Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by SaggyWoman, Aug 11, 2007.
Is it any of the following?
It is a Cult if you ask me. Such a position or belief has no business among sane, rational and mature believers.
I voted neither as I believe it is an opinion.
It's a conviction . Most of the people caught up in it are zealous but without knowledge . A few more knowledgeable ones who have a bully pulpit spread their misinformation deliberately .
We've had soemone here once say the kjv is God, and others that christians can't use another version and be a christian, or that if you were saved reading anything but kjv you aren't saved. to me that spells cult.
What definition of "cult" are you using in your statement?
What definition did you have in mind?
Huh? I'm trying to understand your statement. If you're just throwing words around to call people names so be it. If you have some sort of logical rationale for your statement I would desire to understand it. You used the word, what do you believe the word means?
It is an opinion people are passing off as a conviction...
The extreme KJVOs are cultic...
Like the ones that think the KJV is God....
They are worshipping an idol, and therefore not worshipping the true God.
But thank God there are not too many of them.
Most KJVOs are simply KJVP...
A KJVPreferred is not really a KJVO. A true KJVO would not use anything but the KJV ever. That goes beyond mere preference.
IMO, like you say, the extreme KJVOs are definitely cultic. Those who think the KJV is God, that you can't be saved without the KJV, or any number of outlandish things would apply here.
Most, though, are just simply misguided (as I see it) in their beliefs about textual criticism and Bible translation.
Cult (k?lt) n .[F. culte, L. cultus care, culture, fr. colere to cultivate. Cf. Cultus.]
1. Attentive care; homage; worship.
2. A system of religious belief and worship. (Source: Webster's 1828)
The definition of Cult that you provided sufficiently applies to the King James Onlyist sycophants.
Well, Sanderson thinks his KJV is God...so his form of KJVOism would be a cult.
Well if that's the case, I have no issue with being called cultic as it sounds quite complimentary.
Sycophant on the other hand...
"SYC''OPHANT, n. [Gr. a fig, and to discover.] Originally, an informer against those who stole figs, or exported them contrary to law, &c. Hence in time it came to signify a talebearer or informer, in general; hence, a parasite; a mean flatterer; especially a flatterer of princes and great men; hence, a deceiver; an impostor. Its most general use is in the sense of an obsequious flatterer or parasite." (Source: Webster's 1828)
What are you accusing me of now?
Am I a...
Stealer of figs
A mean flaterer of princes and great men
A deceiver or
Cult members tend to operate as flatterers and parasites. Of course if you identify yourself as a Cult member then that is your problem, not mine.
Who am I flattering and if I am a parasite who or what is my host?
If the days comes you are receptive to further instruction on the matter, as I can discern, then such pearls will indeed be yours. But for now, readily and happily identifying as you have and your beliefs on the topic, I think I will delay the investment of a thorough and frank response.
I am ready to receive further instruction and I pray that you will bless me with a thorough and frank response. Let's keep it simple...if I am a parasite, as you allege, who or what is my host?
Obviously the insipid error of KJV Onlyism and the corporate body of its followers. But I have not alleged you are a parasite, you offered the definitions and I indeed gave you choices. So far you have rejected none but apparently embraced them.