jesus is back! and this time he's a chinese woman.http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,181681,00.html
ar'nt xians the weirdest.
ar'nt xians the weirdest.
Raithere said:I find it particularly interesting how the Christian belief system lends itself to the victimization of its membership by a bizarre array of cultist indoctrination.
Indoctrination is one type of defense but it's still rather weak. Trained to submit to authority it is rather easily usurped. I would think that charismatic sects would prove themselves very likely victims (it would probably make an interesting study).Jenyar said:"He said the Jesus of the Bible is the old one."
Anybody who believes that doesn't even have a rudimentary grasp of the Bible or Christianity. The article confirms this:
Without strong doctrinal leadership, it's a prescription for heterodoxy. "I'm not sure that most rural Christians are well enough grounded in Christianity to even know they're in a sect," says Daniel Bays, a historian of Chinese Christianity at Calvin College in Michigan.
I think such studies have been done. But remember we're talking about simple peasants who may have found in authentic Christianity a recourse from oppresion and authoritarianism. But this sect doesn't emphasize Christian principles, it exploits their sense of indignity and justice in the name of Christianity:Raithere said:Indoctrination is one type of defense but it's still rather weak. Trained to submit to authority it is rather easily usurped. I would think that charismatic sects would prove themselves very likely victims (it would probably make an interesting study).
Good point.Raithere said:Of course, the development of critical thinking skills is a double edged sword (though one that I favor), the authority that has the chutzpah to train its members in skepticism better make damn sure to be honest.
mustafhakofi said:jesus is back! and this time he's a chinese woman.http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,181681,00.html
ar'nt xians the weirdest.
Hmmm... a religious and political radical in a period of civil oppression. Reminds me of someone.Jenyar said:I think such studies have been done. But remember we're talking about simple peasants who may have found in authentic Christianity a recourse from oppresion and authoritarianism.
I'm confounded that you appear to be using this as a criticism.But this sect doesn't emphasize Christian principles, it exploits their sense of indignity and justice in the name of Christianity:
That, plus the sect's insistence that China is "disintegrating from within," appeals to peasants, many of whom are poorly grounded in Christian principles and are angry at a government that has failed to raise their incomes or curb corruption.
Don't know, I'm not privy to her agenda. I'm just pointing out the similarity.Jenyar said:If they are just doing what Jesus did, why do they say "the Jesus of the Bible is the old one"?
He most certainly was. That he referred to the same laws is incidental, he describes a drastic revision in the interpretation of those laws. He repeatedly berated them and undermined their authority.Jesus was not inciting people against the Pharisees. After all, the Pharisees were the heroes of the faith, models of perfection to look up to. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy, the bad "yeast", but confirmed their laws.
They tried to catch him up against Roman authority but he was not challenging Rome. Eventually they acted directly.And when they tried to catch him being politically subversive:
I think prey would be too strong a word but he did invoke resentment and he was working against the established authority. The issues I'm addressing are about the political / civic aspects of religion rather than the spiritual.Jesus did not prey on people's indignity, He told them what was right. Love of money, selfishness, hypocrisy -- these were the things He warned them against.
Different time, different place, different leader. The focus is different; Jesus seemed to identify the religious leaders as the problem rather than the secular Roman authority.If that was what this sect was interested in, they would not have needed another "messiah". In fact, like the Jews who rejected a messiah who wouldn't overthrow the Romans for them, they seem to have their own political agenda in mind.
This speaks to people already converted.And Rev. 14:12 says "This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus", not "this requires subversive action and a new messiah".
That's why I'm pointing out that the "similarity" isn't as obvious at first glance, and is after a closer look confirmed to be completely absent.Raithere said:Don't know, I'm not privy to her agenda. I'm just pointing out the similarity.
It's everything but incidental! The "drastic revision" was that the laws were more serious than they thought them to be, while they tightened and loosened them as they saw fit. But where they were right He encouraged them, where they were hedging He pointed it out, and when they were wrong, He said so. This is why people were amazed at his authority (Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32).He most certainly was. That he referred to the same laws is incidental, he describes a drastic revision in the interpretation of those laws. He repeatedly berated them and undermined their authority.
Matthew 15: 12-14 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" But He answered and said, "Every plant which my heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. "Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
And the danger is that this cult encourages the same "judgment". Their tract reads: "Jesus came into the world to do much work. But he only finished the work of salvation as a sacrifice and did not sweep away people’s corrupt nature at all" and "If people still stay in the Grace Era they can never put off their corrupted nature or know God’s true nature." This requires a complete redefinition of grace - a return to 'religion' and a departure from Biblical faith. People who are convinced that God failed (or stopped at some crucial point), may feel called to 'help Him along'.They tried to catch him up against Roman authority but he was not challenging Rome. Eventually they acted directly.
Same here, although spiritual motivations usually informs people's political understanding. Jesus was resented for emphasising the spirtual aspects of religion at the cost of political/civic authority. People's lust for power and self-righteousness inevitably leads to corruption - spiritually and politically.I think prey would be too strong a word but he did invoke resentment and he was working against the established authority. The issues I'm addressing are about the political / civic aspects of religion rather than the spiritual.
He identified people's attitudes towards God and each other - their hearts - to be the problem, among leaders and laypeople alike. Cults like these, who emphasize religion at the cost of faith, are part of the this problem. A casual glance at their policy of deception is enough to tell us that.Different time, different place, different leader. The focus is different; Jesus seemed to identify the religious leaders as the problem rather than the secular Roman authority.
And your quote from the same chapter does not?This speaks to people already converted.