Is there a difference between a religion and cult?
|
1
point
1
point
Yes, it was considered a dangerous cult till about 300 years, when Constantine ditched the Roman Gods for it. Until then, though, it was hated as much as it then hated Jews for centuries. Islam was considered as the cult of the devil when it came to Europe. That inspired crusades. Some others, like Hinduism and Greek (and Roman) Polytheism, weren't considered cults. 1
point
Yes. The Progressive left is a cult that glorifies whomever is deemed "the most oppressed". And they do not envoke a god unless it is politically expedient to use as a political tool of guilt, and they do dictate what they have deemed "good" and/or "bad" in some kind of "Progressive Moralism Olympics". Of course, many who aren't of their cult define their version of "moral" as actually "immoral". A cult either hijacks another religion and changes its core principles, or it creates a new moral code and belief system alltogether. Progressivism is a cultist mix of secularism mixed with a tortured definition of Christianity and a general hatred for America. Well, let us consult Mr. Dictionary............ cult kəlt/ noun noun: cult; plural noun: cults 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" So...by the above definition, we clearly see that organized religions meet most if not all of the requirement of being a cult. Ergo, my vote is YES! religion IS a cult. Cheers. as in a Shepherd vs a Rancher .... a Shepherd will LEAD his flock (ie Jesus - John 10:11) ... a Rancher will corral his flock (ie Jim Jones / and all others) ... only ONE can provide salvation, the one in whom God has sent ... all others are a Satanic diversion and perversion of that truth 1
point
No there isn't. They have killed more people in the name of religion than all of the other wars in history combined. Every religion requires you to believe outlandish events occurred without one single iota of proof. And don't tell me the bible is the word of God, because then why are there 6 different versions ? 1
point
What are you basing your claim on? Because I know for a fact Christianity has not resulted in the "kill[ings of] more people in the name of religion than all of the other wars in history combined". Please, show me a legitimate piece of evidence that proves that; because I can guarantee such an article does not exist. Also, I believe you are "deriving" this fact from the killings of the Crusades? So, in essence, what were the crusades? The entire purpose of the First Crusade was to reclaim Jerusalem, a holy city of the Catholic/Christian religion, from the Muslims who had captured the city and were slaughtering the Christian/Catholic community living there. The Pope called this Crusade in order to reclaim Jerusalem and put a stop to these merciless killings of the Christians by the Muslims. I can see a reason the Pope would call these holy wars in order to protect present and future Catholics/Christians, as the Muslims refused to negotiate any terms of peace. Am I justifying their violent actions? No, but the killings conducted as a result of the Crusades were conducted for a reason (not for the joy of massacring Muslims). Tackling another point, there actually is physical evidence proving the validity of the Bible. For instance, evidence surfaced in 2012 in regards to the "story" of Noah's Ark in which researchers concluded there was a massive flood in the Black Sea area. Ironically, this happens to be area in which Noah is believed to have lived with his family. But no, apparently there is not a single iota of proof. 1
point
|
