Church or Cult?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
> Please keep your replies supportive

I guess it is hard because the thread was started with the question of whether a bunch of beliefs constituted a religion or a cult.

So... The discussion is going to be around what a religion is compared to what a cult is.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

ACTUALLY ........ the original post was made by ME and it was concerning a certain MAN and his CHURCH, and it was based on HIM believing he was Christ and the Anti-Christ all in one, and that Sin / Satan did not exist.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rhapsody said:
What will people think up with next? - strange

Church members tattoo 666 on body; church or cult?

Pastor claims to be Christ & Anti-Christ.... and states there is no Satan or Sin.

LINK: http://tinyurl.com/2qqw7b

................................................... YOU DECIDE!!

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">


LoVe,
Rhapsody -

Did you know that only He and one other are allowed to preach to his followers?

The Bible foretold of this continuing to happen... it's sad, to me.

Sky, could you confirm if this is your source of the above quote: Marks of a Cult.

Rapunzel, your link wouldn't work for me. Is this what you were after: cult + definition.

Rhapsody, in spite of my best efforts I haven't been able to get that news video to load for me. If you can recall any details from the broadcast there may be another source on the net. I'd run "cult+666" through the googler but it probably won't be specific enough to locate that particular story.

alexandra k, ever do any reading in the area of spiral dynamics? If not, I have a hunch you'd enjoy it. I prefer Clare Graves to Don Beck, but to each their own.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
spiritual_emergency said:
Rhapsody, in spite of my best efforts I haven't been able to get that news video to load for me. If you can recall any details from the broadcast there may be another source on the net.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

TRY THIS LINK:

try this link

I didn't need the link Since he's local, the newspaper has a huge spread on his latest antics. It's been going on a long time, this is just the latest in a list.

I'm not certain if I'm following you Sky -- when you say, "I didn't need the link" are you referring to the source of your quote? If so, whoever he is, he's probably not local to me.

Rhapsody, that's the same news story that wouldn't load for me the first time, but thanks for responding so promptly.

Here is the text that I attempted to link to:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Definitions of cult on the Web:

adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

In traditional usage, the cult of a religion, quite apart from its sacred writings ("scriptures"), its theology or myths, or the personal faith of its believers, is the totality of external religious practice and observance, the neglect of which is the definition of impiety. Cult is literally the "care" owed to the god and the shrine. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religion)

A religious group that follows a particular theological system. In the context of Christianity, and in particular, CARM, it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, The Way International, and the Moonies. (See also Cults)
www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm

(cult) (kult) a system of treating disease based on some special and unscientific theory of disease causation.
www.merckmedicus.com/pp/us/hcp/thcp_dorlands_content.jsp

Veneration ( or honoring ) of a saint expressed in public acts, local or universal, and formally approved by the Pope.
www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/glossary.htm

A religious group which denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. The term is usually reserved for groups founded after 1750.
www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm

A following of people.
www.britishcouncil.org/ukinfocus-music-glossary.htm

(noun) often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL]; First appeared 1617 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health ~s> 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object ...
www.contecult.com/glossary.htm

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

My point in posting this is that there are so many definitions, we are never going to be able to agree on one here. I think that this thread has some good information in it, and I would rather not have to close the thread. For now I am leaving it open in hopes that it isn't going to be a debate from here on out, and there won't be any splitting hairs on definitions.

Some definitions of cults consist of basically any organization that disagrees with the point of view of whoever is calling the other group a cult. Some definitions consider all religions to be cults, not necessarily implying any disrespect or loss of legitimacy. I belong to a church that some groups claim is a cult because they disagree with my beliefs. However, it is a church that is legally recognized as such by governments all over the world, and also recognized for doing many good works. I am not offended by definitions as long as they are recognized for what they are and are not used to attach a negative label where it is not deserved.

There are cults that are harmful, and that take over their members' lives. The group that Rhapsody originally asked about may or may not fall into that category. I have not done my homework on that one. If what we are interested in is the potential for a group to negatively impact members' lives, let's just say that and look at the effects of that group on its believers and the community. If someone has belonged to a group that they consider to be a cult, and wants to discuss their experiences, that would also be fine. We don't need to split hairs on other churches and religions and definitions that could be viewed any number of ways and may risk hard feelings on this forum.

Thanks to all for understanding. Whether or not this discussion can continue is up to all of you.

Rapunzel

Rhapsody -- that link finally loaded up for me this morning and I was able to view the video. My first impression was that what I was seeing didn't strike me as that different from the kind of behaviors one might see in the "fan" of a celebrity, e.g. Britney Spears.

My second impression was that no one can be a leader without a group of followers. What makes this man (potentially) into a "cult" leader is not what he says, it's how those around him respond to what he says. In his case, he's managed to attract a following and I'd be interested to know why that is.

I can see the business with the "666" aspect being an affront to those who self-identify as Christians but it didn't catch me on that level. Perhaps this is because I've invested some time in coming to terms with my own demons and I realize that much of what we perceive to be evil "out there" is nothing more than our own fears, biases, and prejudices projected outward from "in here".

I can see a certain degree of value in getting closer to the perceived enemy -- when one does, they may discover that that which they thought was so frightening and terrifying is not. Somewhat like discovering that the Wizard of Oz was only a little man behind a curtain, we realize that we have imbued the other with a great deal of our own personal power.

I did think it was disturbing to see the one young woman proclaim her minister as her god, but I've also seen that kind of behavior in a number of spiritual, religious, even political groups -- not to mention the aforementioned celebrity worship that is such an intimate part of the "American Way of Life".

Unfortunately, the news clip presents some of the more outrageous aspects of this group but it doesn't allow us to see their "works" (perhaps they feed the hungry or shelter the homeless or rescue teen prostitutes off the street) nor did it allow us to understand the motivations of the individual group members or their minister. As the clip notes in the opening sequence, the group looks like most any other evangelical group out there that is drawing together for a specific purpose. I didn't feel I grasped what that purpose was from the clip. It seemed more like the intent of the clip was simply to present this group as being weird, different, and therefore, potentially threatening or dangerous.

Do I see cult behavior? Yes. Is this group a cult? I think I'd want more information from impartial and unbiased sources before I could come to any conclusions for myself.

The membership here has a number of members who have been in cults and are triggered by such discussion. I hope this thread will soon realize it has enough information and if members wish to continue the discussion or study, will do so privately. IMO this no longer is considered to be supportive here.

Here are the facts of this movement.

In keeping with the signs of a cult, this person Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda,<ul type="square">[*] (1) now claims he is the antichrist.[*](2) claims to be the only legitimate spiritual authority.[*](3)in 1988 he announced he had been reincarnated as the Apostle Paul[*](4) In 2004 he proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ.[*] His followers have disrupted Catholic processions on Good Friday, protested outside an evangelical church gathering in Miami's Tropical Prak, tore up literature published by the JWs and Christian movements during a march in Downtown Miami.[*] Members say the symbol (666 which the Bible says is the mark of evil) that it doesn't mean that but connects them not to Satan but to De Jesus' claim that he has replaced Christ's teachings with a NEW gospel.[*] Daniel Alvarez, an instructor in the department of religious studies at FIU has studied the movement and says that De Jesus' control over people is so great that no matter what he says to them, they will follow.

Whether you wish to use the strong term of cult or not is your option, whereas it is a cult in the Theological definition. But in any shape or fashion of semantics, you must consider it a SECT.

BTW, his FIRST wife who knew him well, and his son have both defected from him and his movement. This is "clearly a personality-driven group" and is "defined by the claims of De Jesus Miranda" not God in any other fashion.

IMO this man is going off the deep end with this. I hope few follow there.[/list]

No doubt his name "De Jesus" along with his mental illness, has caused him his delusions.

Sky: this person Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda...

Ah. So that's what you meant when you said, "He's local... I didn't need the link." I hope you can appreciate Sky that those of us who are not local and therefore lacking all the details you have had, could not possibly come to any conclusions as based solely on the news clip. Nonetheless, you provided a name and that name has a personal website linked to it: Growing in Grace

A further run through the googler brought up this this article from the Houston Press which offers up a more complete view of the history of his ministry, including this excerpt that caught my eye...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

When people wonder about his progression, ask him why it took him more than 30 years to decide he was Christ, he says, "Well, it's like you. You were a young man, then you got married, then you became a father, then your kids have kids and you became a grandfather. You grow into things in life."

De Jesús has grown into some lavish tastes. According to his daughter/accountant Joann De Jesús, his salary last year was $136,000, but that doesn't count all the gifts he received from wealthy devotees. He's quite the clotheshorse, often seen sporting fine suits and gold jewelry, and he drives a 7 series BMW. When the Houston Press visited him at his Missouri City home, he joked that reporters always liked to talk about his Rolexes, but "now it is no more Rolex, that's the problem. Now I went to Miami, to a group of businessmen, and they gave me a Pasha," a Cartier watch encrusted with enough diamonds to finance the overthrow of a small African government.

Source: This Man Thinks He's Jesus H. Christ

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm inclined to think that Christ would not be blown away by material items such as diamond encrusted watches or BMW's. If you're going to talk the talk, you'd best walk the walk.

Meanwhile, along with what must be his personal charisma, De Jesus seems to have two hooks going in his favor -- he states that the devil died 2000 years ago and that all sin died with Christ on the cross. As a result, followers hear that they don't have to worry about burning in hell for eternity nor do they have to worry about ever being considered "bad". If the thought of being on fire forever and ever and ever doesn't sound like your cup or tea or you've ever felt that your best just wasn't good enough, there could be a strong appeal in that message.

This kind of behavior isn't a problem only in the West of course, it's also a problem in the East where "gurus" replace "ministers" as spiritual leaders. Ref: The Spiritual Psyche's Shadow: Gurus, Cults and Aliens

Meanwhile, I'm quite comfortable with Richard Deikman's perspective so I'll borrow on his words once more...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Spiritual development requires the opposite of indoctrination: learning to discern how the perception of the world is influenced by egocentric thought and motivations. To the extent that groups employ indoctrination components they are not legitimate spiritual groups, no matter what other valuable functions they may perform. Accordingly, their leaders are not entitled to the authority claimed by genuine spiritual teachers, an authority that would otherwise render them immune from conventional criticism. This is an extremely important point because bogus leaders fall back on the argument of spiritual authority as justification for the most exploitive and destructive acts. Without relating a leader's behaviour to the requirements of spiritual development, there is no adequate reply to the argument.

It is because the leader's role is functional rather than magical that genuine spiritual teachers can be seen to obey implicit rules. Despite the general impression that great teachers indulge in any and all behaviour, careful attention to traditional teaching stories and anecdotes reveals that there are certain principles that are never violated. For example, I can recall no anecdote depicting a teacher ordering one student to harm another or condoning such an action. Nor are there examples of students being encouraged to compete for the teacher's attention. There are no examples of teachers entering into sexual relations with their students or enriching themselves with their money. All these examples have been common among current and past "spiritual" groups.

The reason why such examples are absent in authentic spiritual groups is that real teachers do not use their students to advance their own personal interests. In this matter the mystical literature is quite consistent and clear: a spiritual teacher does not have licence to exploit students in any way or for any cause; the only legitimate basis for the teacher's actions is the advancement of the student along the spiritual path. This is not to say that larger purposes may not be served at the same time; indeed, such synchronous activity is said to be the norm but it is never at the expense of the student's development. The fact is, far from having unlimited licence, a genuine spiritual teacher obeys functional requirements that far exceed the restraints most people are accustomed to impose on themselves in the name of religion or common decency. The behaviour of many spiritual leaders is a travesty of the authentic situation.

Source: Evaluating Spiritual and Utopian Groups


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

.

Well, if that isn't proof that this man is a cult leader, I don't know what is!

But then, I knew that before all of this discussion.

I'm not trying to cause trouble or start a problem, it seems that Rhapsody began this thread to inform us about something she saw, this was not started to create a debate or trigger ppl, as Sky mentioned and I stated some here have been in cults we know first hand what the dangers can be, I appreciate Rhapsody's info, but can we stop debating the issue, Sharon Tate died in the hands of cult followers, Jim Jones led many to there deaths, please let this go

ah i see.
the intention of this thread was for us all to support rhapsody in her unstated belief that this was a cult.
and when she said 'you decide'
what she really meant to say was...

sheesh people.

and IMHO not terribly sympathetic to those of other faiths.

(but thats okay - all you have to do is label it a cult)

wisest is he who knows he does not know

etc etc

Don't know what more proof you want, Alex.

"There is none blinder than those who will not see."

The only comfort in knowing this kind of thing is existing, and even becoming more intense and occurring more often is this (to me) Scripture says this will happen in the end times... right before His return for His saints (I believe in the rapture.) Now that is wonderful!

I also see it as a sign of the times.

Well, now that we have gotten more information on the group that the initial question was all about, I think it does sound like we are ready to drop this subject. I just don't see how anyone is being supported by any further discussion along these lines. Feel free to take it to PM if you like, or to PM me if you see it differently.

Rapunzel

You sound much more ready to go than I am, Sky!