Stay away from cults!

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Crowfoot

OMG you're so smart, I had to google that word to even try to understand your statement, and I still don't.

What question of mine are you talking about?

Education and intelligence are not synonymous. I know some well-educated idiots and some quite uneducated people who are geniuses. After all, it's like the joke: what's the difference between an engineer and your average redneck, a degree. Different approaches.

I like Jesus I like God.

I do not like Jesus cult.

I do not like God cult.

if these wizards Jesus n God so powerful then they know where you are and if need you will come n get you. that simple.

no need to bother em over every little thing.

If you could compare the world today to the world to come you would realise that the world today is a cult.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Jeremiah33three

just accept Christ into your heat and obey his commands! Do not let the satan fool you!

That's exactly what the Christian Satan would say, too. Just obey to his commands.

For some faiths, Christianity is a cult as they stole a lot from Paganism (like it or not it's a fact) to please the heathens. Not judging your faith though, believe what you want.

The Bible teaches the worship of the evil one in the name of Christ.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
"Cult" is a subjective label without a clear objective definition, but the key warning sign to look for is "novelty".
Novelty in an institution. Especially if there is a clear focus on the present human leader. Especially if the present human leader is also the person who founded it.
Novelty in teaching. Any departure from traditional teaching (genuine "reformers" are always looking to restore the original form). Conformity with the Nicene Creed remains the simple acid test.

The Nicene Creed edited The Bible into a novelty book for the leader of Rome, who secretly worshiped pagan gods.

originally posted by: Smigg

originally posted by: DISRAELI
"Cult" is a subjective label without a clear objective definition, but the key warning sign to look for is "novelty".
Novelty in an institution. Especially if there is a clear focus on the present human leader. Especially if the present human leader is also the person who founded it.
Novelty in teaching. Any departure from traditional teaching (genuine "reformers" are always looking to restore the original form). Conformity with the Nicene Creed remains the simple acid test.

The Nicene Creed edited The Bible into a novelty book for the leader of Rome, who secretly worshiped pagan gods.

And they threw out all the good parts of the Bible because they didn't quite fit with the politics of the day.

I heard that in order to be deemed a cult, it would 100+ members or people, where as religion is 1000+ people.

Signs of cult-like behavior.

*The group displays an excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
*Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
*Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
*The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
*The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
*The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
*The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
*The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
*The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
*Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
*The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
*The group is preoccupied with making money.
*Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
*Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
*The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.

The thing is that a cult can be a group within a larger religion - Islamic cults, Christian cults, Buddhist cults, etc, but it also doesn't have to be a recognized religious entity at all. NXIVM was a cult that was connected to marketing and sex and had nothing to do with religion in any recognized sense. It was a sex cult.

a reply to: Jeremiah33three

Correction. People generally don't KNOW they've joined...or even belong to until it's too late.

You can't warn stupid...and that's why they are cults.

I am sad for you, who suppress the Truth.
Without God and Jesus, none of you would have anything.
Repent or perish.

a reply to: Jeremiah33three

50 minutes, that is one long video. Sometimes a picture can say more than a thousand words, which allows one to make a telling video about the subject of cults in under 7 minutes:

In context:

SEARCHING FOR FRIENDS OF PEACE (playlist)

“By their fruits you will recognize them.” (Jesus Christ at Matthew 7:16)

“Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:19-23)

Love:

Joy:



Peace, kindness, goodness:


Patience, love, mildness:


Faith:


Mildness, self-control:

All these videos added together is still under 50 minutes. (edit: ok, I added one extra under faith now, so now it's slightly over; edit2: I've added another video under "peace, kindness, goodness" because later on in the song "We Must Have the Faith" there's a phrase about protecting our freedom of speech, which is also a subject in the video I now added. Also, the added video uses portions of the same documentary that the previous video* uses as well. *: i.e. the 1st video under "peace, kindness, goodness".)

Summary (concerning both opposite descriptions there at Galatians 5:19-23, including a comparison or evaluation of the religions in Christendom in regards to this text, i.e. how they measure up, both historically and currently; which description fits best as to what the fruitage of these religions has been up to this point and will be in the future according to Bible prophecy):

a reply to: Jeremiah33three

In what category does one fall who addresses someone and when asked for clarification, he answers with a series of evasive answers?

I see we went from wall of text to wall of vids...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Jeremiah33three

... edit2: I've added another video under "peace, kindness, goodness" because later on in the song "We Must Have the Faith" there's a phrase about protecting our freedom of speech, which is also a subject in the video I now added. Also, the added video uses portions of the same documentary that the previous video* uses as well. *: i.e. the 1st video under "peace, kindness, goodness".)

Correction, I meant 'guarding our freeness of speech' (in the song), which is a little different than the topic of 'freedom of speech' in the other video, but still related.

I'm out of edit time, otherwise I would have edited that. (by the way, edit time is never 4 hours as the site says, still wondering how it really works, it's more like 2 hours)

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: ketsuko

Pretty much sums up the average Democrat/Progressive voter.

Their Cult is special though because it does not include a religion or any spirituality at all.

They worship the State, or Government.

...

Contending With Two Ferocious Beasts (Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!)

...

The Two-Horned Wild Beast

25. (a) How does John describe another symbolic wild beast that comes onto the world scene? (b) What is indicated by the two horns of the new wild beast and by its coming out of the earth?

25 But now another wild beast comes onto the world scene. John reports: “And I saw another wild beast ascending out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, but it began speaking as a dragon. And it exercises all the authority of the first wild beast in its sight. And it makes the earth and those who dwell in it worship the first wild beast, whose death-stroke got healed. And it performs great signs, so that it should even make fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the sight of mankind.” (Revelation 13:11-13) This wild beast has two horns, indicating a partnership of two political powers. And it is described as coming out of the earth, not out of the sea. Thus, it comes out of Satan’s already established earthly system of things. It must be a world power, already existing, that takes on a significant role during the Lord’s day.

26. (a) What is the two-horned wild beast, and how does it relate to the original wild beast? (b) In what sense are the horns of the two-horned beast lamblike, and how is it “as a dragon” when speaking? (c) What are nationalistic people really worshipping, and to what has nationalism been likened? (See footnote.)

26 What can it be? The Anglo-American World Power​—the same as the seventh head of the first wild beast but in a special role! Isolating it in the vision as a separate wild beast helps us to see more clearly how it acts independently on the world stage. This figurative two-horned wild beast is made up of two coexisting, independent, but cooperating political powers. Its two horns “like a lamb” suggest that it makes itself out to be mild and inoffensive, with an enlightened form of government to which all the world should turn. But it speaks “as a dragon” in that it uses pressure and threats and even outright violence wherever its version of rulership is not accepted. It has not encouraged submission to God’s Kingdom under the rule of the Lamb of God but, rather, to the interests of Satan, the great dragon. It has promoted nationalistic divisions and hatreds that add up to worshipping the first wild beast.*

27. (a) What attitude of the two-horned wild beast is indicated by the fact that it makes fire come down out of heaven? (b) How do many people view the modern counterpart of the two-horned wild beast?

27 This two-horned wild beast performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven. (Compare Matthew 7:21-23.) This latter sign reminds us of Elijah, the ancient prophet of God who engaged in a contest with the prophets of Baal. When he successfully called down fire from heaven in the name of Jehovah, it proved beyond doubt that he was a true prophet and that the Baal prophets were false. (1 Kings 18:21-40) Like those Baal prophets, the two-horned wild beast feels that it has adequate credentials as a prophet. (Revelation 13:14, 15; 19:20) Why, it claims to have vanquished the forces of evil in two world wars and was victorious over so-called godless Communism! Many, indeed, view the modern counterpart of the two-horned wild beast as a guardian of liberty and a font of material good things.

...

[Footnotes]

...

Commentators have noted that nationalism, in effect, is a religion. Hence, people who are nationalistic are really worshipping that portion of the wild beast represented by the country in which they live. Regarding nationalism in the United States, we read: “Nationalism, viewed as a religion, has much in common with other great religious systems of the past . . . On his own national god the modern religious nationalist is conscious of dependence. Of His powerful help he feels the need. In Him he recognises the source of his own perfection and happiness. To Him, in a strictly religious sense, he subjects himself. . . . The nation is conceived of as eternal, and the deaths of her loyal sons do but add to her undying fame and glory.”​—Carlton J. F. Hayes, as quoted on page 359 of the book What Americans Believe and How They Worship, by J. Paul Williams.

Part 21​—1900 onward—​Skirts Splattered With Blood (Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past)

“There is no sure foundation set on blood.”​—Shakespeare, English poet and dramatist (1564-1616)

DO YOU remember the Jonestown, Guyana, tragedy of 11 years ago this month? Over 900 members of the religious group known as People’s Temple committed mass suicide, most of them willingly, by drinking a cyanide-laced fruit drink.

Shocked, people asked: ‘What kind of religion is it that sacrifices the lives of its own members?’ Yet, innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion for almost 6,000 years. In the 20th century, however, blood has been shed more often and in more ways than at any other time in history. Consider just a fraction of the evidence.

Human Sacrifices to a False God

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” (Italics ours.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

Significantly, Catholic Adolf Hitler found readier support among Protestants than among Catholics. Predominantly Protestant districts gave him 20 percent of their votes in the 1930 elections, Catholic districts only 14 percent. And the first absolute majority for the Nazi Party in state elections was in 1932 in Oldenburg, a district 75 percent Protestant.

Apparently, the “void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values” was greater in Protestantism than in Catholicism. Understandably so. Liberalized theology and higher criticism of the Bible were mainly the product of German-speaking Protestant theologians.

Equally significant is what finally solidified lagging Catholic support behind Hitler. German historian Klaus Scholder explains that “by tradition German Catholicism had especially close ties with Rome.” Seeing in Nazism a bulwark against Communism, the Vatican was not averse to using its influence to strengthen Hitler’s hand. “Fundamental decisions shifted more and more to the Curia,” says Scholder, “and in fact Catholicism’s status and future in the Third Reich was finally decided almost solely in Rome.”

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, in view of its own bloodstained clothing, Christendom cannot self-righteously shake its finger at others. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed.

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

...

originally posted by: Lumenari

Pretty much sums up the average Democrat/Progressive voter.

Their Cult is special though because it does not include a religion or any spirituality at all.

They worship the State, or Government.

Insight on the News, 1979

What Kind of God?

● “Twenty-five years ago this June,” observes the Catholic Jesuit magazine “America”, Americans piously inserted the phrase ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.” In reflecting on the reason for this move, “America” says that “most who supported the change in wording (and there were few who did not) frankly admitted that the inclusion of God was a political, not a religious, act.” In those days of fervent anti-Communism, notes the article, “the Catholic War Veterans of Wayne County, Mich., resolved that letting God into the Pledge would give ‘additional meaning to the spiritual defense of our nation.’ God . . . was being recalled to active duty.”

The significance of this was expressed by one religious writer of the time who said that, by putting God into the pledge, America was “adopting a God of war who appears as a nationalistic deity directing bombs and bullets into the hearts of our enemies.” Observes “America”: “Quite simply, the nation was afraid of the future, and it tried to meet this fear by having its children parrot in singsong fashion just how good it actually was. The Pledge was to be a spiritual boot [military training] camp for babes.”

Do you want your children to learn about a nationalistic “God of war” or, rather, about the “God of peace” as revealed in the Bible? (Phil. 4:9) “America” draws this conclusion: “The phrase ‘under God’ is the concrete symbol of what was, 25 years ago, and may still be, the established American religion: worship of the state. We ought to drop it.”​—June 9, 1979, pp. 469, 470.

Our Changing World—Where Is It Headed? (Awake!—1993)

...

The Unchanging Curse of Nationalism

As Communism began to disintegrate, U.S. president Bush popularized the concept of “a new world order.” However, as many political leaders have discovered, smart slogans are cheap; positive changes are much more difficult to accomplish. In his book After the Fall​—The Pursuit of Democracy in Central Europe, Jeffrey Goldfarb says: “Boundless hope about ‘a new world order’ has been followed quickly by the realization that the most ancient of problems are still with us, and sometimes with a vengeance. The euphoria of liberation . . . has often been overshadowed by despair over political tension, nationalist conflict, religious fundamentalism, and economic breakdown.” Certainly the civil war in what was Yugoslavia is a clear example of the divisive influence of politics, religion, and nationalism.

...

Nationalism, called by the weekly magazine Asiaweek “the Last Ugly Ism,” is one of the unchanging factors that continues to provoke hatred and bloodshed. That magazine stated: “If pride in being a Serb means hating a Croat, if freedom for an Armenian means revenge on a Turk, if independence for a Zulu means subjugating a Xhosa and democracy for a Romanian means expelling a Hungarian, then nationalism has already put on its ugliest face.”

We are reminded of what Albert Einstein once said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

...

War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

... As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”

Thus it is clear that a motivation has to be generated to make a nation rise up against another. But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

Who Make the Decisions?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” ...

...

How Does Religion Influence War?

...

Down through history the priestly class has been the willing accomplice of the ruling elite. In time of war, religious leaders have piously blessed weapons and armies on both sides in the name of God, while often professing the same religion. This blasphemy has turned many people away from religion and God.

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations. ...

Flag Salute, Voting, and Civilian Service

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.” Jehovah’s servants are not being unreasonable, therefore, when they view patriotic ceremonies involving the flag salute and national anthems as religious. In fact, when commenting on the refusal of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to give homage to the flag or to swear the oath of allegiance in U.S. schools, the book The American Character stated: “That these daily rituals are religious has been at last affirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases.” [whereislogic: see videos under "peace, kindness, goodness" in my previous commentary for more details regarding these cases]

What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood? (Awake!—1981)

...

Nationalism

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

...

It is a catchy tune.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Jeremiah33three

Yes definetly... If you are a sheep and need a flock, Christianity, is one of the better options. They really make you feel home with all the "god is my shepherd" talk...

And this is what the Bible actually says there where that phrase comes from:



Here are another few examples where God's name has been removed and replaced in the most popular Bible translations:

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Jeremiah33three

Correction. People generally don't KNOW they've joined...or even belong to until it's too late.

You can't warn stupid...and that's why they are cults.

That's because a lot a them don't start out that way. It's an unhealthy behavioral trend over time.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hi Ket...you and little one(s) staying well I hope.

I remembered something from my Hippie (surprise, surprise) days.

Another name for "cult"....is "church". I've always opposed organized religion.

The same ideals, requirements, do this-or-you-go-to-HELL.....keep to your fold, the rest of the believers are your only real "friends".

Yep. Cults. Church. Pretty much in parallel.

*Catholic, uniformed kid 2nd to 8th grade. Lemmings we were.

That "cult-ish" attitudes of our Dominican Nuns.

I still can't go to the Zoo's "Penguin House"... without flashbacks....