It’s all too easy in Australia – set up a religion, get tax-free status, a bunch of followers willing to donate, and you’re set. Maybe predict the end of the world to get things moving along with a sense of urgency. 

Senator Nick Xenophon suggests that Australia needs a “cult-busting agency”, similar to those already operating overseas.

Mr Xenophon – who has previously tackled Scientology and questioned its tax-exempt status - says he wants a dedicated government agency to “monitor and control the activities of cults in Australia”. The issue’s come to the fore again with the arrest in Fiji of Rocco “Brother Rock” Leo for breaching his visa. Leo is the leader of the Agape Ministries of God group. Agape has previously run into trouble over fraud, illegal weapons, assaults and tax debts.

According to the Sunday Mail, the group is the subject of a Major Fraud Investigation Section inquiry, and an arrest warrant has been taken out on Leo in relation to 126 fraud charges. The ATO alleges it is owed millions by Leo and the church.

Some groups estimate there are thousands of Australian cults, but concrete statistics are hard to come by.

Cults often use religion as a shield behind which they commit human rights abuses, limiting the freedom of members or subjecting them to physical, sexual or psychological attacks. A suggestion that cults be more closely monitored is a sensible one. Now they just need to decide what a cult is, and that’s the hard part.

Most people would think of cults as a discrete group of people with long hair and purple sneakers drinking Kool Aid and discussing the relative merits of sarin gas while harvesting vegetables on their isolated farm and indulging in prolific sex, often with minors.

If it was that easy, CultBusters wouldn’t have too hard a time of it. 

But the truth is most cults and cult members are much harder to identify, because it’s impossible to clearly define where religion ends and cults begin. Pick any defining feature of cults, and there’s a mainstream religion with the same feature.

Cults have charismatic, dogmatic leaders.

Many would consider the Pope would fit that description. Not to mention Jesus. Or Buddha. Or Mohammed. Charismatic leaders have been at the centre of most religious movements throughout the ages. When it comes to religious movements, people become leaders precisely because they are charming, and exert a pull over their members. They inspire people to follow them.

Cults have bizarre beliefs.

Is believing that a UFO is going to land and take you to a magical faraway planet any more bizarre than believing that if you follow a set of rules you will end up in a delightful place populated with virgins? Or that God created Earth in a week’s work? Or that you might be reincarnated as a cockroach?

Cult leaders and members believe they are the only ones with the true faith.

The core idea of any religion is that it is the true one. Thou shalt have no other God. While people may preach and practice religious tolerance, the individuals must believe that others are practicing a misinterpreted or a false religion. Unless somehow their brains allow them to believe all religions are equally true, which is enough to make my brain explode.

Cults won’t let you leave when you want to, and isolate you from the outside world.

Again, this is true for mainstream religions in some cases. Apostasy is punished in many religions – most notably Islam. There are mega churches in Australia that exert immense pressure to keep people within them, and may also prevent people from associating with non believers.

There are many religious movements in Australia with leaders or members that exploit other members financially, emotionally, physically and sexually, and religion must not be used as a shield for criminal behaviour.

But if the Government’s going to set up CultBusters, they need to be prepared to look at a far broader church than most people would imagine.

269 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:01am | 28/06/11

      By those criteria, political parties are also cults. Maybe even The Punch is a cult?

    • CJ Morgan says:

      07:38am | 28/06/11

      If the Punch is a cult, can Erick be our very own Jim Jones?

      You first with the Kool-Aid, Erick smile

    • sproket says:

      08:12am | 28/06/11

      Youve demonstrated another criteria that seemed so blindingly obvious it was missed: beliefs based upon a supernatural (therefore unprovable/unchallengable) premise

    • Brendan says:

      10:06am | 28/06/11

      I’m a Snickers man myself.  My parents ate Snickers Bars and its been the foundation of my chocolate bar ingestion since I was a child.

      I have read that some people like Mars Bars.

      I hope one day there will be a law which prevents those people who love Mars Bars from preaching their devotion that that sad nutless chocolate bar.

      Before they are allowed to insult me with their lunatic claims that the Mars is superior MY SNICKERS, I demand absolute proof that the Mars is best which of course they will never prove because, well, Snickers is the best.

      See, its not enough for me to like Snickers; everyone must agree with me, or at the very least never mention to me that my preference isn’t an eternal truth. 

      Any preference for Mars Bars is really just a sick aberration that is neither normal nor acceptable in any sane developed nation.

      I have read that some Mars Bar extremists want separate schools and even courts that will take into account Mars Bar preferences. 

      Sometimes I lie awake at night worrying about the boat loads of Mars eaters who might come to this country illegally and totally change the balance of society.  Before you know it they will demand Mars only café, supermarkets and maybe even suburbs.  That’s right people, we are looking and a whole boat load of Mars eaters who refuse to assimilate and eat Snickers with the rest of us.  An urban ghetto of nutless barers.

      And don’t get me started on the Flake crew! They want equal treatment with Snickers eaters? Over my dead body!

    • Super D says:

      10:28am | 28/06/11

      Certainly the Green movement meets all the criteria to be considered a cult.

    • bec says:

      10:36am | 28/06/11

      Take your heathenous love to hell with you, Brendan. Everybody knows that Cthulhu himself has proclaimed Dove bars as the divine source!

    • Brendan says:

      11:20am | 28/06/11

      @bec
      I damn you woman with all the power of Cadbury itself.  At least to nutless wonders who eat Mars followers of the one true brand.  I might despise them at heretics, but at least I understand where they went wrong.

      You madam, with your Dove preaching, will surely be roasted in the hottest furance in hell

    • Pete says:

      12:02pm | 28/06/11

      Brendan & Bec, very funny, you made my morning, suprisingly apt satire.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:09pm | 28/06/11

      The Punch is a cult?

      “Cults won’t let you leave when you want to, and isolate you from the outside world.”

      Ok, I agree with the second part of the quoted statement but not the first. Surely I could leave if I want to. But then what would I read and comment on if I did? I’m too tight to bother paying for Crikey. News.com.au rarely publish my comments these days and their updating is woeful (plus, they’re rarely opinion pieces). SMH is ok but often it’s not that interesting because of the topic.

      This is my only source of social and political commentary on the WWW that I can realistically access at work. Could there be another? Could I leave? I’m sure I can.

      The Punch is not a cult.

    • Jhango says:

      12:18pm | 28/06/11

      The biggest cult is organised crime—the mafia. Political parties are around the next biggest. When you want to get ahead, you work for free, and the hours are incredible. Nick X is not playing this game for anybody but himself. He doesn’t care about Scientology, he just uses it because he knows it puts him in front of the TV Camera. What’s he done for society. His purpose was to remove the Pokies. I’d say he’s done nothing. Maybe this is just trying to distract the public from his failure. Ironically, the Scientologists and every other religion do more to help problem gamblers (and drug addicts and other social ills and impoverished people).

    • Gavin says:

      02:31pm | 28/06/11

      Jhango - care to explain exactly what the scientologists do to help problem gamblers, drug addicts, people with other social ills and impoverished people - without requiring some kind of payment or promise of payment/service?  Charity is giving something without expecting any return, something which Scientology most certainly is NOT.

    • dovif says:

      04:46pm | 28/06/11

      Come to think of it, the ALP might be a cult

      Cults have charismatic, dogmatic leaders.

      Kevin Rudd was definitely one, he promised the world to everyone, Gillard, not so much.

      Cults have bizarre beliefs.

      Like believing you should lie at election time to get re-elected. Like spending as much as possible in case of doomsday, and worry about paying it back to someone else.

      Cult leaders and members believe they are the only ones with the true faith.

      True believers? (when Keating lied to government) The union close shop, the faceless men, who tapped Rudd on the back before they off-ed him

      Cults won’t let you leave when you want to, and isolate you from the outside world.

      Have anyone see Kevin Rudd lately? He said a few words earlier, and have not been seen again

    • no thanks says:

      04:48pm | 28/06/11

      cult? sounds like the catholic church?

    • Mark says:

      05:09pm | 28/06/11

      Another anti-religion rant from the talentless Tory. Hey Tory, what about the hundreds of charities, shelters for the homeless, programs for drug abusers, hospitals and schools that Christianity has provided society?

    • Carl says:

      05:37pm | 28/06/11

      Ahh Brendon you may be a follower of Snickers, however do you eat them frozen? Because only “TRUE” believers eat them frozen. Everyone knows that Mars is a false deity,  but to deceive people with an almost truth is far worse!  I believe that only frozen Snicker eaters know the truth and all other chocolate eaters are an abomination and will burn!

      ( My childhood was lost in a cult! - It’s was not funny - they deserve to be taxed )

    • Jason Todd says:

      07:32am | 29/06/11

      Hey Mark, Jim Jones and Charles Manson provided their followers with a place to live, food (and drink in Jones’ case) and clothing. That in itself is a form of charity.

      If you look at any organisation, be it a political party or religion (cult or otherwise) you will find both good and bad points. It is so rare as to be considered impossible that one organisation is either pure good or pure evil.

      Tory’s point remains. You can’t shine a bright light on some of the good aspects of the church and expect everyone to ignore the (what some would consider the significant) bad side.

      The sad fact is that if such broad criteria are used to define a cult, then a lot of major organisations are going to have to take an uncomfortable look at themselves.

    • Paul says:

      09:12am | 29/06/11

      Cult - Religion? Same thing.  What’s the problem, get rid of the lot of them.

    • Pete says:

      12:21am | 30/06/11

      Comparing mainstream religions that are already well-integrated into society with extreme cults just blurs the issue. Being part of a mass-hysteric movement like the CofE of RC in Australia has far less significant consequences than being tied up by Scientologists. The latter are ‘fair game’ (to use Scientology’s phrase) for state control, the former are just minor annoyances on the odd occasion the institution itself abuses. (Note I said the ‘institution itself’, not one-off weirdos like those Christian Brother paedophile priests. You can’t quite damn the whole thing because of a few that abuse.) Whereas, with Scientology et al, the system is set up to abuse from the get go. Taking away their tax-free status is a start, but apart from that, I don’t know what else you can do: people are free to be really stupid, just as others are free to rip them off if they wish, and it’s very hard to codify what’s unacceptable.

    • acotrel says:

      06:32am | 28/06/11

      Sigmund Freud’s nephew Eddie Bernays started the modern craze of propaganda.  He realised that if you created a demand, then staisfied that demand you could sell anything.  He was dismayed to learn that his books ‘propaganda’ and ‘crystallising public opinion’ had played a part in Goebbels bringing Hitler to power.  The cults are playing the same mind games - it’s part of modern living.  We live in the era of scams, and we’ve only go ourselves to blame - we let it happen.  You’ve only got watch one hour of commercial TV to see the continuous cynical bombardment of advertisments, all using the same old theory which was developed by Eddie.  It involves psychological imprinting, reinforcement etc.  Anyone involved in the cults has a really difficult job if they ever decide to break free.

    • Edward James says:

      06:51am | 28/06/11

      Erick you might have something when you mention political parties, people certainly have a problem changing their alliance.  Edward James

    • Stephy says:

      09:43am | 28/06/11

      “He realised that if you created a demand, then staisfied that demand you could sell anything”

      Welcome to Australian Marketing. Well, not specifically Australian, but it’s the very foundations of Consumerism. Make people believe they’re deprived, even if they’re not. This creates Affluenza, and here we have it! Society today. There’s a very good book on the matter, called Affluenza: When too much is never enough by Clive Hamilton.

    • Sam says:

      12:34pm | 28/06/11

      Edward Bernays applied psychoanalysis to marketing and making you buy things. That continues today. Look at how much STUFF we own. Watch a short documentary called THE STORY OF STUFF. Big corporations want us to buy things and all this consumerism fits right in with atheism and psychology. Just satiate your desires. You are just a higher level animal—nothing more. That’s Wundt, father of psychology/psychiatry. It is religion which is preaching the opposite. That owning stuff is not important (see Book of Luke, story of the rich man; basic tenets of Buddhism; Scientology believes the same, etc.); it’s all just evolution, no spirit, no higher power, no higher ethic to aspire to. This basic Wundtian psychological philosophical fallacy that is so cult-like. It doesn’t even answer life’s questions, but as the Atheists try and promote “God probably doesn’t exist. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” How about, “more likely their is some higher power or meaning to life, and while you search for it, help others in strife. Enjoy your life by helping others enjoy life too.”

    • Chris L says:

      01:47pm | 28/06/11

      @Sam - Are you saying religious people don’t get suckered into consumerism?

    • Andrew says:

      10:29pm | 28/06/11

      Oh no Sam, religion just takes consumerism one step further than “big business” ever has.  Instead of convincing people that they need things, then selling those things, religion convinces people they need something that doesn’t exist, and then sells them precisely nothing.  One hell of a marketing plan really, keeps the ‘expenses’ side of the ledger remarkably low.  And yes, most religions like to promote a life free of wealth - and their simple solution is always to give that wealth to the church.  How very convenient!  Take a trip to the Vatican sometime, observe the incredible life of ‘poverty’ that the pope and his cadre of bishops live in.. (yes, there’s sarcasm there if you didn’t get it).

    • muddabikes says:

      03:14pm | 01/07/11

      Just quietly, I’m of the view that Eddie Bernays was just using techniques long ago perfected by religious organisations.
      Religion is the best marketing exercise of all.

      Create a product that doesn’t exist (heaven), sell that product through a worldwide system of franchises (churches), and watch the coin roll in.

      Best of all….no warranty claims from disgruntled buyers who came back with defective product.

      Brilliant.

    • Tedd says:

      07:20am | 28/06/11

      With the Advertising Stds Bureau proclaiming that billboards saying Jesus is ‘‘a prophet of Islam’’ is just a statement of belief, it seems cult-busting got a holy lot more complicated.

      To bust the notion that the central character is or is not the Holy spirit, does one call Ghost-Busters, or just Cult-Busters? Or organise a happy Family Reunion?

    • bleD says:

      08:40am | 28/06/11

      The simplest way to bust a cult is to cease their tax-exempt status, except for their charity work. When their funds dry up, their leaders will wither and their followers drift away. Xenophon should push for that. If not then vote for Secular Party candidates at the next election: removal of the tax exemption status is part of their agenda.

    • Fun with history... says:

      10:04am | 28/06/11

      Shows what you know about Islam.

      Jesus IS one of their prophets - probably due to the fact that Mohammed was, maybe not “raised” in, but definitely exposed to a great deal of Judeo-Christan teachings.
      You’ve gotta remember, islam came about hundreds of years after the establishment of the roman catholic church, and hundreds of years after the eastern churches and orthodox Christianity had spread well into Africa and Asia. And almost two thousand years after Judaism was first written.
      In the same way as the romans adopted their own gods to Christianity (you think the bearded ‘god’ of classical paintings is the Jewish Yahweh, or the roman Jupiter?), Islam adopted the existing gods and prophets when it was established.
      Moses, Abraham, Elijah, Isaac, Ishmael, Jesus.. all in the Qu’ran. None started there.. all from somewhere else.
      Even the word ‘allah’ is not unique to islam, it is the word for god in two christian sets, eastern judaism and sikhism. All of which pre-date islam.. you might even be familiar with the hebrew version which appears in Genesis - Elohim.
      Go back further.. and a’laha just means “a god” - could be used for any of the ones that were cruising the desert at the time..

    • Sherlock says:

      07:25am | 28/06/11

      Read the above bullet points and apply them to the church of climate change. You will be amazed at the similarities.

      How can we bust this extremely dangerous cult that’s poisoning the minds of so many young Australians?

    • Mid says:

      08:11am | 28/06/11

      Hmm, that knife seems to cut both ways there mate wink

    • AliceC says:

      08:42am | 28/06/11

      How to climate change scientists sexually abuse their followers? I am intrigued? I wouldn’t call them charasmatic either…

    • Reggie says:

      09:26am | 28/06/11

      Sherlock has lost the plot, back to your violin mate.

    • TChong says:

      07:40am | 28/06/11

      To pararaphrase - “Give us a child for the first 7 years, and we’ll give you a catholic for life” ( variations abound,but it is supposed to be a positive affirmation for the catholics , and its varios sects).
      Sounds just as much “brain washing”  as any other fringe beliefs, religions.

    • acotrel says:

      08:09am | 28/06/11

      @TChong I object to cynical manipulation of the ignorant by authoritarian organisations!

    • Against the Man says:

      08:09am | 28/06/11

      TChong has sunk to a new low….................well done ol’ boy smile

    • Chris L says:

      09:18am | 28/06/11

      ATM - So you think indoctrination of children is a good thing?

    • Reggie says:

      09:37am | 28/06/11

      AtM ... every parent is well aware of TC’s axiom in manipulating the young mind in matters both religious and political, yet somehow still manage to cling to the righteous belief they are being rational. How do you manage it?

    • iansand says:

      10:22am | 28/06/11

      That is the Jesuits, TChong.  It may have even been the words of St Ignatius Xavier himself.

    • Against the Man says:

      10:40am | 28/06/11

      Oh just the thing about TChong picking on the Catholics isn’t really a nice thing. Religions and cults are 2 different things to me. Maybe not to others. Not being overly religious myself, I’ve seen the major difference a Catholic charity has made to the lives of many people. On the other hand Jonestown is a whole different story, they started out with some good intentions before the shit really hit the fan.

      Selective prejudice isn’t cool, and neither is Chongy! smile

    • iansand says:

      11:16am | 28/06/11

      It is hardly prejudice to (mis)quote the founder of a particular Catholic sect. wink

    • Dave says:

      11:25am | 28/06/11

      @TChong - your catholic bashing is a sign that you are fearful and ignorant. If you seriously have a problem with religion, then I look forward to your reply criticising Islam. Or Judaism. Let’s see you have a go at these faiths… (Not holding my breath)

    • SydSteve says:

      12:32pm | 28/06/11

      Possibly the best way to not descriminate and still bust the cults is to remove all tax benefits for all religions. As was stated in a previous article. Just make all religions pay tax and be able to claim exemptions for charity work they perform only. Then all the cults not worth while will fade. Maybe even a few of the leading ‘religions’. I’m looking at you Hillsong church.

    • Mitchell says:

      01:12pm | 28/06/11

      ATM, I’ve seen great work done by charities with no religious affiliation at all, to think that it’s some sort of pre-requisite is ridiculous.
      All religions prey on the weakest in society with the intention to grow the flock, doing good work in the community is the least they could do for filling peoples minds with fairy tales.
      Religion does more harm than good both here and abroad.  I’ll start with honour killings, religious wars (civil and international), genital mutilation, exorcism, child brides, denial of adequate medical treatment based on religious beliefs, self crucifixion in the Philippines, homosexual people committing suicide. I could go on…
      Major religions are just organised cults.
       

      Why is it that someone now who calls themselves the son of god would be hospitalised but someone 2000 years ago is a prophet and actually is the son of god.
      Does anyone actually believe virgin birth is real? Turning water into wine? Healing the invalid? It’s an insult to people to tell them that these things are historically real yet have never once been repeated.
      I think the medical scientist who finds evidence for a cancer vaccine deserves much so more respect from society, yet what dominates the news for two whole weeks - A nutjob preacher who claims the world is going to end on may 21 2001.

    • Against the Man says:

      02:38pm | 28/06/11

      I agree with you Mitchell you don’t have to be associated with religion to do charity but I guess I still believe in respecting someone’s religious beliefs. I might not appreciate it but if I show respect to someone’s culture and traditions than I should respect their religious choice because it might be an important part of who there are.

      I’m happy to see it as a religion vs no-religion issue without singling out any particular religion.

    • Jason Dunning says:

      07:55pm | 28/06/11

      Dave and ATM

      No other religion has systematically raped children as effectively as catholicism does.

      Don’t worry If I was in charge, I would show no favoritism when it comes to disbanding and outlawing ALL religions.
      Then burning any religious building or place of worship to the ground so we have the chance to start again.

    • Andrew says:

      10:37pm | 28/06/11

      AtM, could you explain to my exactly WHY you feel the need to respect people’s religious beliefs?  If I told you I believed the sky was purple, and cows were the supreme rulers of the galaxy, you’d think I was crazy - but if I said that my ‘religion’ taught those things as the truth, you’d suddenly respect them?  Religion is, be definition, the belief in something that is irrational, goes against all observed facts, and relies on pure faith in the absence of a single shred of credible evidence.  And you think that deserves respect?  If I start a religion that teaches that those of <insert different skin colour here> are lesser, and should be kept as slaves, would you respect that?  If my religion taught that women were inferior and should only do housework, and never show their faces in public, does that deserve respect too?  Actually, that last one sounds quite familiar, doesn’t it - but you respect it, right?

      Personally, I’ll give respect to people based on the qualities they exhibit - and having bizarre beliefs with no rational basic is not a quality that deserves respect - calling it ‘religion’ shouldn’t change that.

    • Seamus says:

      07:55am | 28/06/11

      And it’s the poor old, long suffering Australian taxpayer who cops it in the neck, as usual.  Without the money thrown at boat people and cults think how much better off this nation would be.

    • Mick S says:

      08:26am | 28/06/11

      You’re right of course.
      The government should stop wasting large amounts on off-shore processing which always involves large “donations” to the host country and also on detention camps within Australia.
      Surely basic health and security checks can be carried out within a matter of weeks following release to the community.  This seems to work well in so many other countries.

    • Tchom says:

      10:24am | 28/06/11

      How the hell did you manage to make this about boat people?!

    • Emma says:

      07:57am | 28/06/11

      Too true. And whether found to be a ‘cult’ or not, the tax-free status is ridiculous anyway.
      And the difference between a religion and climate change is scientific backing. Take that however you like, but it seems one follows at least some form of rationality and the other a series of stories in a book.

      As far as scientology goes, in my mine, it has started in the same way as any major religion. The fact so many call it ridiculous or a cult is laughably ironic. That’s probably why its such a sticking point with other religious people.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      09:25am | 28/06/11

      I disagree, Scientology didn’t start in the same way as other major religions. Most major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) were tangents of existing religions, following “prophets” who preached a variation on the existing but with many consistent foundations, including texts.

      Scientology was constructed by L. Ron Hubbard after his concepts of “Dianetics” was dismissed by the scientific and medical communities. The basis of scientology is to discourage individuals from utilising the services of the institutions that discredited him and drove his first movement to bankruptcy. It’s status as a “religion” was sought exclusively for the purpose of tax exemption.

      I agree with the rest though, tax exemption for religion is ridiculous (with the possible exception of charitable works) and organised religion of any sort all too often resembles a cult.

    • Matt says:

      10:15am | 28/06/11

      Most other religions were started by a science fiction author in 1952? Interesting.

    • Anubis says:

      11:19am | 28/06/11

      @ Emma - you say “one follows at least some form of rationality and the other a series of stories in a book”

      But which is which Emma?

    • Michael says:

      11:24am | 28/06/11

      Simple Simon, some would argue that the “modern” religions were started as a way of amalgamating pagan rites and celebrations into the monotheist style of religion we have now as opposed to the polytheist style worshipped several thousand years ago.

      Me, i’m no expert but i have read that all of catholocism and christian celebrations are assimilated pagan rites.

      Would you mind telling us how you found out that scientology info’? i have tried to find out about scientology but they seem to be a bit secretive.

    • Emma says:

      12:10pm | 28/06/11

      @SimpleSimon: I know that Scientology did not start in the same way (for anyone interested: the South Park episode is informative, and most worryingly, completely accurate). I appreciate that L. Ron Hubbard did it for tax exemption, while this clearly was not the main objective of most major religions. If anything, the origins of Scientology, and the fact its main features are STILL classifiable as religious (contention aside) is precisely where the irony lies. It is perhaps not the best example, I’m sure you can think of better analogies, but the point I was making is that criticism from religious groups is like the pot calling the kettle black.

      Also, a quick point for charity work. Of course it is valuable. But, think about the huge amount churches save from tax exemption. In that context, their charity work seems less charitable compared to the savings made. THEN imagine if they paid all their taxes, and this extra tax was used for secular charity work. This would not only at least equal the religious charity work being done, but eliminate moral issues, such as those surrounding giving out contraception in Africa rather than simply teaching chastity. But that is a whole other debate.

      @Matt: See above.

      @Anubis: I have never heard of climate change being started by a book. I would be interested to see what you mean by your comment. To clarify what I meant, though scientific inquiry is by no means a non-political rationale that can be taken as gospel, I feel a lot more comfortable believing in climate change than any major religion and it is seems odd to suggest that they are in the same realm of belief systems.

    • Anubis says:

      12:50pm | 28/06/11

      @ Emma - not a book exactly but a Government Report written on instruction from Margaret Thatcher. She was seeking a way to decimate the power of the coal unions that were holding England to ransom at the time. Think Tank devised the term Global Warming thus turning the fight against the coal unions into a crusadfe to save human from their own irresponsible activities. Later, in her self written biography, Thatcher expressed regret for starting the Global Warming/Climate Change movement. You can find out more about the Thatcher link to the Global Warming movement’s origins by using the simple internet search string “Margaret Thatcher Global Warming”.

      The bureaucratic structure that Thatcher set up to “spread the message” eventually took on a life of its own, the concept was picked up by scientists as a means to continued granting support, governments around the world utilised the concept and thus is born the AGW/Climate Change movement and eventually the IPCC.

    • SimpleSimon says:

      01:00pm | 28/06/11

      @Emma - Agreed, it is hypocritical of other religious institutions to call Scientology a cult. I also agree with your statements re charitable work and potential more benefitial use of tax dollars for the broader community.

      @Michael - it was a while ago that I was researching Scientology, but it was all online. From memory I started at wikipedia and then followed a few of the links at the bottom. I also spent some time reading about L Ron Hubbard himself, which shed a lot of light on to the events leading to the forming of the “church”, such at his obvious resentment towards the experts in psychology who shunned him and his Dianetics movement.

      One example, though, of the types of things they do that they try to use religion as an excuse for is their e-meters:
      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/E-Meter/Mark-VII/
      Which they claim as a “religious artifact” to get around laws about illegal medical equipment (they also sell them at hugely inflated prices).

      Although as we all know wikipedia is less than infallible, this article has some interesting insights in to how Scientology views psychiatry:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry

      It is especially interesting when read in the context that the same people it is criticising are the ones who rejected the founder of Scientology for his proposed contribution to their field.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      01:43pm | 28/06/11

      @ Anubis:

      Thanks for that re Thatcher.  What a wonderful case study in agnotology, combining as it does culturally-induced ignorance and a novel conspiracy theory.

      Well done!

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:57am | 28/06/11

      The really funny thing is, the criteria is very simple, and we already have it enshrined in the constitution:

      Separate Church & State.

      Why not use the established law - drawn up over our entire history, based on the values and ideals of the people who live here - to provide certain rights and responsibilities on those same people.  That done, you don’t need to stamp out “cults” , just simply ensure the rule of law is obeyed.

      Any organisation - and I mean ANY - engaging in the kind of acts Sen Xenophon wants to eradicate has no religious defence, as the government and judiciary both regard your personal beliefs as second in importance to the applicable laws.

      This way, if the cults/religions/Punch reads/little grey people of Yamamasbum want to change the way things are done in Oz, they need to influence our beliefs and hence the laws we enact, through the same political channels as everyone else.

    • Mitchell says:

      01:31pm | 28/06/11

      Mahrat you make it sound so easy.
      How many politicians are willing to say they have no religious affiliation?
      The fact is non religious voters will still vote for religious leaders based on their policies, religious voters will instantly be turned off non religious leaders based on principle and nothing more.
      Politicians know this, religious lobby groups know this. The game continues.

    • Mahhrat says:

      03:36pm | 28/06/11

      @Mitchell, our PM, like or loathe her.

    • Matthew says:

      06:39pm | 28/06/11

      Mahhrat, what’s her rating at now?  Like 39%?  I’m not sure it’s all the religious people but i’m sure they have a pretty good effect on it.

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:16am | 30/06/11

      @Matthew, and yet that very constitution was raised by a group of people who were vastly more religious than anyone we’d have in parliament now.  Weird, huh?

    • Dave says:

      07:57am | 28/06/11

      @TChong - I knew it would only be a matter of time before some idiot chimed in with an anti-catholic rant. Congratulations on being that idiot.

    • TChong says:

      09:07am | 28/06/11

      Keep with the thread Dave.
      It makes the antagonism easier to follow.

    • Chris L says:

      09:24am | 28/06/11

      That’s right Dave, the Catholic Church should be immune from criticism!

      All those others, however, are just cults and can be expunged!

      Lucky for you calling someone an “idiot” is an instant argument winner and negates any actual point they made.

      (sarcasm, in case anyone missed it)

    • eddie says:

      03:22pm | 28/06/11

      Well the Catholic Church is one of the biggest cults ever to kill people in the name of god, why are they different from other cults? other than by the fact tehat they have done more to slow and hinder the development of a truly enlightened society than any other organisation and killed more people in the name of their god than any other cult.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      08:00am | 28/06/11

      Ahh praise be Nick Xenophon he has the best ideas what would we do without him.
      This article will surely bring out a lot of the brain washed masses who believe in an almighty sky fairy. I can already see the names that will appear in the comments on this thread. Perhaps the cult busting could start with these raving lunatics.

    • Paul C says:

      08:12am | 28/06/11

      All religions are Cults. One religion is as bizarre as the next. I don’t consider myself atheists by any means, but at the same time I don’t feel the need to gather in groups, grovel to a God and then pass judgment, often with violent consequences, on my fellow human beings. People laugh at scientologists -  in reality their beliefs may be more believable than Christianity - but you don’t see Senator Nick Xenophobe busting his guts to outlaw the Catholic Church. I don’t think either of these has happened, but UFO visits are a lot more possible than turning water into wine.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      09:09am | 28/06/11

      or feeding 10000 people with a couple of tins of tuna and a few loaves of Wonderwhite.
      or coming back from the dead zombielike and levitating a 10 ton rock.
      or any number of hairbrained miracles that occured then and continue to occur to this day, usually only discovered after said saint actually goes to inhabit the clouds in the sky.
      all good points though paul.

    • Pete says:

      12:30pm | 28/06/11

      Turning water into wine is easy just add grapes, a whole bunch of other stuff, squish in toes, ferment and hey presto. I broke my intergalactic radio so no more inviting the Aliens to tea for me!

    • James says:

      12:39pm | 28/06/11

      Do some more reading on Scientology if you honestly believe that. Nothing is more convoluted and vague than their doctrine. For example, one of their beliefs (which is only taught at the higher end of their hierarchy) revolves around Xenu, alien thetans inhabiting our body, H bombs, volcanos and space ships that look like DC 8’s but with rockets. The best part is that if you find out about this before you’re “ready” (like I’ve just told you) you’ll die of pneumonia (sorry…). All this from a man who was a science fiction writer in the 1950’s who wanted to be rich.
      This is far from believable in comparison to a faith based on true historical events.

    • Chris L says:

      02:00pm | 28/06/11

      “This is far from believable in comparison to a faith based on true historical events.” -

      If the events were true and historical there would be no need for faith.

    • Paul C says:

      02:24pm | 28/06/11

      @James The thing is, I don’t believe what Hubbard wrote.  History may state that there was such a person as Jesus Christ, however his “Story” is exactly that - a Story written many years after his death - hardly based on historical facts rather old men’s fuzzy memories.  They are both equally believable and I choose not believe either.  In the end, people should believe what they want to, as long as they are happy and do no harm to others.  A truly wacky bunch is the Baptist Church - never met such a bunch of two faced lairs - I spent many years in this cult until I got sick of it and left - boy, was my name mud then - yet they seem such an innocent bunch.

    • HT says:

      06:16pm | 28/06/11

      One of the big differences between Christianity (broadly) and Scientology is that it doesn’t make you pay to be a part of it. You can pick up a Bible for free almost anywhere. Also, a Christian can become a non Christian at any time. Scientology seem far more abusive and scary in the way that they bring people into their organisation and not let them leave. I am not a Christian and I don’t believe any religion should have tax free status (only charities) however I see Scientology more dangerous than Christianity generally. Once you get into specific sects with Christianity it may become a different story (ie. Westboro)

    • cur says:

      07:30pm | 28/06/11

      @ HT - not so sure about not paying to be a part of christianity, if you join your run-of-the-mill church group. there’s that ubiquitous bowl passed around each sunday. how about “they don’t make you pay as much” and it’s voluntary tithing (with a good measure of guilt to encourage you to scrounge in your hip pocket)?
      but yeah, the gideons have cornered the market on free bibles.

    • sludger says:

      08:27am | 28/06/11

      More crap to fill space.  What was the point?

    • Ben81 says:

      02:32pm | 28/06/11

      Speaking of crap filling a space…

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:46am | 28/06/11

      Instead of wasting money on yet another government agency just tax religions.

      Any claim for special status that religions once had has long faded into obscurity. They are no longer charitable organisations but fronts for cults themselves with strange rules and beliefs as well as businesses of their own.

    • Holey Moses says:

      08:46am | 28/06/11

      Let’s ban all those holey cults and take out religion first where the brainwashing starts from birth.  It’s unbelievble that in the 21st Century, tax cuts are allowed if you believe in someone who isn’t even on the electoral role.  You dan’t even see him going up the stairs!

    • Holey Moses says:

      08:46am | 28/06/11

      Let’s ban all those holey cults and take out religion first where the brainwashing starts from birth.  It’s unbelievble that in the 21st Century, tax cuts are allowed if you believe in someone who isn’t even on the electoral role.  You dan’t even see him going up the stairs!

    • Holey Moses says:

      08:46am | 28/06/11

      Let’s ban all those holey cults and take out religion first where the brainwashing starts from birth.  It’s unbelievble that in the 21st Century, tax cuts are allowed if you believe in someone who isn’t even on the electoral role.  You dan’t even see him going up the stairs!

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:54am | 28/06/11

      The problem with some form of Cult-busting lies in the arguments that atheists love to trot out everytime they think they’re having their rights infringed on by religious groups.  Separation of Church and State.

      Just how much influence should a government have over religions?  If religions should have no influence on governments then the same rule should apply in reverse.  So long as no laws are being broken (this is key) and no harm is being threatened on their believers (like suicide cults etc) then the likes of Xenophon should just mind their own f**king business.  Anything less than this is just hypocrisy.

      If people are stupid enough to believe in some douche in a dress and follow his rules, give 1/10 of their income etc. then they deserve everything they get, no matter how silly those rules are.

      Tax-exempt status is a totally different argument.  Tax exempt status should only apply to religions that present their financials to the tax payers who subsidise them.  Any religion making a profit loses tax-exempt status.

    • Pete says:

      12:43pm | 28/06/11

      Just so we are clear Atheists are not part of a religion. I am an atheist only in the sense that I do not believe in a God. I conceed that there are atheists that hold these views you describe, however not believing in a God does not automatically make one a hater of churches or religion. I agree people will believe what they want to believe. To allow this the secular law of the land must apply to all equally.

    • Chris L says:

      01:01pm | 28/06/11

      Yep, watch religions wake up to where this kind of government intervention could lead and suddenly “secularism” will stop being a dirty word for them.

      Much like how a church in the American bible belt campaigned to remove the prohibition on handing out religious flyers outside the highschool. Then campaigned to reinstate the prohibition when they realised pagans were handing out religious flyers outside the highschool.

    • AdamC says:

      01:09pm | 28/06/11

      Chris L, why can’t they both hand out pamphlets? I say the more pamphlets the better!

      I am a secularist, in the sense that I don’t believe governments should be involved in the practice of religion. Nick Xenophon is a zealot; people do not need to be protected from religion.

    • Chris L says:

      02:08pm | 28/06/11

      I dunno AdamC, this was something a church did, it wasn’t my decision. I can’t give better details since I learned of this from a news commentary on youtube and I don’t currently have access to this.

      I think secularism is the best protection for peoples’ religions but it must go both ways. Religion should be safe from government and all people should be safe from religion (ie no laws that rely on a god to justify them).

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      10:07am | 02/07/11

      Hey HappyCynic,

      I believe that organised crime should have no influence over the government, but does that mean that they government shouldn’t try and regulate crime ?

    • Dan says:

      09:06am | 28/06/11

      And hey presto, before you know it, we will have the official, government sanctioned religions of Australia, with all their perks preservered, and the ‘illegal’ ones subject to all kinds of official persecution. Sounds just like China to me.

    • Jon says:

      10:13am | 28/06/11

      Dan@ Yes, just like Iran and Saudi Arabia. China is in good company!

    • Tchom says:

      10:29am | 28/06/11

      An economic superpower?

    • Elphaba says:

      09:13am | 28/06/11

      He’s not going to have much luck.  Those that believe in whacky cults aren’t easily dissuaded.  They’re looking for the meaning to their existence.

      Just remove the tax exempt status from all religions, and make them pay half the income tax of a comparable private business.  They still get a tax break, and they pull their weight at the same time.  If some numpty wants to believe that little grey spacemen are going to abduct him to a better life, so be it.  It takes all kinds…

    • Achmed says:

      09:18am | 28/06/11

      A dogmatic leader with bizarre beliefs leading a cult which vilifies people who disgree with it.

      Is this a discussion on Julia Gillard and her cronies?

      Poor Kevin wants to leave but she won’t let him because of the spooky numbers in the reps - isn’t he being isolated from the outside world in Equatorial Guinea and Khazakstan currently?

      Australia surely is in need of CultBusters at present.

    • Matt says:

      09:36am | 28/06/11

      I agree with others about removing the tax exemption status from cults or religions.  Save tax exemption for charities, religions don’t need a tax exempt status, several of which are very wealthy organisations in their own right.  Aside from that, who cares?  People have a right to join what they want, even if other people think it’s silly..

    • ibast says:

      10:16am | 28/06/11

      Sometimes they just become too powerful.  Look at Hillsong.  A few elections ago the then treasure Peter Costello went to visit them as part of the election campaign.  I wonder what the dinner conversation was like with Tim after that.

    • Huey says:

      10:20am | 28/06/11

      Mainstream churches are deathly quiet on this subject.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      11:35am | 29/06/11

      So it seems are the scientologists - perhaps they’re not out of bed yet?

    • Harquebus says:

      10:33am | 28/06/11

      Another that uses that Flash crap.

    • Seano says:

      01:28pm | 28/06/11

      It must be a cult.

    • Jon says:

      10:35am | 28/06/11

      Great idea, lets bust the violent and silly one’s first. The problem is they are all cults. The grab bag of Greens/Left, guilt ridden liberals, the inner-city crowd and lightweight intellectuals want us to respect all these cults because they are all relative so they won’t help. The zombies in parliament are either followers of one these cults or want to get votes from a cult and they don’t mind which one.

      But Cult Busting is certainly worth a try!

    • Zaf says:

      10:53am | 28/06/11

      [Cults have charismatic, dogmatic leaders.
      Many would consider the Pope would fit that description.]

      Clearly we define charisma differently.

    • Luke says:

      10:58am | 28/06/11

      “It’s all too easy in Australia – set up a religion, get tax-free status, a bunch of followers willing to donate”
      NO IT ISNT EASY…
      Try it…
      I know god knows how many psychics who struggle like all heck to get members or anything even resembling “a following”...
      The people who set up cults like “agape” have a POINT behind thier behaviour… they are objecting to the way society is going… and society is just too dam self centered to even remotely listen, or do something about it… and the cults keep coming and coming…
      The core reason behind cults is the absence of philosophy in our schools. Kids dont learn philosophy, and hence they find it any place they can find it… even in ufo’s… WHY? cause its better than nothing!

    • Warwick says:

      10:59am | 28/06/11

      Sherlock
      your observation about the Church of Climate Change is spot-on.
      The way it has adopted the major elements of the old religions is amazing.

      First there is is The Fall; mankind is destroying the earth through the killer gas, carbon dioxide.

      Then there is the consequence of The Fall; we are all going to fry, just like the old religions would have had us in Hell

      There are the saviours; David Suzuki, Al Gore, The United Nations (IPCC.)

      There are the mortifications of the flesh. to pay for our wickedness - we have cold showers, rotten mercury filled electric lights, forego comfortable cars and plane trips,  pay through the nose for electricity, fuel of all sorts, buildings of all sorts,  every conceivable manufactured item, and put ourselves at the mercy of pathetic power sources like photo-voltaic and wind farms.

      And the priesthood of this new cult behave just like the older priesthoods; they suppress alternative scientific viewpoints, they indoctrinate children at school, they pay enormous amounts of money (in research grants) to people who will support the Party Line. Jim Jones’s effect on the world was nothing in comparison with the world-damage being done by this lot of ego-maniacal. and malevolent swine.

    • HT says:

      08:58am | 29/06/11

      Back to the looney bin for you.

    • Peter says:

      11:00am | 28/06/11

      Its not “cults” Xenophos is after…
      He wants scientology… and he care nothing about anything else…
      god knows why… there are much better things to do!

    • Michael says:

      11:07am | 28/06/11

      No nossy in here yet!, i haven’t seen them but there must have been a new poll done somewhere.

    • Geoff Russell says:

      11:46am | 28/06/11

      Shakespeare said it first ... a cult by any other name still gives off a pungent odor

    • Ben says:

      12:04pm | 28/06/11

      Why bother making the distinction?  Every “religion” started out as a cult, it’s just the size of the tribe that counts.  Some get elevated, others discarded.  Why any of them should qualify for a tax exemption is beyond me.

      This is the part of my post in which I call for an end to all religions, rail in vain against mass stupidity, and extol the virtues of evidence-based conversations and secular morality.  Oh, and don’t even get me started on the kiddy-fiddlers.

      Well, I feel better anyway.

    • Jane says:

      12:06pm | 28/06/11

      I wonder what sort of public servant would chose this department? Im guessing probably fundamental christians who firmly believe, like all other fundamental religios groups, that theirs is the only true religion. Havent we learnt anything about trying to wipe out other peoples religion?

      Just tax them. If they cant prove they do genuine charity work for people not of their “church” all churches should be taxed. Even not for profit clubs have to pay tax.

    • Michael says:

      12:14pm | 28/06/11

      Why do cults still exist, and will continue to exist regardless of education and legislation?  Because some people are inherently naive and will believe anything a charismatic quasi-religious leader says.  Hand over all your money to me?  No problem!  Give me free access to your kids?  Sure thing!  Many religions and sects actively state that to question the teachings is to openly and willfully sin.  It’s easy to keep people under control when using judgment and entering the deal with an open mind is denounced as heresy.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      06:28pm | 28/06/11

      I agree, but I think some people who wouldn’t normally be naive can find themselves in very vulnerable situations are then preyed upon by the cults.  We should remember that they are very often unfortunate victims, not just gullible idiots who got what they deserved.

    • Blazes says:

      12:19pm | 28/06/11

      “It’s all too easy in Australia – set up a religion, get tax-free status, a bunch of followers willing to donate, and you’re set. Maybe predict the end of the world to get things moving along with a sense of urgency.”

      You mean like global warming alarmists?

    • bleD says:

      12:20pm | 28/06/11

      To all of you who think that religion’s tax-free status should cease (apart from their charity work), get off your bottoms and vote for secular party candidates at the next senate elections.

    • Chris L says:

      12:56pm | 28/06/11

      I did last time. I think, though, that religious people might also have an interest in this party as secularism is the best protection for religion.

      None of this cult-busting thin end of the wedge tactics. If you start condoning closing down cults yours might be next. We should be truly secular with no religious laws and no laws on religion.

    • Craig says:

      12:35pm | 28/06/11

      All Religion’s are cults that got popular enough over time to go mainstream. Their beliefs are no more believable.

    • Tony says:

      12:35pm | 28/06/11

      So is the ALP a cult?
      Cult leaders and members believe they are the only ones with the true faith. Tick,
      Cults have bizarre beliefs. Tick,
      Cults won’t let you leave when you want to, and isolate you from the outside world. Hmm, internet filter, yep Tick,
      Cults have dogmatic leaders. Big Tick,
      Cults have charismatic leaders. No tick there!!
      So I guess the ALP almost qualifies.

    • eddie says:

      03:41pm | 28/06/11

      so is the LNP a cult
      Cult leaders and members believe they are the only ones with the true faith. Tick,
      Cults have bizarre beliefs. Tick,
      Cults won’t let you leave when you want to, and isolate you from the outside world. Hmm, internet filter, yep Tick,
      Cults have dogmatic leaders. Big Tick,
      Cults have charismatic leaders. No tick there!!
      So I guess the LNP almost qualifies.

    • ij says:

      12:38pm | 28/06/11

      They are all cults, and are all scams. Peddling false hope and lies. Ban them all.

    • David V. says:

      12:41pm | 28/06/11

      Why not freedom of religion? As a traditionalist Catholic I admit some “evangelical” sects are utterly repulsive, no less than radical Islam or terrorist cults like Aum Shinrikyo. Aum were ahead of their time though in the use of science and technology in their terrorist program, which separates more recent “cults” from others.

    • concerned says:

      03:43pm | 28/06/11

      Here is a little known fact - all of the “priests” of Aum Shinrikyo were in fact psychiarists and they were conducting electric shock and drug experiment on their “followers”. this was exposed in Japan, but the translated versions didn’t hit major media. Psychiatrists posing as priests for a “religion” that then gets labelled as a destructive cult. That’s a good one! I think it was a good ruse to engage in people experimentation and when it goes out of control blame it on religion. The “Family” cult in Australia also had strong psychiatric links to Newhaven psych hospital and were conducting LSD experiments on their “followers”. They were not a religion at all but an experiment.

    • Keith says:

      12:44pm | 28/06/11

      Wouldn’t we say that a ‘religion’ can trace it’s origins back greater than a century? How many ‘cults’ fit that description?

    • Ben says:

      02:12pm | 28/06/11

      “Wouldn’t we say that a ‘religion’ can trace it’s origins back greater than a century?”

      So did the belief that the Earth was flat, and the centre of the universe.  Likewise the efforts of traditionalist Catholic’s in converting the heathen natives, regardless of the consequences, went on for well over a century.  Should we give more weight to those beliefs or behaviours simply because they went on for a while?

      No matter how long the delusion persists, it’s still a delusion.  One might even say that a false belief held longer, and in spite of overwhelming evidence, should qualify for a greater share of contempt, not less.

    • James says:

      12:49pm | 28/06/11

      I don’t think the definitions of a cult are used properly here. A cult requires all 5 of the following:

      o   Use psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain members
      o   Forms an elitist totalitarian society
      o   Founder / leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, charismatic and not accountable
      o   Beliefs that the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds and recruit people
      o   Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

      Most religions will not meet all 5 and at best they may resemble some of the criteria (however scientology meets this easily). A cult is an extreme form of religion so don’t be surprised that the there are some parallels. The same principle applies with many medical or psychological diagnoses: many people have neurotic traits but doesn’t mean they have OCD, similarly many people drink alcohol but that doesn’t mean they are alcoholics. A religion with aspects that resemble the criteria for a cult does not mean it can be defined as a cult.

    • Daryl says:

      03:37pm | 28/06/11

      Oh James, now you’ve gone and introduced rational thought to this religion bashing forum! Be careful or they’ll ban you!

    • Anubis says:

      04:36pm | 28/06/11

      But James - you have just defined the Global Warming/Climate Change cult that is currently pervading the globe.

      1 - psychological coercion to recruit - end of world doomsaying
      2 - Forms an elitist totalitarian society - You are either with us or you are deniers (see Greens Party)
      3. Founder/leader is self appointed - Gore/Flannery/Suzuki/Brown
      4. Believe that the end justifies the means - beggar society to satisfy theior beliefs all justified by preventing the end of the world
      5. It’s wealth does not benefit its members or society - has been proven and proclaimned by Garnaut, Brown and Flannery that the Carbon Tax will do nothing to affect the environment but has the potential to deprive the wealth earners of their income. Takes on a financial basis not an environmental footprint basis. No benefits to society in general

      Under those criteria Global Warming fanatics are cult members and need to be busted.

    • Cult Survivor says:

      01:13pm | 28/06/11

      As someone who actually grew up in a cult - the Johavah’s Witnesses - I am disgusted with how disparaging and uninformed a lot fo the comments are. Any comparison to the psychological, emotional and in many cases, physical and sexual abuse that children and other vulnerable people are subject to by these so called religions cannot be compared to chocolate or climate change.

      What is damaging in these organisations is the brainwashing, the isolation, the potential for abuse and the fact that these organisations are not being held accountable to anyone. They seem to be above the law and are given tax benefits to help fund their atrocities.

      It’s time we stopped protecting these organisations and started protecting the people, more importantly children, that unfortunatley fall under their spell.

      As a society we are horrified by the abuse at the hands of mainstream churches and priests. And yet we all just label JW and Scientologists as weirdos, joke about them or ignore them.

      I agree that with the article that in many cases there are no differences between a cult and mainstream religions - on paper. But having grown up in one I can assure you the major difference in the experience of living it. As a child I ws forced to disown my extended non-believer family and I wasn’t allowed to associate with other children at school. I was taught that I didn’t need to make friends or associate with non-believers because they would all be anihilated in a fiery death when the apocolypse came. And of course the Apocalypse could happen at any given time so I had to be perfect at all times - just in case. I was also made very aware that I was never to have a blood transfusion - so if I hurt myself at school my father would let me die rather than forsake his god should I need this kind of medical assistance. This is what is being taught to 6 year olds. I won’t even start with the beatings and “discipline” that is encouraged of parents to ensure their children and part of the chosen ones…

      Find me a mainstream western religion that takes away vulnerable children’s support system and then systematically terrorises them with threats of a torturous death for themselves every single day and I’ll accept the comparison.

      What is happening in these organisations is far worse than anything the mainstream churches could ever dish out. So lets not be so dismissive.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:57pm | 28/06/11

      Thank you Cult Survivor and I feel very much for you in the pain and abuse that you have suffered and yes I agree although there are some religious denominations that control by fear but the majority of main line Churches Love and support their members.

      I’m a Christian first not a denomination so prefer not to have a man made title but I fellowship with other believers of a main line Church and have been part of a few others. I do not believe every one in the Church is fully committed,  their words and actions show this but mostly we are the Body of Christ and Love Him and each other.

      I am a member of a Meetup who ministers to X Cult members and their families, I will post their Link to you below they are in America but I think there is also a Meetup in Brisbane but we sure could do with more in Australia. Also I would like to share something that touched my heart and as I was writing to you it keep coming into my mind,  I hope you are uplifted and encouraged by it also. 

      X Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons http://4witness.org/

      From your Heavenly Father - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiGDo_FIjFg&feature=related

      Take Care - Christian Love Anne

    • Don't tread on me says:

      01:19pm | 28/06/11

      If cults are the antithesis of socialism/ equalitarianism/ communism/ Marxism/ progressives etc., they can’t be that bad. I’d rather the scientologists in power than the neo-levellers - atleast the scientologist would give people options, whereas it’d be straight to the labour camp if you don’t go along with the leftist utopians.

    • Chris L says:

      02:28pm | 28/06/11

      DTOM, please report to the lost & found department and ask them if your marbles have shown up.

    • Nathin says:

      01:24pm | 28/06/11

      Nice straw man you’ve created Ms Tory, did it feel good to tear it down? People who hold the Bible’s account of creation aren’t cultists, you’ve made that definition yourself, most Christians hold that view, it’s mainstream Christianity, there and there are over 300 PHD Sceintists today writing in various journals today who confirm it. The theory of evolution is recent, and probably won’t be around for that long, many non-Christian’s think it’s balony, and illogical that we evolved from rocks, and as a Civil Engineer I also find the theory completely preposterous. So point your cult finger somewhere else!

    • Chris L says:

      02:33pm | 28/06/11

      Um… it’s the bible that says man was created from dirt.

      Evolution states that the various forms of life present today have common ancestors.

      Abiogenesis theorises that amino acids and then primitive cells could have formed in the elements of primordial Earth (and laboratory experiments have already succeeded in creating amino acids from non-living elements that would have been present at the time).

      Nice straw man you created Nathin.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:51pm | 28/06/11

      Thank you Nathin for standing up for God’s Truth in regard to Creation and to encourage you I will post a Link that confirms the number of Scientists who believe in Creation past and present and many have Doctorates and it is now well over 900 and these are only the ones listed.
      Recommended Resource: - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

      I would like to share something with you Nathin about the days of Creation that shows why Creation and Evolution are just not compatible so as a Christian it’s either one or the other not both, of course you may already be aware of what I’m going to share but if not it will just confirm what you already know but extend it. I will also leave a few links that may also encourage you I found them great and have shared them with my friends and contacts.

      God tells us in Scripture that He Created the earth the Heavens and everything in them in 6 days then He rested but Christians who believe in Evolution claim it took billons of years to form so who are we going to believe God or man.

      God then tells us in the Scriptures Geneses 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day and so on .... Christians Evolutionist say each day could have been million or billons of years ... So who do we believe God or man.

      But how can we be sure a day was not billons of years ... we can know by the sequence of Creation… we will look at a few days as an example…

      God tells us there was no rain till Noahs Ark and we are told in Gen 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. We know Trees and plants need water but they also need the Sun without the Sun for billons of years nothing would exist,  so then on what day did God Create the Trees, grass and fruit…

      Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the THIRD DAY..

      So on what day did God create the Sun , Moon and Stars Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the FORTH DAY.

      Without the Sun for Billons of years nothing would have existed, even NASA confirms without the Sun life on Earth would not exist.

      Perhaps Christian Evolutionists may try to explain away the 6 literal days of Creation but I would rather Trust in God for all the answers not Man’s worldly understanding .

      But sadly I also believed in Evolution in fact I was passionate about it at least in words and propagated it, until I came to know and believe God’s Truth,  I have no doubts now and I know God is Love and can do no evil,  yes He does bring good from evil but He doesn’t cause evil to bring good from it the Scriptures tell us this is slander.

      http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/

      http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

      http://creation.com/

      http://creation.com/whats-this-all-about

      http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=52

      Thanks again for your stand Nathin - Christian Love Anne.

    • Concerned says:

      03:48pm | 28/06/11

      Just a thought Chris - who made the “Abiogenesis theorises that amino acids and then primitive cells could have formed in the elements of primordial Earth (and laboratory experiments have already succeeded in creating amino acids from non-living elements that would have been present at the time)” which then somehow turned into life? Just asking. Anyway the theory evolution doesn’t discount a higher power behind it all anyway. The two can work together.

    • Daryl says:

      04:06pm | 28/06/11

      Anne and Nathin,

      As a Christian I must point out that the Genesis account of creation is, when read in the original hebrew a poetic narrative.  It was not written as a literal account of creation, but with the intent to convey that there is a God who is the beginning and source of all things.  The story draws heavily on earlier accounts from regions surrounding the Jewish nation. It is a theological account rather than a factual account. It is rightly called a myth.  Please note that just because something is a myth, does not mean that it cannot convey truth.

      The assertion that young earth creationism is a mainstream Christian belief is also incorrect, with mainstream Christian denominations (e.g. Catholoc, Orthodox, Anglican, Uniting) teaching that evolution is perfectly acceptable as an explanation for how God created life on earth.  It is only smaller fundamentalist Christian groups which insist on literalism.  It is also worth noting that the Jewish faith does not now and has never insisted on a literal interpretation.

      If you want to understand why Christiianity has nothing to fear from science please check out the following -
      http://www.iscast.org/
      http://www.scibel.com

    • Ben says:

      04:26pm | 28/06/11

      @Anne Stocks

      God tells us many things through Scripture, doesn’t he/she/it?  Leviticus I find is a wonderful source of do’s and don’t's, and it would appear many others feel the same way: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

      Of course these are all just symbolic tales, allegories of what God really wants us to do.  Or not do.  Or who he/she/it wants us to do, and how.  Obviously.

      I am a little confused as to why the all-powerful, omnipresent being that created the heavens and the Earth, the same God who went to all of the trouble of falsifying the fossil record so as to test our collective faith, would care one little ounce about my shaving habits (Lev 19:27).  I’m even more confused as to what this restriction might symbolise.  No doubt you can help me out here.

      Of course I digress from the topic of “cults”, but, in my defence, I was not the one to bring Scripture into this discussion.

    • Nathin says:

      04:34pm | 28/06/11

      @ Anne. Thanks for taking a stand also. Your writing is very thoughtful and winsome. Sounds like more scientists are actually realising what real science is - leading them to a true understanding of the cosmos, had only read about the 300 PHD’s, 900 is encouraging to hear.
      @ Daryl. Actually Genesis isn’t poetical narrative, I’ve studied Biblical Hermeneutics and Genesis is historical narrative, and very clear as to how we have come to be. The Hebrew word for “Day” when it appears next to a number (“the FIRST day”, “the SECOND day” etc.) and when “Day” appears in the same verse as “an EVENING and a MORNING”, is clear. Only one textual interpretation can be ascertained: 6 - 24hour days. Read Albert Mohler’s response to BioLogos, you will learn that christians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible, have more faith in popular “science” than they do in the Scripture’s, and try to smash evolution into the Bible, when they didn’t actually need to in the first place. There is a lot of writing in favour of evolution, and a lot of theories, but in 140years since the “Origin of the Species” no one has produced a single thread of evidence. Instead, Christians should, and must hold fast to the timeless, eternal revelation of God’s testimony of how the world began, He’s told us what happened, and He hasn’t changed His story once in human history.

    • Garry says:

      04:52pm | 28/06/11

      Nathin - over 300 PHD Scientists - wow - I wonder what the other 100,000’s of PHD’s are doing?  Evolution will only be around for a while? What happened to Genesis?  It my parents time the church taught it as a fact. It is now recognised by the church as simply a good story ... what part of the story is next?

    • Just Sayin' says:

      06:22pm | 28/06/11

      Hi Daryl,

      Which Genesis account of Creation are you referring to?  As a small percenatge of Christians and a large percentage of Atheists are aware, there are two accounts, and they are almost entirely inconsistent.

      Looking at the more popular version, I’m sure you are aware that historically it was interpreted as literal, not metaphorical.  It wasn’t until science was able to provide strong evidence to contradict the idea that the earth was created in six days that religious doctrine evolved to present creation as metaphorical.  And literal interpretations are still held by tens of millions of Americans and smaller but significant number of Europeans.

    • Chris L says:

      07:29pm | 28/06/11

      “who made the (abiogenesis) which then somehow turned into life?” -
      Good question, Concerned. If only religious claims were scrutinised so closely.

      My response would be: Why does there need to be a “who”?

      For a decent explanation of abiogenesis that is understandable for laymen such as myself (although the first couple of minutes are about answering creationist criticisms so you may feel uncomfortable at first) please see the link below.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    • Daryl says:

      08:56am | 29/06/11

      Just Sayin - Actually having done quite a deal of study into the subject (having a degree in religious studies) I can quite comfortably state that insisting on a literal interpretation is a relatively new concept which has grown rapidly in the last two centuries in response to a (wrongly) perceived threat to faith from science.

      As an example St. Augustine of Hippo, living in the 4th Century CE, and one of the most highly respected and celebrated theologians in the history of the Christian church taught that Genesis was not a literal account.  ( http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html )

      The accounts in Genesis are there for two distinct purposes, one to establish that God is the source of all things and the other to establish the God-human relationship.

      Nathin - I have studied the accounts in Genesis in the orgiginal Hebrew, and I can assure you that the writing is poetic.  That the word for ‘day’ means ‘day’ has no bearing on the fact the what is written is not a literal account.  Scripture also tells us that God created everything at the same time (Sirach 18:1*), and also that there is no difference in God’s eyes between a day and a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8)

      I have read Albert Mohler, however I have also educated myself from sources other than those who have an agenda to push.  Your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution demonstrates that you haven’t even done a cursory google search on the topic.  I suggest that you read some writing on the subject by Dr Francis S. Collins.  He was the head of the human genome project and is a devout Christian.

      *Sirach is not considered part of the canon by many protestant Christians, However given that around three quarters of Christians on the planet identify as either Catholic or Orthodox I believe it is valid to reference it.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:28pm | 28/06/11

      Dear Tory Shepherd I want to thank you for your article on the Cults and although I don’t agree with all the points you raised,  I did with a lot. Your article was well thought -out and highlighted the danger of Cults without condemning those who are trapped in them.

      I am a member of a fellowship who helps X members of Cults recover, although I have not been a member of a Cult myself I have had a lot of experience with them and have studied their Dogma and yes you are right Tory not many people are aware just what is a Cult, they don’t wear different clothes or walk around with Cult written on their foreheads and it’s members are not always those who come to your door.

      Interestingly some main line Churches also do door to door evangelism and at one time I did too,  but the Cults use this medium mainly to recruit new members and they mostly target people who don’t know the Scriptures and this is because they can be deceived. Sadly some people who are members of main line Churches have also been deceived and have left safe congregations although not perfect, to join Cults but if they knew the Scriptures they would be warned to steer clear…not all that glitters is gold so it tarnishes and corrodes and with Cults it’s fear that does this.

      I also agree with you Tory we need the Government’s to set up CultBusters, but it needs to be under the direction of those in main line Churches because contrary to what you stated although I agree there is some organised religious denominations who do this, but those who Love the Lord and His people would not seek to hurt it’s members and I’m not speaking for every member in the Congregation, sadly some are still sinning without repentance,  but as a whole Church members are free to come and go and are not penalised for doing so.

      As you are not a member of a main line Church Tory such as the above,  you would not be aware and have only gone on hearsay or your own understanding but you are right one sign of a Cult is their members are under their control and if they do not agree with all that they enforce they are disfellowshipped and their members are not to have contact with them this can mean that families are pulled apart and many people are hurt, they control with fear and not with love.

      Thank you again Tory Shepherd- Kind regards Anne

      P.S And yes Tory now that I’m aware I will pray that you may come to realise how much The Lord Loves you.

    • Scooter says:

      02:11pm | 28/06/11

      Might I remind you Anne (may I call you Anne?) that your mainstream churches started as cults and have many branches orthodox, coptic, revivalist, baptist, Roman etc which each consider the other as not true members of the church.
      Only through free unfettered and unhindered research, thought and reflection may enlightenment come.

      Feel free to pray though.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:30pm | 28/06/11

      I have addressed what is and what is not a Cult Scooter in another post but unless you are a Christian you would have no understanding.

      Whatever you have researched it has not been what God calls His Church which is the Body of Christ.

      I would suggest you do some more research about what it means to be a Christian and what Denominations confirm God’s Truth about The Godhead or Trinity as it is called today meaning 3 in one and you may be surprised to find that most Denominations today who believe in the Godhead are not and have never been Cults…. you don’t have to believe me do some research.

      I hope it is alright if I call you Scooter and yes it is alright to call me Anne that is my real name,  I don’t need to hide behind a false name,  I have Godly pride in being a Christian and am happy for the world to know it. - Kind regards Anne.

    • A Spade's a Spade says:

      05:59pm | 28/06/11

      Hi Anne, I note that one of the scientists on the list you refer to in your earlier post (via the link http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html) is Sir Francis Bacon. This gifted gentleman (b.1561 d.1626) died over 200 years before the theory of evolution was published by Darwin. The fact that Sir Francis could not have had have any interaction with Darwin’s work detracts somewhat from the legitimacy of his view that he supports creation. I mean what else was there to compare and contrast creation with. (Note - It is the same for others on the list such as Carolus Linneuas - b.1707 d.1778). As a support of creation - this logic is a little bit mischievous and disingenuous to a reasonable person. This is like saying that Alexander the Great didn’t believe in intercontinental ballistic missiles - which is surely equally as true and of as much import as Sir Francis’s view of evolution. I understand that you vehemently disbelieve in the theory of evolution and passionately believe in creation, and that is perfectly fine. Please note that this view is not supported or strengthened by claiming that eminent people who lived and died before this theory was developed and published. Kind of like putting words in their long dead mouths. I trust that this observation makes sense. By all means communicate you views, but you should understand and recognise that creation is a faith based doctrine which cannot be supported by objective evidence and or circular logic based upon the belief in a omnipotent creator. Recourse to subjective evidence to support creation is an oxymoron until such time as the creator reveals himself / herself.

    • Scooter says:

      09:18am | 29/06/11

      I beg to differ, the Romans considered Christians a cult.  Hence some of the rather grisly ends early followers of Christ came to at the Colosseum.
      My personal view, after studying Judaism, Islam and Christianity is that humans have done a wonderful job of creating God in their image, tripartite or otherwise.  A common human failing is that any written report of an event or events 300 years after the fact is that they will be coloured with change, interpretation and current needs when written and should be assessed with that in mind.  Religion has been used throughout our history as a most effective political and economic tool.
      However, spirituality is a very personal subject and far be it for me to dictate anothers needs in that regard.
      BTW my name is Scott, hence Scooter.

    • Brian Baxter says:

      01:38pm | 28/06/11

      So long as they start with the Catholics and the Scientologists. Don’t forget the Freemasons!

    • ibast says:

      01:54pm | 28/06/11

      Too many stonecutters in high places.  Goat spanking is popular.

    • Scooter says:

      01:54pm | 28/06/11

      Xenophon - Xenophobia
      Not much difference really!

    • Andrew says:

      02:02pm | 28/06/11

      Come to Orange, there’s as huge cult here by way of the Plymouth Brethren or Featheries as they’re nicknamed.

    • Bob Timmins says:

      02:07pm | 28/06/11

      The primary definition of a cult is an organisation that unduly and selfishly manipluates others to it’s advantage and/or restrains the rights of those they manipulate..

      hey ! I think I just described the Federal ALP!!!

    • Nick42 says:

      03:39pm | 28/06/11

      And the Liberals and Nationals and the Greens and basically any political party

    • Carrot Curious says:

      02:20pm | 28/06/11

      I for one am sick of vegans trying to convert me, but I do enjoy their views on polygamy. Perhaps I can be brainwashed into eating a carrot?

    • Al says:

      02:23pm | 28/06/11

      This is really easy:
      EVERY religion is a CULT!
      Many ‘groups’ are also CULTS, for example Greenpeace, PETA, many political organisations.
      Actualy, almost anything can be branded as a cult - if you don’t believe what the majority say you SHOULD believe (not neccasarily what is true!) then you are branded as being acting in a manner suspicious of being a member of a cult.
      The cult of Recycling is a big one though.
      Almost everyone recycles and yet the ONLY item currently in the recycling system which SAVES money, energy and material is Aluminium, everything else costs more, uses more energy and produces inferior products than starting from scratch.
      That is a cult allright. A group which pushes a point of view despite massive evidence to the contrary and punishes people who don’t belive and follow their mantra!

    • Andrew Credit says:

      02:28pm | 28/06/11

      Why do you think the Hillsong church has become so big in Sydney? They are not even a real church and have duped followers for years without ever being prosecuted.

    • Concerned says:

      02:30pm | 28/06/11

      To take up incongruous 2nd last paragraph: There simply are not many religious organisations in Australia that exploit people emotionally, mentally, sexually, etc. Let’s get it into perspective without these baseless exaggerations. Let’s look to something that is in real need of reform - a profession with the highest rate of sexual abuse of their clients and mistreatment that rarely is defended properly as it is passed off as part of the “illness”. Once in the system, you cannot leave unless they give permission; they can lock you up and hold you against your will without a trial and label you;  you cannot choose your own treatment; they can enforce drugs on you that cause terrible side-effects; if you disagree you have few rights and they hold enormous say over you once labelled. They have connections to big drug companies which affect the impartiality of their studies. And worse than that, they self regulate and someone who would be labelled a rapist if in the judicial system, simply looses their license with a slap on the wrist. A case in point of someone with unbelievable power doing as he chooses and the Medical Board “may” investigate him is Graham Burrows who made headlines this past week which you can see here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/article/9690341/7news-exposes-medical-scandal/. It is an utter disgrace. The police & government should be all over this. I am talking about the cult of psychiatry - dressed up as authority and coming to a school near you to label and drug your children. Beware the brave new order like the U.S. where the police come and kick down your door with guns pointed if you defy a psychiatrist who says your child should be placed on drugs.

    • James says:

      09:57am | 29/06/11

      And how would you propose to treat people with a severe psychiatric illness? Or are you one of those people who refuse to believe that such illnesses are really illnesses? Lets not forget that Psychiatrists are some of the most highly educated people in the medical profession, with a very sound understanding of assessing and treating mental illness….

    • concerned says:

      02:18pm | 01/07/11

      James there are many good psychiatrists in this country who treat patients with a whole method approach and are not part of the diseased whole and are reforming it from within. We only really have one authorised approach in the law and it is not open for change unless they say so, despite rising amounts of mentally ill people and despite billions being given to them to fix it. Have you ever actually been inside a mental institution? Have you ever spoken to those who have spent time inside on an involuntary treatment order? it is not just a lack of money, it is a wrong solution. It can be terrifying the treatment they receive and it doesn’t have to be like that. They are already freaked out by what is happening to them. I know people who have had the door kicked in by police who throw them down, drug them forcibly and take them away like a common criminal and lock them up with no rights till they get a tribunal hearing. This should not be allowed. People going through a crisis need gentle and caring treatment in a safe place where they can be cared for without damaging treatment that is going to give them diabetes or extreme weight gain, and given time and assistance to sort out their problems. I know a psychiatrist who has his own clinic and takes in patients and puts them in care with no drugs and handles their true physical ills and other deficiencies and they get better and do not relapse. They don’t know what causes mental illness in fact so what makes them the authority anyway? They can’t cure it either they say. Just manage it for the rest of your life. And in countries where there is little treatment, people actually get better faster and stay better - there is an excellent WHO study about schizophrenics in some 3rd world nations as compared to so called advanced nations.

    • Andrew says:

      02:34pm | 28/06/11

      The difference between them is simple, the number of followers.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:53pm | 28/06/11

      All the criteria in the orginal article above are common to cults and religions.  THE ONLY THING religions have that cults don’t have, is recognition by the broader community.  Pretty much every religion started as something that could easily be defined as a cult.  Most cults in history failed, but some rose to become the most powerful organisations on earth.

      It has been said above - all you need to do is end tax exemption for the non-charitable parts of religion, and many cults will disappear.  Those that endure have just as much right to survive as any established religion.

      Where cults do bad things (abuse, deprivation of liberty, extortion), they should be pursued through existing laws, as should established churches.  This new move by Xenu-phon is just part of his ongoing campaign against Scientology.  I admit, Scientology is pretty bizarre, but so is the ritualised cannibalism of the Catholic Church.

    • Peter says:

      03:35pm | 28/06/11

      As the senior leader in a ‘not-for-profit’ religious organisation, I completely agree with @HappyCynic - any religious organisation that is making a profit should be taxed.

      In regards to the criteria provided to identify a cult - it is a little thin - I would say the strongest indicator would be whether or not that organisation encourages free-thought, personal application of principles taught and the empowering of the people rather then the empowering of a leader or organisation. Now this criteria could be applied to more then religious organisations.

    • Loxy says:

      04:39pm | 28/06/11

      I agree Peter! I think the issue with regards to tax is religion versus business. If an organisation is selling training courses, bookes, counselling etc and making large profits (like Scientology) then they are a business and not a religion. Although personally I think Scientology is also a cult and should be banned in this country, or at the very least taxed like any other business.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:42pm | 28/06/11

      By your Comment Just Saying’s it seems you are not a member of a Church who Loves the Lord or other Christians but perhaps you are right about some organised religions ripping off the system and taking away their tax exemption would no doubt cause them to either fold or put more monetary pressure on their members to provide the lost funds.

      Most genuine Christian Churches give a large percentage of their donations to Charities and Organisations helping the less fortunate all over the world and also sharing God’s Truth so others will learn just how much He Loves them, which means they will have His Hope and Joy and Peace, so taking away their tax exemption would mean they would not be able to help as many people as they do now but they would continue sacrifically. 

      As for labelling all Denominations of believers as once being part of a Cult only shows you have no understanding of what God calls His Church which is the Body of Christ and it has now and never had anything to do with the teaching that is in Cults,  which you would know if you were a believer and part of the Body of Christ and you would also understand what this means. 

      As for the Catholic Church and any other denomination,  if they teach the True Gospel even if you don’t believe it,  you have no right to slander them unless you can show just cause for what you claim,  but keep in mind, even if you have been hurt by some who professes to be Christian and if so I do feel for you,  I have been also,  but this does not mean all organised Churches what ever they are called are in error and you have no basis for claiming so,  the same as you wouldn’t label all Politian’s as corrupt or claim all Banking institutions rip you off.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Al says:

      05:50pm | 28/06/11

      And when you say ‘Teach the TRUE GOSPEL’ what are you refering too?
      Do the books of scriptures which were rejected as part of a commitee by the church part of the ‘True Gospel’ (those annoying ones which indicate that God was actualy Gods or that God was a woman)?
      And which parts of the Bible to you consider True and which Untrue (I don’t see many Christians going around killing Witches nowdays, or stoning their daughters for being harlots, both of which are part of the bible in its current form).

      Besides, I have every right to demand that the church provide evidence for their assertions, and at this point the amount of discrepancies show the bible to be false despite references to historical locations and figures.

      Even the Old Testament has been shown to be false on major points. There was never a country of people called Israelites untill a King proclaimed himself as lord and changed the name AFTER modifying their religion to create a unifying myth to consolidate HIS power. The Israelites actualy originated in Canine, making them Caninites, not Israelites.

      Sounds like YOU need to go and do some more research!

    • Just Sayin' says:

      06:12pm | 28/06/11

      Hi Anne, thanks for your your response!

      1st para: You’re completely right, I do not identify as a member of a church, though I was raised Anglican and have some experience of the church.  We certainly agree that there are people out there who use religion to cheat people out of the money, and I grant that these people are not acting in their spirit of their religion, but abusing it for their own ends.

      2nd para: I’m not sure what a ‘genuine’ christian church is, but you miss my point.  I suggested that they keep a tax exemption for their charitable activities, but for others. This should prevent profiteering, without preventing them from helping the poor and vulnerable.  Win-win.  By the way, I find the statement “God’s Truth” to be offensive, as it is a directly calls into question the veracity of my (non)religious views.  By calling it truth, you are implying that anything else is a lie.  Very offensive. Calling people who share my views liars borders on religious vilification.

      3rd para:  I can only understand the religion if I am part of it?  That sounds pretty cultish to me.  “You don;t understand, you’re not one of us, we alone know the truth”. Christianity itself started a s sect within judaism and was thrown out for heresy - heresy being unorthodox beliefs - unorthodox beliefs being a pretty common feature in cults.  You shouldn’t see this as an insult, it’s just the way it is. Great philosphers like socrates have been accused of corrupting the youth, and I guess in a sense he was corrupting them, by changing their views.  Nonetheless, we are better off for his wisdom.

      4th para:  I’ve not slandered anyone.  Given that I am writing, not talking, libel would be a better accusation.  But even that doesn’t hold up, as I did not level any criticism against any religion in my post.  I claimed that their origin is quite indistinguishable from the origin of a cult, and I presented reasons why.  Rebut or GTFO.  I also said I find Catholicism pretty bizarre, another non-prejudicial statement of fact.  I never said they are in error, but I personally reject their belief systems, just as you reject the belief systems of all religions but one.  I’ve not been hurt by the church in any way that I recall, but thanks for your concern.

      Peace be with you.  (the concept I like most from christianity)

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:01pm | 28/06/11

      Dear Just Saying,  my comments stand,  you do not know the difference between a Cult and the Body of Christ and yes there were Cults at the same time the early Church started but they were not Christian and like today and right through the ages were very different to our Christian denominations, they preached a false Christ and they still do today.

      In reference to God’s Truth I find it very strange that you reject this as the Scriptures refer to it all the time,  as for non religious views you need to read up on what Jesus Christ said about them, or don’t you believe in Him.

      Sorry but what ever religion you are it does not appear to be Christian.  As for understanding Christianity and I did not say religion you can’t unless you believe in it’s founder the Head of His Church Jesus Christ and believe in Him as your Lord and Saviour and as part of The Godhead or as it is called today The Trinity,  that is Christian teaching not what Cults teach.. it would help you if you had more understanding of what a Cult is instead of labelling all denominations from coming from them .

      As for God’s Peace you can’t experience it unless you are Born again of God’s seed 1 John 3: 1-11 those verses are in the Bible just in case you were not aware. 

      Take Care Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:24pm | 28/06/11

      Not sure where you are getting you facts from Al but I would guess Atheists,  you have very little understanding of the Scriptures not all of which is the Gospels,  you also do not seem to be aware that they are confirmed as a reliable source in regard to Secular History. As for your understanding about the Israelites I think you better do more research.

      Sorry Al but you can not really comment on what you don’t understand and you don’t understand the God of the Bible or you would believe His Word and just so you know,  no part of the Bible has ever been found to be in error or to have contradictions only by those who have no understanding because they are worldly or natural which is explained below in the Scriptures…

      1 Corinthians 2: 14 -15 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Chris L says:

      10:51pm | 28/06/11

      @Anne - you seem a kind and decent person so I ask you not to take my counters as a personal affront.

      “you have no right to slander them” -  The use of slander makes the subject sound extreme, but the truth is that we simply question the validity of the claims. If this falls within your definition of “slander” what do you think of the assertion that non-believers go to hell to be tortured (at God’s will) for eternity? The fact is that religion is no more immune from scrutiny and criticism than politics or any other opinion.

      In regards to your concern that taxes would deprive religions of their ability to perform charitable works, I think charity should be tax free, which it is at the moment. If the funds meant for charity are withheld by a religion because it suddenly has to pay tax (give the Emperor his due!) then that is a business decision.

      Perhaps those extra taxes will go toward welfare and other such government assistance aimed at the needy (we get what we vote for!).

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:55am | 29/06/11

      Hi Chris L, I’m sorry if I missed your post when I was checking last night although it could have just come through this morning. I don’t always have time to respond to all personal posts as they are posted but I do try later but with some I don’t bother because they are just attacks and have no real substance. 

      Thank you for your kind words they were appreciated but as I’m not perfected yet,  although as we are asked to do as Christians I am aiming for it,  but for now I sometimes do and say things that I regret and of which I repent of and apologise for.

      I don’t really take to heart what anyone says about me personally I know I’m a person of worth and I believe they are also,  but I do feel hurt when they put God and Christians down as a whole,  and this is because they have no real understanding.  I wouldn’t accuse every one who is an unbeliever of deliberately hurting others and yet they label all Christens of being corrupt or even one Denomination as being so perhaps there are some that are but this does not mean all are.

      As for understanding God’s Truth I am still learning but what He has already shown me and confirmed I have no doubts about,  or do I doubt that I have His wisdom which I asked Him for and received.

      As for saying ...Non Believers are going to Hell if they remain as such to death… this is God’s Truth and so it is not slander,  sadly they are choosing this destiny for themselves,  it is not God’s will that anyone perish,  meaning they will be eternally separated from His Love and Care and so He has provided a way out for everyone and has made it very clear in the Scriptures and yes also the alternative… see below +++

      The word Slander means…. words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another.

      This is why God’s Truth is not slander… IT IS THE TRUTH… He is not a liar and all Scripture is inspired by Him.

      When I share about God to others I try to major on His Love and forgiveness as He asks us to but He also tells us to warn others and if we really care about them we will and as we are to Love even those who call us their enemies,  then they need to know the danger they are in too.

      If you have Children Chris or even someone you love and you saw them walking towards a dangerous cliff unawares,  would you not try to get their attention and warn them…. yes it is always their choice if they listen and if not they will fall to their death.

      As for taxes,  who do you think started the Welfare systems and also Schools, Hospitals, Aged care, Palliative care, Mental care etc and even the Legal system.  please research the History of the Church you don’t have to take my word for it and today genuine Churches who Love The Lord and His people continue world wide care of those in need. 

      Christians do I appreciate those who are unbelievers and who give from their own resources to help others as they do, but please remember that most Christians also pay taxes which support those in our welfare systems today but then they continue to give sacrificially on a regular basis also,  so yes they are giving to Cesar as the Scriptures tell us to do but they are also doing much more then most secular people to help those in need personally and as a Church and they are doing it freely from the heart, those who are not might just as well not bother because it is just worldly works. 

      +++ John 3:16-18 For God so Loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

    • Chris L says:

      10:57am | 29/06/11

      @Anne - thank you for your response. There are two further points I would like to make, and to hear (read) your take on them.

      The first is that I was already aware that the welfare now offered by government began as religious charity (for which I have great respect). This was because it was the church (or other religious insitutions in other countries) that had the resources and the intent. This has now been taken up by government because we, the people, agree that it should be available to all citizens and without any pressure to follow any doctrine apart from the rule of law.

      I believe charity should be given to those in need regardless of their personal beliefs (as long as they are no threat to others) and that there should be no pressure or even encouragement (a mild form of pressure) to join any particular belief system.

      If one provides assistance with the expectation that the recipient should become indoctrinated then it is not charity, it is providing a service in return for payment (a barter in this case as cash is not used).

      My second point is that you don’t consider telling people they are destined for hell is slander because the bible says so. I accept that you believe the bible without question, but those of us who are not christian obviously do not consider the bible to be true (In a literal sense. There are some ideas in the bible that I like and try to incoporate in my life).

      In a scientific discussion this problem is settled by examining the evidence, but this is not possible in a theological discussion as there is no evidence. What little has been previously offered as proof of a god has already been explained by our burgeoning understanding of physics, biology and the universe around us.

      To me, the bible is simply a story with the same veracity as Homer’s Iliad or Mallory’s Mort D’Arthur. As there is no way (currently) to establish your faith as true and verifyable that makes any assertion of a hellish fate slander. Simply put, I don’t think it’s true and I wonder at the effrontery of people making such assertions with no evidence that they are correct in the first place.

      As before, this is not intended as a personal attack, but I do think that religion should be open to scrutiny and criticism if it is to be considered a valid representation of our existence.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:08pm | 28/06/11

      Sorry Chris L , Nathin is correct and you are wrong,  Evolution Scientists still have no understanding of how the Universe first started yes they have theories but they have not been proven,  some talk about the Big bang but can’t explain how something can come from nothing and even though they have tried to create life from nothing they have not been able to.

      You said Chris L Abiogenesis theorises that amino acids and then primitive cells could have formed in the elements of primordial Earth (and laboratory experiments have already succeeded in creating amino acids from non-living elements that would have been present at the time).

      Where did not earth come from in the first place and also the non-living elements,  this is what Evolution Scientists have no proven facts to substantiate their beliefs .

      I feel Chris L you need to do some more research and ask the right questions,  you are inded being deceived by the Cult of Evolution.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Matt says:

      04:49pm | 28/06/11

      Wow Anne, you are an amazing hypocrite if you think evolution has insufficient evidence, compared to any religion which requires people to believe in MAGIC.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      05:51pm | 28/06/11

      You are completely right Anne, evolutionary biologists have NO IDEA how the universe or the earth came into existence.  That’s possibly because they are biologists and it is completely outside of their area of expertise.  I wouldn’t get my PC fixed by a mechanic, and I wouldn’t look to biologists to explain the formation of the universe.

    • Nathin says:

      05:57pm | 28/06/11

      Just to add also, Abiogenesis experiments have never produced anything that could be made into life.
      1. Abiogenesis experiments only theorise what elements were present in the version of history that Biological Evolutionists claim.
      2. Abiogenesis experiments have technicians involved, hence, this isn’t observed in it’s supposed natural state, ie. they aren’t random events.
      3. These experiments have produced acids, but they’re highly toxic acids and any non toxic amino acids that may or may not result from the experiment are instantly destroyed by the toxic amino acids.
      Conclusion - Chris L did not evolve from rock.

    • Jason Todd says:

      01:53pm | 29/06/11

      Anne, I was sort of on your side until you called evolution a cult. Evolution is no more of a cult than any other branch of science. If you are going to stand and say that all branches of science are cults, then I suggest you reevaluate what constitutes a cult.

      Evolution has been proven (time and time, and time again). Having said that, the actual science of evolution in no way procludes a divine creation, unless you choose to take a literal intepretation of the Bible to look at it that way.

    • Chris L says:

      06:20pm | 29/06/11

      @Nathin

      1. We have a good idea of what elements were present in primordial Earth as these have been found trapped in rocks dating from that era. It’s more than a guess.
      2. Are you saying that laboratory experiments are pointless or that they shouldn’t be conducted by technicians? Would you consider it more viable for you and the next fifty thousand generations following you to subtley observe methane in the wild to see if amino acids form?
      3. Where did you read that the amino acids were unable to create life? I will link one report of such a successful experiment below. Feel free to have a read.

      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

      Lastly I never said we evolved from rocks. You deliberately misreprented me and I think that counts as bearing false witness, don’t you?

      On the other hand your bible says humans were created out of dirt. If you were trying to make the ideas of abiogenesis and evolution sound silly, you kicked an own goal there.

    • Cly says:

      04:10pm | 28/06/11

      I find the belief in the Christian god bizzare.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:06pm | 28/06/11

      Sorry that you do Cly but the alternitive has no foundation and will crumble and what you will experience will be more then bizzare.

      Perhaps you need to do some outward searching so you will have understanding and not be so confused.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Matt says:

      04:41pm | 28/06/11

      The real difference between cults and mainstream religion?  Size.  Catholocism qualifies in every way to be a cult, except it is too big.  A cult by definition has a small but dedicated following - mainstream religions are simply bigger.  Tax exemption based on belief in supernatural powers just beggars belief.

    • Jimmy says:

      04:45pm | 28/06/11

      Cults are just unsuccessful religions. Religions are successful cults. One and the same.

    • scumbag says:

      04:53pm | 28/06/11

      Cults and religions are virtually the same thing, i.e, consisting of a leader, his/her minions, and a group of followers. None is without “sin”. The biggest and more recognizable ones, are proven to be capabable of the most abhorrent practices against the most vunerable of their flock, the children. A curse on all of them, but a blessing on those with a divine necessity to feed their souls in order to carry out good works.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:59pm | 28/06/11

      Not sure what ‘not-for-profit’ religious organisation you are involved in but it seems not to be a Christian one or you would know who the Leader really is and it is not a man it’s Jesus Christ,  He is the Head of His Body the Church and it’s His guidelines we live by and organise the Church by.

      As for Cults,  their teaching a false Gospel which anyone who is not a Christian would not understand and the Scriptures tell us how to recognise them.

      It also seems you have no understanding why main line Churches have Tax exemptions, it is because they are non profit,  their donations no doubt like yours are used to keep the Ministries of the Church going as well as supporting other originations who help people,  but perhaps you are not paid, well nor am I or are many others evolved in Ministry in the Churches but we often need resources to keep our Ministries going,  like food or clothing,  material for Sunday Schools or Money for those in need and many other things that are not donated,  yes we also pay a Pastor who has Authority over all the Ministries in the Church and organises what is needed as well as sharing God’s Truth but often their wages don’t cover the basics and a lot have jobs as well.

      It would help if your focus was not limited just to your own religion and you took the time to learn more about other Denominations,  yes some do spend on big Churches but many don’t and even those who do it is often because they need someplace big enough for their Congregations,  homes can not always accommodate the members,  which is how the Church as we know it started in the first place they use to meet in homes but in the end the number of Christians made this impossible if they wanted to worship together.

      In the Church I was a member of before I moved,  they needed a Church built as our membership was growing and the School hall where we were meeting was presenting problems. A Ministry called Mobil Mission which Trades people organise,  donated their time and ability to build our Church and our Members did the Labour and some other Churches gave material and money as well as their time to help build it,  also many of the woman helped to provide refreshments and did the not so heavy or skilled work and so we had a Church.

      Don’t be so interior looking   ‘not-for-profit’  - Kind regards Anne

    • Ekendra says:

      05:33pm | 28/06/11

      Not sure if anyone has yet observed that “Nick Xenophon” sounds like a name that a UFO cult leader could have made up for himself.

      “Xenophon will now see you.”

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      06:19pm | 28/06/11

      in Australia, since 26 January 1788 when White ant invasion occurred, every family have been a cult, every pub has been a cult, and every school or every workplace has been a cult.
      They call it culture.

    • Cam says:

      11:02am | 29/06/11

      Racist much?

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      06:22pm | 28/06/11

      dads like mums who reveal their cult status and their cults.

    • Ben H says:

      06:35pm | 28/06/11

      Why concentrate on small fish? What about the Satanic cult that runs the world from the shadows, Mr. Xenophon? Or do they own your soul too?

    • lesley laurel says:

      06:50pm | 28/06/11

      women have cults.
      men are cult busters.

    • Dark Horse says:

      06:58pm | 28/06/11

      An excellent article. From a practical point of view, I’d like to see all taxation exemptions lifted from so-called religious organisations as I don’t think the few of us who are left who pay tax should provide eg, GST exempt wine for catholic priests (or anyone else for that matter). Charitable entities that are religious or otherwise based could be given GST or other relief if and only if they were separate legal entities from religious elements.

      Provided they were given no taxation advantages or benefits in determining government policy etc, the adherents of religions can believe in any nonsense they wish to provided they didn’t break the law eg, by having sex with minors, honor killing etc.

      Who cares what they believe or what they do provided it doesn’t offend?

    • RC Henry says:

      07:14pm | 28/06/11

      Religion is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind and many people at still too deluded to realise it.

      One day, hopefully, the world will be free of the shackles of religion.

    • andre says:

      07:36am | 29/06/11

      I wonder if you are a Darwinist. They claim that religion evolved as a evolutionary advantage or adaptation. The word “adaptation” is used by Darwinist to explain design in nature,  by the way. So it is perfectly OK to say in Darwinist’s terms that you brain is adapted to thinking and giving direction to the body at the same time, not to mention adaptation to process vast amount of data in order to do that.
      It ssems sir , that you are “evolving” into wrong direction , wanting to be free from the shackles of religion Am I wrong ?

    • Frank says:

      10:15am | 29/06/11

      “Are you a darwinist?” We get a choice? I would like a choice but really there is only one serious theory. So yes, we’re all Darwinists. Oh you think there’s another serious option? Seriously? Name another real theory.

    • Michael says:

      10:54am | 29/06/11

      Frank, not that i believe it but i think “Intelligent Design” has been held up as another theory. The theory is one that exists so it’s “real” in that sense, the details of validity, peer review or even truth i will leave to you.

    • Chris L says:

      02:14pm | 29/06/11

      @Michael - To be upgraded to a theory in the scientific sense there would have to be a great deal of evidence to support it. At present the idea of Intelligent Design is a hypothesis with no greater validation than colonisation by Xenu.

      That would explain why you don’t believe in it.

    • Michael says:

      02:40pm | 29/06/11

      Ahh, thank you for the clarification smile

    • alastair says:

      07:25pm | 28/06/11

      obviously hasn’t read the Australian constitution saying no laws in regards to religion

    • andre says:

      07:35pm | 28/06/11

      Trendy artilcle on the entry level so to speak, entry to the future of busting of all religions and unifying them into one world religion. We hear quite often about 2 other columns of New World Order: one world economy and one world government. In the mean time “interfaith” meeting are happening all over the world. Religious leaders call for sharing in religious traditions to achieve common destiny , as all religions are proclaimed equally valid o do so.
      One world religion devised by men excludes God’s religion of Biblical Christianity preaching Christ as a world Creator and savior and will unify the whole world against Him.

      Rev 16:16 And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. ....

    • muddabikes says:

      05:35pm | 01/07/11

      Oh cool, a biblical reference as validation.
      Must be true then.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:44pm | 28/06/11

      Cly says:04:10pm | 28/06/11I find the belief in the Christian god bizzare.

      Sorry that you do Cly but the alternitive has no foundation and will crumble and what you will experience will be more then bizzare.

      Perhaps you need to do some outward searching so you will have understanding and not be so confused.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Lloyd says:

      08:20pm | 28/06/11

      I could probably be talked into joining a cult. I am a young man with no significant other, am pretty lonely,don’t really have any direction and I don’t feel like I fit into society. I will accept all reasonable offers.Hell, I’ll accept any offers.

    • Chris L says:

      11:11pm | 28/06/11

      Lloyd, get thyself a PC and join Star Wars The Old Republic when it is released this year (maybe next). This cult will have as much benefit to you as any other and it’ll be fun too!

    • Cult of Personality says:

      06:28am | 29/06/11

      Apparently David Koresh (Waco) was also a cult leader.  US Federal authorities went in and one of the (multiple) reasons claimed for doing so was to save the chridren (from abuse) at the compound. The sad irony was though,  that the authorities with no jurisdiction who went in to save the children, actually gased and burnt down the compound using Military arsonal with the children still inside, although this was denied. However, the local sheriff had already conducted an investigation into child abuse and found no evidence whatsoever, nor any illegal firearms. Yes, cults can be dangerouis but so can the truth.

    • Bevan of Qld says:

      08:12am | 29/06/11

      Tax them all

    • Human says:

      09:29am | 29/06/11

      Society in itsself is a delusional cult controlled by media. Xenophon is the best last name. People can believe whatever they want to believe, in the end, when they die, it doesnt matter what they believe.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:01pm | 29/06/11

      So Human have you died yet ???????????


      Kind regards Anne

    • Rev. Chain Smerker says:

      09:33am | 29/06/11

      I have been a member of a cult called the Church of the SubGenius for quite some time and the Church I belong too happily pays its taxes and is a for profit religion, probably the only honest religion in this history of the human race.

      I say tax em all and let “Bob” sort em out.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:59am | 29/06/11

      Hi Rev. Chain Smerker,  I believe your Church Doctrine states your foundation was established by a comet made by Dobbs that inspired L. Ron Hubbard to create his own Cult when he remarked to him that the general public may be pink, “but their money is green”.

      In a manner that mocks the nature of many non-profit religious organizations, your SubGenius Church is known for blatant appeals for money from believers and non-believers alike.

      Also your Church describes its philosophy in the following manner:

      The Church Of The SubGenius is an order of Scoffers and Blasphemers, dedicated to Total Slack, delving into Mockery Science, Sadofuturistics, Megaphysics, Scatalography, Schizophreniatrics, Morealism, Sarcastrophy, Cynisacreligion, Apocolyptionomy, ESPectorationalism, Hypno-Pediatrics, Subliminalism, Satyriology, Disto-Utopianity, Sardonicology, Fascetiouism, Ridiculophagy, and Miscellatheistic Theology. The Book of the SubGenius, page 5

      Tthe Church’s ideology. portrays itself as an organization for “mutants, blasphemers, disbelievers, rebels, outcasts, hackers, freethinkers,” and people who generally consider themselves outside the “mainstream” of society. The organization is widely seen as a satire that mocks organized religion, or as the church describes itself, “a cynisacreligion.” Its members are called a “SubGenius”, the plural of which is “SubGenii”.

      Your Church also claims that true SubGenii are not actually human but descendants of the Yeti. According to Revelation X: The ‘Bob’ Apocryphon (published in 1994), SubGenii are actually the mutant offspring of a forbidden sexual union that took place millions of years ago between a resident of Atlantis and a human;

      I think that is enough for me,  yes you are very much a Cult but perhaps even other Cults would reject your philosophy as genuine or productive even if they are also deceived.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Frank says:

      10:27am | 29/06/11

      There never was a Jesus. There is no God. All religious people are blind, scared, deluded or just plain kidding themselves. Getting a little tired of the lack of progress in this area. Stop pretending that there is someone here to help. Ditch God and accept responsibility for your life and this world.  Hurry up, youre all so slow.

    • doctrinal says:

      10:43am | 29/06/11

      You’re pretending the cosmos came to being by accident, resting on the work of God on Earth, enjoying it all.  This is absolute slow-mindedness.

    • James says:

      10:50am | 29/06/11

      Mainstream historians would disagree. The fact is Jesus was a true historical figure, this is well accepted in the peer reviewed, scholarly literature.
      If you don’t believe this fact, by default you must also believe that many other ancient historical figures (some of them very prominent leaders) did not exist.
      There is less evidence for their existence than there is for Jesus.
      Guess you’ve got some catching up to do!

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:20am | 29/06/11

      I’m going to ask you Frank the same thing that I asked RC Henry and will with anyone else who claims what you have.

      In regard to your statement where do you get your confirmation and what proof do you have that what you are saying is True,  just because you think it is that way,  does not make it so.

      Many believe in Evolution and the Big bang yet they have not been confirmed,  Evolution Scientists don’t know how something came from nothing,  although they have tried to evolve it but have failed so this means they have no real proof for what they propagate .

      So in regard to your statement below Frank where do you get your confirmation and what proof do you have that what you are saying is True,  just because you think it is that way,  does not make it so.

      Many believe in Evolution and the Big bang yet they have not been confirmed,  Evolution Scientists don’t know how something came from nothing,  although they have tried to evolve it but have failed so this means they have no real proof for what they propagate .

      So let me ask you Frank when was the last time you created life, what about a pet Dog or Cat or are you a Bird lover or is it flowers for you, whatever it is get a saucer and try to create whatever you choose from nothing.

      Man has tried for years but they still have to start with something that is alive like an embryo or a cell etc ... nothing comes from nothing.

      Only God can create life and only He ever could or will ever be able to.

      It is your choice if you want to believe in nothing Frank it seems to me it must take a lot of faith to do so and effort to reject all the evidence for God of the Bible .... a thought just come to me ...something will come from it but that will be ...... nothing good.

      You said….  All religious people are blind, scared, deluded or just plain kidding themselves well perhaps some are but you need to do some reserch into Christianty,  you may be very surprised or you may not it’s always your choice if you continue to believe in nothing .

      Please let me remind you Frank that unless you have proof what you believe is True,  then it is you who are deluded.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • doctrinal says:

      11:25am | 29/06/11

      Who are these mainstream historians you blindly follow…in blind faith.  I guess one can choose ideas with mental passiveness, without doing the homework to objectively check out the ‘factual evidence’, before utilising such tools to counter theological/Scriptural themes.  You cannot say, “historians must be right, because they said so, and have checked everything out”, etc..  It’s a kind of hasty way of thinking: look for those who counter the Faith, then use these thoughts against those who have rigorously studied/checked out Scriptures and secular evidences.

    • Frank says:

      12:15pm | 29/06/11

      HI James,

      Im going to need a reference. I wont know where to start looking. The only books Ive read say theres practically no evidence for jesus. Please could you recommend a book? Thanks.

    • Frank says:

      12:27pm | 29/06/11

      Ok doc,

      If God made the whole cosmos, why did bother to make so much of it if it was just going to be left empty? As far as we can tell, we are the only living things in the entire universe, so why make an entire universe? We cant even see 99.9999999% of it without some technology that God didnt give us. So without us evolving giant brains to develope space telescopes it may have well have never have existed at all! So what is it there for? I cant wait to ask God, but he’d better not say “oh all that universe stuff!? dont worry about all that, it doenst do anything, its just all left over stuff from when i super efficiently and perfectly created everything. Right here on earth and your lame human condition, thats where its at mate” Gotta hand it to that God guy, he likes to make things confusing.

    • James says:

      09:42pm | 29/06/11

      Hi Frank,

      I hope you find this reply. A good place to start is a book called “The Christ Files” by Dr John Dickson.
      He is a Christian historian from Macquarie University. By no means is the book itself a scholarly work but it is a very good introduction into the area and throughout he references other works for you to look into further if it is of interest.
      Website here: http://johndickson.org/
      Cheers
      James

    • doctrinal says:

      10:29am | 29/06/11

      Any religion that is not centered on Holy Bible is a cult

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:45pm | 29/06/11

      Hi doctrinal I respect your stand for God’s word and yes I agree with you a Cult does not know God’s Truth in the Scriptures they can’t… see below

      1 Corinthians 2: 14 - 16 But the natural man received not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.or who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? but we have the mind of Christ.

      2 Corinthians 4: 3 -4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

      I also would like to confirm that Historians do a lot of research into the History of mankind and in many cases affirm the recordings of the Bible but I would also agree with you doctrinal if they claimed anything that refuted the Scriptures in regard to the events that God asked man to record, I would reject them nothing can contradict the Scriptures and still be feasible such as the earth being billons of years old,  but sadly even some Christians doubt God’s Truth in Creation and believe in Evolution because they are deceived,  it is a Cult in it’s own way and used by Satan to blind them to the Truth in Christ Jesus.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:32am | 29/06/11

      It seems Scooter you are not understanding,  for a start just because some people think Christians are a Cult does not mean they are,  just the same as if some people may think you are a Christian it doesn’t mean you are one and as we know your not at because what you write makes that very clear but that does not mean you will always be that way.

      In reference to the Scriptures you also need to do more research the Gospels were written 40 years after Jesus’ death and the Epistles or letters very soon after Jesus died or within some of the Disciples life time, yes they were Canonised much latter,  but at the time of writing and after,  they were shared amongst the Christians and passed on and on,  most of the Christians knew them word for word as some even do today in Australia and other Countries. Most of the writers were eye witnesses to the events of Jesus Birth, Death, and Resurrection and over 500 people saw Jesus after He was resurrected from the Dead,  if this was not true they would have said what was written at that time were lies and do you honestly believe Christians at that time would willingly die for a pack of lies.

      The events recorded in Scripture are also confirmed in Secular History including facts about Jesus Christ, also the Scriptures we have today both Old and New Testaments are considered a good source of Historical events because of their authenticity.

      Also as a reminder I have addressed what is and what is not a Cult Scooter in another post but unless you are a Christian you would have no understanding. Whatever you have researched it has not been what God calls His Church which is the Body of Christ.
      I would suggest you do some more research about what it means to be a Christian and what Denominations confirm God’s Truth about The Godhead or Trinity as it is called today meaning 3 in one and you may be surprised to find that most Denominations today who believe in the Godhead are not and have never been Cults…. as I said before you don’t have to believe me do some research and not just depend on guess work or others people’s worldly or Secular understanding.
      Kind Regards Anne

    • Frankie says:

      10:42am | 29/06/11

      Charitable works are the last remaining (poor) excuse the religious use to justify their existence.  Non-believers are capable of generosity and there are many secular charities.

      Religious charity only sprung up when burning atheists as ‘heretics’ was not longer acceptable and the religious had to find something else to do.

    • Big Vee says:

      10:53am | 29/06/11

      Tax them all and tax them hard true religion wouldnt worry about such things as paying a little extra tax. Everyone has to pay tax.

    • old codger says:

      11:02am | 29/06/11

      Bring on the Cultbusters and get rid these Phoney Cult Bludgers.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:02am | 29/06/11

      So in regard to your statement below where RC Henry do you get your confirmation and what proof do you have that what you are saying is True,  just because you think it is that way,  does not make it so.

      Many believe in Evolution and the Big bang yet they have not been confirmed,  Evolution Scientists don’t know how something came from nothing,  although they have tried to evolve it but have failed so this means they have no real proof for what they propagate .

      So let me ask you RC Henry when was the last time you created life, what about a pet Dog or Cat or are you a Bird lover or is it flowers for you, whatever it is get a saucer and try to create whatever you choose from nothing.

      Man has tried for years but they still have to start with something that is alive like an embryo or a cell etc ... nothing comes from nothing.

      Only God can create life and only He ever could or will ever be able to.

      It is your choice if you want to believe in nothing RC Henry it seems to me it must take a lot of faith to do so and effort to reject all the evidence for God of the Bible .... a thought just come to me ...something will come from it but that will be ...... nothing good.

      You said…. Religion is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind and many people at still too deluded to realise it. One day, hopefully, the world will be free of the shackles of religion.

      Please let me remind you RC Henry unless you have proof what you believe is True then it is very much a Hoax.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      11:57am | 29/06/11

      Anne of the endless posts - I’m sure you made some sort of novel point somewhere.  Equally sure I’m not convinced by this kind of blind-belief drivel.
      Basically, your beliefs are your beliefs - ever stopped to wonder why you have a need to force them down everyone else’s throats?  And take so goddamned long to do it?

    • doctrinal says:

      12:11pm | 29/06/11

      I agree, Anne. The belief in evolution is a faith and far-fetched, for that matter.  People place their faith in something that is not proven, for such is only a THEORY.

    • Cam says:

      12:41pm | 29/06/11

      There is a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that evolution happened, and is happening.  Fossil record, bacteria that grow resistent to antibiotics etc.  Please show me as much evidence that Adam and Eve popped into existence?  If you expect evidence for scientific theories can you not apply the same rigor to your own theories?

      As science understands the universe, gaps in this knowledge closed and parts of the bible become irrelavent and your god shrinks.  Also as education of a population belief in the supernatural decreases.

      There is just as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for the muliple gods of other religions, exising or extinct.  Sorry.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      01:39pm | 29/06/11

      Please show me Cam the Evidence… first for Evolution that you claim is happening today and is proven to be True and that proves nothing can come from nothing which is what Evolutions foundation is…

      Only God can create life as Evolution Scientist found out ....

      No part of the Bible has been proven irrelevant as you claim if you believe this is not true then quote the Scriptures that have been done away with,  yes some were no longer applicable when the new Covenant in Christ Jesus was established, such as the Law but they are still important,  they show when we sin.

      You have very little if any understanding about the Scriptures or the God they proclaim,  you need to do some research first into the History of Mankind even using Secular History and then you need to seek humbly to understand the God that you are shrinking away from.

      As for other gods they are all dead or dying,  they have no power only the power to deceive.  God tells us there is only one God and that He is a Godhead 3 in one or as they call Them today The Trinity.

      Dose God exist, what does He say ....

      Romans 1:19-21 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

      Which means the very fact that you are writing posts proves God the Creator exists. 

      Sorry Cam as I said to RC Henry and Frank without evidence that what you believe is real then you are like them deceived by a Hoax or the Cult of Evolution.

      Take Care Kind regards Anne.

    • Paulb says:

      02:00pm | 29/06/11

      A christian asking for evidence?  That’s rich.  Sorry Anne but it appears your blind, irrational beliefs are fixed, rusted on, unbreakable.  No amount of evidence will work for you because you ultimately have no use for it.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:04pm | 29/06/11

      Dear Godfrey Zohn ’ Perhaps you haven’t anything worthwhile to share I have…

      Your Creator,  He is Awesome and I just can’t stop sharing about Him but perhaps with you it’s footy or cars or what???????.

      But be asured I won’t worry if you don’t read my posts and I don’t think I will really loose any sleep either .

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      02:07pm | 29/06/11

      Anne - Please refer to the 20+ year study completed by Richard Lenski and team at Michigan State University demonstrating bacterial evolution across 50,000 generations.
      Similarly, in this week’s New Scientist there are a series of articles detailing experiments handling the subject of evolution, including a short term study demonstrating the evolution of multicellularity in yeast.

      Doctrinal - You are absolutely correct. Everything that is a theory is yet to be proven and is therefore a cult. Including, but not limited to: the germ theory of disease, cell theory and the atomic theory of matter. Clearly anyone who believes that germs cause disease, organisms are made up of cells and matter is made up of atoms are members of a cult and should be treated as such. People who place their faith in such unproven ‘theories’ are misled and should be punished. I refer you to the above study for experimental demonstration of evolution, and many many other scientific studies about disease to demonstrate germ theory.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      02:15pm | 29/06/11

      OK let’s look at Anne’s own words here.

      “Please let me remind you…unless you have proof what you believe is true then it is very much a hoax”, and
      “without evidence that what you believe is real you are like them deceived by a hoax or the cult of Evolution”.

      Now I know there’s no real point trying to educate those who have become so imprisoned by belief systems - but anyway…(sigh)...

      Can you not see that those quotes apply to your beliefs in your god,  just as much?

      And BTW having people typing responses to your posts doesn’t prove your god exists.  It provides evidence that people who can type, exist.

      There’s more evidence for evolution than for your god.  End of Story. Have an ethical day.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:58pm | 29/06/11

      Godfrey Zohn ... I wouldn’t have to write so many posts if those like you read what I have already answered before,  instead of asking the same questions.

      I suggest you read my other posts,  that will cut down my writing so instead of trying to educate those who have become so imprisoned by their own belief systems which they can’t prove,  I can attend to my other responsibilities,  not that I don’t take this one seriously - but anyway…(sigh)...…(sigh)...…(sigh)...…(sigh)...…(sigh)...…(sigh)...…(sigh)...

      Short enough - Kind regards Anne.

      P.S Do you know Godfrey how the Coca bean originated ? where it came from ?  not meaning which Country but how it came into existence, did it just suddenly appear ? you know they make Sinkers and Mars bars etc from it.

    • Bob says:

      03:14pm | 29/06/11

      In this day and age I genuinely find it interesting that supposedly intelligent people believe in fairy tales. It’s 2011, not 0011.

      Anne = logic fail. Something can’t be created from nothing, right? Then who or what created your god?

      When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods and mythologies, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:16pm | 29/06/11

      Really Paulb, so please explain why ever since I started posing on Punch others have asked me for evidence of God but even when I have shared it,  they reject it,  so do you think they are like you shared and perhaps have the same beliefs as you which means they are ...

      blind, irrational beliefs which are fixed, rusted on, unbreakable.  No amount of evidence will work for you or them because you and them ultimately have no use for it.

      And that sadly is because you and them have been blinded by something you can’t prove either,  but is a reality and unlike God hates you and wants to destroy you,  it’s your choice God Loves you and does not want you or anyone to perish.

      Kind regards Anne.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      03:23pm | 29/06/11

      Thanks Anne for your thoughtful response to my post.

      “perhaps you haven’t anything worthwhile to share, I have”
      Sorry, incorrect on both counts.

      And whether I’m into footy or cars?  Relevance?

      Your sleeping habits are as uninteresting to me as your beliefs - but if you want to describe them, the word is “lose” - as in “no gain/not winning”, rather than “loose” (something needs tightening).  In the interests of literacy, here’s a little quote which might help you remember:
      “If you have a screw loose, you might lose the argument”

      BTW thanks for responding in less than 1000 words, see if you can keep up the good work there…

    • Anne Stocks says:

      03:32pm | 29/06/11

      Hi Jason Todd please refer to the Bible it has a much older and firmer foundation then a 20+ year study which once again has no explanation how something came from nothing ...nothing comes from nothing now that has been Proven and also that only God can create Life and He created you and whether you believe in Him or not you are answerable to Him.

      As I said before some things in Evolution gel with Creation but they prove Creation not Evolution ... a few links for you…

      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org
      http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/

      I have things to do but will be posting again tomorrow see you then maybe.

      King regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:00pm | 29/06/11

      Haven’t we meet before Bob or is that just a line that Atheists use… so do you believe in other god’s, can you see evidence around you of their existence. 

      Anne = logic fail. Something can’t be created from nothing, right? Then who or what created your God?

      Why Don’t you ask Him - Let me show you first what He says about you…

      Romans 1:19-21 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

      Which means the very fact that you are writing posts and reading mine proves God the Creator exists but you are blinded and can’t see Him .

      God is eternal He always was and always will be, He is not a vacuum or nothing,  He has substance and power and a Holy Godly Nature,  He is Love.

      Unlike other gods you can see His reality everywhere,  if you have eyes to see and ears to hear .

      By the way God was never alone He is part of the Godhead or as They are called today The Trinity and they also are eternal. He chose to create us and it’s your choice whether you believe it or not but you are accountable to God regardless, 

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      04:06pm | 29/06/11

      Anne - The problem I have with the Bible is it was never peer-reviewed.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      04:53pm | 29/06/11

      Anne wrote:

      ” I wouldn’t have to write so many posts if those like you read what I have already answered before,  instead of asking the same questions.”

      I agree that you shouldn’t have to write so many posts. Wholeheartedly.

      “I suggest you read my other posts,  that will cut down my writing so instead of trying to educate those who have become so imprisoned by their own belief systems which they can’t prove,  I can attend to my other responsibilities,  ...”

      Glad you have other responsibilities, I was beginning to worry grin  I’m not sure that having you repeat my words adds anything - but feel free to continue…at the very least it will help with your spelling.  Try to avoid commenting on my “belief systems”, though.  I don’t recall stating any.

      “P.S Do you know Godfrey how the Coca bean originated ? where it came from ?  not meaning which Country but how it came into existence, did it just suddenly appear ? you know they make Sinkers and Mars bars etc from it. “

      Hmmm. Relevance again?  Never seen a Sinkers bar, no idea what you mean there, but keep trying, I’m certainly forming an opinion based on your comments, but it has little to do with religion.

    • Nathin says:

      08:27pm | 29/06/11

      @Cam. It might be advantageous for you to actually confirm for yourself if there is evidence for evolution. God’s existence however is axiomatic.
      The propogation of evolutionist teachings is so ingrained in some peoples minds, and so repetitive in the mainstream media that the fallacy cannot be shown in one sentence. That’s why you’ll need to look at the main icon’s of evolution and work down from there.
      Firstly, there is actually NO fossil evidence for evolution, the geological column was invented by Charles Lyell around 1830, fossils found today are primarily dated by which layer of rock they are found in - and the layers are dated by what fossils are discovered therein, this is nonsensical. Each claimed discovery of a missing link have been disproved, there is always worldwide media coverage of the discovery NEVER worldwide media coverage of the disproval. Eg. Piltdown man was part of a mans scull and a filed down apes jawbone. Java man was 5 different bones from 5 different sources, the list goes on.
      Secondly, there is Ernst Haekel’s embryo’s - internationl fraud. Thirdly, the attempts to create life in the lab was not a success.
      Fourthly, germs that resist drugs have lost genetic information not gained new information, lost genetic information happens all the time and is not evolution, it’s de-evolution, lost information causes deformities and disease, not progress and new life eg. from goo to you.

    • doctrinal says:

      01:18pm | 29/06/11

      That’s the whole point, Cam.  There is nothing that can be PROVEN. 

      What Does bacterial resistance really show?
      The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

      Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

      Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind.

    • Paulb says:

      02:03pm | 29/06/11

      Doctrinal is right.  You don’t actually appear to understand evolution at all.  Even in evolution you’re still expecting to be presented with creation to explain it.  You won’t get it until you throw away the Biblical ballast weighing down your brain.

    • marley says:

      02:09pm | 29/06/11

      You misunderstand what the theory of evolution is.  It isn’t about developing ever more sophisticated functional systems, it’s about developing systems which give the species an advantage that will ensure its survival.  It doesn’t matter whether that species is a single-celled amoeba or a snake or a human being.  If it survives, it’s successful in evolutionary terms.

      A bacterium which is not drug resistant will not survive;  a bacterium which is, will survive.  Insects don’t have to evolve beyond being insects to be highly successful in evolutionary terms - they’re everywhere on the planet, in vast numbers.  An ape may well survive as an ape, but an ape which over time develops a bigger brain will have an advantage, even if it means losing the ability to climb trees or grow hair all over its body. 

      So yes, the drug resistant bacterium is exactly an example of evolution in action - because the mutation enables it to survive and propagate.  Whether it has gained or lost functional systems is irrelevant - it’s whether it survives as a species that matters.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      02:41pm | 29/06/11

      marley,  where is your proof you sound like you are quoting from an Evolution text book but once again the question of were Life originated in the first place is not being addressed,  you can’t have things evolve unless they had a beginning and this is what Evolution Scientists can’t prove and so avoid,  yes there are some things with Evolution that are in agreement with Creation but they confirm Creation not Evolution

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      03:41pm | 29/06/11

      Anne, you are muddling your sciences. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life (nor the origin of the planet). It never has. It describes the origin of species and the adaption of life. This is the reason why Evolutionary biologists do not have the answer and avoid the question of where and how life started, it is not their area of study. Nor their question to answer.

      I freely admit that people studying Abiogenesis as well as the Big Bang etc have no definitive answers as to the origin of life or the planet, but that doesn’t mean that they are going to stop looking. I wager even if they did have definitive answers, they would be ignored or rationalised by those of your ilk.

      I am interested to hear what facets of evolution you hold as true but supportive of creation.

      I refer you again to the Lenski study detailing bacterial evolution. I would also ask the obvious question, if something comes from nothing, where did your god come from? If your answer is “He just was” (or similar) could you please explain why that line of reasoning could not be applied to anything from the other side of the debate that you have dismissed.

      Ta.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:13pm | 29/06/11

      Jason Todd says: Anne - The problem I have with the Bible is it was never peer-reviewed.

      Who cares what worldly people think about the Bible Jason,  see below.+++.  all Scripture is inspired by God in other words it has been God - reviewed and Christians who have God’s wisdom,  agree with it and understand it .....enough said.

      +++1 Corinthians 2: 12 -16 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      07:33am | 30/06/11

      Anne, while I realise that it is very likely that neither of us is going to relinquish our position, I am interested in learning more about yours. Does your stalwart defense of the bible as the only truth mean that you only believe in the details therein? Or is there some level of mortal proof of principle that you accept?

      I suppose what I am asking is do you trust the modern human sciences in any way and therefore take advantage of their benefits? Or do you consider it all to be mistruths perpetrated by a global scientist conspiracy?

      In answering your assertion, I have read the bible (A couple of times, KJV and NIV) and while I appreciate that there is merit to some of the detail, I reject the concept on a whole based on lack of evidence. I also think your claim that christians ‘agree with it and understand it’ is a pretty long bow to draw. I am yet to uncover any two separate christians who have the same understanding or perception of either the bible or their religion. That is not to say it doesn’t bring value to their lives, but based on my experience, it is far from consistent.

    • doctrinal says:

      02:34pm | 29/06/11

      These mutations of drug resistant bacterium also cannot provide a mechanism that continues to “evolve” the level of protein specificity or protein activity that is necessary for normal cellular function.  While such mutations are excellent examples of bacterial adaptation, they are actually the antithesis of the mutational change necessary for evolution.  Yet, these are the very examples evolutionists offer as verifiable demonstrations of “evolutionary change.”  Ironically, these mutations are, in fact, verifiable examples of a creation model—initial complexity being mutated to a level of greater simplicity.

    • doctrinal says:

      02:35pm | 29/06/11

      The spontaneous acquisition of antibiotic resistance is often referred to as “gaining” resistance, but it is more appropriately identified as a loss of sensitivity.  Thus, antibiotic resistance results from the loss of pre-existing systems in the bacterial cell.  Such changes clearly provide no genetic mechanism for the origin of such cellular features as enzyme specificity, transport activity, regulatory activity, or protein binding affinity.

    • doctrinal says:

      02:37pm | 29/06/11

      In conclusion, here is what bacterium mutations are in respect to Evolution:
      Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.”  However, analysis of the genetic events causing this resistance reveals that they are not consistent with the genetic events necessary for evolution (defined as common “descent with modification”).  Rather, resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes.  Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes.  Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated.  Instead, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution.  These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.  Antibiotic resistance may also impart some decrease of “relative fitness” (severe in a few cases), although for many mutants this is compensated by reversion.  The real biological cost, though, is loss of pre-existing systems and activities.  Such losses are never compensated, unless resistance is lost, and cannot validly be offered as examples of true evolutionary change.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:57am | 01/07/11

      Thank you doctrinal,  what you shared was very interesting and well thought out and does indeed show the Truth that Evolution has no basis in our origins and even though it has a few things that are in agreement with Creation they uphold it not Evolution and as you explained for life to have evolved from nothing is impossible anyway. 

      Take Care Kind regards Anne

    • JustMEinT says:

      07:31pm | 29/06/11

      why do we need to indoctrinate the kids?

      Just a general conversation with young kids, about (so called) Climate Change, will reveal that they are being fed much disinformation – be it via the media, the school curriculum or even from their parents and close relatives.
      It seemed to me that much of the ‘knowlege’ espoused from these children’s mouths was very biased towards the THEORY of Carbon Based Man Made Climate Change (CAGW). Please remember a theory is still unproven.

      My Husband remembers that in 1943 – while in the 4th grade at school, in his weekly reader, it taught that within ten years America would have used up all of its oil reserves…. never happened yet the kids were fed that information!

      Reading my news online I came across the following, which I believe backs up what I was thinking/experiencing. Get the children young enough, teach them what you want them to know and believe, therefore indoctrinating them, and you have the whole future society doing your bidding (perhaps?).  For complete story follow the link

      http://justmeint.wordpress.com:80/2011/06/29/are-we-polluting-our-childrens-minds/

    • Anne Stocks says:

      05:58am | 01/07/11

      JustMEinT sayes… why do we need to indoctrinate the kids?.

      Thank you JustMe that was an interesting link and it is true our Children do indeed need to be protected from error, this is why the Lord tells us to Train up a Child to know Him so they will live by is guidelines and also not be deceived.

      I have taught R.E or as it is called in N.S.W Scripture for 15 years,  it has been a blessing, Children without outside negative influences distorting their focus have childlike Faith and Trust which is why God tells us we must become like Children to enter the Kingdom of God this is because to know God we must believe He exists and be dependant on Him Loving and Trusting Him as a small Child does their Parents.

      Today Secular teaching such as Evolution and the Big Bang deceive and confuse our Children and they grow up without a firm foundation.

      The comment below *** was on the Link you gave us JustME and explains why these Theories have no credence, mainly because something cannot evolve or start from nothing which has been proven even Evolution Scientists can’t make life come from nothing so the Big bang and Evolution could not have started from nothing and as doctrinal explained this has been proven beyond doubt.

      ***“Please remember a theory is still unproven.” No theory can ever be proven, only disproven, this is a fairly basic truism of the philosophy of science…

      I think you could also say this in reference to Creation any call it a Theory, accept there is a big difference it has been proven to be Truth but for those who don’t believe the facts then they have to prove it is wrong. 

      Thanks again - Kind regards Anne

    • Pete says:

      12:32am | 30/06/11

      While it would be nice to start again without religion, be practical people. It’s like smoking - we’ll ban it eventually, but it doesn’t mean we have to ban it TODAY. Focus on the extreme cults first (which are the ‘newest’ ones) then worry about the well-integrated ones like Christianity. Just because you can’t shut down both doesn’t mean you can’t start on the worst, most ridiculous exploitativy ones eg. Scientology. Saying you have to attack them all at once, today is just stupidly impractical.

    • mick griffiths says:

      04:20am | 30/06/11

      Tory, perhaps the most dangerous and powerful CULT is the internal police CULT-ure when dealing with whistleblowers. See my comments on Clive Small’s post in “The Punch”.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:39am | 30/06/11

      My friend Godfrey Zohn,  no doubt you finding it hard to gel things and feel a bit hot under the collar at the moment,  so what can you do..  oh yes put Anne down as a person of worth that should do it! .... Please let me give you some more ammunition. 

      To be honest Godfrey I really don’t care when I post if my spelling, punctuation and grammar is not exactly right although I do try,  I’m Dyslectic and have great trouble with all these things as well as maths,  I was over 12 before I could read and write and my coordination is not always good but thankfully there are also blessings with being Dyslectic.
      The spell check does not always pick up my spelling errors, nor do I when I read through my posts,  also when I write it is sometimes back to front so I spend time checking for these types of errors ... you would say… the cat sat on the mat ... I would say the mat the cat sat on… both saying the same thing but yours is easier to understand.
      I guess Godfrey   you will just have to write up my errors with spelling, punctuation and grammar as one of my weaknesses or shortcomings,  like when people forget names, sorry I do this too and I don’t always remember to take the rubbish out on Tuesday night , and sometimes on my Mobility bike I forget to give a right or left hand signal because I’m watching for cars who keep cutting me off even on pedestrian crossings,  oh yes I forgot I some times burn the toast,  not to mention forgetting to send a Birthday card now and again and so on…  does that give you enough ammunition to go on with ? if not perhaps I will think of some more of my faults and I will be sure to let you know.
      Godfrey I have wasted time responding to your criticism of my weaknesses with spelling ,  when I could have been posting in regard to the topic, so please if you find any more errors that I make,  write a letter to Punch they may even do a whole Editorial on my mistakes and everyone can get into the act ... I can just see it now…

      Anne Stocks has done it again !!! she should get a new spell check with punctuation and grammar included. As loyal Tax paying members of this great Country of ours we do not have to tolerate such ineptness,  we all should write to the Government and have her transported or at least have her disability pension taken off her ... come on start posting,  let her know she has goofed again ... and so on and on.
      But for now Godfrey be assured I have taken to heart your criticism and will seek to mend my ways… that’s if I remember… Oops!
      I’m back to others duties till tomorrow,  just had a short break and a cuppa - Kind regards Anne

      P.S Do you know Godfrey how the Coca bean originated ? where it came from ?  not meaning which Country but how it came into existence, did it just suddenly appear ? you know they make yummy chocolate from it. “ Does that make it easier for you.????

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:44am | 30/06/11

      i Godfry , am sure yu gunna be appy for me

      Eye halve a new spelling chequer
      It came with my pea sea
      It plainly marques four my revue
      Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

      Eye strike a key and type a word
      And weight four it two say
      Weather eye am wrong oar write
      It shows me strait a weigh.

      As soon as a mist ache is maid
      It nose bee fore two long
      And eye can put the error rite
      Its rare lea ever wrong.

      To rite with care is quite a feet
      Of witch won should be proud,
      And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
      Sew flaws are knot aloud.

      Eye have run this poem threw it
      I am shore your pleased two no
      It’s letter perfect awl the weigh
      My chequer tolled me so.

      This Should Make Thungs A tot Esier!

      U all take care now -  Luv Annie

    • Anne Stocks says:

      09:50pm | 30/06/11

      Jason Todd says:  Anne, while I realise that it is very likely that neither of us is going to relinquish our position, I am interested in learning more about yours. I suppose what I am asking is do you trust the modern human sciences in any way.
      Perhaps Jason if I share a little of my Testimony at least in regard to understanding God’s Truth in the Scriptures it may make my focus clearer for you,  but first in answer to your question about Science. ...Yes I accept Scientific research it has brought many benefits to mankind and I thank God for them.  I believe He gave man the intelligence including reason and logic and also resources to invent Technology in its various forms,  but we know they can also be used for evil such as Pornography and Child abuse etc on the Internet and on T.V, Vidoes etc, and also Medicine there have been wonderful advances which are also from God but it can also be abused, like Abortion and Cloning etc.

      I have spent much time investigating the Scientific evidence for Creation, I have also done some basic voluntary work for Creation Ministries until my disability made the travailing impossible but at the time it did give me the opportunity to talk with some of the Scientists and I found them to be very humble men of Integrity,  so I have full confidence in what they present as evidence for Creation and know it is genuine,  besides it is proven beyond doubt and what they have discovered is truly amazing and does not clash with Scripture. As I shared before we can see the validity of the 6 literal days of Creation in the Scriptures it could not have included Evolution or the Big bang because of the day sequence of Creation besides both of their origins are unknown. Also before I became a Christian I was very much into Evolution but later I could see the flaws in what it propagated. Link for Creation Scientists past and present…http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

      I will end for now and continue on the next post but I have pasted some links for you they are a bit differant then the other ones I gave you….

      http://creation.com/
      http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=52

      Take Care Kind regards Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:32pm | 30/06/11

      2.  Continued from last post….  Jason Todd says…  In answering your assertion, I have read the bible.

      What I feel Jason although you have read the Bible you have not understood it, I can read a manual on the engine of a car and still not understand it I would need the writer to explain things in a clearer way for me.

      The Scriptures are really amazing they tell us things that only God could have known at the time man recorded them as they were lead by His Spirit, such things as the world is round when without big boats or space ships they would have had no way of knowing and is the same as Aids, D.N.A, Dinosaurs in the time of man, the age of the earth and the world wide disasters that are happening today and of course all the prophesies about Jesus Christ that came true and future prophesies yet to be fulfilled .

      You said Jason I am yet to uncover any two separate Christians who have the same understanding or perception of either the bible or their religion.

      I know many Christians who are in agreement,  in Truth most genuine Denominations although not called by the same name agree on the basics in the Bible, such as The Godhead or Trinity as They are known today, The Virgin Birth - The Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ ..Loving God fully and Loving your , neighbour, meaning all mankind, Repentance , Salvation by Grace not works, Communion,  Satan or the Devil , Hell and eternal punishment and so on. Yes there are also differences and this can lead to confusion which is what happened to me….

      Will continue on next post and share how I came to know and believe in God’s Truth.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:16am | 01/07/11

      While I will agree that some agree on the basics, they wildly differ on the specifics. I have sat down with a great many christians and had discussions about their experiences with their faith. Some, such as yourself take a literal view, and cannot fathom how anyone could take a different one. Then there are others who take a purely figurative view. I know Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Christians who believe that Jesus wasn’t a god but a prophet, Christians who believe that Jesus wasn’t a real person, but a purely literary figure used to demonstrate a point.
      While the main tenet of the religion or denomination may be explicitly stated, not every participant believes and follows it down the line. Everyone experiences their faith differently, wether by small variations in belief or vast ones. I think that you would struggle to find someone who intimately shares all of your beliefs about your religion, even if on the surface they may seem to.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:50pm | 01/07/11

      Hi Jason, first let me say I take the Lord’s view and so do all those who are Born again Christians, regardless of what name you give that view.

      Real Christians also agree on all the Basics not just some of them,  what you are getting confused with is the teaching of Cults and false religions and they are not Christians, even if they call themselves Christians,  but I doubt they would,  it is not just a name it means to many Christ in you.

      If you believe God’s Truth you believe the Scriptures are all inspired by Him and are not just figurative, to believe this you are saying God lies or those who recorded His words did. Yes Jesus Christ also used Parables and word pictures but they are different from the actual Historical accounts which are recorded in Scripture such as Creation and the great flood etc .

      As an example any Christian who says that Jesus isn’t God and was just a prophet is not a Christian,  because the Holy Spirit confesses Jesus as Lord and so Christians believe in The Godhead or The Trinity as They are called today,  the word Lord in the Greek means God,  this is the same as anyone who claims Jesus is not a real person they are not a Christian and never were.

      There are some Christians who have been deceived by Evolution and so believe in an old earth but if they knew and believed the Scriptures they would understand this is opposed to God’s Truth.

      So you see Jason not every one who professes to be a Christian is one. The name Christian is not just a name it is a heart response to God who Loves us.

      On Punch people call themselves by different names but it does not make this name genuine , sometimes I wonder if I’m talking to a man or a woman or if they are the same person I’ve talked to before and have just changed their name,  perhaps it is also the reason why they keep asking if my name is really Anne Stocks.

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      11:47am | 02/07/11

      I understand your view Anne, but there are plenty of people who add to the confusion by self identifying as Christian but not following your same set of beliefs. (It’s a bit of a No True Scotsman scenario). If you were to guess, of those who identify as Christian in the upcoming census; how many of those would be ‘true’ Christians as you define them? My guess would be only a fraction.
      Should we then place as much stock in the beliefs of ‘false’ Christians? After all, if ‘True’ Christians such as yourself decry ‘false’ Christians as cult members, surely that is telling enough.
      Do you see how these scenarios get muddied?
      It is very hard for me to sit and listen to people calling the sciences, around which I have built my career and life, lies, mistruths and deceptions.
      I know you believe your god gave us the ability to understand some things and not others. To create technology that can be used for good and evil, but where does one draw the line?
      God gave us the ability to create evil technology that he definately doesn’t want us to use? God granted us the ability to create treatments to cure diseases that god doesn’t want cured? and most puzzlingly; God granted us the ability to decipher the laws governing the universe, except for the ones he definately doesn’t want deciphered, then he changes the rules and manipulates the evidence to make us think that we know what is going on, but we really don’t?

      I have to say Anne, it makes me sad. The view that you paint of a life with your god is a very pessimistic, nihilstic and depressing one.  If I lived in your world, I wouldn’t even be able to get up in the morning, much less haul myself off to work every day.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      10:39pm | 30/06/11

      3,  Continued from last post to Jason

      It may also help you understand Jason as I said before if I share with you a bit of my Journey with the Lord ...

      After feeling very unsure and having doubts about quiet a few things, one day as I was reading the Scriptures a verse touched my heart, Mark 9:24 some Christians call this a Rhema Scripture, it said… that a man’s son was in need of healing and Jesus asked him do you believe, the man answered yes I believe but please help my unbelief and so I also asked Jesus to help my unbelief.

      Not long after this realizing I was very confused because of the conflicting teaching in the Churches and by Theologians and Evangelists even those who had a high profile and yes they all claimed what they believed was True but what they taught was different which means some of them were trusting in their own worldly understanding or what they had been taught instead of God’s Truth. I knew this to be True because The Holy Spirit does not say one thing to one person and something different to someone else when it contradicts and as I knew we are not to agree to disagree but to take our difference to God and he will show us who is in error because we are to have the same focus and to be of one mind and purpose, it confused me greatly because how could they all have the mind of Christ and also be in conflict which was shown by their division .

      I prayed to God for His help again and He gave me another Rhema Scripture James 1:5-8 that said… if you lack wisdom to ask God and He will give you His wisdom without finding fault but that we must believe and not doubt that we have received it. I asked in Faith for God’s wisdom and I have no doubts that I have received it and that it is growing in my heart and will continue to do so as He perfects me in His Love to conform me to the image of His Son. What God has shared with me He has confirmed in His written word by His Living Word but as I said before I am still learning but I know without a doubt what God has already shown me is True ... Jesus tells us we don’t have because we don’t ask with Faith believing what He says He will do and this is very True.

      Something Special - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiGDo_FIjFg&feature=related

      I will be away Friday but back Saturday - Kind regards Anne

    • A Spade's a Spade says:

      09:21am | 02/07/11

      There is much talking and very little listening by you Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      11:04am | 02/07/11

      Still finding the need to put others down A Spade’s a Spade,  so do you feel more powerful now.

      In answer to your statement ...The Truth takes longer to explain then a lie because a lot of people prefer to stay in ignorance and believe a lie, that way they think they won’t have to answer for what they do wrong also a Lie.

      I think the Bible puts it better then me….

      Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

      Short enough - Kind regards Anne

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:07pm | 02/07/11

      Hi Jason, I’m having trouble posting under my previous post to answer your questions, not sure if it’s my Computer or Punch so have to post at the start each time, hope you can follow it.

      I’m sorry Jason but you are confused and if I had your focus, I would also be depressed, your view of God is indeed very pessimistic so you do need to listen carefully ...

      It not God who causes us to do evil it’s our own choices, God is Love and can do no evil nor does He tempt anyone to do evil although He does bring good from evil. The things that you mentioned and contributed to God,  He is not the Author of, man is. God gives us free will we can choose to live by His guidelines or ignore them. Evil is the absence of Love and this is Satan’s nature,  he is the god who seeks to destroy, deceive and confuse, this is what the Scriptures say about him….

      2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

      Jason God did not give us the ability to understand some things and not others, He wants all His Children to understand all His Truth in it’s various forms, it is man who chooses not to listen to Him which means they do not have His empowering that He wants to give them through The Holy Spirit to teach them all things,  if they deny Him they can’t receive His wisdom or His empowering and so they will be deceived and this is their choice.

      God also does not want man to create evil,  it is his own evil flesh nature that seeks to do these things and sickness and death are part of a fallen world they were never in God’s will for mankind but man chose to disobey and by so doing he learnt the way of evil.

      To finish for now Jason,  God never told us at any time that we evolved,  this was man’s invention, Darwin was steeped in his mother’s Unitarianism,  although reported to be Christian by some, this is a Cult because they deny the Godhead,  so even though Darwin came from a Christian background he was denying God’s Truth, this means that he placed himself under Satan’s control and so was deceived and deceived many others through his teaching of Evolution and this was never God’s will it was Satan’s,

      Jason you are going to have to make a choice it is either God or the Secular Science you have been depending on for answers, I cannot and will not water down God’s Truth to make you feel happy,  anyway it would be only temporary if I did.

      I have been asked to keep my posts shorter, but it’d not easy condensing what’s important for understanding, so once again this is too long.

      Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:02am | 04/07/11

      Anne, I wasn’t saying that I am depressed, nor particularly confused. I have made my choice based on the evidence and I am happy with it. I turned my back on religion at age eleven and I have no inclination to look back. I work as a scientist and therefore have an intimate knowledge of its workings.

      Having said that, I am also very interested in people, and why they do what they do. Like I have said, I like to chat to the religious about why they believe what they believe. Sometimes I get a clear and distinct answer, sometimes I get a muddled diatribe with no clear thought in it, but I never have any doubt that the people that I talk to have a deep belief in their religion and their god, as it is clear you do.

      I am still troubled by the fact that you consider evolution a cult, but know that I am not going to change your mind. I have to point out though, that if you consider all those that accept evolution as cultists, you must also consider doctors, nurses and healthcare workers (who accept the germ theory of disease), and anyone who believes in atoms (accepting atomic theory) as cultists. They also follow the science and what is ‘merely a theory’ and therefore denies your god. You can’t pick and choose. Either all scientific theories have a basis in merit, or none do.

      The reason that I find a god based world view depressing and nihilstic, is because to me, if there is an omnicient, omnipresent god, then ultimately all of human achievement is worthless. There is no reason to use the sciences to unravel the mysteries of the universe if there is a god who will reveal them when he is good and ready, or worse, change them just to mock us. There is no reason to do good or help your fellow man or help humanity as a whole advance because those decisions are at the hand of god. Really, viewing this existence as “waiting in line outside the club hoping that the bouncer decides to let you in”.

      Ultimately, I adopt an agnostic atheistic worldview because I admit that we don’t have all the answers and therefore have more to discover. I admit that humans are flawed beyond what could be considered a divine creation and therefore sometimes we need help, and it is good to do good not just because it was decreed by a deity, but because it is the decent thing to do for your fellow man.

      I have enjoyed our conversation, and I appreciate your candor.
      All the best.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      04:33pm | 04/07/11

      Hi Jason, my Computer crashed and I’m still having problems, yes I have enjoyed our conversation too,  I know were you are coming from so I understand your focus, I was also an Atheist till I reached 30 and I propagated Evolution too but when I opened my eyes I found out it had no real foundation so I did not want to believe in something will eventually fall into rubble. As I said like many others you don’t understand the Scriptures or the God who wrote them and just because people say their believers does not mean they are,  God is the Judge.

      Jason you haven’t explained how Evolution first started and what they suggest has never been proven. As for the Big bang it’s the same as Evolution no proof and they are both claiming the same thing that God is not The Creator so they are Deception. Being a Scientist doesn’t make you any more qualified to reject God then anyone else,  many Scientists are deceived and in reference to the evidence you stated it would help you to read doctrinal’s posts and you would realise you are in error. I already explained my view on Science to you but to recap if it doesn’t contradict God’s Truth I accept it.

      Jason you implied that I lived in despair,  but let me reassure you, I’m not afraid of God, I Love Him passionately meaning with every part of me….my Heart ( emotions and feelings) my Brain ( Intelligence,  Logic and reason )  my Body,  all my physical attributes, I don’t use them for evil and my Soul….. in other words all my being. I also respect Him and esteem Him,  He is Awesome in all His ways and He is Love and Love can do no evil. I obey Him because I Love Him not because I’m frightened of Him. Although I have had a hard life I have deep Joy that sometimes brings me to tears of thankfulness and praise to God and not one day goes by that I don’t see the beauty in His creation or appreciate how awesome it is and marvel at the Awesome God who created it all,  but it was not always that way ...once I was an Atheist.
      The Scriptures tell us to respect God or revere Him which is the Hebrew meaning of fear,  it is not what many think. But yes we will experience fear if we have not been perfected in His Love,  it is how He created us which means when we live in opposition to God’s will,  we feel fear within and this has to do with punishment, the two go together,  the same as when we live according to God’s will, we experience good feelings and have Hope and inner Joy.

      It will always be your choice Jason to reject or accept God but you are accountable to Him either way and what you choose will bring consequences good and bad

      Take Care now and always -  I wish for you a change of heart - Kind regards Anne

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:06pm | 04/07/11

      Anne, if it was implied I apologise, I did not mean to suggest that I thought that you lived in despair, merely that if I was forced to live with your worldview, I would despair.

      I’m game enough to admit that we don’t have all the answers about the big bang, or abiogenesis, or even some of the bits of evolution. But just because we don’t have all the answers doesn’t mean I am going to throw out years and years of study and research and theory and good science. Just because we don’t have a definitive answer doesn’t mean that we are going to stop looking for one. Even if we do find all the answers, I am sure there will always be some degree of lingering uncertainty that people will label as the work of god.

      I read doctrinal’s posts, as I have read yours, and I have a whole different series of issues with the argument presented on a technical level, but I won’t go into that here.

      All the best.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      06:51am | 05/07/11

      Hi Jason,  I thought we had said goodbye, but yes sometimes it is necessary to say a few more words,  I found this with other topics.

      Jason you have affirmed what I explained and that is your Evolution theories etc do not have a firm foundation the difference with the Scriptures is they do, God explains fully how we and the Universe were created,  He does not leave us in limbo waiting for answers.

      I’m going to say now what is very clear Secular Science will never find the answers because their focus is not on God,  but Christian Scientists have already affirmed the Scriptures because they believe God is real and start from there.

      Jason when Scientists wanted to understand about the Atom which was just an idea at first not a fact, what did they do they searched for answers but they didn’t say well there is no Atom or they wouldn’t have bothered searching in the first place. Scientists argued there was a vacuum but after searching they discovered that even a vacuum has matter. 

      This is the same as for there being nothing in reference to God, there never was nothing and there never will be, there was always God and where God is there is not a vacuum of any type, His Presence is a life force so great it is beyond our earthly understanding and it is eternal, no start no finish.

      What I suggest Jason is that you search for real answers about God but instead of rejecting that there is a God even before you start,  seek to find Him and I affirm 100% you will find Him… He tells us this Himself…

      Jeremiah 29:12-13 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

      Jason from what you have been sharing about the beliefs of Christians, you are being confused by the teaching of Cults and False Religions,  be very carful you are not deceived. A Born again Christian believes in the truth of the Godhead or as they are known today The Trinity, 3 in one,  they believe in Salvation by grace not works and that when you are saved you walk in righteousness as Jesus Christ did. They believe so much more but that is a good start and so is the Link below where you will find all the answers you need in relation to Science.

      If you need help at anytime Jason my own conversation e-mail address is anne.stocks@yahoo.com.au.

      Click Link http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

      Take Care - Kind regards Anne.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter