As you will see in this exchange, it is now self-evident that Cirt must be a machine. Displaying what appears to be complete ignorance of normal human social cues, Cirt continues to insist that a religious group that has existed almost since the protestant reformation is "new" because an obscure scholar said so in a book. In Cirt's world, common sense has no place interfering with a source he has deemed reliable.
Why is a church that was founded in 1693 listed as a "new" religious movement? I can't see why the Amish church is on here? After over 300 years, doesn't it stop being "new"? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Described as such in The Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the source. But doesn't common sense come into play at some point? Just because a single author calls it "new", is if forever new? Compared to Judaism, yes, it's new. Compared to a lot of the religions on this list, it's not. Take it a step further. 50 years from now, that book will still exist and still call it new. Will it still be new? (yes, I know it is a 1998 book, that's not the point). At some point, we have to use our common sense. The other part of the question is, since I don't have to book in front of me, I have to rely on someone else.....Did the book actually call them a new religion? The title is cults, sects and new religions. Amish would certainly be considered a sect. That wouldn't mean that the author called them a cult or a new religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought of the Amish as kind of old. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That's kind of the point. The sect is over 300 years old. But some author may have called them now, so we throw common sense out the window and put him on this list. Most people wouldn't call an organization that is over 300 years old "new". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and avoid making up our own POV interpretations of what is or is not a "new religious movement". Best to stick to what is said on the matter by scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a separate "Cirtapedia" created for him and people like him.