Size of a Religion - or Cult

[boatsnguitars]

I have to say, this was the most remarkable, and unintentionally hillarious posts I have read in a long time.

Many religions and denominations take pride, even boast of how large their followers are in numbers and the rate at which they are growing. But the thread of truth that runs throughout the whole of the scriptures is that God has always worked through the minority and never through the majority. This teaches us that when people look at their large numbers and equate that with their reasoning of God working through them, well the Bible teaches quite the opposite.

There are numerous accounts in the Bible which teach this truth, but my favorite is regarding the 400 prophets of Israel who were called to inquire of God whether king Ahab should go into battle and obtain victory or not. And since these 400 prophets were prophets of Israel, and Israel was recognized as the people of God, then surely these 400 prophets were true prophets of God, right? Especially since they all came to the same conclusion and spoke with one voice unto the king saying that God would surely give this king victory. Yet one one man is called to see what God had to say and he told the king that the king would die in battle and that these 400 prophets were false prophets.

But what's more, is that these 400 prophets truly believed that they were true children of God and that the one lone prophet wasn't. This is a tremendous warning to those who find comfort and assurance in the size of their religious group who claim the name of God. Anyone can read this account in 1 Kings 22.

What do you think about God always working through the minority? What do you think about those groups who firmly believe they are the people of God but are in fact not?

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with what you’ve written.

Imho, many denominations are in for a rude awakening.

Obviously, this is what you'd say if you believe in a small sect or cult! What a way to justify your belief - that only rare beliefs are true! It's downright, abjectly hillarious! This is "Motivated reasoning" at it's finest.

It's why I think religion damages the brain. Some people actually think this is a justification of why their beliefs may be true! It's patently absurd!

These people vote, possibly raise and teach our children, etc.

No doubt this was preceded by someone from a mega church, or the RCC saying that their sect was more popular - so, instead of simply agreeing, they've decided to use it as an Apologetic.

Isn't this a perfect example of Apologetics? The motivation, the bad logic, etc? To me it is.

[1213]

...
So, how do we know it was murder? Didn't God command Moses to kill?

It would be murder, if it would go against God's law about murder.

[1213]

Then if God says 'kill them all. It isn't murder as they deserved it" do you do it? Or do you employ human judgement and say "That couldn't really have been God saying that". If not you, what of others doing it? Let me guess, if it can't be justified somehow - that isn't God, that is just men. Just the method used to excuse the god of the Bible who says 'don't murder' and then murders, or orders murder.

There are many rules in the Bible. In this case I think it is good to know these:

So says Jehovah of hosts, saying, Judge true judgment, and practice kindness and pity, each man with his brother.
Zec. 7:9
And I commanded your judges at that time, saying, Hear between your brothers; and judge with righteousness between a man and his brother, and his alien. You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid because of the face of a man, for the judgment is God's; and the thing too hard for you, you shall bring near to me, and I shall hear it.
Deu. 1:16-17
At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is to die be put to death. He shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deu 17:6
Do not judge, that you may not be judged; for with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured again to you.
Matt. 7:1-2

I want to be a disciple of Jesus and go by his teachings. that is why, if someone would call himself God and ask me to kill someone, I would assume he is a false god, or I would think I can't be sure about the matter, or that I am wrong, therefore I would plead the Deu. 1:16-17 and leave the judgment to God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Then if God says 'kill them all. It isn't murder as they deserved it" do you do it? Or do you employ human judgement and say "That couldn't really have been God saying that". If not you, what of others doing it? Let me guess, if it can't be justified somehow - that isn't God, that is just men. Just the method used to excuse the god of the Bible who says 'don't murder' and then murders, or orders murder.

There are many rules in the Bible. In this case I think it is good to know these:

So says Jehovah of hosts, saying, Judge true judgment, and practice kindness and pity, each man with his brother.
Zec. 7:9
And I commanded your judges at that time, saying, Hear between your brothers; and judge with righteousness between a man and his brother, and his alien. You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid because of the face of a man, for the judgment is God's; and the thing too hard for you, you shall bring near to me, and I shall hear it.
Deu. 1:16-17
At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is to die be put to death. He shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deu 17:6
Do not judge, that you may not be judged; for with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured again to you.
Matt. 7:1-2

I want to be a disciple of Jesus and go by his teachings. that is why, if someone would call himself God and ask me to kill someone, I would assume he is a false god, or I would think I can't be sure about the matter, or that I am wrong, therefore I would plead the Deu. 1:16-17 and leave the judgment to God.

Then you and those who think that way are not Righteous, not as the Bible argues. The whole business of Abraham and Isaac is that he would have killed his son. You said it yourself - Righteousness is doing what God says. And you may be so pacifist that even if God himself came down and said "I am the Lord your God - kill all them atheists" you wouldn't believe it. "You cannot be God because you do not fit what I think God should be." You don't see the problem here? It#s the problem with that 'If God came down...' apologetic. With the 'Should I change churches?' argument The faithful do not follow doctrine, dogma or even the Bible; they follow their own preferences. Which is fine if you are doing relative morality, but not if you are supposed to be following God's commands.

[1213]

...You said it yourself - Righteousness is doing what God says. And you may be so pacifist that even if God himself came down and said "I am the Lord your God - kill all them atheists" you wouldn't believe it. "You cannot be God because you do not fit what I think God should be." You don't see the problem here? It#s the problem with that 'If God came down...' apologetic. With the 'Should I change churches?' argument The faithful do not follow doctrine, dogma or even the Bible; they follow their own preferences. Which is fine if you are doing relative morality, but not if you are supposed to be following God's commands.

If I follow the commandments in the Bible, how could it be said that I don't follow God's commandments? I think you are now illogical.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You said it yourself - Righteousness is doing what God says. And you may be so pacifist that even if God himself came down and said "I am the Lord your God - kill all them atheists" you wouldn't believe it. "You cannot be God because you do not fit what I think God should be." You don't see the problem here? It#s the problem with that 'If God came down...' apologetic. With the 'Should I change churches?' argument The faithful do not follow doctrine, dogma or even the Bible; they follow their own preferences. Which is fine if you are doing relative morality, but not if you are supposed to be following God's commands.

If I follow the commandments in the Bible, how could it be said that I don't follow God's commandments? I think you are now illogical.

But the problem in the Bible is that one can justify anything with an appropriate Bibelquote. Even without going to the nasty and violent OT.

Someone is going to smash up a religious book and apple pie sale. Kick over a few tables. "Don't do that sir, you'll get arrested and sued."

"Get thee behind me - you talk as men talk not as God talks."

Just as bad is the one who won't defend his own because he sees some passage of the Bible as too literally pacifist. You cannot use the Bible as a reliable guide to morals - not any more. And I think what you are doing is using human morals to decide what's right and quotemining the Bible to validate it. I've seen quite a bit of quotemining thus far, including out of context and even irrelevant quotes. I recall I pointed out that one of your quotes even supported what I said and not what you said.

You cannot validate your own judgement (not even based on mundane logic) by quotemining the Bible and claiming that you are following it.

I don't even dare project from your denomination of One to a church -sect where you had a 1000 followers and how authoritarian you might become in Good Work of stopping them straying into false understanding. It happens. Faith -based Righteousness plus Authority is a bad mix, friend.

[boatsnguitars]

Then if God says 'kill them all. It isn't murder as they deserved it" do you do it? Or do you employ human judgement and say "That couldn't really have been God saying that". If not you, what of others doing it? Let me guess, if it can't be justified somehow - that isn't God, that is just men. Just the method used to excuse the god of the Bible who says 'don't murder' and then murders, or orders murder.

There are many rules in the Bible. In this case I think it is good to know these:

So says Jehovah of hosts, saying, Judge true judgment, and practice kindness and pity, each man with his brother.
Zec. 7:9
And I commanded your judges at that time, saying, Hear between your brothers; and judge with righteousness between a man and his brother, and his alien. You shall not respect persons in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid because of the face of a man, for the judgment is God's; and the thing too hard for you, you shall bring near to me, and I shall hear it.
Deu. 1:16-17
At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is to die be put to death. He shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.
Deu 17:6
Do not judge, that you may not be judged; for with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured again to you.
Matt. 7:1-2

I want to be a disciple of Jesus and go by his teachings. that is why, if someone would call himself God and ask me to kill someone, I would assume he is a false god, or I would think I can't be sure about the matter, or that I am wrong, therefore I would plead the Deu. 1:16-17 and leave the judgment to God.

So 3,000 years ago, you would have opposed your god's command?

That's the thing. Christians today would have been atheists before Jesus - or, they woul dhave been the first to say, "Hey, God is mean, jealous and commands people to kill for him, or he just kills them because it pleases him - and you'll like it! Who are you to question God!?"

Now, Christina be like: "Oh, Our God is loving! If he asked to kill, it's obviously not our God! It's an evil God!"

How convenient, no, that Christians have adapted their religion to modern moral values - then tell us it's because of God!!

[1213]

So 3,000 years ago, you would have opposed your god's command?

What command?

How convenient, no, that Christians have adapted their religion to modern moral values - then tell us it's because of God!!

How is "don't murder", or "love your enemy" a modern moral value?

[1213]

But the problem in the Bible is that one can justify anything with an appropriate Bibelquote.

I think all books could be used for justifying anything, if one takes just small part of it, for his own purpose. I think that is dishonest and doesn't really tell about the book, but about the person. I think Bible should be understood as it explains itself, and not just cut suitable word out of it, for own purpose.

If you think I have wrongly quoted Bible and made it to look something else than what it says, please explain in what I have done so.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

So 3,000 years ago, you would have opposed your god's command?

What command?

How convenient, no, that Christians have adapted their religion to modern moral values - then tell us it's because of God!!

How is "don't murder", or "love your enemy" a modern moral value?

I was going to say it isn't, because reciprocity and empathy is an instinct older than the Hebrews and certainly older than the Bible, but then really understanding of the principle as NOT being dependent on God or the Bible really gets going in the 18th century when people started thinking instead of running to the Bible for everything. Or even more recently, when the mechanism of evolved instinct was understood through DNA. In which case those morals you refer to, which are by no means unknown outside the Bible, are correctly assigned to 'modern morals values', and religions should no longer be allowed to claim the credit for them.

But the problem in the Bible is that one can justify anything with an appropriate Bibelquote.

I think all books could be used for justifying anything, if one takes just small part of it, for his own purpose. I think that is dishonest and doesn't really tell about the book, but about the person. I think Bible should be understood as it explains itself, and not just cut suitable word out of it, for own purpose.

If you think I have wrongly quoted Bible and made it to look something else than what it says, please explain in what I have done so.

.

But pal, that is just the error you make when you Bible quote, We don't even get to making stuff up and assigning meanings to the Bible that are beyond what it actually says. I have said it before - Atheists show more respect for the bible as they take what it says to mean what it says (obvious poetical simile aside). It is the Bible critic who takes the context into account. It is rather the Bible apologist who makes stuff up and either Biblequotes some hardly relevant passage or claims what it says means something else, who is doing what you accuse the atheist of doing.

You want examples? Let me check..... a quick look as there is denial about prayer (the Bible is clear about what it guaranteed, but you evade and deny it), the empty tomb thing where you invent stuff not in the Bible to excuse or deny what it actually says. You appear (if that is you) to evade or deny what Paul says and the context of Abrahamic righteousness, and wasn't it you who denied what genesis says about daylight? That's just a quick look. I'm sure that a deeper look would throw up more examples of denial, misquoting and making stuff up than there are criminal cases against Trump.

[1213]

I was going to say it isn't, because reciprocity and empathy is an instinct older than the Hebrews and certainly older than the Bible...

Any proof that they are older than when people Got them from God? I don't have any reason to think people without God would have those, before people got them from God.

Or even more recently, when the mechanism of evolved instinct was understood through DNA.

Please explain what do you mean with that?

a quick look as there is denial about prayer (the Bible is clear about what it guaranteed, but you evade and deny it)

How I deny it?

the empty tomb thing where you invent stuff not in the Bible to excuse or deny what it actually says.

What I have denied in that? Nothing really.

You appear (if that is you) to evade or deny what Paul says and the context of Abrahamic righteousness

How?

and wasn't it you who denied what genesis says about daylight?

No.