Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cult"
From Conservapedia
SavedByGrace (Talk | contribs) (precedent, why islam is not a cult) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Cultwatch is a non-profit watchdog and counseling group. I'm not sure what disqualifies them from being considered reliable. I respect your position as an administrator, though, so if you deem it unsuitable for citing, I'll find something else. As for whether JW and LDS are cults, be careful not to conflate the two usages. Both churches meet the definition of "cult" in the Christian sense of the term. They're not under the "secular usage" section for a reason. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | :Cultwatch is a non-profit watchdog and counseling group. I'm not sure what disqualifies them from being considered reliable. I respect your position as an administrator, though, so if you deem it unsuitable for citing, I'll find something else. As for whether JW and LDS are cults, be careful not to conflate the two usages. Both churches meet the definition of "cult" in the Christian sense of the term. They're not under the "secular usage" section for a reason. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
::The usage of cult wasn't recently adopted by secularists. And this website is not here to provide "Christian definitions," but rather true and verifiable definitions. Why would Mormonism be considered a cult and Islam not? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ::The usage of cult wasn't recently adopted by secularists. And this website is not here to provide "Christian definitions," but rather true and verifiable definitions. Why would Mormonism be considered a cult and Islam not? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::The Conservapedia article on [[Kangaroo]] gives the Christian ''baramin'' definition in the first paragraph. Is this not a legitimate precedent? Also, as far as I can tell, Muslims do not pretend to be Christians. We would just say that they follow a false religion. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
== Nicene Creed == | == Nicene Creed == | ||
Revision as of 01:46, March 15, 2007
I'm not sure cultwatch.com counts as a reputable source. Furthermore, the United States government recognizes the LDS church and Jehovah's witnesses as religions and neither exemplify cult like behavior. ColinR 20:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Cultwatch is a non-profit watchdog and counseling group. I'm not sure what disqualifies them from being considered reliable. I respect your position as an administrator, though, so if you deem it unsuitable for citing, I'll find something else. As for whether JW and LDS are cults, be careful not to conflate the two usages. Both churches meet the definition of "cult" in the Christian sense of the term. They're not under the "secular usage" section for a reason. SavedByGrace 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- The usage of cult wasn't recently adopted by secularists. And this website is not here to provide "Christian definitions," but rather true and verifiable definitions. Why would Mormonism be considered a cult and Islam not? ColinR 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- The Conservapedia article on Kangaroo gives the Christian baramin definition in the first paragraph. Is this not a legitimate precedent? Also, as far as I can tell, Muslims do not pretend to be Christians. We would just say that they follow a false religion. SavedByGrace 21:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- The usage of cult wasn't recently adopted by secularists. And this website is not here to provide "Christian definitions," but rather true and verifiable definitions. Why would Mormonism be considered a cult and Islam not? ColinR 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Nicene Creed
If the Nicene Creed is key to determining a cult, then are original Baptists a cult? There are some branches of the Baptist church and Lutheran church that are sola scriptura and as the Nicene Creed does not appear in the Bible, these would make those branches cults by this definition. --Mtur 20:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not a theologian or historian, but seems their rejection of the Nicene creed was not a rejection of any of the particular statements found in it. Rather, they wished to distance themselves from any religious texts other than that which is Divinely-inspired. I should hope that all contemporary Protestant churches are sola scriptura, but this just means that we don't place any doctrine or interpretation of doctrine on level with the Bible itself. On the other hand, again, looking at the creed itself--anyone who finds something disagreeable in it most likely also finds something disagreeable in the Bible. The creed isn't partisan--within Christianity. SavedByGrace 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
