What is a cult?

Originally posted by RBHILL
That's what the Catholic Church is, they are ritualistic.

RB, you never said anything about my post... I'll paste it again.



I have to show you this again?

1 John 3:18
Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.

No.1 Lawyer has some reading for you also, as well as me remembering Nemesio telling you there is more than being Christian than just saying your prais.

I'd like you to also read Corinthians 12. Here is one of the many lines that are good:

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


What I believe this is all saying is we live by Christ's words if we do right by Christ. You are trying to butcher God's children into separate sects, and say you are saved while others will burn.

Jesus wouldn't like that: (More from Corinthians 12)

4 ¶ Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;




Please get back to me on this subject.


ES

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't disagree that Christianity was once a cult. 🙂

These may not be the dictionary definitions of "religion", "cult" or "sect", but I think they're common-sensical enough.

Christianity is and always has been too diversified to be a cult, however there seems to have been more than a few groups of Christian that have acted like one.
RB seems to be in one, judging buy his posts. Especially the ones about the RCC being one and his laughable assertion about Unitarians. The former has way too many diverse cultural influences and the latter isn't very dogmatic about anything. What RB is parroting seems to be the ravings of a cult's spokesman.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Christianity is and always has been too diversified to be a cult, however there seems to have been more than a few groups of Christian that have acted like one.

Why do you say that?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Not praying in the name of Jesus is ritualistic, and using a rosery would be.

But RB, you know that Roman-Catholics start EVERY prayer with "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why do you say that?

The one thing I've noticed is the definition of "cult" held by a cult is never applied to their own group.

Having just wasted precious time on searching the net for names of historical cults and reading the definitions that cults use to justify themselves and the groups they name as "cults", it's clear to me that cults have either succeeded in obfucating the meaning of the word "cult" or have successfully branded every group known to man as a cult.

Originally posted by eagles54
Well, to me, a cult seems driven by ego and the desire to satisfy ego - either one's own or another's. Christianity in its beginnings, assuming it is true and correct in its pointing to communion with the Divine, would not be considered a cult looking at it objectively because to know God the ego has to be lessened and not strengthened.

There is an excellent book on cults by Flo Conway and Joel Siegelman entitiled "Snapping".

Originally posted by LemonJello
yes, your reply is sensible, and RB's definition is also sensible in such a context.

however, the myopic nature of the definition (indeed, the myopic thinking there contained) leaves a stain, which is what i was driving at.

perhaps we could change the name of the thread to "what a cult is to me, by RBHill"

wait...we couldn't do that -- he didn't actually write it.

I tend to see cults as isolated groups, who claim to have secret knowledge, and use mild to sever brain-washing techniques to control members. There is unusually one leader that has a great deal of power over the other members.

I don't think of cults in terms of Christian doctrine. I do not categorize Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses as cults. I consider some of their teachings to be heretical, as is their claim to have additional inspired texts. I don't think Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, or other open religions are cults, but I'm sure there are cults within those religions.


I don't think there is a perfect definition of cult. It is one of those terms that is used differently by different people and in different context. So it's not really a helpful term for classifying different groups if left undefined. But it can lead to some interesting conversations.

Originally posted by Coletti
I tend to see cults as isolated groups, who claim to have secret knowledge, and use mild to sever brain-washing techniques to control members. There is unusually one leader that has a great deal of power over the other members.

I don't think of cults in terms of Christian doctrine. I do not categorize Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses as cults. I consid ...[text shortened]... ifying different groups if left undefined. But it can lead to some interesting conversations.

i agree...good post.

for most people there is certainly a stigma attached with the idea of a 'cult', as evidenced by the fact that very few people would be willing to stand up and say that they consider themselves a member of a cult. on the contrary, most people would vehemently deny that any group they are attached with fits the description of a cult. of course, in order for that to be justified, they need to define a cult in such a way as to exclude any groups to which they belong. hence, the definition of a cult tends to bounce around from person to person -- as you say, there is no clear definition.

that is precisely why i don't like the premise of this thread -- in which RBHill comes out and has it in mind that he is going to tell us all what a cult is. of course, it fits a definition that fits his lifestyle. fair enough. i think it's a myopic definition at best, and that's fair enough as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
This is what I call the "Candidates Fallacy". If you're going to vote in an election, and you see 10 candidates' names on the ballot sheet, do you argue "Since there is more than one name on the sheet, all the candidates are equally suited/unsuited for the job"?

Yet that is exactly what you're doing here - dismissing religion because there a ...[text shortened]... anges in existing doctrines, new philosophical thoughts can cause changes in existing doctrines.

I'm not saying that, i'm saying your religion is no better than any other. It's presumptuous to tell anyone their salvation will come from Christ (or Buddha, or anything) when there's a world of religions, and there's no reason to believe yours is any more correct. It seems the major monotheistic faiths have an internal logic, that is based on a primitive rewards system for obedience.

That is an eternal reward (often laughably materialistic in nature, 1000 virgins in paradise anyone?) for obedience while eternal punishment for a lack of it. It's sad that by this logic a great man (e.g, Fred Hollows who gave sight to so many in 3rd world countries) who's an atheist won't find some form of salvation (going by that internal logic).

Personally i think that whether or not you're a member of any religion, 'God' or whatever power that be couldn't give a stuff. Deed will always be more important than dogma, people who aren't afraid to think for themselves don't need an institution. They can make up their own minds in terms of what they want to believe from any and all these religions.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

But RB, you know that Roman-Catholics start EVERY prayer with "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

But you ask in the name of Jesus.

Originally posted by RBHILL
But you ask in the name of Jesus.

Please... again. Respond to my post at the top of this page.

ES

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Please... again. Respond to my post at the top of this page.

ES

What are you, STANG???????

I thought a "cult" was a young horse.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you, STANG???????

I thought a "cult" was a young horse.

I thought it was a disparaging term for a woman.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you, STANG???????

I thought a "cult" was a young horse.

Good idea! I need a Blog!

Read.this.RBHILL.BlogSpot!

ES

Originally posted by frogstomp
""by grace through faith" " simply put is Paulian doctrine. That idea doesn't come from Christ.

btw anybody that calls the Unitarian Society a "cult" has either a very distorted defininition of "cult" or a complete ignorance of what a Unitarian is.
One of the real signs of a mind controlling cult is how easily they cal ...[text shortened]... B . If you want to be a Christian, stop putting Paul higher on the mountain the Jesus.

""by grace through faith" " simply put is Paulian doctrine. That idea doesn't come from Christ.

Are you suggesting that any sin will enter Heaven?

That is contrary to the Christian faith:

Matthew 1:21 - And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

And if you look at the next verse it should be clear:

Matthew 9:2 - And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

It does not say that Jesus saw their good works!

Matthew 9:22 - But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole.

Matthew 9:29 - Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

Matthew 17:17 - Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?

I would say that your taking Matthew 25 out of context could be labeled as a sect.