Copied from discussion on the thread for Rise of a Leader:
’ “Now this is an unfair statement, for the precise reason’s I have stated.”
I disagree. If you reject the terms as having any attributes, such as those given by myself, then you seem to be stating that the words have no meaning; I cannot accept that. Even if you think the terms are broad and vague, they still have properties. If I was to call someone a hippie, it wouldn’t be clear exactly what I was saying, true, but one can safely surmise it is not someone who is in favour of industrial development, temperance, social etiquette, or bathing.
“Thus we return to the cult; I must reiterate that all cults are simply small religions”
Properly speaking, I wouldn’t call it a cult, either, - although that term has been watered down, in the past few centuries. At present, we would call any ceremonially devoted movement a cult; I maintain that cults actually must pertain to the divine. Which the aspects surrounding the Nazi party did not really do.
“ancient Egyptian religion in which the pharaoh was indeed the child of a god”
Making it a religion proper, - or a large cult proper, - since nobody said the divine couldn’t be instantiated materially, so long as it isn’t grounded thus.
“we will see that Kim Jong-Un is subject to the radicalization and fanaticism that pursues the leader of a cult”
Whereas here we have a pseudo-religion, or a pseudo-cult, because the divine is lacking, with the form having been appropriated.
“no religions hold any empirical or logical evidence for their deity(ies)”
Obviously there is no empirical argument for their most foundational claims. But no LOGICAL evidence? None? Dear sir, there is plenty.
I think this is my favourite: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/godasfir.htm ’
@adjppm1227 Knock yourself out, kiddeh.