Cult or Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, what I have said is to look at Reality for truth, not just dictionaries and not the proclaimed elite, especially if they determine truth by mutual consensus.

You cannot cheat your obligation to see for yourself by merely asking others to do your seeing for you.
 
James_S_Saint said:
No, what I have said is to look at Reality for truth, not just dictionaries and not the proclaimed elite, especially if they determine truth by mutual consensus.

You cannot cheat your obligation to see for yourself by merely asking others to do your seeing for you.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to invent an emoticon that illustrates the ‘whoosh’ sound that is made when the idea flies right over the top of one’s head.

James, there is a difference between etymology and politics, etymology and philosophy, and etymology and self satisfied declarations of ‘truth.’

You are declaring that Truth is what you claim it is, no matter who disagrees with you. Now this is a perfectly valid argument; everybody should have faith in what they claim to believe. However, when we speak of language, that is, words, their meanings, and where they came from (morpheme and phonemes) then it really IS a consensus driven thing; words can only mean what everybody agrees that they mean, or they become completely useless as a means of communication.

You are using words; “cult” and “evil” as if the words are the things. They are not; they are simply symbols of the things, and symbols are only useful if everybody agrees to their meaning.

I overheard this conversation the other day, between two teenagers discussing the artwork on a skateboard:

“Dude, look at this: it’s Efin’ SICK!”
“Nah, Dude, it’s gay.”
“no, I’m tellin’ you. it is truly SICK…”

Now…which one is complimenting the board? 😉 I’m quite certain that anybody under the age of twenty knows precisely whose opinion was positive, and whose was not–but the rest of the world might be a little confused. The reason, of course, is that the kids who use those words have agreed that they have a very different meaning than the one the rest of us assign to them. It’s a code.

That does not, however, mean that they have now redefined the words to the point that the rest of us have to change our conversational styles to go along with it…or that all the linguists on the planet must now instantly rewrite the etymological encyclopedias.

The same thing goes for your assignment of meanings to “cult,” “occult” and “evil.” You can use them any way you wish, of course, but really, until the vast majority of the English speaking world agrees with you and begins using the words as you prescribe, they simply do not mean what you insist they do.

In this case, truth really is up to a vote.
 
dianaiad,

In your lust to attack, you seem to get yourself SO confused. Wouldn’t it be easier if rather than presuming in error and saying, “James, you are doing this ridiculous thing…”, perhaps you could begin with, “James, am I right in thinking that you are doing this ridiculous thing?”

At least that way, you won’t be so tempted to bend your mind before you open your mouth.

“until the vast majority of the English speaking world agrees with you and begins using the words as you prescribe”

I not only claimed personally that what you stipulate there really is the case, but further proof was provided.

If you are going to be nasty, at least catch up on the conversation. {please}
 
James_S_Saint said:
dianaiad,

In your lust to attack, you seem to get yourself SO confused. Wouldn’t it be easier if rather than presuming in error and saying, “James, you are doing this ridiculous thing…”, perhaps you could begin with, “James, am I right in thinking that you are doing this ridiculous thing?”

At least that way, you won’t be so tempted to bend your mind before you open your mouth.

“until the vast majority of the English speaking world agrees with you and begins using the words as you prescribe”

I not only claimed personally that what you stipulate there really is the case, but further proof was provided.

If you are going to be nasty, at least catch up on the conversation. {please}
Click to expand...
You are the one who is claiming the variation on the meaning. I am representing the majority viewpoint…that of the folks who have researched and agreed upon the etymology of the word. You represent only yourself…and perhaps a few, as yet unamed, folks who have a unique definition of the word and its origins.

Which is why, sir, I brought up the kids in the school hall. They might indeed have their own code for the verbal symbols the rest of us use very differently, but they are indeed the minority view—and in the case of what words actually mean, it really is a majority rule situation.

I am not the one, in other words, who has to ‘catch up.’ You are the one who is claiming that your definition of the word (and therefore your particular philosophical world view regarding the concept) must trump that of all the dictionaries, the experts and the majority of the English speakers who actually use the word.

I have no idea what your expertise may be in this field, but…I strongly suggest that you do some research on the difference between descriptive, rather than prescriptive, linguistics. You seem to be very much in favor of the prescriptive, with your minority view being the prescription.

I’m not the only one who has pointed out your error in this thread. I am, however, the only one who has been this patient. I guess the other people know you better than I do: they gave up.
 
A note a little divergent from the direct topic;

I find it interesting that during this argumentation, the 2 proponents of the dictionary version of the meaning of the word “cult”, each use arguments counter to the support of their own religion.

The Catholic adherent argues that the word means “all religions” (from the dictionary) because of the consensus of opinion of the elitely educated.

The LDS adherent argues that the word means “all religions” because the ethos authority figures support that idea.

Yet the CC not only declares that Truth is not rooted in consensus of opinion, but it also depends on that very notion. If consensus determined Truth, the CC would quickly lose all authority.

And the LDS, being founded by Mr Joseph Smith, having no ethos support even to this day, depends on the notion that sometimes the rebel is the guy who is right despite what authorities declare.

I argued that the word now means a pejorative associated with the word “occult” thus accepting the dictionary, consensus elite opinion, results in the acceptance that all religions are merely cults (a well accepted bad thing).

The sheep argue and counter propose against their own Shepherds and even against their flock. :eek:

And we wonder why religions are having so much trouble in the West. 😊
 
James_S_Saint said:
A note a little divergent from the direct topic;

I find it interesting that during this argumentation, the 2 proponents of the dictionary version of the meaning of the word “cult”, each use arguments counter to the support of their own religion.

The Catholic adherent argues that the word means “all religions” (from the dictionary) because of the consensus of opinion of the elitely educated.

The LDS adherent argues that the word means “all religions” because the ethos authority figures support that idea.

Yet the CC not only declares that Truth is not rooted in consensus of opinion, but it also depends on that very notion. If consensus determined Truth, the CC would quickly lose all authority.

And the LDS, being founded by Mr Joseph Smith, having no ethos support even to this day, depends on the notion that sometimes the rebel is the guy who is right despite what authorities declare.

I argued that the word now means a pejorative associated with the word “occult” thus accepting the dictionary, consensus elite opinion, results in the acceptance that all religions are merely cults (a well accepted bad thing).

The sheep argue and counter propose against their own Shepherds and even against their flock. :eek:

And we wonder why religions are having so much trouble in the West. 😊
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but here you have shown the problem; to you, ‘cult’ is a pejorative, and includes all things ‘bad’ and ‘false.’

but the word has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘truth,’ or Truth. One can be a member of a cult and still have truth–after all, by any definition used by anybody at all, the very early Christians belonged to a cult.

Didn’t make them wrong though, did it?
 
James_S_Saint said:
Certainly an entertaining video. 😃

But I’m not sure that I agree with her incentive. There is a limit to how big of a language you would want. Get it too big and it breaks. Is that the incentive?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how it could break. I don’t know anyone who suffers from having a vocabulary that is too large. I think expanding my vocabulary enriches my experience.
 
Leela said:
I don’t know how it could break. I don’t know anyone who suffers from having a vocabulary that is too large. I think expanding my vocabulary enriches my experience.
Click to expand...
Can you know all of the words of a dictionary? She suggested that in reality there are many times more words than those of the dictionary and that we should produce more freely.

If you can’t even know all of the existing formalized words, you certainly aren’t going to be able to know all of the “new” words as well.

Now the problem is that you are not alone in the world and not the only one trying to speak. That is a problem because you and each other person will learn a different set of words. With a larger choice available, eventually you find that the people in one area have no idea what the people in another area are saying.

At such a point, a “different language” is declared even though officially they all spoke the same language. Of course after it becomes a different language, it gains different ideas held separate as the languages are separate. But then because the ideas are different the ideals become different. Guess what happens when the ideals are very different.

How far can a branch grow before is breaks off from its own weight?
 
James_S_Saint said:
Certainly an entertaining video. 😃

But I’m not sure that I agree with her incentive. There is a limit to how big of a language you would want. Get it too big and it breaks. Is that the incentive?
Click to expand...
'Get it too big and it breaks?"

Now how in the world could you come to that conclusion? Right at the moment the English language has a larger vocabulary than any language ever studied, and it’s only getting bigger. Unlike early on, when the language was first being ‘set,’ and so many dialects appeared in the British Isles, modern English is showing few signs of 'breaking."

there ARE many different ‘Englishes…’ in the world; British English, American English, Australian English, Indian English…and they do have some differences in expression, grammar and style. However, because of the sheer scope of communication, the various Englishes are still mixing back with each other; no breakage involved, in other words. Additional vocabulary, more involved infrastructure…but no hint of cracks yet. Nor, I believe, will there be very soon.
 
Yeah, your right. Nothing has gone wrong before and we are SO much mightier now than ever. Let the children play. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Did the Titanic sink? Did Babylon fall? Of course not. Play to your hearts content. :rolleyes:
 
James_S_Saint said:
Yeah, your right. Nothing has gone wrong before and we are SO much mightier now than ever. Let the children play. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Did the Titanic sink? Did Babylon fall? Of course not. Play to your hearts content. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Say what?

I think you need to figure out what the topic is; the symbol or the thing symbolized.
 
Yes it is an occult! everything shows that it is an occult! God was once a man, man can become God, God is married, adding false doctrine, there are more things than this to show it is an occult! there are 2.5 Billion christians out there and 99.9% will tell you defintely that 14 million lds is an occult! expect no mormon to speak the truth! they cannot and be mormon so dont bother.
 
jake23 said:
Yes it is an occult! everything shows that it is an occult! God was once a man, man can become God, God is married, adding false doctrine, there are more things than this to show it is an occult! there are 2.5 Billion christians out there and 99.9% will tell you defintely that 14 million lds is an occult! expect no mormon to speak the truth! they cannot and be mormon so dont bother.
Click to expand...
Jake, you are too funny!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top