enigmaax;1155053 wrote:You didn't offer your opinion as to how Christianity is related to a cult. You said we could have our opinion. Is your opinion that Christianity is a cult?

If considering the definition of cult is inclusive of the practices that are considered abnormal or bizarre, no I do not. I think that exist in the accepted definition of a cult.

I offered my opinion as it relates to Christianity and cults above with them being present in the overriding point of your post. I did not offer my opinion with regards to how they may or not be related in that post of question.

Con_Alma;1155038 wrote:They are not the same thing. They are three in one.

So is it a monotheistic religion or a polytheistic religion?

enigmaax;1155046 wrote:This is the funny thing. It isn't "akin to", it is. It is moderately humourous to see the negative connotation my hardcore Christian friends attach to the term "cult" and to hear them try to rationalize why they aren't one. Apparently it is only a cult if someone else doesn't believe you are right. Oh wait...

I was trying to be nice to Con_Alma, but I agree that religion is a cult.

Con_Alma;1155039 wrote:I know He exist. I know not everything about him.

It is not logic that provides such belief. Didn't we agree on that already?

You know he exists, yet cannot provide that evidence to anyone else. That is not knowing, that is a un-backed belief, no different than someone believing in invisible unicorns.

sleeper;1155064 wrote:So is it a monotheistic religion or a polytheistic religion?

Mono

There is only on God.

Con_Alma;1155021 wrote:He doesn't "need" worship. Need is a human trait. why would you assume He possess such a thing?

Con_Alma;1155056 wrote:I thought I addressed this.

Of course want, love anger and vengeance are human traits. I don't know what God does or does not posses as they relate to such traits. I don't guess that he does or does not posses certain ones.

There are indications in the Bilbe that He did and does express love, anger, vengeance.

There are indications in the Bible that he expresses "need" as well. Specifically, the need to be worshipped. Because if you don't worship him, he essentially says, "fuckyougotohell". That kind of indicates a "need" to feed an ego.

I see a mixed bag when trying to apply human traits to God. It seems like, on one hand, you/Christians want us to believe he is above all of that. On the other hand, virtually every action he has supposedly taken demonstrates the same range of traits/emotions that we have as humans.

Con_Alma;1155069 wrote:Mono

There is only on God.

Jesus is God though right? Or the son of God? How can he be both God and the Son of God?

sleeper;1155068 wrote:You know he exists, yet cannot provide that evidence to anyone else. That is not knowing, that is a un-backed belief, no different than someone believing in invisible unicorns.

Haven't we already agreed that you believe that's the case and that I put credence in faith?

Con_Alma;1155045 wrote:When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang). In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time. Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago.

There are many theories in regards to the creation of the universe. Look up the idea of the multiverse. Intriguing stuff.

And saying god exists "outside time" or whatever doesn't make it so that god existing makes anymore sense.

Con_Alma;1155073 wrote:Haven't we already agreed that you believe that's the case and that I put credence in faith?

I do believe in invisible flying unicorns. I have published this in NASA.

/jmog'd

sleeper;1155072 wrote:Jesus is God though right? Or the son of God? How can he be both God and the Son of God?

The Father and the Son are persons in the God being. This is part of the Christian doctrine usually called the doctrine of the Trinity.

Con_Alma;1155062 wrote:If considering the definition of cult is inclusive of the practices that are considered abnormal or bizarre, no I do not. I think that exist in the accepted definition of a cult.

Do you consider all non-Christian religions to be cults? Or, what are some examples of what you consider to be a cult?

I mean we've circled and beat this horse to death many times. I'd recommend the thread being closed, but my philosophy is that the more Con_Alma, the better.

Carry on..

Con_Alma;1155077 wrote:The Father and the Son are persons in the God being. This is part of the Christian doctrine usually called the doctrine of the Trinity.

So its multiple people that you worship but its a monotheistic religion.

I don't get it, and I don't really care to.

Skyhook79;1154813 wrote:There is no evidence of intelligent life on any other planet.

I literally said the in the next sentence. Learn to read better.

But what we do have is evidence of planets that could support life. I mean just today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new-planet-capable-of-supporting-life.html

That's far more evidence than exists for the god (since you're talking about the Christian god there is zero evidence for it outside the Bible).

sleeper;1155068 wrote:You know he exists, yet cannot provide that evidence to anyone else. That is not knowing, that is a un-backed belief, no different than someone believing in invisible unicorns.

I thought we established I had a herd of those in my back yard!

I Wear Pants;1155082 wrote:I thought we established I had a herd of those in my back yard!

Well since I can't prove that they don't exist, then I have no choice but to accept this statement as 100% fact.

I Wear Pants;1155074 wrote:There are many theories in regards to the creation of the universe. Look up the idea of the multiverse. Intriguing stuff.

And saying god exists "outside time" or whatever doesn't make it so that god existing makes anymore sense.

Yes I am familiar with the multi-universe theories. It's interesting study that still struggles to not oppose the existing laws of the universe. It will be intriguing to watch if it is further clarified.

Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all - just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:
[INDENT] [LEFT] "The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically "dead de Sitter;" that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, "mixing" into it in a "porous," phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region. Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will occasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the "miraculous" states discussed above." [/LEFT]
[/INDENT]

sleeper;1155081 wrote:So its multiple people that you worship but its a monotheistic religion.

I don't get it, and I don't really care to.

I completely believe you that you don't care to.

enigmaax;1155078 wrote:Do you consider all non-Christian religions to be cults? Or, what are some examples of what you consider to be a cult?

All of them? No. If the definition of a cult is inclusive of practices that are considered abnormal or bizarre I guess only those with practice that are such I would consider a cult.

I haven't individually identified them but would be willing to respond to such an inquiry if presented.

enigmaax;1155071 wrote:There are indications in the Bible that he expresses "need" as well. Specifically, the need to be worshipped. Because if you don't worship him, he essentially says, "****yougotohell". That kind of indicates a "need" to feed an ego.

I see a mixed bag when trying to apply human traits to God. It seems like, on one hand, you/Christians want us to believe he is above all of that. On the other hand, virtually every action he has supposedly taken demonstrates the same range of traits/emotions that we have as humans.

I think that need is ours. We have the need to worship him. There is much written about God not having an ego and how we look at his actions as indications of such.

Con_Alma;1155089 wrote:All of them? No. If the definition of a cult is inclusive of practices that are considered abnormal or bizarre I guess only those with practice that are such I would consider a cult.

I haven't individually identified them but would be willing to respond to such an inquiry if presented.

Scientology?

sleeper;1155101 wrote:Scientology?

I don't know very much about it. DO they have abnormal or bizarre practices?

Con_Alma;1155102 wrote:I don't know very much about it. DO they have abnormal or bizarre practices?

Very yes.

But so do all of major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), just because many people do something doesn't make it less weird.

I Wear Pants;1155107 wrote:Very yes.

But so do all of major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), just because many people do something doesn't make it less weird.

I don't suggest it does make it "less weird" for others.

If there are abnormal or bizarre practices it's a cult by definition. If individual people view the practices of Chrisitiany, Scientology, Judaism as bizzare or weird then they probably also see them as a cult.