What is a Cult? - Page 4

Socialite · #31 06-22-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

A person that has no front teeth, plays deliverance on the banjo with his feet and handles snakes while shouting "In jethuth name" and teaches others to do likewise, is a cult

Definitely bizarre.

i get your point (again)! You think the word is too broad and too subjective and don't like using it.

Please creatively come up with a new word for us if that makes you feel better.

Praxeas · #32 06-22-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Some call unorthodox views cultic. I get it. Calvin Beisner aside, the thread has not defined it in such a way. And because someone puts on the label doesn't mean it's end-of-discussion. All you've established so far is that some believe Oneness Pentecostals are a cult.

Establish? Im just discussing the thread topic, what is a cult. A cult is any group of worshipers of someone or something. All other definitions after the fact seem to be subjective. I give, for example, the followers of a charismatic leader. So democrats are a cult, because they follow Obama. That's ideology. That is not necessarily a bad thing. There are people that follow Joel Osteen, just following him does not make for a bad thing. His parishoneers are followers of Osteen. I follow my Pastor. I follow Jesus. I follow the Apostles. It's NOT inheritly a bad thing

Quote:

Jesus is the Son of God. Let's square that away for you.

Wow, that's pretty condescending. First Socialite starts with the pejoratives and then lies about me now you are talking down to me as though I need to know Jesus is the Son of God? lol

Quote:

The criteria for the word "follow" (which has MULTIPLE meanings in Greek haha) is "as they follow (the teachings) of Jesus." That's not a blank check. In a fuller sense, all of us are "following" the Apostles. Clearly, yours and my opinion of church government wouldn't be the same. I don't see anywhere a pastoral direction that the people are to give allegiance to a single individual. Even in your often-misinterpreted Hebrews 13 citation, it doesn't boil down to a single individual.

Again, you throw in that word I never used, yet you are arguing as if I did. Nothing here tells me it is wrong to follow someone. Sorry. I never said "give allegiance to"

Then you say "even in your often misintepreted hebrew 13 citation"...what? I cited it once, how did I misinterpret it? I never said it means a single individual. IN fact if you read what I posted I mentioned following the Apostles, that's plural. So still I see nothing to show that following a charismatic leader is bad

Quote:

I didn't "distort" anything. "Following" surely doesn't just meaning strolling behind them to the grocery store!

Then stop using the word Allegiance and tell me how "following" the Apostles was a bad thing or following Jesus was a bad thing.

Quote:

Following a single individual is dangerous.

No, handing your brain over to a single individual is dangerous. Following them is not inheritly dangerous anymore than it was to follow Jesus, the Apostles or the elders in the 1st century was

Quote:

History is replete with examples of leaders who even started with good intentions, but developed a Messianic Complex, and abused people spiritually, emotionally, physically. From a Christian standpoint, all the leading of the church should point to Jesus, not to themselves. To think I have to defend such a ludicrous point to you is really too much.

Again you are not showing me why following someone is a bad thing. History is replete with examples of how the bible was misused...so throw the bible out! That's an argument of absurdity in case you missed it. The point is, your relying on a logical fallacy, a generalization and a strawman argument (allegiance)

All I am saying is, there is no reason to thing it is inherently bad to follow someone. If you were in the military you would follow the OIC, troop/platoon leader or whatever. You would listen to their commands and do it. You would look to them for direction. That is not a bad thing. It's only bad when and if that leader is himself bad.

It's not wrong to follow anyone. It's bad to follow anyone blindly and unquestionably to the point that you can not thing rationally for yourself. However I never said it's ok to follow someone under those conditions.

It's NOT wrong to follow a leader,charismatic or otherwise,

Socialite · #33 06-22-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Uh... I think you are being dramatic. Everyone else on this thread is understanding the way the word is used. You are trying to show-off how many word definitions that also include the word. Your ultimate point is still a mystery. You can't seem to understand these cult-like tendencies that people are referring to. You're really struggling with that. Let's make up a new word to define the laundry list of things we've thrown out thus far. Wasn't the thread title "What is a cult?" That's it! You are just saying "it's definition is too broad and too subjective. The end."

I think there was more to the post though. Just speculating.

there was a larger point to the post. maybe the thread title threw him off. he may have stopped there without reading further. just like he did with the link.

Praxeas · #34 06-22-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Uh... I think you are being dramatic. Everyone else on this thread is understanding the way the word is used. You are trying to show-off how many word definitions that also include the word. Your ultimate point is still a mystery. You can't seem to understand these cult-like tendencies that people are referring to. You're really struggling with that. Let's make up a new word to define the laundry list of things we've thrown out thus far. Wasn't the thread title "What is a cult?" That's it! You are just saying "it's definition is too broad and too subjective. The end."

I think there was more to the post though. Just speculating.

rofl...see topic. It says " what is a cult". Im discussing "what is a cult"...I've mentioned definitions. I brought up etymology. In response I got a few pejorative or mocking replies. I don't get it. If you guys wanted to exclude me from your little chat on "what is a cult",put me on ignore.

I already defined a cult, several times. You seem to be so busy trying to insult me that you missed it

Praxeas · #35 06-22-2010, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Definitely bizarre.

i get your point (again)! You think the word is too broad and too subjective and don't like using it.

Please creatively come up with a new word for us if that makes you feel better.

I don't like using it, unless it is defined, simply because of what I have said over and over....many tie unfavorable connotations to the word when the word originally meant any worshiper in a thing or person.

If you want to label a group "cult" that's your business. I think for clarity though when we refer to a group as a cult, we should specify why instead of just using the word cult. Mind Control cult, or Psychological cult. It doesn't necessarily have to be religious in nature. Followers of some "think positive" speaker can be in a mind control cult.

Praxeas · #36 06-22-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

My thread offered descriptions of religious cults. You may not like the word, but I guess you'll have to get over it. I'm not changing the word. Reign in the way others have used it, and try to understand the post and maybe even contribute some descriptions of your own.

An average joe on the street is not thinking about the Trinity and Oneness. They will identify bizarre religious practices, those that have shunned society, devout allegiance to a man they hold in an unhealthy view, and they'd call that a cult. So let's think like Average Joe's for a moment. Helpful?

I didn't tell you to change anything. Im just giving my two cents and you two (Jeffry) are reacting

Praxeas · #37 06-22-2010, 04:42 PM

BTW Im still waiting for you to show me where I said there is no mind control going on in any Pentecostal church

Jeffrey · #38 06-22-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Establish? Im just discussing the thread topic, what is a cult. A cult is any group of worshipers of someone or something. All other definitions after the fact seem to be subjective. I give, for example, the followers of a charismatic leader. So democrats are a cult, because they follow Obama. That's ideology. That is not necessarily a bad thing. There are people that follow Joel Osteen, just following him does not make for a bad thing. His parishoneers are followers of Osteen. I follow my Pastor. I follow Jesus. I follow the Apostles. It's NOT inheritly a bad thing

You didn't like my use of the word "establish" either? Sheesh! Should I get a lawyer when interacting with you???

Your definition "any group of worshippers" is one of many. You have a problem with subjectivity. I don't. Clearly, all the other posters on this thread defined the word in a similar context. Manipulative, exclusive, controlling, etc.
The way you use the word "follow" astounds me. If voting means "following" then sure. Since I used the word first (and you decided to argue with it) I guess I can define what I intended. This isn't chasing someone to the store, being a fan of someone, etc... the way it was used is one that gives exclusive "followership" to a man, exclusive of all others. Placing his authority higher than anyone else. SO while you certain do follow Obama and your pastor, it's obviously not in the same sense of what should have been obvious to you what I intended.

Wow, that's pretty condescending. First Socialite starts with the pejoratives and then lies about me now you are talking down to me as though I need to know Jesus is the Son of God? lol

You have had your fair share of condescension in this thread. Let's not play the victim card now.

Again, you throw in that word I never used, yet you are arguing as if I did. Nothing here tells me it is wrong to follow someone. Sorry. I never said "give allegiance to" Then maybe you needed me to spell out what I meant by "follow" since yours and my definitions didn't add up. I'd hate to add to your sayings and be cursed.

Then you say "even in your often misintepreted hebrew 13 citation"...what? I cited it once, how did I misinterpret it? I never said it means a single individual. IN fact if you read what I posted I mentioned following the Apostles, that's plural. So still I see nothing to show that following a charismatic leader is bad

Then stop using the word Allegiance and tell me how "following" the Apostles was a bad thing or following Jesus was a bad thing. I never said following Jesus or the apostles was a bad thing! There you go, committing the same horrid crime you accused me of!

No, handing your brain over to a single individual is dangerous. Following them is not inheritly dangerous anymore than it was to follow Jesus, the Apostles or the elders in the 1st century was
Again. Jesus was the Son of God. The Apostles... they passed down what Jesus taught. The Apostle's Doctrine was really Jesus' Doctrine. Surprise!

Again you are not showing me why following someone is a bad thing. History is replete with examples of how the bible was misused...so throw the bible out! That's an argument of absurdity in case you missed it. The point is, your relying on a logical fallacy, a generalization and a strawman argument (allegiance) Horrible logic. The Bible was misused, the Bible didn't misuse people though. Nice try. And way to go to your debate textbook and throwout every dagger you could there

Strawman? Logical Fallacy? Your're a hoot.

All I am saying is, there is no reason to thing it is inherently bad to follow someone. If you were in the military you would follow the OIC, troop/platoon leader or whatever. You would listen to their commands and do it. You would look to them for direction. That is not a bad thing. It's only bad when and if that leader is himself bad. So let's just debate the word "follow" now. Annoying.

It's not wrong to follow anyone. It's bad to follow anyone blindly and unquestionably to the point that you can not thing rationally for yourself. However I never said it's ok to follow someone under those conditions.If that's the clarification you wanted to make because you assumed that wasn't my intention, then take all the credit for being so profound and stating what was probably obvious to others. You are so smart. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner here!

It's NOT wrong to follow a leader,charismatic or otherwise,

I didn't know some hyperliteral debate was going to ensue. I would have sent the sentence to my lawyer first! Cult leaders are usually charismatic. Quite hard to convince people you are something close to divine without charisma. No, follow anyone you want! In fact, on Twitter, I have 300 followers and I follow 100 people! Sigh.

Are you just in an arguing mood? Is that it? I feel like I'm arguing with my 13-year old. My comments above.

Jeffrey · #39 06-22-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

rofl...see topic. It says " what is a cult". Im discussing "what is a cult"...I've mentioned definitions. I brought up etymology. In response I got a few pejorative or mocking replies. I don't get it. If you guys wanted to exclude me from your little chat on "what is a cult",put me on ignore.

I already defined a cult, several times. You seem to be so busy trying to insult me that you missed it

You've just said repeatedly why you don't think we can use the word. And I mean REPEATEDLY.

You gave 30 definitions from a dictionary source or otherwise.

I don't think the thread was seeking to find a dictrionary answer to the puzzle, Prax. There's Google for that.

LadyRev · #40 06-22-2010, 04:52 PM

I predict this topic will turn against one particular group before midnight tonight. And thats being generous. It will probably happen before that. If it doesn't, it will be a miracle.

That being said, I'm so glad that God set me free from the largest CULT in the world, the Roman Catholic Church. Choose any definition you want and it will fit the definition.