My Church is a Cult! (page 2)

Narkissos

Welcome Diotrephes,

I don't know in which cheek your tongue is but you are smart.

A few remarks however: In 83 CE (which is not nearly reckoned like that at your time) many of the scriptures you quote are not written yet. "Christianity" is everything but a united "religion". The "Matthew" trend would look upon Paul as an "apostate". So would the "Pastorals" upon "John" a few years later...

However, you made the following point (whether you intended it or not): the globalizing vision of the New Testament as collected during the 2nd century would probably be seen as a cult by our standards.

I only doubt what your conclusion is: "Long live the cults", or "To the hell with uncritical christianity"?

Looking forward to reading you...

neyank

Diotrephes,

Are you using these scriptures to prove that religions have the right to be high control groups?

Are you including all religions here or do you have one in particular that you're thinking of?

It wouldn't be a religion that puts unecesary presure on its followers to be out selling, distributing and placing magazines and books would it?

Ok. So you use those scriptures to show that religion is supposed to be a high controling thing.

But you left out the scriptures that state to make sure of all things.

You left out the scripture that commended a certain group because they were checking to see if what they were being taught was true.

You left out the scriptures that say that God hates a lie.

And you also left out who God calls the father of a lie.

You left out the scriptures that say what to do when dealing with a false prophet.

You left out the scriptures where Jesus says how His followers would be.

I could go on and on. What you're doing is trying to show why it's ok for the WTS to be how they are.

Don't forget ALL the scriptures that say what groups like the WTS is.

The WTS does not stand up to the standards set forth in the scriptures as a religion that would be acceptable to God.

neyank

Oxnard Hamster

7. SPECIAL STATUS : You are told that you belong to a group of chosen ones with a special mission.

You're not really part of a group of chosen ones because everybody has free will to become a Christian or not to become one.

Although some Christians are very arrogant about their chosen path, and do try to act like they are a bit above the rest of the pack. Still, that doesn't mean they are right.

Yerusalyim

Welcome to the board DIO, we're full up on smart alecs...try a different bent. We have plenty of christianity haters here...try being a Buddhist hater.

expatbrit

I hate Buddha. Fat bastard.

Expatbrit

Oxnard Hamster

Where are my manners? Welcome to the board Dio. Yes, we do have a lot of Christian haters, strangely enough.

diotrephes

Hi everybody,

I?d like to briefly reply some of your posts.

James Thomas: yours is a good question. I?ve been exploring it myself since long time, but I?ve been unable to come up with a completely satisfactory (for me of course) answer thus far.

SaintSatan: do you really believe it?s possible to refute the points I made ?by using the same book??

Well, can someone point to any quotation where the Bible states that:

1. there?s no absolute ?good or bad?; ?us or them?, everything is relative ? as opposed to ?simplistic thinking?;

2 and 9. Church members can take it easy ? as opposed to ?time pressure? and ?guilt?;

3. members don?t need to be united or part of a ?body? ? as opposed to ?peer pressure to conformity?;

4. members can freely meddle with the ?world? ? as opposed to ?isolation?

5 and 6. people ?outside? are good to associate with; and there?s no danger in reading whatever you like ? as opposed to ?insulation? and ?demonization?;

7. members are not special or ?chosen?, they don?t have any special mission ? as opposed to ?special status?;

8. there?s no enmity between the ?world? and the group, they will get along well and no persecution is to be expected ? as opposed to ?elevation of persecution?;

10. no repercussions are to be expected for lack of loyalty or obedience ? as opposed to ?fear?

11. members are encouraged or allowed to express doubts or question the authority ? as opposed to ?authority?

12. there will be no end ? as opposed to ?apocalyptics?;

13. there are no rules of conduct, appearance or behaviour for the members. Everybody is free to choose what he deems right in these areas ? as opposed to ?scrupulosity?;

14. disagreement and open discussion of alternative views is OK ? as opposed to ?uncompromising discipline?;

15. members are encouraged to answer questions and react to situations drawing from their own experience and wisdom, not referring to Church?s official sources ? as opposed to ?conditioning?;

16. critical thinking is encouraged ? as opposed to ?thought-stopping?;

17. members should put their personal needs before the groups? goal ? as opposed to ?subjugation?.

I don?t think it?s really possible to prove that the Bible teaches something like this.

Narkissos: I agree on your remark about the dating of my message. You got my point, however. I intended to demonstrate that early Christianity would be seen as a cult by today?s standards. As to the conclusion, whether it is "Long live the cults" or "To the hell with uncritical Christianity" I leave it up to you.

To me, talking about ?critical Christianity?, in the light of its Book, sounds an oxymoron. It may tickle or satisfy our ?modern? speculative minds but it?s not what it was meant to be.

Oxnard Hamster: You say: ?You're not really part of a group of chosen ones because everybody has free will to become a Christian or not to become one?, but according to the Book free will is just part of the process. Jesus said that ?No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him? (John 6:44).

Nice talking to you,

Diotrephes

undercover

All religions, to some degree, are cults. So, sarcasm aside, yes, your church is a cult. Whether it's the Catholics, the Baptists, The Mormons, the Witnesses or some wacko snake handling church in the hills of North Carolina or Tennessee.

Destructive cults or high control groups are another matter. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a destructive cult? Are they a high control group? It depends on who you ask on this board. I personally have never liked the word "cult" in describing the Witnesses or anyone else. The fact remains though, that the 17 or so points that were presented in your opening post describes the Witnesses pretty well. I think that they are a destructive high control group. Their history proves it. Look it up.

czarofmischief

Interesting first post. Are you here to save us? Or to turn us against Christianity?

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic - and thereby defending Christianity by mocking that particular definition of a cult. Or are you actually depicting Christianity as a cult?

I would suggest that the brands of Christianity that emphasize the particular concepts you listed (by using the Scriptures you quoted) are cults. Other brands are not, because they deal with realities of life. Realities like the fact that Jesus promised to come back quickly 2000 years ago; and the fact that the Bible was actually put together around 300 A.D. by, of all heathen places, the Catholic Church; and that John said that the end of all things had drawn close around 96 A.D.; and that fanatic embracing of religion has enabled the most horrible things in history; and if the Bible is to be taken literally, there should be a seven headed monster emerging from the sea any day now.

In other words, religion should serve you, not the other way around. It either helps you become a better person (display the fruitages of the spirit) or it doesn't.

Have a nice day: oh, yeah, and if you are here to save me - I like to kill and eat missionaries.

CZAR

Narkissos

Diotrephes: one thing you didn't answer is the diversity of what we call "early Christianity". True, none of the movements we unite under this label was "critical" or "liberal" in the modern sense. Even the johannine community who could express such "high" and "universalistic" ideas as "God is love" would practice the shunning of "apostates" (2 John 9-11). And, when you think of it, the johannine "love one another" is much more sectarian than the synoptic "love your enemies".

However, there remains the fact that there was not one "early christianity", but movements who had some common ideas and many differences, and which did conflict bluntly with one another. Such as James' "christian judaism" with Paul's "pagan christianity" in Galatians. Even the "bad Diotrephes" in 3 John is just a "good bishop" after the Pastorals.

The question is, what do we do of this early diversity? Pretend they were all in basic agreement, as Luke-Acts would have us believe, and accept it as the basis of our ideal "United Christianity", somewhat more liberal or more cultic according to our mood? Or accept the real challenge of diversity, which means that a "United Christianity" was never "intended to be", especially in the mind of its supposed founder?

My Church is a Cult!

Share this