I would like to apologize in advance for everything that the Westboro Baptist Church says and does. They are completely wrong, and in all my travels to numerous churches across the country I have never met a single Christian that agrees with them. The most common reaction I get from people about the Westboro group is eye rolling and exasperated sighs. My friends and I sympathize with all the people they harass. The group is undoubtedly a cult.
Hey, thanks for the interesting comment, this is something that I'm interested in too!
As a group a cult is more a psychological structure than a religious one, by definition. A well written and researched source of information on cults would be Marc Galanter, who was the APA's editor for their official report on cults. He wrote a book called "Cults" after spending more than fifteen years researching cults. According to Galanter a cult has four characteristics:
(1) shared belief system, (2) high social cohesiveness, (3) strong behavioral norms, (4) charismatic/divine power imputed to the group's leader(s).
There are also behaviors typically associated from cults, like isolating its members from the outside world/ their family and creating a strong feeling of being persecuted by the world that fosters group unity. All of this requires a very high level of maintenance and manipulation of social pressure, as well as a truly dynamic leader (These groups tend to become unstable over a certain size, usually a few hundred). The members of the group then develop a psychological dependency on the group (similar to drug use) and the uniform social structure creates an environment where their own beliefs or thoughts are overwhelmed. It doesn't matter how well educated or emotionally stable the group members are, if they are surrounded by a group of people that accept them, they'll believe anything.
If some of this sounds like Christianity to you, congratulations, you're right! Christianity began as a cult, but not just any cult. Christianity invented the model for the modern cult, and most modern cults have Christian influences. The original model for the church was (1) a community of people that welcomed everyone and loved them unconditionally, (2) a community committed to a common set of principles, (3) a community committed to living out those principles to help others and spread the love of God, which included going to great lengths to take care of their fellow Christians, (4) a strong set of leaders who were genuinely committed to their cause, and a divine leader who sacrificed Himself for them. The basic model was later adapted by cults, but the original church was different in many ways. (1) the early church was very forgiving of its members (though Paul did have to chide them for getting drunk in church, having sex with temple prostitutes, etc. he did so in a very loving way and he was motivated by the fact that these are very negative life behaviors {unprotected sex with multiple prostitutes = bad idea}). (2) the early church did not convey divinity on the leadership of the church, and the leadership received no monetary benefits for their service (on the contrary, they left comfortable lives and ended up getting killed). (3) The early church was willing to relate to the people of any region in ways that made sense to them, encouraged people not to isolate themselves from their families/ the world, and was open to free thinking. (even when the church gained state recognition, people were fairly free to talk about whatever crazy ideas they had about God, the people who got councils called on them were only church leaders who refused to stop teaching those ideas as the only correct way. No one had a council called on them before a few church leaders tried to reason with them, and even after a synod in which they had the chance to defend their ideas and talk them over with their region's church leadership. Non-leaders could pretty much talk about whatever they wanted to).
So the Church started as a group that believed everybody should love everybody, that should make the world a better place, and that God helps us do that. It worked because people have an enormous need to be loved, have a sense of purpose, and rely on something bigger than themselves. Cults use the same model to exploit people. The modern church is not a cult simply because it's not that cohesive anymore, and the members don't really follow the teaching of the group. Although, individual congregations can become cult groups, like my old church and the Westboro folk, or communities can become very similar to what the early church had in mind (like my new church).
Hi Ironic, it's good to be back on the forum after being all over the country so much, I'm excited!
For my own personal edification, could you be specific as to how the group goes by the Bible 100 percent? Having read the Bible I'm having trouble reconciling that statement. Do you mean that they believe in following the Bible, or think that they are following the Bible? I would certainly agree that they think they are following the Bible, but I doubt they actually do. I have reviewed quite a few of the group's positions, and I would have to say that they are contradicting 95 percent of the New Testament and a large majority of the Old Testament. The story of the Good Samaritan, the story of the Prodigal Son, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' teaching on the Pharisees, Jesus' treatment of people in general, and several of Jesus' miscellaneous teachings jump to mind. There are thousands of verses that contradict what they are saying, but they insist on shouting hate at everybody. Ah! The headache these people give me!
Groups like this one tend to take a few verses out of context from the New Testament, particularly ones about the end of the world (ironically ignoring the verses that are actually about how to live your life), and then rely heavily on Leviticus and stories of judgment from the Old Testament. They basically get out scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible they don't like. Though these groups take a strong stand for "following the Bible" their members are typically very poorly educated on how to read the Bible and its historical context. Most of them only know Bible verses that their leader emphasizes and may not have read the majority of the Bible.
I think what you're saying is that this group is following the Bible in doing what they're doing, and I can certainly understand why it might seem that way from the outside. They do, after all, quote from the Bible. However, they are quoting a few inflammatory-sounding verses out of context and the verses are some of the hardest to understand in the whole Bible (the whole concept of the OT vs. the NT is actually pretty hard to grasp). I guess my real question would be, "what do you think the Bible really says?" I really do understand how people like this can make it seem like the Bible actually teaches hate, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm wondering what you think the overall message of the Bible is. This is a really important question for me because I am interested to know how Christians and the Bible come across to people. It doesn't have to be a long rant like mine, but just what your thoughts are on this as briefly as you want (this applies to everyone on here). I would greatly appreciate it!
As for being true Christians, that depends on how you define the word "Christian." If you mean someone who claims to believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, regardless of how blatantly they ignore and fail to believe in the actual teaching of the religion, then yes. To the best of my knowledge they seem to be off of the path, hopefully someone can lovingly remind them that hate is not the way.
(February 11, 2011 at 4:26 am)Gregoriouse Wrote: the definitions are very close and in a lot of ways relatively the same. The difference seems to be, (although not by the dictionary, more like peoples definition) that the word cult just automatically adds a negative stigma. For me at least it seems that when you line up the different cults/religions, that don't seem all that different.
Hey, thanks for the interesting comment, this is something that I'm interested in too!
As a group a cult is more a psychological structure than a religious one, by definition. A well written and researched source of information on cults would be Marc Galanter, who was the APA's editor for their official report on cults. He wrote a book called "Cults" after spending more than fifteen years researching cults. According to Galanter a cult has four characteristics:
(1) shared belief system, (2) high social cohesiveness, (3) strong behavioral norms, (4) charismatic/divine power imputed to the group's leader(s).
There are also behaviors typically associated from cults, like isolating its members from the outside world/ their family and creating a strong feeling of being persecuted by the world that fosters group unity. All of this requires a very high level of maintenance and manipulation of social pressure, as well as a truly dynamic leader (These groups tend to become unstable over a certain size, usually a few hundred). The members of the group then develop a psychological dependency on the group (similar to drug use) and the uniform social structure creates an environment where their own beliefs or thoughts are overwhelmed. It doesn't matter how well educated or emotionally stable the group members are, if they are surrounded by a group of people that accept them, they'll believe anything.
If some of this sounds like Christianity to you, congratulations, you're right! Christianity began as a cult, but not just any cult. Christianity invented the model for the modern cult, and most modern cults have Christian influences. The original model for the church was (1) a community of people that welcomed everyone and loved them unconditionally, (2) a community committed to a common set of principles, (3) a community committed to living out those principles to help others and spread the love of God, which included going to great lengths to take care of their fellow Christians, (4) a strong set of leaders who were genuinely committed to their cause, and a divine leader who sacrificed Himself for them. The basic model was later adapted by cults, but the original church was different in many ways. (1) the early church was very forgiving of its members (though Paul did have to chide them for getting drunk in church, having sex with temple prostitutes, etc. he did so in a very loving way and he was motivated by the fact that these are very negative life behaviors {unprotected sex with multiple prostitutes = bad idea}). (2) the early church did not convey divinity on the leadership of the church, and the leadership received no monetary benefits for their service (on the contrary, they left comfortable lives and ended up getting killed). (3) The early church was willing to relate to the people of any region in ways that made sense to them, encouraged people not to isolate themselves from their families/ the world, and was open to free thinking. (even when the church gained state recognition, people were fairly free to talk about whatever crazy ideas they had about God, the people who got councils called on them were only church leaders who refused to stop teaching those ideas as the only correct way. No one had a council called on them before a few church leaders tried to reason with them, and even after a synod in which they had the chance to defend their ideas and talk them over with their region's church leadership. Non-leaders could pretty much talk about whatever they wanted to).
So the Church started as a group that believed everybody should love everybody, that should make the world a better place, and that God helps us do that. It worked because people have an enormous need to be loved, have a sense of purpose, and rely on something bigger than themselves. Cults use the same model to exploit people. The modern church is not a cult simply because it's not that cohesive anymore, and the members don't really follow the teaching of the group. Although, individual congregations can become cult groups, like my old church and the Westboro folk, or communities can become very similar to what the early church had in mind (like my new church).
(February 11, 2011 at 11:25 am)IronicAlchemist Wrote: I actually know the Westboro Baptist church goes by the bible probably 100%. They are true Christians really. Which makes them annoying and probably very dangerous.
Hi Ironic, it's good to be back on the forum after being all over the country so much, I'm excited!
For my own personal edification, could you be specific as to how the group goes by the Bible 100 percent? Having read the Bible I'm having trouble reconciling that statement. Do you mean that they believe in following the Bible, or think that they are following the Bible? I would certainly agree that they think they are following the Bible, but I doubt they actually do. I have reviewed quite a few of the group's positions, and I would have to say that they are contradicting 95 percent of the New Testament and a large majority of the Old Testament. The story of the Good Samaritan, the story of the Prodigal Son, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' teaching on the Pharisees, Jesus' treatment of people in general, and several of Jesus' miscellaneous teachings jump to mind. There are thousands of verses that contradict what they are saying, but they insist on shouting hate at everybody. Ah! The headache these people give me!
Groups like this one tend to take a few verses out of context from the New Testament, particularly ones about the end of the world (ironically ignoring the verses that are actually about how to live your life), and then rely heavily on Leviticus and stories of judgment from the Old Testament. They basically get out scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible they don't like. Though these groups take a strong stand for "following the Bible" their members are typically very poorly educated on how to read the Bible and its historical context. Most of them only know Bible verses that their leader emphasizes and may not have read the majority of the Bible.
I think what you're saying is that this group is following the Bible in doing what they're doing, and I can certainly understand why it might seem that way from the outside. They do, after all, quote from the Bible. However, they are quoting a few inflammatory-sounding verses out of context and the verses are some of the hardest to understand in the whole Bible (the whole concept of the OT vs. the NT is actually pretty hard to grasp). I guess my real question would be, "what do you think the Bible really says?" I really do understand how people like this can make it seem like the Bible actually teaches hate, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm wondering what you think the overall message of the Bible is. This is a really important question for me because I am interested to know how Christians and the Bible come across to people. It doesn't have to be a long rant like mine, but just what your thoughts are on this as briefly as you want (this applies to everyone on here). I would greatly appreciate it!
As for being true Christians, that depends on how you define the word "Christian." If you mean someone who claims to believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, regardless of how blatantly they ignore and fail to believe in the actual teaching of the religion, then yes. To the best of my knowledge they seem to be off of the path, hopefully someone can lovingly remind them that hate is not the way.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
