|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2013 1:17:51 GMT -5
Absolutely, Baptist churches vary. Some are Charismatic /Pentecostal some are traditional. By their fruits you will know them. What I have trouble with is the idea that the doctrine determines the fruit. That is, that whether you believe in the Incarnation or the Trinity or any number of theological questions matters in any substantive way. I think that is the implication of definitions that classify cults on a theological basis. You've made a good observation. When dogma trumps the golden rule. People go to hell simply because they don't have a specific interpretation of father, son, and holy ghost? The murderer has access to God's forgiveness if he does have a specific interpretation of father, son, and holy ghost? Does God give passes for people who are certified mentally retarded?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jun 22, 2013 3:25:33 GMT -5
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Read it for yourself. it is an independent church. It uses the name only, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Geez, that's wild. I've heard of Baptist churches fracturing from the main denomination of the Baptists, but still able to retain the Baptist name. Somehow, isn't there a legal remedy - to have the word "Baptist" removed from this church?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2013 4:00:51 GMT -5
Quiz, then someone might sue us for calling ours "The Truth".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 5:55:15 GMT -5
VB, I think the Baptists should start an enquiry to figure out how a group like Westboro can embrace orthodox Baptist doctrine and engage in the activities that they do, presumably in line with the doctrine. Or maybe all doctrine is benign and irrelevant, but I doubt that. I think people just need to realize that NO RELIGION gets to control their radicals. Here we have someone who has set his sights straight. They ALL possess the ability to display adverse cultic activities. You need to be wary of every single religious denomination or sect. There are hidden dangers in them all. We need to be wary of the practices and culture of the movement we are in mors-so than whether they can be labelled as a cult or not. By concluding a sect or denomination is not a cult we inadvertently conceal the inherent potential to display adverse cultic behaviour. Much of cultic behaviour is done with good intent, is well meaning, but is founded upon ignorance of the potential for damage in practices where it is considered that the end justifies the means, etc. Eg. Get them S--t scared of Hell or a lost eternity in order to win them for Christ.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 22, 2013 9:15:57 GMT -5
I think people just need to realize that NO RELIGION gets to control their radicals. Here we have someone who has set his sights straight. They ALL possess the ability to display adverse cultic activities. You need to be wary of every single religious denomination or sect. There are hidden dangers in them all. We need to be wary of the practices and culture of the movement we are in mors-so than whether they can be labelled as a cult or not. By concluding a sect or denomination is not a cult we inadvertently conceal the inherent potential to display adverse cultic behaviour. Much of cultic behaviour is done with good intent, is well meaning, but is founded upon ignorance of the potential for damage in practices where it is considered that the end justifies the means, etc. Eg. Get them S--t scared of Hell or a lost eternity in order to win them for Christ. I'd rather focus on specific behaviours and problems than labels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 9:21:33 GMT -5
Here we have someone who has set his sights straight. They ALL possess the ability to display adverse cultic activities. You need to be wary of every single religious denomination or sect. There are hidden dangers in them all. We need to be wary of the practices and culture of the movement we are in mors-so than whether they can be labelled as a cult or not. By concluding a sect or denomination is not a cult we inadvertently conceal the inherent potential to display adverse cultic behaviour. Much of cultic behaviour is done with good intent, is well meaning, but is founded upon ignorance of the potential for damage in practices where it is considered that the end justifies the means, etc. Eg. Get them S--t scared of Hell or a lost eternity in order to win them for Christ. I'd rather focus on specific behaviours and problems than labels. Exactly! I take my hat off to you. What hat? (got it in before you this time!)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2013 11:12:02 GMT -5
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Read it for yourself. it is an independent church. It uses the name only, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Geez, that's wild. I've heard of Baptist churches fracturing from the main denomination of the Baptists, but still able to retain the Baptist name. Somehow, isn't there a legal remedy - to have the word "Baptist" removed from this church? Actually they are reading the same bible and have actually got back up from that bible for all of their actions. Their beliefs are the same as any other Christian denomination they just twist the interpretation of those beliefs further than most and have become unacceptable to society. However, they do have portions of the bible that they can refer to to justify their actions. That's the problem with the Bible. You can do some pretty heinous things based on things in the OT and be perfectly justified in your reasoning because the OT says so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 11:21:26 GMT -5
Geez, that's wild. I've heard of Baptist churches fracturing from the main denomination of the Baptists, but still able to retain the Baptist name. Somehow, isn't there a legal remedy - to have the word "Baptist" removed from this church? Actually they are reading the same bible and have actually got back up from that bible for all of their actions. Their beliefs are the same as any other Christian denomination they just twist the interpretation of those beliefs further than most and have become unacceptable to society. However, they do have portions of the bible that they can refer to to justify their actions. That's the problem with the Bible. You can do some pretty heinous things based on things in the OT and be perfectly justified in your reasoning because the OT says so. There's a lot of truth in this statement. My one complaint is the limitation to the OT!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2013 12:54:22 GMT -5
Actually they are reading the same bible and have actually got back up from that bible for all of their actions. Their beliefs are the same as any other Christian denomination they just twist the interpretation of those beliefs further than most and have become unacceptable to society. However, they do have portions of the bible that they can refer to to justify their actions. That's the problem with the Bible. You can do some pretty heinous things based on things in the OT and be perfectly justified in your reasoning because the OT says so. There's a lot of truth in this statement. My one complaint is the limitation to the OT! I don't know what you mean by 'limitation to the OT' Ram. ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 13:06:37 GMT -5
There's a lot of truth in this statement. My one complaint is the limitation to the OT! I don't know what you mean by 'limitation to the OT' Ram. ?? The statement was typically "me," made with a bit tongue in cheek. However, what prompted my response was merely the fact you made direct references to the OT as the basis for your statement and no reference to the NT. Don't worry about it. It was one on my crazier moments, of which I suffer no lack!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 13:25:42 GMT -5
This board is about the truth. Problems in other religions (and there are plenty) don't make the problems in the Truth any easier or better. Just because some preacher in another church downplays CSA doesn't mean worekers should downplay the issue. These religions who claim to be perfect and not be be questioned or criticized make me want to vomit. No group is perfect. No group can be perfect while in the human body. No group is too good to improve. Again, problems in other chruches aren't to be supported. But the Truth isn't a perfect way either. The Truth is not better or worse than any other religion. Hiding the history of the fellowship and failing to report CSA in a timely manner are issues that are tearing the group apart.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2013 14:51:47 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by 'limitation to the OT' Ram. ?? The statement was typically "me," made with a bit tongue in cheek. However, what prompted my response was merely the fact you made direct references to the OT as the basis for your statement and no reference to the NT. Don't worry about it. It was one on my crazier moments, of which I suffer no lack! Ah I see! I guess I could add the NT but when it comes to Westboro they seem to have it in particularly for the homosexual community and as far as I know only Leviticus refers to that so called 'sin'. You're crazy moments are what makes you so interesting Ram!! I just needed to understand what you meant because you definitely challenged my little brain cells on that comment!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 15:15:24 GMT -5
The statement was typically "me," made with a bit tongue in cheek. However, what prompted my response was merely the fact you made direct references to the OT as the basis for your statement and no reference to the NT. Don't worry about it. It was one on my crazier moments, of which I suffer no lack! Ah I see! I guess I could add the NT but when it comes to Westboro they seem to have it in particularly for the homosexual community and as far as I know only Leviticus refers to that so called 'sin'. You're crazy moments are what makes you so interesting Ram!! I just needed to understand what you meant because you definitely challenged my little brain cells on that comment! Snow, be thankful that you have brain cells that can be challenged, even little ones! Spare a thought for those like me, who are less fortunate than yourself, and have no brain cells to challenge
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2013 15:49:36 GMT -5
Ah I see! I guess I could add the NT but when it comes to Westboro they seem to have it in particularly for the homosexual community and as far as I know only Leviticus refers to that so called 'sin'. You're crazy moments are what makes you so interesting Ram!! I just needed to understand what you meant because you definitely challenged my little brain cells on that comment! Snow, be thankful that you have brain cells that can be challenged, even little ones! Spare a thought for those like me, who are less fortunate than yourself, and have no brain cells to challenge Hah!! I think you under 'cell' yourself...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 15:53:53 GMT -5
Snow, be thankful that you have brain cells that can be challenged, even little ones! Spare a thought for those like me, who are less fortunate than yourself, and have no brain cells to challenge Hah!! I think you under 'cell' yourself... I know when I am past my cell by date!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jun 22, 2013 17:37:58 GMT -5
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Read it for yourself. it is an independent church. It uses the name only, it is not part of the Baptist denomination. Geez, that's wild. I've heard of Baptist churches fracturing from the main denomination of the Baptists, but still able to retain the Baptist name. Somehow, isn't there a legal remedy - to have the word "Baptist" removed from this church? Unlike the 2x2 movement who claim to be of the 'same spirit' worldwide, Baptist Churches may or may not be affiliated to the local Union of Baptist Churches but even if they are affiliated each Baptist assembly operates autonomously. The term Baptist does not necessarily mean continuity or uniformity with all others using that epithet.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jun 22, 2013 18:44:30 GMT -5
Fixit Some pretty poor logic here on connecting this particular church with dangerous baptist cults. Broadbrushing baptist I guess. I think this in retalliation for IG being a Baptist. Noticed that you even threw in the trinity in case you didn't have everyones attention. Salvation may not depend on the word trinity but it is good to know who Jesus was. By His very own words to the Sanhedrin he spoke plainly and they too rejected Him as God. JMT ken
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jun 22, 2013 18:48:15 GMT -5
QFixit quiz, then someone might sue us for calling ours "The Truth". Fixir Jesus might not sue but be a little miffed seing that He is the TRUTH ken
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2013 18:49:15 GMT -5
VB, I think the Baptists should start an enquiry to figure out how a group like Westboro can embrace orthodox Baptist doctrine and engage in the activities that they do, presumably in line with the doctrine. Or maybe all doctrine is benign and irrelevant, but I doubt that. Fortunately or unfortunately, no religion has a patent on its practices or a copyright on its doctrine. Any group can call themselves anything they want -- except if they want to register the group for legal status. Even then, adding "Westboro" to the name is sufficient to separate it from any other Baptist group. Fact of the matter is, there are other Baptist groups in this country who consider each other in error.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2013 18:52:47 GMT -5
Geez, that's wild. I've heard of Baptist churches fracturing from the main denomination of the Baptists, but still able to retain the Baptist name. Somehow, isn't there a legal remedy - to have the word "Baptist" removed from this church? Actually they are reading the same bible and have actually got back up from that bible for all of their actions. Their beliefs are the same as any other Christian denomination they just twist the interpretation of those beliefs further than most and have become unacceptable to society. However, they do have portions of the bible that they can refer to to justify their actions. That's the problem with the Bible. You can do some pretty heinous things based on things in the OT and be perfectly justified in your reasoning because the OT says so. Absolutely. Muslims justify quite soundly the stoning of women for adultery using the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 22, 2013 18:53:52 GMT -5
Actually they are reading the same bible and have actually got back up from that bible for all of their actions. Their beliefs are the same as any other Christian denomination they just twist the interpretation of those beliefs further than most and have become unacceptable to society. However, they do have portions of the bible that they can refer to to justify their actions. That's the problem with the Bible. You can do some pretty heinous things based on things in the OT and be perfectly justified in your reasoning because the OT says so. There's a lot of truth in this statement. My one complaint is the limitation to the OT! Oh Gosh. The OT could justify the Holocaust! There is also solid justification for slavery in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2013 19:16:29 GMT -5
Fixit Some pretty poor logic here on connecting this particular church with dangerous baptist cults. Broadbrushing baptist I guess. I think this in retalliation for IG being a Baptist. Noticed that you even threw in the trinity in case you didn't have everyones attention. Salvation may not depend on the word trinity but it is good to know who Jesus was. By His very own words to the Sanhedrin he spoke plainly and they too rejected Him as God. JMT ken IG is throwing stones while living in a glass house. He labels the 2x2 fellowship a "dangerous cult" while hatred and bigotry within his own Baptist movement are far more dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jun 22, 2013 21:24:07 GMT -5
Fixit Some pretty poor logic here on connecting this particular church with dangerous baptist cults. Broadbrushing baptist I guess. I think this in retalliation for IG being a Baptist. Noticed that you even threw in the trinity in case you didn't have everyones attention. Salvation may not depend on the word trinity but it is good to know who Jesus was. By His very own words to the Sanhedrin he spoke plainly and they too rejected Him as God. JMT ken IG is throwing stones while living in a glass house. He labels the 2x2 fellowship a "dangerous cult" while hatred and bigotry within his own Baptist movement are far more dangerous. Fixit Wow is all I can say.You know so little about baptist or any other denomination I guess Your choice of that church is like saying all the friends are like IH or LW and what they stands for. No comments on trinity? I sorta like this verse how about you? Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Are you dead and where is your life hidden, with whom and where?You know what I am saying. I suppose being alienated from your family, needing years of therapy and covering CSA and blaming the victims doesn't qualify as dangerous unless its happened to you? JMT ken
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 22, 2013 23:37:17 GMT -5
I suppose being alienated from your family, needing years of therapy and covering CSA and blaming the victims doesn't qualify as dangerous unless its happened to you? I think you're missing the point Ken. IG condemns the 2x2 church as a "dangerous cult" because its doctrine differs from Baptist doctrine. Remember CD's post on the Westboro Baptist Church doctrine? The Westboro church is based on the doctrine of Primitive Baptist and Calvinism. Their core beliefs are: o Jesus Christ died to atone for the sins of God’s Elect o The Bible – the King James Version – is inerrant and infallible o The Five Points of Calvinism are correct Does that doctrine make them a dangerous cult? What is more dangerous - spreading hate in society or refusing to parrot a Catholic creed?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 22, 2013 23:59:09 GMT -5
My guess is that IG does not call the 2x2s a dangerous cult because its doctrine is different from his church. if anything it is because the doctrine is different from the Bible not his church. Seems as if you want the Baptist denomination to take responsibility for those churches who take the name Baptist. Next you will be expecting them to take responsibility for the mess the workers have made in trying to offer their brand of Christianity or for all Christiantity for that matter as they present themselves as Christian. Amuses me how those who have never done a thesis themselves are claiming to be smarter than a university.
There are many churches calling themselves Baptist who are nothing to do with the Mainstream Baptist denomination. I can think of 2 here in my area - the Reformed Baptist and Grace Baptist. Nothing to do with the Baptist denomination.
I have no problem with the beliefs of the main Baptist church. I have plenty of problems with the beliefs and teachings of the workers. A cult, is a matter of opinion. Guess those in the group would hate to think they are in a cult. Maybe you should take a closer look and see why some are calling it one and made the changes that are due. If someone had concerns about something you are doing - would you start attacking them and telling them of their faults (if you could find some and I don't see any faults you have found with IG church yet), or would you thank them for pointing it out and set about to change yourself. You have got some Bible verses on your page but then you attack Christians of which to date you have not been able to tell us what you find wrong with IG church. You chose a group that is nothing to do with his church. There is plenty to find wrong with your church. Of course you are going to be upset so encourage changes so that people will have no reason to form that opinion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 0:41:59 GMT -5
I'm all for constructive criticism of the 2x2 church - bring it on. But adoption of the Jesus=God theory has nothing to do with a church being a "dangerous cult". IG belongs to a Baptist church and has "researched" the 2x2 church through a Baptist College. Is it not reasonable to conclude that he's had support and encouragement from the Baptist movement? Wouldn't it be more productive to research and label the Westboro Baptist Church as a "dangerous cult"? This is what "dangerous cults" provoke:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 1:16:37 GMT -5
Here is an article on what constitutes a "Dangerous Cult". Compare it with any group, but I will comment on 2x2's. altreligion.about.com/od/controversymisconception/a/dangerous_cult.htmCentral Authority In a Single, Charismatic Leader Dangerous cults are commonly led by a single person whose authority cannot be easily challenged. These leaders are often accepted as either prophets gifted with divine insight unavailable to members or as gods themselves. Loyalty and adoration are often significantly directed toward the leader rather than some outside force. Because of this extreme focus on the leader, dangerous cults are commonly led by their founders, and few dangerous cults survive the death of the founder, since he or she was the focus of adoration and loyalty. No. Many people don't even know who the overseer is for their area. I can say that the overseer in our area is definitely NOT charismatic! Control Over Life and Death Leaders of dangerous cults are so highly respected that members are willing to die for them or to kill themselves if the leader deems it necessary. Oh my no, not even close.Commission of Felonies Condoning the transgressions of major laws is one of the quickest ways a group can get labeled as a dangerous cult. Such behavior can include murder, suicide, rape (including statutory rape), kidnapping (holding members against their will), illegal stockpiling of weapons, and extortion. Whoa, 2x2's don't even like getting speeding tickets!Strict Control Over Lives of Members Members have little control over their personal lives, with leaders telling them how they may dress, whom they can marry or with whom they can have sex, what jobs they may perform, and what they may own. Very little of this any more. Leaders are pretty much hands off all this. There is still some peer pressure on women's dress.Separation From Contacts Outside the Group Members are often encouraged or even required to limit or break off contact with non-members, including family and friends. This limits the chance of intervention from outsiders and members hearing negative arguments about their chosen religious path. This is pretty much long gone now although "separation from the world" was once a key doctrine.
Polarized Worldview The group represents the only correct living, while everything outside of the group is dangerous and corrupting, reinforcing the notion that all are lost without the guidance and protection of the group. Most 2x2's lead fairly normal lives. Conservative, but don't hide in their homes either.Living in Communal Isolation Dangerous cults often form communes where all property is owned by the group (often controlled by the leader). Members may need permission to leave the commune. This is an additional means of control, limiting members' knowledge of beliefs contrary to their own. Communes may also form because of a polarized worldview, and they may be reinforced and stocked with weapons in anticipation of a great battle between good and evil. No no no. Well, convention is communal!Large Required Donations Many dangerous cults require members to give large sums of money to the organization in order to remain in good standing. If the group lives within a commune, members may be required to give up their material wealth to the group as a prerequisite for membership. The 2x2 system is probably somewhere around the lowest cost religious system in the world. Money is never directly asked for and rarely even implied.Conformity: Subjection of Individual Desires and Thoughts Members are expected to always consider the group first and themselves second. Focusing on individual wants or needs can be seen as sinful, and independent thought, including criticism or questions regarding the group, is strongly subverted. Sure, there is group peer pressure to conform and nobody likes internal criticism. 2x2's need to grow up on this issue.Punishment for Defection or Criticism Dangerous cults warn of dire consequences for those that speak or act against the group, particularly for members who do so even in small ways. The threat may be supernatural, levied against all offenders by gods or spirits, or it may have more mundane sources, such as ex-communication from the group, blacklisting, physical punishments, humiliation, legal attacks, or general harassment. The result is members remaining inline not just because they believe in the group's message but also because they fear retaliation. Most of the above are never threatened. No spirits to get you, no physical punishment, legal attacks, systematic humiliation or harassment. Shunning and ex-communication are the main tools of behaviour control.Group Is Small Dangerous cults generally only have dozens or hundreds of members total. It is much more difficult to control large numbers of people to the degree necessary to be considered a dangerous cult. It is particularly problematic to judge a group upon this criteria, as there are plenty of small, harmless religious movements in existence, and all movements start out small. The 2x2 movement was once perhaps a few hundred thousand but has shrunk considerably. The shrinkage does indicate that people aren't as attached to the system as is often seen by actual dangerous cults.IG please note: "However, most religions – including mainstream, widely accepted ones – show at least a few of these traits, particularly in moderate degree, so care needs to be taken before denouncing an unfamiliar belief system as a dangerous cult."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 23, 2013 2:25:51 GMT -5
The word "cult" is being bandied rather liberally here, as though “cult” were necessarily negative. Because the word is so frequently used subjectively to demean a group, it’s better not to use the word “cult” in “mixed company” unless it is used academically.
The REAL definition of “cult” refers to any group sharing respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person, and is characterized by their devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work – for example: Michael Jackson, libertarianism, the Holy Grail, Celtic Revival Movement, or Doctors Without Borders.
All religions are by definition cults, because their focus is devotion to usually more than one among person, idea, object, movement, or work. When applied to religions, the word “cult” means formal religious veneration, and in academic settings (including religious studies) every denomination has its cultic traditions. Examples: the sacraments, their dogma, their doctrines, their calendar, their habits/customs, the Pope, head coverings, relics – any such things that they consider reflective of their focus of devotion. By definition, the only religious groups who are not cultic are ones that have no formal religious teachings or practices – which pretty much applies to no groups.
The term “cult” in modern times has been popularly used to apply to the New Religious Groups, especially because orthodox groups disapprove of them for some reason. This makes “cult” a particularly difficult term to use in this group because we have more than one unorthodox and/or NRG category represented.
To consider a "cult" dangerous because it can lead someone to hell -- is a subjective judgment and not worth discussing. All religious groups can do that -- according to other religious groups.
|
|