by vomit 16 Replies latest jw friends
Some act sort of like a cult, some don't. I was talking to a minister I know and he made a remark that surprised me. I explained my view of the bible hell and he said,"I sure hope you are right." He didn't try to impose any of his doctrines on me.
Ken P.
In sake veritas, or pars veritatis?
Imho America aka "New World," by its very history, tends to worship novelty which it naturally equates with freedom, the foundational form of which is freedom of (not from) religion.
In most traditional or older cultures what is new is suspect a priori. Even when it is praised it is praised negatively, i.e. against a common old model of society.
Add to that a different mode of socialisation which reflects market-like pluralism. There is no "default religion," hence no "default cultural identity" as the background of a secular public space. This results in a different type of secularism. Typically in France we call secularism laïcité -- which means that it is defined against Catholicism as the onetime state religion. Also (consequently?), the level of default social structure (or the common socialisation in public space) seems to be lower, which makes the core of socialisation rest upon membership in church or churchlike groups which people choose from a market-type offer. This offers a favorable setting for the development of "new religious products".
I tend to think that there is less difference between a "cult" and the rest of society (including "mainstream religions") in America than there is in most places of the world. Just a French perspective.
This word "cult" is practically becoming a religions version of the racial "N-word".
I have looked it up several times, and it really seemed to have a pretty benign meaning in past history. However, nowadays, after Charlie Manson, David Koresch, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, etc. it has taken on a new and deeply sinister life of it's own. Nobody wants to own up to being in a cult, or be accused of such.
I am starting to think that it should be used only with care; in modern context I can't really see calling your local conservative Methodist a cult member - makes no sense to the ordinary man in the street.
I also agree with friend "vomit" that America is a little over-religioned for my taste...but I don't see that this kind of rant should go outside the pages of sites like this. For example, it was probably a little too violent for sending to your local paper under letters from readers.
Just my opinion - and yes, JWdom is still a well-disguised but high-control & dangerous cult in my view.
I've been doing a lot of research on cults lately, because I am trying to put together a cult awareness presentation.
Basically, a cult HAS to recruit and operate using deception. If they are honest about their beliefs, then no one would ever join.
To say that every Christian denomination falls in to the defintion of a cult, is not accurate. However, a group that claims to be Bible-believing Christian, yet teaches something fundamentally different from what the Bible teaches, IS acult. Forexample: If a Buddist group claims to be Buddist, it is not a cult. But if a Buddist group pretends to be Christian, then it is.
Another example is the well-known Heavens Gates group: What if new recruits were told right up front, "Join our group! You will get to wear strange clothing, become castrated, and even get to drink poison!" How many people would have joined them, if they had known right up front what was going to be expected? They had to be lied to and manipulated slowly and over a period of time. THAT is the ear-mark of a cult. Not the belief system itself, but the misrepresentation of what they actually believe.
Well, the U.S. is the land of religious freedom so why should anybody be surprised at the number of religions - mainstream or otherwise? And, yes, I am sure some fall into the category of being cults.
It seems that after the 1970s there was a proliferation of religions all over the place.
LHG
Some good point raised
Wander
"Usually cults restrict information, freedom of personal choice, and freedom to leave without repercussions."
Sorry I need some stricter definitions then, because I have seen pretty much all of that in almost every religion.
You may retort and say that some big denomination like catholics let you leave without repercussions. But as most JWs know, the persecution from their families and even the parish priest is very real.
LittleToe
I may not be bright, but I reject your ability to judge me. If I was to characterize you, it would be somebody that is literally addicted to Internet forums, their social mechanics and dose of adulation you feel you get when you post with authority.
exjdub
I think the skeptics and the people who reject religion in general, have had it with the phrase "open your mind", firstly is ever so slightly derogatory, secondly, religion in general encourages a closed mind and it is very evident. I for one am not going to give anybody who believes in a "young earth" any credibility, at this stage I wont even entertain their fantasies. What is the benefit of entertaining the ridiculous. Young Earth theory is pretty easy to shoot down, but all the smaller pieces of crap religions use as leverage in their way of thinking, should they be entertained? My answer is no. I wont accept the label as closed minded though, rejection of a fallacy after studying it, even seeing the benifit ot the masses of believing the fallacy is not nessesarly closed minded.
Narkissos, great points, I will attempt to address them later.
James Wood
More great points, I personally believe its American fear of litigation that only gives religious people the ability to express their conviction. There is far to much room for religious freedom, there is freedom from religion. Especially since the inception of Scientology, It is evident there is no freedom to really criticize religion publicly.
Personalty I think 2006 is really the start of the atheism and the rejection of religion as real movement in itself, it will foster over time. I believe soon there will form a critical mass of the people who just wont accept any form of religiosity. Then we can go back to calling a spade a spade and religions as what they really are, cults.
whyizit, even the catholic church recruits in Africa by giving out food and soup, hence the expression Rice Christians.
Deception: free food for life. Once converted the free food stops, but the religiosity begins.
LongHairGirl,
When you enable a system that give cults status, it allows the larger denominations to get a way with practices that would of been rejected, the message from the pulpit of catholic churches differs substantially inside and outside of America. So even a major religion can be corrupted into become a cult.
Actually, i think that the basic idea of your thread holds water. The catholic church is the christian sect of the early centuries that gained ascendency, put together the nt, became the roman state (empire) religion, and then propagated across europe and some other parts of the world. While force and other tactics used in all those efforts does not make it legitimate, nevertheless, it is the original christianity that became organised. I would say that it\\the roman catholic church holds the patent on being christian in a similar fashion to how jews hold the patent to jewishness. Of course, that doesn't stop tom, dick or henry the 8th from declaring a new religion and getting as many followers as possible.
That probably means that they should give back the ot ot the jews.
S
