All Comments (41)

According to this guy, a faith that is false is a cult.
That would mean that the Judaism is a cult, Islam is a cult.
Absurd.
Definition of cult has nothing to do with true or false teachings.
It's more on the methods used by this religion, like enlisting people by force (i.e. without their consent) is a good criteria to define a cult.
the catholic church that enlists babies (without their agreement, obviously) would fit this definition. And I agree with that.
It is the most dangerous cult around.

You say you defend the Christian faith. Which Christian faith do you defend? Jesus began the Christian congreation late in his three and one-half-year ministry and added his holy spirit 50 days after his resurrection to 120 gathered in the upper room.
Later, the apostle Paul said that the congregation would be defiled by wolves and it was within 300 years.
So, today it is a house divided. Yet, Christ said there was one "Way" and that the light would get brighter as the day came.

I recommend that you look closer at what you mistakenly label a cult, Jehovah's Witnesses, and will you will probably admit that we are not advocating a lifestyle of gathering riches. Riches will not be a life-saver at God's war (Armagedon) soon to come.

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

Wow!!! What a quote

"The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian theology more closely than other Christian denominations. "

The Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be the keystone of the Mormon faith, contains accounts of persons and civilizations which allegedly lived in time. We are learning more and more about ancient pre-Columbian civilizations, but not one thing has been brought forth to validate the Book of Mormon. Civilizations of the Bible have been attested to time and again by archaeological research, but not one shred of evidence has surfaced to vindicate the Book of Mormon.

A "burning in the bosom," no matter how sincere, is no proof of historicity.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers . . Some accuse the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian theology more closely than other Christian denominations. Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers promote this mis-representation is to protect their flock (and their livlihood).

OK, so I think I get it, I'm a member of a cult. You see my problem is I believe in the bible as the inspired word of god. And that makes me different from all "mainstream" christian religions.

For example, when I read the bible, nowhere do I see any evidence that Jesus taught that he was a part of a triune god / trinity. Instead, I see him refer to his father, and his position as his son. None of the apostles ever challenged this. Even the demons recognized him as the son of god. I know, I've heard that this developed over the following centuries thru the writings of the early church fathers, but in my readings (Marcion, Tertullian, Philo and others), nothing makes those writtings inspired. And then, I'm reading Daniel 7:13-14 and for the life of me can't see how that verse fits with the trinity concept. Ties in well with Revelation 1 which clearly distinguishes between Christ and God. Don't give me John 1:1 unless you are willing to consider John 1:18.

I know, it's that tradition thing that some say is as important as the bible. Seems to me that's what Jesus critiqued the Pharisees for - sticking to their tradition. So you see my problem in this one small area. Seems like the centuries of progress, weren't.

Another problem I have is that when I read Matthew 7, it sure looks like Jesus warned that some who claimed to be his followers, were not. First he says not to give what is holy to dogs, then refers to a narrow road leading to life, then talks about false prophets and then finally rejects totally many claiming to be his followers and calls them workers of lawlessness. Sure seems like a warning that not all "christians" are christians. When I read about the history of the middle ages and the Crusades, the Inquisition, burning people at the stake for printing bibles and challenging church teachings because the teachings did not agree with the bible, seems pretty clear this warning was on the mark. Consider the histories of Galileo, Michael Servantes, Martin Luther, Wycliffe, William Tyndale, etc. etc. etc.

And for grins, read about the personal lifestyles of the popes during this period. Makes "Desparate Housewives" tame by comparison.

And finally, it's clear some christian preachers choose to totally ignore anything that doesn't fit with what their "clients" want to hear in the interest of being modern. Jesus was pretty clear on divorce and Paul was very clear on gay lifestyles. Sounds like a little ticking of the ears going on.

But that's OK as most people will never pick up a bible and read a single chapter.

I tend to agree with Gandhi on Christians - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Instead of eye for an eye, we are supposed to turn the other cheek. Yeah - Sure - I see Christian religions promote this all the time

Regarding cultish control, I know what you mean. I'm expected to live a disgustingly clean lifestyle, support my family, live a moderate life and help others. How ridiculous can this be?

So there you have it from the front lines of cultdom. Of course, everything I'm taught is fully supported by scriptures and is reasoned on by at least a half dozen translations (because they all have their own bias).

If the Christian bible is correct about there being an Adam and Eve... but Eve had not eaten of the Apple../can you imagine what life would be like?

Closed eyes and minds. We might not even be. When was sex invented? After they knew they were naked...?

And as far as the apple...cut it crosswise...you will see a pentagram. The symbol of wisdom. The same as the snake. I mean they have not really found any proof of snakes talking have they?

terra

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your input and recommendation. I don't know whether Adam and Eve ever existed (they certainly are described as having advanced language skills for being the first humans, compared to austrailopithecus). My original post was to question the premise that Christianity makes "sense" by examining its core beliefs.

To anonymous: your view of the Old Testament is consistent with the Jewish view that the Old Testament was man's attempt to make sense of the world rather than a literal dictation of God's world as Christians hold the Bible to be. To me, it makes more sense, which is the criterion that Rev. Colson himself invoked in comparing religions for the "truth", to accept the word of the authors as to what their written word was rather than to accept the views of those retroactively implying causation 5000 years later, without any evidence to support the claim.

To Matthew: I am sure you are well intentioned in your beliefs. But how can you hold that a loving and kind God would torture people for eternity just because they follow a religion that they were raised with? Also, keep in mind that there are primitive cultures whose people have never heard of Jesus. Is it fair to them to burn in hell for not being Christian when they never even heard of Christianity? What about children who die at a young age before they know what Christianity is? After all, according to Christian belief, they are born in original sin. Are you suggesting that God takes their lives knowing full well that they haven't become Christian because they don't even know what Christianity is and as a result, they will burn in hell for eternity? further, what about aborted fetuses? Christians hold those to be people with souls (hence the sin of abortion). Surely a fetus cannot chose a religion. Do those go to hell as well?

Finally, look at your core position. You say that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Now you have an advantage that they didn't have. You know good from evil. You believe that God is good and should be obeyed and that the devil is evil and should be resisted. However, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple and the devil told them that the apple was created for eating just like all of the other fruits, Adam and Eve had no basis for understanding that God was good and the devil was bad. After all, if you don't know the difference between good and in evil as the Bible says Adam and Eve didn't, how were they to know that God was the good guy giving them good advice and the devil was the bad guy giving bad advice? the point is that they had no basis for such judgment. Don't you think it a bit unfair to punish Adam and Eve so severely along with the billions of people who followed (and didn't eat the apple or disobey God) when, after all, God put the apple in front of them to begin with and didn't give them the capacity to understand that eating it was wrong? In our society, we don't punish people who act without understanding that their actions are wrong. If we who are evil understand this, why doesn't God who is good?

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your input and recommendation. I don't know whether Adam and Eve ever existed (they certainly are described as having advanced language skills for being the first humans, compared to austrailopithecus). My original post was to question the premise that Christianity makes "sense" by examining its core beliefs.

To anonymous: your view of the Old Testament is consistent with the Jewish view that the Old Testament was man's attempt to make sense of the world rather than a literal dictation of God's world as Christians hold the Bible to be. To me, it makes more sense, which is the criterion that Rev. Colson himself invoked in comparing religions for the "truth", to accept the word of the authors as to what their written word was rather than to accept the views of those retroactively implying causation 5000 years later, without any evidence to support the claim.

To Matthew: I am sure you are well intentioned in your beliefs. But how can you hold that a loving and kind God would torture people for eternity just because they follow a religion that they were raised with? Also, keep in mind that there are primitive cultures whose people have never heard of Jesus. Is it fair to them to burn in hell for not being Christian when they never even heard of Christianity? What about children who die at a young age before they know what Christianity is? After all, according to Christian belief, they are born in original sin. Are you suggesting that God takes their lives knowing full well that they haven't become Christian because they don't even know what Christianity is and as a result, they will burn in hell for eternity? further, what about aborted fetuses? Christians hold those to be people with souls (hence the sin of abortion). Surely a fetus cannot chose a religion. Do those go to hell as well?

Finally, look at your core position. You say that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Now you have an advantage that they didn't have. You know good from evil. You believe that God is good and should be obeyed and that the devil is evil and should be resisted. However, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple and the devil told them that the apple was created for eating just like all of the other fruits, Adam and Eve had no basis for understanding that God was good and the devil was bad. After all, if you don't know the difference between good and in evil as the Bible says Adam and Eve didn't, how were they to know that God was the good guy giving them good advice and the devil was the bad guy giving bad advice? the point is that they had no basis for such judgment. Don't you think it a bit unfair to punish Adam and Eve so severely along with the billions of people who followed (and didn't eat the apple or disobey God) when, after all, God put the apple in front of them to begin with and didn't give them the capacity to understand that eating it was wrong? In our society, we don't punish people who act without understanding that their actions are wrong. If we who are evil understand this, why doesn't God who is good?

Bertrand Russell

Fear,the Foundation of Religion

Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Why I am not A Christian. pp22

OF COURSE Adam and Eve existed. They disobeyed God by eating the fruit, leading to the fall of humankind. Only through the sacrifice of Christ dying on the cross to save us from our sins can we have new life from the death of our fall. Those who refuse to believe that Christ Jesus is Lord and Savior will be condemned to eternal damnation. Any church that does not confess to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed is a cult. So, yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are cult followers are are Mormons. They will spend an eternity in hell.

I can't believe grown up people arguing about Adam and Eve as if they were real people.What are we coming too?It's absolutely ridiculous.
To take the bible literally is to misunderstand what it's all about.Its mythology,just like Greek mythology,Roman mythology and any other mythology.
Its just an old old book,written by our ancestors when they were still living in caves,had no newspapers,no books,and no knowledge.
It was early mans' attempt to make sense of the world.

Dear Different...

The real issue is whether there ever was an Adam,
or an Eve,or even a God.The chances are none of them
ever existed.
According to Karen Armstrong in her book,"The Battle for God",in ancient times mythos was not to be confused with "logos".
Mythos was never about the real.It harked back to the origins of life,and was about the eternal,and the universal,and provided a context that helped to
bring meaning and significance in our lives,in which despair was the alternative.
Logos was about practical matters,day to day living,and..."forges ahead and tries to find something new to elaborate on old insights,achieve a geater control over our environment,discover something fresh,and invent something novel.
"In the premodern world,both mythos and logos were regarded as indispensable.Each would be impoverished without the other.Yet the two were essentially distinct,and it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse.They had separate jobs to do.Myth was not reasonable,the narratives were not supposed to be demonstrated empirically."
It's an excellent read,I recommend it.

Dear Tim,

The issue is not whether Adam and Eve disobeyed God. The issue is whether they should be punished for it, given that they did not know right from wrong. We do not punish little children for not knowing better and Adam and Eve were little more than children in their ability to tell right from wrong. Your response doesn't answer the main point of why a loving and knowing God would put such a dangerous apple in the Garden to begin with. we certainly would consider any human parent to be derelict if s/he put poison in front of a child who couldn't comprehend what poison is (how could Adam and Eve truly understand the idea of "original sin" that would result?) and then watch while the child drank the poison. The defense "the child disobeyed me of his own free will" would not draw sympathy or stand up in court.

As for question one, are you not guilty of the same crime of being a finite mind trying to understand the infinite when you defend Christianity? How can you possibly argue that God set people up to go to Heaven and Hell based on their religions? Is that not your and other finite minds trying to state the rules of the Infinite? If you quote the Bible as your source, then are you not citing a book written by other finite minds as the source of understanding the infinite?

Also, just so you understand, the Jews who wrote the Old Testament (and therefore establish the basis of Christianity by creating the notion of the apple, original sin and the messiah) do not themselves believe that what they wrote was "the word of God" but rather a written documentation of their history and cultural beliefs. Those were the same folks that believed the earth was flat, made up of fire, air, water and earth, and that illness was the result of demonic possession, none of which we hold true today. So consistent with your comments, by what basis do you contradict the Bible's own authors and claim that the Bible is the word of God when the authors themselves say it is not?

ADPV,

Question 1: You assume you know what the infinite looks like. By definition the infinite can not be defined by the finite, you being finite. Your assumptions about the nature of God are just that. My God is not an assumption as He revealed Himself in the Bible. Since we are finite and He is infinite only God himself can reveal His nature and attributes. You can argue about the authenticity of the Bible but you can not argue about the simple fact that a finite mind can not comprehend or define something that is infinite. So you have a made up God, ADPV. The revealed nature of God in the Bible certainly has more credibility than a description made up by an individual, such as yourself. Your opinions have no support beyond your imagination while the Bible has the support of billions of people in today's world and its authenticity survives even after being questioned and challenged for centuries.

Question 2: Adam and Eve had free will prior to the apple, right. They did not acquire free will from eating the apple. Eating the apple was an act of disobedience. What apple have you eaten today ADPV? Every apple you eat today is an act of disobedience and that is what we call sin. Free will is the gift and our disobedience is our sin. We all have the sin nature in us as we all eat the apple every day and then we all cover up our sins, mostly it seems to me, by blaming God. And some apple eaters today will deny God exists while others will also deny the divinity of his Son. So forget Adam and Eve, as we all have sinned today on our own using our free will. All have and will sin except for Jesus Christ and that is why He alone can intercede with the Father on your behalf. God has a plan for salvation for you and for every apple eater in the whole world. That plan waits for you to open your heart to Christ.

Cult to me equals almost total control over the individual members. When an organization can dictate marriage, dress, time use, eating habits.. then it is a cult. When an organization will not let its members leave, that is a good indication that this is a cult. When leaving means death, you are dealing with a cult.

It seems to me that it does not matter if that cult uses a twisted Christianity, Islam, Scientology or other belief system to exert its control. For example, Jim Jones ran a cult using his twisted version of Christianity. bin Laden runs a cult using a very twisted version of Islam. Warren Jeffs used a version of Mormonism to control his followers and take teenage brides.

Sex, power, and total control over the lives of its members; these seem to be the hallmarks of a cult, not religion. Charles Manson ran a cult that was built on sex and drugs.

Reverand Colson,

You argue that Christianity is "true" and makes the most sense. The fact that you use the word sense, implies that Christianity is logical and fits the data.

Perhaps you would be good enough to provide the Christian viewpoint on the following two questions, which I have asked other Christians and have never received answers.

1) Christians (and others) believe that God is infinite. Since you have used the original Latin roots to explain what cult and religion mean, I shall do the same. "Infinite" means without end or boundary. Therefore, if God is truly infinite, then we are all part of God, otherwise God would end where we begin and would not be infinite but finite because one could draw a boundary around God. So if we are part of God, then are we born to original sin as that would imply that God is comprised of original sin as we are part of God? Would that mean then that Jesus is actually saving God or at least that part of God that is us? And what of heaven and hell? If God is infinite than heaven and hell are part of God, otherwise God would end where heaven and hell begin and God would not be infinite. So if someone goes to hell for not being Christian, does that mean that one goes to one part of God and not another in the afterlife? Similarly, the devil would have to be part of God as well, otherwise God would end where the devil begins and God would not be infinite. Finally, if Jesus opposed the devil as the Bible states, this implies God opposed God and as Jesus said, "a house divided cannot stand". So Jesus's words appear to contradict the reality of an infinite God.

2) Why the apple. The whole premise of the Christian religion is that Jesus needs to save us from our original sin resulting from Adam and Eve eating an apple which God created. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil. So how could they have properly understood that eating the apple was wrong, any more than a two year old could be expected to fully understand when s/he does something wrong. Yet, knowing Adam and Eve's ignorance, and the affect that eating the apple would have not only on Adam and Eve but on every subsequent human (and to me, it doesn't make sense that the billions of people who have been born subsequent to Adam and Eve should pay the price for their "mistake"), God created the apple anyway. Further, God allowed the devil to tempt Eve, knowing full well what was happening (since God is omniscient) and did nothing to intervene. Since you yourself used the term "sense" when referring to Christianity, does it make sense that a loving, all-knowing God would put such an apple in front of ignorant people who have no basis to understand the consequences of their actions and then stand idly by when the devil tricks them into eating it? To me, this sounds like a parent leaving a bottle of poison in front of a two year old, saying "don't drink this" and then leaving while another adult tells the child that "daddy left this for you to drink" and then watching the child actually drink the poison without trying to stop him. We would surely say that such a human parent was unfit and guilty of criminal behavior. There would be no sympathy in our society for such a parent. Yet we are told that our God did just that and It is merciful and loving. That doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that the apple is a metaphor. If we do have free will (which Christianity teaches), then we do need the ability to tell good from evil in order to make wise choices. The Bible says that we were created without such knowledge, so that implies that we were not equipped to make good use of free will. Additionally, free will has little value if we are living in a paradise (as Eden was), where everything is provided with no challenge. Living in Eden in a state of ignorance would not then be true paradise but stagnation. So I believe it makes sense to view the apple and the expulsion of Eden as the gift of seeing right and wrong so we could exercise free will appropriately and the opportunity to exercise that gift in an environment where true challenge exists, where our actions had true consequences on our quality of life. That's the only way to truly grow.

so if we were meant to "eat the apple" or know right from wrong and live outside of paradise so we could go through challenge, then Christianity completely falls apart. There is no "original sin" because Adam and Eve were doing what was required to create a race of people who could rationally exercise free will and grow from their experiences. Without "original sin" there is no need for a savior, which means that Jesus becomes a teacher and not a messiah.

I know that such a conclusion is painful to Christians. I am open to someone who can answer my two questions, preferably without resorting to the "proof" that Christianity is true because the Bible says it is true, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

I agree that the real issue is truth. Yet, while the time has been taken to define the terms cult and religion, no such time has been taken to define Christian or Christianity. For above we read: "Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, which are mentioned in the question, have fundamental differences with orthodox, confessing Christianity. We say that not with disrespect, but with full respect for their right to believe what they believe."

The subtle implication here is that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and that they have the "right to believe what they believe" – which seems to suggest that they believe some peculiar doctrine. And that they are not Christians – these Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses - how has that been determined exactly? Apparently it is by stating that they "have fundamental differences with orthodox, confessing Christianity." Doesn't that mean that since "they" don't believe what "we" believe, "they" are not Christians? Is that how a Christian is defined? For above we continue to read about "belief systems contrary to the scriptures." Now, however, we read that "they" do not meet the criteria for being Christian because "they" have fundamental differences with "orthodox confessing Christianity."

Moreover, orthodox means 'conventional', 'approved', 'accepted'. Should not what is approved – accepted be determined by God? And if it is determined by God, how is it then that some come to the table making a priori statements such as above - which statements patently intimate that Mormons and Witnesses are not Christians?

Hannah Paul

SUMMARIES OF NEARLY 600 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES

The following website summarizes 310 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 100+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

The following website summarizes over 275 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, and/or incidents involving problem JW Employees:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

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

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words and we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

The Real Issue IS Truth

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

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

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words and we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

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

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words. And we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

The Real Issue IS Truth

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

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

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words. And we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

Something to think about. Maybe there should be no presumed contrast between Christianity and others such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Simply calling oneself a Christian does not make it so. Christianity has it's foundation in Christ Jesus, who is revealed to all by the scriptures. Truth, as pointed out by Jesus at John 17:17, is also revealed by the scriptures. Truth can't be modified by creeds or confessions. It can only be studied and applied and accepted for what it is -- the word of God. If one lives by the word of God, in practice it will work out to God's glory. His word always delivers the promise. Every belief system should be willing to submit itself to the touchstone of God's word.

Mr. Colson stated that he found his Christian belief most compatible with truth. He did not lay out the thinking, or the evidence that led him to that conclusion. He leaves the verification for his beliefs or other truth claims to his readers to attempt on their own. This is neither the time nor place for a tome on apologetics. He has written voluminously elsewhere.

His detractors, on the other hand, seem simply to assume they are right and he is not, without suggesting that they have ever undertaken any such reflection. It was easy for me to be an atheist when I stood outside, critiquing the lack of demonstrable certainty for Christianity's claims. But epistemology is a shared burden, and when I thought to look for a firm foundation for my own beliefs I found thoroughgoing materialism to be logical quicksand.

An appeal to authority may be deemed a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies simply describe reasoning that can't be depended on to reach unassailable proofs. Poor logical arguments fail to prove but they don't automatically disprove either. It doesn't follow that identifying an appeal to authority as a logical fallacy that the cited authority is itself false. It simply means that the appeal to authority does not offer conclusive proof derived from indisputable premises that necessarily lead to the contended conclusions.

Mr. Mark, I fully understand and appreciate the differences between believing and knowing. I also understand the nuances between faith and knowledge. Most atheist posters seem to misconstue faith as a negation of knowledge. There is no necessary opposition between the two. Faith is a trust that what is known and experienced has meaning and purpose. In a world where following the steps outlined by Mr. Colson can lead to a reasonable assurance but no absolute certainty, such faith is required by everyone, even the most rigid atheist. For a Christian, faith has the added dimension of a personal trust that God is good and reveals Himself to those who seek him with a whole heart.

Dear Noogatiger -

Your point is well taken.

Perhaps the Xians could start with purchasing a dictionary and looking up the difference between "believing" and "knowing." After that, they could look up the word "theory" and see what the word means when used in a scientific context.

Or not.

The ability to accept something on faith is not the same thing as the search for truth. Otherwise things like the total eclipse of the sun would still be considered a supernatural act of the God's instead of just the moon moving into the sun's path.

Believing in something does not make it "the truth."

Debunking the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs:
A) They are at your door to recruit you for enslavement to their watchtower corporation,they will say that "we are just here to share a message from the Bible" this is deception right off.

B) The 'message' is their false Gospel that Jesus is ruling in heaven already since 1914.The problem with this is it's not just a cute fairy tale,Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim "..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple"

C) Their anti-blood transfusion ban has killed hundreds if not thousands

D) once they recruit you they will "love bomb" you in cult fashion to also recruit your family & friends or cut them off. There are many more dangers,Jehovah's Witnesses got a bad rap for good and valid reasons.

I don't get Colson. How does he equate the creeds with scripture? The creeds are the unsupportable product of a bunch of guys slugging it out several hundred years after the death of Christ.

How did the winners of this war get elevated ABOVE the scriptures to the point of being undisputed Truth, big T?

Tomh:

Colson is being diplomatic here, much to his credit. He knows that this is a diverse audience, and he doesn't want to be too over-the-top. Underneath the diplomacy, however, there is hatred. It (hatred) is a characteristic of the fundamentalist community. I feel it necessary to point these things out. Hatred is ugly and evil and unChristian.

realist: creeds are used by tradition. Many used to not be able to read. Instead of reading a passage, they quoted it aloud. It is NOT, as you suggest, an attempt to create belief.

Uccer: I found (and seemingly most respondents so far found) nothing slanderous in Mr Colson's comments, and more than me claiming that those who deem the world flat are incorrect; am I slandering them? No, and it is not "hatred" of them either, merely pointing out error, which is, um, FUNDAMENTALLY a good thing. Maybe your opinions of some people have colored your ability to objectively respond to what was actually said.

Nixon was hated but Nixon could not hate; for hate was not in him, it was not of his being. Nixon is Love. You believe love is all, you believe love makes the world go around, makes the flowers bloom; love is in the air and is the very air you breathe in. Yet, Michael Savage gets on the airwaves and on to the bookshelves, so tell me this: How do you take the wurst, turn it into a brat, then grow it into a Giant Savage Wiener?

Has anyone ever noticed that it is really only the fundamentalists like Colson who keep using the word "cult" as a general-purpose slander? To them, anyone who is not also a fundamentalist is wrong to varying extent. The fundamentalists say that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhist are satanical and evil religions. They say that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists are cults. A bit closer to home, the fundamentalists say that Catholics are heretical and that mainline protestants are apostates. Such is the nature of their hatred. Enough is enough!

When will we non-fundamentalist Christians stand up to the constant bullying of the fundamentalists? We need to make clear that we are devoted disciples of Christ Jesus and that they need to respect our practice. When will we do something to prevent the fundamentalists from dominating the airwaves? How can we stop them from hijacking Christianity?

Mr Colson,
You wrote:
"The real question is, “What belief system is true?” How do we measure the various competing truth claims of Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.? Christians believe that Jesus is the Truth, the Logos, the plan of creation. What Christians confess are the great creeds of our church. We assert these to be the truth."

If these things are true, why does the church need "creeds"? Creeds are thing that you keep repeating to yourself to convince yourself that they are true. If there are good reasons for believing things to be true you don't need creeds. It wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

"We would consider belief systems that were contrary to the Scriptures, creeds, and confessions to be untrue. That doesn’t mean they are not entitled to be treated with full respect and dignity. It’s simply that contrary truth claims are mutually exclusive (that’s a matter of logic and not religious conviction). Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, which are mentioned in the question, have fundamental differences with orthodox, confessing Christianity. We say that not with disrespect, but with full respect for their right to believe what they believe."

Forgive me if I find that weird. You are saying "My storybook is true because it is. I don't have any reason to believe it but it just happens to be true. Your storybook is wrong because it contradicts my storybook, but I respect all of the nonsense that you believe."

If I judged truth like that I would lose my job!

I can see why you would want to respect other people's beliefs. If people started criticizing each others crazy beliefs, then your own beliefs might come under some scrutiny also, and they might look just as foolish as the other crazy beliefs out there.

I applaud your use of logic. As you correctly point out, most people's religious beliefs are simply not true. But why should we respect things that clearly contradict reality? If most religions are not true, then surely there are awfully many deluded people out there. That can't be a good thing can it? Many of the decisions people make are based on these deluded beliefs. Surely it's better to encourage people to base their beliefs on reliable evidence?

Regards,
Realist

Mr Colson's pitiable post shows no evidence of any understanding of the history of philosophy or of religions.

His reasoning processes are indeed typified by the kind of tautologies noted above:
A is true because I say A is true.

I would like to know why the Christian world view makes the most sense as opposed to (at least) the two other major world religions. A comparative analysis would make your point more clear.

I'm surprised that OJSimpson,who's back in court for more weird behaviour,hasn't turned to religion to bail him out of his difficulties.CNN reported that 80% of Americans hate him. If he got religion,he could do the"Forgive me Lord for I have sinned"number,and every American would love him and forgive him for everything,even double murder.
Maybe he could also get a job teaching the bible to convicts and helping rehabilitate them.
Yeah.That's the ticket.

>

This is the first way one can determine what is true. Okay, Mr. Colson, but it offers no verification other than the appeal to authority, and such an appeal is, obviously, a fallacy. As for logic, it's a tautology too: A is true because (it is stated) A is true.

Back to the drawing board you must go!

A cult is a religion with no political power.

- Tom Wolfe

The above post was mine, missed the name field there...

Isaac Bonewits (a modern Druid) devised the "ABCDEF" (or Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame). It rates religious movements according to the principles below:

Internal control
External control
Wisdom or knowledge claimed by leaders
Wisdom or knowledge credited to leaders
Dogma
Recruiting
Front groups
Wealth
Sexual manipulation
Sexual favoritism
Censorship
Isolation
Dropout control
Violence
Paranoia
Grimness
Surrender of will
Hypocrisy

By this system, new religious movements such as Druidry and Wicca are shown to allow much personal freedom to individuals and none of the dangers usually associated with "cults".

(All the major Monotheisms fail the test miserably, of course.)