Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Sithdarth]

I find this pretty debatable, as the bible would have it he definitely made a lot of pretty stringent demands of those who would follow him.

Here you have to draw a distinction. A charismatic guy preaching about love of everyone, salvation, and a personal relationship with god sans any sort of clergy can be very convincing. I mean sure a few people might have gotten obsessive all on their own but proper adherence didn't necessitate obsessive behavior.

Also, its a non-sequitur to assume a rigid system of self denial equates to obsessive behavior. I mean look at the various forms of Buddhism, Shinto, and specifically the Zen off shoots. Ok so a few people take them to far but again that's present everywhere. For the vast majority its all about the middle path; that fine line of absolute perfect balance. Something you can't reach while being obsessive in anyway.

Sithdarth apparently sees another picture, where this group also has to be dangerous and destructive somehow.

In a round about way. I see a cult as always having an obsessive component that is integral to its function. Without this its nothing more than a novel new religion; though those can spawn individuals that are obsessive and sects that operate via obsessiveness. (Sects which then can be considered cults.)

The logical inference goes like this:

Cults require an obsessive component as an integral aspect of its function
Obsessiveness is unbalanced, excessive, unreasonable, and always destructive (to varying degrees)
Therefore, Cults must always contain a destructive/damaging/unhealthy element. (Though some have more than just that stemming from the obsessive component.)

[Gorefiend]

Thing is, back then "Son of God" wasn't meant to imply being the progeny of God, but rather merely a closeness to Him. In fact, if I remember correctly (I've been reading Karen Armstrong's A History of God, and though I passed that chapter, I've been rereading it for this discussion) I think the idea of God having progeny, personally, like that, would have been called heretical in Jesus' days, by Jesus himself to boot. In fact, he often called himself Son of Man, to emphasize his humanity.

Ultimately, Jesus wasn't considered divine until about 200 years after his death, and the trinity, as such, did not come into being until Nicene, a hundred years after that.

On cults and religions, I think, perhaps, the difference between them could be drawn on a number of lines, among them whether the religion in question is social or individual, and whether it chooses to integrate itself with modern cosmopolitan life or rejects it, how much it emphasizes compassion in its theory and practice, as well as degrees of organization and a bit of an elephant test for its beliefs and practices. To prove Scientology is a cult and Catholicism (to use one branch of Christianity I'm familiar with) is not, using my bases, one can see:

Most branches of Christianity, despite having individualist roots (originally Christianity wasn't meant to form a society, as society itself was going to end very, very soon), aim to create a better society on Earth, Catholicism among them. Scientology, to the best of my knowledge, is almost all about individual salvation, and though some social aspects are used, ultimately your individual actions are more important than your actions in respect to the community, and certainly more important than your actions in respect to the rest of the world.

As far as adapting to the modern world, Catholicism is actually very liberal; in theory, only birth control and abortion are rejected, and in practice lots of Catholics ignore the birth control ban constantly (I live in Latin America. I would know.) They certainly do NOT oppose other religions anymore. Scientology forces its members to live away from most of society, is hostile to most of society (save for when its picking up converts) and rejects many scientific discoveries.

Catholicism, in theory, emphasizes much compassion, and in practice does an ok job of following through; the Catholic church finances projects around the world through such organizations as the CMMB, and in the local sphere churches tend to go out to poorer areas around their own to try to build schools and playgrounds and provide water and stuff like that. Scientology, to the best of my knowledge, not only makes a hefty profit (which is odd, for a non-profit organization) but also has failed to pump that profit back into the community, at any scale. It does not even exhort its members in local chapters to work on projects that would benefit the greater community.

Organizationally, both would pass as religions, admittedly.

Lastly, as far as the elephant test, while both would pass as cults based on their dogma alone, looking as well at the way the dogmas are reflected in the lives of their believers, it is clear that Catholics are willing to concede some things to reason, while Scientologists do not. One religion is, easily, more fanatical in its worship than the other.

Ultimately, it is pretty clear that Scientology is far more cultish than Catholicism.

Lastly, to explain that first base, which I feel may need some justification: some religions, like Judaism and Islam, were from the start meant to create societies, because entire societies were meant to accept them. These usually are less cultish, as 1) pragmatism makes it impossible to have a successful state/society based on a cult--people have to be distracted from religion to work and support the society, which would subtract from the devotion a cult requires, and 2) these religions are generally secure in themselves, and have no need to have doctrines demonizing non-believers or demanding complete devotion; they are already the majority, they have no need to demand utmost worship or defend themselves against unbelievers (mostly).

Other religions, like original Christianity and Buddhism, and contemporary Scientology, tend to be much more about one's own salvation. Whether they eschew society for something holier or believe society is coming to an eminent end, they feel that only their practitioners will find peace. Often these religions are, in practice, cults (though they may not be destructive; mendicant Buddhist monks weren't really destructive, though it may be argued that they were highly disturbed individuals to begin with) though many find themselves making the jump to religions by integrating themselves successfully into a society.

[Sithdarth]

I still throughly and absolute object to any definition of cult that does not include the obsessiveness required to be a follower. Sure there are some other criteria but that one makes or breaks it. There are just so many other words to use for the other cult like entities out there that fail to meet that criteria. Words such as ideology, way of life, social network, sect, or what not.

Other religions, like original Christianity and Buddhism, and contemporary Scientology, tend to be much more about one's own salvation.

You are missing the key points here. Original Christianity was about personal salvation through leading a good life. This good life included being extremely active and helpful in the community and such. I mean there was a big avoiding sin thing but that wasn't enough. One had to do honest work supporting his family and neighbors.

Buddhism is about personal salvation by first striving for personal perfection. But the closer you come to that perfection the greater your grander social responsibilities become. These occur mostly as a teacher of those closer to the beginning of the path to perfection. It also includes recording history in general, observing and cataloging natural events, and basically acting as confessor/psychologist/mentor to any person that seeks you out. Some even used their great physical training to protect people but that's rarer. They were also definitely not disturbed, progressive health nuts yes, disturbed no. (Especially since they stress above all perfect balance and moderation in all things.)

Scientology stresses, as do most cults, salvation solely through their physical leader and the surrender of all worldly possessions (which wouldn't be so bad) and your free will (which is the really bad part). This and the absolute obsessive and fanatical devotion required to be a follower of scientology is why its a cult.

So when you run into something new ask yourself this, does following this guy or teaching require that I surrender everything that makes me a unique individual. Further, does it also (and these two really never happen just one at a time) require that I close my mind and react in the extreme to any foreign ideas. These are the hallmarks of a cult. I say all this for one reason and one reason only. There is an undeniable and irremovable taint on the word that comes from what its been used to describe. This connotation followers it everywhere and is in many ways more important than the denotation. You can not use the word to describe something and not attach that overwhelming negative connotation to that something. Thus I suggest, and perhaps strongly urge, that word not be used to describe something you do not wish to attach this negative connotation to.

(This is actually good advice when using any word. Pay more attention to its connotations than its actual definitions. The wrong connotation can cause very harsh feelings.)

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Archbio

That, by itself, doesn't contradict Gorefiend.

"Are you the son of God?"
"Yes."

Sounds a lot like claiming to be the son of God to me.

Thing is, back then "Son of God" wasn't meant to imply being the progeny of God, but rather merely a closeness to Him.

I'd like to see exactly what the priests say, because this is basically the difference between A son of God and THE son of God. The "son of God" bit may be open, but if it's a singular form being used, then unless you've got evidence of other people in the Bible accepting the title; "THE son of God," I'd say it's meant to mean just that.

As for whether the notion is heretical or not; it's not heretical if it's true, and regardless of whether it is or not, Christ as he is currently portrayed clearly believed it to be so. That's the way the story is told.

some religions, like Judaism and Islam, were from the start meant to create societies

Ah, I doubt very much that Judaism was thought up with the intent of creating a society. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't. It's more of a thing where it evolved with the society. We tend to think of it bass-ackwards today though, because we view religion as something totally separate and spiritual, where for them, it was a way of explaining the world. So, while it's not something where some Hebrew guy might have sat down and said "this is what we need to do," it is probably something that people thought of in much more practical terms than we think of religions. It didn't create a society, and it was never meant to, except in the sense that it may have been viewed as something akin to natural law. Of course, explaining everything about its formation is impossible.

Islam, from what I know, may be more along the lines of what you're talking about. I think a better example would be Confucianism, but that's not really a religion.

Anyway, I view a cult as something that exists within a society, and runs contrary to the more dominant beliefs and ideas. So no, not all religions start as cults, because some just evolved without ever existing inside of a society that generally believed something else.

[Archbio]

Sounds a lot like claiming to be the son of God to me.

Yes, but Gorefiend's statement was:

Well, Jesus never claimed to be God, nor do we believe it was spelled out as such in the Gospels

The 'son of' portion is absent. It's a fairly different claim unless you're willing to be anachronistic about it.

[Gorefiend]

Thinking on it, you're probably right-ish with Judaism. It certainly did not begin as a personal salvation cult or apocalyptic sect, and even the early books of the Torah were meant to give shape to a society, but, especially in the early days, it was cultish in its devotion, before it turned back to polytheism, after which it took 300 years to get every notion of Baal and Asherat out.

It is also true that, in those days, religion was life, and the true origins of Judaism as we know it may never be known. (Modern Judaism was first recognizable during or after the Babylonian Captivity, to my knowledge, though it wasn't truly what we have today until the destruction of the Second Temple.)

Islam is definitively a better example what I'm thinking of. As I understand it, there are even some scholars suggesting Muhammad deliberately planned Islam to fit the needs of his people as their society's old Bedouin ways became obsolete. I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but in any case it is a pretty social religion.

Confucianism is more like a philosophy in its practice, to my understanding, though it is certainly a social one. Best example of a social "religion" by far.

And, yes, my claim was more along the lines of "Jesus never claimed to be divine." Which he didn't. After all, the title, as he understood it, did not confer divinity, merely earthly holiness (he was a rabbi with God's close favor, but he was human). The fact is, the story is told wrong. Way wrong.

That said, my definition of cults actively downplayed the obsessive component to be more empirical, so no one could say "its based on an opinion, and biased". While most of us would agree that the obsessive component is plain to see, especially in the case of Scientology, some would continue to say ALL religions have it when they clearly do not, hence my definition.

[Sithdarth]

That said, my definition of cults actively downplayed the obsessive component to be more empirical, so no one could say "its based on an opinion, and biased". While most of us would agree that the obsessive component is plain to see, especially in the case of Scientology, some would continue to say ALL religions have it when they clearly do not, hence my definition.

I'm sorry but that's just plain cowardly. You do not attempt to hide, cut out, or otherwise downplay a major part of your definition just because you fear it might be used against you. That's cause to find the weakness and strengthen it not remove it. If you can't find and fix it then its time to reevaluate your argument not castrate it and then present it.

I mean there is a bit of leeway to what some might consider obsessive but its not much and in a practical argument its not that hard to prove the ones that will come up one way or the other. Also, I clearly stated that the obsessiveness must be key to its functioning. Anything can inspire obsessiveness in some fraction of people. Cults require that everyone in them suffer the same obsession. This clearly doesn't happen in any religion. Anywhere it does happen is by definition of a cult. No religious person is going to tell you all religions require absolute obsession to function. Anyone that he/she claims does is either a cult or there is a glaring flaw in the logic leading to the conclusion.

Thinking on it, you're probably right-ish with Judaism. It certainly did not begin as a personal salvation cult or apocalyptic sect, and even the early books of the Torah were meant to give shape to a society, but, especially in the early days, it was cultish in its devotion, before it turned back to polytheism, after which it took 300 years to get every notion of Baal and Asherat out.

See here again that negative tone is seeping in again. This passage suggests that any one would have to be insane (as obsession qualifies you as insane or at least mentally unstable) to believe in new ideas. I'm really trying not to use the word but faith is not equal to obsession. I radical shift in faith doesn't predicate obsession either. It just means the circumstances of ones life have been such as to warrant self-examination and a change. Now sometimes this leads a person into an obsessive type of faith in something (not necessarily a cult they could be flying solo) but not always.

Further, the aspects generally associated with cults above the absolute need for obsession are generally ubiquitous elsewhere. For example, the whole charismatic leader thing. All leaders are charismatic some more than others and cult leaders need not be especially so. Its the total reliance on obsession and thus unstable devotees that makes a cult a cult.

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Yes, but Gorefiend's statement was:



The 'son of' portion is absent. It's a fairly different claim unless you're willing to be anachronistic about it.

Fair enough. My bad for not being attentive.

Honestly, I don't really like to argue definitions, as it always ends up being more about language deconstruction than it is about the actual issue. I remember my history prof making us read an article about why the term "medieval" makes no sense. The woman's argument was basically that based on the word's technical meaning, you can't really call any specific chunk of time a medieval period, because this detail or that detail doesn't fit. Language is arbitrary though: Any sound or scrawl can mean anything, if it's understood by both parties. Furthermore, English more than most languages, is very malleable, so arguing over details is pretty futile. Basically, what matters is that the meaning of the speaker is understood. Hunter/gatherer people usually don't fit the proper definition of hunter/gathers. My anthropology profs still know what I mean when I refer to them as such though. It's just that if I were to try and properly define each individual group, I'd spend two thousand words of my term paper just building the framework for such a thing.

In this case, I'd tend to argue more about whether or not Scientology deserves the respect accorded a "religion" as opposed to a "cult" (though personally, I don't think religion deserves the respect it gets). Because that's really what it's about, not whether it fits the technical definition of either. I doubt anyone called Scientology a cult with the intent to say "it fits these specific criteria." What I think is more likely, is that whoever said it meant to give it a negative connotation. Is anything more than that really all too important?

Of course, since this is actually dealing with a legal issue, it's a little stickier, because it HAS to be dealt with. Doesn't make it any less awkward to do though. I blame the thread merging for my not having seen that it was a matter of law earlier.

As for Confucianism, it's kind of a little tricky. None of the hallmarks of religion are there, and it's really just social philosophy, like you said. However, in its time and place, "social philosophy" and "religion" are pretty synonymous. It's just a lot more to the point. The best reason I can think of to slam it into the "religion" category, is that it DID take the place of other religions. It was treated as a sort of state religion for a time. To be fair though, my knowledge of that era is kind of spotty, as I haven't really studied it in awhile.

before it turned back to polytheism, after which it took 300 years to get every notion of Baal and Asherat out.

Never did manage to COMPLETELY get rid of all the other figures.

[Archbio]

It's been a while since I've read on the topic also, but my overall residual impression was that Confucianism was at the very least tightly related to plainly supernatural concerns, such as ancestor worship being a logical extension of filial piety into an afterlife.

It seems a little odd to say that it took the place of other religions, because one of the things that might be why religion in Imperial China is such a tricky topic is that not one 'religion' (Taoism, Buddhism or Confucianism) was mutually exclusive to the others.

One other thing that makes it tricky is how institutional religion (as in a religion as an institution distinct from other institutions) wasn't all that successful.

I might be remembering this all wrong, though.

[Gorefiend]

Naw, I studied the period recently, you've got it mostly right. The closest any of them came to be a real institutional religion as we know it was either Buddhism in the 400 years after the Han fell, or Confucianism after that. And they remained pretty far.

Sith, I'd misinterpreted your definition to just having obsessive beliefs, which I know some people feel every religion does. I still feel my definition is valid, but yours is moreso.

And, on early Judaism; it was social, it was rather disorganized and centered around different charismatic individuals at different times, it did stress some compassion though later it supported genocide, it was pretty clashing with most people's lives in the time (and in that sense could be said to have been demanding of obsession from its people) though they would soon drop that and adapt to life around them (so much so a statue of Asherat was in Solomon's Temple--the sex rites mentioned in the DaVinci Code weren't Judaism, but paganism practiced by Jews), and it mostly passed the elephant test. It probably wasn't obsessive. Heck, given the amount of complaining in the Bible of the Israelites straying from the path, I think we should assume it was anything but obsessive. So it is not a cult. But, organizationally, I can understand why he'd think it was a cult, as it had some elements of a cult, and while in practice no one was obsessive, I can imagine how in theory they were meant to be (in fact, in its rites back then it was comparable to cults around the pagan deities, though rather more benign and closer to our ideas of morality (no infanticide, or self-mutilation, care for the elderly and for others in general...)). Now, post-Babylonian Captivity Judaism was not by any means a cult. Nor was Roman Empire Judaism. And let's not begin with modern Judaism. But, Exodus Judaism, while not having been a band of obsessed/degenerate cultists, was a tad fuzzy around the edges.

Oh, and BitVyper, I'd argue they did get rid of them, mostly. Though, framing the Bible out of history it does make it hard to read condemnations of the pagan gods in the Old Testament, modern Judaism, except for the necessity of reading those verses from the Torah doesn't concern itself with them at all. As far as the image of God, Jews 1) do not allow any depiction of God, or of His name (in fact, I should be spelling it G-d, not God, but I'm not that conservative, though I am refraining from using the Tetragammaton or the spelled out name) and 2) have no dogmas about God's nature whatsoever. I don't think any mainstream version of Judaism would ever liken God to a fertlity god (Baal) or a mother god(ess) (Asherat). He certainly is no longer considered the war god the ancient Israelites once likened him to.

Also, to tell a funny story, did you know that the Greeks made statues of Zeus hanging out and smiting things with the Jewish God?