|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 25, 2013 23:55:12 GMT -5
I don't really understand your enormous phobia about the usage of word 'cult' when used on this board-- it is an English noun of the same dignity as many other negative descriptive words -- With an equal right to a place in the dictionary and our vocabulary as most other words -- Trying to delete it from the English language so that it won't be used about 2x2ism is hardly going to work! You say that you "don't understand", but what did you think of the link from INFORM? It was there for a reason. As far as deleting "cult" from the English language, that won't happen until we see the end of religious intolerance, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Yes, when you use the word, as INFORM says, it says more about you than about who you're talking about. The word cult is in the dictionary because it refers to something that does not apply uniquely to religious groups. Outside of religions the word "cult" is a useful and primarily positive sounding word. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 25, 2013 23:56:59 GMT -5
I think we are getting closer to an understanding now -- The word thief will be around and long as there are thieves, and hypocricy as long as there are hypocrites --- and the word cult won't be deleted until there are no more cults on the earth. And like you said, its not going to happen soon. When people display ignorance on a particular subject I like to post a link or two. Have you read it? If you don't want to, just say so, and I won't waste anymore of your time. Damn. Now you sound like my sister in law. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 0:24:58 GMT -5
When people display ignorance on a particular subject I like to post a link or two. Have you read it? If you don't want to, just say so, and I won't waste anymore of your time. Damn. Now you sound like my sister in law. Do you have a link for that? |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 26, 2013 0:38:11 GMT -5
Damn. Now you sound like my sister in law. Do you have a link for that?  Either he married his SIL's sister or his SIL married his brother....assuming no same sex marriage. Ummmm, wait....it is all about context....never mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 26, 2013 1:35:54 GMT -5
Damn. Now you sound like my sister in law. Do you have a link for that? I delete her when I can, and put her on mute when I can't. If nothing else works, I laugh at her and she goes home. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 26, 2013 1:37:08 GMT -5
Do you have a link for that? Either he married his SIL's sister or his SIL married his brother....assuming no same sex marriage. Ummmm, wait....it is all about context....never mind. That is a very dangerous question to answer!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2013 13:08:13 GMT -5
You say that you "don't understand", but what did you think of the link from INFORM? It was there for a reason. As far as deleting "cult" from the English language, that won't happen until we see the end of religious intolerance, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Yes, when you use the word, as INFORM says, it says more about you than about who you're talking about. The word cult is in the dictionary because it refers to something that does not apply uniquely to religious groups. Outside of religions the word "cult" is a useful and primarily positive sounding word. It's a neutral word outside of religious contexts. And it has also been subject to efforts to reclaim the use of the word in religious contexts. That is, different groups have wanted to be called a "cult of this or that". In some sense the real issue is the divide and conquer approach of determining who is approved and who is not approved. In the theological taxonomy of "Church | sect | cult" they could have used the word "gorgonplatz" instead of "cult" and it would still come down to the same thing. Actually the word that used to be used more frequently was "heretic". |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 26, 2013 14:35:44 GMT -5
"In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity" I wonder which applies to friends and workers, in Mr. Grey's mind?  |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Jun 26, 2013 14:38:50 GMT -5
Yes, I think they might have some danger potential. At least 2x2s aren't known for being confrontational with others...right?
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 26, 2013 14:40:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 26, 2013 16:52:21 GMT -5
It's a neutral word outside of religious contexts. And it has also been subject to efforts to reclaim the use of the word in religious contexts. That is, different groups have wanted to be called a "cult of this or that". In academic religious settings I have never heard the word “cult” used negatively. For example, in my classes the Catholic priest teaching about the history of his church described the origins of the “cult practices” in the church. Everything the church has developed as tradition and doctrine is referred to as “cultic”. When other groups are referred to as “cults”, it is not to denigrate them, but to indicate that they have developed their own “cultic” beliefs and practices. People on the street, of course, are virtually never quite so objective in their discussions. “Heresy” on the other hand does have a negative meaning in that it does refer to people who are in disagreement. The fact that other people consider heretics to be free thinkers is coincidental, and the idea that heretics are free thinkers is primarily promoted by people who are emphasizing that what they have rejected is wrong. Lutherans were the first major heretics – it is still appropriate for Roman Catholics to refer to them as heretics. Just like it is still appropriate, and even polite, for a person to refer to his/her runaway spouse as his “ex”. I’ve been a heretic with respect to 2x2 teachings from the age of 10. Use the word, it can be a very precise expression of disassociation from “mindlessly following”, and does more to for your self-assurance than calling oneself an “ex”. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2013 17:54:44 GMT -5
It's a neutral word outside of religious contexts. And it has also been subject to efforts to reclaim the use of the word in religious contexts. That is, different groups have wanted to be called a "cult of this or that". In academic religious settings I have never heard the word “cult” used negatively. For example, in my classes the Catholic priest teaching about the history of his church described the origins of the “cult practices” in the church. Everything the church has developed as tradition and doctrine is referred to as “cultic”. When other groups are referred to as “cults”, it is not to denigrate them, but to indicate that they have developed their own “cultic” beliefs and practices. People on the street, of course, are virtually never quite so objective in their discussions. “Heresy” on the other hand does have a negative meaning in that it does refer to people who are in disagreement. The fact that other people consider heretics to be free thinkers is coincidental, and the idea that heretics are free thinkers is primarily promoted by people who are emphasizing that what they have rejected is wrong. Lutherans were the first major heretics – it is still appropriate for Roman Catholics to refer to them as heretics. Just like it is still appropriate, and even polite, for a person to refer to his/her runaway spouse as his “ex”. I’ve been a heretic with respect to 2x2 teachings from the age of 10. Use the word, it can be a very precise expression of disassociation from “mindlessly following”, and does more to for your self-assurance than calling oneself an “ex”. Well, I appreciate your experience in one or more class settings, and we know there are neutral contexts for the word "cult" outside theology, and perhaps outside Christianity but still in religion or in early Christianity. However ... Cult and heresy are almost the same thing in Christianity, so what you say about one must apply to the other, in the theological context. Heresy refers to a doctrine which is not normative to Christians. Cult refers to a group whose doctrine is not normative. For reference, one theological definition of cult used by Grey, is as follows - "'Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles' Creed.'" The underlined is just a definition of heresy. I suspect that at some point the theological literature, at least the kind used to suppress dissent, moved from predominantly saying 'heretic' to saying 'cult'. But the key point is that the act of dividing, of placing a wedge and driving it in, in the use of terminology is an indicator to literary theorists that some act of suppression or even violence is being supported. I can point you to further references if you should be interested. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 26, 2013 18:44:17 GMT -5
Well, I appreciate your experience in one or more class settings, and we know there are neutral contexts for the word "cult" outside theology, and perhaps outside Christianity but still in religion or in early Christianity. However ... Cult and heresy are almost the same thing in Christianity, so what you say about one must apply to the other, in the theological context. Heresy refers to a doctrine which is not normative to Christians. Cult refers to a group whose doctrine is not normative. For reference, one theological definition of cult used by Grey, is as follows - "'Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles' Creed.'" The underlined is just a definition of heresy. I suspect that at some point the theological literature, at least the kind used to suppress dissent, moved from predominantly saying 'heretic' to saying 'cult'. But the key point is that the act of dividing, of placing a wedge and driving it in, in the use of terminology is an indicator to literary theorists that some act of suppression or even violence is being supported. I can point you to further references if you should be interested. No. I'm not interested. And I do understand that Mr. Grey uses a denominationally biased definition of "cult". |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2013 11:15:52 GMT -5
Well, I appreciate your experience in one or more class settings, and we know there are neutral contexts for the word "cult" outside theology, and perhaps outside Christianity but still in religion or in early Christianity. However ... Cult and heresy are almost the same thing in Christianity, so what you say about one must apply to the other, in the theological context. Heresy refers to a doctrine which is not normative to Christians. Cult refers to a group whose doctrine is not normative. For reference, one theological definition of cult used by Grey, is as follows - "'Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles' Creed.'" The underlined is just a definition of heresy. I suspect that at some point the theological literature, at least the kind used to suppress dissent, moved from predominantly saying 'heretic' to saying 'cult'. But the key point is that the act of dividing, of placing a wedge and driving it in, in the use of terminology is an indicator to literary theorists that some act of suppression or even violence is being supported. I can point you to further references if you should be interested. No. I'm not interested. And I do understand that Mr. Grey uses a denominationally biased definition of "cult". I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination. What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 12:10:04 GMT -5
I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination.
What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying.
I am beginning to see "bias" and "context" with regards to the book as being interchangeable. Although not finished reading the book yet, the theological discussion may have a denominational bias, or rather what a number of denominations might support, but their standards of measure should also be regarded in this contextual manner. As for the other aspects of the book, group history, friends, workers, etc, this book has been typed up with humble fingers. With regards to the other aspects; in my opinion, each one is briefly covered in a mild manner and anyone looking for sleaze against the sect, or juicy tidbits of information are in serious risk of being incited by their disappointment. Virtually every other work written about the group has content far more challenging and damning than you will find here. In fact, theological considerations apart, this could easily have been written by a devout innie, tasked with compiling a true record of the sect and employing cotton wool to any wounds along the way.
Any worthwhile argument will be confined to theology, which includes the definition of the "C" word.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2013 14:33:38 GMT -5
No. I'm not interested. And I do understand that Mr. Grey uses a denominationally biased definition of "cult". I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination. What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying. Personally, I don't care at all what the downstream effects are. To me it's basically a tempest in a teacup. I'll sit on the rim and cheer. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2013 15:06:16 GMT -5
I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination. What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying. Personally, I don't care at all what the downstream effects are. To me it's basically a tempest in a teacup. I'll sit on the rim and cheer. I hope that your metaphor is just an unfortunate choice. There's no one drowning in the teacup while you are on the rim cheering is there? Just thought I would check. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2013 15:08:43 GMT -5
Personally, I don't care at all what the downstream effects are. To me it's basically a tempest in a teacup. I'll sit on the rim and cheer. I hope that your metaphor is just an unfortunate choice. There's no one drowning in the teacup while you are on the rim cheering is there? Just thought I would check. I don't want anyone to drown. That would only bring a halt to the circus. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2013 15:08:47 GMT -5
I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination.
What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying. I am beginning to see "bias" and "context" with regards to the book as being interchangeable. Although not finished reading the book yet, the theological discussion may have a denominational bias, or rather what a number of denominations might support, but their standards of measure should also be regarded in this contextual manner. As for the other aspects of the book, group history, friends, workers, etc, this book has been typed up with humble fingers. With regards to the other aspects; in my opinion, each one is briefly covered in a mild manner and anyone looking for sleaze against the sect, or juicy tidbits of information are in serious risk of being incited by their disappointment. Virtually every other work written about the group has content far more challenging and damning than you will find here. In fact, theological considerations apart, this could easily have been written by a devout innie, tasked with compiling a true record of the sect and employing cotton wool to any wounds along the way. Any worthwhile argument will be confined to theology, which includes the definition of the "C" word. If that is the case, then the theological argument is unfortunate because it will overshadow any salutary effect the book may have had. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2013 15:15:13 GMT -5
I hope that your metaphor is just an unfortunate choice. There's no one drowning in the teacup while you are on the rim cheering is there? Just thought I would check. I don't want anyone to drown. That would only bring a halt to the circus. Ah, so you are actually on the rim watching a circus in a teacup. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2013 15:31:32 GMT -5
I don't want anyone to drown. That would only bring a halt to the circus. Ah, so you are actually on the rim watching a circus in a teacup. Yes. It goes round and round. Sometimes I get so dizzy I'm afraid I might fall off the rim. The question then is -- will I fall into the melee or will I land safely outside. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2013 15:39:42 GMT -5
Ah, so you are actually on the rim watching a circus in a teacup. Yes. It goes round and round. Sometimes I get so dizzy I'm afraid I might fall off the rim. The question then is -- will I fall into the melee or will I land safely outside. Well, one thing, in cyberspace, we are never actually there. It's a virtual reality so you're actually quite safe. Perhaps it gives us a feeling of invulnerability that makes us more aggressive. The other thing is that the world we build is mainly in our minds. We don't have intonation, facial gestures, physiognomy, body language. All we have is words on the page, and we project all the rest in our minds. I find this a tremendous frustration in that we are all ensconced in our own version of the space, as opposed to a common objective space. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 16:06:35 GMT -5
I believe that the denominational bias is self-evident to anyone who reads the book. But it's more correct to say that it's a bias to normative Christian forms, and to protection of the status quo against change. That is, the hierarchy controlling 90% of Christendom holds to the precepts which underlie the bias, not just a single denomination.
What we don't really know are the downstream effects of the group being labelled a 'cult', and I think that providing some balance might constitute your reason for posting your experience with the word 'cult'. My own point is that while we can't predict the outcome, neither can we say with any assurance that there will be no negative outcome at all, as some posters are saying. I am beginning to see "bias" and "context" with regards to the book as being interchangeable. Although not finished reading the book yet, the theological discussion may have a denominational bias, or rather what a number of denominations might support, but their standards of measure should also be regarded in this contextual manner. As for the other aspects of the book, group history, friends, workers, etc, this book has been typed up with humble fingers. With regards to the other aspects; in my opinion, each one is briefly covered in a mild manner and anyone looking for sleaze against the sect, or juicy tidbits of information are in serious risk of being incited by their disappointment. Virtually every other work written about the group has content far more challenging and damning than you will find here. In fact, theological considerations apart, this could easily have been written by a devout innie, tasked with compiling a true record of the sect and employing cotton wool to any wounds along the way. Any worthwhile argument will be confined to theology, which includes the definition of the "C" word. If that is the case, then the theological argument is unfortunate because it will overshadow any salutary effect the book may have had. That may be an accurate statement IF we are theologically inclined AND we disagree with Mr Grey's assessment. I share with most 2x2's a general lack of interest in theology, especially deep and complex studies. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 20, 2014 14:04:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 14:08:15 GMT -5
although its sad when someone passes away i can't say i'll miss him....
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 20, 2014 14:46:57 GMT -5
Fixit ~ I remember the Westboro Baptist Church. It's leader created a lot of bad publicity nationwide for the Baptists due to this man's warped beliefs which promoted so much hate instead of love for our fellowman ~ especially those who were different due to their sexual preference. He really gave Christians a bad image with all his hate-filled rhetoric which made the news!
May Fred Phelps finally R.I.P. ~ Hopefully, his legacy will not live on? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 20, 2014 18:37:25 GMT -5
Westboro Baptist church does not belong to the mainstream Baptist churches. His church is independent he just uses the name Baptist. I can start a church and call it Baptist but it does not mean that I am a mainstream Baptist denomination. There is reformed Baptist, seventh day Baptist etc which are nothing to do with Baptist churches in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2014 19:58:21 GMT -5
Where did you see "disagreement or criticism or personal views or main denominations" described as persecution? What I see as persecution is a thesis issued by a Baptist church college, approved by Queen's University Belfast that condemns a certain religious movement as a "dangerous cult" using antiquated church definitions. You may have missed it -- even though your own words seem to reflect it -- but persecution is exactly how the F&W's describe any criticism when they talk about persecution. Its not that there is any campaign of bloodshed or discrimination being practiced against workers by Queen's University or elsewhere. The kneejerk reaction of F&W's is always to rally to an antitheists view and completely toss over and refuse anything coming from other christian groups and I guess that is part of the 'only way' mentality. Maybe that is hard to shake and what is really sad is friends I know who think that it is better for their kids to deny God completely rather than to get involved with or listen to other christian groups.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God".
That simply does not define any of the F&W's!
How could it?
They believe in a god and surely aren't "opposed to a belief in the existence of a God"
"The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833.[1] An antitheist may oppose belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive.
Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes:
"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[2]
How does that in any way whatever describe F&W's?
|
|
Either he married his SIL's sister or his SIL married his brother....assuming no same sex marriage.
