Cults -vs- Religion

Merika · 03-16-2006, 10:05 AM

Without discussing if or if not there is a God, what would make a religion any different than a cult?

Adonaicole · 03-16-2006, 11:03 AM

My definition of a cult is when the leaders make themselves out to be infailable and ask you to follow them blindly. "Abraham believed in God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". Abraham, didn't have to go through a priest or rabbi to find God, he just had to believe.

Vautrin · 03-16-2006, 11:18 AM

Roman Catholics? It was long held that the pope was infallible.

Merika · 03-16-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Roman Catholics? It was long held that the pope was infallible.

I think for many centuries that was probably true. I've never been a Catholic, but I know his word carries a lot of weight...even now. Ofcourse, you can find the same thing within Christian denominations.

Star · 03-16-2006, 01:18 PM

A cult hurts people and the leader portays him/herself to be acloser to a god then anyone else on this earth.

cults are scary. How anyone can be involved in any cult is beyond me. i know that i'd never get suckered into it.

a religion doesn't hurt anyone but it is cult like none the less IMO. they're man made rules and there is usually one leader that the rest believe him/her to be closest to god.

this is why i don't believe in religion and i was brought up a catholic.

Merika · 03-17-2006, 11:29 AM

I have a problem with 'organized religion'...but it doesn't hinder the way I feel about God.

sweetbilly · 03-17-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

what would make a religion any different than a cult?

I think i hae a pretty good answer for this one: a cult is based mostly in unsubstantiated, non-provable evidence. Some religions, for the most part, like to believe they have been based on provable historical, scientific evidence that can be corroborated. I feel most religions in the world are mostly just cults in disguise, there are very few in the world that would stand up to any real scientific/historical scrutiny. However, there are some that could and do stand up under that type of scrutiny.

Merika · 03-19-2006, 12:23 PM

Good answer Billy. But for people who don't believe in Jesus as being God in the flesh, they would probably disagree. For me, any religion who doesn't accept Jesus is a cult. It represents a false god.

Vautrin · 03-19-2006, 03:13 PM

Ah, but not all followers of Christ, believe that Jesus is God, to complicate matters even further.

sweetbilly · 03-19-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Ah, but not all followers of Christ, believe that Jesus is God, to complicate matters even further.

You know i've heard this before, however, i have yet to find anywhere in the bible where Christ said he wasn't the son of God and tons of places where he stated, quite emphatically, that not only that he was the son of God but that he was also God in the flesh and that any man whom sees the son is also seeing the father. So i have no idea how people have come to this idea that Jesus never claimed to be God incarnet, he did several times. I'm NOT trying to offend anyone but i find that this is mainly a secular world belief, a belief that comes mainly from european countries where Catholism is the predominant religon. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't understand how two or more different groups that don't believe in the same thing about Jesus can say they are both followers? From what i understand there is only one way to believe in God, his way. The only question is who is correct in their biblical translations.

Vautrin · 03-19-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetbilly

You know i've heard this before, however, i have yet to find anywhere in the bible where Christ said he wasn't the son of God and tons of places where he stated, quite emphatically, that not only that he was the son of God but that he was also God in the flesh and that any man whom sees the son is also seeing the father.

First of all, a statement in itself is no proof that the statement must be true. I could say that I am a woman, and say it consistently. Does not mean that I am a woman. Seems a moot point perhaps, but in no way statements of identity are the most important issue for all christians.

Second, you could easily interpret such a statement as a literary figure, with spiritual connotations. That often happens in religious traditions, including Christianity. I do not see a reason to exclude the possibility that Christ made use of these literary figures.

It was only decided in the fourth century by the Catholic Church that Christ, God and the Holy spirit were one. And we know, that the Bible was not written in 21st century English, and translations differ quite markedly. Some words in the original text, only appear once, and never in other sources. So we are only guessing what was written there. Not exactly exact.

So if these are the original words of Christ you are referring to, it is a completely different conception of God, than what is considered "normal" for christians nowadays - more Eastern inspired it appears.

Quote:

So i have no idea how people have come to this idea that Jesus never claimed to be God incarnet, he did several times.

So, why is it that the Church accepted that position in the fourth century, and not two or three centuries earlier?

Quote:

I guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't understand how two or more different groups that don't believe in the same thing about Jesus can say they are both followers?

It is not hard. Think of democracy, for instance. US democracy differs widely from Canadian democracy, UK democracy, French democracy etc. Still a lot of people can believe in their particular brand of democracy, and even hold that particular brand as the example of "true democracy." Yet, everyone calls themselves a believer in democracy.

AS an interesting question, I would like to ask: how can a Christian believe in democracy, as it seems completely without foundation in the Bible itself?

Quote:

From what i understand there is only one way to believe in God, his way. The only question is who is correct in their biblical translations.

Nope. God did not issue 7321 totally clear orders. There is always an issue of interpretation (take for instance the ban on demanding interest on loans that has existed for quite a while, based on the bible itself). And of course forces in society that pressurize religion (and the other way around).

sweetbilly · 03-19-2006, 08:21 PM

Well, ok, if there were several ways to believe in God then why would Christ say "NO one comes unto the father except through me"? Is he suggesting that there are multiple beliefs that will save a soul? Does this not suggest that there is only ONE way to worship God and all others are forbiden?

If there is more than one way to worship God, then i guess that means Christ was a liar, cause he obviously contradicted himself, and upon his death he must have went directly to hell, right?. Because, as i understand it, NO child of Gods lies and anyone who is a liar is a child of Gods. "He thats leads into perdition shal go into perdition" Thus everyone who believes Christ as the son of God, if christ was not truly the son of God, is also doomed to the same fate because now not only is Jesus not Gods son but now he can't do didly to save you? If Christ was a liar that means he broke Gods laws/commands by lying and thus he wasn't or can't be the true prophosised Christ. Because God also tells us he is "NEVER changing, he is, was and always will be the same tommorow as he was yesterday and forever", he Never lies, steals, etc.. etc... Christ had to be God because, to quote the bible again "EVERYONE has fallen short of the glory of God" So if Christ isn't God himself how did he obtain Gods glory? Oh by the way the name Imanuel, which is also another name mary was commanded to give her son, means in Hebrew "God is with us"

Thus, i would venture to say there is only ONE way to believe in God, any other way of worship which deviates from his will as far as God is concerned constitutes a cult. Thus, anyone how participates in these orginizations are also in danger of Gods judgement.

As for democracy, many people feel its foundations come from the book of revelations where it says "you set up a table in front of my enemies etc...." as well as from Greek society. However, there is reason to believe that Greek society/Mythology got most of their beliefs from biblical teachings which came from the middle east. Such as the story of Hercules which mimics in many ways the story of samson. Of course we still have these so-called historians that believe Greek society was around before biblical teachings, LOL. I suppose they think greek society predates Soddom and Gamorah, Noah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc.. what a joke. Just the stories themselves are hunderds to thousands of years older than Greek society.

Merika · 03-28-2006, 09:01 AM

But Billy.....if someone is NOT a Christian....the do not believe Jesus was God in the flesh....so the teachings of the Bible is irrelevant to them. Therefore, the Bible is only good for a back-up of facts, if you believe it to be genuine. Lots of people do not.

sweetbilly · 03-28-2006, 08:01 PM

Yes Merkia, I agree the bible wouldn't make any sence to a non-christian at all, it's not an easy book to understand either. However, that's not because the bible isn't congruent and utterly complete, which NO other religion or book in the world could ever claim to be, it's because people have not taken the time to understand it from cover to cover and to seek guidence for the parts they have read and didn't understand from those who have studied it indepthly and actually know. Think of the bible like a maze, if you will, if you reach a dead end in your interpretation you have missed something in your interpretation and have gone the wrong way. However, if you interperet things correctly and take the time to understand what you are reading, there are things, you couldn't possibly ever imagine hidden within the pages. Including geological condrundrums, quantum physics, Astronomy, Psychology, Physiology, Biology, etc etc etc, and all of this was written by people whose education wouldn't have matched a 8 year old's today. So how did they write a book, which covers physical earth processes etc so exactally 5000 years ago when most people were still grinding their bread on rocks? There is just NO way a man, much less a sheepherder from 5000 years ago, could have written that book EVER, it is impossible. You would have had to have known the future.

Another thing people fail to realize, is that without the New Testiment the Old Testiment in an incomplete book. The two books, written thousands of years apart form a perfect, congruent complete book. Where you might be missing one part from one book, the other book will complete the statement faithfully, even the scriptures man has never been able to understand until modern times, geoogy, physics etc... It's an amazing book really. Anyone who is openminded and is actually seeking to find out whether there is a God, and if Jesus is/was actually god incarnate, need only read, and be utterly honest with themselves, to discover what the answer to these questions really are.

Fayebelle · 08-11-2008, 08:30 PM

I believe cults ask members to behave in manners that cause lasting mental, emotional, or physical damage to themselves or others.

I believe there are divisions of many mainstream religions- even Christianity- that veer into this territory from time to time. Fanatics give many religions a bad name and help uphold the argument that all religions are cults.

Paging Mr Phelps. Paging Opus Dei. Paging the Taliban.