That's mankind for you. Let's find some sort of rule or dogma so we can begin classifying people. That way, people can be separated into simple, sterile categories and we may quickly discontinue regarding someone else's humanity. It frees us from having to think for ourselves, and from noticing the gifts and talents of others. Best of all (I speak facetiously) such thinking allows us to continue on with our wars we just love to wage on each other.
Loving or valuing someone requires looking below the surfacing to the heart.
This topic needs to be discussed imo because there are many who believe that a cult is defined by whether the doctrine of The Trinity is accepted. As if there are no cults led by trinitarians.
Me? In the vacuum of my own view, yes. :B) My point is that one man's normal is another's weird.
Practically that isn't how the world works ultimately is my other point. Placing doctrinal requirements in a cult definition perfectly illustrates that - those requirements aren't meaningful in a non-religious context without going through some cause and effect contortions. "Cult" in a religious context is a rather nebulous and curious concept to begin with, also IMO.
I have conditions I place on what's right and wrong, good/bad, acceptable and unacceptable. I would try to understand other's opinions and conditions but first and foremost would be the rule of law in my community, state and country, laws we all function by and observe. We all have to do that and by citizenship we accept that accountability and responsibility.
In the U.S. we allow for differences in religious matters. "Cult" definitions with doctrinal specifics - trinity is one - don't apply and have no meaning outside the group's focus that insists on them. That's why I think that a religious definition for cult doesn't carry much sway in a non-religious context because no one else cares. But I do get how those inside that focus do care about it.
Here's an example: When Jesus was brought before Pilate to be judged the Roman impression was that it was a religious concern of the group's, an internal problem to those complaining that wasn't governed by Roman law. It was sent to Herod for local jurisdiction and then back to Pilate. Again, if no Roman laws were broken no crime was committed.
The fact that it could have led to a larger disturbance and caused problems by Roman law was a concern but we can see that would have been a problem manufactured by the group. Left alone, Jesus wasn't a problem to Rome.
The crime of "treason" came to bear and ultimately the "crime" of preaching "the Kingdom of God" and the possibility that He was a "leader" of a rebellion against Rome was decalared but again - it was a stretch given substance only by the fact that the group complaining identified Jesus and His followers as a threat. Pilate ultimately gave in to the group pressure. It would be hard to imagine He felt the Roman empire was directly threatened by Jesus or His followers and since the brief records don't indicate that Jesus challenged him or Rome in their meeting Pilate would have had to conclude it as a non-issue.
But he was crucified.
That example is worth considering in detail when looking at "cult" definitions. Correctly identifying what's hmmm.....really going on.
An interesting and high profile example there waysider.
A complete and brief sidebar - they typify the real concern I have about any belief structure, "right" or "wrong" and that is the character of the members and their ability and willingness to act upon their beliefs.Some people talk about what they believe, others live what they believe.
The HA's. I won't attach my name to a discussion that includes their full name. Dirty Harry said it best - "a man's got know his limitations". I keep my world apart from that one, it's not for non-members.
To a great extent I don't mix it up with people on religious issues either. As a citizen I celebrate our freedom of "religion". As a current resident of society I weight any real action against the reality that many people would take that freedom from me and impose their own version on me, violently if necessary. Any confrontation on any level has to consider the possible ramifications. Unfortunately I don't trust a lot of the loving followers of Mr. Jesus, today so I can be guarded around those who seek to advance "His" interests.
.
This topic needs to be discussed imo because there are many who believe that a cult is defined by whether the doctrine of The Trinity is accepted.
I agree. And the issues once we leave the doctrinal piece out - religious freedom is protected in the U.S. - are clearer.
I'm not sure where they stand on the Trinity issue, but, it's my opinion THESE GUYS fit the profile of a "cult".
Hmmm...the Hells Angels are a gang which in my mind is different than a cult. For one thing, not that I've ever been in the HA's, I don't think there is some leader who says he has some kind of special revalatory light to deliver to the world. He's just into power, and "might makes right." An HA leader rules solely because of threat of violence and he can lose his position by being killed. Whereas in a cult the leader has some sort of revalatory gift that no one can ever have. Even if he is killed he devotees will still revere him.
Kill a gang leader in battle and you can have his job. Again, I've never been in a gang so I'm keying off of what I've seen on t.v.
There are at least two different ways that "cults" can be defined. One includes doctrine as a qualifier, one doesn't.
One has religious components, the other doesn't.
It sounds like we're generally agreeing that unless the religious beliefs effect behavior in such a way that the individual is harmed it's not a reasonable means of defining what is or isn't a "cult".
To me it's an intellectual exercise without much benefit once it's taken out of the religious context, and the religious context is ridiculous once I define any specific religion and compare that back to the cult definition that includes religious qualifiers, as all religions have those cultish qualities - to someone.
What it really amounts to in that context is one religious view identifying key points that all others must comply with or be labeled "cult" and be avoided and considered dangerous. I don't see that as practical
A person can have a life changing experience that leads them to pursue a specific vision for their life. That happens a lot. It's unique to them, important to them and affects their decisions as to what to do. I think it's simplest to look at each individual person and effort and evaluate that rather than slap labels on it like "cult".
I recall a discussion where a person was making some points on the bible and a respondent cast them with several well known "evangelists", popular leaders of church ministries. This was a deragatory comment. The person took issue - they felt they had nothing in common with those people and took issue with being identified that way. Yet, this happens all the time amongst people - it's very difficult to speak and be heard without other's perceptions being put on you. Yet it persists, and "red flags" go up before full understanding has been achieved. Without dialogue we're stuck with what we know which may not be enough to really know anything.
IMO the real key ingredient is the individual person, the citizen, the man or woman and their own freedom to choose "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I steer clear of religious organizational identifications because it often impedes real communication.
It's the old "I have a jack but I'm not going to help you"............I don't care if that person's Mormon, trinitarian or believes god is a one eyed dog. I just need the jack. If I won't help another along life's way without requiring their Religious Correctness Card be stamped and certified, that in my opinion, sucks and I won't have much basis upon which to engage that person in way that will make a real difference, good or bad.
It characterizes the jumbled mass of explanation required to get an audience broader than a very specific religious one to agree on what they're talking about.
I don't agree with the direction it goes in but there's a lot of information that might be of interest along these lines.
I might be labeled a "cult apologist" by some the standards used, which is fine. After reading through it and a few other sources online it strengthened my conviction that religious freedom in the U.S. makes religious choice a personal one. It doesn't guarantee all will agree or get along but it does guarantee that within the constraints of the laws of the land we are free to choose, not choose or indeed ignore the issue entirely if we so choose.
In that same conviction is the recognition that those choices allow for individuals to render judgment and evaluation of religious beliefs outside their own as wrong or in fact, "cult"ish. If by a person's beliefs they recognize heresies and abherrations that are unacceptable to their beliefs, that's their choice. As citizens we are all still allowed our freedom to those beliefs.
There are many different beliefs, practices and ideas that I would argue against by speaking in favor of what I do believe and contrasting that to what I believe is wrong. For instance I might speak to a Catholic who prays to Mary to consider their prayer life and their relationship to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe that Mary is the mother of God, formally the mother of "the Church", nor that she would hold a position of influence to be accessed in some ritualistic form of prayer or other observances.
But if they accept the doctrines of Mary as mother of the Church, of God and intercessor to God on their behalf, the larger issue is the validity of that doctrinal development in relation to New Testament scripture. This development has occurred over 100's of years and requires accepting the validity of those who confirmed it and the why's and wherefores. That's a discussion that covers a lot of ground and to a Catholic might not be worthwhile.
Ultimately if the do choose to continue believing that, so be it.
Catholicism is seldom taken to task for those views. They believe it, others don't.
All would agree that priests sexually abusing children is wrong though and if proven doesn't require choice but rather justice. So there I think is a good, large scale example of how this "cult" term applies to a large corporate organization. The Catholic church might be a cult by some religious definitions but the internal organization that perpetuates child abuse would (or should be) easy to identify, qualify and judge as being an abusive destructive system to all involved. .
To me the whole issue surrounding the label "cult" is that it is a term that is calling into question the leadership of a group's genuine authority from God. To this end, the label can be used by mainstream denominations which possibly can have no more genuine authority from God than the group they are labeling. A common distinguishing characteristic people rely on is the amount of authority leaders have. If there are checks and balances in place such as the founding fathers of America set up for political government, then there is a certain amount of restraint built in to the darker side of human character. However, when the power over a group is absolute, then there is no restraint to this darker side.
One of the philosophical questions this brings up is "does absolute power corrupt absolutely?". This of course is a rhetorical question without a definitive answer, but if you look at percentages throughout history it does not seem that statistics fall in favor of the virtuous characteristics of mankind proving out when power comes into play.
"It sounds like we're generally agreeing that unless the religious beliefs effect behavior in such a way that the individual is harmed it's not a reasonable means of defining what is or isn't a "cult"."
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse.
A group does not necessarily have to have a religious bent to fit the criteria of a cult
Is the group leader self appointed, charismatic and domineering? It may be a cult.
Does the group have special, privileged knowledge that drives it to fulfill a special mission? It may be a cult.
Does the group dictate intricate details of how the members must speak, dress, think, and behave? It may be a cult.
Is the group inordinately focused on recruiting new members for the purpose of generating revenue? It may be a cult.
Does the group limit and/or discourage interaction outside the group unless said action benefits the group? It may be a cult.
Does the group have its own language, encourage members to think within a narrow set of parameters and reinforce a black/white, either/or mentality? It may be a cult.
I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"
Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?"
(Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10)
And then the next thing to ask is: "Do they confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised him from the dead?"
Three yeses and you might be onto something.
If they don't do these things - run, do not walk, away from this organization. Or website, as the case may be.
What the heck is the Chjristian orthodox historical concept of anything?
...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a paycheck selling God should be an exception to paying taxes. This church against that church isn't much different than coke versus pepsi or Republicans against Democrats...This was instilled in us when our high school football team was better than the rival town's team. Us versus them seems to be woven into the herd mentality.
...and what greater thrill is there to know that YOUR God is the true God...and the other guy is really worshipping some horned demon in disguise.
Truth is...most of these big time preachers are nothing more than carnival barkers hawking money. They lie through their teeth and they would steal Christ off the cross and come back for the nails...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
8
4
Popular Days
Oct 1
25
Oct 2
13
Oct 3
5
Aug 21
3
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 9 posts
Ham 14 posts
waysider 8 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 4 posts
Popular Days
Oct 1 2010
25 posts
Oct 2 2010
13 posts
Oct 3 2010
5 posts
Aug 21 2017
3 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
From Cheranne's link: I would have thought the first question to ask is: "Do they love God?"Quickly followed by: "Do they love their fellow human beings?" (Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) And then the
GrouchoMarxJr
...Trinity Schminity...who cares. The bottom line for me is that being a Christian and being in the "God business" are two different things entirely. I don't think that any organiztion that makes a pa
waysider
I think the Trinity and other Biblical related beliefs may actually be the red herring in this discourse. A group does not necessarily have to have a religious bent to fit the criteria of a cult Is
Broken Arrow
That's mankind for you. Let's find some sort of rule or dogma so we can begin classifying people. That way, people can be separated into simple, sterile categories and we may quickly discontinue regarding someone else's humanity. It frees us from having to think for ourselves, and from noticing the gifts and talents of others. Best of all (I speak facetiously) such thinking allows us to continue on with our wars we just love to wage on each other.
Loving or valuing someone requires looking below the surfacing to the heart.
This topic needs to be discussed imo because there are many who believe that a cult is defined by whether the doctrine of The Trinity is accepted. As if there are no cults led by trinitarians.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Me? In the vacuum of my own view, yes. :B) My point is that one man's normal is another's weird.
Practically that isn't how the world works ultimately is my other point. Placing doctrinal requirements in a cult definition perfectly illustrates that - those requirements aren't meaningful in a non-religious context without going through some cause and effect contortions. "Cult" in a religious context is a rather nebulous and curious concept to begin with, also IMO.
I have conditions I place on what's right and wrong, good/bad, acceptable and unacceptable. I would try to understand other's opinions and conditions but first and foremost would be the rule of law in my community, state and country, laws we all function by and observe. We all have to do that and by citizenship we accept that accountability and responsibility.
In the U.S. we allow for differences in religious matters. "Cult" definitions with doctrinal specifics - trinity is one - don't apply and have no meaning outside the group's focus that insists on them. That's why I think that a religious definition for cult doesn't carry much sway in a non-religious context because no one else cares. But I do get how those inside that focus do care about it.
Here's an example: When Jesus was brought before Pilate to be judged the Roman impression was that it was a religious concern of the group's, an internal problem to those complaining that wasn't governed by Roman law. It was sent to Herod for local jurisdiction and then back to Pilate. Again, if no Roman laws were broken no crime was committed.
The fact that it could have led to a larger disturbance and caused problems by Roman law was a concern but we can see that would have been a problem manufactured by the group. Left alone, Jesus wasn't a problem to Rome.
The crime of "treason" came to bear and ultimately the "crime" of preaching "the Kingdom of God" and the possibility that He was a "leader" of a rebellion against Rome was decalared but again - it was a stretch given substance only by the fact that the group complaining identified Jesus and His followers as a threat. Pilate ultimately gave in to the group pressure. It would be hard to imagine He felt the Roman empire was directly threatened by Jesus or His followers and since the brief records don't indicate that Jesus challenged him or Rome in their meeting Pilate would have had to conclude it as a non-issue.
But he was crucified.
That example is worth considering in detail when looking at "cult" definitions. Correctly identifying what's hmmm.....really going on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure where they stand on the Trinity issue, but, it's my opinion THESE GUYS fit the profile of a "cult".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
An interesting and high profile example there waysider.
A complete and brief sidebar - they typify the real concern I have about any belief structure, "right" or "wrong" and that is the character of the members and their ability and willingness to act upon their beliefs. Some people talk about what they believe, others live what they believe.
The HA's. I won't attach my name to a discussion that includes their full name. Dirty Harry said it best - "a man's got know his limitations". I keep my world apart from that one, it's not for non-members.
To a great extent I don't mix it up with people on religious issues either. As a citizen I celebrate our freedom of "religion". As a current resident of society I weight any real action against the reality that many people would take that freedom from me and impose their own version on me, violently if necessary. Any confrontation on any level has to consider the possible ramifications. Unfortunately I don't trust a lot of the loving followers of Mr. Jesus, today so I can be guarded around those who seek to advance "His" interests.
.
This topic needs to be discussed imo because there are many who believe that a cult is defined by whether the doctrine of The Trinity is accepted.
I agree. And the issues once we leave the doctrinal piece out - religious freedom is protected in the U.S. - are clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Hmmm...the Hells Angels are a gang which in my mind is different than a cult. For one thing, not that I've ever been in the HA's, I don't think there is some leader who says he has some kind of special revalatory light to deliver to the world. He's just into power, and "might makes right." An HA leader rules solely because of threat of violence and he can lose his position by being killed. Whereas in a cult the leader has some sort of revalatory gift that no one can ever have. Even if he is killed he devotees will still revere him.
Kill a gang leader in battle and you can have his job. Again, I've never been in a gang so I'm keying off of what I've seen on t.v.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Meet Sonny B.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
perhaps only in some court of law..
in a practical sense? I don't think so..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, heck, you don't have to look any farther than the GSC political forum to get the skinny on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
oh yeah!
It's one party played against another..
one lifetime after another..
it's slightly "intriguing" to watch..
maybe I shouldn't say. I'm one of them as well.
socially, intellectually, and politically underdeveloped individuals thinking they've go the answers to life..
christ.. as far as being "played".. you were easy..
as was I..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Daylight takes me far away
To you it does the same
Moving through the noisy streets
Like pawns in someones' game
Time goes by so slowly
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Nice song..
what makes it infinitely more complex.. is when the other "one" of me just lets go..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure I understand. But, here is part of another song that addresses that "oneness".
For deep within we two are one
Yet can not understand
We've not been born
We're centuries old
We're buried 'neath the land
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The red herring -
There are at least two different ways that "cults" can be defined. One includes doctrine as a qualifier, one doesn't.
One has religious components, the other doesn't.
It sounds like we're generally agreeing that unless the religious beliefs effect behavior in such a way that the individual is harmed it's not a reasonable means of defining what is or isn't a "cult".
To me it's an intellectual exercise without much benefit once it's taken out of the religious context, and the religious context is ridiculous once I define any specific religion and compare that back to the cult definition that includes religious qualifiers, as all religions have those cultish qualities - to someone.
What it really amounts to in that context is one religious view identifying key points that all others must comply with or be labeled "cult" and be avoided and considered dangerous. I don't see that as practical
A person can have a life changing experience that leads them to pursue a specific vision for their life. That happens a lot. It's unique to them, important to them and affects their decisions as to what to do. I think it's simplest to look at each individual person and effort and evaluate that rather than slap labels on it like "cult".
I recall a discussion where a person was making some points on the bible and a respondent cast them with several well known "evangelists", popular leaders of church ministries. This was a deragatory comment. The person took issue - they felt they had nothing in common with those people and took issue with being identified that way. Yet, this happens all the time amongst people - it's very difficult to speak and be heard without other's perceptions being put on you. Yet it persists, and "red flags" go up before full understanding has been achieved. Without dialogue we're stuck with what we know which may not be enough to really know anything.
IMO the real key ingredient is the individual person, the citizen, the man or woman and their own freedom to choose "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I steer clear of religious organizational identifications because it often impedes real communication.
It's the old "I have a jack but I'm not going to help you"............I don't care if that person's Mormon, trinitarian or believes god is a one eyed dog. I just need the jack. If I won't help another along life's way without requiring their Religious Correctness Card be stamped and certified, that in my opinion, sucks and I won't have much basis upon which to engage that person in way that will make a real difference, good or bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The link starting this thread is titled "Is a Christian organization a cult?"
Doing some reading - this covers some of the same ground: http://www.cultfaq.o...smovements.html
It characterizes the jumbled mass of explanation required to get an audience broader than a very specific religious one to agree on what they're talking about.
I don't agree with the direction it goes in but there's a lot of information that might be of interest along these lines.
I might be labeled a "cult apologist" by some the standards used, which is fine. After reading through it and a few other sources online it strengthened my conviction that religious freedom in the U.S. makes religious choice a personal one. It doesn't guarantee all will agree or get along but it does guarantee that within the constraints of the laws of the land we are free to choose, not choose or indeed ignore the issue entirely if we so choose.
In that same conviction is the recognition that those choices allow for individuals to render judgment and evaluation of religious beliefs outside their own as wrong or in fact, "cult"ish. If by a person's beliefs they recognize heresies and abherrations that are unacceptable to their beliefs, that's their choice. As citizens we are all still allowed our freedom to those beliefs.
There are many different beliefs, practices and ideas that I would argue against by speaking in favor of what I do believe and contrasting that to what I believe is wrong. For instance I might speak to a Catholic who prays to Mary to consider their prayer life and their relationship to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe that Mary is the mother of God, formally the mother of "the Church", nor that she would hold a position of influence to be accessed in some ritualistic form of prayer or other observances.
But if they accept the doctrines of Mary as mother of the Church, of God and intercessor to God on their behalf, the larger issue is the validity of that doctrinal development in relation to New Testament scripture. This development has occurred over 100's of years and requires accepting the validity of those who confirmed it and the why's and wherefores. That's a discussion that covers a lot of ground and to a Catholic might not be worthwhile.
Ultimately if the do choose to continue believing that, so be it.
Catholicism is seldom taken to task for those views. They believe it, others don't.
All would agree that priests sexually abusing children is wrong though and if proven doesn't require choice but rather justice. So there I think is a good, large scale example of how this "cult" term applies to a large corporate organization. The Catholic church might be a cult by some religious definitions but the internal organization that perpetuates child abuse would (or should be) easy to identify, qualify and judge as being an abusive destructive system to all involved. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
To me the whole issue surrounding the label "cult" is that it is a term that is calling into question the leadership of a group's genuine authority from God. To this end, the label can be used by mainstream denominations which possibly can have no more genuine authority from God than the group they are labeling. A common distinguishing characteristic people rely on is the amount of authority leaders have. If there are checks and balances in place such as the founding fathers of America set up for political government, then there is a certain amount of restraint built in to the darker side of human character. However, when the power over a group is absolute, then there is no restraint to this darker side.
One of the philosophical questions this brings up is "does absolute power corrupt absolutely?". This of course is a rhetorical question without a definitive answer, but if you look at percentages throughout history it does not seem that statistics fall in favor of the virtuous characteristics of mankind proving out when power comes into play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Socks said:
"It sounds like we're generally agreeing that unless the religious beliefs effect behavior in such a way that the individual is harmed it's not a reasonable means of defining what is or isn't a "cult"."
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
could also mean in the enlightened words of Jeff Foxworthy "You maybe a redneck"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
just put the link out there because this was mentioned.
Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of TWI, even wrote a book “Jesus Christ is Not God” and this became the cornerstone teaching of The Way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Twinky, we have a winner!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
GM, well-said!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, I never thought of them as a cult, but perhaps they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Red Flags over New Knoxville, new Ohio attraction
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Ham, Dat's Rightttttt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
or, Raid, roach control
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.