Psychology and Religion

[XenaLives]

Lots of problems with that article....

It seems that the term cult, in its modern and widely understood form, is reserved for any group formed under a hierarchical structure, where some form of coercion or manipulation of the group members exists. Generally there is also some focus of worship, be it the group leader(s) or some other outside personage or thing. The justification for worship or allegiance is usually tied to the perceived or stated benefits or potential benefits to be derived from same. (I know, sounds rather like accepted mainstream religions - go figure.)

It seems at a practical level however, that the key element in distinguishing a 'cult' from a mainstream religion is the existence of overt identifiable coercion (physical or mental) or manipulation of members.

IMO - "cult" is a pejorative used by an established religious group to refer to smaller, divergent religious groups. I'm sure that when Yeshua was delivering the "Sermon on the Mount" there were Saducees and Pharisees standing by who dismissed his followers as a "cult".

This statement really made me laugh...

Very often the allegation that 'mind control' is used on cult members is made. Proving such a claim is problematic however, since the definition of mind control is broad to say the least. There can be many forms of 'mind control' varying in subtlety, although they are not called by that name (see the mass media coverage of the Gulf war for one example).

Did you know that Daniel Senor (now managing VERT and Trillium hedge fund after serving and internship with the Carlyle group) was the chief architect of that "media campaign"? Did you know that he was a key advisor for the Romney campaign?

"Since the 1960s, in English-speaking countries, especially in North America, most English speakers have adopted the term in a pejorative sense to denote groups, many of them with religious themes, that exploit their members psychologically and financially using group-based persuasion techniques (sometimes called "mind control"). Unlike legitimate religious movements, cults are characterized by high levels of dependency, exploitation, and compliance with demands of leadership that are unrelated to religion. 90% or more of cult members ultimately leave the group."

Religion is a political thing, Spirituality is private, between you and God. Whenever religion comes in conflict with Spirituality an individual is forced to "choose his master". Political conformity or the search for Truth, each one of us has the power to choose. No religious movement can be considered "legitimate" if it stands in the way of Truth and Light.

The problem then is, what defines religion? One commentator suggests the following:

"...religion always begins in an experience that some individual has or that some small group of people shares. The response that this person or group makes to the original experience is what begins the process of interaction between the religion and the community. In extreme cases we can imagine a religion which lived and died unknown to all but the original experiencers, because their response turned inward and never created an interaction with others in the community; or a religion in which the response to the original experience so quickly and completely assimilated it to the traditions of the community that the germinal religion never acquired an independent identity. Most recognizable religions fall somewhere between these extremes, and thus acquire the identity by which we can recognize them.

This is the biggest bunch of B.S. I've read in a long time LOL!

Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual. As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own continuing responses."

We're ignoring the obvious here, aren't we? "direct experience of the sacred and the spritual" is a personal thing. Once it "expands in its formulation and elaboration" it ceases to become a "direct experience". What value does a "process that creates meaning for itself" have to a seeker of eternal Truth?

I think this guy has totally missed the point - Spirituality can not be contained by any religion. If God truly is the infinite all knowing and all loving One, he/she accepts each of us as we are and only asks that we accept Spirit on the same basis as Spirit accepts us - Love and a desire for greater understanding and communion. This acceptance is bound to both our physical state and our metaphysical state.

Spirit can not be experienced if it is politically defined.