|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2012 20:34:30 GMT -5
I left not long ago, with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. But a few months down the track everything became clear - when all my friends, relatives etc within church turned against me, like as it they had never known me. I was disowned for the sake of religion, anything that puts a believe before family is a CULT - it meets all the definitions of a cult to a T. Anyone who believes or contests otherwise, do the same as i did and you will find you come up with same answers, you will then logically find same conclusion All I can say is that I have gone through the same experience and not "logically" found the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2012 20:36:30 GMT -5
Eh thanks for drawing this thread to my attention. I was not aware of existence. The reason I started this thread with the question that I did was simply because this was the question I was being asked. Following the mixed response, sometimes hysterical, I am not sure how useful it was! A wiser man than myself once said that you have to put something in to get something out.
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Feb 1, 2012 20:45:49 GMT -5
I left not long ago, with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. But a few months down the track everything became clear - when all my friends, relatives etc within church turned against me, like as it they had never known me. I was disowned for the sake of religion, anything that puts a believe before family is a CULT - it meets all the definitions of a cult to a T. Anyone who believes or contests otherwise, do the same as i did and you will find you come up with same answers, you will then logically find same conclusion I left <> 25 years ago with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. To date, I know of no one who has turned against me.
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Feb 1, 2012 21:09:14 GMT -5
The reason I started this thread with the question that I did was simply because this was the question I was being asked. Following the mixed response, sometimes hysterical, I am not sure how useful it was! I'm not sure how useful to you it was, but it does point out that not all people in view the religion the same, and not all those who have left view the religion the same.
|
|
|
Post by onceuponatime on Feb 2, 2012 0:31:14 GMT -5
I left not long ago, with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. But a few months down the track everything became clear - when all my friends, relatives etc within church turned against me, like as it they had never known me. I was disowned for the sake of religion, anything that puts a believe before family is a CULT - it meets all the definitions of a cult to a T. Anyone who believes or contests otherwise, do the same as i did and you will find you come up with same answers, you will then logically find same conclusion I left <> 25 years ago with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. To date, I know of no one who has turned against me. I believe it, there are always experiences of the opposite in anything but for the most part in our country - you leave - you are cut out of everything. It would seem you continue to visit and maintain your relationships within - without any issues - well done, wish it was my experience too
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Feb 2, 2012 2:37:46 GMT -5
I left not long ago, with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. But a few months down the track everything became clear - when all my friends, relatives etc within church turned against me, like as it they had never known me. I was disowned for the sake of religion, anything that puts a believe before family is a CULT - it meets all the definitions of a cult to a T. Anyone who believes or contests otherwise, do the same as i did and you will find you come up with same answers, you will then logically find same conclusion All I can say is that I have gone through the same experience and not "logically" found the same conclusion. I sort of drifted away from the meetings over ten years ago and have maintained contact with the people who matter to me (or maybe I matter to them...?) - I have not experienced any shunning, mistreatment, attempts to drag me back by the ear etc. I haven't been a victim of gossip as I haven't listened to the gossips:) I have several dear friends who are "2x2" - they are still dear friends regardless and accept me as a fellow christian (I think). But then again, I had a "life" away from the cliques and so on, so never really missed that side of things...
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 4, 2012 18:07:08 GMT -5
My research nears an end and if you haven't got your say in by now I will just go ahead with my conclusions!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2012 18:15:46 GMT -5
I left <> 25 years ago with no issues in particular against church at the time, none at all. To date, I know of no one who has turned against me. I believe it, there are always experiences of the opposite in anything but for the most part in our country - you leave - you are cut out of everything. It would seem you continue to visit and maintain your relationships within - without any issues - well done, wish it was my experience too We certainly know that is the experience of many, and it's not surprising to hear you say this. I think things are better than they were 20 years ago. There are also many other factors such as 1) close family in the fellowship or just friends, 2) your expectations, 3) were you supported or embraced by another community/ extended family/ church when you left, and so on, 4) your age when you left. For ourselves we did take certain proactive measures to make our exit as non-hostile as possible.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 10, 2012 18:02:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by themadhair on Feb 12, 2012 14:59:53 GMT -5
This seems to be an old discussion but, since it was linked onto a thread on another site I do work for, I’ll bore ye with my thoughts. There are two basic issues I think are relevant here.
1. Ranting about the word cult, particularly when the OP clearly defined how they were using the term, seems very silly to me.
Seriously.
As I understand it, and to borrow the OP’s own language, the intent is to look at whether the 2x2 group ”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”, including whether the group is founded on biblical misrepresentation, using the three prongs of history, sociology and theology as a context.
The above is bit of a mouthful so, rather understandably I would have thought, the OP sought to choose a term that could be used to represented these concepts. I don’t know about the other posters in this thread, but I’m struggling to come up with another word bar the one the OP chose for this task.
Until such a time as other posters in this thread can offer the OP a suitable linguistic replacement, I think the use of the word must be allowed to stand. That no opponent of the OP’s use of the word have even bothered to address this point seems very silly to me.
I do find it ironic though that some in this thread have implied that the OP’s work will be non-academic while they essentially argue a premise for self-censorship due to people not being able to take a given definition at face value.
2. How will objectivity be approached?
@ OP
What level of difference from normative expressions would constitute ‘significant’, per your framework, and how is your framework not simply a numbers game? I suppose a large part of this will have to ask what biblical interpretation you are going to use for determining difference, which is something I’m also curious about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2012 15:30:41 GMT -5
I am currently reading a book by Michael Connelly (Lost Light). This is a quote from the book (written from the point of view of a retired detective): I constantly found myself reaching in some way for the comfort of my badge. For almost thirty years of my life I had been part of an organization that promoted isolation from the outside world, That cultivated the "us versus them" ethic. I had been part of the cult of the blue religion and now I was out, excommunicated, part of the outside world. I had no badge. I was no longer part of us. I was one of them. As the months passed, there was not a day that I did not alternately regret and revel in my decision to leave the department behind. It was a period in which my main work was to separate the badge and what it stood for from my own personal mission. A very interesting comparison -- I like it!!! The enormous rutt so easy to slip into ---- 'we and them' !!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2012 15:38:11 GMT -5
I'm actually rethinking what I said earlier. In the past, I have avoided the word "cult" but after this discussion here I have been on the lookout for it--and I see it is actually quite commonly used and understood. I may start using the word more often. I am currently reading a book by Michael Connelly (Lost Light). This is a quote from the book (written from the point of view of a retired detective): I constantly found myself reaching in some way for the comfort of my badge. For almost thirty years of my life I had been part of an organization that promoted isolation from the outside world, That cultivated the "us versus them" ethic. I had been part of the cult of the blue religion and now I was out, excommunicated, part of the outside world. I had no badge. I was no longer part of us. I was one of them. As the months passed, there was not a day that I did not alternately regret and revel in my decision to leave the department behind. It was a period in which my main work was to separate the badge and what it stood for from my own personal mission. That's pretty good writing, and relates well to the exit process. However, I'm not sure why merely having a "badge" would qualify one as a 'cult member', as opposed to leaving any religion. People adopt all kinds of badges in life, from their work life, church, university, sports, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by themadhair on Feb 12, 2012 15:41:51 GMT -5
Is it just me or was this thread only two pages when I posted a few hours ago... ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2012 15:44:27 GMT -5
This seems to be an old discussion but, since it was linked onto a thread on another site I do work for, I’ll bore ye with my thoughts. There are two basic issues I think are relevant here. 1. Ranting about the word cult, particularly when the OP clearly defined how they were using the term, seems very silly to me.Seriously. As I understand it, and to borrow the OP’s own language, the intent is to look at whether the 2x2 group ”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”, including whether the group is founded on biblical misrepresentation, using the three prongs of history, sociology and theology as a context. The above is bit of a mouthful so, rather understandably I would have thought, the OP sought to choose a term that could be used to represented these concepts. I don’t know about the other posters in this thread, but I’m struggling to come up with another word bar the one the OP chose for this task. Until such a time as other posters in this thread can offer the OP a suitable linguistic replacement, I think the use of the word must be allowed to stand. That no opponent of the OP’s use of the word have even bothered to address this point seems very silly to me. I do find it ironic though that some in this thread have implied that the OP’s work will be non-academic while they essentially argue a premise for self-censorship due to people not being able to take a given definition at face value. 2. How will objectivity be approached?@ OP What level of difference from normative expressions would constitute ‘significant’, per your framework, and how is your framework not simply a numbers game? I suppose a large part of this will have to ask what biblical interpretation you are going to use for determining difference, which is something I’m also curious about. I'm quite willing to concede that the endeavour of determining whether a group is a cult may have validity in two contexts: 1) a purely theological pro-Christian context such as is still found in some corners of the world, OR 2) based on a purely sociological, non-theological definition of the word 'cult'. The original article I posted provides a definition of the context in which (2) is applicable. I wonder, 'tmh', if you see or are conversant with any negative implications for the kind of thinking involved in exercise (1)?
|
|
|
Post by themadhair on Feb 12, 2012 16:21:53 GMT -5
@ what
I so want to get into this discussion since it relates to a topic spend a considerable amount of time on.
Start a thread and I promise offer plenty of food for thought on the topic of the word ‘cult’ (because I would only drag the present one way off-topic). Deal?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2012 17:22:44 GMT -5
@ what I so want to get into this discussion since it relates to a topic spend a considerable amount of time on. Start a thread and I promise offer plenty of food for thought on the topic of the word ‘cult’ (because I would only drag the present one way off-topic). Deal? Sure. However, I do find amusing your concern about dragging this thread off-topic. How would we tell? In fact, you could drag the thread "on topic" and we wouldn't know. LOL. How about I post up the 'religioustolerance' article for openers? Okay, I have posted this up. Do your worst. Note - I may not be able to get back today, but presumably we are not in a rush on this.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 12, 2012 22:19:37 GMT -5
I'm actually rethinking what I said earlier. In the past, I have avoided the word "cult" but after this discussion here I have been on the lookout for it--and I see it is actually quite commonly used and understood. I may start using the word more often. I am currently reading a book by Michael Connelly (Lost Light). This is a quote from the book (written from the point of view of a retired detective): I constantly found myself reaching in some way for the comfort of my badge. For almost thirty years of my life I had been part of an organization that promoted isolation from the outside world, That cultivated the "us versus them" ethic. I had been part of the cult of the blue religion and now I was out, excommunicated, part of the outside world. I had no badge. I was no longer part of us. I was one of them. As the months passed, there was not a day that I did not alternately regret and revel in my decision to leave the department behind. It was a period in which my main work was to separate the badge and what it stood for from my own personal mission. That's pretty good writing, and relates well to the exit process. However, I'm not sure why merely having a "badge" would qualify one as a 'cult member', as opposed to leaving any religion. People adopt all kinds of badges in life, from their work life, church, university, sports, whatever. It wasn't a religion, what, it was a police force, specifically a detective group. (I read the book, too.) Something quite different than the automatic "exclusive, super-control" thought that calling a religion a cult generates. For madhair: What has suggested an alternative word for cult. It slips my mind at the moment. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2012 9:12:41 GMT -5
That's pretty good writing, and relates well to the exit process. However, I'm not sure why merely having a "badge" would qualify one as a 'cult member', as opposed to leaving any religion. People adopt all kinds of badges in life, from their work life, church, university, sports, whatever. It wasn't a religion, what, it was a police force, specifically a detective group. (I read the book, too.) Something quite different than the automatic "exclusive, super-control" thought that calling a religion a cult generates. For madhair: What has suggested an alternative word for cult. It slips my mind at the moment. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) In language and cultural theory, the word "cult" is an example of a binary. Binaries are words that divide in two, like male/female, rich/poor, black/ white, West/ East, or in this case, cult/ sect/ church. Most binaries have a preferred side and a marginal side. In the examples I've specified, the preferred side is male, rich, white, West and church. Language theorists have analyzed novels, essays and other writings, or "deconstructed" them to show how language often marginalizes certain groups of people and, it is thought, that language itself establishes a certain social order, that keeps some people "in" and others "out". There is no problem with the words as such, but more in how they are used, often to create "us/them" thinking. The strategy that 'themadhair' is using is to say that in some cases, we do need these kinds of words, and that is true. One of the more unfortunate outcomes of this language theory is "word policing" and I agree that in many cases it has gotten out of hand. But still, there it is, people use words to isolate and denigrate. Much of the cultural theory along this line has developed from gays, Jews and other marginalized peoples who understand all too well how language is used against them. And I think that anyone who is among the friends does not want their group called "cult". It IS stigmatizing to have people say that you belong to a cult. Not only that but widespread usage of the term against a specific religious group could affect business relations, ability to sell product, ability to get a job, and ... ability to run for office. (See Romney. As a side note what works in Romney's favour is that Mormons are well known, and not thought to be a cult by most Americans.) Now to answer your question. In the case of religion the less stigmatizing term that is suggested is "new religious movement" or "alternative religious movement". Egregious behaviours are best dealt with by descriptive terms. The friends are exclusive. Scientology deprives its members of their life savings, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Feb 13, 2012 9:48:07 GMT -5
Mormonism is a cult - they preach another gospel and we know what Paul had to say about that - Galatians 2:6-10
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2012 13:44:39 GMT -5
Mormonism is a cult - they preach another gospel and we know what Paul had to say about that - Galatians 2:6-10 Some more hysterics for you, Irvine - Rod Dreher in "The American Conservative": " it is especially offensive, at least to me, to hear Christians speak of Mormonism as a 'cult'. Usually when you hear that word being applied to a church or religious group, it’s designed not to describe, but solely to marginalize." See - www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/10/10/mormonism-is-not-a-cult-okay/James Fallows in "The Atlantic Monthly": 'for people to come out and say that they won't back a candidate because he's Mormon and therefore a 'cult' member is no better than saying "I'd never trust a Jew" or "a black could never do the job" or "women should stay in their place" or "Latinos? Let 'em go back home."' From - www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/just-for-the-record-anti-mormonism-is-bigotry-too/241444/
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Mar 5, 2012 16:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 6, 2012 23:09:34 GMT -5
Irvinegrey ~ Great article on the characteristics found within the 2x2's ~ hard to deny them unless you prefer to live in denial completely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 17:20:26 GMT -5
No, it's not a cult dear Irvine!
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Mar 9, 2012 0:27:33 GMT -5
No, it's not a cult dear Irvine! You know it is funny imelda that those who have left accuse us of being in a cult but I have never heard or seen or spoken accusing of anyone else of being in a cult whether they are or not. I don't believe as being a Christian that that is our place to do such. To me it is just plain judging people.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Mar 9, 2012 3:42:06 GMT -5
No, it's not a cult dear Irvine! You know it is funny imelda that those who have left accuse us of being in a cult but I have never heard or seen or spoken accusing of anyone else of being in a cult whether they are or not. I don't believe as being a Christian that that is our place to do such. To me it is just plain judging people. Like the workers calling other ministers of the Gospel hirelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 5:34:45 GMT -5
A "hireling" in the New Testament was a person "hired" or paid. Paying someone to preach the Gospel was clearly something which offended Jesus.
Not all preachers are paid to preach. But those who draw wages or salary for doing so can rightly be called "hirelings."
This shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 9, 2012 6:46:20 GMT -5
Workers get paid Bert. People are giving them money on a regular basis. This money given is because of the fact that their position in the church.
Does that make them a hireling?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 9, 2012 9:14:16 GMT -5
Bert wrote:
Expansion of term "Hirelings" - John 10:12-13
When a Shepherd cannot be with the sheep himself, he may hire someone to care for them in his place temporarily. This parable calls this person a “hireling.” A hireling is neither a stranger nor a thief. He is a legitimate care giver, and unlike the thief, may have good intentions. A hireling may take the job for any number of reasons; i.e. for self preservation, for the money, for a job, or because he has a genuine care for sheep. The true Shepherd is not a hireling. The hireling is hired to take care of the sheep and does not own them.
Being human, the hireling may put his own life ahead of the sheep, since the sheep are not his sheep. If a wolf comes, the hireling may protect himself by running away. Unlike the Good Shepherd, the hireling may not be willing to endanger his life for the sake of the sheep. Self preservation usually comes first with a hireling.
In this parable, the concept of a hireling was compared to Jesus as the Good Shepherd. It was used to make a sharp contrast between Jesus, the ultimate caretaker of the sheep, and mere men caretakers (vs 13). Jesus may have been making reference to the Jewish religious leaders who were appointed by the law, yet they put their own lives ahead of the welfare of the people they served. Consequently, the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" (Mark 6:34).
|
|