Bookman

Koy is obviously free to use whatever usage of the word cult that he should so choose. However, he chooses to use it in a way that is not the usual, but is still technically correct.

Doing this will help him win arguments but not help him be understood. Anyone who has watched his posts knows that the former, not the latter, is his goal.

Bookman

PopeInTheWoods

Argument from popularity, anyone? Maybe with a bit of eqivocation and some failed absurdam thrown in?

As a xian reverend, MLK could be considered a cultist, not necessarily a cult leader. He didn't promote worship of himself, after all.

His civil rights leadership doesn't appear to fall under any definition of cult activity.

Andy (PITW)

Koyaanisqatsi

Bookman, if that were my goal then I would have retired from this site long ago.

It is not possible to "win" an argument with people who argue from authority and do not care that they have no evidence to support their positions, it is only possible to demonstrate as conclusively as possible the fallacious nature of the claims being made as if true.

I'll type it until I'm blue in the fingers, the goal is to cull the truth from the inculcation.

Deprogramming people from a cult is an exceedingly difficult process, especially when those people delude themselves into thinking that they are not a member of a cult.

The very first thing that needs to happen is for those members to recognize that they are, in fact, in a cult and using the proper terminology is, IMO, a necessary first step.

And, yes, The Loneliest, Martin Luther King, Jr. was indeed a cultist just as culpable for indoctrinating his followers as David Koresh, but that's as far as the comparison should go, IMO, but please don't let that stop you from building your strawman.

As christian cult theology is so found of stating, I think the proper phrase to apply in this analogy would be, "hate the sin not the sinner."

I see that I was correct in my assessment of the real question you were asking me:

As a demonstration in exactly what I have been talking about, let me reiterate a point I made that already addressed this:

If you wish to demonize one cult over another, that is certainly your prerogative, but I make no such delineation in regard to inculcation of theology (please make careful note of the words I am using here).

In that regard (and only that regard) there is no qualitative difference between David Koresh the preacher and Martin Luther King, Jr. the preacher, with the exception of what part of the book they focused upon (or, more accurately, we were told they focused upon, as I was not a member of the Seventh Day Adventist cult or the Southern Baptist cult to be able to confirm or deny any allegations made against both men). Once again:

As it stands, you are simply attempting to build a strawman based on mind-reading that, I would contend, tells us far more about the state of your own psyche than it does mine.

I am not responsible for how "the majority of the public thinks" in this country, sadly enough; all I can do is point out the blatant hypocrisy of it.

People should not think that Koresh was "nuts" if they also believe in a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked everything into existence in order to punish it for not obeying it; who then trifurcated into flesh in order to kill himself as a sacrifice to himself to save mankind from himself and inspired authors to chronicle his existence and imminent return for a final judgment in a book we call the bible.

You're making my point for me.

Koresh believed in the veracity of the bible and acted accordingly based entirely upon what was written in the bible.

If you're going to demonize him for his beliefs then you've only got your bible to blame.

Hate the sin not the sinner.

Nice try, but you're incorrect. The fact that Koresh was a member of a cult just as Martin Luther King, Jr. was a member of a cult only serves to illustrate and demonstrate the absolute need to use correct terminology at all times across the board and not let people think that they are not members of a cult just because they're beliefs are claimed to be the "orthodox" ones and everybody else's are "unorthodox."

Again, until you can establish a non-spurious orthodoxy that all members rigidly follow without variation then all such belief systems are--quite literally--cults.

Everything Koresh believed and indoctrinated his followers into believing was found in the bible just like every thing Martin Luther King, Jr. believed and indoctrinated his followers into believing, though in his case (and I'm by no means an expert), I would argue he revised the bible and proffered a personal Jesus not in evidence in the same book that Koresh read.

As a side note, I defy you to demonstrate Koresh's exegesis to be incorrect.

This is a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

The truth is often irritating, but usually only to those who subconsciously recognize their own repressed delusions.

If this is the case as you claim, BTW, then I gladly accept their "irritation" considering their cults' historical records of deliberate divisiveness, torture, bloodshed and/or wars based upon the common element to all christian cult factions; belief in the bible.

I am not "most people," nor did I realize that it was my duty to behave as do "most people," nor is it my responsibility for how "most people" react to the truth.

Have you finished your strawman yet, because I have a nice hat you can stick on it when you're done?

Bullshit. You've just demonstrated exactly what I am talking about; the profound hypocrisy and danger of a cult-oriented society such as our own, where arguments from authority are accepted as fact and the truth is sublimated.

IMO, and again, I'm no expert, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a brilliant statesmen who fought diligently for basic human rights and the due process of our laws to be applicable to every citizen across the board with absolutely no exclusions and in that regard is he to be lauded and celebrated, none of which had anything to do with the fact that he was also a cultist, preaching the veracity of the bible and indoctrinating his followers into believing that a fictional collection of ancient Middle Eastern warrior-deity myths was "true."

The fact that you can't separate the statesman from his indoctrination only reinforces the importance of using the correct terminology.

The fact that you are attempting to indirectly accuse me of misapplying the proper use of the word "cult" by an argument from popular authority (what "most people" think mandating what I must think) just illustrates my own point.

Thanks, but I can handle it.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Bookman

We'll agree to disagree. It certainly appears to me that your posting style and substance are consistent with a desire to score rhetorical points and win arguments.

Bookman

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if you can show me how it is possible to "win" an argument against someone who states, as you have, "we'll agree to disagree," then you've got me.

Short of that, all that anyone can do is demonstrate how someone is avoiding, evading, redirecting or redefining the argument so that they can simply declare that they are right, "just because" (i.e., an argument from authority).

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Bookman

I haven't made an argument, Koy. I've merely stated an opinion. Hence, I'm extremely comfortable agreeing to disagree.

Well, if you're referring to my posts, you have me baffled - have I made such an argument? I admit that I have given an opinion, but to call an the expression of an opinon an "argument from authority" I suppose could be technically correct, but it is rather misleading.

Bookman

Koyaanisqatsi

No, Bookman, my post was not directed at you.

I was using your quote about "agreeing to disagree" as an example of a classic non-answer "out" that many cult members who post here employ in one way or another in an attempt to evade the issues through a false call to stalemate where none exists; as if the entire thread boils down to nothing more than individual opinion wherein both sides can simply "agree to disagree" instead of having to offer detailed counter-refutation of a person's post.

Hence, my observation that it isn't possible to "win" an argument where the out is "let's just agree to disagree," as if that's all it was.

Note the qualifying phrases, "against someone who states, as you have" in the first sentence and the opening of the second sentence, "Short of that..."

Is that clear now?

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Bookman

Yeah. It's clear now.

Koyaanisqatsi

I'm sorry the clear and concise terminology I chose originally confused you so.

Anyone else, or is this pointless witch hunt over with yet?

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Bookman

Apology accepted.

BTW, if I ever do choose to make an argument to support that the reason you post here is to win arguments, I'll enter this thread into evidence.

Thanks!
Bookman