01 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIrrelevancies?
ok, you will now be ignored, proving that you are simply here to troll, goodbye again why you continually seek attention and reduce discussions to irrelevances may only be known to you.
Here are some of my posts again in case you were not reading them:
Fanatical football fans have the 'freedom' to criticize players, managers, front office, signings and so on [vehemently so], just as they can be inclined (and permitted) to idolize players, doggedly defend managers, hear no cross words said about front office, and welcome signings [also vehemently so] etc. etc. Football fandom is probably a pretty poor example of a group "having to follow the same rules". It's an analogy that does not stand up to much scrutiny.
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.
I 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.
I think it's about [1] dogma, [2] the sense of being set apart and the carefully cultivated sense of "otherness" and exceptional-ism, and [3] the resulting intellectual and interpersonal behavior.
To my way of thinking it is a damaged word and it's used to express a gut feeling about a given group. If you want to dub this point of view a product of "intellectual laziness" on my part, then so be it. I've been called much worse.
I don't think I am being "intellectually lazy" at all. I've told you what I think people MEAN when they use the word "cult" and what group characteristics and member attributes it is I think they may be referring to. I have also said that I rarely use the word because it is emotive and laden with subjectivity, and that my attempted "definition" will not further the debate by offering yet another supposedly 'objective' definition. There is a 'reality' about this word and its use that you are not going to alter by insisting on yet another subjective definition from em. Far from being "intellectually lazy", I think I have demonstrated some intellectual integrity in the way I have addressed this word and the way people use it.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes I admit there is an element of the derogatory; I really do dislike "cult-like" organisations.
Thank you.
[b]I do accept that I use the term provocatively,
Just provocatively, or derogatorily as well?
... but I do honestly think the JW organisation is a cult; I've explained my reasons for thinking this way and I feel it is justified.
But my point is that the reasons alone should suffice. There is no real gain by calling them a cu ...[text shortened]... justified, and times when they are grossly misused (as is the case with the word 'terrorist'.[/b]
As for the use of the label, it is a descriptor which as I said, I feel justified in using because of the disgraceful methods of mind control employed. In my opinion it is not being exaggerated or misused.
01 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre Jehovahs Witnesses the only group that has departed from mainstream, if not, then why are you signalling them out? thank you in advance?
all denominations that depart from what is considered mainstream would then fit that description. Are Jehovahs Witnesses the only group that has departed from mainstream, if not, then why are you signalling them out? thank you in advance?
From what I can tell, this thread was borne from a discussion you were having with DG on the "@ JWs on [your] Jehovah and killing" thread which you capped off on page 2 with the following post:
You stated that Jehovahs Witnesses are a cult, i am addressing your last post. It is a term you have used consistently in your criticism, therefore, what is your definition of a cult.
Seems to get to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?
all denominations that depart from what is considered mainstream would then fit that description.
If you can be honest with yourself, you'll acknowledge that the JWs have "deviated from normative religions in belief and practice" much more than most.
01 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWill you please answer the question, if the definition of a cult is that one leaves the mainstream then why have you signalled Jehovahs witnesses out. I am not asking you what promoted any threads, I am asking you why you have signalled Jehovahs witnesses out. I fully acknowledge that we have deviated from what is considered the norm.
[b]Are Jehovahs Witnesses the only group that has departed from mainstream, if not, then why are you signalling them out? thank you in advance?
From what I can tell, this thread was borne from a discussion you were having with DG on the "@ JWs on [your] Jehovah and killing" thread which you capped off on page 2 with the following post:
[quote]You e JWs have "deviated from normative religions in belief and practice" much more than most.[/b]
01 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor one, the definition I quoted is not simply "[one that] leaves the mainstream". I suggest that you reread it so that you can fully understand it.
Will you please answer the question, if the definition of a cult is that one leaves the mainstream then why have you signalled Jehovahs witnesses out. I am not asking you what promoted any threads, I am asking you why you have signalled Jehovahs witnesses out. I fully acknowledge that we have deviated from what is considered the norm.
For another, I already explained that I was getting to the "heart of the matter" which is whether or not the JWs fit the definition of a cult per the discussion that prompted this thread. Not sure what you don't understand about this.
Is anyone else having as much difficulty following what I've posted as RC seems to be?
01 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI fully understood it and have not intimated that it is exclusively one who leaves the mainstream, now you will state why you singled Jehovahs witnesses out. I am uninterested in anything else you have to say, simply please tell the forum why you have singled Jehovahs witnesses out. Are they the only ones who have left the mainstream? Are they the only ones you consider to be a cult? No, then why have you singled them out?
For one, the definition I quoted is not simply "[one that] leaves the mainstream". I suggest that you reread it so that you can fully understand it.
For another, I already explained that I was getting to the "heart of the matter" which is whether or not the JWs fit the definition of a cult per the discussion that prompted this thread. Not sure what you
Is anyone else having as much difficulty following what I've posted as RC seems to be?
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by divegeesterOK, I'll accept that you are not misusing the definition for nefarious purposes, just as the word terrorist can, and often is, used correctly and reasonably. This is not to say that I agree that the JWs are a cult. I simply do not know enough about them to make a call either way. The members of the organisation I have known in Zambia did not seem like what I would describe as 'cult members', but they may not be representative of JWs in other parts of the world.
As for the use of the label, it is a descriptor which as I said, I feel justified in using because of the disgraceful methods of mind control employed. In my opinion it is not being exaggerated or misused.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWould you agree or not that the early Christian beliefs and teaching expressed by Jesus were not also a cult in relation to the accepted teachings of his time according to your example here?
Here's a definition of 'cult' that seems to work pretty well:In the West, the term has come to be used for groups that are perceived to have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice. They typically have a charismatic leader and attract followers who are in some way disenfranchised from the mainstream of society. Cults as thus defi ...[text shortened]... com/dictionary/cult
The Jehovah's Witnesses would seem to fit this definition.
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAn hour after he made the comment, sorry Rob but the horse had already bottled. Maybe next time he does it, which he will do as he seems to think disagreement is synonymous with hatred, you should respond directly to him instead.
I included him if you read the text.