Religion starts with the intent to unite groups of people, but simply ends up dividing them. But it's not the fault of the religion itself. Some people will always look at Christianity and just take the basic message "love god, love neighbor" and live their lives with acceptance and grace. Others will take it to a dark place, endlessly trying to reach this ideal Christian perfection based on a book that can be interpreted 6 billion different ways. Out of this comes a 'superior' class of individuals, who will quest to try and make others aspire to this same perfection, as if it is the ONLY way to live one's life.

All of this is to hide one basic fact: We are a bunch of monkeys.

Evolution is a fact. It is obervable in the laboratory and in real life (herbicide resistant weeds? Antibiotic resistant bacteria? et al. ad nauseum) Now because I say it's a fact doesn't mean we have all the answers yet. Find one piece of evidence supporting, say, Intelligent Design (just Creationism with a bit of makeup)

Science has never claimed to have all the facts and never will as it is in a constant state of testing, verifying and re-testing. Science has given the world a great deal, including the computer you're typing, the car you drive, the materials in your house, etc.

What has religion given other than fear of an invisible man? Take the blue pill.[/quote]

I actually can observe Intelligent Design.
For example if you have a coyote, wolf, a retreiver, and a bananna which is not alike. If you guess bananna you are right. The rest are all dogs.
They are the same KIND of animal not different species. Same thing with all animals. We all bascially work the same not because we came from one type of species but we had a maker who had a common design in mind.

[quote="xfeedthe5000x]
I actually can observe Intelligent Design.
For example if you have a coyote, wolf, a retreiver, and a bananna which is not alike. If you guess bananna you are right. The rest are all dogs.
They are the same KIND of animal not different species. Same thing with all animals. We all bascially work the same not because we came from one type of species but we had a maker who had a common design in mind.[/quote]

That's not observing anything.

These forums aren't really the place for creationist vs evolution debates, may I suggest visiting James Randi's forums? Present your "evidence" there, it should be entertaining. [forums.randi.org]

no your god idea is a myth and not based on facts

why do you give up your intelligence and critical thinking to worship a make believe new age fairy tale?

Trawling through older threads when this one caught my eye.

Of course, this definition of Christianity as a cult could be used by cult leaders to try and distract attention ([i:1171cce348]tu quoque[/i:1171cce348] is it?); but then again, if Christianity itself is a cult, you could say that's what they are doing by calling other lesser cults cults!

In fact, in a way, what we commonly call "cults" are merely [i:1171cce348]unsuccessful [/i:1171cce348]cults, the successful ones we call "religion", and in this sense Christianity is merely a [i:1171cce348]successful [/i:1171cce348]cult.

To be a successful cult, it had to fit in with its surrounding society and had to tailor its more "cultic" aspects to give them broader appeal. This is what seems to have happened in the early Church - initially the movement seems to have been much more like a "juicy" sort of born-again cult, or a charismatic cult, or a meditational cult, than the rather dry thing mainstream Christianity looks like now. (The Christian "con job" was done and dusted hundreds of years ago, when the "Bishops" and "Popes" of the "Church" successfully mulcted the peasants and their lords of their food and gold, from Roman times onwards - Roman Catholic Christianity has long been the richest cult in the world.)

But make no mistake: there's nothing funnier (in a black sort of way) from a rationalist, humanist point of view (or from the agnostic, or theist, or "personal religion" point of view), than Christians deriding other cults as cults.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Defining a Cult

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.

How is the word "cult" defined?
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:

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?

Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

Quote
xfeedthe5000x
I actually can observe Intelligent Design.
For example if you have a coyote, wolf, a retreiver, and a bananna which is not alike. If you guess bananna you are right. The rest are all dogs.
They are the same KIND of animal not different species. Same thing with all animals. We all bascially work the same not because we came from one type of species but we had a maker who had a common design in mind.

Huh? I don't even understand what you are talking about or how this proves "Intelligent Design". I don't even know what a "bananna" is. Intelligent Design? Doubtful. Intelligent Spelling? Certainly not!

Our best theory of gravity (general relativity) is known to be incomplete, but no educated person suggests that gravity is not a fact. The same is true of evolution.

Quote
Peter George Stewart
Trawling through older threads when this one caught my eye.

Of course, this definition of Christianity as a cult could be used by cult leaders to try and distract attention ([i:4128193176]tu quoque[/i:4128193176] is it?); but then again, if Christianity itself is a cult, you could say that's what they are doing by calling other lesser cults cults!

In fact, in a way, what we commonly call "cults" are merely [i:4128193176]unsuccessful [/i:4128193176]cults, the successful ones we call "religion", and in this sense Christianity is merely a [i:4128193176]successful [/i:4128193176]cult.

To be a successful cult, it had to fit in with its surrounding society and had to tailor its more "cultic" aspects to give them broader appeal. This is what seems to have happened in the early Church - initially the movement seems to have been much more like a "juicy" sort of born-again cult, or a charismatic cult, or a meditational cult, than the rather dry thing mainstream Christianity looks like now. (The Christian "con job" was done and dusted hundreds of years ago, when the "Bishops" and "Popes" of the "Church" successfully mulcted the peasants and their lords of their food and gold, from Roman times onwards - Roman Catholic Christianity has long been the richest cult in the world.)

But make no mistake: there's nothing funnier (in a black sort of way) from a rationalist, humanist point of view (or from the agnostic, or theist, or "personal religion" point of view), than Christians deriding other cults as cults.

hear hear!

Quote
vaidya

Quote
Peter George Stewart
Trawling through older threads when this one caught my eye.

Of course, this definition of Christianity as a cult could be used by cult leaders to try and distract attention ([i:297670e3dd]tu quoque[/i:297670e3dd] is it?); but then again, if Christianity itself is a cult, you could say that's what they are doing by calling other lesser cults cults!

In fact, in a way, what we commonly call "cults" are merely [i:297670e3dd]unsuccessful [/i:297670e3dd]cults, the successful ones we call "religion", and in this sense Christianity is merely a [i:297670e3dd]successful [/i:297670e3dd]cult.

To be a successful cult, it had to fit in with its surrounding society and had to tailor its more "cultic" aspects to give them broader appeal. This is what seems to have happened in the early Church - initially the movement seems to have been much more like a "juicy" sort of born-again cult, or a charismatic cult, or a meditational cult, than the rather dry thing mainstream Christianity looks like now. (The Christian "con job" was done and dusted hundreds of years ago, when the "Bishops" and "Popes" of the "Church" successfully mulcted the peasants and their lords of their food and gold, from Roman times onwards - Roman Catholic Christianity has long been the richest cult in the world.)

But make no mistake: there's nothing funnier (in a black sort of way) from a rationalist, humanist point of view (or from the agnostic, or theist, or "personal religion" point of view), than Christians deriding other cults as cults.

hear hear!

This is a completely simplistic and inaccurate argument.

Firstly you are ignoring the simple reality of thought reform (brain washing) manipulation, coercive tactics, control and exploitation in cultic groups.

I am not a Christian (for arguments sake my spiritual affiliation in karma yoga) but the difference between your average church down the road and christian cult is that the church is the freedom of members and the lack of totalitarianism. The common factor of all cults is that they are defined by worship of an individual. A human and very often corrupt and malicious individual.

You can decide not to go to church for 6 months and then still walk back in or go to another town and join a different congregation. If you have a question you can ask a member of the clergy or the board. There is most often books and at some churches (Salvation Army is one that I have seen) ever policy documents are openly and freely available. If there is a fundraiser or some form of work no one makes you go and help out or blacklists you if you can't. There is no one watching over you to see what you do in your daily life or who you associate with and then casting you out [i:297670e3dd]unless you do as we say![/i:297670e3dd] There is such a thing as tithing but this is based on some theoretical principle and it is not imposed. I have never heard of anyone losing their house to pay to go to the church down the road.

These sorts of arguments are only advanced by people who have not been in a cult or are in one now because they demonstrate a complete lack of insight into how cults work. You have no control of your life. If you take back control then you are not in the cult anymore, simple as that.

As for the success argument Scientology, Falun Goong, Sai Baba, and ISKCON all come to mind as successful cults. Even cults that appear small and insignificant such as Science of Identity have thousands of followers and millions of dollars.

Please educate yourself about groups like this if you are not interested in assisting cults which are harming many people all over the world by assisting in their greatest weapon of appearing harmless and perpetuating myths about what they are and how they function.