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

[randomvim]

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.

Agree. monuments at a battlefield help deepend an understanding for us who are hundreds years from civil war. I'll go as far to include cemeteries and specific parks. All of these monuments are under fire currently. Some cemeterey plaques have been taken away or vandalized.  whats next, removal of bodies?

these are the situations I have been against since beginning.

Interesting conversation about memorials:
https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/3b2ps7/does_germany_have_any_memorials_to_war_dead_of/

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[randomvim]

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.

interesting. I used same definition to type mine from a few posts back, but removed "religious" to broaden the description to those who identify as non religious.

the word church refers to a group or body of people, so it would make sense it would be added as synonym since the world cult refers to a body of people. however, synonyms are not exact same definition but similar descriptors that still have potential of not working or being approprite in a given sentence.

look, denomination is a synonym. because it describes a body of people with religious undertone. you could come to same conclusion if used in place of church or cult (group of people) but these words poses different meanings and therefore incite different feelings when heard or read. different understandings.

I do see it is not easy to have a common definition of a cult. first sentence seems to identify all religious groups in the world, but I find no use for the word cult if it describes everything at the same time describing only some things as other sentences suggest. this is why I did not state "bad" and provided example of something that could be universal instead of subjective. anyone can look at a group and say, yeah. they formed to target this other group. they are small and take uncommon maybe dangerous practices"



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

interesting. I used same definition to type mine from a few posts back, but removed "religious" to broaden the description to those who identify as non religious.

the word church refers to a group or body of people, so it would make sense it would be added as synonym since the world cult refers to a body of people. however, synonyms are not exact same definition but similar descriptors that still have potential of not working or being approprite in a given sentence.

look, denomination is a synonym. because it describes a body of people with religious undertone. you could come to same conclusion if used in place of church or cult (group of people) but these words poses different meanings and therefore incite different feelings when heard or read. different understandings.

I do see it is not easy to have a common definition of a cult. first sentence seems to identify all religious groups in the world, but I find no use for the word cult if it describes everything at the same time describing only some things as other sentences suggest. this is why I did not state "bad" and provided example of something that could be universal instead of subjective. anyone can look at a group and say, yeah. they formed to target this other group. they are small and take uncommon maybe dangerous practices"



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

I view the word 'cult' as a useless word.  It is always in the eye of the beholder.  If you like a group and what it stands for then it is not a cult.  If one is into Scientology, then it is not a cult--but if you dislike Scientology then it is.  The same holds for any group. 

[Blackleaf]

Yeah, Gandhi said it pretty clearly:

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

Goddam it, Google...

[Blackleaf]

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

A tool used by psychology experts for defining and diagnosing psychological disorders, the DSM-5, does not use clear-cut definitions because one person with a disorder may have completely different symptoms from another with the same disorder. I think a similar way of defining the word "cult" would be useful. So here's some characteristics of cults that I can think of:

A. Demands full focus of the members, to a degree of unhealthy obsession with the group's goals.

B. Members are made to separate themselves socially and/or physically from friends and family, often to live on a property owned by the organization.

C. Members are thoroughly brainwashed into thinking and behaving according to the religion's doctrine. Disagreement with any aspect of the doctrine is not tolerated.

D. Members may be held against their will at the organization's discretion.

E. Those who want to leave the organization are threatened with extreme punishments. Some may be harrassed by other members if they succeed to get away.

F. Members suffer physical and emotional harm. In extreme cases, members may even be killed or commit suicide at the command of the organization's leadership.

Edit: Forgot a big one:

G. Members are required to give a large sum of money, or sacrifice valuable possessions, to the organization.

I do not consider age, size, or "weirdness" of a group's beliefs to be relevant, because all religions were new at some point. Every religion has beliefs that could have been considered weird when it was getting started. Eating flesh and drinking blood, as Jesus asked believers to do, would definitely be something weird to someone who'd never heard it before.

[Baruch]

In religious studies, they have the same confusion.  So in academic language, official religions are "cultus", unofficial religions are "cult".  Your definition does define "oppressive cult".  But official religions can be oppressive too, in fact they always are if they are backed by the State.

[Baruch]

I view the word 'cult' as a useless word.  It is always in the eye of the beholder.  If you like a group and what it stands for then it is not a cult.  If one is into Scientology, then it is not a cult--but if you dislike Scientology then it is.  The same holds for any group.

Since all words are subjective, then isn't all conversation pointless?  Without any agreement, with pure subjectivity, communication is impossible, in a society of solipsists.  Of course sociopaths can't agree with anyone, but is everyone a sociopath?  Maybe all Western people are sociopaths?  Peak individualism?

[Mike Cl]

Since all words are subjective, then isn't all conversation pointless?  Without any agreement, with pure subjectivity, communication is impossible, in a society of solipsists.  Of course sociopaths can't agree with anyone, but is everyone a sociopath?  Maybe all Western people are sociopaths?  Peak individualism?

If more conversations were considered as being subjective, maybe more people would define key words prior to, or within that conversation.  More would be productive.  When anyone uses the word 'cult' I ask what they mean by that. 

[Drew_2017]

No, I got your point.  What's wrong with moral things being posted in public.  What is 'moral'?  Who gets to decide?  I would suggest the US has settled on what is legally moral--our law code based on English Common Law and precedent.  No religion should be featured--that makes freedom of religion a lie if you feature one.

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

And you missed my point.  What you think of as the 10 Commandments is listed three places.  The last one is the set I listed.  Your religion can't even figure out what really is moral or what the 10 Commandments are or where they are all listed.  That mess has no place repeated on public buildings or on public land.  It is a simple rule, really.  Practice any religion you want--just keep it off public buildings or land.  Simple.

I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.

[Mike Cl]

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.

The golden rule came long before any organized religion--it is not even close to be a christian concept.  I found this on the net:

"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040â€"1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664â€"323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.""

The golden rule is not a theist concept.  I would suggest it is a survival concept and is evolutionary. 

And we have had that creator discussion before.

[Baruch]

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I'm not involved in any organized religion I'm a theist. I do believe theism provides a philosophical basis for the golden rule, equality of people and many other rights people are endowed with. Some of your fellow posters go a step further, they have said religious beliefs shouldn't be taught to children but isn't that a private concern? Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator? If we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that caused us by accident, we can't be endowed with any rights.

There are non-theists, anti-theists and just plain atheists.  Anti-theists are authoritarian, they would ban any expression of theism, private or public.  Non-theists view the theism of other people as a non-issue.  Plain atheists would be in-between, mostly opposed to public expression of theism, but allowing private expression of theism.

[Cavebear]

The Declaration of Independence was the basis for ending slavery. "All men are created equal." Not all white men; all men. If I'm not mistaken, John Adams tried to convince Thomas Jefferson to remove that part, but he refused to do so.

And really? You're going to use that slippery slope argument? Benjamin Franklin didn't go to war to protect the institution of slavery. There were no statues erected of him during the Jim Crow times in order to rewrite history and put blacks in their place. Your attempts to justify protecting the disgusting monuments to Confederate leaders are just pitiful.

Agree.  Not that slavery was ever right, but Washington and Jefferson didn't fight to continue it.  Lee and Jackson and the Confederacy did very explicitly.

[pr126]

Next, hunting down the descendants of the Confederates?

[Cavebear]

Next, hunting down the descendants of the Confederates?

Absolutely NOT!  The sins of the parents do not fall on the children.  Unless they also support the sins, then hang 'em!

[Baruch]

Absolutely NOT!  The sins of the parents do not fall on the children.  Unless they also support the sins, then hang 'em!

Alas, some do ... but then also apply that to the Damn Yankees.  White Sox fans are OK however.