Cults

[Dr.Who]

Well, he would have to be willing to support the Constitution as well, including the First Amendment.

I suspect any candidate who supported the constitution would want to do just what you are hoping for. It is the clowns we have now who both ignore the const and spend us into debt.

 

[Dr.Who]

Placing religious symbols and bible quotations in public courts, forcing my child to be part (or not part) of prayer in school and the recent attempt to inject "Christian" views in government are infringments on my rights and generally has been held up in court. But they keep trying. The fact we have to constantly wage these inane battles shows a deep resentment toward athiests in our society. I am willing to live in let live, however, as I see the long view-eventually I believe intellect we bear my beliefs (or non beliefs) out.

Each of those could be its own thread. Generally I would say that they are not very good examples of atheist being abused. I was an atheist for many years and felt resentful of those but mostly admitted they were not unconstitutional. If you start a thread on any we can discuss them.

 

[Apathy]

You may advance your personal definition of a cult but it is not at all tied with either of the traditional definitions that can be found in dictionaries.

The dictionary actually has that definition listed mate, you must of missed it while eating the zombie flesh of christ.

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Definition 3 I dont find very useful what is unorthodox is subjective... I might find the drinking of blood from a long dead Jew a bit strange but to others it is perfectly normal.

 

[Apathy]

So far not in any meaningful way. Their constant assualt on athiests is an infringment on my rights, but I usually just look to the source and roll my eyes, what are you gonna do? Christianity is ubiquitous in America, if they didn't villify us they would go after each other.

Are you serious? The oppression of homosexuals? Claiming that a woman's uterus it owned by a deity? Forcing our kids to pledge blind obedience to their god in a public school? Hell not being protestant in this country for the most part bars you from public office. I think you need to step into reality a bit here.

 

[Dr.Who]

The dictionary actually has that definition listed mate, you must of missed it while eating the zombie flesh of christ.

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Definition 3 I dont find very useful what is unorthodox is subjective... I might find the drinking of blood from a long dead Jew a bit strange but to others it is perfectly normal.

Before starting this thread I did a short study on the history of the definition of that word.

I was wrong and you are right that that definition is in a dictionary and is not merely your personal definition.

However, it is clearly a bad definition and does not fit with the traditional definitions even though the source I found it in was Merriam W.

It is a bad definition because by itself the first meaning given would make a cult identical with any religion at all. If the word fails to make a distinction between any religion at all and a cult it is a worthless definition.

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you serious? The oppression of homosexuals? Claiming that a woman's uterus it owned by a deity? Forcing our kids to pledge blind obedience to their god in a public school? Hell not being protestant in this country for the most part bars you from public office. I think you need to step into reality a bit here.

Please follow this line of reasoning in a new thread rather than in this one.

 

[Dr.Who]

Balony. Jeffress was not politically dull. He knew exactly how the public would interpret the term "cult", and used the term knowing exactly what sort of impact it would have.

Why else would he have said what he did? It's not like he was a Romney supporter exactly, was it? He isn't exactly a friend of Mormonism, is he?

Romney's religion should be a non issue. Unfortunately, his opponents will use terms like "cult" and "non Christian" to try to discredit him and so support their favorite candidates.

It's much the same as Obama's opponents using the "Muslim" mantra to try to discredit him. Unfortunately, much of the public buys into that sort of nonsense.

I would suppose that he did expect people would overly apply negative views of a cult and it would rub off on Romney. He should have known and maybe did know that his remarks were incendiary.

But the point of the thread is that people who call him ignorant are themselves ignorant not that he should or should not be called incendiary.

 

[PLC1]

I would suppose that he did expect people would overly apply negative views of a cult and it would rub off on Romney. He should have known and maybe did know that his remarks were incendiary.

But the point of the thread is that people who call him ignorant are themselves ignorant not that he should or should not be called incendiary.

I have no doubt at all that he knew his remarks were incendiary. No, he isn't ignorant.

I used to have fourth grade boys call a fellow classmate "gay", then innocently declare that it just means "happy." Using the term "cult" to describe Mormons is much the same thing, and pretty much on the same maturity level.

and no, the kids weren't ignorant, at least not of that word and its impact.

 

[Alias]

The bible says there is One Living God. As I understand it, Mormonism believes that everyone can be a "Living God". That is not biblical and that is a big reason why many Christians view Mormonism as a "cult".

 

[PLC1]

The bible says there is One Living God. As I understand it, Mormonism believes that everyone can be a "Living God". That is not biblical and that is a big reason why many Christians view Mormonism as a "cult".

The Bible also says that there was a universal flood, and that the human race sprang from two individuals. The Bible is open to interpretation.

 

[Alias]

The Bible also says that there was a universal flood, and that the human race sprang from two individuals. The Bible is open to interpretation.

That's an entirely different topic. I'm comparing "beliefs". Christians believe there is only one Living God and that is what the bible teaches. Mormonism believes everyone can be a Living God. That isn't open to "interpretation". That is a fact.

 

[Apathy]

Before starting this thread I did a short study on the history of the definition of that word.

I was wrong and you are right that that definition is in a dictionary and is not merely your personal definition.

However, it is clearly a bad definition and does not fit with the traditional definitions even though the source I found it in was Merriam W.

It is a bad definition because by itself the first meaning given would make a cult identical with any religion at all. If the word fails to make a distinction between any religion at all and a cult it is a worthless definition.

Maybe there is a reason it can be applied to any religion at all...

You are also doing a bit of special pleading, before when you were unaware that is was the dictionary definition, you appealed to the dictionary as the true definition. Now that you know that you are wrong you are ok with making up your own because it is no longer helpful to your argument? You are being blatantly dishonest.

 

[Apathy]

Please follow this line of reasoning in a new thread rather than in this one.

How about you mind your own bloody business? It was a dialogue with another user and last I checked you were not a mod. If the mods have a problem with a minor deviation of the topic it is their place to say so not yours. Besides something tell me it was the opinion I was posting you wanted to stop not the minor side conversation.

 

[Apathy]

The Bible also says that there was a universal flood, and that the human race sprang from two individuals. The Bible is open to interpretation.

The fact that it has as many interpretations as people reading it should tell you it is not a very reliable document.

 

[dogtowner]

The Bible also says that there was a universal flood, and that the human race sprang from two individuals. The Bible is open to interpretation.

Adam and Eve ? read a little closer.