?

Log in

No account? Create an account
RSQUBF LiveJournal Community
UBF 2nd gen’s theology 
31st-Dec-2005 10:46 am
UBF 2nd gen’s theology

...In terms of UBF being a cult, you need to answer the question of why God lets people meet Jesus through this ministry like I did, which would be impossible because I don't think I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines. And I am growing spiritually in this ministry just like many other people are, and if this church is a cult and is an agent of Satan I don't think it'd be possible for me to have a relationship with Jesus.
THere's two conclusions we can make. 1. God must be extremely deceitful because he lets people really accept Jesus as their Savior through UBF, a cult or 2. UBF is a ministry that is really being used by God to bring people to Him. I'm pretty sure we can cross out conclusion #1 because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc. So therefore, #2 is correct... (Posted 9/2/2005 at 2:23 AM by Choi728)
Comments 
1st-Jan-2006 05:16 pm (UTC) - Logical fallacies I
The entire original posting you quote is full of logical fallacies, something so typical for UBF. They build up a very fallacious system of logics, then make a lot of statements that are only true within their own logical frame. This is the "box mode thinking" that cult experts refer to.

Let's start:
...In terms of UBF being a cult, you need to answer the question of why God lets people meet Jesus through this ministry like I did
Well, we don't need to answer anything, but UBF should answer to themselves a simple question: do they believe that God is Almighty? If God is almighty, why should His almight be limited by a cult? Why should God, for whom all things are possible, be incapable of utilizing a cult for His purpose? Didn't He also use Judas Iscariot to further His plan? Didn't He use Pilate for the same purpose? Didn't He use the Roman Empire for the furtherance of the Gospel? Why then should He not be capable of using UBF?
The fallacy contained therein is "the strawman". This 2ndGen is merely creating a strawman to beat up, distracting from the real issue and distracting from the problem at hand.
UBF being a cult has nothing to do with God being Almighty. Nothing.

which would be impossible because I don't think
Equating "I think so" and "impossible" is quite a stretch. 600 years ago people "didn't think" the earth could be round. But it wasn't impossible. Equation of personal opinion and definite truth is at best dangerous.

I or the other numerous amount of people would've met Jesus if the church taught false doctrines.
The problem here is a "false premise". The Roman Catholic Church also teaches false doctrine, but it has nothing to do with people meeting Jesus or not. (Also, it's not only about "meeting Jesus" but accepting Him as your one and only true Saviour, depending your life on Him alone.)
The conclusion here seems to be: Meet Jesus -> no false doctrine -> no cult.
Truth is, no false doctrine doesn't even mean no cult, and the veracity of doctrine has nothing to do with getting to know Jesus. I know a lot of Christians who heard hardly no doctrine at all, but still have received life and light in Jesus Christ.
This 2ndGen is making the very simple conclusion "out of false dotrine can not come real faith". If that were true, then probably no person in this universe would be saved, because we all have this or that understanding (doctrinal) in our mind which harbors a wrong understanding of Christ which might not get corrected until Eternity Future since we are limited humans.
This leads the 2ndGen to the following leap: if someone is saved, then the person who brought them to Jesus harbors no false doctrine. Once again, my question, does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church harbors no false doctrine? Does it mean that the doctrine of praying to Mary is right then? Why then, does UBF not pray to Mary then? Or will they deny that anyone in the RCC is saved?

Another problem here is the "ad populum" argument, or as I like to call it "a million flies can not be wrong, so dung must be a good dinner". Just because a numerous crowd of people consider something beneficial (which it may even be for them) doesn't make that something right universally.

1st-Jan-2006 05:17 pm (UTC) - Re: Logical fallacies II

And I am growing spiritually in this ministry just like many other people are, and if this church is a cult and is an agent of Satan I don't think it'd be possible for me to have a relationship with Jesus.
Once again, we need to analyze the logics keenly:
I and others grow spiritually (measured how?) -> what? (it seems to jump out of thin air that it means that "this church is not a cult", but logically, the next half of the sentence is not connected!)

this church an agent of Satan -> not possible to have a relationship with Jesus.
Note again, that there's one more insertion of "I don't think", which is a erlativizing statement, but the sentence sounds like an absolute statement. The "I don't think", in terms of logic, reduces the logical value of the entire paragraph to zilch, since personal opinion isn't worth anything if it is not supported by facts.
And this is the case here, since we know very well from the Bible that "Satan disguises Himself as an angel of light", and it may very well serve his intentions to bring people very close to Jesus, without letting them know the True Gospel, i.e. waving Jesus before their eyes without letting them touch Him.
And even further, the question of "a cult" and "personal relationship with Jesus" have nothing to do, these two things can not be brought into relation - even in the worst cult, there can be people who have an intimate relationship with Jesus and even in the best church there can be people who merely think they know Jesus. There is no logical connection.


THere's two conclusions we can make.
Typical logical fallacy known as "bifurcation". There's a gazillion conclusions we can make, but the author wants us to decide either A or B, setting up A or B for us to pick one. Reality is, we have to choose neither A nor B and can still conclude properly. Especially, since neither A nor B is the final truth.

1. God must be extremely deceitful because he lets people really accept Jesus as their Savior through UBF, a cult or

This is the typical way to set up a bifurcation: you want people to choose door B and so you put something awkward into door A so they WILL choose door B regardless of what could be in there. To even suggest that God is deceitful makes this option not acceptible, and the author knows that.

2. UBF is a ministry that is really being used by God to bring people to Him.
Well, the funny thing is that nobody would even deny this. But as I have shown initially, this statement is meaningless since the only way to put some value into this statement is to doubt God's Almight. If God is Almighty, then who are we to doubt He uses UBF? So what, maybe He also used David Koresh to show some people that Christ is the Lord... doesn't mean whatever Koresh did is okay.
I like to use this example: God may use a prostitute to bring people to Himself. Does that mean that now every young girl should become a prostitute? Wouldn't there still be reason for every prostitute who believes in Jesus to find another job?


I'm pretty sure we can cross out conclusion #1 because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc.
This merely displays that the author does not know God. But aside from that, an appeal to God's character doesn't force people to choose between two wrongs when there are more options.

Example further options:
- UBF is a cult and God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is greater than the author imagines, but regardless, God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, and God is Holy.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, God is Holy and the author doesn't even know the real God.
- UBF is a cult, God is Almighty, God is Holy, and UBF is neither holy nor does the author understand that God in His almighty holiness still doesn't like to be associated with sin, even when He shows mercy on a sinner.


1st-Jan-2006 05:17 pm (UTC) - Re: Logical fallacies III

So therefore, #2 is correct... (Posted 9/2/2005 at 2:23 AM by Choi728)
False conclusion drawn from a false premise and a bulkload of logical fallacies.
The right conclusion would be: UBF may have been used by God, but that is not a ticket for them to justify any behaviour, and the more they have been used by God, the more it should make them feel hurt to have lying, deception and abortions associated to their name and the name of God, but they don't care. They use God's holy name to condone these things, which is an abomination to Him, and a surefire sign that even when they have been used by God, they are cultic.


Oh, and one more thing: "because God is a Holy God and it's just not in his character to let people repent and accept Jesus through false doctrine that condones lying, abortions, divorces etc. So therefore, #2 is correct"
Since it's a proven fact that UBF has false doctrine, they condone lying and abortions and divorces, the only thing that the author is stating that really, logically follows from his assumptions is the following:
author does not believe that they have really repented and accepted Jesus, since that would be a violation of God's character.

Interesting, though.
1st-Jan-2006 11:47 pm (UTC) - a million flies
Mike,

"a million flies cannot be wrong, so dung must be a good dinner".


That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. But it also perfectly illustrates the ubf phenomena. "Several thousand ubfKoreans cannot be wrong, so crappy Bible teaching and ethically bankrupt leadership must be a great way to operate a church."

Mike, I will use your quotation whenever I have to explain the ubf to anyone, including my children. Thank you Mike.
This page was loaded Aug 19th 2019, 10:19 pm GMT.