Assessment Of Christianity Or Any Other Religion As Cults Or Not

[Kommissar]

For many years I have included Christianity as a cult.

 

I have encountered the sociology definition, around 7 points. Sorry I cant reference and I dont know how to hyperlink if I did no what the Academic definition of a cult is.

 

In applying the definition to the Catholic Church as I experienced it, I concluded as per the criteria, it was not a cult.

 

Well it sure as hell felt like one:

 

Being sent to sunday school and weekly reinforcent church services on the Weekend without my consent, being sent to a Catholic Secondary School and being told lots of "facts" about abortion, contraception, being shouted down when you speak your mind regarding pre-marital sex. Attempting to restrict access to outside reading material etc. Being told to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary, and threats to those that do not believe.

 

An ideal definition I am trying to work towards is linked fundamentally to INTENT of control rather than success of control. Lapsed Catholics are a pretty numerous bunch. Catholics that generally do their own thing. The fact that they do what they like does not mean Catholicisim is not a cult.

 

I went to a Catholic youth group called Antioch, it arose in the 60s. I suspect but of course cannot prove that it was in response to the rise of cults and so Antioch was a CatholicCult to counter the membership loss.

 

Cult comparisions with Antioch:

 

Love Bomming,

 

Holding 3 day talkfests with more of a focus on exhausting the participants than content. What little content there was linked back to the same stuff. Essentially it was a the same message running through all the pre suggested talk topics. Essentially reinforcement in disguse of multiple talks at least 3 a day. The schedule seemed designed to prevent any free time. Time for us to reflect privately was non-existant. There was contant group activites, mostly it was singing of religious utterly childish songs like:

 

God said to Noah

 

God said...

to-Noah...

theirs-gonna-be-a-fluddy-wuddy

(repeat)

 

Get-those-child-ren

out-of-the-muddy-wuddy

Children of the lord

 

Soooooooo,

ri-ise and shi-ine

and give god a try-an

ri-ise and shi-ine an

 

aww Jeezus I blocked out the rest

 

This is to teenagers, I kid you not

 

I didn't want to sing that of all things, I didnt feel comfortable. And the more they tried to cajole me, the less I wanted to do it.

 

They had group prayer ewwwww

 

Anyway whilst I am sure many using this site would refer to Chrisitanity as a cult I am PRIMARILIY interested what others would suggest as a reasonable definition. The big old sociology definition seemed to be rigged to not include mainstream religion as cults.

 

A SECONDARY interest is which religions, Denominations and sub-denominations ppl think are cults.

 

Thanks folks.

[Jun]

 

3D Dialogue "The Rise of Cults" on YouTube.

[Astreja]

Here is one interesting protocol for assessing the danger level:

 

The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Form

[BlueGiant]

I have to second the ABCDEF. It's pretty good (despite the acronym) and quite general.

[Brother Jeff]

Christianity is most definitely a cult:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/2007/04/...nity-is-a-cult/

[Kommissar]

Christianity is most definitely a cult:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/2007/04/...nity-is-a-cult/

 

Ta 4 your replies, particularly Brother Jeffs, I have now bookmarked that site.

 

By the way, in order to raise the same question with a wider selection of people than Ex-Christians, I tried Cultbusters.org. I thought I would get some diverse views on the subject.

 

I'm still waiting for approval. Ya see unlike most sites, where the acceptance of registration and confirmation on the website side is entirely automated, at Cultbusters.org, they approve or reject your application.

 

They have no stated criteria other than being opposed to cults etc, they state that they are not opposed to prescence of ppl of other faiths. However fundies are definitely over represented, and for an Anti-Cult org, they have an inordinate amount of content devoted to christian theology.

 

I found cultbusters.org when I googled Anti-cult, not counter-cult. Ya see, an the Cult-opposition groups include Anti-Cult which is secular, focused on the sciences and Counter-cult which is focused on theological criticisims. Cultbusters.org has some explaining to do. Im trying real hard not to speculate here...

 

Cultbusters.org is definitely 1) presenting itself as something it is clearly not and

2) not being open about its membership requirements,

 

OH I cant help myself. This all prompts the legitimate question as to whether they are trying to limit the members access to information. They seem about as bad as Teens4Christ, they are just more coy about it.

 

I'm real pissed off at all this, was Cultbusters.org originally a genuine Anti-cult group that was hijacked by the fundies or was it a front for the Cult Version of Chrisitanity from the word go?

[HuaiDan]

Well, I don't want to see this thread die, because I think the OP raises a very interesting inquiry. There are common denominators in human behavior and behavior modification which are susceptible to certain methods of influence. For example, both the military and religious cults use the scrutiny of the social group as a way to keep behavioral deviation in check. Not so different from influences seen in everyday life for the rest of it, but on a much more intensive widespread scale, pervading every action and thought of the subject.

[HuaiDan]

Sorry Mods, last post a mistake, wrong thread. Don't know how that happened. Anyway, please delete, Thanks.

[Kommissar]

Sorry Mods, last post a mistake, wrong thread. Don't know how that happened. Anyway, please delete, Thanks.

 

I have been accepted into cultbusters.org, maybe they just slow, but the practice of manual accept/reject of membership is still unusual.

[Kommissar]

I found the following of partial use, as it relates to attempts at control of membership via walling them off from the outside.

 

The catholicisim I was raised in attempts to control wider society. Hence I am looking for a study of the practice of attempting Pervasive Control Attempts Of Information or Behaviour.

 

http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id...hreadID=2237036

 

Later I became a communist, I encountered re-constructed stalinists and maoists as well as very dysfunctional sectarian trots as well as a few reasonable trots.

 

One trot I got to know quite well was a married mother of two. Her partner was a trot as well. She said that many trots are overly sensitive to the indoctrination issue, because of stalin amongst many many others and actually seek to hide their politics from their children. She was not specific on any theoretical works written on the matter but I got the sense it was a generalised revulsion against the indoctrination of stalin and others like him.

 

I share those sentiments but I also and hypersensistive to opinions of others (Child Abuse, Religious Abuse, a generalised hypervigilance anticipating reactions of the pro-capitalist indoctrinated or my Aspergers Syndrome, TAKE YOUR PICK, lol) So in addition to the above I was aware of the issue of the tag of indoctrination in response even to telling your children how you see things as issues come up.

 

I provide the above as I am untrained academically and my ideas on this subject are shakey. My thinking and how to communicate is likewise pretty crap at times. If ppl want to discuss, bag etc lefty ideas thats fine but I ask that if its not related reaching an unbiased set of tools for the study of Pervasive Control Attempts Of Information or Behaviour, could you please start another Thread and Link to it, Preferably in the off topic bit. Thankyou in advance.

[Kommissar]

A Comprehensive Link: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

 

btw, I was in error about getting on to cultbusters.org, I just got a email saying it was being considered. Im confused.

[BlueGiant]

It would also be useful in this context to state exacly what a cult is. There are multiple definitions and it is often used in contexts that are inappropriate. It would be helpful if we were all working from the same page here.

[sharkindeepwater]

What do you mean by "intent to control?" I would say there's differences in what control and how much. Have a thrown-together scale from Acceptable to Get the Nukes:

 

1. At the close of a service at a cute little Evangelical church, the pastor smiles and says something like "I've enjoyed having you here to serve the Lord with us, and we hope you come again."

 

That's a little manipulative, in the same way my parents are being manipulative when they want me to come watch a movie with them and go "we'll have a lot of fun!" Overall, harmless.

 

2. At the close of a service in which the pastor has mentioned the evils of the world, and at least one mention of a roaring lion, he says, "stay safe, and next week we'll talk about the whole armor of god."

 

This is an intent to control through fear and get the worshipper to retreat into the congregation.

 

3. A sermon on tithing being given at some point where the roof is not about to fall in on the worshippers, the HVAC works fine, and there are no problems with the pipes.

 

Seriously, you need a whole sermon on why people should give you money?

 

4. A sermon that ties religion with politics.

 

The preacher is disrespecting/abusing "god-given authority" by using his congregation's votes to support his idea of where the country should go, or, to shed the lingo, outright controlling his congregation.

 

5. A sermon that says members should all come live in one area.

 

6. A sermon that says major investments should be handed over to the leader.

 

7. Teachings that say only the leader could possibly have the truth and nobody else can have it, neener neener.

 

8. Teachings that say only the leader should control the personal resources of the congregation and has the right to interfere with their daily lives/routines whenever he wishes.

 

9. Teachings that say the morality of the leader is not confined by the Bible, although everyone else still is.

 

 

Signs free will is healthy:

 

Members feel free to walk out if a sermon is crossing lines.

 

Members feel free to contradict the pastor, if not in a sermon for politeness' sake, immediately afterwards.

 

Members can replace the leader whenever they get a majority vote.

 

 

That's still leaving out coercion such as fear-mongering, paranoia, manipulation, dealing with "erring" members publicly before the congregation, sending messages through third parties, and worse; but we're still trying to put together definitions here, right?

[LithaB]

Hi, here is one definition, proposed by Rutgers sociologist Benjamin Zablocki seems to highlight key elements of high-influence group situations:

 

“An ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and demanding total commitment.” Charisma refers to a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual considerable influence or authority over large numbers of people. Hence, a cult is characterized by an ideology, strong demands issuing from that ideology, and powerful processes of social-psychological influence to induce group members to meet those demands. This high-demand, leader-centered social climate places such groups at risk of exploiting and injuring members, although they may remain benign, if leadership doesn’t abuse its power.

 

The social-psychological manipulation and control associated with some cultic groups may sometimes be found in other organizations and movements, including those in the mainstream. However, unlike new groups focused on a living leader who answers to nobody, mainstream movements may be restrained or corrected by higher authorities to whom they are accountable

 

International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)

[Kommissar]

Well it sure as hell felt like one:

 

Being sent to sunday school and weekly reinforcent church services on the Weekend without my consent, being sent to a Catholic Secondary School and being told lots of "facts" about abortion, contraception, being shouted down when you speak your mind regarding pre-marital sex. Attempting to restrict access to outside reading material etc. Being told to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary, and threats to those that do not believe.

 

An ideal definition I am trying to work towards is linked fundamentally ...(of) INTENT of control (of anyone beyond its own membership) rather than success of control.

 

I see the MO of the Catholic church as a whole as trying to control the wider environment, rather than limiting access to the wider environment and rigidly controling the life of the membership directly. In Australia Cardinal Pell speaking to Tony Abbot (Federal Health Minister) re the Abortion Pill is one such incident.

 

My specific recollections regarding my experience of the Antioch youth group appear to be confusing the issue. It borders on a rant and is strictly speaking off topic.