People with experience with Cults please read

[Elind]

There are a few notables : like Fred Phelps, then there is domestic violence that churches turn a blind eye towards and the treatment of wwomen which is sanctioned by Xians and Hindu's.

Xianity is what I am most exposed too, it tolerates a lot of violence in it's members.

That's irrelevant to the fact that you find few others standing in the pulpit and calling for the killing of others (except Pat Robertson, of course).

Can you see the difference?

 

[Dancing David]

That's irrelevant to the fact that you find few others standing in the pulpit and calling for the killing of others (except Pat Robertson, of course).

Can you see the difference?

There are differences and there are differences, hitting your wife and chocking her may not seem like violence to you, forcing sex on a child may not seem like violence to you, I don't know.

So if a Xian supports an illegal and immoral war and doesn't condemn it from the pulpit, what is the difference?

I am speakinh here of things like the Xian churches blind support of totalitarian regimes and genocide.

Who says that Xians have not encouraged the active destruction of people?

I suppose that lynching and pogroms don't count?

 

[Elind]

There are differences and there are differences, hitting your wife and chocking her may not seem like violence to you, forcing sex on a child may not seem like violence to you, I don't know.

So if a Xian supports an illegal and immoral war and doesn't condemn it from the pulpit, what is the difference?

I am speakinh here of things like the Xian churches blind support of totalitarian regimes and genocide.

Who says that Xians have not encouraged the active destruction of people?

I suppose that lynching and pogroms don't count?

You are waffling and confusing human failings with religious dogma. Anyone can come up with this or that association between any church, sect or massage parlor and some atrocity. That says nothing new.

Of course ALL religions are guilty of justifying atrocities thanks to some god or other. That doesn't change which ones are most obviously promoting it from their places of worship today.

 

[Dancing David]

You are waffling and confusing human failings with religious dogma. Anyone can come up with this or that association between any church, sect or massage parlor and some atrocity. That says nothing new.

Of course ALL religions are guilty of justifying atrocities thanks to some god or other. That doesn't change which ones are most obviously promoting it from their places of worship today.

Like Pat Robertson, and those who promote killing doctors that preform abortion, catholic priests that molest children, and the Hindus who killed at Ayodha?

Violence is violence, there is no difference, if Xians used to encourage the killing of native americans, mexican americans and black americans, than they did so, currently around the world and in the US there are religions that sanction the forced marriage of women and promote child abuse, Xians included.

If you wish to draw some line and say :the is the violence that matters and this is the violence that does not, then all I can ask, what is so special about Pat Robertson that he doesn't count as much as any other?

 

[Elind]

Like Pat Robertson, and those who promote killing doctors that preform abortion, catholic priests that molest children, and the Hindus who killed at Ayodha?

Violence is violence, there is no difference, if Xians used to encourage the killing of native americans, mexican americans and black americans, than they did so, currently around the world and in the US there are religions that sanction the forced marriage of women and promote child abuse, Xians included.

If you wish to draw some line and say :the is the violence that matters and this is the violence that does not, then all I can ask, what is so special about Pat Robertson that he doesn't count as much as any other?

Honestly, at this moment I'm not sure what we are debating anymore. I've been drinking wine in the sun on a beautiful saturday afternoon after a hard week of work and I'm kind of mellow, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you might be right in whatever you are saying.

Sorry to be a bore, but a nap would be nice right now.

Cheers.

 

[Dancing David]

Honestly, at this moment I'm not sure what we are debating anymore. I've been drinking wine in the sun on a beautiful saturday afternoon after a hard week of work and I'm kind of mellow, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you might be right in whatever you are saying.

Sorry to be a bore, but a nap would be nice right now.

Cheers.

Salud, I liked the sun yesterday as well, it is now likely to be freezing rain.

 

[YoPopa]

A number of posts on this thread have insisted that most any religion can be considered a cult. Steve Hassan did a very good job of defining destructive cults in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control. IIRC Steve says that destructive cults are characterized by about 10 different distinctive traits. Most of these traits can be present to a lesser or greater degree. If they are all present to a very high degree then the group is a very destructive cult. Most main stream religions have some of the defining characteristics but not to a very high degree.

For one example. Cults have their own terminology. Words which have one meaning to the population in general have unique meanings to the cult members. Most religions, and most groups, even JREF, have their own words with special meanings. The most destructive cults can carry that to an extreme where an outside observer can listen to two cult members talking and have no idea what is being said. That is one of the ways that cult members become isolated from the larger society. I would like to suggest that cults be viewed on a continuos scale. It isn't all that instructive to label all mainstream religions as cults.

 

[Elind]

Salud, I liked the sun yesterday as well, it is now likely to be freezing rain.

Sorry to hear that. Come to Florida and have a glass. 65 this evening.

 

[Elind]

A number of posts on this thread have insisted that most any religion can be considered a cult. Steve Hassan did a very good job of defining destructive cults in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control. IIRC Steve says that destructive cults are characterized by about 10 different distinctive traits. Most of these traits can be present to a lesser or greater degree. If they are all present to a very high degree then the group is a very destructive cult. Most main stream religions have some of the defining characteristics but not to a very high degree.

For one example. Cults have their own terminology. Words which have one meaning to the population in general have unique meanings to the cult members. Most religions, and most groups, even JREF, have their own words with special meanings. The most destructive cults can carry that to an extreme where an outside observer can listen to two cult members talking and have no idea what is being said. That is one of the ways that cult members become isolated from the larger society. I would like to suggest that cults be viewed on a continuos scale. It isn't all that instructive to label all mainstream religions as cults.

Interesting, but insufficient to make a real point. You would need to get much more specific, or profound, to define the differences.

For example, when I listen to the TV preachers, mega churches and all, they most certainly have a language applicable only to themselves, and essentially meaningless to me and anyone else who was taught non religious English. I could say the same about very mainstream Catholics, yet even I don't see them as a "cult". I am however still somewhat unsure of the difference except for that of scale.

 

[YoPopa]

Interesting, but insufficient to make a real point. You would need to get much more specific, or profound, to define the differences.

For example, when I listen to the TV preachers, mega churches and all, they most certainly have a language applicable only to themselves, and essentially meaningless to me and anyone else who was taught non religious English. I could say the same about very mainstream Catholics, yet even I don't see them as a "cult". I am however still somewhat unsure of the difference except for that of scale.

I don't think of myself as being profound and additional specifics will be difficult because I gave away my copy of Combatting Cult Mind Control years ago.

You are right that all "TV preachers, mega churches and all, they most certainly have a language applicable only to themselves" The same can be said of MLM schemes, used car salesmen, carpenters, and the science department at your local college. The presence of a "secret" language alone can't be taken as a sole indicator of a destructive cult. It's just one of the characteristics to look for and evaluate on a scale of intensity and honesty. The more destructive cults use common words in uncommon and misleading ways.

Another example of a cult characteristic that varies in degrees is the existence of some "higher levels of knowledge". When an outsider expresses curiosity about the beliefs held by the group are they allowed unfettered access? In the case of carpenters, Catholics and the science profs., the higher level knowledge can be gotten by anyone who wants to read the books and ask the questions. In the case of Scientology you won't get any straight info. on the higher levels until they trust you.

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to suggest that cults be viewed on a continuos scale. It isn't all that instructive to label all mainstream religions as cults.

I hope that I didn't do that, I was referencing the mainstream religion that acts as cults do, like the snake handlers and the brain washing bible camps.