-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What makes a church group a cult? Non denomination version
- Thread starter Sai
- Start date
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. For most of us, that's not a what but a who. And most churches allow women members. Excluding them sounds much more cultic, don't you think?
Alofa Atu
Well-Known Member
Bohemian grove?
Sai
Well-Known Member
Ok they can come in again then
Attack the person of Christ:
He is not God.
He is not a man.
He is one of Many.
His teaching is invalid.
He never existed.
His purported life is mythical.
Attack the word of God:
It is not inspired.
It is outdated.
It is one of many "holy" books.
It does not have authority.
It is false.
It was written by men.
Other common traits of cults:
Qualities & Characteristics of a Cult | Cult Research
Some of the above may not be applicable to a "church" group.
Thank you for posting a thread for all Christians.
He is not God.
He is not a man.
He is one of Many.
His teaching is invalid.
He never existed.
His purported life is mythical.
Attack the word of God:
It is not inspired.
It is outdated.
It is one of many "holy" books.
It does not have authority.
It is false.
It was written by men.
Other common traits of cults:
Qualities & Characteristics of a Cult | Cult Research
Some of the above may not be applicable to a "church" group.
Thank you for posting a thread for all Christians.
Last edited:
Hannahande
Member
Have you read the same subject in the Baptist Theology section?
what makes a church/group become a Cult?
Some of them think you cannot be really saved in a cult because of the misleading doctrines.
It is as if the Sprit of Jesus is not there looking at their hearts when they pray to Him.
Can you say that person, who says they were saved in a cult, was not truly saved?
Did that person not really turn to God and away from idols just because they did not immediately leave the cult?
I am definitely not an advocate for any "cult", but since God is everywhere, as even when a person in the deepest darkest parts with no scripture at all genuinely inquires of God, does He not respond?
what makes a church/group become a Cult?
Some of them think you cannot be really saved in a cult because of the misleading doctrines.
It is as if the Sprit of Jesus is not there looking at their hearts when they pray to Him.
Can you say that person, who says they were saved in a cult, was not truly saved?
Did that person not really turn to God and away from idols just because they did not immediately leave the cult?
I am definitely not an advocate for any "cult", but since God is everywhere, as even when a person in the deepest darkest parts with no scripture at all genuinely inquires of God, does He not respond?
Sai
Well-Known Member
MB wrote in the 'Baptist Only Forum' addressing the same OP, 'The Catholic church is a cult because they have replaced God with a man called Pope he is there holy father.' No one bothered to correct MB. Obviously, this is truly believed by the majority of people posting on that forum. In NO WAY does the pope replace God.
I’ve been Catholic for years. I’ve never heard any Pope call himself Christ on earth. If any of you don’t believe that Jesus put Peter in charge of His earthly church and that through succession that responsibility,(notice I said responsibility not power) transfers to the current Pope, that’s your right, But I believe because without it your get 33,000 Protestant denominations and millions of interpretations of the Bible.
If you take this issue seriously, you’ll remove your emotions and look objectively at why the Pope is called the “Vicar of Christ”.
This title does have a scriptural foundation, and this is it:
***"*He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep." (John 21:17)
It is in this passage that Peter is made the Vicar of Christ, not in the sense that he replaces the Holy Spirit, but in the sense that he is charged with the superintendency of Christ’s sheep. Peter is instructed to do this because Christ will soon depart the earth. Therefore, Peter is appointed “in the place of Christ” as his representative or “vicar”.
As the head of the visible church, the successor of Peter is infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. He “feeds the sheep” by guiding them clearly in these matters, while Christ is no longer able to do it in His own person.
The idea that Catholics worship the Pope or ascribe divinity to him is completely ludicrous.
I’ve been Catholic for years. I’ve never heard any Pope call himself Christ on earth. If any of you don’t believe that Jesus put Peter in charge of His earthly church and that through succession that responsibility,(notice I said responsibility not power) transfers to the current Pope, that’s your right, But I believe because without it your get 33,000 Protestant denominations and millions of interpretations of the Bible.
If you take this issue seriously, you’ll remove your emotions and look objectively at why the Pope is called the “Vicar of Christ”.
This title does have a scriptural foundation, and this is it:
***"*He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep." (John 21:17)
It is in this passage that Peter is made the Vicar of Christ, not in the sense that he replaces the Holy Spirit, but in the sense that he is charged with the superintendency of Christ’s sheep. Peter is instructed to do this because Christ will soon depart the earth. Therefore, Peter is appointed “in the place of Christ” as his representative or “vicar”.
As the head of the visible church, the successor of Peter is infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. He “feeds the sheep” by guiding them clearly in these matters, while Christ is no longer able to do it in His own person.
The idea that Catholics worship the Pope or ascribe divinity to him is completely ludicrous.
Last edited:
You do have another and a false Gospel though!
You say good things from time to time (like here) but seldom support your statements, except when someone actually asks you for proof.
Are we to take what you say always by faith?
From Wikipedia and from an atheist:
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia
First I think they are both correct (personal opinion).
But anything you say that falls under the category of "asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Link:
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."[1][2][3][4]
Origin[edit]
The concept, named after journalist, author, and avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens, echoes Occam's razor.[5][6][7] The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.[8][4] It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims.
It has been compared to the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"), which was commonly used in the 19th century.[9][10]
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."[1][2][3][4]
Origin[edit]
The concept, named after journalist, author, and avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens, echoes Occam's razor.[5][6][7] The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.[8][4] It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims.
It has been compared to the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"), which was commonly used in the 19th century.[9][10]