Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2011 17:45:46 GMT -5
I would expect him to be an expert on both of the men he wants us to ask him about. You need to lower your expectations. Sigh. Well, maybe when he returns he will be an expert.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 4, 2011 17:48:14 GMT -5
When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'I think you've fairly captured my commentary there Irvine. The one point I would adjust is that I am not derisive of Martin's academic ability but of his ideas. I have no evaluation of his academic ability to offer. I especially don't like that definition of 'cult' for the reason that it is a theological definition, not a sociological definition. If you'd like to hear Walter Martin, check this tape. He's quite repetitive so scrub ahead to 8:00 to see what he is all about. You'll get a pretty quick idea. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduSN8G7-XwHere he is on Mormons: www.youtube.com/user/WalterMartinDotCom#p/search/0/qopJ7yA98r0Anyway, however well he may understand orthodox Christian theology, his ideas about 'cults' have no place in a secular or liberal academic setting. His views are far too xenophobic.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 4, 2011 18:49:27 GMT -5
When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'Walter Martin was in fact Dr. Walter Martin who had a string of degrees as long as his arms put together. He began following his father’s recommendations to study to become a lawyer. He said of himself that he instead studied to become a “theological" lawyer and to become an ordained Christian minister for the Southern Baptist church, if memory serves me well. Walter started his experience in Christian apologetics on the streets of Brooklyn answering Bible questions for all and any who asked. And that is where he inherited the appellation, “the Bible Answer Man,” which he used in his radio broadcasts for years after founding the Christian Research Institute that still is in full operation at equip.org today. Walter Martin was not popular, as one would logically expect, within the kingdom of the cults. He used to shrug them off as just part of the territory that he inherited in Christian apologetics – in fact he stated that every time he did a public presentation, cultists of the group he was speaking about flooded into those presentations – Walter knew their human curiosity, while being ordered to avoid listening to him by their leaders, would bring them in droves. He smiled it all off this way, “It is not every day one gets to see a real live 140-pound devil.” Walter Martin restricted his replies regarding the workers' church to simply stating that there was very little information available and that what information he did have indicated that it was a very legalistic church that questioners might do well to avoid on that basis alone. So, Im very surprised that anyone claiming any "academic" level of expertise themselves would now be attacking Walter Martin's credentials and person in an attempt to defend the workers' church from Walter Martin's rather bland statements about it given the facts we know about it these days. By the way, anyone can still hear (free of charge) Walter Martin preach on various topics today at www.waltermartin.com/I don’t think that CRI has done a lot of revision to its 1987 fact sheet to this day – however, perhaps they will take a look at the abundance of 2x2 documentation available these days in the near future. And for the researchers reading here, the CRI fact sheet is available from www.equip.org/articles/two-by-twos
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 4, 2011 20:42:54 GMT -5
I would think that a fair evaluation of the workers church would include both a theological evaluation (because workers offer their own means of eternal salvation, making their church a religion) and a sociological evaluation, which involves no offer of eternal salvation, but offers a social environment only. And since irvinegray has to pass examination of his research by a University appointed panel of examiners, he may face tougher examination on any theological aspects of his thesis rather that any sociological aspects of it.
So, as I see it, all the arguing here trying to push a sociological definition of the word “cut” (purposely misspelled to avoid offense) over any theological definition is a concerted effort to destroy that thesis – WHY? (answered below). I don’t think the ones arguing over the acceptable definition for the word “cut” (purposely misspelled to avoid offense) have ANY concern for a fair thesis. It seems that they would be far happier if irvingrey was not studying their church of choice at all. And that is the traditional position of workers right to the founding of their church. To quote a worker in that very regard,
“The church is like the earthworm, it sweetens sour soil and makes it productive. It is humble and its only safety is in keeping hidden underground.”
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 4, 2011 21:56:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 5, 2011 0:21:32 GMT -5
IG posted Noels I am doing this to Jesse and you as pms. And me?
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 5, 2011 5:20:15 GMT -5
Righteous!!!!!!!! Two by Twos- CONCLUSION (excerpt) With their emphasis on the manner of the walk, their neglect of the atoning work of Jesus, their very shaky stand on the nature of Christ, their exclusiveness, and the focus on a life-style rather than a living Lord, leads us to conclude that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for someone to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through this ministry. From what we have learned so far, the Two by Two ministry is not only a much to be avoided legalistic trap, it is also a heretical cult "denying even the Lord that bought them" (see 2 Pet. 2:1). (CRI statement DC 690) Om – om - om This post should provide you with great relief, irvingrey. Finally what has said something that Christians have written “is accurate.” But alas, you won’t be able to use that approval in your QUB thesis on 2x2s now, because what has claimed (numerous times on this page) that he is not a 2x2. Perhaps you might save this what-approved statement to use in a thesis on whatism, if you ever decide to write such a thesis – maybe for your doctor of doctor’s doctorates degree only available through a small hindu seminary in the US of Canadu, where what is the chief examiner of theses. Om – om - om
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2011 9:03:44 GMT -5
Let me be blunt. Dr. Walter Martin is an anti-Christ. He has nothing to offer people. All he offers is condemnation of anything other than his own small paradigm. (A small paradigm of the type that many people live in, but that's beside the point.)
Basically his message is "Thank God I am not like other men". The danger for people who leave the fellowship is that the Dr. Martin's of the world offer an entire arsenal to attack and criticize the 2x2s or any other religion. Do not eat this fruit. It will not make you better.
The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 9:46:46 GMT -5
The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 5, 2011 11:05:19 GMT -5
Let me be blunt. Dr. Walter Martin is an anti-Christ. He has nothing to offer people. All he offers is condemnation of anything other than his own small paradigm. (A small paradigm of the type that many people live in, but that's beside the point.) Basically his message is "Thank God I am not like other men". The danger for people who leave the fellowship is that the Dr. Martin's of the world offer an entire arsenal to attack and criticize the 2x2s or any other religion. Do not eat this fruit. It will not make you better. The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn. In an earlier post you denied that you were previously derisory about Walter Martin and this is untrue. One of you accusations as I recall was that his degree is from a degree mill. Now he is antichrist which sounds very derisory and judgemental. Martin's work on cults is generally highly regarded and I am fairly confident that your rantings will not change that. With each succeeding post you appear to be getting more unbalanced and unhinged. Rationale and logic have all but disappeared! Your opening sentence and your closing sentence are in total variance.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2011 11:50:00 GMT -5
Let me be blunt. Dr. Walter Martin is an anti-Christ. He has nothing to offer people. All he offers is condemnation of anything other than his own small paradigm. (A small paradigm of the type that many people live in, but that's beside the point.) Basically his message is "Thank God I am not like other men". The danger for people who leave the fellowship is that the Dr. Martin's of the world offer an entire arsenal to attack and criticize the 2x2s or any other religion. Do not eat this fruit. It will not make you better. The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn. In an earlier post you denied that you were previously derisory about Walter Martin and this is untrue. One of you accusations as I recall was that his degree is from a degree mill. Now he is antichrist which sounds very derisory and judgemental. Martin's work on cults is generally highly regarded and I am fairly confident that your rantings will not change that. With each succeeding post you appear to be getting more unbalanced and unhinged. Rationale and logic have all but disappeared! Your opening sentence and your closing sentence are in total variance. You can't criticize judgemental people without being judgemental. I don't know how to get around that one, so I apologize to you for that. I realize now that this whole question of cult-hood is just a side issue for you anyway, and much more important to me as an area of personal interest and concern. It doesn't strike me that you have all that much emotionally invested in Walter Martin so why be defensive of him? I'm surprised, in fact, that you brought "Walter Martin" back out of the woodwork as you did say that he was not central to your work. Be clear that my response is to "Walter Martin" and not to you. First, I don't know anything about the "degree mill" unless that was from something I quoted. I did post up some reviews of Martin's work for people to consider, and which I attributed. I am no expert on Walter Martin; however, what I wrote is my honest take away from the youtube clips I saw after your most recent post. As a public figure, and a founder of the counter-cult or anti-cult movement he is open to my kind of commentary, and there is nothing unbalanced about what I say, and I'm not the only one saying it. People eat up Martins' brand of attack theology, and I feel strongly it is "bad fruit". If I am wrong about Walter Martin, and you wish to defend him, then please let me know what is good about the man. One of his main themes was to say that Mormons and JWs are cults based on his personal theological principles, and that has no place in modern public life. To call a group a cult based on sociological principles is somewhat excusable, but even there one has to be very careful. When I get on something I can be like a dog with a bone, so I'm sorry if any of that has reflected on you. My problem from the start has been with the definition of a cult. Not with you personally. If I have said anything to disparage you or your credentials then please let me know, and I will recant and apologize. However, I am very concerned about the use of a traditional theological mode of analysis which would lead to the fellowship being branded a cult. But even if you are using that mode of analysis I would like the conversation to be at the level of issues, not one of personality or credentials. If I have strayed from that, again I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 5, 2011 12:48:58 GMT -5
The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn. Amen. F&W make trite statements like this to reify whatever they want to be "true. But the son of God can not be expressed by a single-semantic. Furthermore, the world is neither self-existent nor self-governing. And Christians are more substantive than satellites.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 5, 2011 13:05:56 GMT -5
When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'I have that book on cults in my collection of books on spiritual abuse in today's society. It's a classic handbook which is often referenced by other theologians in their discussions of various topics on religion. I find his definition of a cult as being very accurate indeed, and definitely related to the 2x2 group, which I exited years ago due to major discrepancies in their teachings among other things.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 5, 2011 13:17:11 GMT -5
In an earlier post you denied that you were previously derisory about Walter Martin and this is untrue. One of you accusations as I recall was that his degree is from a degree mill. Now he is antichrist which sounds very derisory and judgemental. Martin's work on cults is generally highly regarded and I am fairly confident that your rantings will not change that. With each succeeding post you appear to be getting more unbalanced and unhinged. Rationale and logic have all but disappeared! Your opening sentence and your closing sentence are in total variance. You can't criticize judgemental people without being judgemental. I don't know how to get around that one, so I apologize to you for that. I realize now that this whole question of cult-hood is just a side issue for you anyway, and much more important to me as an area of personal interest and concern. It doesn't strike me that you have all that much emotionally invested in Walter Martin so why be defensive of him? I'm surprised, in fact, that you brought "Walter Martin" back out of the woodwork as you did say that he was not central to your work. Be clear that my response is to "Walter Martin" and not to you. First, I don't know anything about the "degree mill" unless that was from something I quoted. I did post up some reviews of Martin's work for people to consider, and which I attributed. I am no expert on Walter Martin; however, what I wrote is my honest take away from the youtube clips I saw after your most recent post. As a public figure, and a founder of the counter-cult or anti-cult movement he is open to my kind of commentary, and there is nothing unbalanced about what I say, and I'm not the only one saying it. People eat up Martins' brand of attack theology, and I feel strongly it is "bad fruit". If I am wrong about Walter Martin, and you wish to defend him, then please let me know what is good about the man. One of his main themes was to say that Mormons and JWs are cults based on his personal theological principles, and that has no place in modern public life. To call a group a cult based on sociological principles is somewhat excusable, but even there one has to be very careful. When I get on something I can be like a dog with a bone, so I'm sorry if any of that has reflected on you. My problem from the start has been with the definition of a cult. Not with you personally. If I have said anything to disparage you or your credentials then please let me know, and I will recant and apologize. However, I am very concerned about the use of a traditional theological mode of analysis which would lead to the fellowship being branded a cult. But even if you are using that mode of analysis I would like the conversation to be at the level of issues, not one of personality or credentials. If I have strayed from that, again I apologize. Righteous!!!!!!!! Walter Martin was not popular, as one would logically expect, within the kingdom of the cults. He used to shrug them off as just part of the territory that he inherited in Christian apologetics – in fact he stated that every time he did a public presentation, cultists of the group he was speaking about flooded into those presentations – Walter knew their human curiosity, while being ordered to avoid listening to him by their leaders, would bring them in droves. He smiled it all off this way, “It is not every day one gets to see a real live 140-pound devil.” By their fruit ye shall know them. But one thing that is most often omitted by most judgements passed upon Walter Martin by people still in cults (or still strongly defensive of cults) is the fruit of his ministry. Of the cultists who flooded into his presentations, many were led to the real Jesus Christ and became Christians. And because his mission was to equip (equip.org) Christians to give a reason for the hope that lies within them so that they could reach out to people in cults, he was one of the first (if not the first) Christians to aim a Christian mission specifically to the people within the kingdom of the cults. Now there are numerous Christian missions specifically to people in the kingdom of the cults. By their fruit ye shall know them.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 5, 2011 15:24:44 GMT -5
“You can't criticize judgemental people without being judgemental. I don't know how to get around that one, so I apologize to you for that.”
Jesus said you “get around that one” this way; Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? 57 Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
And according to Scripture, “what is right” is all in the Bible and nowhere else. So when you pass judgment upon a person who is judging right from wrong in accord with Scripture, the fault is your own. And thus by your own criteria (not according to Scripture) you use tiny bits of Scripture to pass judgment upon one who is judging right from wrong in accord with all of Scripture, it is YOU who judge yourself with those tiny bits of Scripture; within your own words, like this;
“Let me be blunt. what is an anti-Christ. He has nothing to offer people. All he offers is condemnation of anything other than his own small paradigm. (A small paradigm of the type that many people live in, but that's beside the point.)
Basically his message is "Thank God I am not like other men". The danger for people who leave the fellowship is that the what’s of the world offer an entire arsenal to attack and criticize the 2x2s or any other religion. Do not eat this fruit. It will not make you better.
The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn.”
And your self-condemnation within that practice can be seen all over this board. The practice is commonly termed, “the pot calling the kettle black.”
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 5, 2011 15:25:34 GMT -5
Jesus was not popular either. The 2x2s are not popular either. Popularity is nothing to do with it. Minority views are never popular. You are clearly attacking the man Walter Martin by calling him the anti Christ rather than his beliefs.
A cult can be one from a theological, psychological and/or sociological point of view, either, one or more or all. I believe a cult is one if it psychologically controls its members. Sociological is secondary. Theological is not so much an issue unless it it is calling it a 'Christian' cult, or a 'Islamic' cult as many cults are not religious.
Many cults are not religious so cannot be lined up with religion or the Bible. Also we have many sub groups in our society and they cannot be called cults just because they differ from mainstream society so I determine a cult by the psychological impact and conditioning on its members..
A Christian group who claims that it is the only way, to me, from the theological point of view is questionable. it isolates itself from the Body of Christ and claims only its members are the Body of Christ which the 2x2s, Jws, Mormons etc do.
A group that tries to isolate its members by claiming everyone else is wrong or expects people to be misfits in society (as I clearly heard those words preached when I was in meetings - this appealed to me as I was a misfit at school) or dress differently is questionable from a sociological point of view.
Those who try and control their members (isolate them psychologically) claim everyone else but them are going to hell are a 'Christian' cult, but then Christianity on its own can be called a cult but mainstream Christianity who include faith in Jesus alone is not a 'Christian' cult but can be viewed as a cult. A cult which is does not claim to be Christian is still a cult but cannot be defined as one theologically - but then maybe it can if lining it up by Christian beliefs. from a theological point of view I guess a JWs can call other people cults if they line them up by their beliefs or the 2x2s if they line others up by their beliefs which they do but use other words for it such as lost out, bitter, apostates, hirelings etc.
I have: A Master of Social Science in psychology. Bachelor in Social Science with a double major in sociology and psychology. But like noels says, this is just my opinion and not those of the (or my case 'any') group
Trust I have not confused everyone!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2011 16:29:03 GMT -5
Jesus was not popular either. The 2x2s are not popular either. Popularity is nothing to do with it. Minority views are never popular. You are clearly attacking the man Walter Martin by calling him the anti Christ rather than his beliefs. A cult can be one from a theological, psychological and/or sociological point of view, either, one or more or all. I believe a cult is one if it psychologically controls its members. Sociological is secondary. Theological is not so much an issue unless it it is calling it a 'Christian' cult, or a 'Islamic' cult as many cults are not religious. Many cults are not religious so cannot be lined up with religion or the Bible. Also we have many sub groups in our society and they cannot be called cults just because they differ from mainstream society so I determine a cult by the psychological impact and conditioning on its members.. A Christian group who claims that it is the only way, to me, from the theological point of view is questionable. it isolates itself from the Body of Christ and claims only its members are the Body of Christ which the 2x2s, Jws, Mormons etc do. A group that tries to isolate its members by claiming everyone else is wrong or expects people to be misfits in society (as I clearly heard those words preached when I was in meetings - this appealed to me as I was a misfit at school) or dress differently is questionable from a sociological point of view. Those who try and control their members (isolate them psychologically) claim everyone else but them are going to hell are a 'Christian' cult, but then Christianity on its own can be called a cult but mainstream Christianity who include faith in Jesus alone is not a 'Christian' cult but can be viewed as a cult. A cult which is does not claim to be Christian is still a cult but cannot be defined as one theologically - but then maybe it can if lining it up by Christian beliefs. from a theological point of view I guess a JWs can call other people cults if they line them up by their beliefs or the 2x2s if they line others up by their beliefs which they do but use other words for it such as lost out, bitter, apostates, hirelings etc. I have: A Master of Social Science in psychology. Bachelor in Social Science with a double major in sociology and psychology. But like noels says, this is just my opinion and not those of the (or my case 'any') group Trust I have not confused everyone! An anti Christ, not the. Big difference. You have a penchant for misquoting as I catch you at it regularly. There is no point in responding to assertions made on faulty premises.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 5, 2011 19:39:59 GMT -5
'What', I did not ask you to respond so you are making an assertion based on faulty premises by presuming I want you to respond but you did respond whether you wanted to or not.
There is one place in a past post that I referred to something which you claimed you had not written, to which at least one other person confirmed that it was what you wrote. It was an ambiguous statement which some interpreted different from what you meant. One occasion is not regularly.
If you read what I wrote rather than getting on the attack you will see what I was writing was that you were attacking his person not his beliefs, whether I use 'an' or 'the' you are still attacking the man rather than his beliefs by saying his is an anti Christ.
You take one word out of a whole post and use that to discredit the poster. It's easy to see when a person is unable to answer for one reason or another, they attack.
Of course you have never made a mistake in your life and used 'the' instead of 'an'. Even the way you attack shows you are not perfect.
You often write one thing then do another while at the same time accusing others.
You wrote: "The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn".
So isn't it time to practice what you preach
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 11:53:10 GMT -5
'What', I did not ask you to respond so you are making an assertion based on faulty premises by presuming I want you to respond but you did respond whether you wanted to or not. There is one place in a past post that I referred to something which you claimed you had not written, to which at least one other person confirmed that it was what you wrote. It was an ambiguous statement which some interpreted different from what you meant. One occasion is not regularly. If you read what I wrote rather than getting on the attack you will see what I was writing was that you were attacking his person not his beliefs, whether I use 'an' or 'the' you are still attacking the man rather than his beliefs by saying his is an anti Christ. You take one word out of a whole post and use that to discredit the poster. It's easy to see when a person is unable to answer for one reason or another, they attack. Of course you have never made a mistake in your life and used 'the' instead of 'an'. Even the way you attack shows you are not perfect. You often write one thing then do another while at the same time accusing others. You wrote: "The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn". So isn't it time to practice what you preach I see no condemnation in advising you about using copy and paste when you quote someone, and avoid paraphrasing. I apologize if you took my advice in that manner. The difference as to whether I say that Martin is an anti-Christ versus the anti-Christ is crucial. The latter is the devil incarnate, the former is a spirit that we all struggle with. When Martin stands up and labels other religions as cults, based on premises which cannot be validated empirically, I see the spirit of the anti-Christ. And when that seems to be his entire ouevre, based on the web pages I previously viewed ( Kingdom of Cults), I see an anti-Christ. Now I would not attack a private person in this manner, even if I though it, but when someone becomes a spokesperson for a religious group, and one that is tied in to powerful elites, including attempts to regulate and influence the American government *, then fire has to be met with fire. (* American Baptist churches endorse political candidates from the pulpit, and consistently arm-twist Congress.)
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 6, 2011 12:38:42 GMT -5
'What', I did not ask you to respond so you are making an assertion based on faulty premises by presuming I want you to respond but you did respond whether you wanted to or not. There is one place in a past post that I referred to something which you claimed you had not written, to which at least one other person confirmed that it was what you wrote. It was an ambiguous statement which some interpreted different from what you meant. One occasion is not regularly. If you read what I wrote rather than getting on the attack you will see what I was writing was that you were attacking his person not his beliefs, whether I use 'an' or 'the' you are still attacking the man rather than his beliefs by saying his is an anti Christ. You take one word out of a whole post and use that to discredit the poster. It's easy to see when a person is unable to answer for one reason or another, they attack. Of course you have never made a mistake in your life and used 'the' instead of 'an'. Even the way you attack shows you are not perfect. You often write one thing then do another while at the same time accusing others. You wrote: "The true Spirit of Jesus is to look at the world with love and compassion, with a desire to help instead of condemn". So isn't it time to practice what you preach I see no condemnation in advising you about using copy and paste when you quote someone, and avoid paraphrasing. I apologize if you took my advice in that manner. The difference as to whether I say that Martin is an anti-Christ versus the anti-Christ is crucial. The latter is the devil incarnate, the former is a spirit that we all struggle with. When Martin stands up and labels other religions as cults, based on premises which cannot be validated empirically, I see the spirit of the anti-Christ. And when that seems to be his entire ouevre, based on the web pages I previously viewed ( Kingdom of Cults), I see an anti-Christ. Now I would not attack a private person in this manner, even if I though it, but when someone becomes a spokesperson for a religious group, and one that is tied in to powerful elites, including attempts to regulate and influence the American government *, then fire has to be met with fire. (* American Baptist churches endorse political candidates from the pulpit, and consistently arm-twist Congress.) I'm almost as strigent about the word "anti-Christ" as you are "cult". That said if any ONE person is an "anti-christ" there is No other reasoning that they would NOT be of the anti-Christ, now would he? The definition is one definition and if one person fits that definition then that should automatically put them in the category with other people who fit that definition, should they not?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 6, 2011 13:41:22 GMT -5
What wrote
I see no condemnation in advising you about using copy and paste when you quote someone, and avoid paraphrasing. I apologize if you took my advice in that manner.
The difference as to whether I say that Martin is an anti-Christ versus the anti-Christ is crucial. The latter is the devil incarnate, the former is a spirit that we all struggle with. When Martin stands up and labels other religions as cults, based on premises which cannot be validated empirically, I see the spirit of the anti-Christ. And when that seems to be his entire ouevre, based on the web pages I previously viewed (Kingdom of Cults), I see an anti-Christ. Now I would not attack a private person in this manner, even if I though it, but when someone becomes a spokesperson for a religious group, and one that is tied in to powerful elites, including attempts to regulate and influence the American government *, then fire has to be met with fire. (* American Baptist churches endorse political candidates from the pulpit, and consistently arm-twist Congress.)
[/quote]
It would be very enlightening for you to give us a few examples of those that Martin labels as cults as to where you believe he is wrong. As to your generalisation on American Baptist Churches endorsing political candidates I think you should realise that in the US there are more brands of the Baptist label than there are breakfast cereals. You really do seem to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel to substantiate some of your ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 6, 2011 14:20:23 GMT -5
You need to read the posts correctly and not jump to your own conclusions. Whether you wrote the anti Christ (note a small 't' and not a capital 'T') or an anti Christ was not the point I was making. The issue was that you were attacking the man by using the term anti Christ, not his teachings. No problem pointing out the difference but that was not the essence of what I was saying, but which you have chosen to get stuck on, in order to divert from what I was saying.
If you want pages of quotes when someone replies in case they quote one word wrong, then I don't see you quoting from Martin's books in order to give us an accurate description of how you reached your conclusions that he is an anti-Christ. I guess that is your own paraphrase which you condemn others for doing.
You wrote: "The difference as to whether I say that Martin is an anti-Christ versus the anti-Christ is crucial. The latter is the devil incarnate, the former is a spirit that we all struggle with".
So now you are saying that Martin is the same as the rest of us, you didn't mean anything by calling him an anti-Christ and that we are all anti-Christs (plural for an anti-Christ). You are getting yourself in a worse knot. You called him an anti-Christ, if you mean an anti Christ spirit you did not write that so maybe you need to write what you mean. Big difference between saying an anti-Christ spirit and calling someone an anti-Christ. Saying he has an anti-Christ spirit is still attacking the man. I would go as far as to say that if you say someone has an anti-Christ spirit you are saying his spirit is from the devil. You can say his teachings are from the devil - but you don't say that you say his spirit is from the devil. Neither of which I agree of but you are entitled to your opinion as much as he is entitled to his.
Whether you wrote the or an would make no difference to what I was saying. I would still write exactly what I wrote, that you are attacking the person whether you say he is an anti-Christ or the anti-Christ.
Subject closed on my part!!
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 6, 2011 17:46:23 GMT -5
Matthew 12:
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 6, 2011 19:39:12 GMT -5
I am not familiar with this person, however I do know that John tells us: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22; cf. 4:3; 2 John 7). The Antichrist/an Antichrist will deny that Jesus is the Messiah.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 6, 2011 20:43:18 GMT -5
How does the authority of Walter Martin compare to the authority of J. Gordon Melton? Melton is also considered an expert on cults and new religious movements. When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 21:30:50 GMT -5
It would be very enlightening for you to give us a few examples of those that Martin labels as cults as to where you believe he is wrong. As to your generalisation on American Baptist Churches endorsing political candidates I think you should realise that in the US there are more brands of the Baptist label than there are breakfast cereals. You really do seem to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel to substantiate some of your ideas. From wiki - "Martin's primary approach to assessing cults was to focus on doctrinal issues, particularly those concerning the person, nature and work of Christ. Martin emphasized research and quoted directly from the teachings of the cults, challenging their claims to Christianity by pointing out the biblical errors in their theology." In an academic setting you cannot use the Bible to attempt to marginalize a religious group, end of story.As far as Baptists and politics ... Google "George Bush Baptist". An example .... NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Reviving a major plank of his re-election campaign, President Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Tuesday. The president’s address to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention — the fourth year in a row he has spoken to the conservative evangelical gathering — was crafted to rally the social religious conservatives who make up a crucial part of Bush’s governing coalition. He restated his commitment to issues dear to conservatives’ hearts, notably his opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion and research on human embryonic stem cells — a stance he calls the “culture of life.” (Source - msnbc.com) There are 16 million Southern Baptists in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 21:48:14 GMT -5
How does the authority of Walter Martin compare to the authority of J. Gordon Melton? Melton is also considered an expert on cults and new religious movements. When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'Melton, the renowned author of the Encyclopedia of American Religions has been consistently attacked by the Counter Cult Movement for refusing to consider JWs and Mormons as cults. Melton has stated, "One of my motivations for getting into "cult" studies was the abysmal state of evangelicals studies on new religions and the amateurish and "hateful" attitude that unfortunately still pervades their approach. My interest in new religions is ultimately missiological not apologetic. I believe that the emphasis apologetics in the Evangelical community (especially what passes for popular apologetics) is a doing more harm than good. " (From Apologetics ...) Melton is on the record as saying that 2x2s are not a cult.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 6, 2011 21:54:05 GMT -5
What, Bush's position is mostly a reflection of conservative Republican thought. I know conservative Republicans of a wide variety of religions who agree with his positions.
Actually, in most of the U.S. the majority of the friends are conservative Republicans and share these sentiments.
(As the friends generally reflect the view of surrounding society, a few areas that are generally more liberal like Portland, Seattle and the Bay Area of California have more liberal friends--but in my experience even in those places they are greatly outnumbered by conservatives.)
Perhaps in Canada this is not the case. I have a feeling you would not have lasted 30 years if you had of professed in the U.S. With your views which are so much different than the majority here, I would have given you 5 years tops here.
|
|