Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
The rambling introduction, while making a good point now and then, is on the whole a literary disaster that eventually descends into a peculiar defense of Christianity in general against secular attacks of every stripe. Essentially, "WE'RE not a CULT! THEY ARE!"
Alternately weak, bizzare and nearly unintelligible, the introduction, to the extent that it sets the stage for appreciating the individual articles that follow, really undercuts the utility of the whole volume.
|
Welcome to the subjective world of the Cult Busters. "THEY are a CULT because...." some grave error is then discussed.
Everyone has some error; some folks probably have lots. There is a continuum from slightly tinged to fully freighted. But the cult buster has a line drawn in the sand, which has "cult" on one side and "sect" on the other. And each cult buster has their own subjective line.
Which is to some degree fine. We all have to set boundaries for what is acceptable, what not. What is repairable, what not. What has some basis for fellowship, even harsh ("foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?"), and where there's no common fellowship.
But beyond that, I don't know. I tried to get a group consensus once on what was a "pseudo-christian group" versus the real thing, and it went nowhere, and deservedly so.
Today I have only my heart, and the person next to me. That's it.
Good hunting, YP. I hope you don't get vertigo in there!