A cult has a number of definitions, but often it involves a religious group that has deviant beliefs. Christianity was originally seen as a cult of Judaism, but as it separated from its Jewish roots, it became seen as a religion in its own right. A religion is usually used to describe a larger group, but I think there isn't a specific number where it switches over, especially because I think it's possible for a group to be both a cult and a religion. A cult can also mean a group that is exclusive, secretive, and/or authoritarian, which generally applies to smaller groups, but again I think it can sometimes apply to larger groups as well. I'm glad you've been enjoying the thread, if you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask.

I have replied twice now and my posts have disappeared. Sorry. But here goes again.

Thanks for your input Soyeong. Accordingly, I guess I would believe that Mormonism is a religion due to its numbers. I have friends of different religions, so was interested in their beliefs and studied their religions. I am Protestant and will always remain so. I still believe Scientology is a cult. I live in the Clearwater, Florida area where there is a large Scientology headquarters. They own a number of local businesses under other names and well-known scientologists have second homes in the area. Scientologists are in the minority, but there is a great deal of controversy, dislike and distrust with them and the non-scientologist citizens.

(www.dictionary.com)
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I think Mormonism fell under the above definition of religion from its beginning, so I'll agree that it's a religion. What annoys me the most with labels are the people who claim that Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship. Yes, the relationship is a very important aspect, but it still falls under the above definition, so it still is a religion.

I'm amazed that there are still scientologists after the founder admitted he made it up as an experiment. I haven't really looked that much into what scientology teaches people to do, so what have they done to warrant distrust?

Jesus and Muhammad did the same thing. They just didn't come clean about it.

I'm afraid that's just not true. But I can see you don't want it to be so go ahead, I'm done. Did I say they were 'wrong' or merely 'not completely right'? The point of faith is to believe. Doesn't mean you have to believe in everything else just because you can't disprove it. It's not that I couldn't, it's more that I don't believe it. If every religion in the world were true in some way then fine, that's up to God. I don't actually believe it though. LOL. That is, indeed, the difference. Probably not going to happen though. We touched on it, but that wasn't our conclusion. It's something that might work, it's not a scientific theory as it's untested.
Quantum mechanics don't show that there is no nothing. They show that our universe has background fluctuations that 'borrow' energy to create particles which are then destroyed. They show that our space is not empty. They don't show the universe is eternal. 'If' - yes, but if not - no.

Ok, define 'eternal' for me so I can understand why you think an eternal thing beginning and/or ending is within that definition. actually, what happens for me is that my faith becomes stronger as a result of these discussions. I'm forced to look at my beliefs and learn more about the writings in the Bible. I come away more secure in my beliefs, not less.
Kinda like tempering steel or some other nice metaphor. You are welcome to think that if it makes you feel better. My point on the soul earlier was that I don't know, not that it's definitely separate or connected. I think there's more to it than a simple A controls B. Brain damage leads to us being unable to perceive and interact with the world in a normal way. That doesn't mean necessarily that the brain is the only source of our personality. If I'm trying to control a broken machine, it won't work the way I want it to.
If my computer hardware is faulty, I can type 's' 'o' 'u' 'l' but it gets e-mailed to others as '????' or some such. No - I mean you prove the alternate theory that the universe came from somewhere else. We can't (as yet) test these other dimensions that are needed for M-theory (I may have the wrong theory name here) so it's not actually a theory - it's a hypothesis - and an untestable one. If you have faith in it, that's enough to hold onto it. If not, you should declare it as sci-fi until such time as it can be tested.
So it's not 'science' (yet), it's sci-fi. actually, I don't declare that nonsensical. I think it's a different point. 'Absence' suggests that first there was a 'presence' that can be taken away. 'Nothing' is defined as there not being anything. You needn't have something first to have nothing if nothing was there first.
But, as I've said before, the universe doesn't come from nothing - it comes from God's power. That is something and in that, we agree that the universe came from something. Unless you're still on your eternal universe theory. Which is fine, just want to know which you believe. Premise 1 is true only within a closed system under the rules of our universe. The universe is a closed system (as far as we know).
However, if the system was begun from an injection of energy, then the question of the creation of the universe is left open. Where did that energy come from?
Your conclusion '3' only follows IF the universe is eternal. If not, then not. As I stated.

Also: Where does the expansion of space fit into this argument? (Genuine science question for the science bods) - what is 'space' and how is it getting bigger? The limits of the universe seem to be increasing (not the total energy available for use but the space itself). Is 'space' something that is being created from somewhere or is it something that's being stretched thin or is it borrowing from the energy present in the system. Quantum mechanics give us energy fluctuations, even at zero point, so is there more of that now than there was or not?
(This may become way off topic but if anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it).

Gah...I am the one who says there can be no omnipotent+eternal being. You declared it nonsensical. I showed you other things you don;t want to declare nonsensical. Now we still have the same definition of eternal, but hopefully you can't just declare the problem nonsensical anymore.

Really? Having to make up new metaphores and rationalizations for all the horrible morality and contraditions strengthens you faith? How does that work?

No I don't want to be welcome. I see we have to rehash it. We NOW know (again the ignorant desert folk back then was excused) that traumatic experiences or trauma to the head can cause personality changes. But the soul is supposed to be you. What is you? Before or after? But if th afterwards was a better christian than before, what then?
That is when you answered that the soul is seperate from these events and therefore seperate from your experiences and personality.
But don't bother trying to find ways around this, the answer is simple. There is no soul, when the brain dies, we die. No need to rationalize or conjure up magic.

Yes, I did not bring it up, so I'm not sure why you do? When I say "universe" I don't just mean our little corner here, I mean all energy and matter anywhere, regardless of whether thats only ours or more than ours.

Maybe you should read this again? I think you will see your error. Nothing is the absence of anything. So it can't be first, you start with that yourself and for some reason draw the opposite conclusion. If there never was anything, nothing would be meaningless. It would infact not be nothing, it would just be.

Uhmm didn't you see Premise 1. It did not come from anywhere, energy can't be created. By universe I mean everything that exists anywhere, which obviously must be a closed system, since it is all there is.

Remember that universe is an old word. It can mean just our observable universe or everything that exists anywhere. Since we are on a philosophical level here, I always mean the latter. The latter could be just the observable, or not, it is irrelevant.

So there can be no injection since there is only the universe.

Premise 1 says it is, so obviously yes.

Why do you believe that?

You seem to assume that I assume that it's all or nothing. A eyewitness today can still perceive something inaccurately, recall something inaccurately, or be untruthful, but their account should nevertheless still be investigated a such, rather than something like historical fiction.

If I had been ignorant, I would have dismissed your suggestion of reading non-Christian scholars about Christianity because they would all be biased, but all scholars have bias, so that would actually be my bias preventing me accurately evaluating modern scholarship. Instead, I asked you to suggest a non-Christian scholar and in return I recommend a Christian scholar to you. I have no idea why you think Licona is a "sworn defender" of the resurrection. He is a very skeptical person who went through long periods of doubts, who went to great lengths to evaluate the evidence as objectively as he could, and who wouldn't be a Christian today if the evidence had indicated otherwise. He is a New Testament historian who tries to answer what it would look like if professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
Cute, but it’s not really accurate. You claimed that it was possible that that Jesus rose from the dead, but in what sense is it possible if we can concoct any number of far-fetched naturalistic explanations that can’t be disproved and all have historical precedence over it? If we limited knowledge of ancient history to only those things that can be proved beyond all doubt, then we have to throw out ancient history. Historians can rarely prove that a particular hypothesis is impossible, so they apply a number of criteria to determine which hypothesis is the best explanation. If you refuse to allow the possibility that something could be the best explanation, then you're letting your biases get in the way of doing a careful historical investigation. It’s like you’re not even trying. Who were these people, where were they, why did they tell the story, and why would anyone believe them?
Sure, it is not unreasonable for someone to think that it’s more plausible that humans had some outside assistance.

You ignored an important part of my sentence. I can’t weed out those beliefs that I wrongly think are true without questioning what I think is true. When we do a thorough investigation of a belief, it either reinforces it or causes us to dismiss it. If I found the evidence more strongly supported some other exclusive belief, then I would stop being a Christian.
I think C. S. Lewis does an excellent job in explaining what Christianity is about in <i>Mere Christianity</i> (online). There is also an audio version on youtube if you’d prefer.
It’s one thing to list a few places names and another to have intimate knowledge of agriculture, architecture, botany, culture, economics, geography, language, law, personal names, politics, religion, social stratification, topography, and weather. Not only that, but we have independent sources that confirm many of the people in the Bible and we have the bones of one of them.
Regardless of if any happen to be true, you should believe what the evidence most strongly indicates.
I think you’re focusing too much on the afterlife when the primary focus of Christianity is on how we live this life. God allows those who want to be with Him to be with him in heaven while hell is essentially God allowing people who want nothing to do with Him to have what they want.

Yet - give to the Caesar what he is due - the temporal world - and to God what is due to him - the spiritual, which I think should involve hope. Money here is the instrument of something better: a good deed to enable the recipient to emancipate .

What you share here would be a good example of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing" - if you were not able to cite it. In any case, this surely was a good thing to do. And hopefully this person is as tolerant and loving of all that God has created also close at home.

GODDAMNIT! Almost 24 hours! This thread was so close to death. :'-(

It truly was dead, and then resurrected.

A bold claim, true, but my source is unquestionable.

Please stop using my name in vain. Out of all of the problems in the world, that's the only one I step in personally to deal with. Thanks.

It's now a question of semantics then. He could create a being that is indistinguishable from an 'eternal' being. Merely the fact that it was created makes it fail to fall into the English language definition of the word 'eternal'. So another word might apply if there were such a word ('everlasting'?). I fail to see how this detracts from omnipotence. Because the arguments against it fall flat. And it's not 'making up new metaphors and rationalizations' - it's using existing ones. If my faith can be challenged but remain intact, it becomes stronger. Is that a hard thing to understand? I know you think your arguments are very convincing, but they only sound so from the starting assumption that there is no God. Yes, we need to rehash it AGAIN. I came up with one suggestion, wrong I admit, that the soul is somehow separate from the 'personality'. However, I ALSO said that the soul works through the body and the brain. If a part of that is damaged, it won't perceive or be able to interact with the world as before. The soul hasn't changed but dealing with the person has.
If we assume that the soul, body and mind are separate things entirely, we have the problem. But if we see that they are integrated, a problem with one restricts the others.
So - either answer the point that the brain damage restricts the 'self' or let it go. LOL, would you listen to me if I said that to you?
Your very tone suggests that your not confident enough in your actual arguments so you need to resort to condescension. You presuppose that my arguments must be 'rationalisation' or 'magic' without looking at it from the point of view that 'If there is a God, then the arguments ring true'.
We're both guilty of bias. Your arguments don't persuade one to change. Yes, but the question remains. Emphasis mine. You miss my point. You don't need 'something' to have 'nothing' though I agreed that you also don't need 'nothing' to have 'something' which is where eternal existence comes in. I also stated (and you ignored this point) that the universe didn't come from nothing - it came from God's power.
I agreed that there never was true 'nothing' because God is eternal. Uhmm, I saw premise 1 and argued against it. We only know that energy can't be created or destroyed within our universe (being the observable part). We know nothing of the rules of the multiverse (if such exists). God could easily create or destroy energy. I'll remember that - but the point stands, we only know the rules for our part. In which case, God and heaven are a part of your 'Universe' and so I posit that premise 1 is false. God can increase or decrease the energy available. If you can show that to be false, I'll agree that you have a point. (We were on different interpretations of the word 'universe' when I wrote that so I'll now just reiterate: Premise 1 is false.)