|
Post by irvinegrey on Oct 31, 2011 14:09:05 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after.
To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject:
‘By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.
Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 14:26:36 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. Man, where are you going to school? That is a passe definition. Try this: (From http://www.religioustolerance.org) Cults (a.k.a. New Religious Movements)IntroductionQuotations about cults:"...one person's cult is another's religion; all religions begin life as cults. An alternative definition is that a cult is a religion which you happen to dislike." Anthony Campbell 1 "Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging." Philip Kennicott2 "When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group," J. Gordon Melton, founder and director of The Institute for the Study of American Religion. 3 "It's easy to tell the difference - a cult is someone else's religion. Corollary: "A fanatic is someone who believes something more strongly than you do." Jim Heldberg 4 "I have often thought that the difference between a cult and a religion is an IRS ruling." Ron Barrier 4 Usage of the word "cult:"The term "cult" is generally used as a hateful snarl word that is intended to intentionally devalue people and the new faith groups that they have chosen to follow. It tends to associate thousands of benign religious groups with the handful of destructive religious groups that have caused loss of life. The term often creates fear and loathing among the public, and contributes greatly to religious intolerance in North America. The word "cult," particularly as used by the media, carries a heavy emotional content. The term suggests that this is a group that you should detest, avoid, and fear. Who are the true "cults?"In reality, the only "crime" of most "cults" is that they they hold different religious beliefs from whomever is doing the attacking. For example, many conservative Christian counter-cult groups consider The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS; the main Mormon church) to be a cult that is tinged with Gnosticism and teaches beliefs which conflict with historic Christianity. Meanwhile, the LDS teaches the Christianity took a wrong turn in the second century CE and abandoned most of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They regard their own denomination as the true Christian church. Who is the cult and who is the mainline movement depends upon one's viewpoint.History:Fear and dislike of new religious movements, coupled with increased respect for established faith groups with a long history, has been with us for at least two millennia. - During the first century, many people in the Roman Empire rejected Christianity because it was new, and valued Judaism because of its ancient history. Today, some established religions criticize new religions simply because they are new and teach different beliefs.
- During the first century, some politicians spread rumors that Christians engaged in orgies during their love feasts, and sacrificed infants to their God. During the 1980s and early 1990s, many Christians believed that Pagans, Satanists, and other small religious groups engaged in orgies and ritual abuse and human sacrifice.
Meanings of the word "cult:"Individuals and organizations have assigned many meanings to the word "cult." The result is mass confusion: - The Counter-cult movement (CCM) classifies all non-traditional Christian faith groups as cults simply because their beliefs differ from historical Christian doctrine. The term "cult" has, in many ways, replaced "heretic" or "non-traditional," or "unconventional" within the CCM. Examples of commonly attacked "cults" are: Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons. In this website, we simply refer to these groups as denominations, or faith groups.
- Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians describe most non-Christian religions as cults or as Satanic religions, simply because they are non-Christian. Examples are religions as different as Wicca and Hinduism. We simply refer to these groups by name, as alternative religions or as faith groups.
- The largely secular Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) mainly targets religious groups that make high demands on their membership. They are accused of mind control or brainwashing techniques which reduce their members to near zombie-like status, who are unable to think clearly and become trapped within the group. Examples of religions targeted by the ACM are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Two-by-twos. Studies by mental health researchers indicate that the charges of the ACM have little or no merit. We simply refer to these groups as high-intensity or high demand faith groups who expect great dedication from their members.
- Many information sources use the term "cult" to refer to the few destructive, doomsday religious groups whose members have been murdered or committed suicide. Examples are The Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate. We do refer to such groups as "cults"
Suggestions:We recommend that people develop a healthy skepticism when they hear someone refer to a religious groups as a "cult". A new faith group may be being attacked: - because they don't believe in the Trinity, or
- because they are non-Christian, like two thirds of the world's population, or
- because they expect a major commitment from their membership, or
- because they are one of those rare, destructive, doomsday groups that have shown themselves to be dangerous to their membership.
We recommend that people refer to religious groups by name. If a term is needed to characterize non-traditional religious groups, we suggest a neutral phrase, like "new religious movement," or "emerging faith group."References used to prepare this essay:These hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today. 1. Anthony Campbell, "David V. Barrett: THE NEW BELIEVERS, A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions," Book review, 2001, at: homepage.ntlworld.com/ 2. Philip Kennicott, in a Washington Post article that is no longer available online. 3. Rhonda Parks Manville, "UCSB research of 'new religions' returns surprises," Santa Barbara News-Press, 2004-JUL-30, at: news.newspress.com/ 4. Quotes extracted from "Heaven's Sake!," at: nowscape.com/ 5. Massimo Introvigne, " 'So many evil things:' Anti-cult terrorism via the Internet," Center for Studies on New Religions, 1999-AUG-5, at: www.cesnur.org/Copied from: www.religioustolerance.org/cultintro.htmLots more on cults, go to:www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htmPlease copy this post in its entirety in any thread where this question comes up.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Oct 31, 2011 14:34:13 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group
"It's easy to tell the difference - a cult is someone else's religion. Corollary: "A fanatic is someone who believes something more strongly than you do." Jim Heldberg 4 "I have often thought that the difference between a cult and a religion is an IRS ruling." The term suggests that this is a group that you should detest, avoid, and fear. They regard their own denomination as the true Christian church. Who is the cult and who is the mainline movement depends upon one's viewpoint.what can i say? so true..
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Oct 31, 2011 14:42:35 GMT -5
Don't shoot the messenger! I have simply asked a question that I shall address in my research and this is a genuine attempt to hear your views.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 14:47:44 GMT -5
Don't shoot the messenger! I have simply asked a question that I shall address in my research and this is a genuine attempt to hear your views. Well consider yourself shot. First, you are leading the witness with your question. Second, you appear to not have ever taken anything in the area of language or cultural theory in your studies. Third, your approach is decidedly un-academic. How you will determine anything with this method of "research" is far beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 15:41:32 GMT -5
The problem here is that you, and there are other so-called Christians like you, do not realize what you're doing by trying to legitimize the word "cult". The meaning of that word 100 years ago, when language commonly marginalized everyone that the Establishment thought did not belong, was not the same as the colloquial meaning of the word today. What you, and there are probably some other academics like you, are trying to do, is the moral equivalent to trying to bring back the word "niggger" to describe people of African-American descent. Let me explain. To most people "cult" means Jim Jones, Doomsday Cult and so on. You (generally) seek to apply the word "cult" to Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and any non-orthodox version of YOUR religion. The net effect of this is to continue a process of marginalizing certain groups in language, on a far worse basis than it ever was in the past. I believe that this is fanning the flames of religious intolerance. I thought I would just lay out the reason that this brings out my indignation.
In terms of usage on this forum, I feel that the use of the word "cult" just makes people angry, and inhibits constructive dialogue. This is why I post the essay above whenever I see the word used. People have the right to use any word, of course, under free speech principles, but I try to make them aware of the implications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 16:48:41 GMT -5
Well, it got you worked up anyway! ;D
You're right though. Usage of the word cult practically guarantees that the user has ill intent toward his subject.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 17:03:18 GMT -5
Well, it got you worked up anyway! ;D You're right though. Usage of the word cult practically guarantees that the user has ill intent toward his subject. Sorry, but it's a major bone of contention with me. Nothing personal, Irvine; anyone who has read my posts on the forum will know that this subject always gets me worked up.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Oct 31, 2011 17:47:43 GMT -5
Those who get worked up over the word “cult” never allow the user of the word the definition the user places upon his/her use of the word. This is clearly seen already on this thread – and using your own definition in place of that given by the poster merely shows that you want to work yourself up to use THAT as a bully-tool.
What is irvinegrey to do, beg YOUR pardon and stop using English words because YOU don’t allow his definition of the words he uses?
It is factual (these days in particular) that almost every member of a cult gets all worked out of shape and angry if his church is called a cult by ANY definition. So getting all worked up and angry is merely demonstrating what is already known. So irvinegrey might thank you for your very clear answer to his question, perhaps even begging your permission to quote you by name – what?
Classic.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Oct 31, 2011 18:00:37 GMT -5
When we think of cults, we think of the most extreme cults but just because a group does not require members to never see their outsider family members or to share wives or to have as many wives as possible, does not mean it is not a cult.
All cults share certain traits in common, and as it happens the meetings have several of these traits:
- exclusive (we are the "only, true way")
- slandering & vilifying other churches ("false hirelings" in it for the money)
- former members must be avoiding as they are a bad influence
- isolation from friends & family unless they show an interest in the group
- there are never any legitimate reasons to leave
- those who do leave are slandered for doing so (he is "bitter", she wanted to leave "the truth for the world", they have "nerve problems")
- no accountability expected of those in charge
- followers feel they can never be "good enough"
- interefence in families (those with a spouse who is not in the meetings or who has left the meetings are encouraged through shame, fear for their spouse's eternal security & guilt to pressure him/her into professing)
- ordinary members kept in the dark (being taught the group was started by Jesus all those years ago when the group was actually started by an uneducated man just over a century ago)
- anything a leader does, no matter how harsh, can be justified
- totalitarian rulers who cannot be challenged (workers)
- fake friendships based on group membership (leave the meetings and the majority of "friends" in the meetings drop contact with you)
- minority in control of majority (workers)
- interference in private life (workers dropping in on people unannounced, sometimes even just walking in the back door, workers authority in family matters given higher priority over parents authority)
- obligation to be at all services, and if not, having a reason why (phone calls for missing meetings)
- hiding details & lying about things to outsiders, then only revealing these things when the outsider joins
- veneration of those in control (workers are the standart to which we must adhere to if we want to reach heaven, workers are personally chosen by God, workers are carrying on Jesus's "unfinished work", photos of workers in homes & bibles, feeling honoured by a visit from the workers)
- if a Christian group, the teaching of unbiblical teachings (denial of trinity, placing workers higher than Jesus, Jesus lowered to standard of a mere man)
- if Christian focus on only a small part of scripture while ignoring the rest of scripture
- little or no charity to outsiders
- secretive
- submission expected of members
- members expected to publicly confess their sins as public humilation ("testimonies" at conventions, promises to "do better")
- taboo topics. certain issues which cannot be questioned or even mentioned
- encouraged feelings of guilt and shame ("think of testimonies at convention")
- "us" versus "them" attitude towards outsiders
- discouraging contact with outsiders
- discouraging any modern media that would lead members to leave (the radio & Internet once banned, TV banned)
- double standards tolerated amongst those higher up but condemned in ordinary members
- the use of double-speak (using the terms "the truth" & "the way" to meaning the meetings when it actually means Jesus)
- legalistic rules on all aspects of life right down to the minor details (hair must be in buns, black stockings used to be obligatory &c...)
- excusing unethical behaviours on the grounds that the group is above the law(workers not paying tax on their salaries, workers covering up the abuse of children by their colleagues)
All of these things are found within the meetings, so therefore I would be lying if I said that I do not believe the meetings to be a cult. The signs are certainly there.
|
|
|
Post by hallelujah on Oct 31, 2011 18:06:03 GMT -5
yes I would say the 2x2's are a cult but because of what Constantine did we have all been victums
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 18:20:12 GMT -5
When we think of cults, we think of the most extreme cults but just because a group does not require members to never see their outsider family members or to share wives or to have as many wives as possible, does not mean it is not a cult. All cults share certain traits in common, and as it happens the meetings have several of these traits: - exclusive (we are the "only, true way") - slandering & vilifying other churches ("false hirelings" in it for the money) - former members must be avoiding as they are a bad influence - isolation from friends & family unless they show an interest in the group - there are never any legitimate reasons to leave - those who do leave are slandered for doing so (he is "bitter", she wanted to leave "the truth for the world", they have "nerve problems") - no accountability expected of those in charge - followers feel they can never be "good enough" - interefence in families (those with a spouse who is not in the meetings or who has left the meetings are encouraged through shame, fear for their spouse's eternal security & guilt to pressure him/her into professing) - ordinary members kept in the dark (being taught the group was started by Jesus all those years ago when the group was actually started by an uneducated man just over a century ago) - anything a leader does, no matter how harsh, can be justified - totalitarian rulers who cannot be challenged (workers) - fake friendships based on group membership (leave the meetings and the majority of "friends" in the meetings drop contact with you) - minority in control of majority (workers) - interference in private life (workers dropping in on people unannounced, sometimes even just walking in the back door, workers authority in family matters given higher priority over parents authority) - obligation to be at all services, and if not, having a reason why (phone calls for missing meetings) - hiding details & lying about things to outsiders, then only revealing these things when the outsider joins - veneration of those in control (workers are the standart to which we must adhere to if we want to reach heaven, workers are personally chosen by God, workers are carrying on Jesus's "unfinished work", photos of workers in homes & bibles, feeling honoured by a visit from the workers) - if a Christian group, the teaching of unbiblical teachings (denial of trinity, placing workers higher than Jesus, Jesus lowered to standard of a mere man) - if Christian focus on only a small part of scripture while ignoring the rest of scripture - little or no charity to outsiders - secretive - submission expected of members - members expected to publicly confess their sins as public humilation ("testimonies" at conventions, promises to "do better") - taboo topics. certain issues which cannot be questioned or even mentioned - encouraged feelings of guilt and shame ("think of testimonies at convention") - "us" versus "them" attitude towards outsiders - discouraging contact with outsiders - discouraging any modern media that would lead members to leave (the radio & Internet once banned, TV banned) - double standards tolerated amongst those higher up but condemned in ordinary members - the use of double-speak (using the terms "the truth" & "the way" to meaning the meetings when it actually means Jesus) - legalistic rules on all aspects of life right down to the minor details (hair must be in buns, black stockings used to be obligatory &c...) - excusing unethical behaviours on the grounds that the group is above the law(workers not paying tax on their salaries, workers covering up the abuse of children by their colleagues) All of these things are found within the meetings, so therefore I would be lying if I said that I do not believe the meetings to be a cult. The signs are certainly there. I hate these checklist approaches to determining whether someone is in a cult, or something is a cult. The word is an attack word to begin with so it puts people on the defensive. It is insulting, derisive and derogatory. All you have done here is list a number of purported features of the friends, which you dislike, and write the words CHECKLIST FOR CULT at the top of it. There is no actual value in doing this, other than to attack.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Oct 31, 2011 18:22:12 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. Yes, by a loose definition of the word cult, I do consider the 2x2 fellowship to be a cult- however- based on the same loose definition of the word cult- I also consider most main stream Christian denominations to be cults. I also believe, that to try and label complex social organizations with a one word label is a sign of laziness is akin to a writer using cliches.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 31, 2011 18:36:14 GMT -5
Those who get worked up over the word “cult” never allow the user of the word the definition the user places upon his/her use of the word. This is clearly seen already on this thread – and using your own definition in place of that given by the poster merely shows that you want to work yourself up to use THAT as a bully-tool. What is irvinegrey to do, beg YOUR pardon and stop using English words because YOU don’t allow his definition of the words he uses? It is factual (these days in particular) that almost every member of a cult gets all worked out of shape and angry if his church is called a cult by ANY definition. So getting all worked up and angry is merely demonstrating what is already known. So irvinegrey might thank you for your very clear answer to his question, perhaps even begging your permission to quote you by name – what? Classic. I don't understand why what gets so worked up about calling the 2x2's a cult anyway!!! He is an EX! But what is HIS ax to grind? irvinegrey defined his terms (and what refuses to acknowledge the terms of the author). And, by the terms spelled out in the OP, I believe the 2x2's to be a cult.....no more, no less!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 18:45:55 GMT -5
Those who get worked up over the word “cult” never allow the user of the word the definition the user places upon his/her use of the word. This is clearly seen already on this thread – and using your own definition in place of that given by the poster merely shows that you want to work yourself up to use THAT as a bully-tool. What is irvinegrey to do, beg YOUR pardon and stop using English words because YOU don’t allow his definition of the words he uses? It is factual (these days in particular) that almost every member of a cult gets all worked out of shape and angry if his church is called a cult by ANY definition. So getting all worked up and angry is merely demonstrating what is already known. So irvinegrey might thank you for your very clear answer to his question, perhaps even begging your permission to quote you by name – what? Classic. I don't understand why what gets so worked up about calling the 2x2's a cult anyway!!! He is an EX! But what is HIS ax to grind? irvinegrey defined his terms (and what refuses to acknowledge the terms of the author). And, by the terms spelled out in the OP, I believe the 2x2's to be a cult.....no more, no less! I understand those terms. That is how cult was defined 100 years ago, not today. Grey is in good company, as there are still many theologians that define the word in this way. Basically, they are in an ivory tower, and know not of the impact of their words. Anyone who has taken contemporary language theory will understand 'cult' for the derogatory smear word that it is. Attackers of the fellowship want to lump the friends and workers in with Doomsday Cults, Jim Jones and the like. I am an ex-, but I have always hated bigotry and it still arouses my ire. As a kid in the first grade I was bullied solely for the reason that I couldn't speak English, so any hint of racism or prejudice gets me worked up. Sorry, but there's nothing worse than bullying Christians. And while we're on this, Irvine Grey has not disclosed his sources. I'd like to know who else at QUB endorses this term, because I would like to kick all their butts into the Irish Sea.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 18:49:56 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. So, who are these "writers"?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Oct 31, 2011 18:53:18 GMT -5
By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’ Looks like a Pharisee version of Jesus
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Oct 31, 2011 18:54:28 GMT -5
yes I would say the 2x2's are a cult but because of what Constantine did we have all been victums
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Oct 31, 2011 18:57:35 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. So, who are these "writers"? I wonder do "CHRISTIANS" bully? Or do they love their neighbour?
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Oct 31, 2011 18:58:39 GMT -5
I am an ex-, but I have always hated bigotry and it still arouses my ire. As a kid in the first grade I was bullied solely for the reason that I couldn't speak English, so any hint of racism or prejudice gets me worked up. Sorry, but there's nothing worse than bullying Christians. Amen. That is why I get so worked up when the overseers began bullying my family. I heard a horrible story today along those lines. A restaurant near us recently had to be sold to some new owners. Shortly after the new owners bought the restaurant, someone started the rumor that the new owner's didn't allow prayer in the restaurant- even silent prayer before a meal. Obviously this is a false rumor. Someone told the owner about the rumor- so she called up one of the large Baptist churches in the area and told them that this was not the case- it was just a malicious rumor being circulated. The leaders of that Baptist church, two weeks later, made an announcement telling folks that this restaurant had a policy of not allowing prayer before meals, anyway. It seems obvious to me that sour grapes are involved and the church is being used as an attack vessel. I'm with you in opposition to bullying. It isn't Ok even if religious leaders are doing the bullying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 19:00:12 GMT -5
"Cult" and "Sect" are twin words. In the King James the first church was referred to as a 'Sect'.
The Apostolic church had no name, and took any reproachful name given to it in its stride. In fact that is where "christian" came from.
Acts 24:5, "sect of the Nazarenes"
and
Acts 28:22, "concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
So if the word "cult" confers as much (or more) reproach as "sect" then we are happy to bear it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 19:02:16 GMT -5
yes I would say the 2x2's are a cult but because of what Constantine did we have all been victums Kiwi, that's our beloved and quirky Lloyd. He sometimes appears with different alias, but we can spot him a mile away!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 19:03:40 GMT -5
I am an ex-, but I have always hated bigotry and it still arouses my ire. As a kid in the first grade I was bullied solely for the reason that I couldn't speak English, so any hint of racism or prejudice gets me worked up. Sorry, but there's nothing worse than bullying Christians. Amen. That is why I get so worked up when the overseers began bullying my family. I heard a horrible story today along those lines. A restaurant near us recently had to be sold to some new owners. Shortly after the new owners bought the restaurant, someone started the rumor that the new owner's didn't allow prayer in the restaurant- even silent prayer before a meal. Obviously this is a false rumor. Someone told the owner about the rumor- so she called up one of the large Baptist churches in the area and told them that this was not the case- it was just a malicious rumor being circulated. The leaders of that Baptist church, two weeks later, made an announcement telling folks that this restaurant had a policy of not allowing prayer before meals, anyway. It seems obvious to me that sour grapes are involved and the church is being used as an attack vessel. I'm with you in opposition to bullying. It isn't Ok even if religious leaders are doing the bullying. I agree with you. I don't like worker bullying either. But workers don't have as much power to influence as the "great" minds at a leading Irish university. I am much more concerned generally about the latter when one looks at the big picture and the role of Christianity throughout history.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 31, 2011 19:05:25 GMT -5
I referred to the fellowship as a cult for several months. This was while I still had a lot of anger, and I think it was a necessary step for me, in helping me to come to terms with what was happening.
However, I now do not care to speak of it as a cult. Many of the dynamics are certainly there, but they exist in many other institutions as well - religious, governmental, corporate - and, as with any label, using the term tends say "You're that, and I'm not," and the problem in it for me is that it tends to shut down discussion, or, if everyone happens to be "exes," discussion then tends to strenghten people's feeling of being "right." I don't feel comfortable with this, and much prefer to try to create an atmosphere in which all can discuss dynamics - words, actions, understandings - without fear of having a pejorative label attached to them. Labellnig others also blocks us from interrogating our own role in things, which I fear for myself.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 19:06:03 GMT -5
"Cult" and "Sect" are twin words. In the King James the first church was referred to as a 'Sect'. The Apostolic church had no name, and took any reproachful name given to it in its stride. In fact that is where "christian" came from. Acts 24:5, "sect of the Nazarenes"
and Acts 28:22, "concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
So if the word "cult" confers as much (or more) reproach as "sect" then we are happy to bear it. So that's why you like the place.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 31, 2011 19:39:22 GMT -5
irvinegrey, I think the point is that you would be well-advised, if you wish your research to be taken seriously, to avoid words that have taken on a derogatory meaning. "Cult" is one such word that's most often used to insult people or movements, and is best avoided at all costs.
I agree; as soon as I see the word "cult" in any religious essay, I immediately know it's not worth reading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 19:46:15 GMT -5
irvinegrey, I think the point is that you would be well-advised, if you wish your research to be taken seriously, to avoid words that have taken on a derogatory meaning. "Cult" is one such word that's most often used to insult people or movements, and is best avoided at all costs. I agree; as soon as I see the word "cult" in any religious essay, I immediately know it's not worth reading. My thoughts exactly, DD. Given that the word immediately sets a negative tone for most people, I think it would undermine the credibility of the person using it in an academic setting.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Oct 31, 2011 19:52:09 GMT -5
Bearing in mind that Mr. Fort wrote his book to an orthodox Christian audience (not to people in meetings who would not understand if they even read it), I quote;
The word “cult” is not used in most Bible translations. This term can refer to any religious system (though usually connoting those wher control over the devotees is exercised by a dominant personality, hierarchy or organization) Sometimes, it is also popularly used to describe a personality which attracts extremely devoted followers (e.g., actors and popular musical groups are often described as having a “cult following,” or “fans” – a shortened form of “fanatics”).
Theologically speaking:
“A cult is a religious perversion. It is a belief and practice in the world of religion which calls for devotion to a religious view or leader centered in false doctrine. It is an organized heresy.
“A cult mat take many forms but it is basically a religious movement which distorts or warps orthodox faith to the point where truth becomes perverted into a lie. A cult is impossible to define except against the absolute standard of the teaching of Holy Scripture. When contrasted to biblical truth, a cult is seen to have distinguishing marks by which it can be labeled as being fatally sub-Christian.” David Breese, Know the Marks of Cults, p. 14
A Search for “the Truth” by Lloyd Fortt, p. 287.
On page 288, Mr. Fortt continues to define the word “cult”,” referring directly to Scripture with regard to “wresting Scripture,” finishing his definition on page 289 with these warm words;
“It is not my wish to make the members of this sect appear as ogres, but as genuinely deceived yet wonderful people deserving of love and much prayer. They are not stupid, but blinded and in bondage.”
You can check this all out for free on Google Books.
The theological definition is the most important definition because it portrays a theology that is “fatally sub-Christian” and therefore involves the eternal destiny of its adherents, according to Scripture. And in that light, compassion is expressed by most Christian people involved in studying groups that fit the theological definition of the word “cult,” just as can be clearly seen in the last two sentences Mr. Fortt wrote in his book on that topic.
But to those who get all worked up by their own choice; get angry just because their favored church gets called a cult; they miss all of that out of their own biases. And worse yet, when their biases are made public such as on this board, those who they lead also miss all of that. When the blind (in anger) lead the blind (in ignorance), they both fall into the ditch.
No matter how much people such as Mr. Fortt, I or irvingrey pray for people in meetings, God will never over-rule the freedom of choice He gave to people in meetings. Workers have often over-ruled their freedom of choice by scaring them into burning such writings and to not look at such material at risk of the influence of devil himself. But if those people in meetings relinquish their own freedom of choice to their workers’ scare tactics, God will also allow them that freedom of choice. Generally all people in meetings are aware that their workers know nothing more than anyone who just reads the KJV English Bible, and purposely refuse any Bible training to learn more; while liberally ADDING their own words and ideas to Scripture. There is no fault in being ignorant; the fault lies in remaining ignorant by choice.
|
|