• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do people get involved in cults.

The Church's baptism is not John's Baptism.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Acts 19:1-7

Are you agreeing with me then that only adults were baptized by St. Paul and St. John The Baptist?

I can't tell.
 
Are you agreeing with me then that only adults were baptized by St. Paul and St. John The Baptist?

I can't tell.

No, I am telling you that John's baptism and the baptism of the Church are different things.
 
So you think St. Paul baptized infants ??

Do you have a citation of chapter and verse ??

They baptized whole households. Aren't you supposed to be Catholic?
 
Oh I know all about the various Catholic heresies. In 2000 years there is a lot of time for non Biblical crap to creep into your religion.

My religion? And pray tell, what religion is that?
 
Oh I know all about the various Catholic heresies. In 2000 years there is a lot of time for non Biblical crap to creep into your religion.

Before there was a "Bible," there was the Living Word and real human beings who spread the Good News. The early Church didn't survive merely because of writings.

[Bolding below is mine.]

"While the church was still a missionary institution in the midst of a heathen world, infant baptism was overshadowed by the baptism of adult proselytes; as, in the following periods, upon the union of church and state, the order was reversed. At that time, too, there could, of course, be no such thing, even on the part of Christian parents, as a compulsory baptism, which dates from Justinian’s reign, and which inevitably leads to the profanation of the sacrament. Constantine sat among the fathers at the great Council of Nicaea, and gave legal effect to its decrees, and yet put off his baptism to his deathbed. The cases of Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, who had mothers of exemplary piety, and yet were not baptized before early manhood, show sufficiently that considerable freedom prevailed in this respect even in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages. Gregory of Nazianzum gives the advice to put off the baptism of children, where there is no danger of death, to their third year.(452) At the same time it seems an almost certain fact, though by many disputed, that, with the baptism of converts, the optional baptism of the children of Christian parents in established congregations, comes down from the apostolic age.(453) Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by the prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.'" https://bible.org/question/what-are-historical-origins-infant-baptism
 
Before there was a "Bible," there was the Living Word and real human beings who spread the Good News. The early Church didn't survive merely because of writings.

[Bolding below is mine.]

"While the church was still a missionary institution in the midst of a heathen world, infant baptism was overshadowed by the baptism of adult proselytes; as, in the following periods, upon the union of church and state, the order was reversed. At that time, too, there could, of course, be no such thing, even on the part of Christian parents, as a compulsory baptism, which dates from Justinian’s reign, and which inevitably leads to the profanation of the sacrament. Constantine sat among the fathers at the great Council of Nicaea, and gave legal effect to its decrees, and yet put off his baptism to his deathbed. The cases of Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, who had mothers of exemplary piety, and yet were not baptized before early manhood, show sufficiently that considerable freedom prevailed in this respect even in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages. Gregory of Nazianzum gives the advice to put off the baptism of children, where there is no danger of death, to their third year.(452) At the same time it seems an almost certain fact, though by many disputed, that, with the baptism of converts, the optional baptism of the children of Christian parents in established congregations, comes down from the apostolic age.(453) Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by the prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.'" https://bible.org/question/what-are-historical-origins-infant-baptism

I wonder where he went?
 
With the discussion about that young man being beaten to death to try to get him to 'confess his sins', and the claim that said the group his parents belong to could be considered a cult, I was wondering 'why do people get attracted to cults'.

I want to use the following definition , so that mainstream religions won't be dragged into the discussion (In other words, I don't want to hear 'all religions are cults' since that would be the logical fallacy of equivocation).



Why do people fall into and let themselves get influenced by cults?
The need to belong and have people close to you asking with a weak will. People with poor or no family relationships fall pray to them. It's a lot like a person that joins a gang. They need connections and don't know how to make them.
 
Back
Top Bottom