Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

On a tangent, I always assumed the whole 'blaspheming the Holy Spirit" meant rejecting God once you've completely and totally felt his power. Like if Billy Graham suddenly with super-atheist I think it would be a lot harder for him to come back to God than it would a person who never ever experienced God the way Billy Graham did to begin with.

Does that make sense at all?

I totally get what you're saying. What I don't really see is where this idea comes from.

I wonder, on a completely unrelated note to the pevasive conversation going on here, if anyone has ever had their religious convictions (or lack thereof) seriously affect their life.

Not that I can possibly describe. But I have no idea how I would regard the world and react to it if I didn't see it the way I do.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I totally get what you're saying. What I don't really see is where this idea comes from.

Well it says those who blaspheme the Son of Man shall be forgiven. Thats Jesus. You can basically say you don't believe in Jesus/God etc and if you change your mind at some point, thats totally understandable.

The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God's power. It's more or less an experience. Also, its an experience that only comes after the repentance stage (i.e. after you already believe in God and Jesus etc). So to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you would have had to repented, accepted Christ, and experienced God's power firsthand (be filled with the Holy Spirit as some denominations say), and then say none of it was real after being given true assurance that it was indeed real.

I can see how God would have a problem with that, but I can also imagine that it doesn't happen very often. After all, anybody who directly experienced God's power isn't very likely to deny the fact that it happened.

Thats just my interpretation of it though. I could be wrong, but it seems to make the most sense to me given what I've read in other Scriptures.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, thanks for explaining the holy spirit. That's something I never quite understood. I also can see why you might read those passages to mean you have to deny this great holy experience, but it still seems like kind of a stretch.

[Aerozord]

I dont know, ever since this scientology thing forced the death of Chef I've been unable to really care too much about their political strife. I'm not saying I dont recognize the possible descrimination, I'm just saying I look at it and kinda go eh. Now if we were talking about something like genocide against them, then yea I would show concern.

Originally Posted by adamark

Scientology is a cult.

Germany is smart.

You know I remember another cult awhile ago. There was a guy proclaiming himself as the son of god, and people worshipped him as such, saying he knew the true path to heaven. You would probably know this cult as, christianity

All religions start out as cults.

[Sithdarth]

You know I remember another cult awhile ago. There was a guy proclaiming himself as the son of god, and people worshipped him as such, saying he knew the true path to heaven. You would probably know this cult as, christianity

All religions start out as cults.

Indeed except Jesus wasn't a science fiction author that wrote a book about how to form a religious like organization dedicated to the sole purpose of making himself rich. Further, he and his followers didn't further encourage the recruitment and fleecing of rich people. They also didn't ignore decades of scientific research about a specific set of diseases in an effort to keep their membership quite raving mad.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Indeed except Jesus wasn't a science fiction author that wrote a book about how to form a religious like organization dedicated to the sole purpose of making himself rich. Further, he and his followers didn't further encourage the recruitment and fleecing of rich people. They also didn't ignore decades of scientific research about a specific set of diseases in an effort to keep their membership quite raving mad.

Considering it was about two thousand years ago, for all you know they did do all that. I'm not saying they did, just that you cant say with any real accuracy since almost none of the original documents pertaining to it survived. And those that did weren't focusing on such details. Oh and to this day christianity ignores science, heck they tell you not to use birthcontrol

In any case I wasn't defending scientology, I am just saying cults aren't inherently evil or insane. Or atleast no more evil and insane then any other religion.

Heck I support fleecing the rich. If your rich and dumb enough to fall for this crap you dont deserve that money.

[Sithdarth]

You don't know that for sure.

That I do know for sure seeing as how the genre didn't even exist then.

Nah, just the recruitment and fleecing of everyone.

Nope didn't happen. That whole thing didn't happen until after the Romans and a few other people got ahold of the religion, added to it, and twisted it to their own ends.

Isn't that, like, the entirety of the Dark Ages?

Well considering there really wasn't that much scientific advancement at that time that's kind of hard. The little that was definitely wasn't part of the original teachings considering:

1) The writings chosen for the Bible for the most part weren't actually written until long after his death.

2) The religion itself had gone through so many governmental and cultural revamps that it was a completely different beast even from its parent religion.

In any case I wasn't defending scientology, I am just saying cults aren't inherently evil or insane. Or atleast no more evil and insane then any other religion.

Cults are by definition evil and insane. Cults can sometimes masquerade as religions and religions can sometimes seem like cults but they are to totally different beasts. Namely cults always self destruct because they are predicated on preying on the weak willed. Which is why they never progress to widespread membership. This is the key indicating factor. If someone has to be emotionally unstable (that is either needing to dominate someone or needing to be dominated) to join then its a cult. You don't see this in a religion.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Cults are by definition evil and insane. Cults can sometimes masquerade as religions and religions can sometimes seem like cults but they are to totally different beasts. Namely cults always self destruct because they are predicated on preying on the weak willed. Which is why they never progress to widespread membership. This is the key indicating factor. If someone has to be emotionally unstable (that is either needing to dominate someone or needing to be dominated) to join then its a cult. You don't see this in a religion.

no, its not, and I have a cited source which supports this. Out of all of those definitions, none say that evil or selfish intent is a prerequisite. In fact under most of them, any religion could be called a cult

[Sithdarth]

no, its not, and I have a cited source which supports this. Out of all of those definitions, none say that evil or selfish intent is a prerequisite. In fact under most of them, any religion could be called a cult

Note these from your definition:

-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

-Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

As subsets of the same definition. Which supports what about 90% of our modern population would call a cult. IE, a group of weak willed easily manipulated people captivated by a seemingly charismatic leader who no emotionally stable person would give the time of day.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Note these from your definition:

-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

-Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

yea you want to know what also fits those definitions? Christianity.