“When a method becomes senior to a desired outcome, and when that method gathers a crowd.”
I came to this definition as a result of my latest article on process vs. output. That article has been reworked and is ready for publication. Stay tuned.
“When a method becomes senior to a desired outcome, and when that method gathers a crowd.”
I came to this definition as a result of my latest article on process vs. output. That article has been reworked and is ready for publication. Stay tuned.
72 thoughts on “Definition of a “cult””
I just laughed out loud reading this
It seems like the desired outcome can’t be “set” either, without fostering a cult. It has to be flexible, open to new insight – and change – just like a method does.
Ha ha! I just realized the above principle is in your article too – the part about humans being able to question the intended output.
Well, one can aim at a general outcome, like “enlightenment” or “help people reach their own goal” – but such outcomes will demand a very flexible method.
Okay, “general outcome” clears it up. The more general (or less specific) the intended outcome, the more flexibility it has, by definition. The flexibility is already there, “built-in”.
I totally agree and the Cof$ has become a cult, the process now is not only more important than the result but does not allow the result to occurr or hinders the result so the process is longer and much, much more expensive.
From Italy Salvatore Angius
LRH talked about how a scientist may look at his theory as the most wonderful thing in the world and protect it all costs. The theory, thus, becomes greater than what it is supposed to explain.
Geir, I generally like your stuff and this is hilarious, but I can demonstrate how this definition doesn’t work.
You like scrutiny, so here goes.
CLAIM: A cult CAN be outcome driven not process driven.
EXAMPLE #1: OUTCOME-ACQUIRING CULT: A martial arts cult refuses to test people for black belt until they exhibit certain psychological characteristics, and philosophical obedience and be able to meet certain physical requirements (both of these are results not the actual process). And they will tweak a student until the student “gets it.” Cult dynamics are used in this case and the results are in fact the goal not the process.
EXAMPLE #2: By your definition I can make the creation of mind-controlled culties as an outcome and the act of making obedient culties in a results-driven methodology would NOT qualify as a cult by this definition.
Here is my shot:
“Cults are a mixture of dynamic and static social systems that hack our natural belief systems while convincing followers they haven’t been hacked. Such hacking can be designed by intention or occur organically in human social structures.”
Nah – the martial art example is still method focused.
Nope. Testing is about ABILITIES. Real. Definable. Things. People. Can. Do.
Many systems let other black belts acquire rank if they can PERFORM their systems outputs. Often an experienced practitioner can do this in less than a year. Again … outputs. This is how people rack up black belt certs in various systems.
Let’s say a martial artist moves to America from Japan and takes on a student. The teacher teaches him the skills and uses a different method of instruction than that which was generally agreed as “correct” by the home dojo in Japan.
The student then travels to Japan and passes his certs and is a kool-aid drinking Martial Artist who really believes he has the same abilities as the “Men Who Stare at Goats.”
Output. Skills. Abilities and …
The Same Batshit Beliefs and Conditioning.
Cult creation is NOT based on a method/output continuum. Cult creation can be METHOD centered and OUTPUT centered or both.
Check the article on the difference between testing and production.
As for martial arts in general; Oh yes, it is definitely about method. If it was about the outcome, the guy would either pick up a gun or run away – remember Indiana Jones?
But please do also consider that I did not exclude the worshiping of outcome per se – but rather that the worshiping of methods tend to produce cults. But extreme focus on let’s say “enlightenment” without any regard for how it is achieved hardly makes for a cult methinks.
“But extreme focus on let’s say ‘enlightenment’ without any regard for how it is achieved hardly makes for a cult methinks.”
Yes, I had a similar question to KG whether a fixation on outcome would create a cult, I had already come to this idea and seems to be the salient point why the worshiping of a result would not foster a cult.
K. We don’t agree. But let’s disagree on the same page.
My point of view is that newer, smaller cults are more “Output Based” (Organic) and established cults are more “Method Based” (Designed).
But the product is the same.
Your definition defines “Output Based” efforts as “non-cultish” by default.
I think that very often cults will flip-flop between “Output Based” vs “Method Based” like the classic “Good-Cop/Bad-Cop schtick.
Here, I’ll abuse the golden mean for this example:
I think that smaller groups (Charles Manson’s Family) tend to prioritize efforts around the golden ratio (80/20) between your two poles of “Output/Method” and larger groups (Falun Dafa) tend to follow the golden ratio (80/20) around your two poles “Method/Output.”
Family Cults: 80/20, Output/Method.
Big Cults: 80/20 Method/Output.
You don’t think this is correct by your definition.
I don’t agree – because what makes the cults are the rules of conduct (form/method) – the WAY of thinking, of doing.
Read the article again and see if you can catch my viewpoint here.
Fixed ways and means: dogma
I agree that it’s a LOT about a “way of thinking and doing”
It’s even more about FEELING, BEING and LOVING that snaps the trap door shut on a heart.
For you, it was the factors. Remember how they made you feel, be and love?
THAT is what creates devotion to a sect. And it doesn’t matter if it is method based or output centered. Manson followers had the same things ring their hearts as the Heaven’s Gates followers.
PEOPLE CHANGE PEOPLE.
I’m saying deep ways of feeling and being that lead to cult-like devotion can result from EITHER a method based or output based delivery.
Cults appear organically, by design and usually with elements of both.
But cult experiences ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS strike our hearts deeply and make them sing the song they have always longed for. And when other hearts chime in with perfect, the soul sails in joy.
It’s what makes us us. It’s what helps us survive.
It makes us our best and our worst.
Per other definitions; A cult is a method, a way, a form, a group think, a conduct, a tool, a test, a… To a cult it certainly does matter HOW you go about your life and living. Which strikes to the core of my definition here.
Try this exercise:
Substitute “Group Think” for “Cult Think.”
They are very similar.
How many ways can “Group Think” occur? It can crop up among fishing buddies who JUST WANT TO CATCH FISH, it can be engineered by media experts, and it can be a mix of both.
Indeed; group think is a way, a path, a method, etc.
I think of the C of S, which now seems to have a fixed intended outcome – to pull in money. To that purpose, management keeps changing the basic method, by altering both auditing and admin tech. And both staff and public, under management pressure to achieve the intended outcome, will follow almost any conceivable desire path, changing the method/tech even further in order to achieve the goal of money inflow – which is mixed up with their spiritual goals
You might be able to call these individuals “flexible” in their thinking and acting, but those things are actually pre-determined by the fixed goal, which fixes the LINE of thinking and acting that they are able to do – and so we have a fixed method, acult think, just because of the fixed intended outcome.
If they had only the outcome in mind, there are better ways to make much, much more money… facebook.
“If they had only the outcome in mind, there are better ways to make much, much more money… facebook..”
What you said in another comment today hit me like a ton of bricks: “A person can act as a medium, a tool just like a robot can, or a Jaguar MKX, or a framework like ITIL.” Now, that right there is a datum that should be pointed up on this subject of processes. The situation exists even at the level of a family unit (like with a tyrannical father) and probably does in any other type of unit or organization too. Actually, I guess it occurs even for single individuals, such as someone who worships his car – or mest in general. Great awareness to have – it really puts things like that in focus! The word “insidious” comes to mind.
So then, as for the C of S, we do indeed have another Dear Leader. The Church is HIS “universe”! And it’s his own personal goal or intended outcome that is being operated on. In that sense the process is fixed, even though it may continuously vary. The only problem I have with this is that it seems to stretch the meaning of a fixed process, which is why I was looking at the Church’s operations in terms of the goal itself being fixed.
DM’s “goal” of money may only be an apparent one and the actual goal, if he truly is a 2 ½% SP, would be the opposite of freeing people – keeping them down. I think that was what you were getting at but correct me if I’m wrong.
As for Dear Leader, it’s “my WAY or the highway”, with “WAY” being the operative word. One step out of line (the process) and you are fried (not only fired).
Aha. I’ve been trying to sort out the difference between a cult with a fixed process and anything else that has a fixed process. What you said above may be part of it – not only fired but “fried”. You’re not allowed to simply leave nor even simply booted out – you’re booted! The repercussions for dissension in general are far greater.
Oh! I think I got it now – there’s a totalitarian element with cults and there’s no easy escape. If you agree, maybe you should include something like this in your definition.
On further thought, I guess there are benign cults too.
A bell just went off…
“…somebody’s power of choice has been subjugated against his will into a fixated activity from which he must not take his attention”
“…a package, and the package has to do with this: It means a fixated attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the exclusion of other games.”
“There is nothing wrong with having games. There is a lot wrong with being in a games condition because it is unknown, it is an aberrated activity, it is reactive, and one is performing it way outside of his power of choice and with his consent or will.”
The key elements of games conditions have to do with fixated attention, power of choice and consent or will. And it seems to be the same for cults, or maybe just the vicious ones, as it seems that one could willingly take part in a fixed activity while having the choice to attack or to escape, such as with many cultures.
“. . . subjugated against one’s will . . . ” seems to complicate a simple definition. I am thinking that the conditions need not be dramatic to qualify as cult.
And I am wondering about your comment about there may be “benign cults.” I am not so sure. I rather say that cult-think is a cancer to free will. — But I might be wrong. This is why I asked for examples. Maybe you know of a benign cult.
Chris, I had in mind the kinds of things KG listed – political groups or the “good ol’ boys” clubs, etc. – anything people devote themselves to which has very strict or fixed rules and which becomes part of their identity and thus their beingness, doingness, havingness – and thinkingness. Could even be something like Amway, for all I know, or other commercial groups or any of those secret societies that exist.
But, as I was saying, the difference between a benign and a vicious cult would be that with the latter (as in a games condition) there is no toleration of either disagreement, or dissent (attack), or of escape.
I just looked it up and there are these two definitions of cult: “a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc.” This type can be benign (or relatively so). And the other definition: “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist.” The extremist type denies dissent and makes escape difficult at best.
(I like your new avatar, BTW)
Thank you. I replaced a cartoon of a cartoon of myself with a cartoon of myself.
I’m quite certain there are benign cults as questioned, I believe that definition is dependent ON the method and the ACTAUL outcome.
One example might be all these people kind of worshipping Elvis. They meet and talk about him, hear his music, sing his music, and bla bla blah, as good any other cult, but the outcome on the rest of society is quite harmless.
Tor Ivar, that’s funny – the Elvis cult was the first one I thought of. It’s probably one of the most devoted of all the celebrity cults. And then there are cults for movies, like the oldest ones I can think of: “Gone with the Wind” and “Casablanca”. Or newer ones like the “Twilight” films. A girlfriend of mine and her two daughters in their early thirties are into those, but not as much as teenagers – and not to the extent some “culties” go to where it practically becomes a way of life.
Wow, that cartoon looks so real. 😛
In any case, you have no need of cartoons for satire, caricature, or humor – I recall using each of those to describe your posts ;-).
KG, what do you mean by our “natural” belief systems?
We acquire beliefs in predictable ways that can be taken advantage of with the best of loving intentions.
My best friend is a Mormon and we’ll say I’m 15 years old.
I trust him completely as my friend. We’re soul brothers. If a car were about to hit him I would knock him out of the way to save him.
My family is having big trouble: alcoholism, adultery, violence …
I go to a meeting and feel deep love from his church friends. I feel a community exists that can help me survive and grow and live a life like the good people I see before me.
My friend tells me he is praying for me.
I see him crying over my parents divorce on a sleepover. We hug and weep -AWKWARD! But he’s the only guy I could trust with that vulnerability.
He doesn’t PUSH his religion on me. He only shows me the door. But I know he has integrity and I walk in to give it an honest look.
I start seeing coincidences occur where I feel that God is telling me to be a Mormon. LOTS OF THEM. It’s bizarre how often I spot them.
I am convicted in my heart and become a Mormon. I see a life I want to live different than my own.
Group think becomes “my think.”
I have a life-changing religious experience.
I decide to read up on my conversion decision but tend to trust the books my friends suggest.
NOTICE: I did NO real independent research and decide on Mormonism based on evidence. It was an organic process that felt real all the way. I believed something and it changed my life completely to a new belief system.
NOTE: This doesn’t disprove Mormonism, it just shows I accepted it in this example outside of a rational approach that takes into account the reality that my brain has evolved into a “Belief Engine” that typically relies on the processes listed above to find things to believe in.
It’s worked since trilobites right?
Got it, KG. What I think is interesting is that with any culture, even that of a whole civilization, to the degree its “method” is set in stone, there is fostered a particular mind-set, or “set mind”. And to that degree even civilization itself could perhaps be considered a kind of brainwashing cult, since there definitely exists some heavy indoctrination – into being “human”.
Nevertheless, with even the most fixed of cultures, like the example of Mormonism you gave, there will always be individuals who come up with a new and different idea. And, not to change the subject but, guess what I attribute such originality to – you guessed it (smarty that you are) – Free Will ;-).
It’s worked like that since trilobites, right? :- D
“What I think is interesting is that with any culture, even that of a whole civilization, to the degree its “method” is set in stone, there is fostered a particular mind-set, or “set mind”. And to that degree even civilization itself could perhaps be considered a kind of brainwashing cult,”
BINGO! Here are examples of exactly that. . .
Do you know any CULTY REPUBLICANS? CULTY DEMOCRATS? Kool-Aid Drinking TEXANS?
Yup. And they have FIXED IDEAS and boy will they defend them to the end.
A cult exists when there is SOCIALIZED CULT DEVOTION where rational thinking collectively and individually has been bypassed by our very own natural belief processes into mindsets that are impervious to reason.
At the top of the scale are religious cults like those listed on Steven Hassan’s site.
But it can happen anywhere organically or by design.
EXAMPLE: You may have a local republican race and within that group a small band of extremists become quite cultish. Group think ensues, they become a click and kazam! People are KIDDING them about being Kool-Aid Radicals.
And they are not far off.
And then there are groups created by design like “The Tea Party.” It looks like it was “grass roots” but … really?
Pick any political party – SAME.
“But it can happen anywhere organically or by design.”
Agreed. That was what I was looking at too – it can happen anywhere. Actually “cults” seem to exist EVERYWHERE. In fact, we’ve had blog discussions and taken it back to even before the point of any civilization or cultural influence, to the body itself and the constrictions it imposes which essentially set up the program or “process” for existence in a body. And from there are all the more or less subtle processes that come with growing up and living in a culture, which involves group think and the kinds of cults you mentioned. So this “fixed process” phenomenon seems to be a very relative matter.
With all “cults” there is the inward pull of belonging as well as outside pressure to belong. But there’s a distinction with the extremist groups which actively disallow disagreement/dissent and attempt even physically to prevent escape. Those are the main distinctions, I would say. Or would you include other aspects? I know that you’ve really made a study of cults. (And I’m curious how that came about, BTW.)
Alan Moore (A delightfully creepy and insightful gentleman) had this to say in his movie monologue “The Mindscape of Alan Moore.”
“All culture derives from cult.”
Interesting. . .
I think he is right.
The Catch 22 of the cult mindset is that when you need an entire town to QUICKLY bind together and become one mind-mass to fight off an attack, IT IS DANG USEFUL.
HILARIOUS EXAMPLE (SKIP THE FIRST 30 SECONDS. I HAVE POSTED THIS BEFORE AT SCNFORUM.ORG)
I became interested in cults FIRST by evangelizing people in cults to leave their cult and join MY OWN JESUS CULT.
And then I realized I … um … was not just the President of the Cult-Hair Club for Men but also a … CLIENT?
Cult Dynamics can be AMAZINGLY effective for good and for evil.
Freedom lies in understanding them so we can hold the ideas they present accountable to reason and submit to the ideas we want to submit to, not the ones that naturally bypass sound thinking.
This takes three skills:
1. Knowing what sound thinking is.
2. Knowing how cult group thinking affects one’s mind and actions.
3. Gaining the social/emotional intelligence to obviate the ones you don’t want and keep the ones you do.
Excuse me now, I have to go recruit for the Maja Boondoggle now. WHERE’S THAT DANG ROBE?
I get what you mean about the Catch 22, whether it’s called mindset, group think, a cult, a fixed process – any kind of agreement that brings about cooperation – or doom. There must be some kind of critical mass point to the thing.
But your ideas for prevention of doom sound good. As regards “Knowing what sound thinking is,” Maria recently made the excellent suggestion that we all learn the logical fallacies, to improve the discussions. I’ve got a start on learning them and can see how this is a really valuable and probably necessary ability in general.
And on, “Knowing how cult group thinking affects one’s mind and actions,” fortunate for us, many of the blog posts and discussions have contributed to that, including the post and discussion on “cult think,” some of the posts on Scientology, and this current one.
Thanks for telling the story about how you became a cult expert. I should have guessed – it’s probably true what they say – nothing worse than a convert ;-). And no one more enthusiastic, bless your heart. 🙂
But not the least of your virtues – you are funny! Like:
“Excuse me now, I have to go recruit for the Maja Boondoggle now. WHERE’S THAT DANG ROBE?”
I really like that term : “set mind”. That’s really the contradiction of an “open mind”, right … 😉
Yes. And my mind is made up about that. 😀
“When a method becomes senior to a desired outcome, and when that method gathers a crowd.“
It made for an interesting exercise when I applied it to the following examples:
A fireworks show?
Houdini escape act?
One’s spiritual path?
Education? . . . university vs. vocational training?
Your definition provides a helpful distillation. I am considering teaching this to my children as it might serve as poka-yoke for balancing daily life.
I started doing the same thing, Chris, and I can see the principle everywhere. You thought of spiritual path – good one. On education, I can even see the principle in study when it is rote, and the result may not come out as intended – unless the intention for the study is itself a fixed, cultish one. Shiver me timbers.
This basic principle could apply to any activity or doingness and I was thinking it also applies in the mental sphere. In fact, Geir’s definition could be a definition for aberration and even “contagion of aberration” – where the mechanically set method of the reactive mind (a “machine of considerable magnitude”) supersedes the being’s purposes – and then the purposes of other beings in the vicinity.
Ha ha, exactly!
Simple and brilliant! 🙂
Drops of wisdom Geir, Words of wisdom, like in spiritual homeopathy.
How do you use that definition on a kind of person-cult, like North Korea eg., (whatever the leader is doing is right) or politcal correctness (eg. whatever the X-party is practising as it’s politics is the correct X’ism ) ?
A person can act as a medium, a tool just like a robot can, or a Jaguar MKX, or a framework like ITIL.
So you consider the expected behaviour to be the actual “method” ?
To me it seems that the definition describes the perfectly selfcontained “organization” or whatever, which is NO LONGER (if have ever been) dependent on the opinion of the world outside of it.
It may be dependent on their input, like income or whatever, but then that again has to bound, like in monopoly business, and be independent of whether the world outside will give input by obligation or by free will.
It might be any kind of society having collected such an amount of money, other values, whatever, that it’s completely independent eg. of regular income.
To me this also includes having lost it’s external purpose, it exists ONLY to care for itself …
Good point about “self-contained”. The more extreme the cult is, the more it is fixated on its own process (method) and the less it includes or accepts anything different from that process or its “think”. Neither the members nor the outside world are allowed any input that would change the fixed process. It might, as you say, accept from the outside world such things as money – as long as those things didn’t change the process.
Your other point about “lost its external purpose” is another aspect of being cut off from anything outside of the cult itself, thought-wise and even in the sense of contact with “the outside world” – i.e. the isolated self-containment that allows no divergence.
These points are why I thought of the Scn (I know, here I go again ;-)) definition of a phenomenon called a “games condition: a fixated attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the exclusion of other games.”
So for the extremist type cults, I guess we would add something like the above to Geir’s basic definition of a cult.
“games condition: a fixated attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the exclusion of other games.”
Notice please that this aligns with the basic definition of “suppression” – a harmful action or intention against which one is unable to fight back.”
Like the bird hypnotized by the snake.
So to the point, Valkov, “like the … etc.”. We do have som bad examples in Scandinavia related to mainly christian sects …
If you eg. Google “Knutby” and see if you find some articles in english on what happened in that little swedish village …
Not very nice reading. Personally I believe that when stop noticing reactions form the “outer world”, that’s when you cross the border to a nasty domain …
Valkov, any departure from the truth tends to become eventually a ” games condition “, this is the importance of correcting a fixed method as fast as posible. And yes, it can become unexpectedly a self supression.
Why would this be so? Game and game condition are distinctly different.
Chris, truth is a very fluid condition, and in this way is very comfortable and healing. The opposed condition would tend to be a false condition wich is fixed, uncomfortable and harmful in my observations. You can extrapolate this datum to psicotherapy, education, religion, medicine, informatics, etc. and it will be seen that it applies as well. Of course a fixed condition excludes other games, which is not a good situation for a rational living unit: a person, the cause and efect of such games.
Oh wow, you’re right. Suppression – same basic concept, same mechanics.
I just thought of another one – service facsimile: “a FIXED METHOD of making others wrong” (with very uncertain results). The other part of it: “to dominate or escape domination”.
totalitarianism – cult – hypnotism – GPM – service facsimile
Hmmm…all fractals of the same basic impulse…involved in any game…the traps of a game.
“Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.” — Mark Twain
You know, I guess how one could define a cult is in what a cult does. Geir defines it from a process side. But perhaps a good way to define it too would be around the reality of shunning. Perhaps “cultness” is defined by the practice of shunning of others and oneself.
ALT DEFINITION: “A cult is any group or ideology that makes a person shun his or her former self and installs another in its place while making people permanently shun lifetime relationships between friends and family.”
It creates the pain of people like Ida Cadburn. I wonder if her son will ever know the kind of love his mother had for him …
Someone in Anonymous does …
(Kleenex required. Trust me.)
The Lighthouse Letter
Deep within your cavern dark a spring of truth abides.
How I hope you find this bottle.
My kisses are inside.
The light outside is dazzling.
Escapes a costly prize.
But gentle reader grasp my hand and I shall be your eyes.
Behold a gallant queen – her son lost at sea.
She built a lighthouse to the stars in hopes that he would see.
Her heart light sweeps the beech at night.
Her prince perchance to see.
In a lifeboat rolling on the waves is where I’ll wait for thee.
Eleven thousand suns and moons have risen, shone and sighed.
But oh the throne of her peristent heart …
I’ve met a king, a prodigal, his care worn face so kind.
On foot he bears the banner of the son he vows to find.
Behind him stands a motley crew of knights both young and old.
Their merriments are legend.
Their cause for us is bold
And upon a mighty web composed of silver strands,
three sisters weave the orphan’s tales to far and distant lands.
Eyes behind wise spectacles are blurred by tears and rain.
And love for shipwrecked families devoured for worldly gain.
Eleven thousand suns and moons ten billion twinkling lights.
Gaze silent on our tragedy.
And this is why they fight.
Their heart lights sweep the beach at night and lifeboats dot the sea.
May fortune speed you safely here …
…to reconnect …
… with me.
May Scientology forever rediscover it’s own ARC in the Church, Independent Field and Freezone and fully and truly embrace the end of disconnection.
Beautiful poem. (It’s unclear who the author is, btw.)
And thank you for your sentiments. 🙂
It’s Anonymous. One of its own I guess.
The poem, images, music and voice only work together. It seems the words were written for specific people and events.
Cult is the english usage for the aberrated religion. So i consider appropiate to have in first place the correct definition for the original word RELIGION . The ethimological origin gives us a clue :
RES – plural form of the Latin noun re ( meaning things )
LIGAR – from the latin verb LIGARE ( meaning to tie up, to bind )
Then, the sane condition of this activity has to do with establish communication amidst the person practicing it and the rest of the existing things ( the rest of the existing persons, m.e.s.t. and the realities which even if not yet seen , they exist like spirits and God ).
To achieve this communication it is needed to have tools to assist in reaching this goal.
When those tools do not result in a better communication, they are aberrant tools. So a cult is born as a bad tool to reach the desired outcome. It is my opinion that any religion can become a cult if his method do not reach the desired outcome ( even if it is practiced by only one person ). And the solution to this would be to do a correction of that method and do not maintain it fixed just because of faith.
“To achieve this communication it is needed to have tools to assist in reaching this goal.”
Rafael, which tools are you referring to?
marildi, Psicotherapy processes, which addresses the psique ( spirit ) to better the spiritual condition of the person. It would start with comunication drills and study drills, followed by objective processing and integrity and values vital data. The big problem here is that these should be FREE. ( No money asked by the church )
Okay, that’s good. You basically list the beginning steps of Scn, with the addition of “integrity and values vital data” (which could be the Personal Values and integrity course being made a definite step for everybody). I think this was Geir’s idea too, of what must be included at the start.
The Happiness Rundown, also early on the Bridge, soon after Objectives, would handle the case factors to do with values and integrity.
Well, now I get that for you “religion” is really religious philosophy, rather than religious practice, i.e. “ritual, faith-in, doctrine based on a catechism and a creed” (Tech Dict). Before, I had the idea somehow that you were disseminating Christianity.
Dear marildi, i am disseminating Monotheism, which would include the Abrahamic religions ( christianity, islam, judaism ), Indian religions ( hinduism, sikhism ) , Zoroastrianism , Hellenistic religion, masonry , etc. . So to be more exact, for me religion is a monotheistic religious filosophy ( not a particular doctrine or catechism ) and the religious practice would be a complement for your monotheistic choice in the form of drills and psychotherapy to assist the cumunication and learning skills of the parishioner.
Good clarification, thanks.
Maybe your views about monotheism are based on the personal revelations you’ve experienced. Or a combination of those and reason – derived from study. You are far more educated in these things than I am, but my view so far is to agree in a general or basic way with religious philosophy, as well as practices that assist in its goals. And, as I’ve said before, it seems to me that there are different “metaphors” – many of which are probably just different expressions of the same truths. The idea that we are all One is as plausible, if not more so than anything else.
marildi, in my view any person has the right to have his own opinion on religious matters. The real stuff will be revealed the last day of our phisical existence so why worry about with anticipation. The important thing to do meanwhile is to protect the basic human rights of the persons. This is why I insist in the handling of abusive philosophies and the groups who back up these abuses.