How do cults start? (Jesus, reject, Moses, Messiah, tradition)

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by wizanda

Why Not no religion and Just have Faith in good, why does God need to be in a box to exist?

Isn't that the meaning of a mustard seed, it will grow outside of a box to find the light? Yet where did the light come from to begin; As it will search for the light from a seed, not needing a blue print of where it must grow too.

Because if God exists, then it is good for us to please her.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by wizanda

Why Not no religion and Just have Faith in good, why does God need to be in a box to exist?

Isn't that the meaning of a mustard seed, it will grow outside of a box to find the light? Yet where did the light come from to begin; As it will search for the light from a seed, not needing a blue print of where it must grow too.

What if the religion says God is Unknowable, and cannot be understood by finite creatures, and to reach the Creation He loves, God must use human messengers who share a level of communion with God that, not entirely perfect, allows those messengers to communicate revelation to mankind?

Is God released from the box by that approach?

Regards,
Scott

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Which religion would one follow, then?

Um... why follow any of them?

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Most religions believe in a god, and oracles of that god are proclaimed via their prophets, recorded in holy books, etc...

The problem A_E is that there are so many of them. It is true they tend to agree on some points, but they also offer wildly divergent views on a host of issues. Virtually all religions claim to be "right", whatever that is, aside from being popular consensus. It certainly makes me wonder enough to doubt whether any of them in fact are speaking the “truth”.

I have the greatest respect for Jesus, Buddha and Krsna. I am not overly fond of the mythologies that have arisen in the wake of their appearances. As I have said before, the religions of man all have their crumbs but their loaves have turned to dust long ago.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

If we can't know a god or her will or tell it to others, we have an agnosticism.

And the problem with that is? The only thing I can claim openly daddy, is that the more I understand, the less I know. Oddly, I am not threatened by this peculiar aspect of reality as it only serves to make me want to know more. Personally, I do not see the "process" ever ending. But hey, that's just me. You have to keep in mind A_E that I actively and aggressively support what can be called “spiritual anarchy” wherein there is nothing between the individual and “god”. Nothing at all; except those barriers that individuals themselves create.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

If this cannot be done because there is no god, we have atheism.

Although this would be a distinct problem for devout believers, it actually does not affect reality in the slightest. Reality will still be what it is, regardless of whether “god” is there or not. The reality is that the believer would simply have to accept reality on ITS terms and not what the believer expects reality to be.

*scampers down from his small soapbox*

[yuvgotmel]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

I could be wrong, but that is the way it seems to me. That is why I tell people that if you ever meet someone who claims to be "god", is appointed by "god" or claims to know the "will of god"... then you best turn tail and run for dear life.

Yep, I agree. I was also told by a couple of people that my writings may one day turn into a religion, to which I said, "Well I should start now writing the declaration letters stating that these are just my thoughts and should not ever be misconstrued to be anything more." I have merely hoped to promote free-thinking. Yet, another person (a professor of theology) told me that I had created a hybrid religion. I told him, "Well I never intended to do such a thing" and I meant it, because one of the main reasons for some of my writings was to challenge the old systems. The world doesn't need any new religion(s) or any new interpretations of the old ones, and I will support most anyone or any group that can help to destroy the entire ugly twisted mess.

Back to the topic of this thread: Seriously, I have really been wondering about the mechanics of cult and how religions start. In my perspective, I think I would be hard-pressed to find a dozen people to "follow after" me or my teachings and convince people to give me money or distribute rules to them that would regulate their daily and personal lives. It seems incomprehensible to me, which is why I am so puzzled how a cult leader is able to manipulate others like that...And too, what are the people like who follow after such "leaders"?

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by yuvgotmel

It seems incomprehensible to me, which is why I am so puzzled how a cult leader is able to manipulate others like that...And too, what are the people like who follow after such "leaders"?

One word, as stated by others, Charisma. We have a politician here in British Columbia called William T. Van der Zalm. He is not especially bright, but he is a very handsome man, a multimillionaire and can literally charm the birds out of the trees. He is an immensely likeable fellow. Honest. People are almost befuddled by his down home "folksy" charm and frankly he could give George W. lessons on that song and dance. (He was booted from the Premier's chair when he accepted a large cash "donation" for something or other (delivered in a paper bad, I might add) in the parking lot of his "Christian Theme Park" aptly named, Fantasy Gardens. Nope, you can't make stuff this rich up.) To top it off he was the leader of the Social Credit Party of B.C. which is in itself highly amusing because they were not very social and didn't give credit. They did however take credit for any positive things in our local society.

If your interested the Mighty Wiki has a pretty good article on him Here

[Scuba Pete]

I was briefly associated with a cult: the ICOC. The leader believed that he was a modern day apostle. I believe his intentions were noble when he started out though I detected at least a modicum of pride and ambition. He came from a largely successfulcampus ministry in Gainesville Fl, the Crossroads church of Christ and felt that he had to take it to the next level and proceeded to do that.

His ministry was a success and he was able to bring the concept of "disciple" to a much higher expectation. The success bred more success and soon everyone was talking about the "Boston Movement". The leader capitalized on this momentum and started planting seeds throughout the country in LA, Atlanta, New York and Orlando. Soon they started going to London, Paris and even India.

In order for this to really work, you have to be able to control the believers. This was done through a fanatical small core of believers who governed these sattelite churches. They also appealed to the truths in the Bible and stretched them to gain control over the followers.

At the end of his control, it was obvious that he had a real pride problem. He did not want to listen to others and even his kids rejected his skewed view of Christianity. It was interesting for me in that I knew him before his rise to power. Not that we were ever "good friends", but I got to see the rise and subsequent fall of this charismatic leader.