to religion being synonymous with cults, but that's because I'm fairly sure that your reference to cult is derogatory. As far as atheism being a religion, they wanted to take part in a government prayer ceremony in Texas, some want atheism included in the military religious services, the State of Wisconsin considers it a religion, and apparently so did John Adams.
But again, this all really hinges on whether the term cult is positive or negative. A cult doesn't have to be negative. To say The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a cult movie for instance is a postitive, because it reveals the success of a very low-budget B-movie. To say some local rock band is gaining a cult following is a postive because it reveals the success of an up-and-coming relatively unknown band.
So before we take it any further, aside from my suspicion, is the term cult in context of our discussion a negative? Or is it neutral? Is there any positives?
Now do you have a good working definition of cult or is the difference just opinion based?
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms:
obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for
Like the term "religion", the term "cult" has it's broader definition. I would say this defines some atheist activists quite well.
obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for
Like the term "religion", the term "cult" has it's broader definition. I would say this defines some atheist activists quite well.
-->
@RoderickSpode
If I grant this broad definition then atheism is still not my religion. It is just a natural consequence of my skepticism.Yes it is, because it meets this broad definition.
All atheists talk about is how they hate organized religion. And theists.
That's all you talk about witchypoo
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am an atheist because my database was not programmed accordingly.
For the same reason, I have absolutely no hatred whatsoever for organised religions.
Organised religion is just something that some people have been programmed to do.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know how you got the idea that I am somehow against the idea of organized religion. I am against the idea of the intigration of church and state and also against religious based discrimination and the indoctrination of the young but if like minded eople wish to gather peaceably and practice their belief I do not object indeed that would be an infringement of their freedom of religion, the same thing that protects my right to be an atheist.so long as your cult organizes peacefully does not expect their beliefs to form legostlation and they do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother.
I'm not saying that you personally are against the idea of organized religion. Of course everyone is going to say something along those lines because it's just not kosher to come across as defying the constitution. And I do think some people attempt to interpret the constitution to fit their world view.
Integration of church and state can have different implications. In the days of the founding fathers, it didn't imply keeping religion outside of government property. Their idea of integrating church and state meant avoiding a denominational monopoly to occur, as their concern was not the
presence of religion in government, but the threat of a theocracy. They actually held church services every Sunday morning on government ground.
Their idea of keeping a separation of church and state was not remove church services from government, but to have different ministers from all denominations take turns preaching Sunday mornings.
Many people say they respect religious freedom, but it's the inevitable just-so-long-as' that tend to reveal the truth. For instance, someone
complained about a statue of Jesus on a ski resort mountain that I don't think is even visible from the outside. It was placed there to honor WWII vets who were reminded of a similar statue that gave them comfort while in battle in Italy (and hopefully not considered cowards). So The Freedom From Religion Foundation got involved by taking the matter in to court with the idea that they're protecting Americans from a statue that gives preference for one religion over another. Yes, imagine that. Well, they lost the case, and the statue is still there.
Keep in mind, the statue is relatively invisible to most of the world. All except for a handful of skiers who take selfies along side it. It's very possible
that not one human being ever got converted because of seeing this statue. However, right on a street corner near you stands a church with a marquee welcoming people to come to a service. And quite a number of people probably do take up on the invitation, and thus following become believers. What about Billy Graham Crusades? Do you have any idea how many conversions there have been as a result of these crusades? I don't either. I just know it's huge.
Well we know that the church marquees are on church property, so there's nothing anyone can really do. And the Billy Graham committee has a right to rent out stadiums just like anyone else. Do you think for one second, that if the FFRF, and similar organizations found a loophole, that they wouldn't seek legal reasons to close churches and crusades down?
Religious based discrimination? I'm assuming that you're not talking about discrimination towards Christianity, so I'm assuming that you're
referring to phantom discrimination perpetrated by Christians against other religions.
As far as not expecting Christianity to form legislation, while I'm sure same-sex unions are in mind, I'll let you expound on that further before commentating.
The rest of your comments lead me to conclude that you believe I go to a church where we're just about on the fringe of rioting. You're okay with me and my church as long as we control our savage instincts, remain in the pews, and forego vandalizing the neighborhood mosque down the road.
Your last comment is difficult to understand (do not use their faith as an excuse to practice criminality cult on brother). But your insistence on referring to my church as a cult is telling. It looks as though my church and I are on the verge of poisoning the communion wine one Sunday morning.
-->
@secularmerlin
I never intended to make any such suggestion towards you personally. That seems to be more your focus. For some reason you want to make sure it's clear that I'm in a cult (and of course religion), and you're not. Why? I'm not really sure.If I grant this broad definition then atheism is still not my religion. It is just a natural consequence of my skepticism.
I don't even really mind the religious part. The term religion in scripture implies both a positive and negative. The negative being the self-righteous pious attitude of pharisees, and the positive being aiding a fellow human in need (true religion).
In fact, I may not even mind the cult part. The term usually has a negative connotation to it, but it doesn't necessarily have to be negative.
But I think it's pretty clear that to you religion=cult=Branch Davidians, Peoples Temple, etc.
My database was programmed but I don't believe in a programmer. Fucking morons.
the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
-John Adams
Religious based discrimination? I'm assuming that you're not talking about discrimination towards Christianity, so I'm assuming that you'rereferring to phantom discrimination perpetrated by Christians against other religions.
I am talking about any discrimination of any kind based on a persins religion or lack thereof.
As far as not expecting Christianity to form legislation, while I'm sure same-sex unions are in mind, I'll let you expound on that further before commentating.
You are fixated on Christianity here. I mean no religious legislation. This applies equally to all religions.
The rest of your comments lead me to conclude that you believe I go to a church where we're just about on the fringe of rioting.
Wow you are just full of straw man today. Thevtruth is that many religions including some christian denominations can and have used their influence to cober up criminal activities such as child abuse. If this does Not apply to your church then good for you but no one accused your church of anything. I am just giving guidelines here for how it is and is not ok to practice religion.
It looks as though my church and I are on the verge of poisoning the communion wine one Sunday morning.
Wow seems like your the one with a negative view on cults. To be fair many religions/cults can be dangerous but even if we follow your definition the fact that a religion is not a world religion does not automatically make it dangerous just like being a major world religion doesn't stop a religion from being dangerous. That is largely determined by the practitioners not the belief.
For some reason you want to make sure it's clear that I'm in a cult/religion
more that I don't really see the difference and your not doing a very good job of explaining it.
the positive being aiding a fellow human in need (true religion).
I object to this statement. You are not describing religion here you are describing empathy. Religion is not necessary for humans to aide one another in need.
In fact, I may not even mind the cult part. The term usually has a negative connotation to it, but it doesn't necessarily have to be negative.
This comment made me feel like we were close to agreeing on terms but then
But I think it's pretty clear that to you religion=cult=Branch Davidians, Peoples Temple, etc.
Sadly another straw man. Perhaps for the rest of the conversation you will allow me to make my own arguments? Because of you are just going to make up arguments and pretend they are mine... well you don't really need me for that.
-->Polytheist-Witch
My database was programmed but I don't believe in a programmer
This is a poor analogy.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Rod, maybe you can advance the ball on this conversation by simply stating what you believe the functional difference is between a religious cult (so not the people who are constantly preaching the benefits of the Keto diet) and a true religion. Usually the answers lie in how many adherents there are, or how old the practice may be. What makes some Pentecostal church that handles snakes as a testament to the healing and protective power of faith more "true" than, say, the cult that thought Hale Bopp was a spaceship sent by the creators of mankind to return them to their original home planet? I mean besides the results, wherein people get bitten by snakes and die and people commit suicide, respectively.
-->
@ludofl3x
I hope this is not his answer because that would make it a no trye scotsman argument and I don't think much of the no true scotsman fallacy.Usually the answers lie in how many adherents there are, or how old the practice may be.
-->
@secularmerlin
Prepare to be disappointed is my advice :). I sincerely hope Rod surprises me, I'm rooting for him!
-->
@secularmerlin
I wasn't talking you, piss off.
The Cult of Atheism is full of bigots.
Polly, can YOU elucidate perhaps what you think a cult is, versus a religion? Clearly if you think atheism is a cult, you have completely uncoupled 'cult' from religious qualities. I'm wondering what your definition would be.
Funny how we Orthodox have no issue acknowledging that we have forms of cultic worship while everyone else is made averse because of newspeak.
Maybe to you all the difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate the church in question owns.
-->
@Mopac
They use cult to be insulting and don't let them tell you otherwise. If a cult is a group with a unifying religious view they are one in that they hate religion and are bigots to theism.
-->
@Mopac
I think the issue is no one can differentiate between the two in any meaningful or consistent way.
While the word has taken on negative connotations, you can be assured that in the early formative days of Christianity, the Romans certainly would have thought it fit the pejorative definition we use today. Ironically, if a religion dedicated to the Roman Pantheon showed up now, it'd be the one called a cult, by Christians. Many Christians call Scientology a cult.
-->
@ludofl3x
Cultic practice is simply formalized religious veneration.
The debate you all are having about cult vs religion is a manifestation of bad education as is the projection that "no one can differentiate between the two in any meaningful or consistent way."
-->
@Mopac
Cultic practice is simply formalized religious veneration.
Okay, so then the term 'cults' would then include as a subset all 'religions' and the words do not have different meanings, according to you. Fortunately for all of us, you are not the arbiter of word usage in the English language, so there seems still to be some substantive difference between the Branch Davidian CULT and the Christian RELIGION. You have thus disqualified yourself from discussing it, as you do not have any daylight between the two words, they are totally interchangeable. So you're a member of the Orthodox Cult, you'd be comfortable with that phrasing?
Bigots hate theists so calling us all cult members gives them a woody cause they can call us all Jim Jones.
-->
@ludofl3x
Still sticking to your guns eh?
It is pride month or something right?
No, there is a difference between religion and cult.
A religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. A cult is formalized religious veneration.
They are different.
-->
@Mopac
That does not sound different: Branch Davidians and Hale Bopp Comet folks all had a system of beliefs they held to with ardor and faith, all the way to their deaths. Why are they in a cult but the Pope of your church is in a religion? "Formalized religious veneration" seems to happen in every religion, too. You're practicing a formalized religious veneration by attending mass weekly, praying daily, fasting, observing holy days. That's all formalized. I'll ask it again:
Are you comfortable with the phrasing "Mopac is a member of the Orthodox cult"? Yes or no would do. Why or why not would be better.
-->
@ludofl3x
There are cultic practices in a religion. The religion itself is not a cult.
As I said, you are confused by newspeak.
Also, I am not Roman Catholic, I am Orthodox. I belong to the Antiochian church, not the Alexandrian church. No pope. We don't celebrate mass, we have divine liturgy.
And yes, the liturgy itself is an example of a cult within orthodoxy.
You don't understand our religion. You equate the cult with the religion itself.