Who Is God? Why Does He Allow Suffering? Will It Ever End?

Status
Not open for further replies.
finally found something on the internet I can't fap to. But I'm giving it a good try. First one to finish has a place in heaven.
 
Like Classic Coke and Diet Coke, both religions and cults look alike even if they taste different. A religion belongs to the wider culture; its adherents come and go freely. A cult tends to be counter-cultural, restricting the social life of its adherents to other cult members. The key characteristic of a cult is the axis mundi, the shamanic leader at the center of the organization. The cult leader claims exclusive access to transcendent reality, and dispenses power and grace as he or she sees fit. It is not theology that distinguishes a cult from a religion; in fact, cults may appear within a religion, for example, the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones' Peoples Church were both cults within Christianity

http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216321-religion-or-cult
 
Hmm, well, having looked at several definitions of the word "cult", it seems that everyone other than church-goers would fall under that category.

It is likely, however, that most people's knowledge of JWs is extremely limited. Most people only know that they don't celebrate Christmas or birthdays, or have blood transfusions.

And that's about it.

By the very definition of the word, all religions are cults.

Apparently in Europe cult/religion are used interchangeably. But that's not the case in the UK, where it has negative connotations.
 
There are many many Christian groups even in the UK I'd consider cults though they don't have an appointed spiritual leader who claims an exclusive connection to God - but do have significant say in the cultural and social aspects of their follower's lives according to differing understandings of the Bible.
 
There are many many Christian groups even in the UK I'd consider cults though they don't have an appointed spiritual leader who claims an exclusive connection to God - but do have significant say in the cultural and social aspects of their follower's lives according to differing understandings of the Bible.

But the Bible itself could be said to have a significant say in the cultural and social aspects of practising Christians.

It's only because the churches have selectively discarded certain passages in the Bible that they can accept modern cultural practices into their worship.

If anyone were to read and practice everything found in the Bible, they wouldn't be regarded as "normal" at all. And it doesn't matter what version of the Bible you use - King James or the witness version.
 
But the Bible itself could be said to have a significant say in the cultural and social aspects of practising Christians.

It's only because the churches have selectively discarded certain passages in the Bible that they can accept modern cultural practices into their worship.

If anyone were to read and practice everything found in the Bible, they wouldn't be regarded as "normal" at all. And it doesn't matter what version of the Bible you use - King James or the witness version.

I kind of disagree - many of the translations take things too literally and/or are edited with an agenda in mind - if you read a few different translations you can get a feel for the principles and sentiments behind many of the verses which IMO a few things aside largely aren't incompatible with modern life (though IIRC there are some things like homosexuality, etc. that the Bible is inflexible on).

As someone with a non-partisan perspective I find it quite frustrating how narrow minded and just plain wrong the interpretations often are even by well respected figures i.e. I know a couple of Christians who get massively worked up over the whole women shouldn't wear trousers thing which is a complete and utter misunderstanding of the sentiment of those verses.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom