[Ciprian Mustiata]

În prealabil postat de DragosP

Vezi că duhul tău este unul de dihonie şi nu de pace?
Biserica de care aminteşti este schismatică, nu este sectară. E o mică-mare diferenţă. Sper s-o desluşeşti şi s-o înţelegi. Chiar şi aşa, schismatici, botezul lor e altceva decât botezul pe care zici că l-ai primit. Chiar aşa: cum s-a făcut?

Nu, am zis ca a folosi cuvantul "sectar", cand sunt dintr-o biserica ce are mai multi membri decat multe biserici ortodoxe: "In 2002, there were over 100 million Baptists and Baptistic group members worldwide and over 33 million in North America." deci este clar ca nu e secta, deoarece secta se "traduce" asa:

A sect is a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs. Although in past it was mostly used to refer to religious groups, it has since expanded and in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. The term is occasionally used in a malicious way to suggest the broken-off group follows a more negative path than the original. The historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, referring to a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox.

Si se descrie inca o data aici:

In Christianity
The historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, referring to a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox.

Deci nu este nici o diferenta intre schismatici si sectanti, din motive de autoritate, cand sunt doctrine ce difera ca si punct de separatie, si in toate cazurile care ti le-am dat, sunt documentate ca au avut diferiti ani de separatie, precum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon sau reformele din 1666 ale Patriarhului Nikon.
Daca folosesti schismatic ca nu e peiorativ si sectant pentru protestant, ca e peiorativ, si crezi ca tu esti corect si cam am "duh de dihonie" gresesti, zic ca este incorect sa folosesti atac la pozitia celuilalt folosind un fapt ce e irelevant in nume.

Daca vrei sa folosesti ca o secta, e in sens de cult, te rog sa imi demonstrezi ca asta e ceea ce fac baptistii (sau orice alta denominatie neo-protestanta, probabil excluzand unele extreme, cum ar fi Scientologia sau poate Martorii lui Iehova, ce nu-i sustin):
Sursa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#The_study_of_cults

Studies have identified a number of key steps in coercive persuasion:[17][18]

People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
They get a new identity based on the group;
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.

Iar legat de botez, e un "Red Herring", adica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring , nu aduce nimic ca si argument, separa discutia intr-o ramura ce are nevoie de un nou fir de discutii. Nu este nici relevant cum este facut, nici daca e facut de 3 ori, nici daca e facut de un preot ortodox, deoarece nu are legatura cu raspunsul la intrebarile legate de nunta. Daca vrei sa ataci ca botezul (la baptisti) ca e corect sau nu dupa Sfanta Traditie, Sfintele Taine, creaza un topic separat, si discuta asta cu cei interesati, eu unul nu-s.