Yuku free message boards

Interested Sister,

Actually, no sociologist would include "legalism" in his list of characteristics

Would "legalism" be in your typical sociologists vocabulary? (and least in the way that we would use it?)

No sociologist would describe any part of the ACC as a cult.

Of course, because as I understand it..in sociology of religion, sociologists use that word to describe a different phase of the development of a religious group. And if they did use it, the typical sociologist would never use it in a negative sense.

Why,

I think that we can become overly concerned and sensitive about how others view us.

True, but honestly, I think we are about 1,000,000 miles (figuratively speaking) from being at that point.

The apostles didn't seem overly concerned. After they were beaten and forbidden to preach in the name of Jesus

Of course, there is no reason to be ashamed for preaching in the name of Jesus.

Not every accusation needs analyzing or a response.
It is the mindset of society today to analyze and give credence to every accusation that is voiced (i.e. the 911 highjackers were somehow justified because of "repressive" American foreign policy).

Well, I think analyzing is necessary in the scenario we've been talking about (cult accusations) and in the example scenario you presented (911 highjacking).

(as an aside: Did anything America do justify 911? Absolutely not. Could America have acted any differently in the past to make it less likely that people all around the world would actively desire to inflict pain on Americans? Likely. I think there's plenty of examples in recent history. And I can say that as someone who is not anti-american at all)

Just because we've defined ourselves as guiltless (in terms of the cult title not being justified), it doesn't mean everything is right with the way we are or that we still aren't sending signals which could lead a person on in that direction.

I don't see the hurt in analyzing an accusation even if it is off-base. Even if we may be confident that it is completely invalid, it may still uncover some areas where we could work at. Unless of course, that is too scarey of a state of being to enter into.

Interested Sister,

"Could America have acted any differently in the past to make it less likely that people all around the world would actively desire to inflict pain on Americans? Likely." By deserting Israel? By being Islamic? Once again, you're not understanding just what it will take to appease the detractors. Islam seeks to dominate the world, which means "acting differently" by becoming an Islamic nation.

Interesting how these two subjects are in some limited senses related, for the purposes of our dialog at least. I must say that while I once again am "not understanding just what it will take appease the detractors", I must observe that you are once again seeming to not grasp that these subjects (whether verbal attacks on our denomination or attacks on America) are not matters of simple cause and effect (which can be just simply be affirmed or denied).

About Islamic extremism.. I really don't want to get this thread off topic, ok? But, briefly, you are assuming that the Islamic impulse to dominate the world is the only factor here and that it overrules all tohers. It is certainly an essential factor, but it is not the only one. Leaders of these movements need to recruit young people. A logistical problem. And, believe it or not, one of the major selling points--on par with, if not greater than the religious one--has been propaganda that the U.S. is bent on world domination and killing their people. Believe it or not, not all Islamic fighters are propelled to fight the West becaues of strictly religious reasons. Yes, they are Muslims, but many would not likely fight if they were not personally witnessing the actions (or maybe even an exageration of those actions) of what they call "the enemy".

Now, getting back on track here (but taking what I've said about islamic extremism), your answer to either one of these items, seems to be to either disregard or not take seriously what may have motivated or prompted the offender to act in such away. I agree with you in the sense that I recognize that sympathising and trying to understand someones reasoning can be taken too far. But that is no excuse to ignore, not only their reasoning, but also inwardly looking to see how we (whether as individuals or groups) interact in our environment and determining if we are doing anything wrong. This doesn't necessitate the acceptance of their platform. Its more about self-examination.

We will never be able to appease those who are dead-set on bombing Western nations, nor those who are strongly set on misusing the word cult in order to insult a religious group. But the point is, it is our duty and moral responsibility, by our shrewd actions and potentially reform, is to reduce each and every action of ours which gives unnecessary opportunity and leway (even if not justified) for the "opponent" to do whatever it is we don't like them doing.

(by "unnecessary" I mean..that of course, we need to separate what is essential and what is not essential. As I have continually repeated, this will all need to occur without compromising morality or truth, because comprimise that overhauls morality and/or truth is obviously never a positive move)