Cults

[Apathy]

The difference between a cult and a religion is a numbers thing... Small group symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their favourite martyr, cult practice. Large group symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their favourite martyr, communion.

 

[Apathy]

Cults are always other peoples religions. Being an athiest, to me all religions are cults. I am ambivalent as to who you worship as long as it doesn't include harm or interfere in the civil rights of others. If one religion were to directly infringe on the rights of other religions in Americal I would fight to prevent this. Your opinion of Mormonism is quaint but soooo typical.

You do realize that more often than not they do infringe upon the rights of others...

 

[clarkatticus]

So far not in any meaningful way. Their constant assualt on athiests is an infringment on my rights, but I usually just look to the source and roll my eyes, what are you gonna do? Christianity is ubiquitous in America, if they didn't villify us they would go after each other.

 

[Dr.Who]

Cults are always other peoples religions. Being an athiest, to me all religions are cults. I am ambivalent as to who you worship as long as it doesn't include harm or interfere in the civil rights of others. If one religion were to directly infringe on the rights of other religions in Americal I would fight to prevent this. Your opinion of Mormonism is quaint but soooo typical.

To say that as an atheist your view of other religions is that they are cults demonstrates that your view is entirely subjective.

The intent of the OP is to demonstrate that there is an objective definition and that it is being used by people.

 

[Dr.Who]

The difference between a cult and a religion is a numbers thing... Small group symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their favourite martyr, cult practice. Large group symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their favourite martyr, communion.

You may advance your personal definition of a cult but it is not at all tied with either of the traditional definitions that can be found in dictionaries.

 

[Dr.Who]

So far not in any meaningful way. Their constant assualt on athiests is an infringment on my rights, but I usually just look to the source and roll my eyes, what are you gonna do? Christianity is ubiquitous in America, if they didn't villify us they would go after each other.

Saying unpleasant things about a person or group is not an example of a violation of rights. If those comments rise to the level of slander it would.

Hurting you with a baseball bat would be a violation too. We need to stay focused on what a right actually is, this country has lost that perspective.

 

[dogtowner]

Saying unpleasant things about a person or group is not an example of a violation of rights. If those comments rise to the level of slander it would.

Hurting you with a baseball bat would be a violation too. We need to stay focused on what a right actually is, this country has lost that perspective.

agreed. people get seruious over acts, not words. atheists are no exception. want to be one ? no problem. bother people with silly lawsuits and thats another story.

 

[PLC1]

The intent of the OP is to demonstrate that there is an objective definition and that it is being used by people.

There are many definitions, some objective and some not so much. What definition do you think Robert Jeffress had in mind with his statement?

 

[Dr.Who]

There are many definitions, some objective and some not so much. What definition do you think Robert Jeffress had in mind with his statement?

Answered in post #23.

 

[PLC1]

Answered in post #23.

Matthews said that the word "cult" would conjure up images of Charles Manson or Jonestown to most people. He said that Jeffress' stated preference for a Christian over what he called a non-Christian was "just a prejudice...just the same old kind of tribalism that we used to have in Europe, that we tried to leave behind."

Clearly Jefress knew both definitions and knew what he was talking about. Mathews on the other hand only understood the issue from one point of view and was himself ignorant of the basics of the argument. So who is ignorant here? Matthews was the ignorant one though he was the politically savvy one. Jefress was the educated though politically dull one.

Balony. Jeffress was not politically dull. He knew exactly how the public would interpret the term "cult", and used the term knowing exactly what sort of impact it would have.

Why else would he have said what he did? It's not like he was a Romney supporter exactly, was it? He isn't exactly a friend of Mormonism, is he?

Romney's religion should be a non issue. Unfortunately, his opponents will use terms like "cult" and "non Christian" to try to discredit him and so support their favorite candidates.

It's much the same as Obama's opponents using the "Muslim" mantra to try to discredit him. Unfortunately, much of the public buys into that sort of nonsense.

 

[Alias]

Mormons are very patriotic Americans. I'll vote for a Mormon over a muslim any day. Islam demands total loyalty first. We could never have a true muslim President.

 

[PLC1]

Mormons are very patriotic Americans. I'll vote for a Mormon over a muslim any day. Islam demands total loyalty first. We could never have a true muslim President.

Mormons are pretty patriotic, no question. As an example, the church believes that the Constitution of the US was divinely inspired. While the church doesn't take a stance on political issues (officially, that is), most of the membership is staunchly conservative as well.

I'd vote for any president that I thought had a realistic plan to end deficit spending, put a satisfactory end to our wars, end illegal immigration, and stimulate the economy without increasing the debt, regardless of his religion. If he wants to bow to Mecca five times a day, so be it, as long as he could get this great nation back on track.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mormons are pretty patriotic, no question. As an example, the church believes that the Constitution of the US was divinely inspired. While the church doesn't take a stance on political issues (officially, that is), most of the membership is staunchly conservative as well.

I'd vote for any president that I thought had a realistic plan to end deficit spending, put a satisfactory end to our wars, end illegal immigration, and stimulate the economy without increasing the debt, regardless of his religion. If he wants to bow to Mecca five times a day, so be it, as long as he could get this great nation back on track.

What if he wants you to bow to Mecca and has a plan for that as well? I don't believe he could be what so many Muslims would call a true Muslim if he did not intend for you to follow sharia.

 

[PLC1]

What if he wants you to bow to Mecca and has a plan for that as well? I don't believe he could be what so many Muslims would call a true Muslim if he did not intend for you to follow sharia.

Well, he would have to be willing to support the Constitution as well, including the First Amendment.

 

[clarkatticus]

Placing religious symbols and bible quotations in public courts, forcing my child to be part (or not part) of prayer in school and the recent attempt to inject "Christian" views in government are infringments on my rights and generally has been held up in court. But they keep trying. The fact we have to constantly wage these inane battles shows a deep resentment toward athiests in our society. I am willing to live in let live, however, as I see the long view-eventually I believe intellect we bear my beliefs (or non beliefs) out.