|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 21:57:33 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. Do you remember what my point was? I was trying to say that the Baptist elite and the Baptist congregation in the USA is politically powerful. Now you have a politically powerful church that goes around attacking Mormons and JWs. Remember Barry Goldwater's comments on the religious right. Do you think that this is good?
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 6, 2011 22:01:33 GMT -5
OK, I get your point.
Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices.
Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:08:09 GMT -5
OK, I get your point. Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices. Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB). Fortunately, the separation of church and state prevails, largely due to the uncanny ability of the Religious Right to keep shooting themselves in the foot. (See Pat Robertson). But this is all context around my comments on Walter Martin. He was a public figure, enormously influential, and basically, a religious bigot. I feel because of his persona that you have to call him out on that. You have to be judgemental in order to fight judgementalism. I'm in a double bind. I advocate a compassionate and caring view to other religions and other peoples. But in order to advocate that mode I have to be distinctly un-compassionate in labelling those who don't share that view.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:09:42 GMT -5
OK, I get your point. Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices. Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB). The LDS don't go around labelling other churches as cults. That's what this thread is about. I'm not trying to evaluate who is the best or worst religion here.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 6, 2011 22:15:01 GMT -5
OK, I get your point. Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices. Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB). Fortunately, the separation of church and state prevails, largely due to the uncanny ability of the Religious Right to keep shooting themselves in the foot. (See Pat Robertson). But this is all context around my comments on Walter Martin. He was a public figure, enormously influential, and basically, a religious bigot. I feel because of his persona that you have to call him out on that. You have to be judgemental in order to fight judgementalism. I'm in a double bind. I advocate a compassionate and caring view to other religions and other peoples. But in order to advocate that mode I have to be distinctly un-compassionate in labelling those who don't share that view. I guess I will break down and go read about this Martin guy--I have never paid any attention to him, so I am a bit clueless there. In my church politics is never preached during the homily--I have never heard it as part of a sermon. However, the church does publish information about what we consider to be the most Christian position on hot-button topics like euthanasia.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 6, 2011 22:15:51 GMT -5
OK, I get your point. Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices. Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB). The LDS don't go around labelling other churches as cults. That's what this thread is about. I'm not trying to evaluate who is the best or worst religion here. I didn't say they were a cult. Look again--I said they are extremely political. And they are.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:17:53 GMT -5
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? It's very simple. Anti-christ or anti-Christ or ANTICHRIST means "against Christ". Martin's approach on cults is the exact opposite of what Christ would do, thus he is "against Christ". I based this on two youtube clips in my previous post, one in which he attacks other Christian ministers that he dislikes, and the other in which he attacks JWs and Mormons. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:22:53 GMT -5
The LDS don't go around labelling other churches as cults. That's what this thread is about. I'm not trying to evaluate who is the best or worst religion here. I didn't say they were a cult. Look again--I said they are extremely political. And they are. I didn't say that you said they were a cult. But I sensed the conversation straying into questions I never intended to address or argue about. I well know how the LDS got involved in the last California gay marriage plebiscite, to much controversy. But that's irrelevant; the issue is the influence of Walter Martin and that is the point on which I was challenged. If you want a quick snap on Martin, look at this part of his web site, although he did die before there was a web. www.waltermartin.com/scient.html
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 6, 2011 22:27:09 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. From some of your comments on this thread, I understand that you are sincerely asking this question because others have sincerely asked you this question. I took a few days break to do some reading, and here's my response to the question. I'm going to throw out your "mind-focusing" quote and start directly from the question. Since you say your research is about history, sociology, and theology of the 2x2s, I encourage you to consider how the word "cult" is used in all three of those fields rather than the narrow theological definition you have chosen to limit your analysis.Question: Are they a cult? Response: What are you trying to determine when you ask whether they are a cult? - Are you wondering about how many years the movement has existed? [historical, new religious movement view]
- Are you wondering whether they believe in the Trinity or another specific doctrine? [theological view]
- Are you wondering whether they have a charismatic leader who might convince them to commit mass suicide? [psychological destructive cult view]
- Are you wondering whether they live in communes or reject technology? [sociological view]
- Do they have any unique end times prophecies? [sociological view]
Even though the first part of your quote says it means "nothing derogatory", I think you can probably see from the response on this thread that there is no way to use the "theological" definition of cult in mixed-belief company without being derogatory about someone's beliefs or interpretations of the Bible. If you choose to use Steve Bruce's sociological definition of "cult" in the book Religion in the Modern World: from cathedrals to cults", you'll find that many of the groups (Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Islam) that get classified by your theologians as cults get moved into categories of sect, denomination, or church depending on the geographic location. I am astonished at What's ballistic response to the straightforward question I posed on this thread. Shakespeare comes to mind, 'I think thou doth protest too much'! By your reaction one would think that I had stated a conclusion and not a question. Perhaps you may not like the word cult and its connotations but the word stays and here is why. In my first post I stated that I am asked this question when I tell those outside the 2x2s of my research. Since this is obviously a question of interest to those outside and perhaps some inside the 2x2s it would be remiss and unprofessional not to address it. Perhaps it would help to read Steve Bruce's definition of cult in Religion in the Modern World published by Oxford Press. He even mentions the 2x2s in this book. I ordered Steve Bruce's book from a local library and found that Bruce uses the word cult as defined by the sociologist Roy , which states that cults don't have the trait of exclusivity. In your very next sentence you quote someone who uses a theological definition of a cult based on exclusivity. Are you intending to show support or contrast with your side-by-side usage of two very different definitions of "cult"? I'm glad to hear you have a good relationships with 2x2s in Ireland. I think part of the ballistic response here is that you have stumbled on a word that means different things to different communities. Without body language and verbal intonation, it's easy to misunderstand each other. I'm more interested in history and sociology than theology, so I get frustrated when it looks like you are trying to justify the theological definition of the word cult by saying it's a neutral or benign word in sociology. Despite my frustration with your use of the word "cult", I have to say thanks for pointing me to the Steve Bruce book. I recently read the (non-scholarly) book American Gospel written by the editor of Newsweek magazine Jon Meacham. Though I don't agree with all of his conclusions about the role of "public religion", it got me wondering about the role of religion in American society. The Steve Bruce book has some chapters on religious tolerance and American religion that I can't wait to read. The 2x2s are given as an example of a sect in the book by Steve Bruce. He's got an extra idealized version of how today's workers start preaching and get funded, but I suspect the additional organization would plant the 2x2s even more firmly in the sect category.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 6, 2011 22:32:00 GMT -5
OK, I get your point. Yes Baptists are often political--but so are most of the mainline Prot sects here. And don't get me started on the LDS who seem to have an open agenda to infiltrate public offices. Even the workers are often somewhat political here--during the last election several had to be censured for openly touting candidates on the their FB pages. (another good reason why some of the overseers don't want their staffs on FB). The LDS don't go around labeling other churches as cults. That's what this thread is about. I'm not trying to evaluate who is the best or worst religion here. The LDS go around labeling other churches as false and theirs as the true church. No doubt they label those who have left their church as bitter, lost out, apostate the same as other exclusive groups do.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 6, 2011 22:35:45 GMT -5
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? It's very simple. Anti-christ or anti-Christ or ANTICHRIST means "against Christ". Martin's approach on cults is the exact opposite of what Christ would do, thus he is "against Christ". I based this on two youtube clips in my previous post, one in which he attacks other Christian ministers that he dislikes, and the other in which he attacks JWs and Mormons. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." The workers must be anti-Christ too then as they go attacking all churches outside of theirs. Martin only attacks some not all like the workers.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:37:32 GMT -5
The LDS don't go around labeling other churches as cults. That's what this thread is about. I'm not trying to evaluate who is the best or worst religion here. The LDS go around labeling other churches as false and theirs as the true church. No doubt they label those who have left their church as bitter, lost out, apostate the same as other exclusive groups do. I'm sure they are guilty of all kinds of egregious conduct including foisting the Osmonds on the world, but that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether they are a cult. Although now that I think about Donny and Marie, they could be accused of being far too cheerful. No one should be that cheerful, perhaps they are a cult after all. And that amazing technicolour dream coat. Sacrilegious ..
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2011 22:45:54 GMT -5
It's very simple. Anti-christ or anti-Christ or ANTICHRIST means "against Christ". Martin's approach on cults is the exact opposite of what Christ would do, thus he is "against Christ". I based this on two youtube clips in my previous post, one in which he attacks other Christian ministers that he dislikes, and the other in which he attacks JWs and Mormons. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." The workers must be anti-Christ too then as they go attacking all churches outside of theirs. Martin only attacks some not all like the workers. Believer, why would I care? I'm not a 2x2. I would advise you to take up your worker problems with the workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 23:32:46 GMT -5
Kiwi, that's our beloved and quirky Lloyd. He sometimes appears with different alias, but we can spot him a mile away!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D His unusual spelling is a giveaway.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 6, 2011 23:46:26 GMT -5
The workers must be anti-Christ too then as they go attacking all churches outside of theirs. Martin only attacks some not all like the workers. Believer, why would I care? I'm not a 2x2. I would advise you to take up your worker problems with the workers. You have been the last few days defending the workers and their church against Martin for calling them a cult and now you say you don't care. You call Martin an anti-Christ but say you don't care about the workers when this board is all about the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 7, 2011 3:11:47 GMT -5
What states 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. Whoever told you that you that you cannot use the Bible in an academic setting. Of course you can but not to marginlize but to critque! As far the the Baptists are concerned, you seem to be trying to turn this thread into a 'have a go at the Baptists'. If this is for my benefit because I am a Baptist I am afraid it ain't gonna work! But then that is an tactic of those who refuse to stick to the subject in question. Maybe you could concentrate on the question, 'Is the 2x2 movment a cult?'
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 7, 2011 8:21:44 GMT -5
Here is a quotation of Melton for the record;
“And I have, not being a theologian -- and I make no claim to be one -- a difficult task in sorting through doctrinal questions to do an adequate theological analysis of most groups' beliefs. I'm a church historian with most of my theological work in historical theology, not systematics. That's part of where I'm coming from. I also have another problem... I have a problem as to where to draw the line – what’s heresy and what’s evangelically kosher. What is acceptable doctrinal deviation?” (Ron Enroth and J. Gordon Melton, Why Cults Succeed Where the Church Fails. Brethren Press, 1985)
“Historical theology is a branch of theological studies that investigates the socio-historical and cultural mechanisms that give rise to theological ideas, systems, and statements. Research and method in this field focus on the relationship between theology and context as well as the major theological influences upon the figures and topics studied. Historical theologians are thus concerned with the historical development of theology.” (Wikipedia)
To historical Christianity, Biblical theology was not historically developed. It was historically delivered from God and was written by men inspired by God to write what they wrote. The Old Testament was written by Prophets – in fact a number of certain books in the Old Testament were called “the prophets,” with another group of OT books called “the law” in Jesus’ day. And the New Testament was written by apostles. And together they form the foundation of Christianity according to the New Testament.
And that is where “the line” begins to be drawn between historical Christianity and historical heresy.
So, Melton was mainly involved in a modern-day “historical theology” study that discredits the inspiration of the Bible in favor of socio-historical and cultural mechanisms that give rise to theological ideas. And it is not much wonder why he had such a problem with drawing the line between Christianity and cults when he studied himself right out of any authoritative word from God. And because Melton did not know what heresy is, he quite naturally could not classify ANYTHING as heresy, and had to just lump all religions under one nice smooth “historically theological” umbrella, hoping that it never would rain on it because that umbrella is full of theological holes when compared to Scripture. And while Melton is often cited as THE authority by those who defend cults, he is not even considered an important figure by Christian apologists – in fact Christian apologist think of him as a cult apologist – oh, but certainly an “academic” cult apologist.
And according to what, can we not use the God-inspired Bible in the “academic” world? It is “academically” geographically accurate as no other ancient book, claims of itself to be the word of Almighty God (surely He is THE “academic” of “academics”) and it contains theological identity that is BEYOND human ability to understand, let alone “develop”, just as would be logically expected by mere human minds.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 7, 2011 9:50:13 GMT -5
Believer, why would I care? I'm not a 2x2. I would advise you to take up your worker problems with the workers. You have been the last few days defending the workers and their church against Martin for calling them a cult and now you say you don't care. You call Martin an anti-Christ but say you don't care about the workers when this board is all about the 2x2s. I care when anyone is labelled a cult. Let's focus on the issue here. Martin hasn't labelled the 2x2s a cult. Only the JWs and Mormons.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 7, 2011 10:03:43 GMT -5
What states 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. Whoever told you that you that you cannot use the Bible in an academic setting. Of course you can but not to marginlize but to critque! As far the the Baptists are concerned, you seem to be trying to turn this thread into a 'have a go at the Baptists'. If this is for my benefit because I am a Baptist I am afraid it ain't gonna work! But then that is an tactic of those who refuse to stick to the subject in question. Maybe you could concentrate on the question, 'Is the 2x2 movment a cult?' Please quote what I actually said about how the Bible should not be used, and then let's have a go at that one, shall we? Anyway, Walter Martin is a Baptist and I am having a go at him. I am not targetting Baptists in general, but indicating that they are centrist, influential and powerful. And that makes it that much worse for a Baptist theologian to call other religions, cults. Also when I quipped before that I dislike Baptists, I meant in the sense of their brand of Christianity as a denomination, which I do dislike. I would never dislike anyone because they are Baptist, and we have some personal friends who are Baptists, as a matter of fact. I happen to like them in spite of them being Baptists (just joking now).
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 7, 2011 10:04:25 GMT -5
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? It's very simple. Anti-christ or anti-Christ or ANTICHRIST means "against Christ". Martin's approach on cults is the exact opposite of what Christ would do, thus he is "against Christ". I based this on two youtube clips in my previous post, one in which he attacks other Christian ministers that he dislikes, and the other in which he attacks JWs and Mormons. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." As WHAT wrote the bible says clearly what anti-Christs are and that is they preach adversely to Jesus Christ or they simply deny him as the Messiah!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 7, 2011 10:17:38 GMT -5
It's very simple. Anti-christ or anti-Christ or ANTICHRIST means "against Christ". Martin's approach on cults is the exact opposite of what Christ would do, thus he is "against Christ". I based this on two youtube clips in my previous post, one in which he attacks other Christian ministers that he dislikes, and the other in which he attacks JWs and Mormons. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." As Clerkham wrote the bible says clearly what anti-Christs are and that is they preach adversely to Jesus Christ or they simply deny him as the Messiah! Sharon, they were my words. Please be gracious in accepting my explanation for what I meant. I deliberately stated "an anti Christ", not "the anti Christ". I don't need you, ckirkham and believer throwing gasoline on the flames. I can build the bonfires well enough without your assistance.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 7, 2011 10:36:43 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. From some of your comments on this thread, I understand that you are sincerely asking this question because others have sincerely asked you this question. I took a few days break to do some reading, and here's my response to the question. I'm going to throw out your "mind-focusing" quote and start directly from the question. Since you say your research is about history, sociology, and theology of the 2x2s, I encourage you to consider how the word "cult" is used in all three of those fields rather than the narrow theological definition you have chosen to limit your analysis.Question: Are they a cult? Response: What are you trying to determine when you ask whether they are a cult? - Are you wondering about how many years the movement has existed? [historical, new religious movement view]
- Are you wondering whether they believe in the Trinity or another specific doctrine? [theological view]
- Are you wondering whether they have a charismatic leader who might convince them to commit mass suicide? [psychological destructive cult view]
- Are you wondering whether they live in communes or reject technology? [sociological view]
- Do they have any unique end times prophecies? [sociological view]
Even though the first part of your quote says it means "nothing derogatory", I think you can probably see from the response on this thread that there is no way to use the "theological" definition of cult in mixed-belief company without being derogatory about someone's beliefs or interpretations of the Bible. If you choose to use Steve Bruce's sociological definition of "cult" in the book Religion in the Modern World: from cathedrals to cults", you'll find that many of the groups (Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Islam) that get classified by your theologians as cults get moved into categories of sect, denomination, or church depending on the geographic location. I ordered Steve Bruce's book from a local library and found that Bruce uses the word cult as defined by the sociologist Roy , which states that cults don't have the trait of exclusivity. In your very next sentence you quote someone who uses a theological definition of a cult based on exclusivity. Are you intending to show support or contrast with your side-by-side usage of two very different definitions of "cult"? I'm glad to hear you have a good relationships with 2x2s in Ireland. I think part of the ballistic response here is that you have stumbled on a word that means different things to different communities. Without body language and verbal intonation, it's easy to misunderstand each other. I'm more interested in history and sociology than theology, so I get frustrated when it looks like you are trying to justify the theological definition of the word cult by saying it's a neutral or benign word in sociology. Despite my frustration with your use of the word "cult", I have to say thanks for pointing me to the Steve Bruce book. I recently read the (non-scholarly) book American Gospel written by the editor of Newsweek magazine Jon Meacham. Though I don't agree with all of his conclusions about the role of "public religion", it got me wondering about the role of religion in American society. The Steve Bruce book has some chapters on religious tolerance and American religion that I can't wait to read. The 2x2s are given as an example of a sect in the book by Steve Bruce. He's got an extra idealized version of how today's workers start preaching and get funded, but I suspect the additional organization would plant the 2x2s even more firmly in the sect category. This is a superb summation of the semantic issues arising from the use of the word 'cult'. I hope everyone takes the time to read this, as it is a bit longer post, but well worthwhile. I wish I would have posted something like this at the outset instead of my usual polemic against the c-word, but perhaps we needed the dialectic we had to get to this point. Live and learn. I'm also looking forward to hearing Grey's answer to the questions posed here.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 7, 2011 16:43:03 GMT -5
You have been the last few days defending the workers and their church against Martin for calling them a cult and now you say you don't care. You call Martin an anti-Christ but say you don't care about the workers when this board is all about the 2x2s. ..........Martin hasn't labelled the 2x2s a cult. .......... Your dog-bone disappeared on you already in 1987 in the following CRI statement which is already posted in greater detail on page 8 professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=18360&page=8Deny it again and let the world see you still attempting to rewrite the facts in order to smear the person of Walter Marin. You evidently have learned nothing through your own very public self-disgrace back in 2009 – www.votisalive.com/content/false-connection-between-2x2-church-waldensians-0- when you also ignored whatever facts put in front of your eyes that disagreed with your fictitious presentation, just as you are doing here all over again. So in very concentrated reduction here so even you cannot miss it, if you don’t like the facts ignore them again at your own public expense. “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)”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2011 16:44:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:09:48 GMT -5
Hey Rational, it was a placeholder but he put a little more effort into it than you did awhile back ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 8, 2011 1:35:45 GMT -5
No, there are no such things as 'Christian-cults', there's only tragedies.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 8, 2011 9:35:25 GMT -5
rn*, I see you have been posting on this topic, but I haven't had time to review all your posts the last week. Just so you know why I am not answering. I'm sure the posts will be beneficial to others.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Nov 8, 2011 12:01:43 GMT -5
words can mean what the author wants them to mean, the only person who knows what they really meant is the author of the statement.
obviously , this can lead to confusion, when different people have different meanings of the words.
|
|