Divisions of christianity and their differences

[True_Avery]

They believe that Christ was created by God, not that He is God and part of the Holy Trinity. As a matter of fact, they do not believe in the Trinity at all. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.

So, Holy Trinity = Christianity?

 

Sure, I'll accept that for now. Thanks for the quote.

 

Who said I was researching them? That was just one site. It was to clarify only what I was saying. (that/how Mormons arent Christians)

I agree that my first impression is negative, but it is based on what I know of the Mormons, which is not too much, and not good stuff. But if i was actually researching them, I would try to adopt a neutral standpoint and go from there.

Fair enough, but I'm sure you get why I pointed out the site and facts being presented. From my point of view, it looked more like slander than research but thank for clarifying.

 

If its not informative for you, I asume you already knew those things? I sure didnt. (love bombing, character assassination... yow)

True, I did know most of that before hand but a few of the things pointed out are general beliefs upon any belief system so things eventually become predictable when pointing out the flaws of a belief system.

 

Their purpose is to inform people in cults of the things that their cult leaders will not tell them, which are the flaws.

Yes, they are a muckraker site.

 

I would aplaud them for this, except I see more slander towards their faults than a fair showing of both sides. Regardless of what they claim (helping people understand), they show a negative side with emphases on negative and not much on positive.

 

The quote on Bias is indeed true, but it applies to those individual bias. If they were truly trying to show a side, they certainly decided to justify only looking at one side and only encouraging them to look at he positive side themselves. That makes the site biased, regardless of the people who created it.

 

And I still have a problem with the name of the site being "cultwatch", as it 1) uses "cult" in a negative connotation and 2) labels these groups as cults off the bat and not valid religions which I find adds to my point on their bias scale and the credibility of the website.

 

Fact is, every religion has radical beliefs and radical people. This is a Christian site focusing on groups they have deemed to be non-christian and worthy of being watched, which I find hypocritical as it seems to almost undermine the point of their supposed job to spread the word about so called cults.

 

That is the best I can explain it.

 

The Nicene Creed has been used for the definition of Christianity for about 1700 years. Its universally accepted to be a solid comparison tool for situations like this. And like Q said, Mormons aren't Christians.

Fair enough. Is that the thing that Qliv posted?

 

In the first century opponents of the early church started calling them "Christians", a derogative term referring to Christ. Its just like if I start calling Mormons "Smithies". The term "Christian" can be taken as "of Christ". I would call Mormons "Smithies" because they follow the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Those teachings of Mormons are not what Christ taught or endorsed. They are not "of Christ". Now some teachings that are not "of Christ" aren't too damning, but the Mormon belief about salvation, which would be the core aspect of any religion, is not "of Christ". If their core belief is not "Christian", then Mormon ≠ Christianity.

Not sure I entirely understand, as this logic could be used to call any denomination unchristian due to leaders, differing beliefs, interpretation of scripture and so on.

 

I get what you are getting at, but you and Qliv had me convinced at Holy Trinity making them unorthodox, to not christian altogether.

 

Old Testament.

Moot point, as some denominations of Christianity look at both the New and Old Testament. If it was a truly invalid thing, then why include it in any Christian bibles at all, and why ever study it if it is not valid anymore?

 

It is important to note that strong fundamentalists still look at the Old Testament and the New, and pick and choose between the two what is true and what is not.

 

Its still in the Bible, and its still looked at and believed in some Christian groups. I'll rethink this stance, however, if it is pointed out to me that believing anything in the Old Testament is also unchristian.

 

Personally, I believe that there is no 'correct' denomination.

So, Holy Trinity and as long as that is believed they are still Christian regardless of Denomination.

 

Sure, I'll take that as a definition then.

 

Sure, I didn't read all of your wikis but apparently you didn't read most of the site I posted, which is ok; I didn't/don't expect you to.

I read them, but as I said above my feeling stood and still stands that the site itself is biased in concept. I wont buy "we're all biased anyway" as an excuse to pick on a group that a Christian site has labeled as "Cult".

 

OK, whats with the 'fundamentalist = crap' undertone?

As it has already been stated in this thread that this is not a place for me to explain this. It would be a thiest/athiest convo, so my stance on religion is sociological in nature and would be off topic for me to go further.

 

You could start a thread on fundamentalism, however, as myself and others, including some Christians and thiests on this board, would certainly have points for and against it.

 

I believe the literal account of creation not because I refuse to accept any evidence, but because I haven't looked into the subject. I haven't had any need to. I suppose I'm not hard out fundamentalist, but rather grew up in a fundamentalist environment.

If I ever really need to look into the subject, I'll find out more about it than "They found all the 'facts' from a frikkin pig's tooth."

This is my situation with a lot of things.

As I mentioned above, I will respond to this a more fitting thread as to not take the thread off-topic.

 

Please do post your comment, or a link to it. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Alright then:

 

In the years following the ascension of the resurrected Jesus to heaven, the Christian church grew rapidly. Christians soon found themselves to be the subjects of persecution by both the Romans and the Jews. In many locales, it became dangerous to be known as a Christian. Thus, when two strangers met and thought maybe they were fellow believers, one of them would draw, on the ground, the upper half of the fish symbol.

Recognizing the symbol, the stranger would add a second curved line and complete the drawing of a fish.

It is a very simple shape to draw - just two curved strokes. It could be drawn quickly, and erased just as quickly if there was no sign of recognition on the part of the stranger.

 

http://www.eureka4you.com/fish/fishsymbol.htm

http://www.albatrus.org/english/reli...ish_symbol.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The word "Cult" means this:

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

 

The literal and traditional meaning of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus meaning "care" or "adoration", which from ancient times meant a traditional practice of religion or the tribal beliefs which preceded formal religions.

 

Since at least the 1920s to 40s, the approach of orthodox, conservative, or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible, put additional revelation on a similar or higher level than the Bible, or had beliefs and/or practices that were not held by current, mainstream Christianity.

 

By some definition, cult could hold the same meaning as any normal religion. By other definitions, it is something that is not a formal religion, or something that does not follow fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

 

By some of those definitions, Christianity could be considered a cult, or could have started out as a cult. The early Christians had to hide from the Romans, thus making them below what was a formal religion back then. Or, a cult.

 

"Cult" is commonly accepted as a negative belief system, but a cult is simply an unorthodox religion for its time. Christians, as said before, use "cult" to refer to something that is, by some definition, not Christian.

 

In common society today, "cult" is a word given to a group of brainwashers, exploiters, "witchercraft", and other groups that may or may not manipulate people into a belief system. Depending on the situation, the person, and the point of view, nearly any religion (including modern day Christianity) could be considered a cult. The documentary "Jesus Camp" is an example of how Christianity today could fall, under some situations, into the modern day definition for the word "cult". Being raised and taught to be a tight Christian could be considered by some to be a form of brainwashing, manipulation, or indoctrination, thus also putting it into the current day definition of "cult".

 

What I'm trying to say is, the word has been manipulated for so long that it is hard to give it a meaning anymore. It is commonly accepted as a negative, but what it is an unorthodox religion for its time. Brainwashing is unorthodox now, but I'm sure throughout history that was even seen as a social norm once.

 

I'm not calling Christianity a negative in this sense. I'm calling it what it was at the time when the Ichthys (fish) was a sign of secrecy and digression. Today, I'm sure a religion that runs around making fish signs would be persecuted and called a "cult" by some, because that is exactly what it would be.

 

And, A religion that followers a science fiction novel could be considered unorthodox. Thus, by definition, Scientology is a cult, or an informal religion.

 

Christianity was informal and unorthodox once. Thus, a cult.

[EnderWiggin]

That's a batty site, EW.

JC: Why 'almost'

 

More disappointment than sadness, hence 'almost'.

 

I won't be put in that 'group of Christians'. I'll jump in. I do believe the world was created in 6 days.

 

That's unfortunate. I guess my point doesn't hold then.

 

I won't start in about sola scriptura, I guess, but then flip it around: How would you feel being put in the 'group of Christians' who believe in Evolution?

 

I believe the literal account of creation not because I refuse to accept any evidence, but because I haven't looked into the subject. I haven't had any need to.[/QUOTe]

 

So you're using ignorance as a basis for belief? Interesting.

 

 

One question--the Bible says that by the 7th day He created the World.

 

So why exactly would I not want to be categorized like that? Just curious...

Because it's wrong.

 

The bible isn't the end-all-be-all, and it doesn't disprove the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

 

But evolution isn't the topic here, I digress. Go to the Senate and make a thread if you're interested in learning more about why sola scriptura is a bad strategy.

 

_EW_

 

Fair enough. Is that the thing that Qliv posted?

Q posted the Athanasian Creed, whereas jesus is talking about the one that came out of the First Council of Nicea. They say the same relative thing, but Q's is more indepth and specific.

[Totenkopf]

They believe that Christ was created by God, not that He is God and part of the Holy Trinity. As a matter of fact, they do not believe in the Trinity at all. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.

 

So, Holy Trinity = Christianity?

 

Sure, I'll accept that for now. Thanks for the quote.

 

Not quite. It is a necessary component, however.

[vanir]

The word means this:

"A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior"

 

period.

 

What's more, it is clearly stated by the man himself. No no, wait. He lied?

[EnderWiggin]

The word means this:

"A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior"

 

period.

 

What's more, it is clearly stated by the man himself. No no, wait. He lied?

 

 

Thus, includes Mormons

 

_EW_