When does a group belief become a cult and why?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Well, i was going to post something, but it looks like it was already said,


Remember: all religions start out as "cults" to the vast majority of the population. Christianity started out as a "cult" in Pagan dominated Rome.


Definitions of cult on the Web:



* followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

* fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal;

* followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

* a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false.


So, now that we know the definition, we can definitely say, that all religions, at one point in time, were labelled cults. followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. At the time when Christianity surfaced, it was exactly what is defined in bold.

Actually, we can label everyones beliefs as cultish, since everyones beliefs usually vary from one and other.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by darcon]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Cults also offer promises in exchange for compliance, and have an inner circle who posses special knowledge that is denied to the rest of the members.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Technically, any group that adheres to beliefs different than the more popular and established "churches" are often labelled a cult. However, with some objective investigation one realizes that there are benign or benevolent cults and malevolent or destructive cults.


True, there are opposite sides of the spectrum(And in between), just like most things in life.



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Examples of benign or benevolent cults would be: the Bahá'í, the Hare Krishnas (ISKCON), Scientology, and Eckankar.

Examples of malevolent or destructive cults would be: the cult of Charles Manson, the cult of Jim Jones, and NAMBLA.


Good examples


[edit on 3-3-2009 by darcon]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 


This will be my speculation, because I don't know all historical facts, but I believe I can handle the essence.

I've read gospels from Nag Hammadi Library.
www.gnosis.org...

Those are also known as Gnostic Gospels.

Most of them have identical material, and gospels from New Testament have identical material, only filtered, and are in better literary form (lots of work invested in them).

The way I see things, Christianity cannot possibly be a Hebrew project, it is most likely a Greek project, concretely of Gnostic origin. Gnosticism was contemporary philosophy of the Hellenistic era (Greek culture was dominating Roman civilization and spread in Mediterranean). One of the biggest centers was Alexandria, where Christianity was well rooted.

The ideology of gospels is Greek in my opinion, and it is somehow fused with Hebrew religion, using it's database, so to say. The main difference between Judaism, together with contemporary ideology of Man-God impersonated in the emperor Augustus, and this Gnostic Christianity is that the latter proposed the concept of God-Man.

Judaism = God separated from man and dominating over man (nothing spiritual, mostly patriarchal concept)

Alexander, Augustus = God-Man (no spiritual elements here too)

Christ = overwhelming spiritual (metaphysical) existence, directly opposing institutional forms of society, both state and church and particularized position of an individual.

Basic concept of early Christianity was spiritual unity of all individuals, realized and shown in the symbol of Christ (the anointed one, the savior, true self, personality).

The concept of "Son of God" is a novelty and radically opposed to patriarchal hierarchy. It is a revolutionary concept, and quite similar to Buddha's discarding the caste system in India, equaling men and women in all respects.

In my opinion, the project of Jesus was to individually oppose and take over functions of an institution (church). I believe that he was aware and anticipated how that would end for him. His "predcessor" did exactly the same thing, only aiming against political power (Herod). He was beheaded. Actually John was his cousin and this was very much a family project in this respect.

They both sacrificed themselves and marked a historical turning point by doing so, especially Jesus, for his approach had more differentiated substance and impact on followers. This also bought him more time to train them.

Unauthorized personal influence within society (institution) is not allowed and is the ultimate crime against the authority if the conflict occurs.

Early Christianity refused to recognize secular authority and it was severely punished and denounced. It literally moved to catacombs.

The spiritual moment stood in place of indoctrination (like religious indoctrination) and facing death for Christians was an option, rather than accepting submission to secular power.

When one identifies his self with the metaphysical (force) the motivation within the domain of life-death disappears. Similar to Buddhist relation to Samsara and Nirvana. In Buddhism the main approach (doctrine) is anatta - no-ego. Self is traditionally assumed to be "empty" (it is metaphysical). In Christianity it is actually "of the Other World".

"Empty" means empty of particular data, agenda, leaving only the active principle in place of self, which is the force, the essence.

This metaphysical self is the only possible basis for unconditioned existence. From this experience arise ideas of Love and Freedom (actually they are synonymous).

Love is unconditional.
This, in practice, means, that one chooses, makes a decision to "love", rather than calculating the odds for profit which will be gained from a relationship with other people.

It is easy to see the consequences of this kind of approach regarding the existing traditional economic and political system. It is destructive towards institutionalized society.

The basic principle of dominating economy is "exchange".
The basic principle of Christianity )or Buddhism) is "sharing", "communion", "participation".

Those are two opposed concepts. Exchange does not allow unity, wealth is distributed.
Sharing only recognizes common property, one that is at disposal to all.

The emphasis of sharing is on the knowledge, which is metaphysical, not material good.
Material needs in this kind of communion are reduced to minimum and do not represent a purpose on its own. (Opposite to dominating ideology in historical times). Material possession is hardly an issue in early Christianity, Buddhism and similar cults or religions, call them as you wish.

To normal perception, empirical mind, such spiritual existence is absolutely incomprehensible, and when someone approaches this issue from such position it can never be understood and accepted.

What is of crucial importance for someone to understand this concept is personal experience, and I mean "experience of the Personality", direct experience of force, which can be only attained through meditation.

Meditation is basically turning off perception and rationality, and then the existence of spiritual kind is automatically confirmed, because self doesn't cease to exists when this happens ("stopping the world").

Thus, "the end of the world" is not really some kind of planetary catastrophe. It is a personal event and marks the essential transfer of focus from empirical existence towards spiritual existence. From that moment on, a person becomes less dependent on physical, material facts, and multiple, inconceivable options open.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by headlightone
 



There's a great chapter about forming cults in the 48 laws of power. Must read for everyone on these forums! (not just that chapter but the whole book!)



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
So, now what do we do? Everybody scared of the Truth? Who knows.

What I find hard to believe is some people fall for this. Of course they will, mostly because they're lazy, and they sure want a share of the pie (in the sky -- that one), so selling self-effort for a shock-of-your-life is a real good sale-item.

In case you all didn't know, many of the youth of today would do anything to meet a real live alien, even any type of alien (4th dimension/invisible realm), as long as they weren't too scary or mean (that's always a downside element, isn't it). The new-new age secret dream, ..er..cult. And it works the best, I believe. Throw in some archangels, some kewl ships, wrap it up nice (crystals, robes, whatever; even an old straw hat will work, not to mention the ultra odic force or somesuch), and your selling memberships like hotcakes. Slaves. Can't beat that.

Now, all this is a no-no, and the inherent dangers are real. You can find that out the hard way, but with a little study, you'll quickly discover that the Inner Invisible Realms are real, depending on your potential, and oh so commanding:


"It is a thinking universe, a living universe, an exquisite universe!" Castaneda said, exuberantly kicking off the seminar. "We have to balance the linearity of the known universe with the nonlinearity of the unknown universe." The charismatic Castaneda proved amazingly convincing when describing life among inorganic beings, with whom he apparently spends a great deal of time; the assemblage point, a place about an arm's length behind our shoulder blades that can be shifted to visit other realms; and a predatory universe in which "flyers" incessantly feed on mankind's awareness, taking the sheen off our luminous eggs and leaving only a rubble of self-absorption and egomania.

He invents none of this, he insists. I'm not insane, you know. Well, maybe a little insane. But not ridiculously insane!"

He is also charming, energetic, fit, and funny. And at the conclusion of his opening talk, Castaneda responded to a request for an interview by unexpectedly inviting the writer to lunch.
Interview with Castaneda


So there's the potential Truth out there, and the Non-Truth, or the Real Light and the Light of Unreal (Illusion), and most can't tell which is what! Both Lights blind. Lot's of danger in the world today; everybody is wondering what they can do about it, if anything, desperate now.

What a great time to grab some free energy, call it what you want. Get big, and you can do anything with it; look at the christian church! Lots of power along the way, too, from the small to the big. Heck, you can set up a mom and pop shop of salvation, or life improvement, and do good.

Is there danger to believe it? To believe you can get or do the things that are offered (cash, position, fame, or maybe some siddhis, ascension, etc.) will get you in trouble fast. Perhaps you're really innocent (stupid), and have pure intentions, or intent of purity. Hmm...that's what got humanity into this position in the first place. That's no good.

Rather than learn for the self how to learn from Within, it always seems faster if you can get some help, or someone does it for you!

What's the missing ingredient, folks? What is it? Wisdom. No, this isn't rigmarole psychology, its direct experience of understanding-knowing-Wisdom- Awareness-[emanation], or embodying Intent (Intent means 'spirit,' by don Juan). Without this ingredient, and the know-how to verify it, you're a chicken dinner.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Christianity=organized belief.

They ALWAYS need more numbers. News flash : recruiting in progress for last 2000 years


Look up the word 'cult' in the dictionary, and you will see that it is used to describe any religious group. The way it is defined in Christianity is the way it is being defined here; a non-biblical or illegitimate twist. It is also popular in modern Xianity to believe that all Xians are supposed to recruit. That is NOT what the Bible teaches. We are to be WITNESSES. Big difference. GOD chooses who HE will call, not us. We are to just live our lives by His game plan, and accept others, love others. We are told to forgive IF they ask. IF they do not, even refuse or attempt to repeat their evil, we are not called to forgive and forget. That is heresy. God promises to do vengence. Does that sound like a push-over God? Push over is what the modern church is attempting to breed. Personally, I have fled the organized church, and just try my best to keep the Sabbath, at home. I believe that we are not under any covenants now, and no direction is given until the two prophets appear, hopefully soon. When our twin star arrives, possibly in 2019.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by headlightone
I would love to hear from any ex cult, or society members or even some current members .
information from both sides of the fence would be great.


Im sorry headlightone but this isnt very likely is it really. A member of a cult most probably does not realize they are in a cult, and even if they did they would be too scared to come on here and say "hey Im in a cult we do this that and the other". Cults are secretive and controlled, no way are you going to get current members of a cult to come on your thread and admit it. Ex members maybe but you'll be lucky to get any inside information from a current member of a cult.

Im sure theres plenty of info on the web though about people that have managed to break free, how they did it and what made them finally leave.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Of course, spiritual essence of personality does not look for unity in formal relationship, which basically splits personality.

Personality, being an expression of force, is one and same for everyone (like the symbol of Christ or Buddha).
Force, as the metaphysical, cannot be discerned.

So, this archetype is probably the most important of all, because it tells us that compromise is not possible between these two forms of existence.

One is either a Personality, or is a split-personality - incomplete.

We know that we cannot really unite with each other as long as we perceive as separate beings.

So the true unity must be attained on a different level of existence. It can be attained through our experience of both realities and then discarding the one reality in which we are separated by the particular point of perception - normally called EGO.

Of course, similar to the T'Pol archetype is the archetype of Eros and Psyche - which cannot, shouldn't, be "perceived" by senses - that is, it has to be experienced as unity.



Hi I tryed SS,Nagas link www.thearchetypalconnection.com... but it is not working, maybe it will later.

Anyway I think I know what they are now (think) but maybe I am not getting it.

They are things that seperate us from becoming one? While they are here with us on this reality we can never return to the one? It must be done on a different reality (whilst still learning on this one) where the ego (main obstacle stopping awarness I believe) will be dropped??

I believe ego is all mind, it is not us, as they say we are not our ego! Some people feel their ego on a conscious level others arnt even aware of it at all. If your ego is conscious it will make you feel you are not worthy, you are not good enough. An unconscious ego will make you feel your always wanting and craving something. Either way, the ego will send you on a constant ego gratification for things and feelings to fill it. The ego makes us always feel we are never whole, we are never happy, we must always search for what it is ego wants, what ego needs.

People with an out of control ego are never whole, never happy and always searching to complete themself. Of course ego is never filled EVER. It may feel like youve filled the hole of ego with a new car, house, love and adoration from others, belief system, new job whatever. In the end though you never become whole from such things because it is not you that seeks these it is your ego.

Awarness is to be found outside of the ego, outside of the mind, I believe it is to be found within us, within what we really are not what an ego trys to make us think we are.

Many find dropping their ego so frightening they cant even consider such a thing. If they are not there ego then who on earth are they?? Our identiy is to be found within our being our spirit, spirit has NO ego.

People realize this at the time of death, once all what they thought was them is stripped away they finally see themselves for who they truely are.
Death has a funny way of showing you your truth, at this point a person has NO ego and they finally find themselves.



The secret of life is to die before you die - Eckhart Tolle

People in cults should realize nothing truely spiritual that is personal to US is found within a group, never ever, without any acceptions, truth is always found within, and if we all realized this there would be no cults and probably no religions either!



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by darcon
Definitions of cult on the Web:



* followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices

* fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal;

* followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

* a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false.


So, now that we know the definition, we can definitely say, that all religions, at one point in time, were labeled cults. followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. At the time when Christianity surfaced, it was exactly what is defined in bold.

Actually, we can label everyone's beliefs as cultish, since everyone's beliefs usually vary from one and other.


Good reference definition and conclusion



Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Technically, any group that adheres to beliefs different than the more popular and established "churches" are often labeled a cult. However, with some objective investigation one realizes that there are benign or benevolent cults and malevolent or destructive cults.


Originally posted by darcon
True, there are opposite sides of the spectrum(And in between), just like most things in life.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Examples of benign or benevolent cults would be: the Bahá'í, the Hare Krishnas (ISKCON), Scientology, and Eckankar.

Examples of malevolent or destructive cults would be: the cult of Charles Manson, the cult of Jim Jones, and NAMBLA.


Good examples


Thanks


For balance, I thought it important to list some benign ones as well as some evil ones.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Green
 



Thinking about scary things will make you scared.
This is mostly the case. Thinking is reflection, a passive "activity" of being passive. The symbol, since we already discussed symbols, of ego is Ouroboros: snake eating its own tail. It appears to be active, but it is caught in a vicious circle and is actually only pretending to be active. Like an eternal echo.


Tricky thing. When you reflect, you get carried away by the "process" of reflection. It is, of course, a (passive) PRINCIPLE. And it is up to you to do it or not. But in order to not do it, you have to "decide". You can only decide (decide means "cut short") to stop and only then will it stop. It won't stop on its own. Therefore not-thinking is the active PRINCIPLE, a self with no particular content which is submissive to analysis (reflection). It cannot be taken apart like EGO. Self can cut short process of reflection. That is its action.

If you don't understand what is active principle and what is passive principle, you may never be able to stop being used and manipulated, because you don't know when or why to stop. You are at mercy. Being such, you are an easy prey for cultists, because they are going to use your indecisiveness (ignorance) to enslave you and manipulate you.

Ego is an aggregate, a bunch of beliefs, an apparently ordered whole, but it lacks decisiveness because it is fixed on itself as something coherent, while it is actually incoherent. Ego is a constant self-reflection and cannot cross its own boundaries. It is presented in the myth of Narcissus.

Self, as an active principle, is strictly knowledge, and as such it is the force and also DEATH to ego, or DEATH of ego. For ego, to stop thinking and so infinitely recreate itself, is death. If nothing is happening, no input from senses, no thoughts - this means you are dead! That is assumed by ego.

This is why most people keep SIMULATING activity, passively receiving input as a proof that they are alive: THE SHOW MUST GO ON!


How come force is knowledge?
Since force is the metaphysical, it affects physical world without premeditation or procedure, it acts immediately.
And HOW is that possible?
It is possible because the force KNOWS HOW.
That is what I think is true.

In practice, accumulating knowledge is the same as accumulating force.
The more knowledge you have, the less time you need to reflect upon things.
Experience is your accumulated force or knowledge. When you have experience you are prepared to act IMMEDIATELY. You don't need to follow procedure to ensure yourself what to do - you simply know what to do. You act.

Intuition is also knowledge, only it is called "silent knowledge" for one specific reason. Because it is the result of your experience which has not been articulated in a sensible, articulated way (like philosophy for instance).

People often know intuitively there are things they shouldn't do because they are wrong, but other people like cultists can still confuse them because in place of this "mute understanding" they offer convincing "logical explanations for everything". If you haven't bothered to articulate your experience, you are in danger to be shut up by such manipulators, left without adequate response and beaten. Cultists offer Ideology instead of Philosophy, a SIMULATION of philosophy, an IMAGE pretending to be the ORIGINAL. It will sure confuse all those who haven't articulated their knowledge. People are born with an amount of force, but it gets corrupted and dimmed by garbage reflection from the day of birth. If one is not aware of this, he will stay stupid and in danger of getting totally exhausted.

This is why it is important to master your natural abilities, like analytical reason and other perception, to be able to act immediately in apparently conflicting and dangerous situations, when you are exposed to various phenomena in your life.

Cultists will offer "instant knowledge" all set in stone or in a "book", to "resolve" all your problems in life, and you should be able to debunk them immediately.

Ego loves to accept such offer, because what ego seeks is a universe where it can move with certain knowledge of the direction and outcome, a materialized universe without effort. This is called inertia (laziness) and it is immanent to "matter", which is actually perception - endless fractionating, false infinity, aporia.

Self, as opposed to ego, already has support within itself and needs no external proofs that there are no threats to it. Self doesn't need external rules, protocols, or references. Therefore, self is properly called (by Buddha for instance) no-ego (annata, anatman).


One of the most confusing things, and therefore critical, is the knowledge of projection. Projection is the mentioned IMAGE, and it is designated as WILL or Emotion or Idea. Those three are one same thing, only in perception they appear as different, which is the nature of perception - discrimination or particularization. For ego, the whole world consists of innumerable parts, while for self the whole universe is a Singularity, Unity.

The reason self perceives Universe as a whole is because self has complete experience of reflection (as such) and all points in such Universe are immediately accessible to self. Self doesn't need to "travel" (to move) or to "ponder" (think). It knows - has already been there, has already contemplated the phenomena. All is contained in it.

Processing mind, which is the mind of ego can never accept that, because for it everything is a projection, has dimensions, distance, timing, etc.

This is why there is an eternal argument about whether God exists or doesn't exist. Ego (reason, which is a tool of reflection) can not grasp the concept of immediacy.

And you can never prove to an egoist that there are such things as freedom or love which are UNCONDITIONAL. For an egoist, all actions must be conditioned, caused by something, and man is never free to DECIDE for himself. Decisiveness doesn't exist in the world of reason.

And in practice, decisiveness is the main characteristic of Personality as opposed to Ego.






[edit on 4-3-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 

DangerDeath,

Interesting post.


Because of The Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts, Jesus' original teachings were taken in different directions by different groups of followers.

Christianity had both Hebrew and Greek influences it its theology. The idea that humans can become gods is an old Greek belief.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
Basic concept of early Christianity was spiritual unity of all individuals, realized and shown in the symbol of Christ (the anointed one, the savior, true self, personality).

At first, there were those who felt Jesus was a gifted man or prophet. While others felt he was the Son of God. Church leaders eventually made it official - as they became more powerful and controlling - that he was the Son of God.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
The concept of "Son of God" is a novelty and radically opposed to patriarchal hierarchy. It is a revolutionary concept, and quite similar to Buddha's discarding the caste system in India, equaling men and women in all respects.

The Son of God paradigm resulted in the exact opposite of what you are stating. It was used to elevate Jesus above everyone else and with the eventual addition that we cannot become godlike or Jesus-like ourselves. This harks back to the controversy surrounding an early church theologian named Arius. He publicly brought up a key question to the Bishop of Alexandria in the Fourth Century, resulting in a major public debate in the church for years.

The question Arius brought up was: If the Father is the parent of the Son, then didn't the Son have a beginning?

That may not seem like a very controversial question, but it was very much so


For if the Son had a beginning, then that meant that he had to evolve into becoming divine. If the Son had to evolve into becoming divine, then that implies that people can also evolve into divinity


In other words, if Jesus were a man who became the Son of God, then that implied that other men could also become Sons of God


Read Reincarnation: The Missing Link In Christianity by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

From the above referenced book:


This idea was unacceptable to the orthodox, hence their insistence that Jesus had always been God and was entirely different for all created beings...The Arian position had the potential to erode the authority of the Church since it implied that the soul did not need the Church to achieve salvation....The Church had nearly split over the issue when the controversy reached the ears of the Roman emperor Constantine. He decided to resolve it himself in a move that permanently changed the course of Christianity.


That book is an excellent scholarly work that helps one understand early Christian theology and how it was altered over the centuries.


EDIT: By the way, those who sided with Arius were also thought of as being in a "cult" too.




[edit on 4-3-2009 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 


Of course, stating that Jesus evolved to the status of being Son of God allows everyone to evolve to the same state.

This is directly opposed to the idea of authority. Church as an institution is "intermediary" between humans and God, and must certify one's appropriateness.

But nowadays there are many Christian sects which disagree on this question.

About Man-God and God-Man.

The old Greek idea of man joining gods (like heroes being ascended to the Olympus after death) is not the same as the idea of Man-God, as Alexander believed of himself. Or Augustus, or Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

In that respect, the old idea of hero is reflected in the concept of God-Man, and this is probably the reason for the discussion you quoted, the idea of evolving, through resolving tasks or quests, and becoming like god.

One of the oldest concepts is found in the philosophy (or religion) of Jains. Jain basically means hero (jina, djin, djinny, giant). Jains are ethical giants who ascend above lowly passions and perfect themselves through ascetic and ethical practice.
en.wikipedia.org...

Jainism is deemed to have largely affected Buddha's philosophical approach.

Specifically in Christianity, God-Man is created, in my opinion, as obvious opposition to the prevalent concept of Cesar as Divinity, a symbol of secular power equaled with the power of the divine. Augustus Cesar proclaimed himself to be God.

This concept certainly was a finger into the eye of the authorities.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Very good zysin 5 video describing CULTivation tactics employed by 1 person or a body of persons to manage and change a victim groups beliefs
some very educated posters on this thread SS Naga, Danger Death have a good insight.

Cult members could watch that video and then make comment on this forum see if it resonates with them Or perhaps ex cult members could come on this thread and talk about the video and their own experiences.
Come on folks open up release that tension.
What are the incentives on controlling peoples beliefs why is it done.
A truth is known or discovered by person or persons.
That truth or knowledge is of great benefit to the "certain FEW"
Conceilment of that knowledge is required.
The hidden knowledge can happen at minority group level or indeed at global level.
The Brotherhood of light ,The order of the solar temple etc at group level
The main religions at global level.
The group level in my opinion that secret is metaphysical with a very central core level EGO led to control and drain a groups very essence.
The Global level probably much the same but with the global level the leadership is more blurred and hard to identify.
At group level the candidate is promised the truth example
The guru takes the initiate into the inner sanctum and tells him that a painting he is about to reveal is the ultimate answer to everything.
He blindfolds the initiate spins him around and takes the blind fold away.
The initiates eyes are centimetres from the great painting he sees a small figure ,a bit of colour.
He does not see the whole picture the guru takes him away with promises of greater times in the inner sanctum in the years ahead .
The group level is stripped of character and substance and kept waiting in trepidation and love/Fear desperation of things to come.
The Global level is smoke and mirrors the "FEW" control the masses by religion, war fear dogma ,social ideal controls very much EGO led.
"WHAT IS THE TRUTH" at global level Its possibly Aliens exist or perhaps immortality and great riches for the few,Free energy could be any of them.
I might be getting very cynical here the truth might be deep love and joy
or harmonious spiritual development that we as humanity are not ready for who knows
Anyway theirs some views on it all .




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Must mention my take on cult leaders.
1. Out of control EGO.
2. HE OR SHE have a big secret.
3. They need worshipping as they see themselves as special.
4.The secret may provide them with powers.
5. They have access to ie"Space Gods, Spirits, The source.Alien groups."
6. Whatever you want they channel.
7. Followers can gain access to special insight through the guru, nobody else
8. Members develop an absolute dependency for their lifes direction with their guru.
9.The cult leader is very manipulative,self centered and behaves in private like a spoil child when they dont get their own way.
10.The Guru sees himself/herself as greater than God and is always right.
To sum it all up He/She is a physical vehicle with an out of control EGO
Really they are rather repulsive nasty spoilt characters.
I am sure at the higher self level they are divine as we all are.
They are making an absolute disaster of their attempt here on the physical plane.
when they have their life review Their will be retribution and lots more incarnations.






[edit on 4-3-2009 by headlightone]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by headlightone
 


One of the symbols of hierarchy (cultist's trip) is the Pyramid, and the Eye of the Pyramid.

How it appears to be is well explained in Leibniz "Monadology". Very interesting to read and not too long.
www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk...

In short, Leibniz claims that the whole Universe, or knowledge of all, is in a form of a hologram (he doesn't use this name, but that's it). Monads have blurred sight of the whole. The whole picture is there, but it is not very clear for an individual.

The highest monad possesses clear knowledge of all.
Communication between monads is not possible (monads have no "windows").
I forgot whether he claims that monads can evolve or not.... Must read again.

But I'm sure that his projection can easily be used by cultists, and it has been used. Just look into the mason's symbols, the Illuminati, etc. They all simply adore the symbol of Pyramid, gradual distribution of power and knowledge, and all knowledge and power concentrated at the top of the construction (the Eye).

Examples:

(calibration of perception)


47. This God alone is the primary unity, or the original simple substance, which produces all created or derivative monads. To speak figuratively, they are born from one moment to the next by continual flashes of lightening from the divinity; and they are limited by the receptivity of that which is created, which is essentially bounded.


-----

Judge for yourselves whether he simply objectively "observes" or projects an elitist view.



48. In God there is power, which is the source of everything; then there is knowledge, which contains the detailed system of ideas; and finally will, which changes or produces things in accordance with the principle of the best. These correspond to what there is in created monads: the subject or basis, the faculty of perception, and the faculty of appetition. But in God these attributes are absolutely infinite, or perfect; whereas in created monads or entelechies (or ‘perfection-havers’, as Ermolao Barbaro translated this word) they are only imitations, which are closer the more perfection they have.

49. Created beings are said to act externally in so far as they have perfection, and to be acted upon by another in so far as they are imperfect. Thus activity is attributed to monads in so far as their perceptions are distinct, and passivity in so far as their perceptions are confused.

50. One created being is more perfect than another in that it contains what is used to explain apriori what happens in the other; and this is why it is said to act on the other.


----


You see, he "determines" God by a "sufficient reason". This is ideal for cultists' purposes. Creativity is subject to logic.



53. Now, since there is an infinity of possible universes among God’s ideas, and only one of them can exist, there must be a sufficient reason for God’s choice, which determines him to the one rather than to the other.

54. This reason can be found only in harmony, or the degrees of perfection which these worlds contain, since each possible world has the right to claim existence in proportion to the perfection it includes. Thus nothing is entirely arbitrary.

-----

This is the "hologram" passage:



60. Besides, what I have just said provides the apriori reasons why things could not happen in any other way. In organising the whole, God paid attention to each part, and in particular to each monad. Since the nature of monads is to represent things, nothing could restrict them to representing only a selection from things. It is true that this representation is merely a confused representation as far as the details of the universe as a whole is concerned, and that it can be distinct only over a very limited range of things. In other words, monads have distinct representations only of the things which are closest to them, or relatively large. If this were not the case, each monad would be a divinity. Monads are not limited with respect to the objects of their knowledge, but with respect to the modes of their knowledge of their objects. All of them penetrate to infinity, or to the whole — but confusedly. What makes them finite, and distinguishes one from another, is the variation in their distinct perceptions.


Let me remind you that the concept of "central perspective" came about during the Renaissance time. This is in fact an ideology which conditioned the appearance of "objective science" - things lose sharpness in perspective. So this ideology of perspective projects "distribution" of insight: to each what he is given by God!

What limits our vision (and total vision, or horizon, are a limit of its own) is exactly this "calibration" of perception. Without calibration, there is no horizon. To believe that such flexible calibration which would enable us to switch from one wave-length to another at will exists, is to believe in an all-seeing God.

But, it is absurd, because only the very principle of getting out of focus is the quality of the metaphysical, of God. God which sees a clear "picture" of his perception is limited by his vision and is therefore just a lowly monad. He is practically a "victim of the obvious" - the famous scientific "objectivity".

This is the mind-trick the PTB are using on themselves and so keep themselves in perpetual slavery of ignorance. This is why the PTB put cameras on every corner
They want to turn the world into a frozen spectacle. That reads "control" for them. All information is collected within one center.

But the accessibility of this information in turn produces "thinking machines", which need time to process mass of information, returning them to the status of "limited insight". So it can only be true that they IMITATE God, and are not really God, which (or who) has instant access to everything, since he is beyond time/space limitations.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Organicism:



63. The monad to which a body belongs is either an entelechy or a soul. If it belongs to an entelechy, the combination can be called a living being; and if it belongs to a soul, the combination can be called an animal. Now this body of a living being or of an animal is always organic. The reason is that, since each monad is a mirror of the universe in its own unique way, and since the universe is arranged with a perfect orderliness, there must be the same orderliness in that which represents it — in other words, in the perceptions of the soul, and consequently in the body, since the representation of the universe in the soul follows that which is in the body.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by headlightone
Come on folks open up release that tension.
What are the incentives on controlling peoples beliefs why is it done.
A truth is known or discovered by person or persons.


Control is power. Cult leaders control members lives on ALL levels to gain power. control is mainly done through fear. Thats all cults are about at the end of the day, control and power over others.

Members loose their identity, they no longer know who they really are, what they really believe in, it is loss of self. Its tragic really. We should be finding ourselves not giving our selves up to some guru who claims to be god or higher than god, no body is higher than god, now that headlightone IS an ego that has run madly out of control, to make a person think they are higher than god. We at source are all "god" anyway we are one, not one of us is greater than the one.

So to me its all about control, fear and the loss of self. Tragic totally tragic.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Of course, stating that Jesus evolved to the status of being Son of God allows everyone to evolve to the same state.

This is directly opposed to the idea of authority. Church as an institution is "intermediary" between humans and God, and must certify one's appropriateness.

I agree with your appraisal.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
But nowadays there are many Christian sects which disagree on this question.

About Man-God and God-Man.

Do you mean that there are Christian sects that believe that humans can evolve into gods?

Could you give us an example of a Christian sect that believes this?

I don't know of any.

Also, would they not be thought of as a "cult" by the other sects who believe that only Jesus and the Father can be divine?


Originally posted by DangerDeath
The old Greek idea of man joining gods (like heroes being ascended to the Olympus after death) is not the same as the idea of Man-God, as Alexander believed of himself. Or Augustus, or Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

True, there is a difference between a perceived or assumed Olympic lineage and becoming a god through noble pursuits. Alexander the Great believed the former about himself.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
In that respect, the old idea of hero is reflected in the concept of God-Man, and this is probably the reason for the discussion you quoted, the idea of evolving, through resolving tasks or quests, and becoming like god.

I firmly believe that it is quite possible to do, very hard to do - as it requires a great deal of dedication and spiritual discipline over a period of many years - and that it cannot be achieved at all through traditional methods. Which is why everyone up to this point has failed in the attempt.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
One of the oldest concepts is found in the philosophy (or religion) of Jains. Jain basically means hero (jina, djin, djinny, giant). Jains are ethical giants who ascend above lowly passions and perfect themselves through ascetic and ethical practice.
en.wikipedia.org...

That is very interesting and I see the correlation between the concept of evolving into divinity within Jainism being similar to that of the ancient Greek notion.


Originally posted by DangerDeath
Jainism is deemed to have largely affected Buddha's philosophical approach.

Specifically in Christianity, God-Man is created, in my opinion, as obvious opposition to the prevalent concept of Cesar as Divinity, a symbol of secular power equaled with the power of the divine. Augustus Cesar proclaimed himself to be God.

This concept certainly was a finger into the eye of the authorities.

In ancient Rome, the emperor was the ultimate authority.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Paul_Richard
 





Also, would they not be thought of as a "cult" by the other sects who believe that only Jesus and the Father can be divine?


First, at least where I live, they prefer to call them a "sect" rather than "cult". In truth, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism are sects of Christianity.

I say there probably are such Christian sects or cults which believe that it is possible for a man or a woman to gradually advance and become like Christ, to attain such "divine" nature. I didn't mean "gods" like in pagan sense.

Protestantism was about denying authority of the Church, claiming that person didn't need mediating role of priest in order to be in communion. They chose the "Book" to be the highest authority as a source of instructions on how to accomplish this feat.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join