What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[RoadRunner79]

---

By cult, I mostly mean it in the Christian sense of unorthodox group.   I dealt with some Jehovah Witnesses on a number of occasions (on another forum).   There was also, a number of small groups or even individuals who had some pretty wacko ideas.   Come to think of it, a conversation on authority would have been good there to.  But I did notice a distrust and a constant questioning of motives, from anything that was outside of the group or individual.

---

Incorrect again (I would have thought you should get one correct by dumb luck by now)      Perhaps I need to be more careful about what I didn't say!

I'll make you a deal... I'll do my best to not do what you keep thinking I'm doing.   You stop trying to argue for me, or making assumptions based on what you think I beleive.

---

Why did you use the word "cult"? Now think carefully because the "I am not like the others" as a ploy just to go back to the "Stalin/Hitler/Po Pot" garbage.  I do happen to think those monsters created a cult of personality and gained power, but even their rise started out by small unrest. But all of them at the same time convinced a majority of religious people to follow them. 

Keep in mind I have been at this 16 years. Mormons and JWs were cults but aren't called that now, but you don't want to accept that the first Christians were also considered "cults". Scientology, that one baffles me the most because everyone knew back then when he wrote his best seller 'Diannetics"(sp) everyone knew he was a si fi writer. 

I can forgive the gullibility of the early JWS and even the first Mormons, and even the first Christians, but we know better now. 

"I am not like the others"? Why because they are smaller? Or because you think "Brian you picked the wrong sect" or "You don't have the correct interpretation" will work on me?

You will try to convince yourself I am a boogieman or lost puppy to save. You thought that even before you signed up here. Otherwise why are you hear? 

1. Argument from tradition, does not equal fact.
2. Argument from popularity does not equal fact.
3. My interpretation does not equal fact.
4. Quoting a holy writing of any religious label worldwide is circular reasoning, that also doesn't equal fact.
5. An apologist is not neutral, and every religion has followers who quote apologists, also not fact.
6. My holy writing matches science is something all religions pull, also not a valid tactic. Scientific method is neutral.

Now your argument is size of the sect? Nope, that is how all new religions start, small. 

Now be careful how you respond, because I know your end game. This is not my first chess game and you are not the first Christian much less the only religion I have ever debated.

Prooftexting and inventing a strawman does not equal bupkiss!
And I don't care how long you've been playing candyland, what you are doing is not debate or discussion. Just re-enforcing the your delusions, with the voice's in your head.

If you want to discuss, I'm happy to - but you need to listen and respond to what is said.