- Topic
Ricki Lake had a show today titled “I survived a cult”. Cult expert Rick Ross gave many characteristics of a cult. One characteristic is the cult is personality driven. Example: David Koresh. I say god the mother fits that one. Another is isolation from loved ones. Also indoctrination. Rick Ross said if your loved one is in a cult don’t blurt it out to them.
Good timing that she had the topic on today. Perhaps the episode can be watched soon as the airing date was today.
Simon wrote:
Your only using one definition
Also I might point out the biggest most important belief in christianity IS considered bizarre by the larger community
Then the word cult is pointless and meaningless and ought not to exist in the English language.
welcome to the english language
Disturbed, you and I both kind of call it how it is. This is a cult, no doubt. But even if 20 cult experts told me it wasn't a cult, I would be just as opposed to it as I am now. I know you agree. That is why I dropped the label when I talk to my loved one (even though the label fits like a glove.) It isn't about the label, it is about the damage done to the member. By dissecting the operations and methods of a cult, the experts have helped us educate ourselves so that we can better cope with our loved ones involvement. And hopefully help them to someday understand the process that got them so involved.
Simon, I don't really care if you want to label all religions as cults. Put that in as a new topic if you would like. It just detracts from what we are trying to discuss here and seems to alienate people. Besides, Disturbed was merely pointing out a very public venue in which the methods of cults was exposed, and I applaud that. I really wish I had seen it. And I hope a lot more are in the works.
whatever
I always understood as a member that a cult was any church [specifically a church] that taught a doctrine different from what Jesus taught. There was a study given about heresy and through the Scripture I learned that God labels a cult as any church who teaches a different gospel.
renita.payno wrote:
I always understood as a member that a cult was any church [specifically a church] that taught a doctrine different from what Jesus taught. There was a study given about heresy and through the Scripture I learned that God labels a cult as any church who teaches a different gospel.
I don't really want to take the conversation in a different direction, but related to the cult theme and what you've brought up Renita, how do they respond to the point that Jesus never taught about a mother god. That would be a doctrine different from what Jesus taught.
Exactly! That's an arguement I had been struggling with as a member. They say because of the appointed time. But then again, they say their church is the church of Ephesus when the church of Ephesus never worshipped or acknowledged God the Mother. By their own teachings of what heresy is, they have indirectly proclaimed that the WMSCOG is indeed a cult.
renita.payno wrote:
Exactly! That's an arguement I had been struggling with as a member. They say because of the appointed time. But then again, they say their church is the church of Ephesus when the church of Ephesus never worshipped or acknowledged God the Mother. By their own teachings of what heresy is, they have indirectly proclaimed that the WMSCOG is indeed a cult.
Yes! Why can't they see that?
The wmscog says that Sunday worship, Easter (meaning Resurrection Day, not Easter bunny) and Christmas (meaning celebrating the birth of Jesus, not the fat man with the elves and reindeer) were not taught by Jesus. But we who celebrate those things can see how Jesus would have allowed, authorized or approved of them because of what He taught. However, I can't see any way someone can interpret Jesus' teachings to allow, authorize or approve worship of a second god, the mother.
I totally agree with MountainMom's comment.
genny wrote:
The wmscog says that Sunday worship, Easter (meaning Resurrection Day, not Easter bunny) and Christmas (meaning celebrating the birth of Jesus, not the fat man with the elves and reindeer) were not taught by Jesus.
Just to elaborate, even though it is off-topic a bit, the wmscog attacks the name Easter with a vengeance. The word Easter is used only in English and German as far as I know. The Latin word used by the Catholic Church is Pasch and wmscog claims that all the Protestant churches followed the catholic church in celebrating Easter. In all the various Indian languages I am aware of, the feast of the resurrection has names derived from Pasch rather than Easter. It is the same with most European languages that have spread throughout the world apart from English and German.
I am not too sure about what the relative numbers are for other churches, but the Catholic Church at least has far greater number of members who use the name Pasch or its derivative than those who use the name Easter. Going by the wmscog assertion, since Protestants have followed the Catholics in celebrating this feast, then the objection to the name Easter is not tenable at all, since it is just an alternate name for the commonly used Pasche.
I saw that Ricki Lake show the OP mentions.
I'd say the personality-driven explanation is better described as "people downline adjust to those above them, all the way to the top, while anyone on the top adjusting to anyone beneath them is rare or never happens".
emil wrote:
I totally agree with MountainMom's comment.
wmscog claims that all the Protestant churches followed the catholic church in celebrating Easter. In all the various Indian languages I am …
I stand by "remove and replace" as the basic M.O. No other paths to enlightenment, salvation, etc., may exist, by definition, in a cult. If what emil writes is true, we have danger sign after danger sign…..
renita.payno wrote:
I always understood as a member that a cult was any church [specifically a church] that taught a doctrine different from what Jesus taught. There was a study given about heresy and through the Scripture I learned that God labels a cult as any church who teaches a different gospel.
surprise, surprise….misinformation on what a cult really is….NOW JUST GO OBEY [a person]!
Simon wrote:
whatever
I'm sorry Simon, but I really expected a more mature post from you. MountainMom took the time to make a kind, well-thoughtout post to bring up some good topics. And all you have to say is "whatever?"
Again, its not the fact that you disagree with someone, its the way you do so. Instead of these one to two sentence posts, I'd really love to see you elaborate on some good solutions to try to help current members leave the wmscog. And if you have already done so in other posts, I apologize. But I just would've loved to hear something in this one.
Disturbed and MountainMom speak from the heart, so I just dislike when you respond in such a cold-callous way. Where is the feeling Simon?
genny wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
I always understood as a member that a cult was any church [specifically a church] that taught a doctrine different from what Jesus taught. There was a study given about heresy and through the Scripture I learned that God labels a cult as any church who teaches a different gospel.
I don't really want to take the conversation in a different direction, but related to the cult theme and what you've brought up Renita, how do they respond to the point that Jesus never taught about a mother god. That would be a doctrine different from what Jesus taught.
I believe I did hear them respond to such a thing. Not saying it was a good response, but I was taught that Jesus did in fact teach about Mother God. That's why Paul wrote about the Jerusalem coming from above. They just knew it wasn't the appointed time yet.
Questioninginla wrote:
emil wrote:
I totally agree with MountainMom's comment.
wmscog claims that all the Protestant churches followed the catholic church in celebrating Easter. In all the various Indian languages I am …
I stand by "remove and replace" as the basic M.O. No other paths to enlightenment, salvation, etc., may exist, by definition, in a cult. If what emil writes is true, we have danger sign after danger sign…..
I'm sorry I don't understand.
Her comment was cold callous and completely ignored what I was saying
Let's drop that line of argument shall we? No point in arguing among ourselves on the definition of cult and whther the wmscog fits and and who else fits it. Sorry its not my intention to ask people to stop expressing themselves. It is just that I don't want that we should stop examining wmscog and get busy examining each other.
The more fundamental issue for me is what makes Ahn and Zahng gods. What have they done to deserve this label? There is a historical record of all that Jesus achieved. People were willing to die to bear witness to it.
What did Ahn achieve? They say he ascended. There were apparently witnesses when he descended 6 feet down. As far as I know, there is no record of any witnesses when he ascended. They never say he rose from the dead. Probably that is why they downplay Jesus' resurrection, because that is far beyond what Ahn achieved.
That was the point I was making lol
Simon wrote:
That was the point I was making lol
Yes Simon. I did support your point too. Yet I also feel for those who have been victims (including yourself) and can understand the angst. I can easily be objective because, neither I, nor any of my family, is a vicitm.
In my experience so far with their members, name calling is counterproductive. Even pointing out false doctrine does not work as we have seen what happened with FTOS and angelwings in the "Evidence of Antichrist…" thread. I think there are only two things that help; God's grace and gradual self realization guided by tiny, prompting, non-threatening questions from the outside. Strongly supported by intercessory prayer.
pointing out false doctrine may not help but name calling and labeling probably hinders
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.