Is Christianity a cult?

[SeebianWurm]

Whereas in a religion, such behaviors are indicators of a cult.

[AdmiralKanos]

Which of these do Schools/Sports/Fraternities/Families/Jobs/basically ALL OF SOCIETY have?

In an institutionalized form, ie- it is part of doctrine and mandated practice? Don't be silly. The Bible, on the other hand, advocates and mandates all of these things.

[pecker]

Which of these do Schools/Sports/Fraternities/Families/Jobs/basically ALL OF SOCIETY have?

In an institutionalized form, ie- it is part of doctrine and mandated practice? Don't be silly. The Bible, on the other hand, advocates and mandates all of these things.

So it's OK to use such practices, unless it's some sort of rule? I fail to see the logic.

So it's in a book. Does that make it any different?

[SeebianWurm]

If they promote it, by continued practice without any condemnation of the same act perpetrated before, then it is an indicator.

If it just happens, then it is not.

[pecker]

If they promote it, by continued practice without any condemnation of the same act perpetrated before, then it is an indicator.

If it just happens, then it is not.

I think we're arguing two different thing.

I'm just saying that all of society uses such devices. You can't say Christianity is evil for using them, yet excuse the rest of the world. Just because it's part of a doctrine doesn't amplify the 'crime'.

[SeebianWurm]

I was arguing for those as points of it being a cult. I'm a little fuzzy on what you were trying.

[Frank_Scenario]

I'd argue that Christianity does not include most of the items on SeebianWurm's list (as an institutional practice), though various churches have many of these qualities to a greater or lesser extent (as do many other organizations).

I'm not sure where deception supposedly comes in; Christians (at least in principle) genuinely believe that they are speaking the truth. Deception, as it relates of cults, in when the leaders intentionally and knowingly deceive the other members on a regular basis. Though undoubtedly there are churches that do this, it would be wrong to ascribe that to Christianity as a whole.

Fear and intimidation are certainly part of some churches; however, most liberal to moderate Christian groups do not bring up Hell and damnation regularly in their works; when they do, it is not as a tool for intimidation. Again, there are plenty of groups that do use this idea for intimidation, and they are wrong to do so.

The remainder of the list has similar problems. It is true that there are some groups that engage in this behavior; they are cults, by this definition.

I've also never seen time control at all, at least in any church or Christian function I've attended. Likewise with information control. I don't doubt that groups that call themselves Christian engage in such behavior, but I've never encountered it.

AdmiralKanos: where does the Bible advocate and mandate these things? This is a genuine question; I am interested to see what parts you see as supporting this behavior.

[AdmiralKanos]

So it's OK to use such practices, unless it's some sort of rule? I fail to see the logic.

So it's in a book. Does that make it any different?

Yes. If there's racists in America, that's a whole lot different than racism being mandated by the Constitution. See what I'm getting at?

[pecker]

I was arguing for those as points of it being a cult. I'm a little fuzzy on what you were trying.

Example:
Voluntarily, I leave home for eight weeks. I had little to no contact with my family. I was emotionally broken down and rebuilt. I did not question my leader. When I returned home, I was a completely different person. I dressed the same as other inductees. I used a strange syntax that included words most people don't understand. My head was shaved, and I had a new set of priorities. I fear what will happen if I disobey the group, and believe horrible things will happen if the group disbands. I am willing to die for members of this group.

Some would say I joined a cult.

Others would say I joined the Marines.

For something to be a cult, it has to be outside the mainstream, and socially unacceptable, and a threat to current values. Christianity, for the most part, does not do this. Call it a cult as much as you like, by defnition it is not.

The Marines are socially acceptable, and are therefore not a cult. Christianity is socially accepted, and is therefore NOT A CULT. It may be a silly paranoia that controls the lives of millions, but it is NOT A CULT.

[pecker]

So it's OK to use such practices, unless it's some sort of rule? I fail to see the logic.

So it's in a book. Does that make it any different?

Yes. If there's racists in America, that's a whole lot different than racism being mandated by the Constitution. See what I'm getting at?

So if I'm racist of my own free will, it's less bad than if the Constitution states I have to be racist?

I'm talking about the act itself. The act is no more or less bad simply because it is supported by a group. The degree or frequency or acceptability may be different, but it is the exact same act.

[pecker]

I can see now how deception and time control was a hasty include, but otherwise, we have had rather different experiences then, Frank.

I have been to at least one Church where there was blatant information control - every single member of the congregation was absolutely forbidden to read Asimov's Annotated Guide to the Bible (the exact title is probably not that; but it was an asimov book on the bible) on the basis that Asimov was an atheist and thus lies snaked forth in every word. From what I gathered, none of the preachers had even read the book but felt fine condemning it all the same.

Just an example that information control does indeed happen.

One church of many. Don't blame the whole for the faults of the parts, especially considering that these churches aren't really related that much. I can call the Church of Give Me Money Christian, but that doesn't mean it's related to any other church.
Then again, don't atheists scorn books written by Christians who put their own twist on it?

[pecker]

Christianity fulfills all of the requirements of a cult except ofr these: It is not a splinter/independent group (was, not is), it is socially accepted, and is not seen as a threat to accepted values. This does not mean it is not cult-like, but it is by definition not a cult.

Just because you want it to be a cult does not mean it is a cult.

[pecker]

cult-
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
From dictionary.com

I took only the first definition, as there can be many meaning. But the definition of cult that is applied to, say, the Moonies is not the same definition you are applying to Christianity. Also, the 'Cult of Consumerism' is not a true cult, although it does involve a certain level of devotion.

[AdmiralKanos]

Just because you want it to be a cult does not mean it is a cult.

No, it's just a really big cult, so it's not a cult at all

[pecker]

Just because you want it to be a cult does not mean it is a cult.

No, it's just a really big cult, so it's not a cult at all

You really don't know what a cult is, do you?

The common term for a cult and the actual requirements for a cult are noticeably different.

A cult can be either
a) an extremist religious movement
b) a religious devotion

Now, you are basically applying definition 'b' to Chrsitianity. However, that does not mean definition 'a' also applies. Chrsitianity is not a cult in the sense that Jonestown was a cult. This is all I'm saying. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

[Frank_Scenario]

Sorry, but the Bible fulfills every definition of a cult. Pecker's feeble attempt to claim that sheer numbers make it non-cult-like relies upon a particular demographic definition of "cult" which is widely espoused by those who don't want to admit that the term accurately applies to them.

Deception: the Bible is indeed factually inaccurate. However, Christianity does not require anyone to take it literally. Most moderate and liberal groups do not. More importantly, deception with regards to cults refers to practices of the leadership towards other members; most church leaders (though not all) do not promote this type of behavior. It's not an institutional feature of Christianity in general.

Fear and Intimidation: Hell is there, but I'd argue that it's not intended to be a tool for intimidation. Of course, now I'm speculating on the intent of the authors of the text, which is not necessarily a good idea.

False Love: I was using the term to refer to the behavior of individuals towards others. An example would be a group of people who say they will be your friends (or you can join their group) if and only if you perform some act you otherwise wouldn't consider, such as fraternity hazing practices, or the behavior of some nominally Christian churches. However, your comment does raise a different but serious problem, which I'll address in another post.

The others have more force to them, in my opinion. I don't care much for the Bible or the church (in general), because of these problems. Call it Christianity gone awry.

Overall, though, I'm still inclined to suggest that these things exist an institutional features as part of only a small subset of Christianity in general. You'd be right in saying that those groups are cults.

[data_link]

Pecker, why do you identify so much with fundies that you would waste three whole pages of space arguing semantics? I understand you want to defend your religion, but a thread designed to incite fudies to debate is not the best place to do it, as anything you say can and will be used against the sane, rational people debating them.

[Frank_Scenario]

I have been to at least one Church where there was blatant information control - every single member of the congregation was absolutely forbidden to read Asimov's Annotated Guide to the Bible (the exact title is probably not that; but it was an asimov book on the bible) on the basis that Asimov was an atheist and thus lies snaked forth in every word. From what I gathered, none of the preachers had even read the book but felt fine condemning it all the same.

Just an example that information control does indeed happen.

I'm not going to deny that it happens. That would be stupid. I just want to point out that it's not an institutional feature of Christianity at large.

[AdmiralKanos]

You really don't know what a cult is, do you?

According to Merriam-Webster:
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

Of 5 different definitions, only half of the fifth definition fits YOUR definition. In fact, the formal definition of cult means that all religions are, indeed, cults. Your insistence on interpreting the definitions as Boolean AND rather than Boolean OR is not my problem.

The common term for a cult and the actual requirements for a cult are noticeably different.

A cult can be either
a) an extremist religious movement
b) a religious devotion

The colloquial perjorative definition of cult (as opposed to the proper dictionary definition) implies negativity in the sense that a cult is extremist, irrational, and harmful. Any religion which strictly follows the BIble fits these criteria, hence fundies are a huge cult.

Now, you are basically applying definition 'b' to Chrsitianity. However, that does not mean definition 'a' also applies.

It does apply to the Bible, which is ultra-extremist. I have explained that at length on my website, with many examples.

Chrsitianity is not a cult in the sense that Jonestown was a cult. This is all I'm saying. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

Christianity is too diverse to be characterized as a single cult, but any form of Christianity that strictly adheres to Biblical teaching is a cult in the sense that Jonestown was a cult; it's just bigger.

[pecker]

If I call a woman a bitch, I do not mean she is a female dog. If I call a dog a bitch, do I mean it as an insult? Definitions are open to both the 'and' and the 'or' interperetation.

Your definitions say that a cult includes faith healing. Yet there are sects of Christinaity that do not practice faith healing. Are they now not cults? Or is this an "And, "Or' or "Any of the above" situations? It's up tp interperetation. I choose "Or' to avoid clumping and generalization.

[AdmiralKanos]

If I call a woman a bitch, I do not mean she is a female dog. If I call a dog a bitch, do I mean it as an insult? Definitions are open to both the 'and' and the 'or' interperetation.

Right, so stop insisting that it's "wrong" to call Christianity a cult, since it fits one of the formal definitions of "cult".

Your definitions say that a cult includes faith healing.

Wrong. One of the 5 accepted definitions includes faith healing. You're doing it again, confusing OR with AND.

Yet there are sects of Christinaity that do not practice faith healing. Are they now not cults?

Your logic is seriously fallacious. Given a failure to match 1 of 5 possible definitions of "cult", you conclude that it is not a cult.

Or is this an "And, "Or' or "Any of the above" situations? It's up tp interperetation. I choose "Or' to avoid clumping and generalization.

Wrong. You are choosing AND in order to clump and generalize, to say that something must simultaneously match all of the definitions in order to be considered a cult, and any omission means "no, it's not a cult!!!!" Sorry, but you're just being irrational and defensive, and everybody but you can see it. All of this whining over a word that you don't like.

[Frank_Scenario]

If I call a woman a bitch, I do not mean she is a female dog. If I call a dog a bitch, do I mean it as an insult? Definitions are open to both the 'and' and the 'or' interperetation.

Your definitions say that a cult includes faith healing. Yet there are sects of Christinaity that do not practice faith healing. Are they now not cults? Or is this an "And, "Or' or "Any of the above" situations? It's up tp interperetation. I choose "Or' to avoid clumping and generalization.

I don't think anyone is saying (at least not anymore) that Christianity, as a whole, is a cult. Some groups within Christianity are. To quote AdmiralKanos,

Christianity is too diverse to be characterized as a single cult, but any form of Christianity that strictly adheres to Biblical teaching is a cult in the sense that Jonestown was a cult; it's just bigger.

I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation.

I also think you want to separate yourself (and more 'mainstream' Christianity) from these groups. This is reasonable, but you're not going about it well.

[data_link]

As I said, this thread is not the place for a defense of mainstream Christianity.

[Coyote]

The disciples didn't kill themselves. They allowed themselves to be killed.

Essentially the same thing.

I don't think we should accept self-killing as evidence. However, lives spent willingly (I don't mean martyrs, but those who used a great portion of their time or great effor on earth to convince others of the truth of their religion) is evidence.

In that case, Islam trumps you. In both lives spent and lives martyred. And why is it acceptable evidence? If that's your rationale, then 94 million dead in the name of Communism means that we should all embrace Marxism, since the philosophy is legitimized by sheer body count.

How bloody!

Moreover, the disciples and the Christian community were well-known for honesty, sharing, etc.

I'm actually willing to accept that they were devoted to their cause and quite motivated, but I see the records of their actions with a wary eye: remember, the only evidence that we have of their piety, charity, honor, etc... are the records that they wrote themselves. I am sure that they would have painted themselves up pretty nice. I'm not saying they lied-- there'd be no way to prove it one way or another-- but face it, this is human nature we're talking about and these men were as human as anyone else.

Unless you want to say that they were gods too...

[pecker]

Gah, too many quotes

1) You can call Chrsitianity a cult. However, all cults are not the same. Therefore, calling it a cult does not equate it to all others cults, which is what you are trying to do.

2 and 3) The reason you want to be able to equate Christianity to a cult is becasue you don't like it and want to be able to demonize it with the likes of Jonestown, the Moonies, etc... I'm arguing that calling it a cult does not do this, so there is little point in it.

4) [q]Wrong. You are choosing AND in order to clump and generalize, to say that something must simultaneously match all of the definitions in order to be considered a cult, and any omission means "no, it's not a cult!!!!" Sorry, but you're just being irrational and defensive, and everybody but you can see it. All of this whining over a word that you don't like.[/q]
I did not say that. Christianity cannot be considered a cult in the sense you want it to be. You don't like Chrsitianity, you want it demonized. However, this time, it's not going to work. OK, fine it's a cult. But it's a different kind of cult than from Jonestown, which si not your goal. Try to understand, if Jonestown was socially acceptable, it would NOT have been a cult.

G'nigh, time for some sleep