- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere are codes and standards of behavior placed on the supporter by out-side organisations fifa, fa, police and the club. the rules are mainly to ensure safety at matches. the rules are hardly 'strange or excessive' football fans actually have very few rules governing how they should behave. a fan also has the freedom to attend and not attend games at will. you could argue that groups within supporters such as some of the organized hooligan element could be described as cults though.
on the contrary there are certain codes and standards of behaviour that are expected of all football supporters, and if one contravenes that code, one is liable to be banished from the game. Are some not given a life time ban and cannot congregate with the other supporters for some gross misdemeanour? What is more, there exists at football matches, ...[text shortened]... iour, the mob mentality had taken over as their sense of personal responsibility was diminished.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
-Removed-although you may practice christianity on your own. you are still connected to the others by your shared belief. if you leave, regardless if you care what they think, other christians will think bad things are going to happen to you. i would define this as excessive control. christianity attempts to stop you leaving by having a belief structure that dictates you will be punished for leaving. once you have left it may no longer mater to you as you no longer believe but that is the same for all cults.
Originally posted by galveston75The word "cult" aside, maybe the criticisms that provoke the use of that word are in some ways valid when cited in the case of the "ones that are labeled that way" e.g. Muslims, Scientoligists, YECs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Catholics, Branch Davidians etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps the accepted thought of a cult should or could not actually apply to ones that are labeled that way?
Originally posted by galveston75I don't think the sense that a group is a "cult" can be enumerated in terms of number of "accepted ideas". I think the accusation is much more of a "gut feeling" thing, a repulsion, a feeling of caution, sympathy, ruefulness etc.
If a organization or religion has one of the accepted ideas of a cult, is it now a cult?
If it had two of the accepted ideas of a cult, is it now a cult?
At what number does it actually become a cult?
-Removed-By why do you want to label it/them a cult? Why not simply point out all the things you think are bad/wrong about their organisation? I think that when people try to force a label onto an unwilling subject it is in order to make claims that cannot genuinely be supported by force of argument/evidence but rather the misuse of definitions.
People do the same in the reverse, ie they refuse the use of definitions because they think that definitions magically bestow certain properties onto an object - the word 'evolution' comes to mind and the way certain people will insist that adaptation occurs but not evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSo should the criticism of one person quailfy a religion to be a cult or does it take a hundred or ten thousand critical opinions to make it a cult?
The word "cult" aside, maybe the criticisms that provoke the use of that word are in some ways valid when cited in the case of the "ones that are labeled that way" e.g. Muslims, Scientoligists, YECs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Catholics, Branch Davidians etc. etc. etc.