What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
vaidya
()
Date: February 14, 2007 01:16PM
Quote
rrmoderator
csfield:
The Roman Catholic Church is not a "cult."
See [www.culteducation.com]
[b:d9dab64de3]Defining a Cult [/b:d9dab64de3]
Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?
No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.
[b:d9dab64de3]How is the word "cult" defined? [/b:d9dab64de3]
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:
"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."
This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.
Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:
A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
this def'n is constantly referred to but clears up nothing at all
there is NOTHING above that excuses christianity from being a cult - about the only difference is longevity
certainly xtians have caused more harm on this planet than any other group - entire civilzations have been destroyed at the hand of christ
boys are still being diddled with by priest, missionaries still vaunt off to "savage" areas and offer aid dependent upon conversion, and fake televangelists still steal from their flock with the most outrageous of lies
this facile and relativistic definition of what a cult is, makes clear modus operandi of the rick ross cult education forum - its not really there for support and education, its there to uphold conservatism
if a christ-like figure were to rise up to day and behave like jesus is supposed to then i am pretty sure someone would be posting to the message board, and the rrmoderator would be chiming in with this hackneyed defintion
for pete's sake, at least get a better definition!
stp insulting our intelligence!!
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 14, 2007 10:29PM
vaidya:
Please understand that flaming is not a meaningful response.
Simply because you have decided to reject a definition doesn't mean it is not accurate or widely accepted.
The definition given is widely accepted and understood.
Sorry if you have chosen not to understand that.
Please understand that flaming is not a meaningful response.
Simply because you have decided to reject a definition doesn't mean it is not accurate or widely accepted.
The definition given is widely accepted and understood.
Sorry if you have chosen not to understand that.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
vaidya
()
Date: February 15, 2007 12:44AM
Quote
rrmoderator
vaidya:
Please understand that flaming is not a meaningful response.
Simply because you have decided to reject a definition doesn't mean it is not accurate or widely accepted.
The definition given is widely accepted and understood.
Sorry if you have chosen not to understand that.
its not "widely accepted" - its the def'n given at the RR site
i did an internet search and i came up with scads of different definitions of a cult, most of them written by adherents to a mainstream religion
the best i found, in terms of specificity was from the ICSA:
Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120)
"ethical" is a key issue, and its one the RR site doesn't define
what i see inthe RR def'n is a bunch of negative attributes such as "brainwashing" and "group manipulation", which is a feature of ALL religions at some point during their evolution
so its unfair that if some "legit" religions have this as part of their history, that new religious movements that display these characteristics are are singled out as being cults - its like telling a child he's not a responsible adult, and using this as a basis to hinder his development
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 15, 2007 03:00AM
vaidya:
I suspect that you actually don't care about such definitions, but instead are here to argue and/or attempt to subvert threads and the message board generally.
The definition of ICSA and the one given through the FAQ page at the Ross Institute are not different in any meaningful way.
ICSA says,
Ross Institute FAQ offers Robert Jay Lifton's three criteria:
[b:65a95cdaa0]A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.[/b:65a95cdaa0]
And numerous additional hyper links are included to additional material that offers further detail about thought reform techniques specifically and cult formation.
For example there is link to Lifton's paper for Harvard Medical School detailing his three criteria titled "Cult Formation."
See [www.culteducation.com]
And a link to Lifton's explanation of thought reform, which further illustrates the isolation and control techniques used by destructive cults as outlined by the ICSA definition.
See [www.culteducation.com]
It is interesting that you seem to prefer the term "new religious movements" as opposed to "cults." You have aligned yourself with the terminology most commontly used by academics called "cult apologists."
See [www.culteducation.com]
The position you have staked out here is pretty much the same position that cult apologists attempt to promote, which is blur the distinctions between cults and religions.
I suspect that you actually don't care about such definitions, but instead are here to argue and/or attempt to subvert threads and the message board generally.
The definition of ICSA and the one given through the FAQ page at the Ross Institute are not different in any meaningful way.
ICSA says,
Quote
A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120)
Ross Institute FAQ offers Robert Jay Lifton's three criteria:
[b:65a95cdaa0]A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.[/b:65a95cdaa0]
And numerous additional hyper links are included to additional material that offers further detail about thought reform techniques specifically and cult formation.
For example there is link to Lifton's paper for Harvard Medical School detailing his three criteria titled "Cult Formation."
See [www.culteducation.com]
And a link to Lifton's explanation of thought reform, which further illustrates the isolation and control techniques used by destructive cults as outlined by the ICSA definition.
See [www.culteducation.com]
It is interesting that you seem to prefer the term "new religious movements" as opposed to "cults." You have aligned yourself with the terminology most commontly used by academics called "cult apologists."
See [www.culteducation.com]
The position you have staked out here is pretty much the same position that cult apologists attempt to promote, which is blur the distinctions between cults and religions.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
forum
()
Date: February 21, 2007 11:27PM
Many of us seem to judge too recklessly even though it may be new movement thinking it is a cult. I think what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount is truly a great teaching that he said not to judge others. God is the only judge and the time will tell itself.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 21, 2007 11:39PM
forum:
This message board is specifically for discussions about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements.
Jesus also said that many would come in his name, but he would not know them. He also warned about "wolves" in "sheep's clothing."
Paul, who wrote the largest portion of the New Testament, could be quite critical of church leaders--read Galatians.
Hopefully you are not here as an apologist.
This message board is specifically for discussions about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements.
Jesus also said that many would come in his name, but he would not know them. He also warned about "wolves" in "sheep's clothing."
Paul, who wrote the largest portion of the New Testament, could be quite critical of church leaders--read Galatians.
Hopefully you are not here as an apologist.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
csfield
()
Date: April 02, 2007 08:24AM
I understand your position, Rick. But try to understand that I are not trying to blur the distinctions between cults and mainstream religions to excuse the harmful cults you fight against. I consider the mainstream religions harmful. The differences are in degree. Saying a mainstream religion is not a cult is the same as saying Landmark is not a cult. Fine, no charismatic leader, they still use brainwashing, group pressure and thought control. When you defend mainstream religions, you sound exactly like the Landmark defenders. I understand that you are not trying to fight religion, just fringe cults. Just keep in mind some of us consider all superstitious thinking harmful.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: April 02, 2007 10:08PM
csfield:
There are also distinctions to be made between thought reform ("brainwashing") and religious indoctrination.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Mainstream religions don't typically use "brainwashing, group pressure and thought control" as groups called "cults" do.
Please understand that this board is not about "superstititous thinking."
If people want to believe in Santa, the tooth fairy or whatever, that is a private matter.
The focus here is upon controversial groups, movements and leaders that have drawn attention most often due to bad behavior, which may have caused harm.
There are also distinctions to be made between thought reform ("brainwashing") and religious indoctrination.
See [www.culteducation.com]
Mainstream religions don't typically use "brainwashing, group pressure and thought control" as groups called "cults" do.
Please understand that this board is not about "superstititous thinking."
If people want to believe in Santa, the tooth fairy or whatever, that is a private matter.
The focus here is upon controversial groups, movements and leaders that have drawn attention most often due to bad behavior, which may have caused harm.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
csfield
()
Date: April 03, 2007 02:25AM
rrmoderator: Huffing paint is extremely dangerous and cannot seriously be compared to harmless and beneficial things like cigarettes and alcohol.
csfield: Those things can be pretty bad too, especially if you drive or operate heavy machinery after drinking.
rrmoderator: What is your purpose on these boards? These forums are about dangerous things like inhaling solvents. That is known to cause brain damage and death.
csfield: I know, but more people smoke cigarettes than huff paint and they die from that too.
rrmoderator: I hope you're not trying to justify huffing.
I'm not trying to justify cults, man. But if you want to debate the merits of religion, I'm game.
csfield: Those things can be pretty bad too, especially if you drive or operate heavy machinery after drinking.
rrmoderator: What is your purpose on these boards? These forums are about dangerous things like inhaling solvents. That is known to cause brain damage and death.
csfield: I know, but more people smoke cigarettes than huff paint and they die from that too.
rrmoderator: I hope you're not trying to justify huffing.
I'm not trying to justify cults, man. But if you want to debate the merits of religion, I'm game.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
yasmin
()
Date: April 03, 2007 06:38AM
Not all religion can be classified as dangerous.Many people find great strength from spirituality/religion in one form or another.
And generally, if walking down a dark alley and seeing a group of young men walking towards me, I would be relieved to discover they were carrying bibles and coming from a bible discussion group!
Religions such as Jonestown and Heavens Gate were horribly destructive, but there is a spectrum here.There are scientific studies ( sorry , don't have them to quote ) that show religious beliefs can help people find strength in all kinds of tragedies.
And if you are an aetheist, ( sorry if I made that assumption incorrectly)does it really matter to you if people have the "superstious thinking " you describe or not?If there is no after life, whatever helps them now is all that counts.
And generally, if walking down a dark alley and seeing a group of young men walking towards me, I would be relieved to discover they were carrying bibles and coming from a bible discussion group!
Religions such as Jonestown and Heavens Gate were horribly destructive, but there is a spectrum here.There are scientific studies ( sorry , don't have them to quote ) that show religious beliefs can help people find strength in all kinds of tragedies.
And if you are an aetheist, ( sorry if I made that assumption incorrectly)does it really matter to you if people have the "superstious thinking " you describe or not?If there is no after life, whatever helps them now is all that counts.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.