Some thoughts on cults

[smaneck]

Is trinity a cult?

No, it's a dogma. There is a cult of the Virgin Mary because there are certain rituals that surround her veneration. There is nothing like that in connection with the Trinity.

Mind you, though I'm using the term 'cult' in its traditional meaning, not the modern one.

 

[LoAmmi]

But a basic is denying that Jesus is God, and not going by the Bible. So, this could include a lot of publicly accepted religious groups and philosophies, like Judaism and Islam and "New Age".

What a clever definition of a cult. I hereby give my own: A group that accepts Jesus is G-d is a cult. Therefore you are a cult. Fun? I mean, seriously, if your definition of cult is anybody who isn't what I am, then your definition needs fixing.

 

[Albion]

One basic thing I have been told is that a cult is a group of people who deny that Jesus is "God". And they claim the Bible but do not go by what it says. And they control their members. They might make some person or thing the "enemy" and keep a lot of attention on that enemy and make a project of criticizing that enemy, and this keeps attention away from how their own leader or leadership is wrong.

Of course, by the way, any of us can do this, our own selves > I mean, how we can be so busy pointing the finger at someone else so we and others don't notice how we ourselves are wrong.

Also, I see how a cult can have very different things and standards and requirements so they can say, only we have this and this is essential and so you need to join us.

But a Christian denomination can do this, too > having more or less unique practices and beliefs and saying they are so important and no one or not everyone else has them and so you need to join that denomination. So a denomination can be cultic.

It's more a matter of the kinds of beliefs than the much-discussed control over the membership or the uniqueness of any religious body's interpretations.

1. Is the nature of God redefined?
2. Is the nature of Man redefined?
3. Do they base it upon their own scriptures?

Say 'yes' to any of those and you're probably dealing with a cult, regardless of how unthreatening it is in practice.

 

[RDKirk]

Why has everyone missed the point of the OP?

It seems as though the thread has simply been hijacked into a debate of doctrines.

 

[Supreme]

A great post, ViaCrucis. I don't think I could possibly add anything new. What I would say, is that a cult tries to restrict its members and keep a close eye on them. So, in that sense, Scientology is definitely a cult, and I would have no objection to its claims to be a religion being laughed out of court.

I think what you're saying is that you can have cults that subscribe to legitimate religious movements and doctrines, and 'out there' faiths and religions that aren't cultish by nature.

 

[smaneck]

You might start with my friend's book:

Jesus on Trial, David Limbaugh

Hand him a book, TasteforTruth and be done with it.

And that of course, settles nothing.

 

[smaneck]

One basic thing I have been told is that a cult is a group of people who deny that Jesus is "God".

You've been told wrong. That's the modern false definition of cult. Judaism is not a cult but they deny Jesus is God. Islam is not a cult. They deny Jesus is God. etc. etc.

 

[LoAmmi]

You might start with my friend's book:

Jesus on Trial, David Limbaugh

Luke 11:52
Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.’


Those darn lawyers!

 

[Albion]

You've been told wrong. That's the modern false definition of cult. Judaism is not a cult but they deny Jesus is God. Islam is not a cult. They deny Jesus is God. etc. etc.

Whoa! In these conversations, the word cult assumes some variation on historic Christianity.

It really has no relevance to different versions of non-Christian religions, although I suppose there may be some similar discussion among the adherents of those faiths.

 

[drstevej]

Luke 11:52
Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.’


Those darn lawyers!

David practices law in Missouri and the Mormons tell us that is where the garden of Eden is. But I assure you he walks upright, no belly slithering.

 

[TasteForTruth]

You might start with my friend's book:



Jesus on Trial, David Limbaugh

Hand him a book, TasteforTruth and be done with it.

And that of course, settles nothing.

It would at least settle his demand with as much definitiveness as he has settled mine.

 

[LoAmmi]

David practices law in Missouri and the Mormons tell us that is where the garden of Eden is. But I assure you he walks upright, no belly slithering.

I only joke, of course. I've read similar books to that before and still have never been convinced. There are usually some things the author wants me to assume as true from the start that I am unwilling to assume. For example, I usually have to accept the Gospels as true in order to proceed. Being able to poke holes in the story makes it rather hard to prove something.

 

[TasteForTruth]

To drstevej and taste for Truth:

Gentlemen,

Please allow me to butt in on your conversation.

I was a committed Christian for almost sixty years, until the time I could no longer accept certain doctrines that I had championed for all of this time.

Your current ‘prove this’……no…..’prove that’ conversation serves no useful purpose, since neither of you are going to give way (or to see any good reason why you should). I beg you not to go on wasting each other’s time. Please agree to differ; and leave it to the Beloved.

Thank you.

Paul

You are right. The thing is, I am not serious in my demand. I am Christian. I respond as I do to expose the double-standard being leveraged by the Chaplain.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Actually, I think it only calls Christian creeds an abomination.

But since your Bible calls catfish an abomination, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Dang... I had catfish for breakfast. I'm doomed. :o

 

[TasteForTruth]

Why has everyone missed the point of the OP?

It seems as though the thread has simply been hijacked into a debate of doctrines.

What you have described is the new CWR, where nigh unto every thread will be hijacked by critics of the LDS religion and turned into a bash-Mormonism extravaganza. Get used to it. It only took 5 posts in this thread. That's impressive, but by no means a record.

 

[drstevej]

I only joke, of course. I've read similar books to that before and still have never been convinced. There are usually some things the author wants me to assume as true from the start that I am unwilling to assume. For example, I usually have to accept the Gospels as true in order to proceed. Being able to poke holes in the story makes it rather hard to prove something.

I understand, but I do think it is worth the read.

And you might also try Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf. Greenleaf was the leading scholar on evidential law at Harvard and was challenged to apply legal principles of witness credibility to the gospel witness to Jesus of the Gospels. His book provides a comparative analysis of the accounts judged from a legal standard.

In the process he became a Christian.

 

[LoAmmi]

I understand, but I do think it is worth the read.

And you might also try Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf. Greenleaf was the leading scholar on evidential law at Harvard and was challenged to apply legal principles of witness credibility to the gospel witness to Jesus of the Gospels. His book provides a comparative analysis of the accounts judged from a legal standard.

In the process he became a Christian.

He's been dead a long time and, I'll bet, there are a bunch of assumptions made that I'd have difficulty with. Ones you might not even notice as a Christian yourself.

It's a rare person who criticizes their home team's cheerleaders in front of the opponents, if you get what I mean.

 

[smaneck]

Dang... I had catfish for breakfast. I'm doomed. :o

Shrimp, too. There goes supper. God Hates Shrimp

 

[com7fy8]

It's more a matter of the kinds of beliefs than the much-discussed control over the membership or the uniqueness of any religious body's interpretations.

1. Is the nature of God redefined?
2. Is the nature of Man redefined?
3. Do they base it upon their own scriptures?

Say 'yes' to any of those and you're probably dealing with a cult, regardless of how unthreatening it is in practice.

Yes, I would say so; but there would be the motive for redefining, that would be deeper than only the beliefs. So, I think we could discuss what motive or motives make a group a cult.

And, of course, each of us could have these motives; so it could be good to take a look at our own selves, and not only be evaluating others

When we have our own cult-like motives, this can make us available to join a wrong group of people with our wrong motives . . . whether they are a cult or a not for real church group or some other in-crowd.

Ones can redefine things to fit with their motives, can't they? Can't any of us?

 

[Albion]

Yes, I would say so; but there would be the motive for redefining, that would be deeper than only the beliefs. So, I think we could discuss what motive or motives make a group a cult.

Personally, I can't agree. It's what they are that matters. However, I'd agree that that's an interesting slant on the subject that probably merits some further discussion.

When we have our own cult-like motives, this can make us available to join a wrong group of people with our wrong motives...

The problem with that is that a perfectly orthodox faith or church can be described as a cult if we take that approach, and this only serves to confuse the issue of what is meant by a "cult." Or, to put it another way, it is to make the psychological aspect that's often associated with the word take precedence over the theological.

Almost all the well-known "cult watchers" --writers, researchers, lecturers, etc. --have stressed the aberrant doctrines. And that's important because some very strange churches or religions may well be populated by some very nice and sincere people. We'd still want our friends to be aware that they are not 'just another' Christian denomination.