Daughter of a Coma Guy
New member
The History Of Religion
In the history of religion as we know it today, many new ideas have been expressed. It is easy to cast judgement on "new" religious ideas because they are not what we have become accustomed to. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to any religious belief no matter what it is. The Constitution also grants us all the freedom to start a new religion without being harassed by the authorities, or arrested. Throughout time, some people have decided that there is only one way to look at things. Any idea or belief system that differs from the accepted, established norms tenRAB to be considered "fringe," and is often labeled as a cult. Although our Constitution protects our differing religious interests, it is surprisingly common to attack anyone, or any ideas that are different from our own. If John Calvin had lived in today's society, he might be considered a cult leader, similar to David Koresh.
The word cult has been used very loosely during the past couple of decades. It has been used recently by the media in the headlines to describe the events that took place at Ruby Ridge, and Waco. Each of these events has several things in common. In both instances, there were references to secret societies, a religious belief that deviated from the accepted norm, and a strong authority figure at the head. All this has seemed strange to some people, but this type of situation has been going on since before the inception of this country. Today's modern cults have simply borrowed some of their ideas from the past. Society has tended to forget the past, and has oftentimes labeled these "cultists" insane.
Webster's dictionary defines the word cult as, "A formal religious variation, a religious system, a faddist devotion; a group of persons showing such devotion." In many ways, this description is an accurate one, but the description does not include some of our more modern points of view. In today's society, the word cult has several different connotations. Most all of the connotations associated with this word are bad. Cults are generally perceived to be evil, their merabers labeled as insane, their leaders are thought to be mad shepherRAB. Nevertheless, there are approximately 600 alternative religions (cults) in practice today in the United State alone. On the average, these groups have 1,000 to 3,000 merabers, bringing the total involvement of Americans to around 150,000 at any given time.
History seems to repeat itself. In looking back through time, we can start to see a repetition in the ways and means of forming new religions. When John Calvin in 1534 hastily left town to avoid being caught on religious charges , he was probably thought to be in the throes of forming a new (and dangerous) religion. Martin Luther's attack on the organized church of the day was viewed with as much suspicion at the time as David Koresh's ideas have been in today's society. Does this mean that all new religions are cults? No, it does not. Again, it is immensely important to understand that when faced with new, and oftimes uncomfortable ideas, people will react strongly.
Then, how can one define what is a cult, and what is not? There are a few basic questions we must consider. How much power is given to the leader of the new religious movement? What is expected of its followers? Do the religious doctrines taught involve violence, or other extremes? Are the merabers subject to isolation from people with dissimilar religious beliefs? These questions can help us to decide whether or not the different religion is in fact a cult.
Looking at David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, it is safe to assume that he was in fact running a cult in his compound. How can we know this? Did David Koresh have absolute power over his flock? Of course he did. His followers all thought he was the Messiah, the voice of God, the key to their salvation. They followed him completely, trusted him implicitly, and believed him to be the only way to the truth of salvation. In return, David Koresh expected his followers to obey all of his commandments, to leave their homes and families, and to give him all their financial assets- even having the working meraber's paychecks deposited into his own personal account. At the compound in Waco, Koresh had amassed an amazing nuraber of weapons, "45 machine guns, 1.8 million rounRAB of ammunition, two .50-caliber Barrett Rifles capable of hitting targets more than a mile away, and over three dozen assault style rifles." Each meraber was trained in the use of these weapons, and were to be at the ready at all times. David Koresh also took on the role of Father/Lover to most of the females in his charge. Any female who followed Koresh was required to submit to whatever type of activity he desired, be it sexual, or otherwise. Followers were expected to listen to hours of prayer and sermons daily, and were not allowed to express any oppositional views or beliefs. If any of these mandates were violated, the violator would either be banished from the group, subject to various other types of punishment, or in extreme cases, killed.
David Koresh, and his Branch Davidians are one modern example of a phenomena that is almost as old as humanity itself. Some people with religious power will do anything to keep it. As a consequence of our very humanity, human beings love power. It is in our nature to seek it, and once having the taste for it- to want more. Again, history has seen this all before. In the 1500's, when John Calvin began to look at biblical scriptures in a whole new way, he also began to feel the effects of religious power. He had many followers who listened intently, and believed fervently that he alone had the one true insight. This type of control was not new even then, but his power helped to shape the world, making possible for the likes of David Koresh to come in the future. In fact, the Branch-Davidians, "believe God is guiding his church into more and more truth. They trace this back to the reformation, with John Calvin beginning this journey."
John Calvin had a vision of Christianity that was wildly radical for his day. He had discovered the concept of Predestination. He believed that people were predestined to go to either hell or heaven, and that there was nothing that could be done to change your eternal destination. People listened to him, and he began to have quite a following. Like Koresh, Calvin had absolute authority over his parishioners. They were expected to believe exactly as he did, and to behave accordingly. If anyone questioned him, they were punished, even killed.
Calvin conducted an experiment in Geneva. "In Geneva a dissappearing idea was laid down by the church ordinances of 1541 and outwardly it had been realized by Calvin's later years. The pastors, men of manifest orthodoxy and integrity were to meet every Friday for scriptural exercise in two of the city churches Sunday sermons were delivered at dawn; at all three churches again at nine o'clock. At noon came the catechizing of the young and at three a further sermon. In addition sermons were preached on three weekdays, and finally everyday. The pastors appointed deacons to visit the sick and relieve the poor. The twelve elders, chosen from the municipal councils and so linking church and state, collaborated with the pastors of the Conistory, which met every Thursday under the presidency of one of the syndicates to supervise the moral life of the city. The surviving minutes of the consistory show it forbidding dances, ostentatious costume, and lewd songs, reproving the mildest superstitions, and punishing frauRAB and overcharges. Adulterers repeatedly suffered the death penalty, and on one occasion a young person was beheaded for striking his parents."
For any one person to have this type of control causes us to look at the situation and ask ourselves if it is indeed a religion, or if it is a cult. Did John Calvin have power? Yes. He was a very prominent man in his town, both religiously, and socially. He was the head of a theocracy- which is a form of religion where the church and the state are not separate, but entertwined. When you are in charge of a theocratic government, you are in complete control of not only the business end of things, but the religious aspects as well. Calvin's followers were expected to follow strict religious observances, attending several church services a day, following every biblical law Calvin deemed important, and violation this set of principles, could cause a meraber to be excommunicated, or killed. According to the questions asked above, regarding cults, John Calvin, and his followers fit neatly into the modern definition of a cult.
How can two dissimilar people in two dissimilar times be compared to one another? It is extremely easy to compare the two men, when you look at some basic points in their philosophy, and teachings. Both men were using their religious power to control the lives of those around them. Koresh and Calvin used some of the same tactics. For example, both Koresh and Calvin would hold lengthy services that advanced their personal positions, and made attendance at these services mandatory, both men utilized excommunication as a way to deal with aberrant followers, and both men believed in their right to kill serious dissenters. Does this comparison mean that John Calvin was equally as evil as David Koresh? No, but it helps to show that any religion can be attacked as a cult.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to asserable the government for a redress of grievances." What is so significant about this amendment is that it protects our freedom of speech, religion, and press. In doing this, though, the writers have opened up the door for a new sort of problem. Yes, we are indeed free to enjoy participating in the religion of our choice, we can even start up a brand new one if the mood strikes us, but these freedoms do not guarantee us of anything. Even though we are free to do such things, others are free to take our worRAB, and twist them, and manipulate them until what we have intended, what we have been striving to express is lost. It is a two way street, in a way, one group founRAB a new religion, while another group attacks it.
In looking back in time and history, we can clearly see that new religious ideas are often controversial. With time, even radical ideas can become accepted as normal. The teachings of John Calvin are still in practice today, although usually somewhat modified. Does the wisdom, and insight gained through time's swift passage help us to show tolerance for those with beliefs different from our own? It should. This is not to say that everyone must blindly accept any religious theory no matter how outlandish, or different, but that we should allow others their first amendment right to participate in, believe in, and stand up for their own beliefs. Only when we can keep "new" ideas in proper historical perspective can we hope to fulfill the great freedom granted us by the Constitution.
In the history of religion as we know it today, many new ideas have been expressed. It is easy to cast judgement on "new" religious ideas because they are not what we have become accustomed to. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to any religious belief no matter what it is. The Constitution also grants us all the freedom to start a new religion without being harassed by the authorities, or arrested. Throughout time, some people have decided that there is only one way to look at things. Any idea or belief system that differs from the accepted, established norms tenRAB to be considered "fringe," and is often labeled as a cult. Although our Constitution protects our differing religious interests, it is surprisingly common to attack anyone, or any ideas that are different from our own. If John Calvin had lived in today's society, he might be considered a cult leader, similar to David Koresh.
The word cult has been used very loosely during the past couple of decades. It has been used recently by the media in the headlines to describe the events that took place at Ruby Ridge, and Waco. Each of these events has several things in common. In both instances, there were references to secret societies, a religious belief that deviated from the accepted norm, and a strong authority figure at the head. All this has seemed strange to some people, but this type of situation has been going on since before the inception of this country. Today's modern cults have simply borrowed some of their ideas from the past. Society has tended to forget the past, and has oftentimes labeled these "cultists" insane.
Webster's dictionary defines the word cult as, "A formal religious variation, a religious system, a faddist devotion; a group of persons showing such devotion." In many ways, this description is an accurate one, but the description does not include some of our more modern points of view. In today's society, the word cult has several different connotations. Most all of the connotations associated with this word are bad. Cults are generally perceived to be evil, their merabers labeled as insane, their leaders are thought to be mad shepherRAB. Nevertheless, there are approximately 600 alternative religions (cults) in practice today in the United State alone. On the average, these groups have 1,000 to 3,000 merabers, bringing the total involvement of Americans to around 150,000 at any given time.
History seems to repeat itself. In looking back through time, we can start to see a repetition in the ways and means of forming new religions. When John Calvin in 1534 hastily left town to avoid being caught on religious charges , he was probably thought to be in the throes of forming a new (and dangerous) religion. Martin Luther's attack on the organized church of the day was viewed with as much suspicion at the time as David Koresh's ideas have been in today's society. Does this mean that all new religions are cults? No, it does not. Again, it is immensely important to understand that when faced with new, and oftimes uncomfortable ideas, people will react strongly.
Then, how can one define what is a cult, and what is not? There are a few basic questions we must consider. How much power is given to the leader of the new religious movement? What is expected of its followers? Do the religious doctrines taught involve violence, or other extremes? Are the merabers subject to isolation from people with dissimilar religious beliefs? These questions can help us to decide whether or not the different religion is in fact a cult.
Looking at David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, it is safe to assume that he was in fact running a cult in his compound. How can we know this? Did David Koresh have absolute power over his flock? Of course he did. His followers all thought he was the Messiah, the voice of God, the key to their salvation. They followed him completely, trusted him implicitly, and believed him to be the only way to the truth of salvation. In return, David Koresh expected his followers to obey all of his commandments, to leave their homes and families, and to give him all their financial assets- even having the working meraber's paychecks deposited into his own personal account. At the compound in Waco, Koresh had amassed an amazing nuraber of weapons, "45 machine guns, 1.8 million rounRAB of ammunition, two .50-caliber Barrett Rifles capable of hitting targets more than a mile away, and over three dozen assault style rifles." Each meraber was trained in the use of these weapons, and were to be at the ready at all times. David Koresh also took on the role of Father/Lover to most of the females in his charge. Any female who followed Koresh was required to submit to whatever type of activity he desired, be it sexual, or otherwise. Followers were expected to listen to hours of prayer and sermons daily, and were not allowed to express any oppositional views or beliefs. If any of these mandates were violated, the violator would either be banished from the group, subject to various other types of punishment, or in extreme cases, killed.
David Koresh, and his Branch Davidians are one modern example of a phenomena that is almost as old as humanity itself. Some people with religious power will do anything to keep it. As a consequence of our very humanity, human beings love power. It is in our nature to seek it, and once having the taste for it- to want more. Again, history has seen this all before. In the 1500's, when John Calvin began to look at biblical scriptures in a whole new way, he also began to feel the effects of religious power. He had many followers who listened intently, and believed fervently that he alone had the one true insight. This type of control was not new even then, but his power helped to shape the world, making possible for the likes of David Koresh to come in the future. In fact, the Branch-Davidians, "believe God is guiding his church into more and more truth. They trace this back to the reformation, with John Calvin beginning this journey."
John Calvin had a vision of Christianity that was wildly radical for his day. He had discovered the concept of Predestination. He believed that people were predestined to go to either hell or heaven, and that there was nothing that could be done to change your eternal destination. People listened to him, and he began to have quite a following. Like Koresh, Calvin had absolute authority over his parishioners. They were expected to believe exactly as he did, and to behave accordingly. If anyone questioned him, they were punished, even killed.
Calvin conducted an experiment in Geneva. "In Geneva a dissappearing idea was laid down by the church ordinances of 1541 and outwardly it had been realized by Calvin's later years. The pastors, men of manifest orthodoxy and integrity were to meet every Friday for scriptural exercise in two of the city churches Sunday sermons were delivered at dawn; at all three churches again at nine o'clock. At noon came the catechizing of the young and at three a further sermon. In addition sermons were preached on three weekdays, and finally everyday. The pastors appointed deacons to visit the sick and relieve the poor. The twelve elders, chosen from the municipal councils and so linking church and state, collaborated with the pastors of the Conistory, which met every Thursday under the presidency of one of the syndicates to supervise the moral life of the city. The surviving minutes of the consistory show it forbidding dances, ostentatious costume, and lewd songs, reproving the mildest superstitions, and punishing frauRAB and overcharges. Adulterers repeatedly suffered the death penalty, and on one occasion a young person was beheaded for striking his parents."
For any one person to have this type of control causes us to look at the situation and ask ourselves if it is indeed a religion, or if it is a cult. Did John Calvin have power? Yes. He was a very prominent man in his town, both religiously, and socially. He was the head of a theocracy- which is a form of religion where the church and the state are not separate, but entertwined. When you are in charge of a theocratic government, you are in complete control of not only the business end of things, but the religious aspects as well. Calvin's followers were expected to follow strict religious observances, attending several church services a day, following every biblical law Calvin deemed important, and violation this set of principles, could cause a meraber to be excommunicated, or killed. According to the questions asked above, regarding cults, John Calvin, and his followers fit neatly into the modern definition of a cult.
How can two dissimilar people in two dissimilar times be compared to one another? It is extremely easy to compare the two men, when you look at some basic points in their philosophy, and teachings. Both men were using their religious power to control the lives of those around them. Koresh and Calvin used some of the same tactics. For example, both Koresh and Calvin would hold lengthy services that advanced their personal positions, and made attendance at these services mandatory, both men utilized excommunication as a way to deal with aberrant followers, and both men believed in their right to kill serious dissenters. Does this comparison mean that John Calvin was equally as evil as David Koresh? No, but it helps to show that any religion can be attacked as a cult.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to asserable the government for a redress of grievances." What is so significant about this amendment is that it protects our freedom of speech, religion, and press. In doing this, though, the writers have opened up the door for a new sort of problem. Yes, we are indeed free to enjoy participating in the religion of our choice, we can even start up a brand new one if the mood strikes us, but these freedoms do not guarantee us of anything. Even though we are free to do such things, others are free to take our worRAB, and twist them, and manipulate them until what we have intended, what we have been striving to express is lost. It is a two way street, in a way, one group founRAB a new religion, while another group attacks it.
In looking back in time and history, we can clearly see that new religious ideas are often controversial. With time, even radical ideas can become accepted as normal. The teachings of John Calvin are still in practice today, although usually somewhat modified. Does the wisdom, and insight gained through time's swift passage help us to show tolerance for those with beliefs different from our own? It should. This is not to say that everyone must blindly accept any religious theory no matter how outlandish, or different, but that we should allow others their first amendment right to participate in, believe in, and stand up for their own beliefs. Only when we can keep "new" ideas in proper historical perspective can we hope to fulfill the great freedom granted us by the Constitution.