FOX News Defends Trump's Defense of Nazis/White Supremacists/Bigotry

[Baruch]

I disagree. D party hail FDR and his policies, who not only was a Democrat, but his legacy occured before civil rights, which was led by many republicans.

Issue is that we are looking at this purely as a racist thing. whom ever is racist is on the left side. or right side. but there are racists on both sides and our political platform is not directly influenced by race.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

I agree that most Americans are racist.  Doesn't matter which party.  What happened over the prior 400+ years is what it is, it can'b be undone, just because we think we could be better ancestors than our actual ancestors.

[Blackleaf]

All christians are different.
path to their version of perfection is difficult and comes in stages. some who claim to be christian may abandon various responsibilities but not a single person's actions dictates what another christian is like.

otherwise this poses no known influence to removal of historical monuments

If God (the Holy Spirit) really lived within Christians, patterns of behavior within Christians would be better than average, not worse. Christians are one of the biggest reasons I left the religion behind. Even the Dalai Lama famously said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I would argue that Christ wasn't that great either, but Christians sure don't make me want to associate with them.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?

[Mike Cl]

I didnt say "bad." action might not need to be "bad" though some could consider an action to being bad.

In consisering Confederate statues. were some put up at purpose to demoralize and destroy a paticular group? if yes. perhaps these were put up by a cult? though size may determine they are not, the people committing such actions considered  their acts to be good.

i do wish to also add that if others know or view other factors or wish to describe factors for a cult. please do. i would appriciate it.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

What do you think of this definition?

"Cults, generally speaking, are a lot like pornography: you know them when you see them. It would be hard to avoid the label on encountering (as I did, carrying out field work last year) 20 people toiling unpaid on a Christian farming compound in rural Wisconsin â€" people who venerated their leader as the closest thing to God’s representative on Earth. Of course, they argued vehemently that they were not a cult. Ditto for the 2,000-member church I visited outside Nashville, whose parishioners had been convinced by an ostensibly Christian diet programme to sell their houses and move to the ‘one square mile’ of the New Jerusalem promised by their charismatic church leader. Here they could eat â€" and live â€" in accordance with God and their leader’s commands. It’s easy enough, as an outsider, to say, instinctively: yes, this is a cult.

Less easy, though, is identifying why. Knee-jerk reactions make for poor sociology, and delineating what, exactly, makes a cult (as opposed to a ‘proper’ religious movement) often comes down to judgment calls based on perceived legitimacy. Prod that perception of legitimacy, however, and you find value judgments based on age, tradition or ‘respectability’ (that nice middle-class couple down the street, say, as opposed to Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a couch). At the same time, the markers of cultism as applied more theoretically â€" a single charismatic leader, an insular structure, seeming religious ecstasy, a financial burden on members â€" can also be applied to any number of new or burgeoning religious movements that we don’t call cults.

Often (just as with pornography), what we choose to see as a cult tells us as much about ourselves as about what we’re looking at."

Now, on to confederate statues.  I think if you look into it, that most of those statues were erected as warnings to the 'colored' population.  I don't think they should be destroyed, but moved to museums.  That way they can be properly displayed and an historical explanation given to what they did in the war and why the statue was created.  Moving these statues off public land will not cause an iota of 'history and culture' to be destroyed.  We still have history books.

[randomvim]

Perhaps you are not as thoroughly assimilated into the Borg as I had thought, even if you are a Trump-supporting believer in a collection of books written thousands of years ago by anonymous authors. I could focus on your answer of "maybe," but if you agree that poisoning the earth is harmful either way, it doesn't really matter.

Your definition is vague and not useful, which is convenient for someone who wants the power to pick and choose which groups are "religions" and which are "cults."

2. If the definition is vague. please provide another.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

If God (the Holy Spirit) really lived within Christians, patterns of behavior within Christians would be better than average, not worse. Christians are one of the biggest reasons I left the religion behind. Even the Dalai Lama famously said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I would argue that Christ wasn't that great either, but Christians sure don't make me want to associate with them.

Although Christians are said to have Holy Spirit in them, doctrine still discus possibility of a christian making bad decisions. Most letters in Bible are to people who are in some way need improvements in their life.

But lets move on

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

What do you think of this definition?

"Cults, generally speaking, are a lot like pornography: you know them when you see them. It would be hard to avoid the label on encountering (as I did, carrying out field work last year) 20 people toiling unpaid on a Christian farming compound in rural Wisconsin â€" people who venerated their leader as the closest thing to God’s representative on Earth. Of course, they argued vehemently that they were not a cult. Ditto for the 2,000-member church I visited outside Nashville, whose parishioners had been convinced by an ostensibly Christian diet programme to sell their houses and move to the ‘one square mile’ of the New Jerusalem promised by their charismatic church leader. Here they could eat â€" and live â€" in accordance with God and their leader’s commands. It’s easy enough, as an outsider, to say, instinctively: yes, this is a cult.

Less easy, though, is identifying why. Knee-jerk reactions make for poor sociology, and delineating what, exactly, makes a cult (as opposed to a ‘proper’ religious movement) often comes down to judgment calls based on perceived legitimacy. Prod that perception of legitimacy, however, and you find value judgments based on age, tradition or ‘respectability’ (that nice middle-class couple down the street, say, as opposed to Tom Cruise jumping up and down on a couch). At the same time, the markers of cultism as applied more theoretically â€" a single charismatic leader, an insular structure, seeming religious ecstasy, a financial burden on members â€" can also be applied to any number of new or burgeoning religious movements that we don’t call cults.

Often (just as with pornography), what we choose to see as a cult tells us as much about ourselves as about what we’re looking at."

Now, on to confederate statues.  I think if you look into it, that most of those statues were erected as warnings to the 'colored' population.  I don't think they should be destroyed, but moved to museums.  That way they can be properly displayed and an historical explanation given to what they did in the war and why the statue was created.  Moving these statues off public land will not cause an iota of 'history and culture' to be destroyed.  We still have history books.

1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.

Was this your goal or perspective?


2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.

would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.

Was this your goal or perspective?


2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.

would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Keep this non-definition in mind and I'll try to find one more succinct.

Yes, there is a difference between reading about alcatraz and going there.  One enhances the other and deepens the understanding of the subject.  Reading about Robert E. Lee and then seeing his statue does not deepen one's understanding of who and what he was and what he did.  Place that statue on a battlefield or a museum and that statue could then help deepen an understanding, for more info can be attached to that statue in in that case. 

[Baruch]

1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.

Was this your goal or perspective?


2. I do not believe history is to be destroyed if some statues are removed and like the idea of moving small few into museums to see.

would you say there is a difference between reading about alcatraz vs being there?



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Puleeze you people ... religion = approved by government, cult = not approved by government.

[Baruch]

Keep this non-definition in mind and I'll try to find one more succinct.

Yes, there is a difference between reading about alcatraz and going there.  One enhances the other and deepens the understanding of the subject.  Reading about Robert E. Lee and then seeing his statue does not deepen one's understanding of who and what he was and what he did.  Place that statue on a battlefield or a museum and that statue could then help deepen an understanding, for more info can be attached to that statue in in that case.

Periods of iconoclasm have recurred in many cultures, over many centuries.  There is a whole period of Byzantine history named for it.  Presently we are in a long iconoclasm .. starting with the Enlightenment.

[Mike Cl]

1. I do not see an actual definition. Instead, it seems the author is comparing likeness of two objects to describe one of those objects. Which we are to just "know" when we come across a cult, or there is no objective definition because it is our own reaction. maybe even comfort level.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Here is another shot at what a cult is:

"cult
kəlt/Submit
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms:   sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
synonyms:   obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
"the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood""

Notice that it is very difficult for those who want to define what a cult is to be precise.  Synonyms include 'sect' or 'church', for example.  So, the Church of Christ sect could be labeled as a cult by some.  The Catholic church has been labeled as a cult by some for centuries.  The point of the last definition was that a is is so slippery that it is like trying to define what porn is.  Both are very much in the eye of the beholder.  My cult may be your church or visa versa.  Using the word cult is like saying something is beautiful--your beautiful may be ugly to me.  When trying to figure out what something is or is not, 'eye of the beholder' is a very important thing to take into account.

[Baruch]

Definitions are subjective, they are not objective.  One only establishes an official definition thru government force.  That in no way validates the government's choice.  If subjectivity is wrong, then all definitions fail.  Nihilism is achieved.

[Shiranu]

Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.?

Never actually said that unfortunately, but it's a good and accurate pair of sentences all the same.

[Baruch]

Never actually said that unfortunately, but it's a good and accurate pair of sentences all the same.

That is the problem with misquoting ... but it was in the movie version, which was based on a written bio not by Gandhi.  In the movie version, Gandhi is making an off hand remark to the question of a reporter.

Rev. W P King said it in 1926, but even he is paraphrasing while doing a book review, "The Christ of the Indian Road" by Rev. E S Jones.  Rev. Jones put words in Gandhi's mouth.  It matched Rev. Jones particular agenda regarding the failure of Christian proselytizing in India.  But Gandhi did say things anti-Christian, the actual words are in the anthology "Gandhi On Christianity".  Gandhi was also callous to the plight of Jews under Hitler.  He is dead to me, literally and figuratively.  We are so desperate for real heroes ... but they don't exist except in children's stories.

PS ... Snopes has been discredited.  It is consistently pro D party.  I got this from user comments in Snopes, not from Snopes itself.

And yes, the intent of the paraphrase of the misquote ... is accurate, even if it isn't the result of a police tape recording before tape recorders existed.  Not that I would trust the police anyway.

[SGOS]

I've seen several definitions for "cult" and they all basically describe the same concepts, and I even think they are accurate descriptions, but there is a rub.  Even though some groups like Catholicism or Alcoholics Anonymous meet all the requirements of a cult, the members hold in contempt anyone who would describe them as a cult.  So the definers feel obligated to come up with new definitions of a cult that exclude the offended groups through precise changes in the definition's wording.  But this requires some fancy footwork, if not outright sleight of hand. 

They only way the definitions can work is by defining "cult," and then excluding favored groups by name, for reasons that are nothing short of arbitrary.  The definition would have to read:  "Cult"  A group of people that bla, bla, bla.  Except that Catholicism, AA Groups, and the KKK are not cults."  This clearly shows, however, that some sort of bias has entered into the definition, and indeed, bias has entered the whole concept of cults, because cults don't like being called cults.  In fact, a good cult thrives on the deception of hiding its true motivations and social structure from it's members.  If it fails to do that, it can no longer dupe the suckers, and it dies.  The cults that don't die tell better stories to their members, and project a more positive image to outsiders.  And although they do all the things cults do, they escape the cult status.

Then there's that common humorous definition of  " Cult: a deluded group with a small membership."  It's actually a good definition in a way, because it astutely recognizes the bias of favoritism involved in how people identify cults.  But it never makes it into an actual dictionary because, while the definition is dead on, it's also a satirical swipe at how bad dictionaries are at defining things.  Actually, it's a satirical swipe at a whole bunch of silly things that define our culture.